Final Site ST01 Record of Decision/Response Action ...Aiea Realty, Inc. 99-860 Iwaena Street, #101 Aiea, HI 96701 Mr. Koro-A-Bahjat (1 copy) 2929 Ala Ilima Street, #1102 Honolulu,

Final

Site ST01 Record of Decision/Response Action MemorandumKIPAPA FUEL STORAGE ANNEXHICKAM PETROLEUM, OILS, AND LUBRICANTS PIPELINE AND FACILITIESJOINT BASE PEARL HARBOR-HICKAM, OAHU, HAWAII

January 2012

Department of the NavyNaval Facilities Engineering Command, Hawaii400 Marshall RoadJBPHH HI 96860-3139

Contract No. FA8903-08-D-8778, Task Order No. 0047

SDMS DOCID# 1145103

To: Distribution

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMMAND, HAWAII

400 MARSHALL ROAD JBPHH, HAWAII96860-3139

5090 Ser OPHE3/00266 January 30, 2012

SUBJECT: FINAL SITE ST01 RECORD OF DECISION {ROD)/RESPONSE ACTION MEMORANDUM {RAM) , KIPAPA FUEL STORAGE ANNEX, HICKAM PETROLEUM, OILS, AND LUBRICANTS PIPELINE AND FACILITIES, JOINT BASE PEARL HARBOR-HICKAM, OAHU, HAWAII

Enclosed for your records is the Final ROD/RAM for Site ST01, Kipapa Fuel Storage Annex at Joint Base Pearl Harber-Hickam, Hawaii.

The Public Meeting to discuss the Proposed Plan for the subject site was held on September 1, 2011. The remedial actions presented were bioventing, excavation of lead imported soil, long-term groundwater monitoring and land use controls. Based on an assessm~nt of potential risks to human health and the environment posed by the chemicals detected in soil and groundwater, as well as, comments received during the public comment period.

The submission of this report is in accordance with the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986, which requires federal agencies to coordinate closely with the regulatory agencies and Federal Natural Resource Trustees during Installation Restoration investigations.

Should you have any questions, please contact Ms. Jocelyn Tamashiro of our Environmental Restoration Product line at {808) 449-3193.

Busine Environmental By direction of the Commanding Officer

Enclosure: Final Site ST01 ROD/RAM for Kipapa Fuel Storage Annex, Hickam Petroleum, Oils, and Lubricants Pipeline and Facilities, Joint Base Pearl Harber-Hickam, Oahu, Hawaii, January 2012

Distribution: see page 2

Distribution:

Mr. Steven Mow (1 copy/CD-ROM) Hazard Evaluation and Emergency Response Office State of Hawaii Department of Health 919 Ala Moana Blvd., Room 206 Honolulu, HI 96814

Mr. Bruce Koike (CD-ROM only) Safe Drinking Water Branch State of Hawaii Department of Health 919 Ala Moana Blvd., Room 308 Honolulu, HI 96814

Mr. Michael Fry (CD-ROM only) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office 300 Ala Moana Blvd., Room 3-122 Honolulu, HI 96850

Mr. Michael Dau (1 copy) 95-500 G Kamehameha Hwy Waipahu, HI 96797

Mr. David Taogoshi (1 copy) Aiea Realty, Inc. 99-860 Iwaena Street, #101 Aiea, HI 96701

Mr. Koro-A-Bahjat (1 copy) 2929 Ala Ilima Street, #1102 Honolulu, HI 96818

2

5090 Ser OPHE3/00266 January 30, 2012

Section Chief (CD-ROM only) Federal Facilities Cleanup Office (SFD-8-3)

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Region IX 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA 94105

Mr. Chip Hunt (CD-ROM only) U.S. Geological Survey 677 Ala Moana Blvd., Suite 415 Honolulu, HI 96813-5412

Dept. of Land and Natural Resources (CD-ROM only) Attn: Chairperson Commission on Water Resource Management PO Box 621 Honolulu, HI 96809-0621

Dept of Environmental Services (CD-ROM only) Attn: Director City and County of Honolulu 1000 U1uohia Street, Suite 308 Kapolei, HI 96707

Managing Director (CD-ROM only) Board of Water Supply 630 South Beretania Street Honolulu, HI 96813

Final

Site S 01 Record of Decision/Response Action MemorandumTKIPAPA FUEL STORAGE ANNEXHICKAM PETROLEUM, OILS, AND LUBRICANTS PIPELINE AND FACILITIESJOINT BASE PEARL HARBOR-HICKAM, OAHU, HAWAII

January 2012

Prepared for:

Department of the NavyNaval Facilities Engineering Command, Hawaii400 Marshall RoadJBPHH HI 96860-3139

PARSONS

1132 Bishop StreetSuite 901Honolulu, HI 96813

Prepared by:

Contract No. FA8903-08-D-8778, Task Order No. 0047

Prepared under:

This page intentionally left blank.

Final Site ST01 Record of Decision/Response Action Memorandum Kipapa Fuel Storage Annex

Hickam Petroleum, Oils and Lubricants Pipeline and Facilities, Oahu, Hawaii

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS .......................................................... iv

SECTION 1 DECLARATION ....................................................................................... 1-1

1.1 Selected Remedy .................................................................................................. 1-2 1.2 Data Certification Checklist ................................................................................. 1-4 1.3 Authorizing Signatures ........................................................................................ 1-4

SECTION 2 DECISION SUMMARY ........................................................................... 2-1

2.1 Site Description and History ................................................................................ 2-1 2.2 Previous Investigations ........................................................................................ 2-1 2.3 Site Characteristics ............................................................................................... 2-1

2.3.1 Topography .............................................................................................. 2-1 2.3.2 Surface Water ......................................................................................... 2-15 2.3.3 Hydrogeology ........................................................................................ 2-16 2.3.4 Natural Resources .................................................................................. 2-16 2.3.5 Aquatic Communities ............................................................................ 2-16 2.3.6 Protected, Sensitive, or Significant Resources ...................................... 2-20 2.3.7 Known or Suspected Sources of Contamination ................................... 2-20 2.3.8 Types of Contamination and Affected Media ........................................ 2-20

2.4 Current and Potential Future Site Land Uses ..................................................... 2-34 2.5 Summary of Site Risks....................................................................................... 2-34

2.5.1 Human Health Risk Assessment Summary ........................................... 2-38 2.5.2 Ecological Risk Assessment Summary .................................................. 2-41 2.5.3 Calculation and Implementation of Remedial Action Cleanup Goals ... 2-41

2.5.3.1 Identification of Receptors and Exposure Pathways ............. 2-41 2.5.3.2 Direct Contact Risk-Based Remedial Goals ......................... 2-42 2.5.3.3 Vapor Intrusion Risk-Based Remedial Goals ....................... 2-44 2.5.3.4 Target Risk/Hazard Level ..................................................... 2-48 2.5.3.5 Explosive Hazards ................................................................. 2-48 2.5.3.6 Recommended RACGs ......................................................... 2-48 2.5.3.7 Implementation of the RACGs ............................................. 2-51

2.5.4 Basis for Response Action ..................................................................... 2-51 2.6 Principal Threat Waste ....................................................................................... 2-51 2.7 Remedial Action Objectives .............................................................................. 2-51 2.8 Description and Comparative Analysis of Remedial Alternatives .................... 2-52

2.8.1 Description of Remedial Alternatives .................................................... 2-53 2.8.1.1 Alternative 1 – No Action ..................................................... 2-53



ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)

Page

2.8.1.2 Alternative 2 – LTM, LUCs, and Lead-Impacted Soil Excavation .......................................................................... 2-53

2.8.1.3 Alternative 3 – LTM, LUCs, Lead-impacted Soil Excavation, and Bioventing ................................................. 2-58

2.8.2 Comparative Analysis of Alternatives ................................................. 2-58

2.9 Selected Remedy ............................................................................................ 2-66

2.9.1 Remedy Implementation and Termination ........................................... 2-66

2.9.1.1 Land Use Controls .............................................................. 2-66

2.9.1.2 Long-Term Monitoring Program ......................................... 2-66

2.9.1.3 Excavation of Lead-Impacted Soil ....................................... 2-67

2.9.1.4 Bioventing .......................................................................... 2-67

2.9.2 Remedy Enforcement, Reporting, and Required Notifications ............. 2-67

2.9.2.1 Remedy Enforcement .......................................................... 2-67

2.9.2.2 Annual Reporting ................................................................ 2-68

2.9.2.3 Five-Year Reviews .............................................................. 2-68

2.9.2.4 Notification of Property Transfer......................................... 2-68

2.9.3 Expected Outcomes of the Selected Remedy ....................................... 2-68

2.9.4 Statutory Determinations ..................................................................... 2-69

2.9.4.1 Protection of Human Health and the Environment ............... 2-69

2.9.4.2 Compliance with ARARs .................................................... 2-69

2.9.4.3 Cost Effectiveness ............................................................... 2-69

2.9.4.4 Utilization of Permanent Solutions and Alternative Technologies to the Maximum Extent Practicable ............... 2-70

2.9.4.5 Preference for Treatment as a Principal Element ................. 2-70

2.9.4.6 Five-Year Review Requirements ......................................... 2-70

2.10 Community Participation ................................................................................ 2-70

SECTION 3 RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY .......................................................... 3-1

SECTION 4 REFERENCES........................................................................................ 4-1

Appendix A – Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements Appendix B – Reference CD Appendix C – Cost Estimates Appendix D – Responses to Comments Appendix E – Proposed Plan Public Meeting Minutes Transcript



iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)

LIST OF TABLES

No. Title Page

2.1 Previous Investigations ........................................................................................ 2-4 2.2 HDOH Tier 1 Environmental Action Levels for COPCs Detected in Soil ........ 2-23 2.3 HDOH Tier 1 Groundwater Environmental Action Levels for COPCs

Detected in Shallow Groundwater ..................................................................... 2-24 2.4 HDOH Tier 1 Groundwater Environmental Action Levels for COPCs

Detected in Basal Groundwater ......................................................................... 2-25 2.5 HDOH Tier 1 Surface Water Environmental Action Levels for COPCs

Detected in Surface Water ................................................................................. 2-26 2.6 Sediment Screening Levels for COPCs Detected in Sediment .......................... 2-27 2.7 Summary of Carcinogenic Risks ....................................................................... 2-40 2.8 Remedial Action Cleanup Goals Protective of Direct Contact with Soils ......... 2-43 2.9 Properties Used in the USEPA Version of the Johnson and Ettinger Model .... 2-45 2.10 Chemical Properties and Toxicity Values Used in the USEPA Version of

the Johnson and Ettinger Model ........................................................................ 2-46 2.11 Risk-Based Remedial Goals Protective of Vapor Intrusion .............................. 2-49 2.12 Remedial Action Cleanup Goals ........................................................................ 2-50 2.13 Description of Action Alternatives .................................................................... 2-52 2.14 FFS Alternatives, Evaluation Criteria, and Environmental Footprint

Evaluation .......................................................................................................... 2-60 2.15 Criteria for Detailed Evaluation of Response Action Alternatives .................... 2-61 2.16 Evaluation of Response Action Alternatives ..................................................... 2-62

LIST OF FIGURES

No. Title Page

2.1 Site Location ........................................................................................................ 2-2 2.2 ST01 Site Layout ................................................................................................. 2-3 2.3 Monitoring Well Locations .................................................................................. 2-9 2.4 Soil Sample Locations ....................................................................................... 2-11 2.5 Surface Water and Sediment Sample Locations ................................................ 2-13 2.6 Historical Potentiometric Surface of the Shallow Water-Bearing Zone ............ 2-17 2.7 Historical Basal Aquifer Hydraulic Gradients ................................................... 2-19 2.8 Potential Sources of Contamination ................................................................... 2-21 2.9 TPH-DRO in Soil, Historical Analytical Data Summary .................................. 2-29 2.10 TPH-GRO in Soil, Historical Analytical Data Summary .................................. 2-30 2.11 Lead in Soil, Historical Analytical Data Summary ........................................... 2-31 2.12 TPH-GRO in Shallow Groundwater, Historical Analytical Data Summary ..... 2-32 2.13 Generalized Conceptual Site Model .................................................................. 2-36 2.14 Proposed LUC Boundary and LTM Area .......................................................... 2-54 2.15 Proposed Extent of Lead-Impacted Soil Excavation ......................................... 2-57 2.16 Existing and Proposed Bioventing System Components ................................... 2-59



iv

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

°C degree(s) Celsius

°F degree(s) Fahrenheit

µg/dL microgram(s) per deciliter

µg/L microgram(s) per liter

µg/m3

microgram(s) per cubic meter

AFB Air Force Base

amsl above mean sea level

AR administrative record

ARAR applicable or relevant and appropriate requirement

ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry

Battelle Battelle Memorial Institute

bgs below ground surface

CD compact disc

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and

Liability Act

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

cfs cubic feet per second

Cl-

chlorine

cm centimeter (s)

cm3/cm

3 cubic centimeter/cubic centimeter

COC contaminant of concern

COPC contaminant of potential concern

CRI Comprehensive Remedial Investigation

CSM conceptual site model

DBCP 1,2-dibromo-3-chloropropane

DERP Defense Environmental Restoration Program

DoD Department of Defense

DRO diesel-range organics

EA EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc.

EAL environmental action level

ERP Environmental Restoration Program

ERPIMS environmental restoration program information management

system

ES Engineering Science and Technology, Inc.

ESC Environmental Software Consultants

FFS focused feasibility study

FS feasibility study

FSA fuel storage annex

g/cm3

grams per cubic centimeter

GRO gasoline-range organics

HAR Hawaii Administrative Rules

HDOH Hawaii Department of Health



v

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS (CONTINUED)

HEAST Heat Effects Assessment Tables HEER Hazard Evaluation and Emergency Response HI hazard index HRS Hawaii Revised Statues IRIS Integrated Risk Information System JBPHH Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam JP-4 jet propulsion fuel grade 4 LEL lower explosive limit LTM long-term monitoring LUC land use control MADEP Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection mg/L milligram(s) per liter mg/kg milligram(s) per kilogram mg/m3 milligram (s) per cubic meter MNA monitored natural attenuation MRL minimum risk level NAVFAC Naval Facilities Engineering Command NCP National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency

Plan NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration OM&M operations, monitoring, and maintenance OWS oil-water separator PAH polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon PEL probable effect level PHNC Pearl Harbor Naval Complex PP proposed plan ppm parts per million PPRTV Provisional Peer Reviewed Toxicity Values RAB Restoration Advisory Board RACG Remedial Action Cleanup Goal RAM Response Action Memorandum RAO remedial action objective RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act RfC reference concentration RI remedial investigation ROD/RAM Record of Decision and Response Action Memorandum SARA Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act SCP (Hawaii) State Contingency Plan SQuiRTs Screening Quick Reference Tables SVOC semi-volatile organic compound TBC to-be-considered [criteria] TCP trichloropropane TEC The Environmental Company, Inc.



vi

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS (CONTINUED)

TEL threshold effect level

TMV toxicity, mobility, and volume

TPH total petroleum hydrocarbons

UIC underground injection control

U.S. United States

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

USC U.S. Code

USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

USGS Unites States Geological Survey

UST underground storage tank

VMP vapor monitoring point

VOC volatile organic compound

VW vent well

WQS Water Quality Standards



1-1

SECTION 1

DECLARATION

The Kipapa Fuel Storage Annex (FSA; Site ST01) is a former fuel storage facility operated by the Department of Defense (DoD) from May 1943 until February 1993 on Oahu, Hawaii. Hickam Air Force Base managed ST01 prior to October 1, 2010, when management was transferred to the Navy during the joining of Hickam Air Force Base with Pearl Harbor Naval Complex (PHNC), creating Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam (JBPHH). This Record of Decision and Response Action Memorandum (ROD/RAM) presents the selected remedy for Site ST01, which was chosen in accordance with Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA), and to the extent practicable, the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Contingency Policy (NCP). The decision documented in this ROD/RAM is based on site information available in the Navy information repository at the Pearl City Public Library. Information not specifically summarized in this ROD/RAM but contained in the information repository has been considered and is relevant to the selection of the remedy. Thus, the ROD/RAM is based upon and relies upon the entire administrative record (AR) for the site in making the remedy decision.

Various site investigations, including historical research and remedial investigations (RIs), were completed at Site ST01 to determine whether contamination is present. Removal of small underground storage tanks (USTs), remedial excavation of lead-impacted soil, and bioventing of shallow soil have also been performed at the site. A bioventing system was operated during an extended pilot scale study from 1993 to 1997, then expanded and operated as an interim removal action from 1997 to December 2006, at which time the system was taken off line due to depletion of task order funds. The most recent bioventing system operation report indicated that bioventing was successfully reducing contaminant concentrations and recommended continued system operation. At that time, preparation of a summary RI report, feasibility study (FS), and decision documents were in progress, but subsequent discovery of the former Drum Filling Plant and subsequent related investigations delayed completion of these documents.

Historical soil, groundwater, surface water, and sediment laboratory analytical data for Site ST01 have been compared to the Hawaii Department of Health (HDOH) Tier 1 Environmental Action Levels (EALs), where established (HDOH, 2009a). These comparisons determined that primarily fuel-related contaminants are present in soil and groundwater at concentrations above HDOH Tier 1 EALs. Except for one historical surface water sample, target analytes in surface water have been below the HDOH Tier 1 EALs. Tier 1 EALs have not been established for sediment. Shallow groundwater hydrocarbon concentrations have remained essentially unchanged since around the year 2000.

The Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC) Hawaii Environmental Restoration Office is responsible for implementing the Environmental Restoration Program (ERP) under the Defense Environmental Restoration Program (DERP). Navy ERP work is performed under a broad range of federal and state restoration programs, including those under CERCLA and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), as amended. Section 120 of CERCLA (42 United States Code §9620) requires that Navy response processes be conducted in a manner consistent with these and other applicable federal and state response programs. Thus, ERP



1-2

standards and criteria include chemical or action-specific Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) under CERCLA, RCRA action levels, HDOH risk-based EALs, and other state standards and guidelines. ARARs for Site ST01 are in Appendix A.

Petroleum releases are exempt from the requirements of CERCLA because they are excluded from the CERCLA definition of a hazardous substance (see 42 USC 9601 [14]). USTs are regulated under the RCRA Subtitle I UST program (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR], Part 280). Actions carried out under the ERP conform to CERCLA and ARARs which include certain provisions of RCRA, including the Hawaii Environmental Response Law, Hawaii Revised Statues (HRS) Chapter 128D, the State Contingency Plan [SCP]), and Hawaii Administrative Rules (HAR) Title 11, Chapter 451 (more fully described in Appendix A). Once a final action for the petroleum contaminated site is established, the authority for oversight of the action will be transferred from CERCLA to the Hawaii SCP, as provided in the Memorandum between the USAF and HDOH (HDOH, 2005).

Hawaii Revised Statute section 128D-22 prohibits following both Hawaii law and the CERCLA process. It states, “A single release may be addressed either by CERCLA or by this chapter, but not both, except in the case of a joint enforcement.” This ROD/RAM serves the dual purpose of (1) documenting a “No Action Decision: No CERCLA Authority to Take Action” and (2) constituting a RAM under the Hawaii SCP. This Record of Decision (ROD) documents the decision to remove Site ST01 from further CERCLA action. The Response Action Memorandum (RAM) is the decision document that describes the further remedial action to be conducted under the SCP. Due to a lack of CERCLA authority to take action, all future response action at Site ST01 will be managed pursuant to the Hawaii SCP, with HDOH as the lead agency.

The HDOH concurs with the decision to manage the site pursuant to the Hawaii SCP. The HDOH Hazard Evaluation and Emergency Response (HEER) office will be the lead agency for all future oversight at Site ST01. The Navy will implement, monitor, enforce, and fund the remedy selected for Site ST01. The future response actions for Site ST01 including land use controls (LUCs), long-term monitoring (LTM), lead-impacted soil removal, and bioventing will be implemented concurrently with each other.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) has been provided copies of reports and documents related to environmental investigations at Site ST01 but has not provided comments nor asserted oversight concerning cleanup actions at Site ST01.

1.1 SELECTED REMEDY

The Navy in consultation with the HDOH has determined that response actions selected in this ROD/RAM for Site ST01 are necessary to protect the public health, welfare, or the environment from actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances into the environment. A comparative evaluation of remedial alternatives indicates that LTM, LUCs, lead-impacted soil excavation, and bioventing will provide the best balance of protectiveness, compliance with ARARs, long-term effectiveness and permanence, cost effectiveness, and reduction in toxicity, mobility, and volume (TMV). In addition, the selected remedy uses a combination of remedial methods to achieve protection of human health and the environment, including treatment where practicable, to address principal threat wastes, and institutional controls for wastes that pose a relatively low long-term threat or when treatment is impracticable. The selected final remedy for Site ST01 has an estimated present value cost of $4,770,000 and consists of the following actions:



1-3

LUCs to prevent uncontrolled exposure of potential receptors to contaminated media. As part of LUC implementation, the lower gate to the site will be repaired, and signage will be installed on exterior fences stating that site access is restricted. The Navy will be responsible for documenting, implementing, monitoring, reporting, and enforcing LUCs throughout the Site ST01 property boundary.

Monitoring to assess whether contaminant of concern (COC) concentrations in the shallow and basal aquifers are stable or decreasing and whether the COCs are migrating off site, and whether discharge of shallow groundwater is adversely impacting surface water and sediment in Kipapa Stream. The LTM program will be developed to monitor the effectiveness of monitored natural attenuation (MNA) in the shallow aquifer in reducing the TMV of contaminants and preventing migration of contaminants into unaffected areas. Groundwater monitoring will consist of sampling a shallow and deep aquifer well network near the downgradient property boundary to confirm that offsite migration of affected groundwater does not occur. Wells within the center of the shallow aquifer plume also will be gauged and sampled to track the reduction of TMV over time. Groundwater monitoring will continue until remedial action cleanup goals (RACGs) established for the shallow aquifer have been achieved. Surface water and sediment sampling will be conducted concurrently with groundwater monitoring; however, samples will only be collected when groundwater discharge to the stream is expected to occur (i.e., during periods of low stream flow when groundwater discharge is the primary source of water in the stream). Surface water and sediment sampling will continue until COC concentrations in both media are below cleanup levels for four consecutive stream monitoring events.

Excavation and offsite disposal of lead-contaminated soil in excess of the Tier 1 EAL within a defined area of subsite ST01A, followed by confirmation sampling and backfilling with clean fill.

Bioventing using most of the existing bioventing system infrastructure along with system upgrades and expansion. The goal of the bioventing is to treat residual-phase and vapor-phase contamination in the source area to regulatory standards or to a point where natural attenuation of remaining contaminants will be acceptable.

The NCP establishes the expectation that reducing the TMV of hazardous substances through treatment will be used to address the principal threats posed by a site whenever practicable (NCP 300.430 [a] [1] [iii] [A]). Fuel- and lead-impacted soil represent principal threat wastes at Site ST01. The selected remedy for Site ST01 satisfies the preference for treatment as the principal element of the remedy because the bioventing and excavation will reduce TMV of vadose zone fuel- and lead-impacted soil, respectively, and will reduce the mass of residual contamination that may serve as an ongoing source of contaminants to other site media or pose a potential direct exposure threat. Active treatment of saturated soil or groundwater was not considered technically feasible or cost effective due the predominance of clay in the saturated zone and the lateral extent of the plume. In addition, active treatment of saturated soil and groundwater is not necessary to ensure protectiveness at Site ST01 because potential exposures will be precluded by enforcement of LUCs, and natural attenuation will serve to reduce the TMV of the fuel plume.

Because the remedy for Site ST01 will result in hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remaining on site above levels that will allow unlimited use and unrestricted exposure, a policy review will be conducted five years after initiation of response actions to ensure that the remedy is remaining protective of human health and the environment.

Final Site STOl Record of Decision/Response Action Memorandum Kipapa Fuel Storage Annex


1.2 DATA CERTIFICATION CHECKLIST

The following information is included in Section 2, Decision Summary, of this ROD/RAM. Additional information is in the AR for Site ST01 and the enclosed reference compact disc (CD) that includes key reference documents from the AR (Appendix B).

• COCs and their respective concentrations (Section 2.3) • Baseline risk represented by the COCs (Sections 2.5 .1.and 2.5 .2) • Cleanup levels for the COCs and the basis for these levels (Section 2.5.3) • Current and reasonably anticipated future land use assumptions and current and potential

future beneficial uses of groundwater incorporated in the risk assessment and the ROD/RAM (Section 2.4)

• How source materials constituting principal threats are addressed (Section 2.6) • Potential land and groundwater use that will be available at the site as a· result of the

selected remedy (Section 2.4) • Estimated capital, annual operation and maintenance (O&M), and total present worth

costs; discount rate; and the number of years over which the remedy cost estimates are projected (Section 2.8, Appendix C)

• Key factor(s) that led to selecting the remedy (Section 2.9.1) • Commitment that the Navy will undertake necessary actions to protect human health and

the environment (Section 2.9)

1.3 AUTHORIZING SIGNATURES

This signature sheet documents the Navy and HDOH approval of the remedy selected in this ROD/RAM for Site ST01, Hickam Petroleum, Oils and Lubricants Pipeline and Facilities, JBPHH, Oahu, Hawaii. It further documents approval that all further remedial action at the site will be conducted under the authority provided by the SCP (HAR 11-451 ), which implements the Environmental Response Law.

J~ Captain, U.S. Navy Commander Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam

ITHKAWAOKA Program Manager

Date: _\__,~~,~}1~3 ,~h ..;;;.._2-__

Date: J. --3' I v---

Hazard Evaluation and Emergency Response (HEER) Office State of Hawaii Department of Health

1-4



2-1

SECTION 2

DECISION SUMMARY

This decision summary provides an overview of Site ST01 characteristics, potential human health and ecological risks, remedial action objectives (RAOs), analysis of remedial alternatives, and the rationale for the selected remedy. The information presented in this decision summary is presented in detail in the Final Site ST01 Comprehensive Remedial Investigation (Parsons, 2011a) and Site ST01 Final Focused Feasibility Study (Parsons, 2011b).

2.1 SITE DESCRIPTION AND HISTORY

The Kipapa FSA is a former fuel storage facility operated by the DoD from May 1943 until February 1993 on Oahu, Hawaii (Figure 2.1). Site ST01 includes three subsites: ST01A (sludge disposal area), ST01B (USTs and surrounding area), and ST01C (former drum filling plant). An abandoned drum site (Site DA30) east of Site ST01 across Kipapa Stream (Figure 2.2) is not a part of site ST01.

There have been no regulatory enforcement activities related to Site ST01. All remedial response activities have been conducted in accordance with CERCLA, DERP, and the Hawaii SCP.

2.2 PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS

Environmental studies and investigations were conducted at Site ST01 from 1984 to 2011. These reports can be found in the AR, and relevant documents are also included in Appendix B. Table 2.1 summarizes the historical investigations and remedial actions. Figures 2.3 through 2.5 show the locations of the groundwater, soil, and surface water/sediment samples collected during the historical investigations.

2.3 SITE CHARACTERISTICS

The Kipapa FSA occupies approximately 56 acres of Kipapa Gulch (the Kipapa Stream valley) and an additional 31 acres of easement beneath the Mililani upland area on the north bank of Kipapa Gulch beneath Noholoa Park. The facility is approximately 7 miles north-northwest of JBPHH and approximately 1,000 feet southeast of the residential community of Mililani. Hanalani Schools also borders the site on the west.

The Kipapa FSA consisted of four 2.5-million gallon fuel USTs constructed in horizontal tunnels excavated into basalt in the northwestern cliff face of Kipapa Valley (Figure 2.2). At present, there are no buildings at the site except for the former pump station (Building 22). The 2.5-million gallon USTs remain in place, but have been closed.

2.3.1 Topography

Kipapa Gulch has a valley floor elevation of approximately 330 feet above mean sea level (amsl) and valley wall elevations of approximately 400 feet amsl at Site ST01. The majority of Kipapa Gulch is unpaved and densely vegetated. Kipapa Stream flows through the valley to the southwest and was the dominant factor in sculpting the valley floor.

Waike

leS

tream

Kip

apa

Str

eam

Panakauah

Gulc

h

Wai

awa

Stre

am

Waimalu Stream

Hal

awa

Strea

m

PEARL HARBOR

NAVAL BASE

WaikakalauaFuel Storage

Annex

WestLoch

MiddleLoch

PearlHarbor

Ford Island

WaipoPeninsula

East Loch

CRESTVIEWPEARL CITY

MILILANITOWN

WAIPAHU

Legend

FUEL STORAGE

HPOL PIPELINE

WATER

Approximate Scale

0 4,000 8,0002,000Feet

KAMEHAMEHA HWY

Kipapa FuelStorage AnnexSite ST01

FORMER HICKAMAIR FORCE BASE

FORMER HICKAMAIR FORCE BASE

draw\747065 Site Location ma 08-11-2011 Pg4

Figure 2.1

SITE LOCATION

PARSONS

S 01 Record of Decision/Response Action Memorandum

Kipapa Fuel Storage AnnexHickam Petroleum, Oils, and Lubricants

Pipeline and FacilitiesOahu, Hawaii

T

p0097319

Text Box

2-2

"

VP1&2

Pump House(Building 22)

FormerTransformerStation(Building 23)

FormerVaporBurner

UST #1

UST #2

UST #3

UST #4 Kipap

a Stre

amFormer

Oil/WaterSeparator Cesspool

UndergroundStorageTankExcavation

FormerBoilerHouse

S T01C

Mililani

NoholoaNeighborhood

Park

Akaku S

treet

D A 3 0

S T 0 1 B

S T 0 1 A

0 100 20050Feet

Aerial Photo Source: 2005 USGS High Resolution Orthoimage USNG 4QFJ015700 & 4QFJ030700,Honolulu, HI; National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) and U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)

Figure 2.2ST01 SITE LAYOUT

PARSONS

ST01 Record of Decision/Response Action MemorandumKipapa Fuel Storage Annex

Hickam Petroleum, Oils, and LubricantsPipeline and Facilities

Oahu, Hawaii

Legend

Property Boundary

Subsite Boundary

Fence Line

Stream

Valve PitFormer Drum Filling Building/Current Concrete Pad

Underground Storage Tank (UST)

Former Boiler House

Cesspool

Former Oil/Water Separator

Former Building

Former UST

p0097319

Text Box

2-3



TABLE 2.1

PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS

2-4

Reference Investigation Summary Subsite Name(s)

Phase I: Records Search 15th Air Base Wing Satellite Installations, Hawaii. [Contract No. F08637 G0005 5001]. (1984)

Objectives: Identify and prioritize hazardous waste disposal sites on DoD properties, including Kipapa FSA. Findings: Potential sources of contamination were identified, including:

• Barrel/drum filling facility, operational from 1940s–1950. • 1975 pipeline fuel release at Valve Pit 1. • Ground disposal of sludge from cleaning the tanks at 8- to 10-year intervals from the

1950s–1976. (8,500 gallons of sludge were placed in a pit near Tank 1 in 1976.)

Recommendations: Further evaluation of the Kipapa FSA.

ST01A, ST01C

Final IRP Phase I: Installation Assessment / Records Search, Hickam Petroleum, Oils, and Lubricants Pipeline and Facilities, Oahu, Hawaii. (1987)

Objectives: Trace and mark the location of the HPOL pipeline and prepare maps showing the pipeline locations. Findings: The pipeline locations were determined, and no surfical evidence of contamination was reported at Kipapa FSA. Recommendations: Precisely locate the pipeline before performing subsurface activities such as drilling or excavation.

ST01A, ST01B, ST01C

Final Assessment of Contamination from Fuel Storage and Transmission System, Hickam Air Force Base, Hawaii. [Air Force Contract No. OEH-86-022]. (1990)

Objectives: 1) Evaluate sites potentially impacted by fuel. 2) Assess, at a reconnaissance level, soil contamination at known fuel leak and fuel

disposal sites. 3) Assess, at a reconnaissance level, whether the regional aquifer in the vicinity of the

HPOL system had been contaminated by fuel hydrocarbons. Findings:

• Building T-6, sludge weathering areas and burial pits, tank and pipeline leakage, and a cesspool drain were identified as potential sources of contamination.

• Contamination of basal groundwater from offsite ground application of agricultural chemicals was documented in the study area. DBCP, EDB, and TCP were detected in multiple locations and are commonly associated with pesticide application.

• Soil gas measurements collected in the vicinity of a 1975 leak at Tank 1 and in an area of suspected sludge disposal near the administration building did not exceed background levels.

Recommendations: Additional investigation at Kipapa FSA to include soil and groundwater sampling.

ST01A, ST01B, ST01C

Final RI/FS Stage 2 Technical Report, Installation Restoration Program for Hickam Air Force Base Petroleum, Oil, and Lubricant Storage Annexes and Pipeline, Oahu, Hawaii. [Contract No. F33615-85-D-4536, Delivery Order No. 007]. (1992)

Objectives: Characterize soil and groundwater quality at HPOL sites, including the Kipapa FSA. Findings:

• Soil gas samples indicated the presence of fuel-related compounds. • Laboratory analysis of 13 soil samples and one groundwater sample indicated the

presence of fuel-related compounds, including lead. Recommendations: Further characterization of the extent of contamination in the shallow groundwater, and an investigation of the basal aquifer.



TABLE 2.1


2-5

Reference Component Description, Actions Completed, and Results Subsite Name(s)

Installation Restoration Program Phase II, Stage 3: Remedial Investigation of Hickam Petroleum, Oil, and Lubricant Leak Areas 5, 9, and 24, Kipapa Fuel Storage Annex and Waikakalaua Fuel Storage Annex, Volume 1, Draft Remedial Investigation Report. (1995)

Objectives: Collect site-specific hydrogeologic data to further characterize potential contaminants in soil, groundwater, surface water, and sediment at multiple sites, including the Kipapa FSA. Findings:

• Fuel-related compounds (including lead) were detected in surface and subsurface soil samples, with one sample exceeding background levels for lead.

• TPH and VOCs were detected in the perched aquifer at concentrations exceeding background levels. TCE was detected in groundwater samples collected from the Pearl Harbor basal aquifer.

• Lead was detected in surface water at concentrations in excess of background at one location. TPH and lead were detected in sediment samples at concentrations approximating background levels.

• Petroleum hydrocarbon contamination was observed during installation of angle borings under Tanks 1 and 2.

• A 12-month, pilot-scale bioventing test indicated that biological petroleum degradation was occurring in soil.

• Subsurface contaminants detected are attributable to ground-spreading of sludge materials derived from tank cleaning and from fuel leaks from the piping system and tanks.

Recommendations: Soil remediation (bioventing) and additional investigation of Kipapa FSA, to include evaluating the potential impacts to the Pearl Harbor basal aquifer from UST leakage.

ST01A, ST01B, ST01C

Final Remedial Investigation for Waikakalaua and Kipapa Fuel Storage Annexes at Hickam POL Pipeline and Facilities, Oahu, Hawaii, Volumes 1 and 2. [Contract No. F41624-D-8002]. (2001)

Objectives: Summarize the data collected during site investigations conducted at HPOL sites, including Kipapa FSA. Findings:

• Lead and PAH contamination in soil may be attributable to former onsite sludge management practices.

• All four USTs at ST01B leaked, with the most significant leakage occurring from Tank 2.

• A cesspool drain and associated leach field resulted in limited contamination. • Valve Pits 1 and 2 appear to be sources of a large area of deep soil contamination and

shallow groundwater contamination. • Groundwater contamination occurs in areas that correspond to the areas of highest

soil contamination. • Chlorinated compounds (TCE and 1,2,3-TCP) detected in the basal aquifer did not

originate from sources at Kipapa FSA. Recommendations: Define limits of contamination in deep subsurface soil, evaluate extent of contamination to Kipapa Stream, continue semiannual sampling, reevaluate risk in basal aquifer, and evaluate hydrologic interaction of shallow groundwater and the stream.

ST01A, ST01B, ST01C

Removal Action Completion Report, Former Sludge Disposal Area, Kipapa Fuel Storage Annex, Hickam POL, Oahu, Hawaii. (2005)

Objectives: Complete remediation of lead-impacted soil at a former sludge disposal area south of Valve Pits 1 and 2 at Kipapa FSA. Findings: Remedial excavation of lead-impacted soil was conducted in areas where lead concentrations exceeded the (former) PRG of 400 mg/kg. Some confirmation samples contained lead concentrations below the PRG of 400 mg/kg but above the revised March 2009 HDOH Tier I EAL of 200 mg/kg. Recommendations: None given.

ST01A



TABLE 2.1


2-6

Reference Component Description, Actions Completed, and Results Subsite Name(s)

Results Report Bioventing System Expansion at VP-17 (ST10) and First Performance Monitoring Event at VP-17 (ST10) and Kipapa FSA (ST01-A/B). Hickam Petroleum, Oils, and Lubricants (POL) System, Oahu, Hawaii. (2005)

Objectives: Present the results of the bioventing system monitoring at HPOL sites, including a bioventing system installed near Valve Pits 1 and 2 at Kipapa FSA. Findings: Bioventing significantly reduced contaminant concentrations at ST01A and ST01B (operational 1993–2004). The greatest contaminant reductions at ST01A were reported at 18 feet bgs or less. In deeper soil, higher moisture content associated with the capillary fringe may have interfered with oxygen delivery, and fluctuation of the petroleum-impacted, shallow water table may have periodically reintroduced contamination into the vadose zone soil. The low permeability of the basalt at ST01B limited injection rates and oxygen delivery to the subsurface at this subsite. Recommendations: Continued operation of the systems.

ST01A

UST Closure Report: Kipapa Fuel Storage Annex. Hickam Petroleum, Oils and Lubricants, Oahu, Hawaii. (2006)

Objectives: Present the results of removal of two USTs from the Kipapa FSA. Findings: Laboratory analysis of confirmation soil samples from UST excavations did not detect contaminants in excess of applicable Tier 1 EALs. Based on the analytical data, depth to groundwater, and limited site use, there were no adverse impacts to human health and the environment. Recommendations: NFA status.

ST01A, ST01C

PCB Remedial Investigation at Hickam POL Facilities. Oahu, Hawaii. (2006)

Objectives: Evaluate potential releases of PCBs at Building 23 (a former electrical distribution center), a former train trestle-mounted transformer station, and a former pole-mounted transformer station. Findings: Laboratory analysis detected Aroclor-1260 at a concentration of 0.236 mg/kg in one concrete sample collected at Building 23. No other samples collected at these three areas at Kipapa FSA contained detected PCBs. Recommendations: An NFA determination is warranted for the three areas at Kipapa FSA due to absence of an ongoing PCB source and lack of complete exposure pathways.

ST01A, ST01C

Groundwater Monitoring Report, Hickam POL Pipeline Fuel Storage Annexes, Hickam Air Force Base, Oahu, Hawaii. (2007)

Objectives: Groundwater monitoring was performed at HPOL Pipeline FSAs from 1998–2006. Findings: In 2006, low levels of VOCs and TPH-GRO were detected in groundwater samples collected from the basal aquifer. Low levels of VOCs and SVOCs were detected in the shallow aquifer. TPH-DRO and TPH-GRO were detected in the shallow aquifer at concentrations exceeding EALs. Recommendations: None given.

ST01A, ST01C

ST01C – Supplemental Remedial Investigation for Underground Storage Tank, Oil-Water Separator, and Cesspool. Kipapa Fuel Storage Annex, Hickam POL Pipeline and Facilities, Oahu, Hawaii. (2008)

Objectives: Determine whether a UST, OWS, and cesspool shown on a 1943 figure were present, and evaluate potential releases from these features. Findings: The OWS, UST, and UST piping were removed. Soil and groundwater samples were analyzed for TPH-GRO, TPH-M, TPH-R, PAHs, metals, and PCBs. The only analytes that exceeded applicable Tier 1 EALs were TPH-M in one soil sample, lead in three soil samples, benzo(a)pyrene in three soil samples, and TPH-GRO in groundwater samples collected from three wells. The lead exceedances at the base of the OWS excavation were subsequently over-excavated. TPH-GRO was not detected in soil samples. Recommendations: Further evaluate the nature and extent of TPH-GRO in shallow groundwater.

ST01C



TABLE 2.1


2-7

Final ST01C Phase II Supplemental Remedial Investigation. Kipapa Fuel Storage Annex, Hickam POL Pipeline and Facilities, Oahu, Hawaii. (2010)

Objectives: Evaluate the extent of contamination in soil and in shallow, perched groundwater. Findings:

• TPH-GRO and VPH were detected in shallow groundwater at four wells at concentrations that exceed the applicable Tier 1 EALs. TPH-GRO is present in groundwater in shallow wells at ST01C at levels exceeding the applicable Tier 1 EAL. TPH-GRO in groundwater appears to be related to sources at ST01A and ST01C and has been adequately characterized within Site ST01C to support the preparation of an FS.

• PAHs were detected at concentrations above the applicable Tier 1 EALs in six wells at Site ST01C. PAHs were not detected in soil above applicable Tier 1 EALs. Benzo(a)pyrene was the only PAH historically detected in soil above the applicable Tier 1 EAL, which is based on direct exposure. The benzo(a)pyrene concentrations detected in soil at Site ST01C did not exceed the action level for leaching and groundwater protection.

• Geochemical conditions at ST01C indicated that natural attenuation is occurring, and conditions are likely to be sustainable for continued biodegradation.

Recommendations: No further investigation of TPH-GRO at Site ST01C was recommended. No further investigation into PAH contamination in groundwater at ST01C was recommended.

ST01C

Final Site ST01A Supplemental Remedial Investigation. Kipapa Fuel Storage Annex, Hickam POL Pipeline and Facilities, Oahu, Hawaii. (2011)

Objectives: Address data gaps at Kipapa FSA. Findings:

• Laboratory analyses detected VOCs, PAHs, EPH, VPH, and TPH-GRO and/or TPH-DRO in samples collected from three wells in the perched, shallow aquifer. TPH-GRO concentrations at two wells exceeded the applicable Tier 1 EAL.

• PAHs were detected above their Tier 1 EALs at one downgradient well. • 1,2,3-TCP was detected in basal groundwater at an upgradient well exceeding the

applicable Tier 1 EAL. PAHs were not detected in basal groundwater at concentrations above applicable EALs; however, the laboratory reporting limits for benzo(g,h,i)perylene and benzo(a)anthracene were above the applicable EALs.

Recommendations: None given.

ST01A

Final Site ST01 Focused Feasibility Study, Kipapa Fuel Storage Annex, Hickam Petroleum, Oils, and Lubricants Pipelines and Facilities, Oahu, Hawaii. [FA8903-08-D-8778, Task Order 0047]. (2011)

This focused feasibility study included a summary of historical data, an environmental hazard evaluation, a technology screening, and an evaluation of alternatives. The report considered three alternatives and made recommendations that were used in the preparation of the proposed plan. ST01A

ST01B ST01C



2-8

This page intentionally left blank

"

!A

!A

!A!A

!A

!A

!(#

!A

!(#

!A

!(#

!A

!A!A!A

!A !A

!A

!A !A

!A!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!(#

!(#

!(#

UST #1

UST #2

UST #3

UST #4

Kipap

a Stre

am

D A 3 0

S T 0 1 B

S T 0 1 A

S T 0 1 C

BKGMW01

IRAMW1

IRAMW2IRAMW3

MPG

ST01MW08

ST01MW009

ST01MW01

ST01MW010

ST01MW011

ST01MW012

ST01MW013

ST01MW015ST01MW016

ST01MW017

ST01MW018 ST01MW019

ST01MW02

ST01MW021

ST01MW022ST01MW023

ST01MW024

ST01MW025

ST01MW026

ST01MW028

ST01MW03

ST01MW04

ST01MW05

ST01MW06

ST01MW07

0 100 20050Feet

Legend!A Shallow Aquifer Monitoring Well

!(# Basal Aquifer Monitoring Well

Subsite Boundary

Property Boundary

Fence Line

Valve Pit

Cesspool


Former Drum Filling Building

Underground Storage Tank Excavation

Former Boiler House


Former Building

Former UST


PARSONS

Figure 2.3

MONITORING WELL LOCATIONSST01 Record of Decision/Response Action Memorandum



p0097319

Text Box

2-9



2-10


"

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(!(!(

!(!(!(

!(!(

!(!(!(!(!(

!(!( !(!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(!(!(!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(!(

!(!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(

UST #1

UST #2

UST #3

UST #4

Kipap

a Stre

am

D A 3 0

S T 0 1 B

S T 0 1 A

S T 0 1 C

ST01BH066

ST01BH070

ST01BH071

ST01BH074

ST01BH069

ST01MW021 ST01MW022

ST01MW023

ST01MW025

ST01MW026

ST01MW028

ST01MW024

ST01BH076

ST01MW028R2

BKGKSS04

BKGMW01

ST01BH032ST01BH033

ST01BH034

ST01BH035ST01BH036

ST01BH038ST01BH039

ST01BH040

ST01BH042

ST01BH045

ST01BH046

ST01BH050ST01BH051ST01BH052

ST01BH053

ST01BH056

ST01BR01

ST01BR02

ST01BR03

ST01BR04

ST01BR05

ST01BR07

ST01BR08

ST01BR09

ST01BR10

ST01MW02

ST01MW03

ST01MW03N2

ST01MW04

ST01MW06

ST01MW07

ST01SS02

ST01SS03ST01SS04

ST01SS048ST01SS049

ST01SS05

ST01SS050

ST01SS051

ST01SS052

ST01SS11ST01SS12

0 100 20050Feet

Legend!( Soil Sample

!(Soil Boring Completedas Monitoring Well

Subsite Boundary

Property Boundary

Fence Line

Valve Pit

Cesspool




Former Boiler House


Former UST

Former Building


PARSONS

Figure 2.4

SOIL SAMPLE LOCATIONSST01 Record of Decision/Response Action Memorandum



!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(!(

!(!(

!(!(!(


ST01BH072

ST01BH073

ST01BH030

ST01BH031

ST01BH037

ST01BH043

ST01BH044

ST01BH048

ST01BH049

ST01MW05ST01SS01

ST01SS032

ST01SS033

ST01SS034

ST01SS035ST01SS036

ST01SS037

ST01SS038ST01SS039

ST01SS040

ST01SS041

ST01SS042

ST01SS043

ST01SS044

ST01SS045

ST01SS046

ST01SS047

ST01SS08

ST01SS09

ST01SS10CS002 CS009CS001

CS010CS011/CS013

CS003/004

CS005/CS006

CS008CS007

CS012!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

ST01BH067

ST01BH068

ST01MW017

ST01MW018ST01MW019

ST01BH075

SE-OWS-HI-01SE-OWS-HI-02

SE-PIPE-HI-01SE-UST-HI-01 SE-UST-HI-02

ST01BH057

ST01BH058

ST01BH059

ST01BH060

ST01BH061ST01BH063

ST01BH064

ST01BH065

ST01MW013

ST01MW014

ST01MW015

ST01MW016

ST01BH054

ST01BH055

ST01BR06

See Inset 1

See Inset 2

Inset 1

Inset 2

p0097319

Text Box

2-11



2-12


"

!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(

!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(

!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(

!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(

!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(

!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(

!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(

!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(

!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(

!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(

!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(

!A!A!A!A!A!A!A!A!A!A!A!A!A!A!A!A!A!A!A!A!A!A!A!A!A!A!A!A!A!A!A!A!A!A!A!A!A!A!A!A!A!A!A!A!A!A!A!A!A!A!A!A!A!A!A!A!A!A!A!A!A!A!A!A!A!A!A!A!A!A!A!A!A!A!A!A!A!A!A



!A!A!A!A!A!A!A!A!A!A!A!A!A!A!A!A!A!A!A!A!A!A!A!A!A!A!A!A!A!A!A!A!A!A!A!A!A!A!A!A!A!A!A!A!A!A!A!A!A!A!A!A!A!A!A!A!A!A!A!A!A!A!A!A!A!A!A!A!A!A!A!A!A!A!A!A!A!A




!A!A!A!A!A!A!A!A!A!A!A!A!A




UST #1

UST #2

UST #3

UST #4

Kipap

a Stre

am

D A 3 0

(Location shown suspected to be incorrrect)




S T 0 1 B

S T 0 1 A

S T 0 1 C

ST01SW/SE009

ST01SW/SE010

ST01SW/SE011

ST01SW/SE012

ST01SW/SE013

ST01SW/SE014

ST01SW/SE015

ST01SWSD01

ST01SWSD02

ST01SWSD03

ST01SWSD04

0 100 20050Feet

Legend!A Sediment Sample Location

!( Surface Water Sample Location

Subsite Boundary

Property Boundary

Fence Line

Valve Pit

Cesspool




Former Boiler House


Former UST

Former Building


PARSONS

Figure 2.5SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT

SAMPLE LOCATIONSST01 Record of Decision/Response Action Memorandum



p0097319

Text Box

2-13



2-14




2-15

2.3.2 Surface Water

Surface water in Kipapa Gulch includes Kipapa Stream, which has been engineered for channel control near Site ST01. After crossing beneath Kamehameha Highway, Kipapa Stream joins with Waikele Stream before crossing under the H-1 Freeway and continuing into the Pouhala Marsh and the West Loch of Pearl Harbor. Kipapa Stream is thought to be both a gaining and losing stream, depending on rainfall and section of the stream: in the upper stretches near Kipapa FSA, the stream is generally losing; it becomes a gaining stream at lower elevations, where shallow groundwater intercepts the stream channel.

Kipapa Stream runs approximately 2,770 feet along the eastern perimeter of ST01, where it is characterized by a gentle slope of about 1.5 percent and average bank width of 36 feet (EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc. [EA], 1996). The distance from the bottom of the channel to the top of the bank ranges from approximately 8 to 15 feet. The stream in the vicinity of Site ST01 is intermittent, with flow conditions ranging from a dry stream bed to flood stage, and the stream bed is composed primarily of gravel, cobbles, and boulders, with small amounts of finer-grained sand and silt in the central channel and pools. Annually, the stream exhibits four conditions, including dry, non-flowing with ponded water, low flow, and flood stage flow. The dry and non-flowing conditions are mostly commonly prevalent, except in years with higher than average precipitation. The intermittent nature of the stream make this reach of Kipapa Stream unsuitable habitat for hosting contiguous significant quantities of aquatic receptors.

Stream flow is highly variable and can change rapidly, depending on rainfall in the watershed. A United States Geological Survey (USGS) gauging station approximately 4 miles upstream from Kipapa FSA (and also upstream of Waiahole ditch and several tributaries) indicates a daily mean discharge from 1957 to 1995 ranging from 0 to 852 cubic feet per second (cfs). Based on gauge records and site observations, Kipapa Stream can be dry for periods ranging from a few days to nearly a month. The storm water discharge for the Mililani Plateau and access road runoff is at the northern boundary of Kipapa FSA, just upstream of the site.

Surface water quality in Hawaii is regulated by Title 11, Chapter 54, Water Quality Standards (WQS), established by the HDOH. These standards set up classifications for inland (fresh) and marine waters in Hawaii, based on projected uses and corresponding water quality standards. Kipapa Stream is classified as a Class 2 stream, which is protected for recreational uses. The following description is specified in Chapter 54 for this category of waters (The Environmental Company [TEC], 2006):

Class 2 – The objective of class 2 waters is to protect their use for recreational purposes, propagation of fish and aquatic life, and agricultural and industrial water supplies, navigation, and propagation of shellfish. The uses to be protected in this class of waters are all uses compatible with the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife, and with recreation in and on these waters. These waters shall not act as receiving waters for any discharge which has not received the best degree of treatment or control compatible with the criteria established for this class. No sewage discharges will be permitted within estuaries.

Aquatic biota may be present in the stream when running. Chinese catfish (Clarias fuscus) and dojo (Misgurnus anguillicaudatus) have been reported in Kipapa Stream upgradient of the site, and crayfish (Procambarus clarkii) and Tahitian or Pacific prawn (Macrobrachium lar) have been reported in the stream downgradient of the site (HDOH, 2003). However, despite the classification of Kipapa Stream and the occasional presence of aquatic biota, the intermittent



2-16

stream flow and lack of significant amounts of fine-grained sediments result in conditions that are not optimal for support or propagation of aquatic organisms.

2.3.3 Hydrogeology

Oahu originated from two separate volcanoes: the older Waianae (3.9 to 3.5 million years ago) on the west and the younger Koolau (2.5 to 1.7 million years ago) on the east. The site overlies the Koolau, which originated from the eruptive products of shield volcanism. In present-day Kipapa Gulch, shallow deposits of fill, alluvium, and colluvium are present over saprolite originating from the underlying basaltic Koolau Volcanic Series deposits. Cross sections of the site are provided in Appendix B (Parsons, 2011b). Koolau basalts beneath the site are fractured and heavily weathered (Macdonald et al., 1983; Parsons Engineering Science [ES], 1995; Juvik and Juvik, 1998).

A discontinuous, shallow, water-bearing zone occurs in the Kipapa Stream valley. Groundwater in this zone begins at the stream elevation and continues to approximately 25 feet below ground surface (bgs) (Parsons ES, 1995). The groundwater flow direction in the shallow aquifer is roughly parallel to Kipapa Stream (Figure 2.6). However, April 2010 groundwater elevation contours for the ST01C area indicated a localized depression in the groundwater potentiometric surface (Parsons, 2010).

Groundwater resources at the site are included in the Waipahu Aquifer System of the Pearl Harbor Aquifer Sector. The deep aquifer at the site is listed as basal (fresh water in contact with sea water), unconfined, and flank (in horizontally extensive lavas). The groundwater status for the basal aquifer is listed as currently used for drinking water, fresh (less than 250 milligrams per liter [mg/L] chlorine [Cl-]), irreplaceable, and highly vulnerable to contamination (Mink and Lau, 1990). The basal aquifer depth at the site is approximately 310 feet bgs, or approximately 20 feet amsl (Parsons ES, 1995). Groundwater flow in the basal aquifer from 1998 through 2003 was generally to the south (Figure 2.7).

2.3.4 Natural Resources

Kipapa FSA is in a dry to mesic, lowland area (below 750 feet amsl). Throughout Hawaii, the native vegetation in these types of habitat has been replaced almost completely by introduced species (TEC, 2006).

During a natural resources survey, 12 bird species were observed at Kipapa FSA, including the native migratory Pacific golden plover and 11 introduced land species (EA, 1996). A black-crowned night heron was also observed along Kipapa Stream in addition to those observed during the natural resources survey. The only mammal species observed at the site during the previous studies was the mongoose (TEC, 2006).

2.3.5 Aquatic Communities

Field studies of Kipapa Stream adjacent to Kipapa FSA and farther downstream at Valve Pit 17 were conducted in 1998 using a rapid bio-assessment procedure developed specifically for the unique Hawaiian stream ecology (TEC, 2001).

Aquatic fauna in Kipapa Stream is low in diversity and dominated by introduced species. The most striking indication of the degraded condition of the stream is the almost complete absence of immature aquatic insects. During the 1998 survey of the stream reach adjacent to Kipapa FSA and downstream to Valve Pit 17, only one individual, a caddisfly larva, was observed, despite taking dozens of kick net samples and inspecting the bottoms of numerous rocks (TEC, 2001). Only three adult aquatic species were observed: two dragonflies and a damselfly. The adults are highly mobile and may have come from another location.

Kip

apa

Str

eam

Bas

eB

ound

ary

Old Kipapa Stream

Old Kipapa Stream

Old Kipapa Stream

Old Kipapa Stream

Old Kipapa Stream

Old Kipapa Stream

Old Kipapa Stream

Old Kipapa Stream

Old Kipapa Stream

Kip

apa

Str

eam

Bas

eB

ound

ary

Old Kipapa Stream

Old Kipapa Stream

Old Kipapa Stream

Old Kipapa Stream

Old Kipapa Stream

Old Kipapa Stream

Old Kipapa Stream

Old Kipapa Stream

Old Kipapa Stream

(313.57)(313.57)(313.57)(313.57)(313.57)(313.57)(313.57)(313.57)(313.57)

(312.42)(312.42)(312.42)(312.42)(312.42)(312.42)(312.42)(312.42)(312.42)

(308.32)(308.32)(308.32)(308.32)(308.32)(308.32)(308.32)(308.32)(308.32) (309.11)(309.11)(309.11)(309.11)(309.11)(309.11)(309.11)(309.11)(309.11)

(308.89)(308.89)(308.89)(308.89)(308.89)(308.89)(308.89)(308.89)(308.89)

(308.34)(308.34)(308.34)(308.34)(308.34)(308.34)(308.34)(308.34)(308.34)

(302.11)(302.11)(302.11)(302.11)(302.11)(302.11)(302.11)(302.11)(302.11)

308308308308308308308308308

307307307307307307307307307

306306306306306306306306306305305305305305305305305305304304304304304304304304304303303303303303303303303303302302302302302302302302302

301301301301301301301301301

300300300300300300300300300

309309309309309309309309309

310310310310310310310310310

311311311311311311311311311

312312312312312312312312312

313313313313313313313313313

(299.15)(299.15)(299.15)(299.15)(299.15)(299.15)(299.15)(299.15)(299.15)

(308.68)(308.68)(308.68)(308.68)(308.68)(308.68)(308.68)(308.68)(308.68)

Low PermeabilityLow PermeabilityLow PermeabilityLow PermeabilityLow PermeabilityLow PermeabilityLow PermeabilityLow PermeabilityLow PermeabilityZoneZoneZoneZoneZoneZoneZoneZoneZone

BKG MW01BKG MW01BKG MW01BKG MW01BKG MW01BKG MW01BKG MW01BKG MW01BKGMW01

ST01 MW04ST01 MW04ST01 MW04ST01 MW04ST01 MW04ST01 MW04ST01 MW04ST01 MW04ST01MW04

ST01 MW01ST01 MW01ST01 MW01ST01 MW01ST01 MW01ST01 MW01ST01 MW01ST01 MW01ST01MW01 IRA MW1IRA MW1IRA MW1IRA MW1IRA MW1IRA MW1IRA MW1IRA MW1IRAMW1


IRA MW3IRA MW3IRA MW3IRA MW3IRA MW3IRA MW3IRA MW3IRA MW3IRAMW3




August 1998

?

Kip

apa

Str

eam

Bas

eB

ound

ary

Old Kipapa Stream

Old Kipapa Stream

Old Kipapa Stream

Old Kipapa Stream

Old Kipapa Stream

Old Kipapa Stream

Old Kipapa Stream

Old Kipapa Stream

Old Kipapa Stream(315.05)(315.05)(315.05)(315.05)(315.05)(315.05)(315.05)(315.05)(315.05)

(313.98)(313.98)(313.98)(313.98)(313.98)(313.98)(313.98)(313.98)(313.98)

(310.59)(310.59)(310.59)(310.59)(310.59)(310.59)(310.59)(310.59)(310.59)(310.77)(310.77)(310.77)(310.77)(310.77)(310.77)(310.77)(310.77)(310.77)

(310.42)(310.42)(310.42)(310.42)(310.42)(310.42)(310.42)(310.42)(310.42)

(309.65)(309.65)(309.65)(309.65)(309.65)(309.65)(309.65)(309.65)(309.65)

(304.23)(304.23)(304.23)(304.23)(304.23)(304.23)(304.23)(304.23)(304.23)

308308308308308308308308308307307307307307307307307307306306306306306306306306306

305305305305305305305305305304304304304304304304304304

303303303303303303303303303

302302302302302302302302302

301301301301301301301301301

300300300300300300300300300

309309309309309309309309309

310310310310310310310310310

311311311311311311311311311

312312312312312312312312312

313313313313313313313313313

(299.70)(299.70)(299.70)(299.70)(299.70)(299.70)(299.70)(299.70)(299.70)

(310.09)(310.09)(310.09)(310.09)(310.09)(310.09)(310.09)(310.09)(310.09)




ST01 MW01ST01 MW01ST01 MW01ST01 MW01ST01 MW01ST01 MW01ST01 MW01ST01 MW01ST01MW01IRA MW1IRA MW1IRA MW1IRA MW1IRA MW1IRA MW1IRA MW1IRA MW1IRAMW1





IRA MW2IRA MW2IRA MW2IRA MW2IRA MW2IRA MW2IRA MW2IRA MW2IRA MW2

314314314314314314314314314

315315315315315315315315315

Kip

apa

Str

eam

Bas

eB

ound

ary

Old Kipapa Stream

Old Kipapa Stream

Old Kipapa Stream

Old Kipapa Stream

Old Kipapa Stream

Old Kipapa Stream

Old Kipapa Stream

Old Kipapa Stream

Old Kipapa Stream

00000000

00

1111111

11


31313131313133

January 1999 November 2006

(315.15)(315.15)(315.15)(315.15)(315.15)(315.15)(315.15)(315.15)(312.03)

(313.75)(313.75)(313.75)(313.75)(313.75)(313.75)(313.75)(313.75)(NT)

(310.37)(310.37)(310.37)(310.37)(310.37)(310.37)(310.37)(310.37)(307.83)(310.98)(310.98)(310.98)(310.98)(310.98)(310.98)(310.98)(310.98)(307.95)

(310.55)(310.55)(310.55)(310.55)(310.55)(310.55)(310.55)(310.55)(307.76)

(309.96)(309.96)(309.96)(309.96)(309.96)(309.96)(309.96)(309.96)(307.88)

(301.88)

(299.75)(299.75)(299.75)(299.75)(299.75)(299.75)(299.75)(299.75)(296.22)

(310.24)(310.24)(310.24)(310.24)(310.24)(310.24)(310.24)(310.24)(307.56)



ST01MW01IRA MW1IRA MW1IRA MW1IRA MW1IRA MW1IRA MW1IRA MW1IRA MW1IRAMW1



ST01MW03




Feet AboveMean Sea Level

Inferred GroundwaterFlow Direction

ShallowMonitoring Well

Installation Boundary

UST

0 400200

FEET

Kipapa Stream

(feet amsl)

EstimatedContour Interval

InferredContour Interval

Water LevelElevation (308.32)

308308308308308308308308

308

308308308308308308308308

308

ST01 MW01ST01 MW01ST01 MW01ST01 MW01ST01 MW01ST01 MW01ST01 MW01ST01 MW01ST01MW01 SurfaceElevation Contour

575575575575575575575575

575

308

307307307307307307307307307

306

55555555305304

303302

301

300

309

3 0

311

312

299

298

2297

296

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

March 2000

BKGMW01(313.70)

BKGMW01(313.70)

1

NT = Not Taken Data Outlier = (313.17)

301

303

305

307

309

311

313ST01MW04

(312.37)ST01MW04

(312.37)

ST01MW01(308.53)

ST01MW01(308.53)

IRAMW1(309.74)IRAMW1(309.74)

IRAMW3(306.26)IRAMW3(306.26)

ST01MW03(303.51)

ST01MW03(303.51)

ST01MW02(299.92)

ST01MW02(299.92)

IRAMW2(308.45)IRAMW2(308.45)

??

??

??

??

??

??ST01MW008

(313.17)ST01MW008

(313.17)

Parsons

FIGURE 2.6HISTORICAL POTENTIOMETRIC SURFACE OF THE

SHALLOW WATER-BEARING ZONE

ST01 Record of Decision/Response Action MemorandumHickam Petroleum, Oils, and Lubricants


AI\746853 ST01 Historical Zone Fig 2.4.ai ma 08/23/2011

Source: The Environmental Company, 2006.

p0097319

Text Box

2-17



2-18


Old

K ipa

paS t

ream

Kip

apa

Stre

am

Bas

eB

ound

ary

ST01MW05ST01MW05ST01MW05ST01MW05ST01MW05ST01MW05ST01MW05ST01MW05ST01MW05





LegendLegendLegendLegendLegendLegendLegendLegendLegend

Deep Monitoring Well

Installation Boundary

UST

FEET

6000 300

GroundwaterFlow Direction


.

Kipapa Stream

Surface ElevationContour

435435435435435435435435435

335335335335335335335335335

345345345345345345345345345

570570570570570570570570570

560560560560560560560560560

535

535

535

535

535

535

535

535

535

310310310310310310310310310

295295295295295295295295295

Triangulation forGroundwater Gradient

N

AI\746853 ST01 Record of Decistion Fig 2.7.ai ma 08/29/2011

Source: The Environmental Company, 2006.Parsons

FIGURE 2.7

HISTORICAL BASAL AQUIFERHYDRAULIC GRADIENTS

ST01 Record of Decision/Response Action Memorandum



THE MAY 18, 2010GROUNDWATER ELEVATION ATST01MW07 WAS 20.22 FEET ABOVEMEAN SEA LEVEL. (this datum excluded from ground water flow direction triangulations)

p0097319

Text Box

2-19



2-20

Three introduced nonnative fish species were observed during the 1998 survey. Previous sampling in this reach of Kipapa Stream (EA, 1996; Englund, 1993) found five species of fish, all nonnative. The native shrimp opae kala’ole (Atyoida bisulcata) was reported in the stream at one of four stations within Kipapa FSA in a previous study (EA, 1996). Two species of introduced aquatic snails and two common introduced amphibians were also observed in the 1998 survey.

2.3.6 Protected, Sensitive, or Significant Resources

Kipapa FSA consists of highly disturbed habitat that is unlikely to support federal or state threatened or endangered species. No threatened or endangered plants, animals, or habitats were observed during the natural resources survey (EA, 1996). The Pacific golden plover (Pluvialis fulva), a migratory shorebird on the Audubon Watch List, was observed during the natural resources survey. The survey also identified a small wetland of less than 1 acre in the Kipapa Stream floodplain across the stream channel from the Kipapa FSA tanks. The vegetation of this area was dominated by California grass. The survey rated this wetland low for wildlife habitat.

Several native freshwater fish species (‘o’opu or gobies) that are known to occur or that may occur in upper reaches of Kipapa Stream are classified as species of concern or listed as threatened by the American Fisheries Society (Deacon et al., 1979).

2.3.7 Known or Suspected Sources of Contamination

Sources of contamination at the Kipapa FSA include a documented fuel release from Tank 2 near Valve Pits 1 and 2, pipeline releases, onsite tank sludge disposal, and activities at the ST01C drum filling plant. The storage tanks were reportedly cleaned every eight to ten years starting in approximately 1952 (Ralph M. Parsons Company, 1952). During tank cleaning, sludge removed from the tanks was either spread on the ground at the storage annex or buried in onsite trenches.

Beginning in 1987, sludge removed from the tanks was placed in drums and removed from the annex to be burned at a designated disposal site (TEC, 2006). Potential and known sources of contamination at Kipapa FSA are shown on Figure 2.8.

2.3.8 Types of Contamination and Affected Media

The Site ST01 Comprehensive Remedial Investigation (CRI) report presented site characterization data collected during historical investigative and remedial activities initiated at ST01 in the early 1980s and completed in 2010 (Parsons, 2011a). The CRI data evaluation is summarized below. Summary tables provided in Appendix B (Parsons, 2011a) present the historical soil, groundwater, surface water, and sediment analytical data available for Site ST01 in the Environmental Restoration Program Information Management System (ERPIMS).

At the Kipapa FSA, groundwater in the shallow aquifer is assumed not to be used as a potable water source, and groundwater in the basal aquifer is assumed to be used as a potable water source. The nearest surface water body is Kipapa Stream, which is parallel to the eastern site boundary. Although the site is not currently used for residential purposes and there are no plans for future residential development at the site, the ROD/RAM analysis assumes future residential use of the site to evaluate the potential for unrestricted site use without further action and to evaluate the need for LUCs. Applicable Tier 1 EALs from HDOH (2009a) were included in the CRI site evaluation, as follows:

Soil (0 to 10 feet bgs): Table B-2 (<150 meters from surface water, residential, groundwater is not a drinking water source);

"

Valve Pits 1&2

Form

er Dru

m Fillin

gBu

ilding

FormerOil/WaterSeparator

Former UndergroundStorage Tank

Cesspool

Kipapa FSAPipeline

Kipap

a Stre

am

ST01A

ST01C

FormerUndergroundStorage Tank

Former Boiler House

DA30

0 25 50Feet

LegendKipapa FSA Pipeline

Potential Contamination Source

Approx. Location of Spill Pathway from 1975 Pipeline Leak (ES, 1984)

Approx. Location of Suspected Sludge Disposal Area

Approx. Location of Known Sludge Condensate Disposal Area

Subsite Boundary

Property Boundary

Fence Line

Former Boiler House

Cesspool


Former UST

PARSONS

Figure 2.8POTENTIAL SOURCESOF CONTAMINATION



Oahu, Hawaii

p0097319

Text Box

2-21



2-22

Shallow aquifer: Table D-1c (<150 meters from surface water, groundwater is not a drinking water source);

Basal Aquifer: Table D-1a (<150 meters from surface water, groundwater is a drinking water source);

Surface water: Table D-2a (freshwater); and

Sediment: there are no sediment EALs; sediment screening levels from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) were used.

The Tier 1 EALs for soil, groundwater, and surface water; screening levels for sediment; and contaminants of potential concern (COPCs) for Site ST01 are shown in Tables 2.2 through 2.6. All compounds detected in surface water, sediment, and groundwater were identified as COPCs. All compounds detected in soil samples that were collected from 0 to 10 feet bgs and considered to still be representative of current conditions were identified as COPCs in soil.

There are no Tier 1 EALs for total petroleum hydrocarbon (TPH) fractions measured using the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MADEP) methods. Therefore, Parsons developed screening levels for six hydrocarbon fractions following HDOH (2009b) methods, which are used in this assessment. The derivation of the MADEP TPH EALs is provided in the document entitled Technical Memorandum: Screening Levels for Hydrocarbon Fractions Quantified Using Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Methods (Parsons, 2009).

Soil: Volatile organic compounds (VOCs), semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs), lead, and TPH were detected in soil at Site ST01 in excess of applicable Tier 1 EALs or hydrocarbon fraction screening levels, with the majority of the exceedances concentrated within ST01A. The contaminants are generally attributable to historical site activities, including a documented fuel release from Tank 1 in the vicinity of Valve Pits 1 and 2, pipeline releases, onsite tank sludge disposal, and activities at the ST01C drum filling plant. Historical soil analytical data for TPH-diesel range organics (DRO), TPH-gasoline range organics (GRO), and lead are summarized on Figures 2.9 through 2.11, respectively.

Shallow Aquifer: VOCs, SVOCs, and TPH were detected in groundwater samples collected from the shallow aquifer at concentrations in excess of applicable Tier 1 EALs and hydrocarbon fraction screening levels. The TPH-GRO Tier 1 EAL exceedances are widespread relative to other contaminants and are largely concentrated in ST01A; however, TPH-GRO is also present in shallow aquifer groundwater at ST01C at levels exceeding Tier 1 EALs (Figure 2.12). It is unclear whether the ST01A and ST01C plumes are connected and whether separate releases at ST01C have contributed to, or are the primary source of, the contamination found in shallow groundwater there. Biodegradation of hydrocarbons in groundwater at ST01 is occurring primarily via the anaerobic processes of sulfate reduction and methanogenesis, which are likely to be sustainable biodegradation pathways.

Basal Aquifer: Laboratory analyses detected VOCs, SVOCs, and TPH in the basal aquifer at concentrations in excess of the applicable Tier 1 EALs. With the exception of 1,2,3-trichloropropane (TCP), EAL exceedances were typically spatially or temporally isolated. Therefore, the isolated VOC and SVOC Tier 1 EAL exceedances were assumed

Final Site ST01 Record of Decision/Response Action MemorandumKipapa Fuel Storage Annex


Chemical of Potential Concern

Maximum Detected Concentration

(0 - 10 ft bgs) a/

Location of Maximum

Detect

Date of Maximum

Detect Direct ExposureVapor Emissions To

Indoor AirTerrestrial Ecotoxicity Gross Contamination

Leaching (threat to groundwater)

HDOH Tier 1 Soil EAL/MADEP

Screening Level b/Does Maximum

Value Exceed EAL?

(mg/kg) c/ (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg)

Acenaphthene 0.044 SP2 14-Feb-08 630 144 - 1,000 23 23 No

Acetone 0.071 ST01BR09 23-Jun-93 12,142 10,932 - 500 0.86 0.86 No

Benzo(a)anthracene 0.0065 ST01BH067 12-Jan-10 1.48 - 40 500 13 1.48 No

Benzo(a)pyrene 0.19 SP2 14-Feb-08 0.15 - 40 500 7.6 0.15 Yes

Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.005 ST01BH067 12-Jan-10 1.48 - - 500 12 1.48 No

sec-Butylbenzene 1.4 ST01SS049 31-Jan-01 - - - - - - -

tert-Butylbenzene 0.0035 ST01SS050 31-Jan-01 - - - - - - -

Cadmium 3.08 ST01BH064 19-Feb-08 14 - 12 1,000 - 12 No

Chloromethane 0.012 ST01BR06 18-Jun-93 1.7 0.23 - 100 17 0.23 No

Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 0.29 ST01SS052 31-Jan-01 0.15 - - 500 224 0.15 Yes

1,1-Dichloroethene 0.003 ST01SS048 31-Jan-01 50 7.1 - 500 4.3 4.3 No

Fluoranthene 0.66 SP2 14-Feb-08 459 - 40 500 111 40 No

2-Hexanone 0.003 ST01SS03 19-Nov-92 - - - - - - -

Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene 0.008 ST01BH067 12-Jan-10 1 - 40 500 41 1.48 No

Isopropylbenzene (cumene) 1.4 ST01MW03 3-Oct-02 - - - - - - -

ST01SS049 31-Jan-01

Lead 872 ST01SS10 20-Nov-92 400 - 200 1,000 - 200 Yes

Methyl isobutyl ketone (4-methyl-2-pentanone) 0.003 ST01SS03 19-Nov-92 1,061 1,058 - 100 0 0.45 No

Methylene chloride 3.7 ST01SS049 31-Jan-01 11 0.88 - 500 52 0.88 Yes

Naphthalene 0.58 ST01SS049 31-Jan-01 30 0.46 40 500 7 0.46 Yes

n-Propylbenzene 2.7 ST01MW03 31-Oct-06 - - - - - - -

ST01SS049 31-Jan-01

ST01BH072 3-May-10

Petroleum hydrocarbons d/ 65 ST01BR07 18-Jun-93 596 - 100 400 100 No

Petroleum hydrocarbons C11-C22 aromatic e/ 36.9 ST01BH068 12-Jan-10 917 - - 1,000 42 42 No

Petroleum hydrocarbons C19-C36 aliphatic e/ 40.5 ST01BH068 12-Jan-10 61,105 - - 3,000 - 3,000 No

Phenanthrene 0.08 IRAMW2 3-Sep-03 445 - 40 500 11 11 No

ST01SS050 31-Jan-01

BKGMW01 3-Mar-03

Pyrene 0.0052 ST01BH067 12-Jan-10 342 56 - 500 56 56 No

ST01MW02 1-Nov-06

Toluene 0.008 ST01BH053 28-May-03 925 925 - 500 11 11 No

ST01BR09 23-Jun-93

TPH - DRO f/ 2,700 ST01BH048 22-Jan-01 500 - - 500 500 500 Yes

ST01SS049 31-Jan-01

TPH - GRO g/ 920 ST01SS049 31-Jan-01 596 - - 100 400 100 Yes

TPH - MORO h/ 93 SP4-C-0.5 14-May-08 2,346 - - 500 1,000 500 No

Xylenes, total 0.004 ST01BH074 1-Mar-10 444 247 - 444 12 12 No

ST01SS04 19-Nov-92

a/ ft bgs = feet below ground surface.b/ HDOH Tier 1 EAL = Hawaii Department of Health (HDOH) Tier 1 Environmental Action Level (EAL) for soil where groundwater is NOT a potential drinking water source and surface water is located within 150 meters (HDOH, 2009, Table B-2). MADEP Screening Level = Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Screening Level for residential soil (Parsons, 2009, Tables A.1, A.2, and A.3).c/ mg/kg = milligram(s) per kilogram.d/ Petroleum hydrocarbons were compared with the HDOH Tier 1 EAL for total petroleum hydrocarbons-gasoline range (TPH-gasoline; most conservative of the available TPH EALs; HDOH, 2009).e/ The values shown are MADEP Screening Levels for Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons (Parsons, 2009).f/ TPH-DRO = diesel range organics; carbon range of C9 to C25 (middle distillate range).g/ TPH-GRO = gasoline range organics; carbon range of C6 to C12 (gasoline range).h/ TPH-MORO = motor oil range organics; carbon range of greater than C24 (residual range).

OTHER NOTES: - = no standard exists.Shaded Values = maximum analyte concentration either matched or exceeded the applicable Tier 1 EAL (HDOH, 2009) or MADEP Screening Level (Parsons, 2009).

TABLE 2.2HDOH TIER 1 ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION LEVELS FOR COPCs DETECTED IN SOIL

2-23



Chemical of Potential ConcernMaximum Detected

ConcentrationLocation of

Maximum DetectDate of Maximum

DetectGross

ContaminationVapor Emissions

Into BuildingsAquatic Habitat Impact (chronic)

HDOH Tier 1 Groundwater EAL/MADEP

Screening Level a/

Does Maximum Value Exceed

EAL?

(µg/L) b/ (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L)

Acenaphthene 0.59 ST01MW01 30-Oct-06 200 3,900 23 23 No

Acenaphthylene 0.22 ST01MW01 30-Oct-06 1,965 - 30 30 No

Acetone 55 ST01MW019 28-Jan-10 50,000 443,565,307 1,500 1,500 No

Anthracene 0.04 MPG 11-Mar-03 22 43 0.73 0.73 No

Benzene 1.31 MPG 18-Mar-04 20,000 1,525 46 46 No

Benzo(a)anthracene 0.11 ST01MW028 12-May-10 4.7 - 0.027 0.027 Yes

Benzo(a)pyrene 0.3 ST01MW013 1-Feb-10 0.81 - 0.014 0.014 Yes

Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 0.18 ST01MW03 19-May-10 0.13 - 0.10 0.10 Yes

n-Butylbenzene 4.1 ST01MW01 30-Oct-06 - - - - -

sec-Butylbenzene 11 ST01MW01 30-Oct-06 - - - - -

tert-Butylbenzene 3.3 ST01MW01 30-Oct-06 - - - - -

ST01MW01 26-Jul-00

Chloromethane 0.58 ST01MW03 31-Oct-06 50,000 294 3,200 294 No

Chrysene 0.013 BKGMW01 30-Oct-06 1.0 - 0.35 0.35 No

Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 0.3 ST01MW013 1-Feb-10 0.52 - 7.5 0.52 No

Ethylbenzene 2.4 ST01MW01 30-Oct-06 300 5,199 290 290 No

ST01MW01 30-Oct-06

Fluoranthene 0.032 ST01MW03 31-Oct-06 130 - 8.0 8.0 No

Fluorene 0.36 ST01MW01 30-Oct-06 945 1,890 3.9 3.9 No

IRAMW3 2-Sep-03

Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene 0.3 ST01MW013 1-Feb-10 0.10 - 0.09 0.09 Yes

ST01MW010 15-Sep-03

Isopropylbenzene (cumene) 46 ST01MW01 30-Oct-06 - - - - -

Lead 3.02 ST01MW03 19-May-10 50,000 - 6 6 No

Methylene chloride 0.32 ST01MW01 30-Oct-06 50,000 3,112 2,200 2,200 No

1-Methylnaphthalene 12 ST01MW01 30-Oct-06 100 11,067 2.1 2.1 Yes

ST01MW01 30-Oct-06

2-Methylnaphthalene 14 ST01MW01 30-Oct-06 100 25,000 2.1 2.1 Yes

ST01MW01 30-Oct-06

Methyl tert-butyl ether 1.03 MPG 11-Mar-03 1,800 20,950 18,000 1,800 No

Naphthalene 45 ST01BH049 22-Jan-01 210 2,547 24 24 Yes

ST01MW01 30-Oct-06

Petroleum hydrocarbons C5-C8 aliphatic c/ 962 ST01MW019 28-Jan-10 50,000 - 250 250 Yes

Petroleum hydrocarbons C9-C12 aliphatic c/ 101 ST01MW01 17-May-10 50,000 - 1,800 1,800 No

Petroleum Hydrocarbons C9-C10 aromatic c/ 200 ST01MW01 17-May-10 50,000 - 540 540 No

Petroleum hydrocarbons C11-C22 aromatic c/ 126 ST01MW01 17-May-10 50,000 - 5.0 5.0 Yes

Phenanthrene 0.072 ST01MW01 30-Oct-06 408 - 4.6 4.6 No

n-Propylbenzene 32.87 MPG 18-Mar-04 - - - - -

Pyrene 0.024 ST01MW03 31-Oct-06 68 135 2.0 2.0 No

Toluene 0.033 ST01MW01 17-May-10 400 526,000 130 130 No

TPH - DRO d/ 270,000 ST01MW008 31-Oct-06 2,500 - 640 640 Yes

TPH - GRO e/ 6,600 ST01MW015 21-Feb-08 5,000 - 500 500 Yes

1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 0.67 ST01MW01 17-Mar-04 - - - - -

MPG 18-Mar-04

m,p-Xylene 1.59 MPG 18-Mar-04 5,300 161,000 100 100 No

o-Xylene 0.35 ST01MW01 30-Oct-06 5,300 161,000 100 100 No

Xylenes, total 0.27 ST01MW01 17-May-10 5,300 161,000 100 100 No

a/ HDOH Tier 1 EAL = Hawaii Department of Health (HDOH) Tier 1 Environmental Action Level (EAL) for groundwater that is not a current or potential drinking water source, and surface water is within 150 meters of the site (HDOH, 2009, Table D-1c). MADEP screening level = Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Screening Level for groundwater that is not a potential drinking water source, and surface water is within 150 meters of the site (Parsons, 2009, Groundwater Category B-2).b/ µg/L = microgram(s) per liter.c/ The values shown are MADEP Screening Levels (Parsons, 2009).d/ TPH-DRO = total petroleum hydrocarbons-diesel range organics; carbon range of C9 to C25 (middle distillate range). Also includes "Petroleum Hydrocarbons and "PHC as diesel fuel".e/ TPH-GRO = gasoline range organics; carbon range of C6 to C12 (gasoline range). Also includes "Petroleum Hydrocarbons C6-C10" and "PHC as gasoline".

OTHER NOTES: - = no standard exists.Shaded Values = maximum analyte concentration either matched or exceeded the applicable Tier 1 EAL (HDOH, 2009) or MADEP Screening Level (Parsons, 2009).

TABLE 2.3HDOH TIER 1 GROUNDWATER ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION LEVELS FOR COPCs DETECTED IN SHALLOW GROUNDWATER

2-24




Concentration

Location of Maximum

Detect

Date of Maximum

DetectGross

ContaminationDrinking Water

ToxicityVapor Emissions

To Indoor AirAquatic Habitat Impact (chronic)

HDOH Tier 1 Groundwater

EAL a/Does Maximum Value

Exceed EAL?

(µg/L) b/ (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L)

Chloroform 0.07 ST01MW009 15-Sep-03 2,400 70 74 620 70 No

Chloromethane 0.44 ST01MW012 18-Oct-06 50,000 1.8 294 3,200 1.8 No

ST01MW011 30-Oct-06

1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane 0.034 ST01MW009 15-Sep-03 10 0.040 - 0.040 0.040 No

1,2-Dichloropropane 0.33 ST01MW009 15-Sep-03 10 5.0 209 1,520 5.0 No

Hexachlorobutadiene 0.23 ST01MW05 29-Mar-04 6 0.86 - 4.7 0.86 No

Methylene chloride 0.28 ST01MW02 10-Mar-99 9,100 4.8 3,112 2,200 4.8 No

ST01MW06 18-Oct-06

TPH - GRO c/ 29 ST01BH074 27-Apr-10 100 100 - 500 100 No

ST01MW07 18-May-10

Trichloroethene 2 ST01MW07 16-Oct-06 310 5.0 484 360 5.0 No

ST01MW07 18-May-10

1,2,3-Trichloropropane 1.2 ST01MW010 17-Dec-98 50,000 0.60 - 14 0.60 Yes

ST01MW009 15-Sep-03

a/ HDOH Tier 1 EAL = Hawaii Department of Health (HDOH) Tier 1 Environmental Action Level (EAL) for groundwater that is a current or potential drinking water source, and surface water is within 150 meters of the site (HDOH, 2009, Table D-1a).b/ µg/L = microgram(s) per liter.c/ TPH-GRO = total petroleum hydrocarbons-gasoline range organics; carbon range of C6 to C12 (gasoline range). Also includes "Petroleum Hydrocarbons C6-C10" and "PHC as gasoline"

OTHER NOTES: - = no standard exists.Shaded Values = maximum analyte concentration either matched or exceeded the applicable Tier 1 EAL (HDOH, 2009).

TABLE 2.4HDOH TIER 1 GROUNDWATER ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION LEVELS FOR COPCs DETECTED IN BASAL GROUNDWATER

2-25




ConcentrationLocation of

Maximum DetectDate of Maximum

DetectGross

Contamination

Fresh WaterAquatic

Habitat Goal(Chronic Toxicity)

Bioaccumulationand Human

Consumption

HDOH Tier 1 Surface Water

EAL a/Does Maximum

Value Exceed EAL?

(µg/L) b/ (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L)

Lead 11 ST01SW/SE011 22-May-00 50,000 29 - 29 No

Methylene chloride 0.29 ST01SW/SE014 30-Jan-01 9,100 2,200 590 590 No

ST01MW01 30-Oct-06TPH - GRO c/

51 ST01SW/SE011 22-May-00 100 500 - 100 No

e/ Tier 1 EAL = Hawaii Department of Health (HDOH) Tier 1 Environmental Action Level (EAL) for fresh water habitats in surface water (HDOH, 2009, Table D-2a). Note: Because surface water at this site is not designated as having beneficial uses as a drinking water resource, drinking water toxicity EALs were not considered. The most conservative screening levels based on either gross contamination, chronic toxicity levels for aquatic habitats, or bioaccumulation and human consumption were selected. b/ µg/L = microgram(s) per liter.c/ TPH-GRO = total petroleum hydrocarbons-gasoline range organics; carbon range of C6 to C12 (gasoline range).

OTHER NOTES: - = no standard exists.

TABLE 2.5HDOH TIER 1 SURFACE WATER ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION LEVELS FOR COPCs DETECTED IN SURFACE WATER

2-26



Sediment Screening Values b/ Does Maximum Value Exceed

Chemical of Potential Concern TEC/TEL c/ PEC/PEL d/ TEC/TEL? PEC/PEL?

(mg/kg) a/(mg/kg) (mg/kg)

Benzo(a)anthracene 0.018 ST01SW/SE011 22-May-00 0.032 0.39 No No

Benzo(a)pyrene 0.039 ST01SW/SE009 22-May-00 0.032 0.78 Yes No

Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.0270 ST01SW/SE011 22-May-00 0.0272 - No -

Chloroethane 0.0007 ST01SW/SE009 22-May-00 - - - -

Chrysene 0.03 ST01MW05 22-Sep-03 0.057 0.86 No No

ST01SW/SE010 22-May-00

p-Cymene (p-Isopropyltoluene) e/ 0.003 ST01SW/SE010 22-May-00 0.086 - No -

Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 0.042 ST01SW/SE011 22-May-00 0.006 0.14 Yes No

ST01SW/SE010 22-May-00

1,1-Dichloroethene 0.0022 ST01SW/SE014 30-Jan-01 0.019 - No -

Fluoranthene 0.12 ST01SW/SE010 22-May-00 0.11 2.23 Yes No

ST01BH031 31-May-00

Hexachlorobutadiene 0.0004 ST01SW/SE013 30-Jan-01 0.027 - No -

Lead 24.5 ST01SW/SE014 30-Jan-01 35 91.3 No No

Naphthalene 0.0015 ST01SW/SE010 22-May-00 0.035 0.39 No No

Phenanthrene 0.035 ST01SW/SE010 22-May-00 0.042 0.52 No No

Pyrene 0.079 ST01SW/SE010 22-May-00 0.053 0.88 Yes No

Toluene 0.052 ST01SW/SE010 22-May-00 1.22 - No -

TPH-d 20 ST01SW/SE010 22-May-00 - - - -

ST01MW03 28-Feb-01

TPH-g 23 ST01SW/SE013 30-Jan-01 - - - -

1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene 0.0005 ST01SS034 22-May-00 5.062 - No -

ST01SW/SE014 30-Jan-01

ST01SS033 22-May-00

a/ mg/kg = milligram(s) per kilogramb/ The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has developed freshwater sediment screening levels based on the available scientific literature. These sediment screening levels, the Screening Quick Reference Tables (SQuiRTs; Buchman, 2008), include both threshold and probable effect levels (TELs and PELs).c/ TEC/TEL = Threshold Effect Concentration/Threshold Effect Level. Minimum of the TEC or TEL is shown. For chemicals where TECs/TELs were not available, freshwater sediment screening levels were used from the following hierarchy of sources:

1) USEPA Region 3 and 2) USEPA Region 5.d/ PEC/PEL = Probable Effect Concentration/Probable Effect Level. Minimum of the PEC or PEL is shown.e/ No screening level available. Screening level for cumene used.f/ No screening level available. Screening level for 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene used.

- = no standard exists.Shaded Values = maximum analyte concentration either matched or exceeded the applicable Screening Levels (SQuiRTs; Buchman, 2008).

Maximum Detected Concentration

Location of Maximum Detect

Date of Maximum Detect

TABLE 2.6SEDIMENT SCREENING LEVELS FOR COPCs DETECTED IN SEDIMENT

2-27



2-28


"

!A

!A !A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A!A !A

!A

!A !A

!A!A

!A

!A

!A!A

!A!A

!A!A!A

!A

!A

!A!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A!A

!A!A!A

!A

!A!A

!A

!A!A!A

!A!A !A!A!A

!A

!A!A

!A

!A

!A!A

!A

!A!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A!A

!A

!A

!A

!A!A

ST01BH0302/14/2000 (35-37) <1*2/14/2000 (42-43.5) 9.7* F2/14/2000 (50-51.5) 5* F2/14/2000 (60-61.5) 56* 2/17/2000 (0.5-1) <0.78*2/17/2000 (70-71.5) <1.1*2/23/2000 (115-115.2) <0.96*3/2/2000 (16.5-18) 400* M3/2/2000 (18-19.5) 130* M3/2/2000 (FD) (18-19.5) 630* M

ST01BH0315/31/2000 (20-21.5) 520*

ST01BH0321/12/2001 (18-19.5) <1.41/12/2001 (22-23.5) 27

ST01BH0331/12/2001 (18-19.5) <1.4*1/12/2001 (22-23.5) 1700*

ST01BH0351/9/2001 (23-24.5) 72

ST01BH0371/15/2001 (23-24) 3.8* F

ST01BH0381/16/2001 (20-21) 430

ST01BH0391/16/2001 (20-22) 1.7 F

ST01BH0401/23/2001 (30-32) 700 1/23/2001 (39-41) 610

ST01BH0421/10/2001 (20-21.5) 180*

ST01BH0431/17/2001 (17-18) 1200*

ST01BH0441/22/2001 (25-27) 4800* 1/22/2001 (FD) (25-27) 890*

ST01BH0461/18/2001 (17-19) 170*

ST01BH0481/22/2001 (18-20) 4400* 1/22/2001 (FD) (18-20) 2700*

ST01BH0491/22/2001 (22-24) 5000*

ST01BH0501/30/2001 (38-40) 510 1/30/2001 (50-52) 310

ST01BH0511/30/2001 (25-27) 39

ST01BH0521/31/2001 (35-37) 45

ST01BH0545/27/2003 (25-25.5) 590.42 5/27/2003 (30-31.5) <5

ST01SS0481/31/2001 (1.5-2) 630

ST01SS0491/31/2001 (1-1.5) 1500 1/31/2001 (FD) (1-1.5) 2700

ST01SS0501/31/2001 (1-1.5) 1400

ST01SS0511/31/2001 (0.5-1) 120

ST01BH0714/29/2010 (15-18) < 7

ST01BH0725/3/2010 (19-21) 330 5/3/2010 (FD) (19-21) 310

ST01BH0734/28/2010 (20-26) < 7.54/28/2010 (FD) (20-26) < 7.2

ST01BH0743/1/2010 (16-19) 71 3/1/2010 (FD) (16-19) < 5.94/27/2010 (22.5-27) < 74/27/2010 (FD) (22.5-27) < 7.1

ST01BH0763/3/2010 (14.5-18) < 6.53/3/2010 (40-42) < 7.53/3/2010 (FD) (40-42) < 7.7

ST01MW0285/4/2010 (18-20) < 7.75/4/2010 (FD) (18-20) < 7.6

ST01MW028R23/11/2010 (11-16) < 6.53/11/2010 (FD) (11-16) < 6.5

ST01BH0661/11/2010 (6.15-7) < 6.71/11/2010 (14.2-15) < 8

ST01BH0691/13/2010 (10.4-12) < 7.31/13/2010 (FD) (10.4-12) < 7.21/13/2010 (19.3-20) < 6.9

ST01BH0701/12/2010 (9-10) < 6.61/12/2010 (17.2-18) < 6.9

ST01MW0221/12/2010 (7.15-8) < 6.71/12/2010 (15.2-16) < 7.6

ST01MW0231/14/2010 (7.1-8) < 6.51/14/2010 (14.6-17) < 7.3

ST01MW0241/14/2010 (8.2-9) < 6.51/14/2010 (16.5-18) < 7.41/14/2010 (FD) (16.5-18) < 7.3

ST01MW0251/11/2010 (6.1-7) < 6.61/11/2010 (14.1-15) < 7.5

ST01MW0261/20/2010 (7-8) < 6.7 J1/20/2010 (15-17) < 7.51/20/2010 (FD) (15-17) < 7.7

ST01MW0211/13/2010 (11.1-12) < 6.41/13/2010 (19.8-22) < 7.6

VP 3

VP1 & 2



FormerVapor Burner

UST #1

UST #2

UST #3

UST #4

Kipap

a Stre

am

ST01BH0341/10/2001 (21-22.5) <1.2

ST01BH0361/11/2001 (23.5-25) <1

ST01BH0451/17/2001 (15-18.5) <1.2*

ST01BH0535/28/2003 (30-31) <8.25/28/2003 (35-36) <8.625/28/2003 (40-41) <7.25

ST01BH0566/26/2003 (15.5-17) <56/26/2003 (25-26.5) <5

ST01SS0521/31/2001 (2-2.5) <1.1

See Inset 1

See Inset 2

D A 3 0

S T 0 1 B

S T 0 1 A

S T 0 1 C

0 100 20050Feet

Legend!A TPH-DRO Concentration(s) Meets or Exceeds Tier 1 EAL

!A TPH-DRO Concentration(s) below Tier 1 EALInferred Extent of TPH-DRO in Soil > Tier 1 EALSubsite Boundary

Property BoundaryFence LineStreamValve PitCesspool

Former Oil/Water SeparatorFormer Drum Filling BuildingFormer Boiler HouseUnderground Storage Tank (UST)Former BuildingFormer USTApproximate Area of Bioventing SystemData Not Representative of Current Conditions

!A!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A !A

!A!A!A

!A

!A

!A!A

!A!A

SE-PIPE-HI-012/12/2008 (4-4) <6.9

SE-UST-HI-012/12/2008 (8.5-9) <6.9

SE-UST-HI-022/12/2008 (8.5-9) 100*

ST01BH0381/16/2001 (20-21) 430

ST01BH0391/16/2001 (20-22) 1.7 F

ST01BH0501/30/2001 (38-40) 510 1/30/2001 (50-52) 310

ST01BH0511/30/2001 (25-27) 39

ST01BH0602/15/2008 (7-9) <7

ST01BH0612/15/2008 (3-5) <7.12/15/2008 (FD) (3-5) <7.1

ST01BH0632/14/2008 (7-9) <7.1

ST01BH0642/19/2008 (4-6) <6.5

ST01BH0652/19/2008 (8-10) <6.7ST01MW014

2/15/2008 (7-9) <7 ST01MW0152/14/2008 (8-10) <6.1

ST01SS0481/31/2001 (1.5-2) 630

ST01SS0491/31/2001 (1-1.5) 1500 1/31/2001 (FD) (1-1.5) 2700

ST01MW0162/19/2008 (7-9) <7

ST01BH0671/12/2010 (8.3-9) < 6.61/12/2010 (16.2-17) < 8.6ST01BH068

1/12/2010 (6.1-7) < 6.71/12/2010 (18.1-19) < 7.1

ST01BH0743/1/2010 (16-19) 71 3/1/2010 (DUP) (16-19) < 5.94/27/2010 (22.5-27) < 74/27/2010 (DUP) (22.5-27) < 7.1

ST01BH0763/3/2010 (14.5-18) < 6.53/3/2010 (40-42) < 7.53/3/2010 (DUP) (40-42) < 7.7

ST01MW0171/18/2010 (7.1-8) < 6.51/18/2010 (17-19) < 7.4

ST01MW0191/19/2010 (6-8) < 6.81/19/2010 (FD) (6-8) < 6.71/19/2010 (14.5-16) < 6.2

ST01MW0201/18/2010 (8.7-10) < 6.61/18/2010 (DUP) (8.7-10) < 6.6

ST01MW028R23/11/2010 (11-16) < 6.53/11/2010 (DUP) (11-16) < 6.5

!A!A

!A

!A!A!A

!A

!A!A!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A!A

!A

!A

!A!A

!A

!A

ST01BH0555/27/2003 (17-18) <55/27/2003 (FD) (17-18) <55/27/2003 (25-26.5) <5

ST01BH0566/26/2003 (15.5-17) <56/26/2003 (25-26.5) <5

ST01BH0572/19/2008 (8-10) <7

ST01BH0582/19/2008 (4-6) <7

ST01BH0592/19/2008 (7-9) <7.2

ST01MW0132/14/2008 (9-11) <6.9

SE-OWS-HI-012/12/2008 (7.5-8) <7 SE-OWS-HI-02

2/12/2008 (7.5-8) <6.92/12/2008 (FD) (7.5-8) <6.9

ST01BH0661/11/2010 (6.15-7) < 6.71/11/2010 (14.2-15) < 8

ST01BH0671/12/2010 (8.3-9) < 6.61/12/2010 (16.2-17) < 8.6

ST01BH0681/12/2010 (6.1-7) < 6.71/12/2010 (18.1-19) < 7.1

ST01BH0701/12/2010 (9-10) < 6.61/12/2010 (17.2-18) < 6.9

ST01BH0751/18/2010 (8.7-10) < 6.61/18/2010 (FD) (8.7-10) < 6.6

ST01MW0231/14/2010 (7.1-8) < 6.51/14/2010 (14.6-17) < 7.3

ST01MW0241/14/2010 (8.2-9) < 6.51/14/2010 (16.5-18) < 7.41/14/2010 (DUP) (16.5-18) < 7.3

ST01MW0261/20/2010 (7-8) < 6.71/20/2010 (15-17) < 7.51/20/2010 (DUP) (15-17) < 7.7

ST01BH0661/11/2010 (6.15-7) < 6.71/11/2010 (14.2-15) < 8

ST01BH0701/12/2010 (9-10) < 6.61/12/2010 (17.2-18) < 6.9

ST01MW0231/14/2010 (7.1-8) < 6.51/14/2010 (14.6-17) < 7.3

ST01MW0241/14/2010 (8.2-9) < 6.51/14/2010 (16.5-18) < 7.41/14/2010 (DUP) (16.5-18) < 7.3

ST01MW0261/20/2010 (7-8) < 6.71/20/2010 (15-17) < 7.51/20/2010 (DUP) (15-17) < 7.7

ST01BH0661/11/2010 (6.15-7) < 6.71/11/2010 (14.2-15) < 8

ST01BH0701/12/2010 (9-10) < 6.61/12/2010 (17.2-18) < 6.9

ST01MW0231/14/2010 (7.1-8) < 6.51/14/2010 (14.6-17) < 7.3

ST01MW0241/14/2010 (8.2-9) < 6.51/14/2010 (16.5-18) < 7.41/14/2010 (DUP) (16.5-18) < 7.3

ST01MW0261/20/2010 (7-8) < 6.71/20/2010 (15-17) < 7.51/20/2010 (DUP) (15-17) < 7.7

ST01BH0661/11/2010 (6.15-7) < 6.71/11/2010 (14.2-15) < 8

ST01BH0701/12/2010 (9-10) < 6.61/12/2010 (17.2-18) < 6.9

ST01MW0171/18/2010 (7.1-8) < 6.51/18/2010 (17-19) < 7.4

ST01MW0181/19/2010 (7.2-8) < 6.61/19/2010 (18.2-19) < 7.4

ST01MW0231/14/2010 (7.1-8) < 6.51/14/2010 (14.6-17) < 7.3

ST01MW0241/14/2010 (8.2-9) < 6.51/14/2010 (16.5-18) < 7.41/14/2010 (DUP) (16.5-18) < 7.3

ST01MW0261/20/2010 (7-8) < 6.71/20/2010 (15-17) < 7.51/20/2010 (DUP) (15-17) < 7.7

ST01BH0661/11/2010 (6.15-7) < 6.71/11/2010 (14.2-15) < 8

ST01BH0701/12/2010 (9-10) < 6.61/12/2010 (17.2-18) < 6.9

ST01MW0171/18/2010 (7.1-8) < 6.51/18/2010 (17-19) < 7.4

ST01MW0231/14/2010 (7.1-8) < 6.51/14/2010 (14.6-17) < 7.3

ST01MW0241/14/2010 (8.2-9) < 6.51/14/2010 (16.5-18) < 7.41/14/2010 (DUP) (16.5-18) < 7.3

ST01MW0261/20/2010 (7-8) < 6.71/20/2010 (15-17) < 7.51/20/2010 (DUP) (15-17) < 7.7

S T 0 1 CInset 1

Inset 2

ST01BH0545/27/2003 (25-25.5) 590.42

DateConcentration (mg/kg)

Sample ID

Depth (ft bgs)


PARSONS

Figure 2.9TPH-DRO IN SOIL,

HISTORICAL ANALYTICAL DATASUMMARY



Oahu, Hawaii

• Red text indicates that the concentration exceeded the Hawaii Department of Health (HDOH) Tier 1 Environmental Action Level (EAL) for soil where groundwater is not a potential drinking water source and surface water is located within 150 meters. The Tier 1 EAL for TPH-DRO is 500 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg).• Green text indicates that the analyte was detected above the method detection limit (MDL).• Black text indicates that the analyte was not detected above the MDL.• TPH-DRO = total petroleum hydrocarbons-diesel range organics• Sample depth is reported as feet below ground surface (ft bgs).• Non-detect concentrations are reported as less than the MDL.• FD= field duplicate• F flag indicates that the analyte was positively identified, but the quantitation is an estimation above the MDL and below the reporting limit (RL).• < and J = analyte was not detected above the indicated RL; however, the result is estimated due to discrepancies in meeting certain analyte-specific quality control criteria.• M flag indicates concentration is estimated due to matrix effect.• * Data not representative of current conditions. The basis for selection of unrepresentative data is detailed in the ST01 Comprehensive RI (Parsons, 2011).

p0097319

Text Box

2-29

"

!A!A

!A!A!A

!A

!A

!A!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A!A

!A!A!A

!A!A!A

!A!A !A!A!A

!A

!A!A

!A

!A

!A!A

!A

!A

!A

!A!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A!A

!A!A!A

!A!A

!A

!A!A

!A!A

!A!A

!A!A

!A!A

!A!A!A!A

!A

!A !A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A!A !A

!A

!A !A

!A!A

!A

!A

!A!A

ST01BH0302/14/2000 (35-37) 350* 2/14/2000 (42-43.5) 1100* 2/14/2000 (50-51.5) 420* 2/14/2000 (60-61.5) 580* 2/17/2000 (70-71.5) 43* 2/23/2000 (115-115.2) 1.6* 3/2/2000 (16.5-18) 3500* 3/2/2000 (18-19.5) 19* 3/2/2000 (FD) (18-19.5) 180*

ST01BH0315/31/2000 (20-21.5) 1100*

ST01BH0321/12/2001 (18-19.5) 280 1/12/2001 (22-23.5) 3900

ST01BH0331/12/2001 (18-19.5) 0.62* F1/12/2001 (22-23.5) 4.5*

ST01BH0351/9/2001 (23-24.5) 1200

ST01BH0371/15/2001 (23-24) 5700*

ST01BH0381/16/2001 (20-21) 2900

ST01BH0391/16/2001 (20-22) 2900

ST01BH0401/23/2001 (30-32) 1600 1/23/2001 (39-41) 6.9

ST01BH0421/10/2001 (20-21.5) 300*

ST01BH0431/17/2001 (17-18) 2000*

ST01BH0441/22/2001 (25-27) 2900* 1/22/2001 (FD) (25-27) 1200*

ST01BH0451/17/2001 (15-18.5) 2700*

ST01BH0461/18/2001 (17-19) 770*

ST01BH0481/22/2001 (18-20) 1200* 1/22/2001 (FD) (18-20) 2700*

ST01BH0491/22/2001 (22-24) 2300*

ST01BH0501/30/2001 (38-40) <0.481/30/2001 (50-52) 1900

ST01BH0511/30/2001 (25-27) 5500

ST01BH0521/31/2001 (35-37) 2600

ST01SS0481/31/2001 (1.5-2) 84

ST01SS0491/31/2001 (1-1.5) 920 1/31/2001 (FD) (1-1.5) 860

ST01SS0501/31/2001 (1-1.5) 460

ST01SS0511/31/2001 (0.5-1) 520

ST01SS0521/31/2001 (2-2.5) 0.81 F

ST01BH0341/10/2001 (21-22.5) <0.48

ST01BH0361/11/2001 (23.5-25) <0.43

!A

ST01BH0535/28/2003 (30-31) 234 5/28/2003 (35-36) 0.65 F5/28/2003 (40-41) 8.9 F

ST01BH0545/27/2003 (25-25.5) 559 5/27/2003 (30-31.5) 2.52

ST01BH0566/26/2003 (15.5-17) <0.046/26/2003 (25-26.5) <0.04

ST01BH0714/29/2010 (15-18) 990

ST01BH0725/3/2010 (19-21) 640 J5/3/2010 (FD) (19-21) 1200 J

ST01BH0734/28/2010 (20-26) 4200 J4/28/2010 (FD) (20-26) 950 J

ST01BH0743/1/2010 (16-19) 1680 M3/1/2010 (FD) (16-19) 640 J4/27/2010 (22.5-27) 260 J4/27/2010 (FD) (22.5-27) 29 J

ST01BH0763/3/2010 (14.5-18) < 0.563/3/2010 (40-42) < 0.653/3/2010 (FD) (40-42) < 0.65

ST01MW0285/4/2010 (18-20) < 0.645/4/2010 (FD) (18-20) < 0.67

ST01MW028R23/11/2010 (11-16) < 0.573/11/2010 (FD) (11-16) < 0.54

ST01BH0661/11/2010 (6.15-7) < 0.581/11/2010 (14.2-15) < 0.38

ST01BH0691/13/2010 (10.4-12) < 0.651/13/2010 (FD) (10.4-12) < 0.721/13/2010 (19.3-20) < 0.51

ST01BH0701/12/2010 (9-10) < 0.61/12/2010 (17.2-18) < 0.69

ST01MW0211/13/2010 (11.1-12) < 0.641/13/2010 (19.8-22) < 0.68

ST01MW0221/12/2010 (7.15-8) < 0.591/12/2010 (15.2-16) < 0.6

ST01MW0231/14/2010 (7.1-8) < 0.661/14/2010 (14.6-17) < 0.71

ST01MW0241/14/2010 (8.2-9) 0.76 F 1/14/2010 (16.5-18) 1 F 1/14/2010 (FD) (16.5-18) 0.81 F

ST01MW0251/11/2010 (6.1-7) < 0.471/11/2010 (14.1-15) < 0.59

ST01MW0261/20/2010 (7-8) < 0.661/20/2010 (15-17) < 0.611/20/2010 (FD) (15-17) < 0.64

VP 3

VP1 & 2



FormerVaporBurner

UST #1

UST #2

UST #3

UST #4

Kipap

a Stre

amSee Inset 1

See Inset 2

D A 3 0

S T 0 1 B

S T 0 1 A

S T 0 1 C

0 100 20050Feet

Legend!A TPH-GRO Concentration(s) Meets or Exceeds Tier 1 EAL

!A TPH-GRO Concentration(s) below Tier 1 EALInferred Extent of TPH-GRO in Soil > Tier 1 EALSubsite BoundaryProperty BoundaryFence LineStreamValve PitCesspool

Former Oil/Water SeparatorFormer Drum Filling BuildingFormer Boiler HouseUnderground Storage Tank (UST)Former USTFormer BuildingApproximate Area of Bioventing SystemData Not Representative of Current Conditions

!A!A

!A

!A

!A !A

!A!A!A

!A

!A

!A

!A!A

!A

!A

!A!A

!ASE-OWS-HI-012/12/2008 (7.5-8) <0.66SE-OWS-HI-022/12/2008 (7.5-8) <0.72/12/2008 (FD) (7.5-8) <0.65

SE-PIPE-HI-012/12/2008 (4-4) <0.8

SE-UST-HI-012/12/2008 (8.5-9) <0.7

SE-UST-HI-022/12/2008 (8.5-9) <0.75*

ST01BH0381/16/2001 (20-21) 2900 ST01BH050

1/30/2001 (38-40) <0.481/30/2001 (50-52) 1900

ST01BH0511/30/2001 (25-27) 5500

ST01BH0572/19/2008 (8-10) <0.67

ST01BH0582/19/2008 (4-6) <0.67ST01BH059

2/19/2008 (7-9) <0.72

ST01BH0602/15/2008 (7-9) <0.73

ST01BH0612/15/2008 (3-5) <0.682/15/2008 (FD) (3-5) <0.67

ST01BH0632/14/2008 (7-9) <0.78

ST01BH0642/19/2008 (4-6) <0.75

ST01BH0652/19/2008 (8-10) <0.66

ST01MW0132/14/2008 (9-11) <0.68

ST01MW0142/15/2008 (7-9) <0.68

ST01MW0152/14/2008 (8-10) <0.64

ST01SS0481/31/2001 (1.5-2) 84

ST01MW0162/19/2008 (7-9) <0.74

ST01BH0671/12/2010 (8.3-9) < 0.641/12/2010 (16.2-17) 1.8 ST01BH068

1/12/2010 (6.1-7) < 0.621/12/2010 (18.1-19) < 0.8

ST01BH0743/1/2010 (16-19) 1680 M 3/1/2010 (FD) (16-19) 640 J 4/27/2010 (22.5-27) 260 J 4/27/2010 (FD) (22.5-27) 29 J

ST01MW0171/18/2010 (7.1-8) < 0.721/18/2010 (17-19) < 0.72

ST01MW0191/19/2010 (6-8) < 0.621/19/2010 (FD) (6-8) < 0.641/19/2010 (14.5-16) < 0.51

ST01MW0201/18/2010 (8.7-10) < 0.71/18/2010 (FD) (8.7-10) < 0.67

ST01MW0211/13/2010 (11.1-12) < 0.641/13/2010 (19.8-22) < 0.68 ST01MW022

1/12/2010 (7.15-8) < 0.591/12/2010 (15.2-16) < 0.6

ST01MW0251/11/2010 (6.1-7) < 0.471/11/2010 (14.1-15) < 0.59

ST01MW0285/4/2010 (18-20) < 0.645/4/2010 (FD) (18-20) < 0.67

ST01MW028R23/11/2010 (11-16) < 0.573/11/2010 (FD) (11-16) < 0.54

!A!A!A!A

!A

!A!A!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A!A

!A

!A

!A!A

!A

!A!A

!A!A

ST01BH0582/19/2008 (4-6) <0.67

ST01BH0592/19/2008 (7-9) <0.72

ST01BH0572/19/2008 (8-10) <0.67

ST01MW0132/14/2008 (9-11) <0.68

SE-OWS-HI-012/12/2008 (7.5-8) <0.66

SE-OWS-HI-022/12/2008 (7.5-8) <0.72/12/2008 (FD) (7.5-8) <0.65

ST01BH0555/27/2003 (17-18) 0.21 F5/27/2003 (FD) (17-18) 0.09 F5/27/2003 (25-26.5) 0.08 F

ST01BH0661/11/2010 (6.15-7) < 0.581/11/2010 (14.2-15) < 0.38

ST01BH0671/12/2010 (8.3-9) < 0.641/12/2010 (16.2-17) 1.8 ST01BH068

1/12/2010 (6.1-7) < 0.621/12/2010 (18.1-19) < 0.8

ST01BH0701/12/2010 (9-10) < 0.61/12/2010 (17.2-18) < 0.69

ST01MW0171/18/2010 (7.1-8) < 0.721/18/2010 (17-19) < 0.72

ST01MW0181/19/2010 (7.2-8) < 0.691/19/2010 (18.2-19) < 0.69

ST01BH0751/18/2010 (8.7-10) < 0.71/18/2010 (FD) (8.7-10) < 0.67

ST01MW0231/14/2010 (7.1-8) < 0.661/14/2010 (14.6-17) < 0.71

ST01MW0241/14/2010 (8.2-9) 0.76 F 1/14/2010 (16.5-18) 1 F 1/14/2010 (FD) (16.5-18) 0.81 F

ST01MW0261/20/2010 (7-8) < 0.661/20/2010 (15-17) < 0.611/20/2010 (FD) (15-17) < 0.64

S T 0 1 CInset 1

Inset 2

ST01BH0391/16/2001 (20-22) 2900

Date Depth (ft bgs)

Sample ID


TPH-GRO Concentration (mg/kg)

• Red text indicates that the concentration exceeded the Hawaii Department of Health (HDOH) Tier 1 Environmental Action Level (EAL) for soil where groundwater is not a potential drinking water source and surface water is located within 150 meters. The Tier 1 EAL for TPH-GRO is 100 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg).• Green text indicates that the analyte was detected above the method detection limit (MDL).• Black text indicates that the analyte was not detected above the MDL.• TPH-GRO = total petroleum hydrocarbons-gasoline range organics• Sample depth is reported as feet below ground surface (ft bgs).• Non-detect concentrations are reported as less than the MDL.• FD= field duplicate• F flag indicates that the analyte was positively identified, but the quantitation is an estimation above the MDL and below the reporting limit (RL).• M flag indicates concentration is estimated due to matrix effect.• J flag indicates quantity is estimated due to quality control criteria.• * Data not representative of current conditions. The basis for selection of unrepresentative data is detailed in the ST01 Comprehensive RI (Parsons, 2011).

PARSONS

Figure 2.10TPH-GRO IN SOIL,




Oahu, Hawaii

p0097319

Text Box

2-30

"

!A!A

!A!A

!A!A!A!A!A

!A!A!A

!A

!A

!A!A

!A!A

!A

!A

!A!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A!A

!A

!A!A

!A

!A!A!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A !A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A!A!A

!A!A!A!A!A

!A

!A!A

!A!A!A

!A

!A!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A !A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A!A

!A

!A!A!A!A

!A

!A!A

!A!A!A!A!A!A!A

!A!A

!A!A

!A

!A

!A!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A!A

!A

!A!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A!A

ST01BH0302/15/2000 (0.5-1) 10.8 3/2/2000 (16.5-18) 15.3 3/2/2000 (18-19.5) 8.5 F3/2/2000 (FD) (18-19.5) 18.2 2/14/2000 (35-37) 4.3 F2/14/2000 (42-43.5) 7.1 F2/14/2000 (50-51.5) 9 F2/14/2000 (60-61.5) 9.1 F2/17/2000 (70-71.5) 10.7 F2/23/2000 (115-115.2) 2.8 F

ST01BH0321/12/2001 (18-19.5) 6.6 M1/12/2001 (22-23.5) 16.3 F

ST01BH0331/12/2001 (18-19.5) 7.1 F1/12/2001 (22-23.5) 0.99 F

ST01BH0351/9/2001 (23-24.5) 7.5 F

ST01BH0381/16/2001 (20-21) 13.3 F

ST01BH0391/16/2001 (20-22) 2.5 F

ST01BH0401/23/2001 (25-26.5) 2.4 M1/23/2001 (30-32) 6.2 F1/23/2001 (39-41) 2.2 F

ST01BH0461/18/2001 (17-19) 13 F

ST01BH0501/30/2001 (38-40) 19.7 1/30/2001 (50-52) 6.3 F

ST01BH0511/30/2001 (25-27) 2.9 F

ST01BH0521/31/2001 (35-37) 33.8 F

ST01BH0535/28/2003 (30-31) 41.5 M5/28/2003 (35-36) <16.195/28/2003 (40-41) <17

ST01BH0632/14/2008 (7-9) 3.01

ST01BH0642/19/2008 (4-6) 6.42

ST01BH0652/19/2008 (8-10) 2.6

ST01BR016/21/1993 (8-9.5) 0.81 6/21/1993 (18-19.5) 2.6 6/22/1993 (28-30) 1.9 6/22/1993 (FD) (28-30) 2

ST01BR026/22/1993 (13-14.5) 10 6/22/1993 (23-25) 4.6 ST01BR03

6/21/1993 (13-14.5) 1.5 6/21/1993 (18-19.5) 4 6/21/1993 (23-24.5) 5.3 6/21/1993 (FD) (23-24.5) 4.8 6/21/1993 (28-29.5) 2.1

ST01BR046/17/1993 (13-14.5) 3.3 6/17/1993 (38-39.5) 2.2 6/17/1993 (48-49.5) 1.6

ST01BR056/17/1993 (23-24.5) 2 6/17/1993 (33-34.5) 3.9 6/17/1993 (FD) (33-34.5) 3.5 6/17/1993 (43-44.5) 3 6/17/1993 (48-49.5) 2.2

ST01BR076/18/1993 (3-4.5) 4.2 6/18/1993 (13-14.5) 3.3 6/18/1993 (18-20) 3.4

ST01BR086/21/1993 (3-4.5) 9.7 6/21/1993 (8-9.5) 7.7 6/21/1993 (13-14.5) 1.9 6/21/1993 (21-23) 2.2

ST01BR096/23/1993 (8-9.5) 4.4 6/23/1993 (13-14.5) 5.3 6/23/1993 (28-29.5) 1.8

ST01BR106/23/1993 (13-14.5) 1.5 6/23/1993 (28-29) 1.7

ST01MW0142/15/2008 (7-9) 3.12

ST01MW0152/14/2008 (8-10) 1.86

ST01MW0211/10/1992 (2-4) 2.6 11/10/1992 (15-17) 3.7

ST01MW0311/12/1992 (1-3) 2.8 11/12/1992 (9-11) 3.2 11/12/1992 (13-15) 2.2 11/12/1992 (16-18) 2.6

ST01MW03N211/16/1992 (5-6) 3.4 11/16/1992 (15-16) 1.3 11/16/1992 (20-22) 1.9 11/16/1992 (25-27) 8.8

ST01MW0411/11/1992 (5-7) 2.4 11/11/1992 (10-12) 2.5 11/11/1992 (13-15) 2.7

ST01MW056/3/1993 (30-31) 1.7 6/4/1993 (67-68) 2 6/8/1993 (119-120) 1.6

ST01MW068/5/1993 (66-67) 1.5

ST01MW0710/21/1993 (18-19.5) 3.5

ST01SS0111/19/1992 (0-0.5) 4.8

ST01SS0211/19/1992 (0-0.5) 4.4

ST01SS0311/19/1992 (0-0.5) 2.6

ST01SS0411/19/1992 (0-0.5) 1.4

ST01SS0481/31/2001 (1.5-2) 22.4

ST01SS0491/31/2001 (1-1.5) 37 1/31/2001 (FD) (1-1.5) 29.5

ST01SS0511/20/1992 (0-0.5) 1.8

ST01SS0501/31/2001 (1-1.5) 20.9

ST01SS0511/31/2001 (0.5-1) 36

ST01SS0521/31/2001 (2-2.5) 32 M

ST01SS1111/20/1992 (0-0.5) 0.95

ST01SS1211/20/1992 (0-0.5) 1.8

BKGKSS0411/15/1993 (0-0.5) 16.4

BKGMW0112/4/1992 (5-6) 4.5 12/4/1992 (10-11) 2.7

ST01BH0661/11/2010 (6.15-7) 3.11 1/11/2010 (14.2-15) 2.95

ST01BH0691/13/2010 (10.4-12) 2.1 J 1/13/2010 (FD) (10.4-12) 7.82 J 1/13/2010 (19.3-20) 2.27 J

ST01BH0701/12/2010 (9-10) 4.23 1/12/2010 (17.2-18) 2.75

ST01MW0171/18/2010 (7.1-8) 4.31 1/18/2010 (17-19) 2.85

ST01MW0211/13/2010 (11.1-12) 1.83 J 1/13/2010 (19.8-22) 2.17 J

ST01MW0221/12/2010 (7.15-8) 3.53 1/12/2010 (15.2-16) 2.95

ST01MW0231/14/2010 (7.1-8) 4.63 1/14/2010 (14.6-17) 3.75

ST01MW0241/14/2010 (8.2-9) 4.5 1/14/2010 (16.5-18) 3.65 1/14/2010 (FD) (16.5-18) 3.63

ST01MW0251/11/2010 (6.1-7) 3.26 1/11/2010 (14.1-15) 8.22

ST01MW0261/20/2010 (7-8) 2.66 1/20/2010 (15-17) 4.3 1/20/2010 (FD) (15-17) 4.14

ST01BH0341/10/2001 (21-22.5) < 3.3

ST01BH0361/11/2001 (23.5-25) < 2.9

ST01BH0421/10/2001 (20-21.5) < 3.1

ST01BH0451/17/2001 (15-18.5) < 2.8

ST01BH0566/26/2003 (15.5-17) < 1.76/26/2003 (25-26.5) < 17

ST01BH0545/27/2003 (25-25.5) < 17.355/27/2003 (30-31.5) < 16.83

VP 3

VP1 & 2



FormerVaporBurner

UST #1

UST #2

UST #3

UST #4

Kipap

a Stre

am

See Inset 1

See Inset 2

D A 3 0

S T 0 1 B

S T 0 1 A

S T 0 1 C

ST01BH0714/29/2010 (15-18) 5.86

ST01BH0725/3/2010 (19-21) 12.4 5/3/2010 (FD) (19-21) 12.2

ST01BH0743/1/2010 (16-19) 66.8 3/1/2010 (FD) (16-19) 75.8 4/27/2010 (22.5-27) 5.62 J 4/27/2010 (FD) (22.5-27) 3.51 J

ST01BH0763/3/2010 (14.5-18) 2.73 3/3/2010 (40-42) 1.99 3/3/2010 (FD) (40-42) 1.97

ST01MW0285/4/2010 (18-20) 2.31 5/4/2010 (FD) (18-20) 2.61

ST01MW028R23/11/2010 (11-16) 3.74 3/11/2010 (FD) (11-16) 3.7

0 100 20050Feet

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A!A

!A!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A!A

!A!A

!A!A

!A

!A

!A!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

ST01BH0302/15/2000 (0.5-1) 10.8 3/2/2000 (16.5-18) 15.3 3/2/2000 (18-19.5) 8.5 F3/2/2000 (FD) (18-19.5) 18.2 2/14/2000 (35-37) 4.3 F2/14/2000 (42-43.5) 7.1 F2/14/2000 (50-51.5) 9 F2/14/2000 (60-61.5) 9.1 F2/17/2000 (70-71.5) 10.7 F2/23/2000 (115-115.2) 2.8 F

ST01BH0315/31/2000 (15-16.5) 36* 5/31/2000 (20-21.5) 5.3* F

ST01BH0371/15/2001 (23-24) 23.7 F

ST01BH0381/16/2001 (20-21) 13.3 F

ST01BH0401/23/2001 (25-26.5) 2.4 M1/23/2001 (30-32) 6.2 F1/23/2001 (39-41) 2.2 F

ST01BH0431/17/2001 (17-18) 6.3 F

ST01BH0441/22/2001 (25-27) 19.6 F1/22/2001 (FD) (25-27) 10.3 F

ST01BH0481/22/2001 (18-20) 10.7 F1/22/2001 (FD) (18-20) 13.9 F

ST01BH0491/22/2001 (22-24) 8.2 F

ST01BR036/21/1993 (13-14.5) 1.5 6/21/1993 (18-19.5) 4 6/21/1993 (23-24.5) 5.3 6/21/1993 (FD) (23-24.5) 4.8 6/21/1993 (28-29.5) 2.1

ST01MW056/3/1993 (30-31) 1.7 6/4/1993 (67-68) 2 6/8/1993 (119-120) 1.6

ST01SS0111/19/1992 (0-0.5) 4.8

ST01SS0325/22/2000 (0-2) 1730*

ST01SS0335/22/2000 (0-2) 2120*

ST01SS0345/22/2000 (0.5-2) 777*

ST01SS0355/22/2000 (0.5-1.5) 53.3*

ST01SS0365/22/2000 (0.5-1.5) 1760*

ST01SS0375/22/2000 (0-2) 1480*

ST01SS0385/31/2000 (0-2) 1130*

ST01SS0395/31/2000 (0-2) 206* 5/31/2000 (FD) (0-2) 196*

ST01SS0405/31/2000 (0-2) 175*

ST01SS0415/31/2000 (0-2) 37.9

ST01SS0425/31/2000 (0-2) 54.4

ST01SS0435/31/2000 (0-2) 210*

ST01SS0445/31/2000 (0-2) 927*

ST01SS0455/31/2000 (0-2) 23*

ST01SS0465/31/2000 (0-2) 360

ST01SS0475/31/2000 (0-2) 70.6

ST01SS0491/31/2001 (1-1.5) 37 1/31/2001 (FD) (1-1.5) 29.5

ST01SS0811/20/1992 (0-0.5) 2.7

ST01SS0911/20/1992 (0-0.5) 1.5*

ST01SS1011/20/1992 (0-0.5) 872

Inset 1

ST01BH0734/28/2010 (20-26) 13.8 4/28/2010 (FD) (20-26) 10.7

ST01BH0725/3/2010 (19-21) 12.4 5/3/2010 (FD) (19-21) 12.2

CS00110/20/2004 (0-2) 73

CS00210/20/2004 (0-2) 225*

CS00410/21/2004 (0-2) 58.6

CS00310/21/2004 (0-2) 86.2

CS00610/21/2004 (0-2) 59.8

CS00510/21/2004 (0-2) 363

CS00810/20/2004 (0-2) 314

CS00710/20/2004 (0-2) 333

CS00910/20/2004 (0-2) 149

CS01010/20/2004 (0-2) 87.2

CS01110/21/2004 (0-2) 128

CS001210/21/2004 (0-2) 227

CS01310/21/2004 (0-2) 173

!A !A

!A!A

!A

!A

!A

!A!A !A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

ST01BH0555/27/2003 (17-18) 29.7 M5/27/2003 (FD) (17-18) 3 M5/27/2003 (25-26.5) <1.73

ST01BH0572/19/2008 (8-10) 4.18

ST01BH0582/19/2008 (4-6) 3.66

ST01BH0592/19/2008 (7-9) 3.3

ST01BH0632/14/2008 (7-9) 3.01

ST01BH0642/19/2008 (4-6) 6.42

ST01BH0652/19/2008 (8-10) 2.6

ST01BR066/18/1993 (3-4.5) 6.4 6/18/1993 (8-9.5) 4.2 6/18/1993 (18-20) 2.8 6/18/1993 (FD) (18-20) 3.9

ST01BR086/21/1993 (3-4.5) 9.7 6/21/1993 (8-9.5) 7.7 6/21/1993 (13-14.5) 1.9 6/21/1993 (21-23) 2.2

ST01MW0132/14/2008 (9-11) 34

ST01MW0142/15/2008 (7-9) 3.12

ST01MW0152/14/2008 (8-10) 1.86

SE-OWS-HI-012/12/2008 (7.5-8) 706*

SE-OWS-HI-022/12/2008 (7.5-8) 394* 2/12/2008 (FD) (7.5-8) 349*

Inset 2

ST01BH0671/12/2010 (8.3-9) 17 1/12/2010 (16.2-17) 6.18

ST01BH0681/12/2010 (6.1-7) 4.22 1/12/2010 (18.1-19) 2.23

ST01MW0171/18/2010 (7.1-8) 4.31 1/18/2010 (17-19) 2.85

ST01MW0181/19/2010 (7.2-8) 3.04 1/19/2010 (18.2-19) 1.64

ST01MW0191/19/2010 (6-8) 3.28 1/19/2010 (FD) (6-8) 3.3 1/19/2010 (14.5-16) 2.46

ST01BH0751/18/2010 (8.7-10) 5.67 1/18/2010 (FD) (8.7-10) 4.73

ST01MW0211/13/2010 (11.1-12) 1.83 J 1/13/2010 (19.8-22) 2.17 J

ST01MW0221/12/2010 (7.15-8) 3.53 1/12/2010 (15.2-16) 2.95

ST01MW0251/11/2010 (6.1-7) 3.26 1/11/2010 (14.1-15) 8.22 ST01MW028

5/4/2010 (18-20) 2.31 5/4/2010 (FD) (18-20) 2.61

ST01BH0652/19/2008 (8-10) 2.6

Date Depth (ft bgs)Concentration (mg/kg)

Sample IDLegend!A Lead Concentration(s) Meets or Exceeds Tier 1 EAL!A Lead Concentration(s) below Tier 1 EAL

Inferred Extent of Lead in Soil > Tier 1 EALSubsite BoundaryProperty BoundaryFence LineValve PitCesspool

Former Oil/Water SeparatorFormer Drum Filling BuildingFormer Boiler HouseUnderground Storage Tank (UST)Former BuildingFormer USTExcavation AreaData not representative of current conditions


PARSONS

Figure 2.11LEAD IN SOIL,HISTORICAL ANALYTICAL DATASUMMARY



Oahu, Hawaii

• Red text indicates that the concentration exceeded the Hawaii Department of Health (HDOH) Tier 1 Environmental Action Level (EAL) for soil where groundwater is not a potential drinking water source and surface water is located within 150 meters. The Tier 1 EAL for Lead is 200 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg).• Green text indicates that the analyte was detected above the method detection limit (MDL).• Black text indicates that the analyte was not detected above the MDL.• Sample depth is reported as feet below ground surface (ft bgs).• Non-detect concentrations are reported as less than the MDL.• FD= field duplicate• F flag indicates that the analyte was positively identified, but the quantitation is an estimation above the MDL and below the reporting limit (RL).• M flag indicates concentration is estimated due to matrix effect.• * Data not representative of current conditions. The basis for selection of unrepresentative data is detailed in the ST01 Comprehensive RI (Parsons, 2011).

p0097319

Text Box

2-31



"

!A!A

!A!A

!

!

!!

!

!!

A

A

A A

A

AA

!A!A

!A!A

!A

!A!A

!A!A

!A!A

!A!A

!A!A

!A!A

!A!A

!A

!A!A

!A!A

!A!A

!A

!A!A

!A

!

!

!

!!

!

A

AA

AA

A

!(!(

!(

!(

ST01MW0171/27/2010 TPH-GRO = 510 1/27/2010 TPH-GRO = 500 (FD)

ST01MW0181/28/2010 TPH-GRO = 20 F


ST01MW0212/1/2010 TPH-GRO = 20 F

ST01MW0221/27/2010 TPH-GRO = 150

ST01MW0232/1/2010 TPH-GRO = 630

ST01MW0241/25/2010 TPH-GRO = 82 F 5/10/2010 TPH-GRO = 68 F 5/10/2010 TPH-GRO = 66 F (FD)

ST01MW0251/25/2010 TPH-GRO = < 20


ST01MW0285/12/2010 TPH-GRO = 34 F 5/12/2010 TPH-GRO = 30 F (FD)

ST01MW085/14/1998 TPH-GRO = 2500 8/13/1998 TPH-GRO = 2300 12/2/1998 TPH-GRO = 1600 J 2/28/2000 TPH-GRO = 2300 2/28/2000 TPH-GRO = 1700 (FD) 7/26/2000 TPH-GRO = 1900 3/1/2001 TPH-GRO = 1700 3/1/2001 TPH-GRO = 2000 (FD) 9/10/2001 PHCC6C10 = 1500 3/8/2002 PHCC6C10 = 1060 10/15/2002 PHCC6C10 = 1380000* M 3/5/2003 PHCC6C10 = 2150 9/3/2003 PHCC6C10 = 3410 * 10/31/2006 TPH-GRO = 1900

ST01MW015/18/1998 TPH-GRO = 2500 8/25/1998 TPH-GRO = 3300 12/3/1998 TPH-GRO = 3700 J 3/11/1999 TPH-GRO = 2300 J 3/11/1999 TPH-GRO = 2600 (FD) 2/28/2000 TPH-GRO = 2400 7/26/2000 TPH-GRO = 1800 3/2/2001 TPH-GRO = 3700 9/7/2001 PHCC6C10 = 20100 3/14/2002 PHCC6C10 = 2770 3/14/2002 PHCC6C10 = < 8.2 (FD) 10/14/2002 PHCC6C10 = 4160000* 3/5/2003 PHCC6C10 = 3400 9/4/2003 PHCC6C10 = 2720 10/30/2006 TPH-GRO = 960 F 10/30/2006 TPH-GRO = 1200 (FD) 5/17/2010 TPH-GRO = 780 5/17/2010 TPH-GRO = 800 (FD)

ST01MW0113/2/2001 TPH-GRO = 1000 9/5/2001 PHCC6C10 = 1010 3/8/2002 PHCC6C10 = 1520 10/2/2002 PHCC6C10 = 507000* 3/3/2003 PHCC6C10 = 2210 8/28/2003 PHCC6C10 = 520 10/30/2006 TPH-GRO = 390

ST01MW0132/20/2008 TPH-GRO = 1300 J 5/27/2008 TPH-GRO = 650 2/1/2010 TPH-GRO = 410 2/1/2010 TPH-GRO = 440 (FD)

ST01MW0152/21/2008 TPH-GRO = 6600 5/27/2008 TPH-GRO = 1700

ST01MW0162/21/2008 TPH-GRO = 740 2/21/2008 TPH-GRO = 690 (FD) 5/27/2008 TPH-GRO = 120

ST01MW025/13/1998 TPH-GRO = 60 J 5/13/1998 TPH-GRO = 120 (FD) 8/12/1998 TPH-GRO = 350 12/1/1998 TPH-GRO = 250 3/10/1999 TPH-GRO = 220 2/21/2000 TPH-GRO = 300 7/28/2000 TPH-GRO = 250 2/28/2001 TPH-GRO = 160 9/5/2001 PHCC6C10 = 290 3/11/2002 PHCC6C10 = 223 10/2/2002 PHCC6C10 = 198000* 3/4/2003 PHCC6C10 = 490 8/28/2003 PHCC6C10 = 280 11/1/2006 TPH-GRO = 350

ST01MW035/13/1998 TPH-GRO = 1700 8/13/1998 TPH-GRO = 3400 12/1/1998 TPH-GRO = 3600 3/10/1999 TPH-GRO = 2100 2/21/2000 TPH-GRO = 7600 7/27/2000 TPH-GRO = 4000 2/28/2001 TPH-GRO = 4100 9/5/2001 PHCC6C10 = 2600 10/3/2002 PHCC6C10 = 903000* 3/4/2003 PHCC6C10 = 2330 9/2/2003 PHCC6C10 = 1950 10/31/2006 TPH-GRO = 3400 5/19/2010 TPH-GRO = 670

IRAMW16/2/1998 TPH-GRO = 2800 8/25/1998 TPH-GRO = 2600 12/2/1998 TPH-GRO = 230 J 12/2/1998 TPH-GRO = 1600 J (FD) 3/11/1999 TPH-GRO = 1800 3/1/2000 TPH-GRO = 2400 M 7/26/2000 TPH-GRO = 2200 3/1/2001 TPH-GRO = 2400 9/10/2001 PHCC6C10 = 2030 3/8/2002 PHCC6C10 = < 8.2 10/10/2002 PHCC6C10 = 1260000* J 3/5/2003 PHCC6C10 = 2700 9/3/2003 PHCC6C10 = 4910 10/31/2006 TPH-GRO = 2300

IRAMW26/1/1998 TPH-GRO = 3700 8/25/1998 TPH-GRO = 3000 12/2/1998 TPH-GRO = 460 J 3/12/1999 TPH-GRO = 2800 2/28/2000 TPH-GRO = 3700 7/27/2000 TPH-GRO = 3900 3/1/2001 TPH-GRO = 3600 9/5/2001 PHCC6C10 = 3040 3/8/2002 PHCC6C10 = 2720 10/3/2002 PHCC6C10 = 216000* 3/5/2003 PHCC6C10 = 3170 9/3/2003 PHCC6C10 = 3650 10/31/2006 TPH-GRO = 3100

MPG2/24/2000 TPH-GRO = 5900 7/31/2000 TPH-GRO = 3400 3/6/2001 TPH-GRO = 3200 9/10/2001 PHCC6C10 = 2070 3/15/2002 PHCC6C10 = 2030 10/16/2002 PHCC6C10 = 1100000* 3/11/2003 PHCC6C10 = 2300

BKGMW015/14/1998 TPH-GRO = 6.2 J 8/13/1998 TPH-GRO = < 100 12/1/1998 TPH-GRO = < 100 3/10/1999 TPH-GRO = 47 J 2/28/2000 TPH-GRO = 7.2 F 7/28/2000 TPH-GRO = 5.9 F 3/2/2001 TPH-GRO = < 3 8/31/2001 PHCC6C10 = 107 3/7/2002 PHCC6C10 = < 8.2 10/2/2002 PHCC6C10 = < 8200* 3/3/2003 PHCC6C10 = 40 F 8/28/2003 PHCC6C10 = < 20 10/30/2006 TPH-GRO = 5.7 F

IRAMW36/1/1998 TPH-GRO = 3500 8/25/1998 TPH-GRO = 3500 12/2/1998 TPH-GRO = 320 J 3/12/1999 TPH-GRO = 4000 2/28/2000 TPH-GRO = 3800 7/27/2000 TPH-GRO = 2800 7/27/2000 TPH-GRO = 3700 (FD) 3/1/2001 TPH-GRO = 2900 9/7/2001 PHCC6C10 = 2940 3/8/2002 PHCC6C10 = 1840 10/3/2002 PHCC6C10 = 1910000* 3/4/2003 PHCC6C10 = 3240 9/2/2003 PHCC6C10 = 3370 10/31/2006 TPH-GRO = 4000

ST01MW045/14/1998 TPH-GRO = 7.5 J 8/13/1998 TPH-GRO = < 100 12/1/1998 TPH-GRO = < 100 3/10/1999 TPH-GRO = < 100 2/24/2000 TPH-GRO = < 3 7/26/2000 TPH-GRO = 5.5 F 3/2/2001 TPH-GRO = < 3 8/31/2001 PHCC6C10 = 71 F 3/7/2002 PHCC6C10 = < 8.2 10/2/2002 PHCC6C10 = < 8200* 3/3/2003 PHCC6C10 = < 20 8/28/2003 PHCC6C10 = < 20 10/30/2006 TPH-GRO = < 4.9

VP 3

VP1 & 2Pump House(Building 22)


FormerVaporBurner

UST #1

UST #2

UST #3

UST #4

Kipap

a Stre

am

D A 3 0

S T 0 1 B

S T 0 1 A

S T 0 1 C

ST01BH076

ST01MW028R1

ST01BH077

ST01MW028R2

0 100 20050Feet

Legend!A TPH-GRO Concentration(s) Meets or Exceeds Tier 1 EAL

!A TPH-GRO Concentration(s) below Tier 1 EAL!( Proposed Well Was Not Installed Because the Boring Was Dry

Inferred Extent of TPH-GRO in Groundwater > Tier 1 EALSubsite Boundary

Property BoundaryFence LineValve Pit

CesspoolFormer Oil/Water SeparatorFormer Drum Filling BuildingFormer Boiler HouseUnderground Storage Tank (UST)Former BuildingFormer UST

ST01MW01210/18/2006 7.5 F

Date

Sample ID


PARSONS

Figure 2.12TPH-GRO IN SHALLOW GROUNDWATER,




Oahu, HawaiiTPH-GRO Concentration (μg/L)

• Red text indicates that the concentration exceeded the Hawaii Department of Health (HDOH) Tier 1 Environmental Action Level (EAL) for groundwater where groundwater is not a potential drinking water source and surface water is located within 150 meters. The Tier 1 EAL for TPH-GRO is 500 micrograms per liter (μg/L).• Green text indicates that the analyte was detected above the method detection limit (MDL).• Black text indicates that the analyte was not detected above the MDL.• TPH-GRO = total petroleum hydrocarbons-gasoline range organics• PHCC6C10 = Petroleum Hydrocarbon C6-C10• Petroleum Hydrocarbons with carbon fraction C6 to C10 are considered equivalent to TPH-GRO; therefore, this data is compared to the same EAL• Non-detect concentrations are reported as less than the MDL.• FD= field duplicate• F flag indicates that the analyte was positively identified, but the quantitation is an estimation above the MDL and below the reporting limit (RL).• M flag indicates concentration is estimated due to matrix effect.• J flag indicates quantity is estimated due to quality control criteria.• * = Analytical concentrations as reported in Environmental Restoration Program Information Management System (ERPIMS) database. Values are suspect.• * = Data not considered in evaluating the inferred plume extent due to the absence of recent analytical data for well ST01MW08 and the upgradient location of the well.

p0097319

Text Box

2-32



2-33




2-34

to be anomalous and were excluded from Table 2.4. TCP has historically been detected in other basal aquifer wells in an upgradient area that could not have been influenced by activity at Kipapa FSA based on available information. Therefore, this compound does not appear to be site-related.

Surface Water/Sediment: With the exception of a single historical lead EAL exceedance, laboratory analyses did not detect any analytes in excess of applicable Tier 1 EALs in surface water from Kipapa Stream. Subsequent surface water sampling did not detect lead in excess of the Tier 1 EAL; therefore, this historical data point was not considered representative of current conditions and was excluded from Table 2.5. VOCs, SVOCs, lead, and TPH were detected in sediment samples from the stream; however, HDOH has not established Tier 1 EALs for sediment. Therefore, sediment results were compared to freshwater sediment screening levels developed by the NOAA. The only COPCs in sediment that exceeded screening levels are polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). Overall, impacts to surface water and sediment in Kipapa Stream appear to be limited and may be attributable to historical activities at ST01 and/or upstream sources.

2.4 CURRENT AND POTENTIAL FUTURE SITE LAND USES

The Kipapa FSA is currently under military ownership; it is vacant, unused, and fenced with locked gates at three entrances. The Navy currently has no plans to transfer the property and no development plans.

The land within a 1-mile radius of Kipapa FSA is dominated by residential, agricultural, and military uses, with residential land use accounting for about 50 percent of the land. The residential zoning mix includes single-family and apartment homes in the town of Mililani. The land use classification categories designated by the military for Kipapa FSA are Light Industrial and Open Space. The Open Space designation encompasses the majority of Kipapa FSA and includes unimproved forests and shrublands. Land use at Site ST01 is expected to remain open space and light industrial in the foreseeable future.

Kipapa Stream is immediately east of and adjacent to Kipapa FSA. Land immediately north (upstream) of Kipapa FSA is managed by the Army and was previously used to store ammunition. South (downstream) of Kipapa FSA is Valve Pit 17, which is surrounded by a privately owned chicken farm and a truck farm / nursery; use is mixed agricultural, light industrial, and residential, which extends to Kamehameha Highway. Agricultural lands formerly used for pineapple cultivation lie to the east of and above Kipapa Gulch (TEC, 2006).

Groundwater in the shallow aquifer is assumed not to be used as a potable water source, and groundwater in the basal aquifer is assumed to be used as a potable water source. Kipapa Stream is classified as a Class 2 stream, which is protected for recreational purposes, propagation of fish and aquatic life, agricultural and industrial water supplies, navigation, and propagation of shellfish.

It is not anticipated that the shallow aquifer or Kipapa Stream will be used for beneficial uses (e.g. potential drinking water, irrigation) in the future based on the discontinuous nature of the aquifer and the intermittent stream flow.

2.5 SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS

The conceptual site model (CSM) presented on Figure 2.13 summarizes the potential sources, release mechanisms, affected media, land use scenarios, receptors, and exposure pathways for the Kipapa FSA. The exposure pathway analysis presented on the CSM is summarized below.



2-35


Pathway is potentially completePathway is potentially complete but insignificant

Pathway is potentially complete if contaminatedgroundwater discharges to surface water and aquaticbiota are present

Worker/Trespasser/Recreational

Resident

Surface water/Sediment

Kipapa Stream

2.5 MillionGallon UST

Sludge Disposal Pits/Other Shallow Sources

Access Road

Leaching

Unconsolidated Soil

Basalt

Colluvium

Perched Aquifer

Basal Aquifer

~20’ AMSL

Saprolite

Saprolite

Unconsolidated Soil

Saprolite

Basalt

NOT TO SCALE

Residential Area(Mililani Town)

Industrial Area(ST01)

Incidental Ingestion,Inhalation, Dermal Contact

Volatilization

~330’ AMSL

Parsonsdraw\747065 CSM ST01A.cdr ma 10/12/09

Groundwater

SoilSoil

Infiltration

Discharge

Incidental ingestion

Dermal contact

Ingestion

Dermal contact

Incidental ingestionDermal contact

Inhalation1

Inhalation (showers)

Volatilization/Wind erosion

Air

USTs, Piping, OWS,Drum Filling

Building, Sludge Disposal Pits

Leaking USTs andPiping, Leaching

from SludgeDisposal Pits

Debris and Fill

~320-300’ AMSL

ST01MW05 ST01MW13

Primary pathway

Pathway evaluated and found incomplete, no furtherevaluation recommended

Ingestion of biota

1 Inhalation of volatiles emitted from soils, groundwater,and surface water to outdoor air, including trench air.

~20’ AMSL

~330’ AMSL

~320-300’ AMSL

~570’ AMSL

ST01MW10

FIGURE 2.13

GENERALIZEDCONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL

ST01 Record of Decision/Response Action Memorandum



p0097319

Text Box

2-36



2-37




2-38

Sources, Release Mechanisms, and Affected Media: Potential sources of contamination at the Kipapa FSA include releases from Tanks 1, 2, and 4 and fuel pipelines; a release of jet propulsion fuel grade 4 (JP-4) in the vicinity of Valve Pits 1 and 2; onsite disposal of sludge from the fuel storage tanks; an onsite leach field for disposal of condensate water from the fuel storage tanks; and releases from an oil-water separator (OWS), an underground fuel oil storage tank, and electrical transformers.

Potential Receptors: The current and potential future human receptors at the site that the risk evaluation addressed include future residents (if land use changes), industrial and construction workers, and trespassers/recreational users. Because the site is densely vegetated and includes a stream, both terrestrial and aquatic ecological receptors are assumed to be present at the site. However, due to intermittent stream flow and the limited amount of fine-grained sediments in this reach of the stream, conditions are not suitable to support significant quantities of aquatic organisms. In addition, no federally listed or state-listed threatened or endangered species are known to be present.

Potential Exposure Pathways: Soil, groundwater from the shallow and basal aquifers, surface water, sediment, and air represent the transport media for direct and/or indirect contact with site-related COPCs at Site ST01. Discharge from the shallow aquifer to Kipapa Stream is anticipated to occur only during low stream flow conditions.

The following potentially significant and complete exposure pathways were identified:

Inhalation of contaminants in outdoor air: Potential future residents, workers, recreational users, and trespassers may inhale volatiles emitted from soil and the shallow aquifer to outdoor air.

Inhalation of contaminants in indoor air. Potential future residents and workers may inhale volatiles emitted from soil and the shallow aquifer to indoor air.

Incidental ingestion of and dermal contact with soil: Potential future residents, workers, recreational users, trespassers, and terrestrial receptors may come into direct contact with contaminated soil.

Potable uses of groundwater: Potential future residents may be exposed to groundwater from the basal aquifer via potable use of groundwater, including drinking water ingestion, dermal contact during showering/bathing, and inhalation of volatiles emitted during showering/bathing.

2.5.1 Human Health Risk Assessment Summary

At present, Site ST01 is vacant, and the only human receptors intermittently present at the site are trespassers/recreational users, environmental contractors, and federal employees conducting invasive species monitoring. Although there are no plans for future development, residents and industrial workers were selected for evaluation to determine whether the site qualifies for unrestricted site use without further action and to evaluate the need for LUCs.

Human receptors were assumed to be exposed to soil via direct contact and vapor intrusion, groundwater in the shallow aquifer via vapor intrusion, and groundwater in the basal aquifer via potable water use. These exposure pathways are summarized in the CSM. Human exposures to surface water, sediment, and outdoor air were assumed to be negligible and were not evaluated. Potential cancer risks and noncancer hazards from assumed exposures were calculated by dividing the maximum detected concentrations by the HDOH cancer and noncancer Tier 1 EALs.



2-39

All chemicals detected in soil, surface water, sediment, and groundwater were evaluated in the risk assessment. For carcinogens, acceptable exposure levels represent an excess upper bound lifetime cancer risk to an individual of between 10-4 (i.e., 1 in 10,000 chance of developing cancer) and 10-6 (i.e., 1 in 1,000,000 chance of developing cancer). For noncancer health effects, the hazard index (HI) represents the ratio of the exposure concentration to the reference dose, which is the dose below which adverse health effects are not expected. Thus, a HI greater than 1 indicates that noncancer health effects may occur as a result of exposure.

The cancer risks for potential residents were estimated at approximately 7 x 10-4, and the total HI was approximately 2, with the majority of the risk estimate due to assumed ingestion of groundwater from the basal aquifer (Table 2.7). For industrial workers, the total risks and hazards were approximately 3 x 10-6 and 0.3, respectively. Although the total risk for industrial workers exceeded the point of departure of 1 x 10-6, the risks from each chemical individually did not exceed 1 x 10-6. The cancer risks and noncancer hazards from risk drivers at the site are summarized in Table 2.7. The risk estimates are presented in detail in the CRI (Parsons, 2011a). Assumed exposures to lead in soil were also assumed to result in unacceptable blood lead concentrations (i.e., greater than 10 µg/dL) in both residents and industrial workers.

Additionally, methane was detected in the shallow aquifer at concentrations that exceed the lower explosive limit (LEL) in soil gas (assuming equilibrium) at four wells. Thus, there are potential explosive hazards from methane at the site as well. However, methane concentrations in soil gas were modeled and not measured; therefore, the potential for explosive hazards from methane is subject to some uncertainty.

Note that these risk estimates are based on maximum detected concentrations and are not representative of site-wide conditions. For soil, the potential risks to residential receptors associated with benzo(a)pyrene, lead, and methylene chloride are restricted to two small areas: 1) near the former boiler house and 2) near the former vapor burner. However, the lateral extent of lead-impacted soil near the former vapor burner has not been fully delineated.

The 1,2-dibromo-3-chloropropane and 1,2,3-TCP detected in the basal aquifer are not associated with the past military uses of the site. Instead, 1,2-dibromo-3-chloropropane may have migrated onto the site from past offsite agricultural uses. 1,2,3-TCP has consistently been detected upgradient of the known releases at the site, suggesting an offsite source of 1,2,3-TCP.

Not all monitoring wells at the site were sampled during every sampling event, and not all wells were sampled recently. However, to evaluate the site risks, the most recent data from each well were used in the risk assessment. Thus, some of the data evaluated may no longer represent current conditions. For example, the maximum detected concentration of 1,2-dibromo-3-chloropropane was from 2003, and the well where it was detected has not been sampled since. Thus, there is some uncertainty regarding the risks estimated for the shallow and basal aquifers at the site.

For the evaluation of vapor intrusion, the concentrations of volatiles in soil and groundwater were converted to soil gas concentrations by assuming equilibrium. This is a major uncertainty as soil gas concentrations were not directly measured.

The risk assessment summarized used numerous standard default assumptions from HDOH and USEPA for chemical fate, chemical toxicity, and receptor exposure parameters. If future conditions differ from the standard default assumptions, the potential for exposures may also differ. This should be kept in mind when evaluating this, and any other, risk assessment.



2-40

TABLE 2.7 SUMMARY OF CARCINOGENIC RISKS

Receptor Media Pathway Chemical of Concern

EPC1 Tier 1 EAL

Cancer Risk

Noncancer Risk (HI)

SF2 RfD3

Resident Soil Direct contact

Benzo(a)pyrene 0.19 0.15 1x10-5 - 7.3 - Lead 872 400 - - - - TPH-DRO 2,700 500 - 1 - 0.06

Vapor intrusion

Methylene chloride

3.7 0.88 4x10-6 - 4.7x10-

7 1.1

Naphthalene 0.58 0.46 1x10-6 - 3.4x10-

5 0.003

Basal aquifer

Ingestion 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane

0.034 0.04 1x10-4 0.09 0.8 0.0002

Trichloroethene 2 5 1x10-6 - 0.013 - 1,2,3-Trichloropropane

1.2 0.6 6x10-4 0.03 7 0.006

Industrial worker

Soil Direct contact

Lead 872 800 - - - -

Ecological Soil Direct contact

Lead 872 200 - 4 - -

Definitions: EAL – Environmental Action Level (HDOH, 2009) EPC – Exposure point concentration HDOH – Hawaii Department of Health HI – Hazard index RfD – Reference dose SF – slope factor

Notes: 1 –Concentrations are in mg/kg for soil and ug/L for groundwater. 2 – Oral slope factors ((mg/kg-day)-1) are presented for the direct contact and ingestion exposure pathways and inhalation unit risks

((ug/m3)-1) are presented for the inhalation pathway. 3 – Oral reference doses (mg/kg-day) are presented for the direct contact and ingestion exposure pathways and reference

concentrations (mg/m3) are presented for the inhalation pathway.



2-41

2.5.2 Ecological Risk Assessment Summary

Most of Site ST01 is undeveloped and heavily vegetated. While there are numerous plant and animal species at the site, there are no federally listed threatened or endangered species. Ecological hazards were estimated by dividing the maximum detected concentration by the HDOH (2009a) Tier 1 EALs.

All chemicals detected in soil, surface water, sediment, and groundwater were evaluated in the risk assessment. For soils, the hazard index estimated for ecological receptors at the site was approximately 5. This exceeds the threshold hazard quotient of 1, indicating that adverse ecological effects are expected. Only assumed exposures to lead in soil (maximum detect of 872 milligrams per kilogram [mg/kg]) resulted in a hazard greater than one. Lead was detected at concentrations greater than the terrestrial toxicity EAL of 200 mg/kg in a limited area at the site between the former vapor burner and the pump house. However, the lateral extent of lead impacted soil may not be fully delineated.

For assumed exposures to surface water, the hazard index was 0.5, threshold hazard quotient of 1, indicating that adverse ecological effects are not expected. A different approach was used to evaluate sediments that concluded that although adverse effects may occur, the probability of adverse effects is low and the potential adverse effects are not expected to be significant. As noted above, however, aquatic ecological receptors are essentially absent from the portion of Kipapa Stream at the site. Therefore, even if groundwater from the shallow aquifer dischargers to surface water, the pathway is incomplete as there are no receptors in the stream.

2.5.3 Calculation and Implementation of Remedial Action Cleanup Goals

Risk-based RACGs were calculated following USEPA (1989, 1990, 1991, 1996, 2002, 2003, 2004a, 2004b, 2009, 2011a) and HDOH (2009a) guidance. Each step performed in the calculations is explained below.

2.5.3.1 Identification of Receptors and Exposure Pathways

The receptors likely to be present at Site ST01 were determined in consultation with the Navy and include the following:

Commercial/industrial workers (referred to hereinafter as “industrial workers”) Residents Terrestrial ecological receptors

For both industrial workers and residents, the values used for the exposure parameters are standard USEPA and HDOH (2009a) defaults. For ecological receptors, risk-based remedial goals were not calculated; rather, the HDOH (2009a) recommended screening levels were used.

COCs were identified in soil and shallow groundwater. For developing RACGs, it was assumed that soil may be contacted directly and that receptors at the site may be exposed via incidental ingestion of soil, dermal contact with soil, inhalation of dusts emitted to outdoor air, and inhalation of volatiles emitted to indoor air. Shallow groundwater at the site occurs at approximately 10 feet bgs or greater at the site. Therefore, it was assumed that residents or industrial workers will not come into contact with groundwater at the site (i.e., these receptors are assumed to not excavate to 10 feet bgs). Since the shallow aquifer is also non-potable, it was assumed that it will not be used as a drinking water source. Further, since Kipapa Stream flows intermittently, discharge of groundwater to surface water was assumed to be potentially complete only if contaminated groundwater discharges to surface water and aquatic biota are present. Thus, the only potentially significant exposure pathway for shallow groundwater is volatilization



2-42

to indoor and outdoor air. Since risk-based remedial goals protective of volatilization to indoor air are at least one order of magnitude lower than volatilization to outdoor air, risk-based remedial goals protective of volatilization to outdoor air were not developed. There are no potentially complete exposure pathways for the nonvolatile organics present in shallow groundwater; therefore, RACGs were not developed for these chemicals.

The development of each type of RACG is explained below.

2.5.3.2 Direct Contact Risk-Based Remedial Goals

Risk-based remedial goals protective of direct contact with soil (i.e., incidental soil ingestion, dermal contact with soil, and the inhalation of volatiles and dusts emitted to outdoor air) were calculated using the HDOH Tier 2 Soil Direct Exposure Model. Toxicity values in the spreadsheet were double-checked against the following hierarchy of sources (USEPA, 2003 and 2011a):

USEPA’s (2011b) Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) on-line database USEPA’s (2011c) Provisional Peer Reviewed Toxicity Values (PPRTVs) Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry’s (ATSDR) minimal risk levels

(MRLs; ATSDR 2011) California EPA’s (2011) Toxicity Criteria Database USEPA’s (1997) Health Effects Assessment Tables (HEAST)

For chemicals without inhalation toxicity data but with oral toxicity data, route-to-route extrapolations were used to estimate inhalation toxicity data. All toxicity values in the HDOH Tier 2 Soil Direct Exposure Model spreadsheet were current, and updating was not required, except that the reference concentrations (RfCs) for TPH-gasoline and TPH-diesel were updated to 0.2 milligrams per cubic meter (mg/m3) based on comments from HDOH on an earlier version of these RACGs.

Based on the site investigations performed to date, unconsolidated soil at the site consists primarily of silty clay. Fill and fluvial material consisting of basalt cobbles is also present at many locations. For developing risk-based remedial goals, the default dry bulk density (1.38 grams per cubic centimeter [g/cm3]), soil moisture content (0.22 cubic centimeters per cubic centimeter [cm3/cm3]), and total porosity (0.481 cm3/cm3) for silty clay were taken from the Johnson and Ettinger model (USEPA, 2004b), which uses the United States Department of Agriculture soil classification scheme. The Tier 2 Soil Direct Exposure Model also requires a “particle density,” which was calculated as follows (USEPA, 2004b):

where: ρ = dry bulk density (1.38 g/cm3)

n = total porosity (0.481 cm3/cm3)

Lastly, the default fraction organic carbon for silty clay from SESOIL (Environmental Software Consultants [ESC], 2006) of 0.002 was assumed.

Table 2.8 shows the risk-based remedial goals calculated using the HDOH Tier 2 Soil Direct Exposure Model spreadsheet.


Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam, Oahu, Hawaii

TABLE 2.8REMEDIAL ACTION CLEANUP GOALS (mg/kg)

PROTECTIVE OF DIRECT CONTACT WITH SOILS

Resident Industrial WorkerCOC TR THQ Cancer Mutagenic NC Final TR THQ Cancer NC Final

Benzo(a)pyrene 1E-05 1 0.62 0.15 - 0.15 1E-05 1 2.11 - 2.11Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 1E-05 1 0.62 0.15 - 0.15 1E-05 1 2.11 - 2.11Lead - - - - 400 800 - - - 800 800Methylene chloride (dichloromethane) 1E-06 1 19 - 2,534 19 1E-05 1 94 16,799 94Naphthalene 1E-05 1 44 - 164 44 1E-05 1 220 748 220TPH - DRO - 1 - - 2,946 2,946 - 1 - 23,290 23,290TPH - GRO - 1 - - 1,634 1,634 - 1 - 14,284 14,284

Definitions:DRO - Diesel range organicsGRO - Gasoline range organicsNC - NoncancerTHQ - Target hazard quotientTPH - Total petroleum hydrocarbonsTR - Target risk

2-43



2-44

For lead, the Tier 1 EALs of 400 and 800 mg/kg were used for residents and industrial workers, respectively. These concentrations are protective of a blood lead concentration of 10 µg/dL (micrograms per deciliter).

2.5.3.3 Vapor Intrusion Risk-Based Remedial Goals

Risk-based remedial goals protective of vapor intrusion were calculated using USEPA’s (2004a) version of the Johnson and Ettinger model. Two soil layers were assumed in the model, including a surficial sand layer of 100 centimeters (cm) with default properties from HDOH (2009a) and a subsurface silty clay layer with the properties provided above. The average depth to groundwater of 15 feet bgs was used in the model. For soil and soil gas, the depth where the bulk of contamination is located (i.e., 10 feet bgs) was used in the model. The bottom of contamination in the soil model was assumed to be 25 feet bgs. The soil, building, and receptor properties used in the model are shown in Table 2.9 and are USEPA (2004a) and HDOH (2009a) defaults. The chemical properties and toxicity values used in the model are shown in Table 2.10. The toxicity values were derived using the hierarchy of sources presented above. Because the USEPA (2004a) version of the Johnson and Ettinger model assumes that receptors are located in the building at the site for 24 hours per day and industrial workers are only present for an 8-hour workday (USEPA, 2009a), the industrial worker RACGs calculated by the model were divided by 0.33 (i.e., 8-hour workday/24-hour day).

Since the soil gas model from USEPA (2004b) does not calculate risk-based goals, they were calculated using the following formulas:

Residents

Industrial workers

where:

Crg = risk-based goal for soil gas (microgram(s) per cubic meter [μg/m3])

Csg = soil gas input concentration (1 μg/m3)

ET = exposure time (0.33; i.e., 8 hour workday/24 hour day)

HQ = noncancer hazard quotient estimate from the USEPA (2004a) version of the Johnson and Ettinger model

Risk = cancer risk estimate from the USEPA (2004) version of the Johnson and Ettinger model

THQ = target hazard quotient (1)

TR = target risk (1x10-6 for residents; 1 x10-5 for industrial workers)


Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam, Oahu, HawaiiTABLE 2.9

PROPERTIES USED IN THE USEPA VERSION OF THE JOHNSON AND ETTINGER MODEL

Property Value Units Source

Building length LB 1,000 cm HDOH 2009a, USEPA 2004bBuilding width WB 1,000 cm HDOH 2009a, USEPA 2004bBuilding height HB 244 cm HDOH 2009a, USEPA 2004b

Pressure-differential ΔP 40 g/cm-s2 HDOH 2009a, USEPA 2004bExchange rate

Residential ER 1.0 1/hr HDOH 2009aIndustrial ER 2.0 1/hr HDOH 2009a

Slab thickness Lcrack 15 cm HDOH 2009aDepth below grade to bottom of slab LF 15 cm HDOH 2009a, USEPA 2004bSoil type

Surface - S - Default; sandSubsurface - SIC - Site specific; silty clay

Depth to groundwater LWT 457.2 cm Site-specific; 15 ft bgsDepth to top of contamination Lt 304.8 cm Site-specific; 10 ft bgsDepth to bottom of contamination Lb 762 cm Site-specific; 25 ft bgsSoil gas infiltration rate Qsoil 5.0 L/min HDOH 2009a, USEPA 2004bGroundwater temperature Ts 15 ºC HDOH 2009aFloor-wall crack width w 0.1 cm HDOH 2009a, USEPA 2004bThickness of soil stratum

Surface hA 100.0 cm HDOH 2009aSubsurface (GW model) hB 357.2 cm Site specificSubsurface (SG model) hB 204.8 cm Site specific

Dry bulk density

Surface ρ 1.50 g/cm3 HDOH (2009a) default for sand

Subsurface ρ 1.38 g/cm3 USEPA 2004b default for silty clayTotal porosity

Surface θT 0.43 cm3/cm3 HDOH (2009a) default for sand

Subsurface θT 0.481 cm3/cm3 USEPA 2004b default for silty clayWater filled porosity

Surface θW 0.15 cm3/cm3 HDOH (2009a) default for sand

Subsurface θW 0.216 cm3/cm3 USEPA 2004b default for silty clayFraction organic carbon

Surface foc 0.006 - HDOH (2009a) default for sandSubsurface foc 0.002 - SESOIL default for silty clay

Averaging time, carcinogens ATc 70 yrs HDOH 2009a, USEPA 2004bAveraging time, noncarcinogens

Residential ATnc 30 yrs HDOH 2009a, USEPA 2004bIndustrial ATnc 25 yrs HDOH 2009a, USEPA 2004b

Exposure durationResidential ED 30 yrs HDOH 2009a, USEPA 2004b

Industrial ED 25 yrs HDOH 2009a, USEPA 2004bExposure frequency

Residential EF 350 days/yr HDOH 2009a, USEPA 2004bIndustrial ED 250 days/yr HDOH 2009a, USEPA 2004b

Target riskResidential TR 1.00E-06 -

Industrial TR 1.00E-05 -Target hazard quotient THQ 1 -

2-45



CHEMICAL PROPERTIES AND TOXICITY VALUES USED IN THE USEPA VERSION OF THE JOHNSON AND ETTINGER MODELS

Physical Properties Toxicity valuesOrganic Pure Henry's Henry's Enthalpy ofcarbon component law constant law constant Normal vaporization at

partition Diffusivity Diffusivity water Henry's at reference reference boiling Critical the normalcoefficient, in air, in water, solubility, law constant temperature, temperature, point, temperature, boiling point,

Koc Da Dw S H' H TR TB TC ΔHv,b RfC URF

Chemical of Concern (cm3/g) (cm2/s) (cm2/s) (mg/L) (unitless) (atm-m3/mol) (oC) (oK) (oK) (cal/mol) (mg/m3) Source (mg/m3)-1Source

Methylene chloride 1.17E+01 1.01E-01 1.17E-05 1.30E+04 8.96E-02 2.18E-03 25 3.13E+02 5.10E+02 6.71E+03 1.04E+00 ATSDR 4.70E-07 IRIS1-Methylnaphthalene 3.04E+03 6.31E-02 7.03E-06 2.58E+01 2.09E-02 5.09E-04 25 5.15E+02 7.72E+02 1.10E+04 2.45E-02 PPRTV; 1 8.29E-06 PPRTV;12-Methylnaphthalene 2.81E+03 5.22E-02 7.75E-06 2.46E+01 2.12E-02 5.17E-04 25 5.14E+02 7.61E+02 1.26E+04 1.40E-02 IRIS; 1 - -Naphthalene 2.00E+03 5.90E-02 7.50E-06 3.10E+01 1.98E-02 4.82E-04 25 4.91E+02 7.48E+02 1.04E+04 3.00E-03 IRIS 3.40E-05 Cal EPATPH - DRO 1.00E+04 7.00E-02 7.80E-06 5.00E+00 2.95E-02 7.20E-04 25 4.47E+02 6.18E+02 9.26E+03 2.00E-01 HDOH; 2 - -TPH - GRO 1.00E+04 7.00E-02 7.80E-06 1.50E+02 2.95E-02 7.20E-04 25 3.42E+02 5.08E+02 6.89E+03 2.00E-01 HDOH; 2 - -Notes:

1 No inhalation toxicity data available. A route-to-route extrapolation was used to estimate inhalation toxicity.2 HDOH comments on the previous draft of these RACGs.

Definitions:

atm-m3/mol atmospheres per cubic meter per moleoC: degrees CentigradeoK degrees Kelvin

cal/mol calories per mole

cm3/g centimeters cubed per gram

cm2/s centimeters squared per secondmg/L milligrams per literDRO Diesel range organicsGRO Gasoline range organicsTPH Total petroleum hydrocarbons

Chemical property references:Underlined USEPA (2004b). User's guide for evaluating subsurface vapor intrusion into buildings.

Bold NIST Chemistry WebBook. Available online at: http://webbook.nist.gov/chemistry/Bold italics Yaws CL. (2003). Yaws' Handbook of Thermodynamic and Physical Properties of Chemical Compounds. Knovel.

Underlined italics WATER9, Version 3.0 - Beta. Available online at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/software/water/water9_3/Bold underline BioVapor (American Petroleum Institute, 2010)

Italics HDOH (2009a)

2-46



2-47




2-48

The risk-based remedial goals calculated using the USEPA’s (2004a) version of the Johnson and Ettinger model are shown in Table 2.11.

2.5.3.4 Target Risk/Hazard Level

Target risk levels were determined according USEPA (1990, 1991) guidance. USEPA (1990) guidance indicates that the target risk range for carcinogenic risks is 1 x 10-4 to 1 x 10-6. A target risk of 1 x 10-6 was used to develop all residential risk-based remedial goals, except for carcinogenic PAHs in soil, for which a target risk of 1 x 10-5 was used to account for background PAHs (HDOH, 2009). For industrial workers, a target risk of 1 x 10-5 was used to develop all risk-based remedial goals.

USEPA uses the HI of 1.0 as the benchmark level of concern to indicate whether adverse noncarcinogenic health effects are likely to occur as a result of site-related exposures. HIs greater than 1.0 indicate that adverse noncarcinogenic health effects may occur, whereas HIs of less than 1.0 indicates that adverse noncarcinogenic health effects are unlikely to occur. Therefore, all risk-based remedial goals were developed for a target HI of 1.0.

2.5.3.5 Explosive Hazards

Methane in soil gas and groundwater may pose an explosive hazard. In soil gas, 1/10 of the LEL may be directly used as a RACG (HDOH, 2009b). Given an LEL of 50,000 parts per million (ppm), the RACG for methane in soil gas is 5,000 ppm or 3,280,164 μg/m3. Methane in groundwater may also off-gas to soil gas, where it may pose an explosive hazard. To calculate a RACG for methane in groundwater, the following equation was used:

0.1

where

Cgw = concentration in groundwater (micrograms per liter [μg/L])

LEL = lower explosive limit

H’ = Henry’s Law constant (unitless)

Given a Henry’s Law constant of 25.98 and an LEL of 50,000 ppm, or 32,802 μg/L, 1/10 the LEL in groundwater is 126 µg/L. These RACGs for methane in soil gas and groundwater are shown in Table 2.12.

2.5.3.6 Recommended RACGs

The recommended RACGs are presented in Table 2.12. Note that for volatiles in soil and shallow groundwater, if the risk-based remedial goals protective of direct contact and vapor intrusion were greater than the solubility limits/saturation concentrations, then the solubility limits/saturation concentrations were recommended as the RACG. Otherwise, the lesser of the remedial goals protective of direct contact and vapor intrusion were recommended as the RACGs (Table 2.12). For nonvolatile organics in groundwater, since there are no potentially complete exposure pathways, no RACGs were developed.

The RACGs for TPH in groundwater differ substantially from the Tier 1 EALs (HDOH, 2009a) because the RACGs are not protective of discharge to surface water (i.e., since the Kipapa Stream flow is intermittent and the stream does not support a large amount of aquatic biota). Further, since the shallow aquifer is nonpotable, the RACGs were calculated to be protective solely of vapor intrusion. While the risk-based remedial goals protective of vapor intrusion from groundwater are higher for TPH-DRO than TPH-GRO (see Table 2.12), the risk-



RISK-BASED REMEDIAL GOALSPROTECTIVE OF VAPOR INTRUSION

Medium COC Resident Industrial

Soil (mg/kg) Cancer NC Saturation1Final Cancer NC Saturation1

FinalMethylene chloride 5.26E-01 1.10E+02 3.47E+03 5.26E-01 4.42E+01 7.73E+02 3.47E+03 4.42E+01Naphthalene 2.09E-01 9.12E+00 - 2.09E-01 2.09E+01 7.63E+01 - 2.09E+01TPH - DRO - 1.61E+03 5.00E+02 5.00E+02 - 1.35E+04 5.00E+02 5.00E+02TPH - GRO - 1.24E+03 4.52E+03 1.24E+03 - 1.04E+04 4.52E+03 4.52E+03

Shallow Groundwater (µg/L) Cancer NC Solubility Final Cancer NC Solubility Final1-Methylnaphthalene 2.15E+03 1.87E+05 2.58E+04 2.15E+03 2.17E+05 1.57E+06 2.58E+04 2.58E+042-Methylnaphthalene - 1.03E+05 2.46E+04 2.46E+04 - 8.68E+05 2.46E+04 2.46E+04Naphthalene 5.01E+02 2.19E+04 3.10E+04 5.01E+02 5.05E+04 1.84E+05 3.10E+04 3.10E+04TPH - DRO - 1.27E+06 5.00E+03 5.00E+03 - 1.07E+07 5.00E+03 5.00E+03TPH - GRO - 1.20E+06 1.50E+05 1.50E+05 - 1.01E+07 1.50E+05 1.50E+05

Soil gas (µg/m3) Cancer NC Solubility Final Cancer NC Solubility FinalMethylene chloride 2.17E+04 4.55E+06 - 2.17E+04 2.19E+06 3.83E+07 - 2.19E+061-Methylnaphthalene 1.82E+03 1.58E+05 - 1.82E+03 1.83E+05 1.33E+06 - 1.83E+052-Methylnaphthalene - 1.07E+05 - 1.07E+05 - 8.96E+05 - 8.96E+05Naphthalene 4.70E+02 2.05E+04 - 4.70E+02 4.74E+04 1.73E+05 - 4.74E+04TPH - DRO - 1.18E+06 - 1.18E+06 - 9.94E+06 - 9.94E+06TPH - GRO - 1.18E+06 - 1.18E+06 - 9.95E+06 - 9.95E+06

Definitions:DRO - Diesel range organicsGRO - Gasoline range organicsNC - NoncancerTPH - Total petroleum hydrocarbons

Notes:1 - Values taken from the 2009 version of EAL Surfer

2-49


Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam, Oahu, Hawaii

Medium COC Resident Residential Receptor BasisIndustrial Worker

Industrial Worker Receptor Basis Ecological

Ecological Receptor

BasisSoil (mg/kg)

Benzo(a)pyrene 0.15 Direct contact, Cancer if > background

2.1 Direct contact, Cancer if > background

- -

Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 0.15 Direct contact, Cancer if > background

2.1 Direct contact, Cancer if > background

- -

Lead 400 Direct contact, Noncancer 800 Direct contact, Noncancer 200 EcologicalMethylene chloride 0.53 Vapor intrusion, Cancer 44 Vapor intrusion, Cancer - -Naphthalene 0.21 Vapor intrusion, Cancer 21 Vapor intrusion, Cancer - -TPH - DRO 500 Solubility/saturation 500 Solubility/saturation - -TPH - GRO 1,240 Vapor intrusion, Noncancer 4,520 Solubility/saturation - -

Shallow Groundwater (µg/L)Methane 126 Explosive hazard 126 Explosive hazard1-Methylnaphthalene 2,150 Vapor intrusion, Cancer 25,800 Solubility/saturation - -2-Methylnaphthalene 24,600 Solubility/saturation 24,600 Solubility/saturation - -Naphthalene 501 Vapor intrusion, Cancer 31,000 Solubility/saturation - -TPH - DRO 5,000 Solubility/saturation 5,000 Solubility/saturation - -TPH - GRO 150,000 Solubility/saturation 150,000 Solubility/saturation - -

Soil gas (µg/m3)Methane 3,280,000 Explosive hazard 3,280,000 Explosive hazard - -Methylene chloride 21,700 Vapor intrusion, Cancer 2,187,000 Vapor intrusion, Cancer - -1-Methylnaphthalene 1,820 Vapor intrusion, Cancer 183,000 Vapor intrusion, Cancer - -2-Methylnaphthalene 107,000 Vapor intrusion, Noncancer 896,000 Vapor intrusion, Noncancer - -Naphthalene 470 Vapor intrusion, Cancer 47,000 Vapor intrusion, Cancer - -TPH - DRO 1,180,000 Vapor intrusion, Noncancer 9,940,000 Vapor intrusion, Noncancer - -TPH - GRO 1,180,000 Vapor intrusion, Noncancer 9,940,000 Vapor intrusion, Noncancer - -

Definitions:DRO - Diesel range organicsGRO - Gasoline range organicsTPH - Total petroleum hydrocarbons

TABLE 2.12REMEDIAL ACTION CLEANUP GOALS

2-50



2-51

based remedial goals were higher than the solubility limits for both residents and industrial workers. Therefore, the values used as the RACGs for TPH-DRO and TPH-GRO in groundwater are the solubility limits (Tables 2.11 and 2.12). Note that the solubility of TPH-DRO is lower than the solubility of TPH-GRO, which is the opposite of their toxicities. Using solubilities as the RACGs for groundwater is protective of the formation of free product in groundwater.

2.5.3.7 Implementation of the RACGs

Soil and groundwater samples collected at the site should be compared to the proposed RACGs presented in Table 2.12. If concentrations of the COCs in soil or groundwater exceed the RACGs protective of vapor intrusion, soil gas samples should be collected and the results compared to the soil gas RACGs (Table 2.12). Similarly, if methane is detected in groundwater at concentrations exceeding the RACG in Table 2.12, or if free product is present in groundwater, soil gas samples should be collected.

2.5.4 Basis for Response Action

The response actions selected in this ROD/RAM for Site ST01 are necessary to protect public health or welfare or the environment from actual or threatened releases of pollutants or contaminants from soil and groundwater that may present a substantial endangerment to public health or the environment. The proposed cleanup levels for Site ST01 are presented in Table 2.12.

2.6 PRINCIPAL THREAT WASTE

The NCP expects that treatment that reduces the TMV of the principal threat wastes will be used to the extent practicable. The principal threat concept refers to the source materials at a CERCLA site that are highly mobile and cannot be reliably controlled in place or that present a significant risk to human health or the environment should exposure occur. A source material is material that contains hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants that act as a reservoir for migration of contamination to groundwater or air or that acts as a source for direct exposure. Fuel and lead-impacted soil are considered principal threat wastes because they act as a continuing source of contaminants and present an unacceptable risk should direct exposure occur.

The selected remedy for Site ST01 satisfies the preference for treatment as the principal element of the remedy because the bioventing and excavation will reduce the TMV of vadose zone fuel- and lead-impacted soil, respectively, and will reduce the mass of residual contamination that may serve as an ongoing source of contaminants to other site media or pose a potential direct exposure threat. Active treatment of saturated soil or groundwater was not considered technically practical or cost effective due to the predominance of clay in the saturated zone and the lateral extent of the plume. In addition, active treatment of saturated soil and groundwater is not necessary to ensure protectiveness at Site ST01 because potential exposures will be precluded by enforcement of LUCs, the depth of the contaminants, and natural attenuation, which will reduce the TMV of the fuel plume.

2.7 REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES

Based on the results of the CRI risk assessment and the ARAR analysis, RAOs for response actions at ST01 were developed. The RAOs are based on current and reasonably anticipated (i.e., realistic) future land use and groundwater and surface water use designations, considering foreseeable Navy mission needs. The selected response action must therefore meet the following RAOs:



2-52

Prevent hypothetical future residential exposure to fuel-related contaminants in air, soil, and shallow groundwater via inhalation, ingestion, and dermal contact.

Prevent worker, trespasser, and recreational exposure to fuel-related contaminants in air and soil via inhalation, incidental ingestion, and dermal contact.

Monitor the basal aquifer using onsite wells to ensure that downgradient residential receptors are not exposed to fuel-related contaminants originating from Site ST01 at concentrations exceeding the applicable Tier 1 EALs for the basal aquifer.

Although incidental ingestion and dermal contact of soil by terrestrial receptors has been identified as a potentially complete pathway (Figure 2.13), no threatened or endangered terrestrial receptors have been identified at ST01, and RAOs specific to terrestrial receptors were not developed.

LUCs will be necessary at Site ST01 to prevent uncontrolled exposure to contamination at the site and to mitigate potential exposure to unacceptable concentrations of contaminants in impacted media.

2.8 DESCRIPTION AND COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES

From the screening of technologies, the Navy evaluated three alternatives for Site ST01:

1. No action

2. LTM, LUCs, and lead-impacted soil excavation

3. LTM, LUCs, lead-impacted soil excavation, and bioventing

The following text describes the three evaluated alternatives, which are also summarized in Table 2.13. Cost estimates for each alternative are in Appendix C. Duration estimates for the alternatives were based on prior site experience, historical site data, site conditions, prior remedial results, and professional judgment.

TABLE 2.13 DESCRIPTION OF ACTION ALTERNATIVES

No. Alternative Major Components1. No Action Required by NCP for comparison purposes only.

No administrative controls. No monitoring of contaminated media. Includes abandonment of existing bioventing system components and groundwater monitoring wells.

2. LTM, LUCs, and Lead-impacted Soil Excavation

Uses administrative procedures/policies (i.e., LUCs and engineering controls) to control receptor exposure to contaminated media, where necessary. LTM of COC concentrations in groundwater to assess changes that may alter the application of LUCs. Using LTM results, conduct periodic evaluations of the effectiveness of contaminant removal over time via natural attenuation processes, which are expected to maintain plume stability and reduce TMV of site-related COCs in shallow groundwater. Evaluate potential impacts to Kipapa Stream through collection and analysis of surface water and sediment samples. Excavate vadose zone soil within a portion of Site ST01A with lead concentrations in excess of the Tier 1 EAL and transport off-site for disposal.



2-53

TABLE 2.13 (continued) DESCRIPTION OF ACTION ALTERNATIVES

No. Alternative Major Components3. LTM, LUCs,

Lead-impacted Soil Excavation, and Bioventing

Includes all components of Alternative 2. Bioventing to accelerate reductions in TMV of hydrocarbons in soil with concurrent incidental reduction of TMV for contaminants in groundwater and soil vapor. The existing bioventing system will require repair and expansion to increase system influence.

2.8.1 Description of Remedial Alternatives

2.8.1.1 Alternative 1 – No Action

The no action alternative is included as required under the NCP to provide a baseline comparison with other actions (42 CFR 300.430[e][6]). No formalized LUCs will be put into place or monitored to control potential receptor exposures to site COCs, and no active remediation will be performed. The estimated cost for this alternative is $520,000. Costs associated with abandonment of existing bioventing system components (e.g., vent wells, vapor monitoring points, blower system) and all shallow and basal aquifer groundwater monitoring wells are included as part of this alternative (Appendix C). The abandonment activities could be completed in less than one year.

2.8.1.2 Alternative 2 – LTM, LUCs, and Lead-Impacted Soil Excavation

Alternative 2 consists of 1) LUCs to control exposures to COCs where unacceptable risk or hazard is possible, 2) periodic inspections to document the continuing effectiveness of the LUCs, 3) groundwater monitoring to document reductions in COC concentrations/mass and plume stability or contraction via natural attenuation processes (i.e., MNA), and 4) excavation of vadose zone soil with lead concentrations in excess of the Tier 1 EAL.

Administrative LUCs (institutional controls) will be used to prevent uncontrolled exposure of potential receptors to contaminated media (Figure 2.14). In addition, in areas where potential subsurface contamination exists, controls/monitoring will be required if any excavation activities were proposed in these areas. As part of LUC implementation, the lower gate to the site will be repaired, and signage will be installed on exterior fences stating that site access is restricted. The Navy will be responsible for documenting, implementing, monitoring, maintaining, reporting, and enforcing the LUCs. Implementation of Alternative 2 will require documentation of the LUCs, maintaining existing administrative controls through review of work clearance permits, periodic inspections of the site, and corrective action for LUC violations. The periodic inspections will occur at least annually and will be reported in an annual monitoring report. Any LUC deficiencies or failures will be documented and rectified. The LUCs will remain in place until Site ST01 is deemed suitable for unrestricted use and unlimited exposure for all potential onsite receptors. LUCs will be attached to the property deed if the site was transferred for non-DoD use.

LTM will be used to verify that COC concentrations in shallow and basal groundwater are stable or decreasing and that the shallow dissolved hydrocarbon plume is not migrating off site. Groundwater monitoring will include select wells along the perimeter of the shallow hydrocarbon plume to confirm that offsite migration of dissolved contaminants at concentrations exceeding HDOH (2009) Tier 1 EALs for nonpotable groundwater within 150 meters of surface water is not occurring. Source wells within the plume in the shallow aquifer also will be sampled to track contaminant attenuation over time. Groundwater monitoring will be conducted

"

!A

!A

!A!A

!A

!A

!(#

!A

!(#

!A

!(#

!A

!A!A!A

!A !A

!A

!A !A

!A!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!(#

!(#

!(#

UST #1

UST #2

UST #3

UST #4

Kipap

a Stre

am

D A 3 0

S T 0 1 B

S T 0 1 A

S T 0 1 C

BKGMW01

IRAMW1

IRAMW2IRAMW3

MPG

ST01MW08

ST01MW009

ST01MW01

ST01MW010

ST01MW011

ST01MW012

ST01MW013

ST01MW015ST01MW016

ST01MW017

ST01MW018 ST01MW019

ST01MW02

ST01MW021

ST01MW022ST01MW023

ST01MW024

ST01MW025

ST01MW026

ST01MW028

ST01MW03

ST01MW04

ST01MW05

ST01MW06

ST01MW07

0 100 20050Feet

LegendProposed LUC Boundary and LTM Area

!A Shallow Aquifer Monitoring Well

!(# Basal Aquifer Monitoring Well

Subsite Boundary

Property Boundary

Fence Line

Valve Pit

Cesspool




Former Boiler House


Former Building

Former UST


PARSONS

Figure 2.14PROPOSED LUC BOUNDARY

AND LTM AREAST01 Record of Decision/Response Action Memorandum



p0097319

Text Box

2-54



2-55




2-56

until dissolved constituents in shallow groundwater are below RACGs established for the shallow aquifer (Table 2.12). As part of the LTM program, surface water and sediment sampling will be conducted concurrently with groundwater monitoring, with samples collected only when the primary source of water in the stream is believed to be groundwater discharge (i.e., low stream flow conditions). Surface water and sediment sampling will continue until COC concentrations are below cleanup levels for four consecutive stream monitoring events.

The surface water data will be compared to Tier 1 EALs. HDOH (2009) has not developed Tier 1 EALs for sediments. NOAA has developed freshwater sediment screening levels based on the available scientific literature. These sediment screening levels, the Screening Quick Reference Tables (SQuiRTs; Buchman, 2009), include both threshold and probable effect levels (TELs and PELs). For chemicals without values in the SQuiRTs, sediment screening levels from USEPA Regions 3 and 5 will be used.

Groundwater monitoring will initially be conducted on a semiannual basis for two years to establish baseline conditions. Groundwater samples will be collected from selected wells and will be analyzed for the following parameters: VOCs, SVOCs, TPH-DRO, TPH-GRO, and selected geochemical MNA indicator parameters. Surface water and sediment sampling will be conducted concurrent to groundwater monitoring events, but samples will be collected only when shallow water is discharging to surface water (i.e. during low stream flow). Surface water samples will be collected from locations upstream, downstream, and adjacent to Site ST01 and will be analyzed for the following fuel-related parameters: VOCs, SVOCs, TPH-DRO, and TPH-GRO. Stream sampling will continue until concentrations of COCs in surface water and sediment are below cleanup levels at sampling locations adjacent to and immediately downstream of Site ST01, taking into consideration any impacts from potential upstream sources as measured by COC concentrations in upstream surface water and sediment samples.

A suite of geochemical MNA indicator parameters will be analyzed during the initial monitoring event and will subsequently be analyzed at five-year intervals. Groundwater monitoring locations, target analytes, and sampling frequencies will be subject to optimization over time during the five-year review as contaminant trends become better established. Wells removed from the LTM program will be properly abandoned in compliance with applicable state regulations.

Soil near a previous lead-contaminated soil removal action will be excavated to remove remaining soil with lead concentrations in excess of the RACG of 400 mg/kg (Figure 2.15). Excavation will be limited to vadose zone soil, with an expected average excavation depth of 3 feet bgs. Based on the available data, the approximate area of soil requiring excavation is 5,500 square feet. However, the extent of the lead exceedances is not fully defined; therefore, the final excavation dimensions may vary from this estimate.

The estimated cost for this alternative is $3,760,000. Costs associated with abandonment of shallow and basal aquifer monitoring wells and the bioventing system. The time for completion of Alternative 2 is estimated at 20 years (Appendix C, Table C.5). The estimated duration of LTM was based on temporally extrapolated reductions in ethylbenzene and naphthalene concentrations based on historical trends, which are indicative of biodegradation. If historical trends for ethylbenzene and naphthalene continue, the concentrations of these two compounds should approach zero by 2030 (Parsons, 2011a). Removal of the existing bioventing systems is included as part of this alternative (Appendix C).

"

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A!A!A

!A

FormerVaporBurner 0 10 205

Feet


PARSONS



Oahu, Hawaii

Legend

Fence Line

Valve Pit

Former UST

Former Excavation Area

Figure 2.15PROPOSED EXTENT OF

LEAD-IMPACTEDSOIL EXCAVATION

!A!A

Proposed Lead Excavation

Sample representing current conditions where Leadconcentration(s) meet or exceed the Tier 1 EALSample representing current conditions where Leadconcentration(s) are less than the Tier 1 EAL

See Figure 3.3 for sample IDs and lead concentrations.

p0097319

Text Box

2-57



2-58

2.8.1.3 Alternative 3 – LTM, LUCs, Lead-impacted Soil Excavation, and Bioventing

Alternative 3 will include all components of Alternative 2 described above, as well as bioventing to remove hydrocarbons from vadose zone soil. Implementation of this technology will use most of the existing bioventing system infrastructure (e.g., vent wells [VWs], vapor monitoring points [VMPs], Building 22), as shown on Figure 2.16. Required additional infrastructure will include installation of additional VWs, VMPs, a new blower system, buried transmission lines connecting the new blower to existing and new VWs, and a possible upgrade to the existing electrical power source. Brush clearing will be required to facilitate bioventing expansion activities. Implementation logistics for this action will be of low to moderate difficulty, with no impacts to current site functions. The goal of the bioventing system will be to treat residual-phase and vapor-phase fuel hydrocarbon contamination in the source area to regulatory standards or to a point where natural attenuation of remaining contaminants will be acceptable. During operation, the system will be monitored on a quarterly basis at VMPs to evaluate system performance. Operation of the bioventing system will continue until monitoring data indicate it is not technically practical or cost effective to continue system operation due to asymptotic performance, at which time the system will be shut down and decommissioned.

The estimated cost for this alternative is $4,770,000. Costs associated with abandonment of shallow and basal aquifer monitoring wells and the existing and expanded bioventing system components are included as part of this alternative (Appendix C). The time for completion of Alternative 3 is estimated at 10 years, with operation of the expanded bioventing system for the first five years (Appendix C, Table C.9).

2.8.2 Comparative Analysis of Alternatives

In the Site ST01 focused feasibility study (FFS; Parsons, 2011b), the three remedial alternatives developed for Site ST01 were evaluated with respect to the nine evaluation criteria outlined in the NCP (40 CFR 300.430). The nine criteria, which incorporate the HDOH evaluation criteria required under HAR 11-451-15(g), fall into three groups:

Threshold criteria: requirements that each alternative must meet to be eligible for selection

Primary balancing criteria: used to weigh major trade-offs among alternatives

Modifying criteria: considered to the extent that information is available during the FFS, but can be fully considered only after public comment is received on the PP.

This section summarizes how well each alternative satisfies each of the nine NCP evaluation criteria and indicates how the alternative compares to the other alternatives under consideration. The FFS also used the SiteWise™ Tool developed by the U.S. Navy, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), and Battelle Memorial Institute (Battelle) to assess the environmental footprint of each remedial alternative. The three alternatives proposed for this FFS, the NCP evaluation criteria, and the SiteWise™ metrics are listed in Table 2.14. The information is presented in greater detail in the FFS report for Site ST01 (Parsons, 2011a).

Table 2.15 describes the nine NCP evaluation criteria. The first two criteria are categorized as Threshold Criteria and must be satisfied for an alternative to be acceptable. Criteria 3 through 7 are Primary Balancing Criteria and are used to weigh major tradeoffs among the alternatives that meet the threshold criteria. Criteria 8 and 9 are Modifying Criteria and will be considered once regulatory and public comments are received on the preferred alternative. Table 2.16 evaluates each alternative with respect to the Threshold and Primary Balancing Criteria.

"

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

Figure 2.16EXISTING AND PROPOSED

BIOVENTING SYSTEM COMPONENTS

PARSONS



Oahu, Hawaii

!(

!(

PROPOSED VENT WELL (VW) INSTALLATION

PROPOSED VAPORMONITORING POINT (VMP)INSTALLATION

p0097319

Text Box

2-59



2-60

TABLE 2.14 FFS ALTERNATIVES, EVALUATION CRITERIA, AND ENVIRONMENTAL FOOTPRINT EVALUATION

Response Action Alternatives NCP a/ Evaluation Criteria Environmental Footprint Evaluation

(SiteWise™ Metrics)

1. No Action (includes well abandonment) 2. Long Term Monitoring (LTM), Land Use

Controls (LUCs), and Lead-Impacted Soil Excavation

3. LTM, LUCs, Lead-Impacted Soil Excavation, and Bioventing

Threshold Criteria Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (metric tons)

Total energy used (million metric British thermal units [MMBTU])

Water consumption (gallons) Total mass of nitrogen oxides (NO and

NO2; NOx) emissions (metric tons) Total mass of sulfur oxides (SO and SO2;

SOx) emissions (metric tons) Particulate matter composed of particles

of 10 micrometers or less (PM10) emissions (metric tons)

Accident risk – fatality Accident risk – injury

Overall protection of human health and the environment

Compliance with applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs) and consideration of to-be-considered (TBC) criteria

Principle Balancing Criteria Long-term effectiveness and permanence Reduction in toxicity, mobility, or volume

through treatment Short-term effectiveness Implementability Cost Modifying Criteria State acceptance Public acceptance a/ NCP = National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan.



2-61

TABLE 2.15CRITERIA FOR DETAILED EVALUATION OF

RESPONSE ACTION ALTERNATIVES

Criterion How the Criterion is Applied

Threshold Criteria 1 Overall Protection of Human

Health and the Environment Assesses the ability of an alternative to eliminate, reduce, or control the risks associated with exposure pathways, including direct contact, potential migration, and risks to ecosystems.

2 Compliance with ARARs Evaluates the potential of an alternative to comply with chemical-specific, location-specific, and action-specific ARARs. Compliance with other TBC criteria is also evaluated, but is not mandatory.

Primary Balancing Criteria 3 Long-term Effectiveness and

Permanence Measures the ability of an alternative to permanently protect human health and the environment.

4 Reduction in Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume through Treatment

Evaluates the ability of an alternative to permanently or significantly reduce the toxicity, mobility, or volume of the constituents particularly through treatment.

5 Short-Term Effectiveness Assesses the capability of an alternative to protect human health and the environment during implementation of a response action.

6 Implementability Evaluates technical feasibility and the difficulty of applying the alternative at the site, the reliability of the technology, the unknowns associated with the alternative, and the need for treatability studies. Assesses administrative requirements, including regulatory agency approval and the need for permits and waivers. Assesses mobilization needs and the accessibility of equipment and trained personnel required to implement the alternative.

7 Cost Assesses the capital, operation, and maintenance costs of each alternative. Modifying Criteria 8 Regulatory Agency

Acceptance Evaluates the technical and administrative issues and concerns the state may have regarding the alternative.

9 Community Acceptance Evaluates the issues and concerns the public may have regarding the alternative.

Source: 40 CFR 300.430(e)(9) and 300.100(f)(1).



TABLE 2.16

EVALUATION OF RESPONSE ACTION ALTERNATIVES

2-62

Criterion Alternative 1

No Action

Alternative 2 LTM, LUCs, and

Lead-Impacted Soil Excavation

Alternative 3 LTM, LUCs,

Lead-Impacted Soil Excavation, and Bioventing

Threshold Criteria

1

Overall protection of human health and the environment

Provides no protection of human health and the environment. Lowest environmental footprint and lowest risk of injury or fatality relative to the other alternatives for all SiteWise™ metrics.

Petroleum hydrocarbons in shallow groundwater appear to be degrading naturally. Monitoring provides protection to human health and the environment by verifying COC concentrations are stable or decreasing, and aren’t migrating off site. LUCs provide protection for human health by preventing uncontrolled exposure to contamination. Excavation and disposal of lead-impacted soil provides protection of human health and the environment by preventing on-site exposure and ensuring long-term containment of contaminated waste. Highest environmental footprint relative to the other alternatives for SiteWise™ metrics.

Provides the same protections as Alternative 2. In addition, bioventing provides protection of human health and the environment by increasing the rate of reduction of contaminant concentrations in soil as well as reducing the soil vapor hazard for current and potential future land uses at or near the site Environmental footprint falls between Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 based on SiteWise™ metrics.

2

Compliance with applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs) and consideration of to-be-considered (TBC) criteria

Does not comply with the identified ARARs and TBC criteria. Is most supportive of Executive Order 13514 which makes reduction of greenhouse gas emissions a priority for federal agencies.

Complies with the identified ARARs and TBC criteria. Because this alternative includes an off-site action, the receiving disposal facility must be approved under CERCLA’s Off-Site Rule; Land Disposal Restrictions and Minimum Technical Requirements are applicable and depend on the waste classification. This alternative is least supportive of Executive Order 13514 relative to the other alternatives.

Provides the same compliance with ARARs and TBC criteria as Alternative 2. This alternative is moderately supportive of Executive Order 13514 relative to the other alternatives.



TABLE 2.16


2-63


No Action





Primary Balancing Criteria

3

Long-term effectiveness and permanence

Provides no short-term effectiveness or protection from existing contamination.

Monitoring will ensure COC concentrations are stable or decreasing, and that off-site migration of contamination is not occurring. LUCs will ensure that contaminated areas are not disturbed and that potential routes for exposure are considered in the event of future land use changes. Excavation attains long-term effectiveness and permanence because lead-impacted soil is removed from the site. Following removal, long-term effectiveness for the alternative is continued by placement of wastes in a CERCLA-compliant facility.

Offers the same long-term effectiveness and permanence as Alternative 2. In addition, bioventing attains long-term effectiveness by increasing the rate of reduction of contaminant concentrations in soil, as well as minimizing the soil vapor hazard.

4

Reduction in toxicity, mobility, or volume through treatment

Bioventing system and well abandonment are readily implementable.

Monitoring ensures contamination is reduced to levels that achieve compliance with RAOs. Lead-impacted soil excavation will reduces toxicity, mobility, and volume of lead.

Offers the same reductions as Alternative 2. In addition, bioventing reduces toxicity, mobility, and volume of contaminant concentrations in soil, as well as reducing the soil vapor hazard.



TABLE 2.16


2-64


No Action






5

Short-term effectiveness Provides no short-term effectiveness or protection from existing contamination. SiteWise™ metrics are the lowest for this alternative, which would have the least adverse impact to human health during remedy implementation (lowest injury and fatality risk).

Implementation of LUCs offers short-term protection by ensuring remaining contaminated areas are not disturbed or present an exposure hazard. Excavation of lead-impacted soils offers short-term protection by eliminating direct exposure to soil contamination. Workers would be protected from contact with contamination during implementation of this alternative through the use of monitoring, PPE, and engineering controls; and transport of regulated substances is not considered dangerous. SiteWise™ metrics generally indicate the highest impact for this alternative, which would have the greatest adverse impact to human health during remedy implementation (highest injury and fatality risk).

Offers the same short-term effectiveness as Alternative 2. SiteWise™ metrics generally the second highest impact for this alternative, which would have a slightly lower adverse impact to human health during remedy implementation (second highest accident risk).



TABLE 2.16


2-65


No Action






6

Implementability Bioventing system and well abandonment are readily implementable.

Implementation of LUCs and LTM are technical feasible and can be readily executed. Removal of lead-impacted soil uses conventional equipment for excavation, transport, and disposal. Currently, one facility (PVT Landfill) on Oahu is approved to accept CERCLA waste. Any waste that cannot be disposed of on-island would require disposal at a mainland facility, which would require coordination with government agencies, including the USDA. The procedures for pre-shipment acceptance manifest requirements and transport and disposal are reliable and easily implemented.

Offers the same level of implementability as Alternative 2. In addition, implementation logistics for bioventing would be low to moderate, with no impacts to current site functions.

7 Cost $520,000 $3,760,000 $4,770,000



2-66

As directed by NAVFAC, the remedy selection process also included relative comparisons of the environmental footprint of alternatives using SiteWise™. While the SiteWise ™ metrics are not separately included in the nine NCP criteria, they were considered as part of the following three criteria for a remedial alternatives analysis: overall protection of public health and the environment, compliance with ARARs, and short-term effectiveness. SiteWise™ is especially applicable for an evaluation of the short-term effectiveness criterion, which considers “any adverse impacts that may be posed to workers, the community, and the environment during construction and operation of the remedy.” SiteWise™ quantifies some of the metrics that could be related to these adverse impacts.

Alternative 1 (no action) has the smallest environmental footprint of the three evaluated options, but this option only includes well and bioremediation system abandonment and will not meet the long term effectiveness and permanence criteria. In general, Alternative 2 has the largest environmental footprint, due largely to the anticipated duration of LTM of 20 years, which is greater than the assumed 10-year duration in Alternative 3.

2.9 SELECTED REMEDY

The selected remedy for Site ST01 is Alternative 3 – LUCs, LTM, Lead-impacted Soil Removal, and Bioventing. Based on the comparative analysis of alternatives using the NCP evaluation criteria, Alternative 3 provides the best balance for satisfying the two threshold criteria and five balancing criteria. Therefore, this alternative was selected as the preferred remedial alternative. Although this is the most expensive alternative, it is also the most protective of human health and the environment, and it provides ARAR compliance. This alternative manages risk through administrative LUCs (including engineering controls where necessary), and relies on LTM to verify that the plume is stable or decreasing and to evaluate potential impacts to Kipapa Stream related to discharge of shallow groundwater into the stream. In addition, TMV reduction will be achieved by natural attenuation, excavation of lead-impacted soil, and bioventing. The environmental footprint evaluation indicated that while both Alternatives 2 and 3 have similar environmental footprints, the impacts of Alternative 2 are slightly greater than those of Alternative 3.

2.9.1 Remedy Implementation and Termination

As described in Section 2.8.1.3, the primary remedy components that will be implemented include LUCs, a LTM program, soil excavation, and bioventing.

2.9.1.1 Land Use Controls

LUCs will be implemented by the Navy following established procedures. The Navy is responsible for implementing, maintaining, reporting on, and enforcing the LUCs. Site ST01 is expected to remain under Navy control for the foreseeable future. As part of LUC implementation, the lower gate to the site will be repaired, and signage will be installed on exterior fences stating that site access is restricted.

The LUCs will remain in place until the concentrations of hazardous substances in site media are at levels that allow unrestricted use and unlimited exposure. LUCs will be terminated following written approval from HDOH.

2.9.1.2 Long-Term Monitoring Program

Long-term groundwater monitoring will consist of sampling a network of shallow and basal aquifer monitoring wells along the perimeter of the contaminant plume to confirm that offsite migration of dissolved contaminants at concentrations exceeding cleanup levels does not occur



2-67

(RACGs for shallow groundwater and Tier 1 EALs for basal aquifer groundwater). In addition, wells within the center of the shallow aquifer plume will be sampled to track the reduction of TMV over time. Surface water and sediment sampling will be conducted at locations upstream, adjacent to, and downstream of Site ST01 to evaluate potential impact to Kipapa Stream. The locations of the monitoring wells and stream samples will be selected by the Navy and HDOH during the implementation phase of the response action.

Groundwater sampling at Site ST01 will initially be conducted on a semiannual basis for at least two years to establish a seasonal (i.e., wet & dry) baseline for the site. Stream sampling will be conducted concurrently with groundwater sampling, but only when the primary source of water in the stream is believed to be groundwater discharge (i.e., low stream-flow conditions). A formal, written request will be submitted to the HDOH to decrease the monitoring frequency should conditions warrant. The data collected will also be used to support LUC administration and termination.

The absence of groundwater contamination above RACGs in shallow groundwater will be verified by four consecutive sampling events. The absence of surface water and sediment contamination above cleanup standards will be verified by four consecutive sampling events performed during low stream-flow conditions. LTM will be terminated following written approval from HDOH.

2.9.1.3 Excavation of Lead-Impacted Soil

Vadose zone lead-impacted soil will be removed and confirmation excavation samples will be collected to confirm that the lateral extent of lead-impact soiled has been defined and remediated to levels below the RACGs . The lead-impacted soil will be transported off site for disposal, and the excavation will be backfilled with clean soil. The results of this remedial action will be documented in the first annual report. The data collected during this remedial action may be used to support LUC administration and termination.

2.9.1.4 Bioventing

The existing bioventing system will be expanded and upgraded, and routine O&M will be conducted while the system is operational. The system will be operated until monitoring data demonstrate asymptotic system performance. System O&M data will be included in the annual reports, and the system will remain operational until HDOH concurs that system shutdown and decommissioning is warranted. The data collected during this remedial action may be used to support LUC administration and termination.

2.9.2 Remedy Enforcement, Reporting, and Required Notifications

Remedy enforcement actions, annual reporting, five-year reviews, and property transfer notifications are described in the following subsections.

2.9.2.1 Remedy Enforcement

LUCs will be enforced by performing an annual LUC site inspection and documenting the findings of the inspection in the annual report. LUC violations that could result in unacceptable exposure to contamination, or discovery of any activity inconsistent with RAOs or use restrictions, will be reported to HDOH promptly after the Navy becomes aware of the violation or inconsistent use. Any violations that breach federal, state, or local criminal or civil law will be reported to the appropriate civil authorities.

The Navy will address any activity that is inconsistent with the LUC objectives or any other action that may interfere with the effectiveness of the LUCs as soon as practicable after



2-68

becoming aware of the violation. If necessary, and in light of whatever other enforcement tools may be available to maintain the LUCs (such as HDOH orders), the Navy will exercise such rights to immediately halt activities in violation of the controls. The Navy will notify HDOH regarding how the Navy or others have addressed or will address the breach as soon as practicable, but no later than 30 days after sending HDOH notification of the breach, as stated above. Actions to correct activities inconsistent with LUC objectives should be designed to maintain the same level of protectiveness of human health and the environment as the measures outlined in this ROD/RAM.

The Navy may arrange for third parties or other entities to perform any and all of the above actions. Any such arrangement shall be undertaken and executed in accordance with all applicable legal requirements, to include the Navy’s functions, obligations, and responsibilities.

2.9.2.2 Annual Reporting

The Navy will evaluate compliance with and effectiveness of the LUCs annually until the first five-year review. The annual reports will make recommendations about the continuation, modification, or elimination of monitoring and will be provided to HDOH. The reports will evaluate the status of LUCs and how any LUC deficiencies or inconsistent site uses have been or will be addressed, and will describe any changes in risk or potential risk at the site. The annual reports will also make recommendations about the continuation, modification, or elimination of annual reports and LUC monitoring frequency. The annual report will include photographs to record site conditions during each annual inspection.

2.9.2.3 Five-Year Reviews

Every five years (at a minimum), the Navy will review the selected remedy in accordance with Section 121c of CERCLA and in consultation with HDOH. The continued necessity for implementation of LUCs at Site ST01, and the degree to which the remedy is providing continued protection of human health and the environment, will be evaluated. Remedy effectiveness and the appropriateness of the LTM program at Site ST01 will also be evaluated. Any recommended modifications to the groundwater monitoring program and LUC management will be coordinated with HDOH.

2.9.2.4 Notification of Property Transfer

The Navy will provide notice to HDOH at least six months before any transfer or sale of Site ST01, including transfers to private, state, or local entities. This will allow HDOH to verify that appropriate provisions are included in the transfer terms or conveyance documents to maintain effective LUCs. If it is not possible for the Navy to notify HDOH at least six months before any transfer or sale, the Navy will notify HDOH as soon as possible, but no later than 60 days before the transfer or sale of any property subject to LUCs. The Navy further agrees to provide HDOH with similar notice, within the same time frames, for federal-to-federal property transfer.

2.9.3 Expected Outcomes of the Selected Remedy

The Navy will continue to evaluate the sufficiency of the selected remedy for Site ST01 during the five-year review process until the Navy has demonstrated to HDOH that the site no longer poses a risk to human health or the environment. As part of the site review, the Navy will evaluate current technologies for remediation of petroleum contamination and will determine whether a more effective and suitable remedy is appropriate for the site.

The selected remedy for Site ST01 is expected to control human exposure to contaminated media through the use of LUCs, LTM, lead-impacted soil removal, and bioventing. Groundwater monitoring is expected to show decreasing COC concentrations over time and



2-69

demonstrate that the dissolved-phase plume is not expanding. If future testing indicates that no hazardous substances above the applicable cleanup levels are present at this site, then the Navy will submit the required documentation to obtain clean closure to the HDOH. On the other hand, if hazardous substances are determined to be present in site media above cleanup levels, the Navy will continue to evaluate the sufficiency of the selected remedy. Shallow groundwater at Site ST01 is not currently used for potable purposes and will continue to be used only for nonpotable purposes following the completion of the selected remedy. LUCs will prohibit the use of shallow and basal groundwater at Site ST01 for drinking water without treatment.

2.9.4 Statutory Determinations

As noted in Section 1, the Navy has no authority under CERCLA to take action at this site due to the exclusion of petroleum from the CERCLA definition of hazardous substances (42 USC 9601 [14]). As explained in Section 1, the selected remedy for Site ST01 will be implemented under the Hawaii SCP. This decision-making process and documentation also satisfies the requirements of CERCLA Section 121 and the NCP, as described in the following subsections.

2.9.4.1 Protection of Human Health and the Environment

The selected remedy for Site ST01 is protective of human health and the environment through the use of LUCs, LTM, lead-impacted soil excavation, and bioventing. Implementation of these measures should reduce the TMV of site-related contaminants.

2.9.4.2 Compliance with ARARs

The state regulations require all response actions to comply with applicable requirements and to identify other advisories, criteria, or guidance “to be considered” (TBC) for a particular release. Applicable requirements are the federal, state, and local requirements that are legally applicable to a hazardous substance, pollutant or contaminant, response action, location, or other circumstance found at a site. TBC elements consist of nonpromulgated advisories, criteria, or guidance developed by the federal, state, or local environmental and public health agencies that may be useful in developing response actions but are not legally binding and do not have the status of potential applicable requirements. In many circumstances, TBCs will be considered along with applicable requirements.

There are three types of applicable requirements: chemical-specific, location-specific, and action-specific. Chemical-specific applicable requirements are health-based or risk-management-based numbers that provide concentration limits for the occurrence of a chemical in the environment. Location-specific applicable requirements restrict activities in certain sensitive environments. Action-specific applicable requirements are activity-based or technology-based, and typically control remedial activities that generate hazardous wastes. Appendix A lists the applicable requirements for the selected remedies for Site ST01. The selected remedy for Site ST01 complies with the chemical-specific, location-specific, and action-specific ARARs. The implementation of the remedy is required to meet the substantive portions of these requirements.

2.9.4.3 Cost Effectiveness

The selected remedy for Site ST01 is cost-effective and represents a reasonable value for the money to be spent. In making this determination, the following definition was used: “A remedy shall be cost-effective if its costs are proportional to its overall effectiveness” (NCP §300.430[f][1][ii][D]). This was accomplished by evaluating the “overall effectiveness” of those alternatives that satisfy the threshold criteria (that is, they are protective of human health and the environment and ARAR-compliant). Overall effectiveness was evaluated by assessing three of the five balancing criteria in combination (long-term effectiveness and permanence; reduction in



2-70

TMV through treatment; and short-term effectiveness). Overall effectiveness was then compared to costs to determine cost-effectiveness. The overall effectiveness of the selected remedies for Site ST01 was demonstrated in the comparative analysis of alternatives (Parsons, 2011b).

2.9.4.4 Utilization of Permanent Solutions and Alternative Technologies to the Maximum Extent Practicable

The Navy has determined that the selected remedy for Site ST01 represents the maximum extent to which permanent solutions and treatment technologies can be used in a practicable manner at the site. The selected remedy provides a permanent solution for reduction of TMV via soil excavation and bioventing.

2.9.4.5 Preference for Treatment as a Principal Element

The NCP establishes the expectation that treatment will be used to address the principal threats posed by a site wherever practicable (NCP §300.430[a][1][iii][A]). The selected remedy for Site ST01 satisfies the preference for treatment of principal threat wastes as the principal element of the remedy via soil excavation and bioventing.

2.9.4.6 Five-Year Review Requirements

Because the remedy for Site ST01 will result in hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remaining on site above levels that allow unlimited use and unrestricted exposure for an estimated 10 years, a policy review will be conducted within five years after initiation of response action to ensure that the remedy is protective of human health and the environment. Additional details on five-year reviews are provided in Section 2.9.2.3.

2.10 COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION

CERCLA regulations require public participation opportunities before and at the completion of the ROD (40 CFR 300.430[f][3]). The Hawaii SCP also requires public involvement before a response action is documented in the final RAM (HAR 11-451-21). To meet these obligations, the Navy and HDOH regularly provide the community with information regarding the cleanup of sites through quarterly meetings of the Restoration Advisory Board (RAB), by maintaining the public information repository, and by publishing various announcements, fact sheets, and public notices in the local newspapers. The RAB helps increase community awareness and provides a voice in environmental restoration issues in the community. Site ST01-related documents are in the information repository maintained at the Pearl City Public Library.

On August 14, 2011, the Navy published a notice of the availability of the Proposed Plan (PP) for Site ST01 in the Honolulu Star Advertiser. The notice announced the 30-day public comment period from August 19 to September 19, 2011. In addition, a public meeting was held on September 1, 2011, to present the PP to interested community members, government officials, elected officials, media, and private organizations. At this meeting, representatives from the Navy and HDOH answered questions about site contamination and the recommended remedial alternatives. The Navy responses to the comments received during the public comment period are included in Section 3, Responsiveness Summary, of this ROD/RAM.

The Navy will publish a public notice of availability of the ROD/RAM in the Honolulu Star Advertiser and place the ROD/RAM in the AR before starting the response action at Site ST01.




3-1

SECTION 3

RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY

This section summarizes the public comments received regarding the PP for response action at Site ST01. At the time of the public review period, the Navy’s preferred alternative for Site ST01 was Alternative 3 – LTM, LUCs, Lead-impacted Soil Excavation, and Bioventing. Based on the verbal and written comments received, the Navy’s PP was accepted by the public.

The general public and community stakeholders were provided with the opportunity to review and comment on the PP. This comment period began on August 19, 2011, and ended on September 19, 2011. A public notice summarizing the PP, announcing the availability of the AR, the public comment period, and the associated public meeting was printed in the Honolulu Star-Advertiser on August 14, 2011. The public meeting was held at the Leeward Community College, Pearl City, Hawaii, on September 1, 2011. The public meeting was recorded and transcribed. Comments relating to the PP that were received from the audience at the public meeting are addressed below. In addition, written comments received from the public are addressed below and will be added to the AR. A copy of the transcript from the public meeting is included in Appendix E, and will be added to the AR. Responses to comments are provided in Appendix D.

PUBLIC MEETING COMMENTS

Reviewer Name: Michael Dau, Kipapa Acres, C.P.R. Date: 15 September 2011

Comment:

1. The Kipapa Acres C.P.R. Water system currently uses water from Wainiha Aquifer System. Water is drawn from a 300ft.deep well next to Kipapa Gulch Stream. Site STS01 Kipapa Fuel Storage Annex overlays Kipapa Acers Water System (Environmental Protection Agency), Zone C of the (Hawaii Source water Assessment Program) (SWAP). In the Fifty years that Kipapa Fuel Tank Farm was in use there were leaks known and unknown. It appears there was very poor record keeping of the Fuel Tank Farm. How much fuel was pump,stored,leaks,maintenance records, tank cleaning? Solvents were used intensively at military installation in central Oahu dating back to at least the 1940s. (Harding Lawson Associates, 1995). To clean large fuel tanks of sludge oil you need industrial grade solvents, not soap and water. If fuel leaks for a long time it well go a lot farther than 500ft. ( Kipapa Gulch has un-weather rock that are exposed in cliffs and steep valley walls that offer the opportunity to examine bed thickness and distribution of fractures, dikes, and other permeable elements in the lavas. The recharge process and migration of surface contaminants of the Waianae and Koolau aquifers are best classified as “deep unconfined aquifers.” Despite the weathered overburden and water-table depths of hundreds of feet, the volcanic-rock aquifers are as vulnerable to contamination as shallow aquifers are.) (USGS 2000-01) Kipapa Water System has trace amounts of



3-2

T.C.E. trichloroethene, (solvents), this indicates that great depth to the water table alone is not a guaranteed barrier to all contaminants; instead, it merely requires a longer transport time. At present we are below action levels for T.C.E. . Kipapa Water System is the closes drinking water well to Kipapa Fuel Tank Farm and does not want the risk of containment getting in our drinking water. Kipapa Acres C.P.R. request for alternate water source for our system.

Response:

1. The Kipapa Acres subdivision is located over 650 yards from the Site ST01 boundary and even further from the former sludge disposal pits and fuel spill areas within the site. Based on our investigations, we found no information or evidence indicating that solvents were released at Site ST01. It is possible that the contaminants detected in the Kipapa Acres well are related to agricultural or other unknown sources in Central Oahu. Releases within the boundaries of Site ST01 are documented in the Comprehensive Remedial Investigation report (Parsons, 2011) and were limited to petroleum compounds, not solvents or fumigants.

On February 14, 2011, the Navy sampled the Kipapa Acres water well 2006-02 as part of the sampling program at Site ST03 because your well is downgradient of ST03. The laboratory analyses was focused on fuel constituents that would normally be found in the Kipapa fuel storage tanks and pipeline, as well as the solvent trichloroethylene (TCE) and fumigants 1,2-dibromo-3-chloropropane (DBCP) and TCP. We did not analyze for the entire list of contaminants regulated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or the Hawaii Department of Health Safe Drinking Water Branch (SDWB). It is our understanding that prior sampling of Kipapa Acres well 2600-02 was conducted by the SDWB and current property owners, and that TCE was detected below the SDWB and U.S. EPA maximum contaminant level, while TCP was detected above the SDWB and U.S. EPA maximum contaminant level. During the February 2011 sampling of well 2600-02, TCE (0.42 micrograms per liter [µg/L]) was the only volatile organic compound detected.

Although there is evidence showing the former Air Force fuel tanks and pipeline

leaked, the Comprehensive Remedial Investigation (Parsons, 2011) determined that the petroleum contamination was confined to the soil and shallow discontinuous groundwater aquifer beneath the military property and fuel tanks. No petroleum contamination was found to be migrating downgradient off of the former Air Force property. Based on observations during drilling and groundwater monitoring, there is no evidence that petroleum compounds have reached the basal aquifer at concentrations exceeding Hawaii Department of Health environmental action levels. The Air Force investigated all known and suspected release locations and was only able to confirm the release of fuel-related contaminants at Site ST01. Our risk evaluation determined that TCP and DBCP in the basal aquifer pose a human health risk; however, these compounds and TCE are found regionally throughout Central Oahu, which has been documented in the U.S. Geological Survey Groundwater Quality and its Relation to Land Use on Oahu, Hawaii, 2000-01 report.



3-3

Because none of the investigations conducted to date have shown that the former Air Force fuel tanks and pipeline system contributed to basal aquifer TCE and TCP contamination beneath the Kipapa Acres subdivision, no funds will be programmed to connect Kipapa Acres property owners to the City & County water supply line. However, as indicated in the Site ST01 Proposed Plan, the Navy is proposing to monitor the Kipapa basal aquifer, and if future results indicate that the basal aquifer has been adversely affected by releases from the former Air Force pipeline or Kipapa fuel tanks (at concentrations exceeding applicable action levels), then the Navy may consider abandonment of Kipapa Acres well 2600-02 and/or assisting with connection to the municipal water supply.

The Navy acknowledges your support of the Preferred Remedial Alterative 3 for Site

ST01.

ROD/RAM DOCUMENT COMMENTS

Reviewer Name: City and County of Honolulu, Board of Water Supply Date: 13 September 2011

Comment:

1. We have no further comments to offer. Our previous comments of January 28, 2011 and April 15, 2011 are still applicable.

Response:

1. Acknowledged.

Reviewer Name: State of Hawaii, Department of Land and Natural Resources, Division of Forestry & Wildlife

Date: 23 August 2011

Comment:

1. We have no comments.

Response:

1. Acknowledged

Reviewer Name: State of Hawaii, Department of Land and Natural Resources Commission on Water Resource Management

Date: 23 August 2011

Comment:

1. Any work in Kipapa stream bed or bank will require a permit.

Response:



3-4

1. The Navy will contact the Commission on Water Resource Management prior to performing work in the stream bed or stream bank and obtain any required permits.

Reviewer Name: State of Hawaii, Department of Land and Natural Resources Land Division –

Oahu District Date: 23 August 2011

Comment:

1. We have no comments.

Response:

1. Acknowledged



4-1

SECTION 4

REFERENCES

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 2011. Minimal Risk Levels (MRLs). Available online at: http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/mrls/.

California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal EPA). 2011. Toxicity Criteria Database. Available online at: http://www.oehha.org/risk/chemicalDB/index.asp.

Buchman MF. 2008. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Screening Quick Reference Tables, NOAA Office of Response and Restoration Division Report 08-1, Seattle, WA. Available online at: http://response.restoration.noaa.gov/book_shelf/122_NEW-SQuiRTs.pdf

Deacon, J. E., G. Kobetich, J.D. Williams, and S. Contreras. 1979. Fishes of North America Endangered, Threatened, or of Special Concern: 1979. Fisheries 4(2):29-44.

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc (EA). 1996. Resource Inventory Report at Hickam POL Pipeline Fuel Storage Annexes (FSA) at Waikakalaua and Kipapa, Oahu, Hawaii. April.

Englund, R. A. 1993. A survey of the fish and aquatic Insect Fauna of the Waikele/ Kipapa Streams, Oahu, Hawaii. BHP Environmental Technologies, Honolulu, Hawaii.

Environmental Software Consultants (ESC). 2006. SEVIEW Integrated Contaminant Transport and Fate Modeling System. Version 6.3. User’s Guide. January 2006. Available online at http://www.seview.com/.

Hawaii Administrative Rules. 2005. State Contingency Plan (Section 11-451 et seq) and Underground Storage Tanks (Section 11-281 et seq.), as amended through October 2005.

Hawaii Department of Health (HDOH). 2003. Final Waikele Stream Bioassessment.

HDOH. 2009a. Evaluation of Environmental Hazards at Sites with Contaminated Soil and Groundwater. Summer 2008; Updated March 2009. Available online at http://hawaii.gov/health/environmental/hazard/eal2005.html.

Hawaii Department of Health (HDOH). 2009b. Technical Guidance Manual for the Implementation of the Hawai'i State Contingency Plan. Available online at http://www.hawaiidoh.org/default.aspx.

Juvik, Sonja P. and James O. Juvik, editors. 1998. Atlas of Hawaii (third edition). Department of Geography, University of Hawai’i at Hilo. Thomas R. Paradise, chief cartographer.

Macdonald, Gordon A., Agatin T. Abbott, and Frank L. Peterson. 1983. Volcanoes in the Sea: the Geology of Hawaii. University of Hawaii Press.

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/mrls/�

http://www.oehha.org/risk/chemicalDB/index.asp�

http://response.restoration.noaa.gov/book_shelf/122_NEW-SQuiRTs.pdf�

http://www.seview.com/�

http://hawaii.gov/health/environmental/hazard/eal2005.html�

http://www.hawaiidoh.org/default.aspx�



4-2

Mink, John F. and Stephen L. Lau. 1990. Aquifer Identification and Classification For O’ahu: Groundwater Protection Strategy for Hawai’i. Water Resources Research Center Technical Report No. 179, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Honolulu, Hawaii. February.

Parsons Environmental Science (Parsons ES). 1995. Installation Restoration Program Phase II, Stage 3: Remedial Investigation of Hickam Petroleum, Oil, and Lubricant Leak Areas 5, 9, and 24, Kipapa Fuel Storage Annex and Waikakalaua Fuel Storage Annex, Volume 1, Draft Remedial Investigation Report. March.

Parsons. 2009. Technical Memorandum: Screening Levels for Hydrocarbon Fractions Quantified Using Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Methods; Contract Number F41624-03-D-8613, Task Order 0128. March 13.

Parsons. 2010. ST01C Phase II Supplemental Remedial Investigation. Final. September 10.

Parsons. 2011a. Site ST01 Comprehensive Remedial Investigation. Hickam Petroleum, Oils, and Lubricants (POL) System, Oahu, Hawaii. January 5.

Parsons. 2011b. Site ST01 Focused Feasibility Study. Hickam Petroleum, Oils, and Lubricants (POL) System, Oahu, Hawaii. May 9.

Ralph M. Parsons Company. 1952. Inspection report of the Joint Underground Gasoline System, Oahu, Territory of Hawaii. August.

The Environmental Company (TEC). 2001. Final Remedial Investigation Report for Waikakalaua and Kipapa Fuel Storage Annexes Hickam Petroleum, Oils, and Lubricants (POL) Pipeline and Facilities, Oahu, Hawaii, Volumes 1 and 2. Contract No. F41624-D-8002.

TEC. 2006. Kipapa Fuel Storage Annex Summary RI. Final Preliminary Draft. January.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1989. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund (RAGS). Human Health Evaluation Manual Part A. Interim Final. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, D.C. OSWER 9285.701A. EPA/540/1-89/002.

USEPA. 1990. National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (Final Rule). 40 CFR Part 300: 55 Federal Register 8666.

USEPA. 1991. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Volume I – Human Health Evaluation Manual. Part B, Development of Risk-based Preliminary Remediation Goals. Interim. EPA/540/R-92/003. OSWER 9285.7-01B.

USEPA. 1996. Soil Screening Guidance: User’s Guide. EPA 540/R-96/018.

USEPA. 1997. Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables (HEAST). EPA-540-R-97-036.

USEPA. 2002. Supplemental Guidance for Developing Soil Screening Levels for Superfund Sites. OSWER 9355.4-24.

USEPA. 2003. Human Health Toxicity Values in Superfund Risk Assessments. OSWER Directive 9285.7-53.

USEPA. 2004a. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund. Volume I: Human Health Evaluation Manual. Part E, Supplemental Guidance For Dermal Risk Assessment. EPA/540/R/99/005. OSWER 9285.7-02EP.



4-3

USEPA. 2004b. User’s guide for evaluating subsurface vapor intrusion into buildings.

USEPA. 2009. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund. Volume I: Human Health Evaluation Manual. Part F, Supplemental Guidance for Inhalation Risk Assessment. EPA-540-R-070-002. OSWER 9285.7-82.

USEPA. 2011a. Regional Screening Levels for Chemical Contaminants at Superfund sites. Available online at http://www.epa.gov/region09/superfund/prg/index.html.

USEPA. 2011b. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). Available online at http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iris/index.cfm.

USEPA. 2011c. Provisional Peer Reviewed Toxicity Values for Superfund (PPRTV). Available online at http://hhpprtv.ornl.gov/.

United States Geological Survey (USGS). 1990. Assessment of Contamination from Fuel Storage and Transmission System, Hickam Air Force Base, Hawaii. Final Report. U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Air Force Contract No. OEH-86-022. March 9, 1990.

http://www.epa.gov/region09/superfund/prg/index.html�

http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iris/index.cfm�

http://hhpprtv.ornl.gov/�




APPENDIX A

APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS






APPENDIX A ARARS AND TBCS

A-1

Regulated Chemical,

Location, or Action

Standard, Requirement, Criterion, or Limitation

Regulatory Status Description Potential Application to Site

Chemical-Specific ARARs Fuel constituents, released into soil or water from underground storage tanks (USTs)

Hawaii UST Rules Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) 342L; Hawaii Administrative Rules (HAR) 11-281-75 through 11-281-80 et seq. and Technical Guidance Manual (TGM) for Underground Storage Tank Closure and Release Response (Hawaii Department of Health [HDOH], 2009) (TGM)

Applicable The state Underground Storage Tank (UST) Rules govern site investigations and release reporting and response actions for former, existing, and new USTs and tank systems used to store regulated substances, including petroleum. Release response actions and closure requirements are prescribed in Subchapters 7 and 8, respectively, of HAR 11-281. Environmental media affected by releases from regulated tanks and tank systems (including pipelines) must be remediated to residual contaminant concentrations that comply with site cleanup criteria requirements established in HAR 11-281-78(b). Cleanup criteria are either the default values from HAR 11.281-80.1, or HDOH-approved, site-specific, risk-based cleanup levels. Development of site-specific cleanup goals is described in the TGM (HDOH, 2010), which is referenced in the UST Rules, and in recent HDOH (2009) environmental action level (EAL) guidance.

At ST01, groundwater in the shallow aquifer is not assumed to be used as a potable water source, and groundwater in the basal aquifer is assumed to be used as a potable water source. The nearest surface water includes Kipapa Stream, which runs through the site. HDOH has concurred that cleanup goals for contaminants at this site are the Hawaii Department of Health (HDOH) Tier 1 Environmental Action Levels (EAL) from Tables B-2, D-1c, D-1a, and D-2a, for soil, (0 – 10 feet below ground surface [bgs]), the shallow aquifer, the basal aquifer, and surface water, respectively (HAR 11-281.80.1). There are no sediment EALs; sediment screening levels from National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), USEPA Region 3, and USEPA Region 5 were used.

Pollutants or hazardous pollutants emitted into ambient air

Clean Air Act and Amendments (CAAA) Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations Part 51 (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 51) Hawaii Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQSs) and Air Pollution Control regulations HAR §§11-59 and 11-60

Applicable The state AAQS and air pollution control regulations implement the federal CAAA, and are intended to protect the public from significant deterioration of ambient (outdoor) air quality attributable to regulated air pollutants from an emission source, as defined in HAR §11-59.4 and HAR §11-60.1-1. Regulated air pollutants include carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), lead, hydrogen sulfide, and particulate matter ≤ 10 microns in diameter (PM10). The air pollution control regulations define an air emissions source as “property, real or personal, which emits or may emit any air pollutant.”

Air pollutants may be emitted into ambient air during site remediation. These emissions must not contribute significant deterioration of ambient air quality, as defined by HAR §11-60.1-1.




A-2

Regulated Chemical,

Location, or Action



Chemical-Specific ARARs Chemicals in air in the worker breathing zone

Occupational Safety and Health Act, Safety and Health Regulations for Construction 29 CFR 1926.55, Appendix A

Applicable Establishes threshold limit values (TLVs) for airborne chemicals, below which worker safety is assured.

Intrusive activities that could generate chemicals and/or fugitive dusts are possible during remediation or under current and future land uses at ST01. Therefore, TLVs should be considered in establishing concentrations to which workers may safely be exposed during intrusive or earth-disturbing activities at ST01.

Hazardous substances, including petroleum hydrocarbons, released into soil, groundwater, or surface water

Tier 1 EALs (HDOH, 2009)

To Be Considered

The interim final EALs document uses the same “three-tiered” approach to environmental risk assessment used in HDOH’s (1996) risk-based correction action document. The EAL guidance states that the interim final EALs are screening levels, and are not intended to replace statutory requirements established in HAR 11-281-78 and -80.1

Tier 1 EALs for contaminants in soil, groundwater, and surface water were compared with maximum detected concentrations at ST01 in the EHE (Parsons, 2011). Media in which COCs could pose unacceptable human health risk or hazard at ST01 include soil (including vapor intrusion to indoor air), basal groundwater, shallow groundwater, and sediment.

Hazardous substances, including petroleum hydrocarbons, released into soil, groundwater, or surface water

Tier 2 EALs (HDOH, 2009)

To Be Considered

Tier 2 EALs were calculated following HDOH (2009) guidance for use as risk-based remedial action cleanup goals (RACGs).

RACGs are presented in Table 2.12 and should be considered to use in remediating the site.

Hazardous substances released into surface water, or into groundwater that discharges to surface water

Hawaii Water Quality Standards HAR 1154 et seq.

Applicable Establishes the general state anti-degradation policy for surface water quality, water use classifications, numeric aquatic life criteria for selected toxic pollutants in state fresh and salt surface waters, and numeric human health criteria for selected toxic pollutants in state fresh and salt surface waters, and in fish. Existing uses and the level of surface water quality required to protect existing uses must be maintained and protected (HAR 11-54-1.1[a]). Prohibits waste discharge into designated protected waters; requires monitoring of all state waters for basic water quality criteria, acute and chronic toxicity, and the protection of human health; requires HDOH certification of discharge permits.

ST01 is less than 150 meters from Kipapa Stream, and any contaminants in ST01 groundwater that may discharge into surface water in the future must meet the criteria established under HAR 11-54-4(b)(3), and HAR 11-54-6 through -8. Compliance with the established water quality standards assures compliance with the anti-degradation policy.




A-3

Regulated Chemical, Location, or Action



Chemical-Specific ARARsHazardous substances that discharge into surface water

Hawaii Water Pollution Control Program HAR 11-55 et seq.

Relevant and

Appropriate

Implements the Federal Clean Water Act (33 USC 1251 et seq.), and governs point-source discharges to waters of the state via National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting program. Establishes allowable effluent discharge limits in accordance with Clean Water Act and the Hawaii Water Pollution Act (HAR 11-55-19 and HRS 342D).

Currently there are no point source discharges at ST01. There are areas of surface or near soil containing site-related contaminants, therefore best management practices would be required to control potential overland transport of contaminants in surface soil via storm runoff.

Location-Specific ARARsPresence of historical or archaeological resources

Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 ; 16 United States Code (USC) 470ii; Title 43 Code of Federal Regulations (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR]) Parts 7.4(a) and 7.5(b)(1)

Potentially Applicable

May not excavate, remove, damage, or otherwise alter or deface archaeological resources unless by permit or exception. Must protect any such archaeological resources if discovered.

The proposed remedial alternatives will not alter or destroy any known prehistoric or historic archaeological features at ST01. However, in the event that buried historic or prehistoric remains are discovered, mitigation measures to protect the area would be required. [Note: no known features exist at the site].

Significant national historic places

National Historic Preservation Act 36 CFR 60 et seq.

Not Applicable

Establishes the National Register of Historic Places and National Landmarks programs, and the significance criteria with which candidate cultural resources or sites will be evaluated for inclusion in the Register. Delegates implementation authority to State Historic Preservation Officers (SHPOs) and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation.

ST01 is not currently designated as a Historic Place or a National Historic Landmark.

Significant state historic resources

Hawaii Historic Preservation Regulations, Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) 6E


Governs the identification, preservation, and protection of significant cultural resources in Hawaii. Establishes the State Register of Historic Places, and assigns authority for implementing the National Historic Preservation Act to the SHPO.

The SHPO is responsible for managing significant national and state historic and archaeological resources within the state of Hawaii. Cultural resources are not known to exist at the site.




A-4




Location-Specific ARARsPresence of human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, or objects of cultural patrimony for native Hawaiians

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Regulations 43 CFR 10.4(c) and (d)


Must stop activities in the area of discovery and make a reasonable effort to secure and protect the objects discovered. Must consult with Native Hawaiian organization likely to be affiliated with the objects to determine further disposition per 43 CFR 10.5(b).

There are no known significant cultural resources in the immediate ST01 vicinity. Ground-disturbing activities that could occur during implementation of remedial actions at the site include installation of monitoring and/or extraction wells, soil excavation, and installation of fencing or signage in conjunction with land use controls (LUCs).

Wetlands Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands, 40 CFR 6.302(a) and Appendix A


Actions must be taken to avoid adverse effects, minimize potential harm, and preserve and enhance wetlands, to the extent possible. If no practicable alternative exists, design or modify selected alternatives to minimize harm to or mitigate adverse impacts on wetlands.

The natural resources survey (EA, 1996) identified a small wetland of less than one acre in the Kipapa Stream floodplain across the stream channel from the ST01 tanks. All response actions will be conducted in a manner to protect the wetland, and no actions are currently planned in the area of the wetland.

Aquatic ecosystems

Clean Water Act 33 USC Section (§)1344, § 404(b)(1) 40 CFR 230.10; 33 CFR 323.3(b)

Applicable Except as provided under §404(b)(2) of the Clean Water Act, no discharge of dredged or fill material into an aquatic ecosystem is permitted if there is a practicable alternative that would have a less adverse impact.

ST01 is less than 150 meters from Kipapa Stream, and any material from ST01 that may discharge into surface water must meet the criteria established under Clean Water Act 33 USC Section (§)1344, § 404(b)(1); 40 CFR 230.10; 33 CFR 323.3(b).

Aquatic ecosystems

Hawaii Endangered and Threatened Species Regulations (HAR Chapter 13-122 and 124 [DOH 1998, 2002])


Regulations prohibit the taking of any state-listed threatened or endangered species, without obtaining a permit.

No threatened or endangered species have been identified at ST01. If observed at ST01, efforts will be made to conduct response activities in a manner protecting all listed species.

Instream waters Protection of Instream Uses of Water Hawaii Administrative Rules (HAR) §13-169.20

Applicable The quality of streams statewide is protected and should be enhanced where practicable to preserve fish, wildlife, and other uses. Recognition is given to the interaction between groundwater and surface water.

ST01 is less than 150 meters from Kipapa Stream; however, it is not anticipated that Kipapa Stream will be impacted by any of the response actions.




A-5




Location-Specific ARARsWaterways Clean Water Act

33 USC §§1251-1387; 33 CFR 320-330, 335-338; 40 CFR 104-140, 230-233, 401-471

Not Applicable

Regulates construction activities that directly affect waterways. Except as provided under §404(b)(2) of the Clean Water Act, no discharge of dredged or fill material into an aquatic ecosystem is permitted if there is a practicable alternative that would have less adverse impact. Actions must be taken to avoid adverse impacts during dredge or fill activities in surface waters.

ST01 is less than 150 meters from Kipapa Stream. In 2006 a plurality of the Supreme Court held that the term “waters of the United States” includes only the relatively permanent, standing, or continuously flowing bodies of water. Due to its ephemeral status, Kipapa Stream does not constitute a water of the United States.

Water management units

Hawaii Water Code HRS 174C-44 et seq.

Applicable Establishes surface water and groundwater management units based on beneficial use as a drinking water source, and governs actions that affect the designated units.

ST0 is less than 150 meters from Kipapa Stream, and groundwater in the basal aquifer is assumed to be used as a potable water source.

Critical habitat of endangered or threatened species

Endangered Species Act 16 USC §1531, 50 CFR 402 Hawaii Endangered and Threatened Species Regulations HRS 12-195D-4-21; HAR 13-107, -122, and -124


Activities affecting species listed as endangered or threatened or areas listed as their critical habitat. Action must not threaten continued existence of listed species or destroy critical habitat. Prohibits the taking, harassment, harming, or killing of endangered or threatened species of flora and fauna. Consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is required.

No T&E species have been identified at ST01. If observed, efforts will be made to conduct response activities in a manner protecting all listed species. Taking of any endangered species is not associated with operation of the evaluated remedial alternatives.

Migratory and wild birds species

Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 USC §§ 703-712) HAR 13-124

Applicable The Federal Act protects migratory bird species and habitat in flyways. The taking of any species of wild bird, including native, introduced, and pest species, is prohibited by the Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources.

The Pacific golden plover (Pluvialis fulva), a migratory shorebird on the Audubon Watchlist, was observed at ST01 during the natural resources survey (EA, 1996), however taking of any bird is not associated with operation of the evaluated remedial alternatives.

Within an area impacting a stream or other body of water and presence of other wildlife resources (e.g., fish)

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act 16 USC 661 et seq.

Applicable The effects of water-related projects on fish and wildlife resources and their habitat should be considered with a view to the conservation of fish and wildlife resources by preventing loss of and damage to such resources.

ST01 is less than 150 meters from Kipapa Stream, however, operation of the evaluated remedial alternatives likely will not directly impact surface water or wildlife




A-6




Location-Specific ARARsWithin the State of Hawaii

Coastal Zone Management (CZM) Program Federal Consistency (16 U.S.C. 1463 et seq.; 15 CFR 930 )

Not applicable

Requirement for a consistency determination to ensure that the project meets the state CZM Program policy guidelines and objectives.

ST01 does not lie within a CSM area.

Underground injection wells

Underground Injection Control (UIC) Regulations HAR §11-23

Applicable Establishes a UIC Line where groundwater mauka (interior to or within) the line is considered to be a potential drinking water source. Aquifers makai (seaward) from this UIC line are not a drinking water source (HAR 11-23-05). Injection wells must be approved by the Hawaii Department of Health (HDOH) prior to construction and must be constructed and operated in accordance with HAR 11-23.

Kipapa ST01 is mauka (interior to or within) from the UIC line and groundwater in the basal aquifer is assumed to be used as a potable water source. Therefore, remedial alternatives requiring installation, operation, monitoring, and/or abandonment of injection wells used for disposal of treated groundwater must comply with the requirements of HAR 11-23.

Action-Specific ARARs Contaminant Release Response Actions

U.S. Department of Defense Environmental Restoration Program (DERP) Title 10 United States Code (USC) Section (§) 2701 Department of Defense (DoD) Directive 4715.1, Environmental Security, February 24, 1996; DoD Instruction 4715.7, Environmental Restoration Program, April 22, 1996

To Be Considered

Established pursuant to the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) §211, and as a matter of DoD policy, the DERP requires that response actions taken to address releases of hazardous substances and pollutants and contaminants at DoD installations be conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Comprehensive Environmental Restoration, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) §120 (42 USC §9620). A statutory goal of the DERP is to take appropriate response actions to investigate, and where necessary, address releases of hazardous substances or pollutants and contaminants, and correcting other environmental damage that creates an imminent and substantial endangerment to the public health or welfare or to the environment. The Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) oversees implementation of the DERP by DoD components.

As a DoD installation, ST01 is subject to the DERP. Statutory requirements of the DERP are applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs) for response actions at ST01; compliance with DoD policy directives and instructions is compulsory for installations under the control of DoD or its Components, but are classified as to-be-considered (TBC) criteria, in that they are not enforceable under civil law.




A-7




Action-Specific ARARsCleanup of chemical releases to the environment

Hawaii SCP, Remedial Action Development and Selection HAR 11-451-15

Applicable The SCP governs the investigation and remediation of releases of hazardous substances (including petroleum products) to the environment, and comports with the NCP. Requires that evaluation of remedial alternatives consider achievement of risk levels between 10-4 and 10-6; must be protective of public health and the environment; can use presumptive remedies; must evaluate a removal treatment alternative for source control, and must evaluate a limited treatment alternative (e.g., institutional controls). The evaluation must include an assessment of the three evaluation criteria: effectiveness, implementability, and cost. Compliance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations and statutes is required. Public participation is required. A draft response action memorandum (RAM) must be issued for public comment summarizing the site conditions, problems posed by the release, remedial alternatives analyzed, preferred alternative, and technical aspects of the selected remedy.

Remedial alternative evaluation, selection, and implementation for ST01 will comply with requirements established under the Hawaii SCP.

Activities causing fugitive dust emissions

Hawaii Air Pollution Control regulations HAR 11-60.1-33(a)

Applicable Take reasonable precautions to prevent visible fugitive dust from becoming airborne. Reasonable precautions include, but are not limited to use of water or suitable chemicals for control of fugitive dust in the demolition of existing structures, construction operations, road grading, land clearing, or ingress/egress of construction vehicles; covering transported materials that could emit fugitive dust; and prompt removal of soil from paved surfaces. Discharge of visible fugitive dust beyond the property line where fugitive dust originates is not allowed.

Construction activities undertaken during implementation of remedial actions at ST01 will comply with state construction regulations, including those pertaining to dust control.




A-8




Action-Specific ARARsWorker health and safety at federal facilities

Field Federal Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) 29 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 1960

Applicable Defines activities at federal facilities that are and are not subject to OSHA regulations.

Workplaces, operations, equipment, and systems under land uses at ST01 are not unique to military operations, and therefore military and civilian worker safety and health is subject to OSHA and/or to DoD instructions governing occupational health and safety concerns (see below).

Worker health and safety at DoD installations

DoD Instruction 6055.1, DoD Safety and Occupational Health (SOH) Program (19 August 1998) (1 June 1996)

To Be Considered

Outlines requirements for assuring the health and safety of DoD personnel who engage in occupational activities at military installations, and requires compliance with OSHA for nonmilitary-unique workplaces, operations, equipment, and systems. For military-unique workplaces, operations, equipment, and systems, OSHA compliance is applicable insofar as is possible, practicable, and consistent with military requirements.

Workplaces, operations, equipment, and systems under land uses at ST01 are not unique to military operations, and therefore military and civilian worker safety and health is subject to OSHA and to DoD instructions governing occupational health and safety concerns for DoD personnel. Contractor worker safety is also subject to OSHA standards.

Construction exposures to airborne contaminants

OSHA 29 CFR 1926.55, Appendix A, Gases, vapors, fumes, dusts, and mists

To Be Considered

Establishes threshold limit values (TLVs) for contaminants in air to which construction workers may be exposed. TLVs are recommended concentrations to limit worker exposures.

Intrusive construction activities during remedial activities at ST01 should include monitoring of the breathing zone to control exposures to chemical concentrations migrating into outdoor air.

Construction activities causing storm water runoff

Hawaii Water Pollution Control regulations HAR 11-55-34.04 Appendix C

Applicable if

construction activities disturb > 1 acre of

land

Discharges that would be covered by general National Pollutants Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit (i.e., Appendices A through L of HAR 11-55) must comply with the substantive requirements of applicable sections of state water quality standards.

Construction activities undertaken during implementation of remedial actions at ST01 will comply with state storm water management regulations. A construction site BMP plan or equivalent will be prepared for remedial alternatives that result in the disturbance of more than 1 acre of land during the remedial action construction phase. Monitoring of runoff from construction sites will be conducted in accordance with the existing NPDES permit.




A-9




Action-Specific ARARsDischarge of any liquid waste, treated or not

Hawaii Wastewater Systems Regulations, HAR 11-62

Applicable Ensures that the disposal of wastewater does not contaminate or pollute any valuable water resource, does not give rise to public nuisance, and does not become a hazard or potential hazard to public health, safety, and welfare. Allows the enforcement of higher effluent standards, limiting the method of effluent disposal and requiring flow restriction devices on water fixtures in designated critical wastewater disposal areas. Wastewater sludge shall only be disposed of by a permitted solid waste facility, by reclamation or reuse for agricultural purposes, by incineration, or by a wastewater system that has been authorized to accept and dispose of sludge.

Remedial activities at ST01 that may discharge liquid waste, such as water, to surface or groundwater are subject to wastewater disposal regulations.

Air emissions Air Pollution Control HAR 11-60 Subchapter 9; HAR-60.1-171 through -179

Applicable Identifies regulated air pollutants, specifies maximum achievable control technologies (MACT), requires compliance with NESHAPs, and prohibits discharge of any hazardous air pollutant in quantities that cause or contribute to significant unsafe concentration in ambient air, as defined at HAR 60.1-179(c). Prohibits discharge of any regulated air pollutant into the atmosphere without written permission from the Director of HDOH.

If excavation is conducted air pollutants may be subject to the requirements of Subchapter 9 of the Air Pollution Control regulations, if the hourly emission of total hazardous air pollutants exceeds 0.1 pound (HAR 60.1-179[d]).

Excavation HAR 11-268-40 Applicable Movement of excavated materials characterized as hazardous to new location or placement in or on land will trigger land disposal restrictions (LDRs) for the excavated material.

Applicable if excavated soil characterized as hazardous waste is placed on land (e.g., accumulation of soil prior to disposal). LDRs must be met for wastes excavated and then placed in an area outside of a corrective action management unit, treatment unit, or staging pile.




A-10




Action-Specific ARARsSolid waste disposal

Hawaii Solid Waste Pollution Act, HRS 19-342H

Applicable Implements the federal Solid Waste Disposal Act, 42 USC §6901 et. Seq., 40 CFR 241 Subtitle D. Regulates the discharge, deposit, injection, dumping, spilling, leaking, or placing of any solid waste or constituent onto land, into water or groundwater, or into the air.

Solid waste generated during site remediation may require offsite disposalST01.

Solid waste disposal

Hawaii Solid Waste Management Control Standards, HAR 11-58.1

Relevant and

Appropriate

Regulates the design, construction, installation, operation, and maintenance of solid waste disposal systems.

Solid waste generated during site remediation may require offsite disposal. The receiving disposal facility must comply with the state standards.

Any condition that may have an adverse effect on public health

Hawaii Sanitation Rules HAR 11-11

Applicable Provides minimum standards of sanitation so that public health and human welfare will be protected and safety hazards will be minimized.

Applicable during construction and operation of remedial alternative.

Worker safety Hawaii Occupational Safety and Health Rules, HAR 12

Relevant and

appropriate

Regulates worker health and safety. Compliance is required.

Well installation State Water Code HRS 12-174C Water Use, Wells, and Stream Diversion Works HAR 13-168

Applicable Wells must be constructed and abandoned in a protective manner and must be registered with the Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources

Compliance with state regulations will be required for construction and abandonment of monitoring wells during response actions at ST01.

Discharges of treated process wastewater associated with well drilling activities

HAR 11-55 Appendix I

Applicable Water discharged due to well drilling activities must meet the specific requirements of the general permit.

Wastewater generated during remedial activities involving well installation must be managed in accordance with state wastewater regulations. If wastewater is discharged to surface water, compliance with the current NPDES permit (HI R80A438) is required.

Construction water runoff

CWA Section 401 Water Quality Certification (33 U.S.C. 1344; HAR Section 11-54-09)

Applicable requirement for response

action alternatives involving excavation

Regulations requiring permitting and water quality monitoring during construction activities in conjunction with the CWA Section 404 Permit, the Rivers and Harbors Act (R&HA) Section 10 Permit, and the CWA Section 402 NPDES Permit.

All response actions will be conducted in compliance with the substantive requirements. These requirements include notifying the HDOH of any response activities that may result in discharges to Kipapa Stream and providing pertinent information regarding these discharges.




A-11




Action-Specific ARARsWaste characterization

RCRA Hazardous Waste Determination (40 CFR 262.11)

Applicable Requires generators of solid waste to determine if their waste is regulated as hazardous waste, according to 40 CFR 261.

Remediation waste (e.g., soil, debris) generated at the site will be screened and characterized to determine whether it is RCRA hazardous. RCRA hazardous waste management and disposal requirements will be adhered to.

Work related to ST01

Hawaii Sate Contingency Plan (DOH 1995)

Applicable Hawaii regulations applicable to releases of hazardous substances.

Hawaii regulations applicable to any release or threat of contaminants that poses or may pose a substantial endangerment to public health or welfare, the environment, or natural resources, and all actions taken pursuant to Chapter 128D, Hawaii Revised Statutes, or these rules.

LUC implementation

DoD Policy and Guidance Document on Land Use Controls Associated with Environmental Restoration Activities for Active Installations (DoD 2001)

To Be Considered

Provides guidance on implementing, documenting, and managing LUCs at active military installations.

Used to identify, evaluate, and select appropriate LUCs (e.g., landfill cap, fencing, signage, deed restrictions, legal notifications) for the protection of the human health and the environment at the site.




APPENDIX B

REFERENCE CD Select references are provided as electronic copies on the enclosed CD.






REFERENCE CD CONTENTS:

AHTNA. 2003. Final Completion Report for Waikakalaua and Kipapa Fuel Storage Facilities and Pipeline Cleaning. October 10.

Engineering Science (ES). 1984. Phase I: Records Search 15th Air Base Wing Satellite Installations, Hawaii. Contract No. F08637 G0005 5001.

Harding Lawson Associates (HLA). 1992. Final RI/FS Stage 2 Technical Report, Installation Restoration Program for Hickam Air Force Base Petroleum, Oil, and Lubricant Storage Annexes and Pipeline, Oahu, Hawaii. Contract NoF33615-85-D-4536, Delivery Order No. 007.

Hawaii Department of Health (HDOH). 1995. Final Hickam POL Interagency Agreement, Hickam Petroleum,Oils and Lubricant Pipeline and Fuel Storage Annexes. March 1.

Parsons Engineering Science, Inc. (Parsons ES). 1995. Installation Restoration Program Phase II, Stage 3: Remedial Investigation of Hickam Petroleum, Oil, and Lubricant Leak Areas 5, 9, and 24, Kipapa Fuel Storage Annex and Waikakalaua Fuel Storage Annex, Volume 1, Draft Remedial Investigation Report. March.

Parsons ES. 2001. Interim Remedial Action Results Report: Hickam Petroleum, Oils, and Lubricants System, Oahu, Hawaii. 9 January.

Parsons. 2005. Results Report Bioventing System Expansion at VP-17 (ST10) and First Performance Monitoring Event at VP-17 (ST10) and Kipapa FSA (ST01-A/B). Hickam Petroleum, Oils, and Lubricants (POL) System, Oahu, Hawaii. Parsons Engineering Science, Inc.

Parsons Infrastructure and Technology (Parsons). 2008. ST01C – Supplemental Remedial Investigation for Underground Storage Tank, Oil-Water Separator, and Cesspool. October 13.

Parsons. 2009. Technical Memorandum: Screening Levels for Hydrocarbon Fractions Quantified Using Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Methods; Contract Number F41624-03-D-8613, Task Order 0128. March 13.

Parsons. 2010. ST01C Phase II Supplemental Remedial Investigation. Final. September 10.

Parsons. 2011a. Site ST01 Comprehensive Remedial Investigation. Hickam Petroleum, Oils, and Lubricants (POL) System, Oahu, Hawaii. January 5.

Parsons. 2011b. Site ST01 Focused Feasibility Study. Hickam Petroleum, Oils, and Lubricants (POL) System, Oahu, Hawaii. May 9.

The Environmental Company (TEC). 2001. Final Remedial Investigation Report for Waikakalaua and Kipapa Fuel Storage Annexes Hickam Petroleum, Oils, and Lubricants (POL) Pipeline and Facilities, Oahu, Hawaii, Volumes 1 and 2. Contract No. F41624-D-8002.

TEC. 2005. Removal Action Completion Report, Former Sludge Disposal Area, Kipapa Fuel Storage Annex, Hickam POL, Oahu, Hawaii. April 18.

TEC. 2007. Groundwater Monitoring Report, Hickam POL Pipeline Fuel Storage Annexes, Hickam Air Force Base, Oahu, Hawaii. August.

B-1



URS. 2005. Remedial Investigation Annual Report of Semiannual Groundwater Monitoring at Hickam POL Pipeline Fuel Storage Annexes. November. Prepared for the Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence, Environmental Restoration Division (AFCEE/ERD), Brooks Air Force Base, Texas; and 15 CES/CEVR, Hickam AFB, Oahu, Hawaii. July 26.

United States Geological Survey (USGS). 1987. Final Installation Restoration Report, Phase I: Installation Assessment /Records Search, Hickam Petroleum, Oils and Lubricants (POL) Pipeline and Facilities, Oahu, Hawaii. March 27.

USGS. 1990. Assessment of Contamination from Fuel Storage and Transmission System, Hickam Air Force Base, Hawaii. Final Report. U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Air Force Contract No. OEH-86-022. March 9, 1990.

Weston. 2006. Final UST Closure Report, Kipapa Fuel Storage Annex, Hickam Petroleum, Oils and Lubricants, Oahu, Hawaii. May.

B-2



APPENDIX C

COST ESTIMATES






TABLE C.1REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES COST SUMMARY

Alternative Description Capital Cost

AnnualOperation and Maintenance

Costa/

Periodic Cost b/ Non-Discounted Constant

Dollar Cost c/

TPV at

3.15% Discount Rate d/

1No Further Action(includes well abandonment)

$520,000 $0 $0 $520,000 $520,000

2Lead-Impacted Soil RemovalLand Use Controls & Long Term Monitoring

$890,000 $180,000 $650,000 $3,760,000 $2,910,000

3BioventingLead-Impacted Soil RemovalLand Use Controls and Long Term Monitoring

$1,680,000 $470,000 $620,000 $4,770,000 $4,320,000

NOTESa/ Highest annual operation an maintenance (O&M) costs for alternatives shown. Some costs decrease after a period of operation.b/ Highest annual periodic costs for alternatives shown. Periodic costs may be less during a specific year.c/ Non-discounted constant dollar cost provided to show impact of discount rate on total present value (TPV).d/ TPV cost estimates are considered accurate to within -30% to +50% of actual costs. Time frames vary among alternatives and are based on the projected operation periods for active engineering remedial components and the time required to achieve remedial action objectives (RAOs). Discount rate of 3.15% per calculation below.

Other Notes/Assumptions1. Design and construction contingencies have been added to capital and O&M costs based on USEPA (2000) and professional judgment.2. The Hawaii Excise Tax of 4.712% (Oahu) was added to all project costs.3. A 30% location markup was added to any construction and or equipment costs that were based on mainland pricing. The location markup was selected per RSMeans (2008).

SourceLocation Markup: 25% (RACR, Ford Island FFS, May 2010)

Hawaii General Excise Tax (Oahu): 4.712%Discount Rate (see calculation below) 3.15%

Discount Rate Calculation SourceKey Interest Rate 4.25% U.S., Treasury Note, 30-Year Yield, US Dept. of Treasury, 12/28/10

- Consumer Price Index (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Nov. 2010) 1.1%Discount Rate 3.15%

C-1



TABLE C.2ALTERNATIVE 1 - COST BREAKDOWN

No Further Action �(includes well abandonment)Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Extended

Capital

Well Abandonment - Basal Aquifer Wells* 6 each 45,883$ 275,300$ Well abandonment - Bioventing system (Attach. 3.16) 1 LS 178,798$ 178,798$

Sub-Total 454,098$ Contingency (design + construction) - applies to basal aquifer wells only 25% 44,700$

Capital Total 498,798$

*Well Abandonment - Basal Aquifer Wells Unit Cost Breakdown / Assumptions Quantity Unit Unit Cost Wells / Qty Extended

Mobilization / Demob 1 each 2,500$ 1 2,500$ Overdrill to remove well casing 340 feet 90$ 6 183,600$ Pressure Grouting 340 feet 30$ 6 61,200$ Hourly rig fee 10 hour 350$ 6 21,000$ Removal of well box and pad 1 each 750$ 6 4,500$ Demobilization 1 each 2,500$ 1 2,500$

Total 275,300$ Average per well (prorates mob/demob cost) 45,883$

C-2



TABLE C.3ALTERNATIVE 1 - PRESENT VALUE

No Further Action �(includes well abandonment)

0 522,301$ -$ -$ 522,301$ 1.000 522,302$ TOTALS 522,400$ -$ -$ 522,400$ 522,400$

YearCapital Cost +

HI Tax ($)

Annual O&M Costs + HI Tax

($)

Periodic Costs + HI Tax ($)

Total CostDiscount Factor at 3.15%

Present Value at 3.15%

C-3



TABLE C.4ALTERNATIVE 2 - PERIODIC COST BREAKDOWN

Lead-Impacted Soil Removal�Land Use Controls & Long Term MonitoringAnnual O&M Cost Breakdown ($) Periodic Cost Breakdown ($)

0-$ -$ -$ -$ -$

Year Well Abandonment

Monitoring 5-year Review

C-4



ALTERNATIVE 2 - COST BREAKDOWNLead-Impacted Soil Removal

Land Use Controls & Long Term MonitoringItem Units Unit Cost Extended

Capital

Implementation of Land Use Controls (Attachment 2.1) 1 LS 46,400$ 46,400$ Sub-Total 46,400$

Contingency (design + construction) 25% 11,600$ Capital Total 58,000$

Lead-Impacted Soil Excavation (Attachment 2.2) Capital Total 564,740$

Abandonment Activities - Shallow Wells (Attachment 3.16) 1 each -$ 178,798$ Contingency (design + construction) 25% 44,700$

223,498$

Annual Operation and Maintenance

Land Use Controls 1 each 3,200$ 3,200$ Contingency (design + construction) 25% 800$

Annual Total 4,000$

Years 1 to 2 (Semi-Annual Sampling and Reporting) GW Monitoring, Shallow (Attachment 2.3) 6 well 4,800$ 28,800$ GW Monitoring, Basal (Attachment 2.4) 3 well 5,100$ 15,300$

Semi-Annual Cost 44,100$ Annual Cost 88,200$

Reporting (Attachment 2.5) 2 each 24,800$ 49,600$ Contingency (design + construction) 25% 34,500$

Annual Total (Years 1 to 2) 172,300$

Years 3 to 5 (Annual Sampling and Annual Reporting) GW Monitoring, Shallow (Attachment 2.3) 6 well 4,800$ 28,800$ GW Monitoring, Basal (Attachment 2.4) 3 well 5,100$ 15,300$

Annual Cost 44,100$ Reporting (Attachment 2.5) 1 each 24,800$ 24,800$ Contingency (design + construction) 25% 17,200$

Annual Total (Years 3 to 5) 86,100$ Periodic

5-Year Review (Attachment 2.6) 1 each 41,800$ 41,800$ Contingency (design + construction) 25% 10,500$

Periodic Total 52,300$

Years 6 to 15 (Annual Sampling and Reporting) GW Monitoring, Shallow (Attachment 2.3) 6 well 4,800$ 28,800$ GW Monitoring, Basal (Attachment 2.4) 3 well 5,100$ 15,300$ Reporting (Attachment 2.5) 1 each 24,800$ 24,800$ Contingency (design + construction) 25% 17,200$


Years 16 to 20 (Every Year) GW Monitoring, Shallow (Attachment 2.3) 6 well 4,800$ 28,800$ GW Monitoring, Basal (Attachment 2.4) 3 well 5,100$ 15,300$ Reporting (Attachment 2.5) 1 each 24,800$ 24,800$ Contingency (design + construction) 25% 17,200$


Well Abandonment (Year 20) 1 each 454,098$ 454,098$ Contingency (design + construction) 25% 113,500$


TABLE C.5

C-5



ALTERNATIVE 2 - PRESENT VALUELead-Impacted Soil Removal

Land Use Controls & Long Term Monitoring

0 886,112$ -$ -$ 886,112$ 1.000 886,113$ 1 -$ 184,419$ -$ 184,419$ 0.969 178,787$ 2 -$ 184,419$ -$ 184,419$ 0.940 173,328$ 3 -$ 94,157$ -$ 94,157$ 0.911 85,792$ 4 -$ 94,157$ -$ 94,157$ 0.883 83,172$ 5 -$ 94,157$ 54,764$ 148,921$ 0.856 127,530$ 6 -$ 94,157$ -$ 94,157$ 0.830 78,170$ 7 -$ 94,157$ -$ 94,157$ 0.805 75,783$ 8 -$ 94,157$ -$ 94,157$ 0.780 73,469$ 9 -$ 94,157$ -$ 94,157$ 0.756 71,225$ 10 -$ 94,157$ 54,764$ 148,921$ 0.733 109,211$ 11 -$ 94,157$ -$ 94,157$ 0.711 66,941$

12 -$ 94,157$ -$ 94,157$ 0.689 64,897$ 13 -$ 94,157$ -$ 94,157$ 0.668 62,915$ 14 -$ 94,157$ -$ 94,157$ 0.648 60,994$ 15 -$ 94,157$ 54,764$ 148,921$ 0.628 93,524$ 16 -$ 94,157$ -$ 94,157$ 0.609 57,326$ 17 -$ 94,157$ -$ 94,157$ 0.590 55,575$ 18 -$ 94,157$ -$ 94,157$ 0.572 53,878$ 19 -$ 94,157$ -$ 94,157$ 0.555 52,233$ 20 -$ 94,157$ 649,108$ 743,265$ 0.538 399,723$

TOTALS 886,113$ 2,063,665$ 813,401$ 3,763,200$ 2,910,600$

YearCapital Cost +

HI Tax ($)


($)


TABLE C.6



C-6



ALTERNATIVE 2 - PERIODIC COST BREAKDOWNLead-Impacted Soil Removal

Land Use Controls & Long Term MonitoringAnnual O&M Cost Breakdown ($) Periodic Cost Breakdown ($)

0 -$ 1 4,000$ 172,300.00$ 2 4,000$ 172,300.00$ 3 4,000$ 86,100$ 4 4,000$ 86,100$ 5 4,000$ 86,100$ 52,300$ 6 4,000$ 86,100$ 7 4,000$ 86,100$ 8 4,000$ 86,100$ 9 4,000$ 86,100$ 10 4,000$ 86,100$ 52,300$ 11 4,000$ 86,100$

12 4,000$ 86,100$ 13 4,000$ 86,100$ 14 4,000$ 86,100$ 15 4,000$ 86,100$ 52,300$ 16 4,000$ 86,100$ 17 4,000$ 86,100$ 18 4,000$ 86,100$ 19 4,000$ 86,100$ 20 4,000$ 86,100$ 52,300$ 567,598$

80,000.00$ 1,894,400$ -$ 209,200$ 567,598$

5-year Review

TABLE C.7

Well Abandonment

YearMonitoring

C-7



TABLE C.8ALTERNATIVE 2ATTACHMENTS

Mark-up from 2006 estimate (4% annual escalation): 16%Attachment 2.1 - Implementation of Land Use Controls

Subtask Description, Labor Quant. Unit Unit Cost Cost SourceIncorporate Restrictions into General Plan 1 LS 11,600$ 11,600$ Used same as SS01 + escalationDelineate Area onto Master Planning Maps 1 LS 11,600$ 11,600$ Used same as SS01 + escalationUpdate GIS Database with LUCs 1 LS 11,600$ 11,600$ Used same as SS01 + escalationCommunicate Land Use Restrictions 1 LS 11,600$ 11,600$ Used same as SS01 + escalation

Total: 46,400$

Attachment 2.2 - Lead-Impacted Soil RemovalCapitalExcavation of Remaining Lead-Impacted SoilArea 1 - Excavate from 0 to 3 feet bgs 610 CY 113$ 68,625$ Area 2 - Excavate from 0 to 2 feet and set aside 194 CY 113$ 21,825$ Area 2 - Excavate from 2-3 feet 97 CY 113$ 10,913$ Disposal of Area 1 (0-3') + Area 2 (2-3') Soil* 707 CY 225$ 159,075$ Area 2 - Replace set aside soil 194 CY 113$ 21,825$ Area 1 - Import and Place 0-3' soil 610 CY 113$ 68,625$ 3B Fine 610 CY 18.98$ 11,577$ Area 2 - Import and Place remaining removed soil 97 CY 113$ 10,913$ 3B Fine 97 CY 18.98$ 1,841$ Laboratory Confirmation Samples 40 Suite** 690$ 27,600$ Surveying Excavation Boundaries 1 LS 4,500$ 4,500$

Sub-Total 373,377$ Design & ConstructionLabor Quant. Unit Unit Cost CostEngineering Tech., Senior 200 hr 108.70$ 21,740.00$ Env. Engineer, Mid 480 hr 126.28$ 60,614.40$ Env. Engineer, Senior 480 hr 158.48$ 76,070.40$ Project Manager, Senior 200 hr 164.69$ 32,938.00$

191,363$

Capital Total 564,740$

Area and Volume Calculations

Area 1

AA1 = 8,097 sf - 2,611 sf = 5,486 SF

VA1 = 5,486 sf * 3 ft = 16,458 sf = 610 CY

Area 2

AA2=2611 sf 5,486 SF

VA2, 0-2 ft = 2,611 sf * 2 ft * 1 CY / 27 sf = 194 CY

VA2, 2-3 ft = 2,611 sf * 1 ft * 1 CY / 27 sf = 97 CY

Disposal* (costs from Ford Island FFS, May 2010)

Handling - $90/ton*1.25 113$ CYSpecial waste disposal $90/ton tipping *1.25 113$ CY

Total Disposal Cost 225$ CY

Laboratory Analyses (includes QC Samples) Unit Cost VOC Analysis (SW8260B) w/TCE, EDP, 1,2 DCA 85.00$ EMAX PAH Analysis (SW8270C) 155.00$ EMAX TPH-G, M, R Analyses (SW8015) 110.00$ EMAX = sum of TPH-G, M & R costs VPH & EPH (MADEP) 320.00$ EMAX = sum of VPH and EPH costs Lead, Total (SW6020) 20.00$ EMAX

Unit Cost per Suite** 690.00$

3B Fine (see Grace Pacific Invoice) Unit Cost 3B Fine 27.50$ Ton 3B Fine (assume 2,898 lbs/CY) 18.98$ CY

C-8



TABLE C.8ALTERNATIVE 2ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 2.3 - Groundwater Monitoring, Sample Collection and Analysis (per shallow well)Equipment / Laboratory / Rentals Quant. Unit Unit Cost Cost SourcePickup Truck 1 day 319$ 319$ Orbitz.com + 2 gal gas @ $3.00Water Level meter (oil-water) 1 day 31$ 31$ Envirotech Online PricingGroundwater Pump 1 day 18$ 18$ Geotech, Envirotech Online PricingGroundwater Quality Meter 1 day 60$ 60$ Horiba U-22, EnvirotechTurbidity Meter 1 day 16$ 16$ Geotech meter, Envirotech Online PricingEquipment Shipping 0.05 event 500$ 25$ EstimatedLaboratory Analyses (includes QC Samples) VOC Analysis (SW8260B) w/TCE, EDP, 1,2 DCA 3 sample 85$ 255$ EMAX PAH Analysis (SW8270C) 2 sample 155$ 310$ EMAX TPH-G, M, R Analyses (SW8015) 2 sample 110$ 220$ =sum of TPH-G, M & R costs (EMAX) VPH & EPH (MADEP) 2 sample 320$ 640$ =sum of VPH and EPH costs (EMAX) Lead, Total (SW6020) 2 sample 20$ 40$ EMAX Nitrate/Nitrite (E353.2) 2 sample 20$ 40$ EMAX Sulfate (E300.1) 2 sample 15$ 30$ EMAX Alkalinity (E310.1) 2 sample 18$ 36$ EMAX Methane, Ethane, Ethene (RSK-175) 2 sample 75$ 150$ EMAXWater Disposal (non-haz) 0.5 drum 125$ 63$ PCS Invoice unit priceTubing 1 ft 9$ 9$ TO 159 Proposal marked up 6%Hach Reagents 1 lump sum 30$ 30$ EstimatedSample Shipping 1 sample 200$ 200$ EstimatedLaborEnv. Engineer, Mid 10 hr 126$ 1,263$ FY2011, AFCEE 4PAE08Engineering Tech., Senior 10 hr 109$ 1,087$ FY2011, AFCEE 4PAE08

Total 4,841$

Attachment 2.4 - Groundwater Monitoring, Sample Collection and Analysis (per basal aquifer well)Equipment / Laboratory / Rentals Quant. Unit Unit Cost Cost SourcePickup Truck 1 day 319$ 319$ Orbitz.com + 2 gal gas @ $3.00Water Level meter (oil-water) 0 day 31$ -$ Assumes use of GFE Water Level MeterGroundwater Pump 0 day 18$ -$ Assumes use of GFE Bennet Pump5K Portable Generator for Bennet Pump w/ext. cord 1 day 43$ 43$ FKS InvoiceGroundwater Quality Meter 1 day 60$ 60$ Horiba U-22, EnvirotechTurbidity Meter 1 day 16$ 16$ Geotech, Envirotech Online PricingEquipment Shipping 0.05 event 500$ 25$ EstimatedLaboratory Analyses (includes QC Samples) VOC Analysis (SW8260B) w/TCE, EDP, 1,2 DCA 3 sample 85$ 255$ EMAX PAH Analysis (SW8270C) 2 sample 155$ 310$ EMAX TPH-G, M, R Analyses (SW8015) 2 sample 110$ 220$ =sum of TPH-G, M & R costs (EMAX) VPH & EPH (MADEP) 2 sample 320$ 640$ =sum of VPH and EPH costs (EMAX) Lead, Total (SW6020) 2 sample 20$ 40$ EMAX Nitrate/Nitrite (E353.2) 2 sample 20$ 40$ EMAX Sulfate (E300.1) 2 sample 15$ 30$ EMAX Alkalinity (E310.1) 2 sample 18$ 36$ EMAX Methane, Ethane, Ethene (RSK-175) 2 sample 75$ 150$ EMAXWater Disposal (non-haz) 2 drum 125$ 250$ PCS Invoice unit priceHach Reagents 1 lump sum 30$ 30$ EstimatedSample Shipping 1 sample 200$ 200$ EstimatedNitrogen tank rental, delivery 1 91$ 91$ Gaspro - sample invoiceLabor 2,755$ Env. Engineer, Mid 10 hr 126$ 1,263$ FY2011, AFCEE 4PAE08Engineering Tech., Senior 10 hr 109$ 1,087$ FY2011, AFCEE 4PAE08

Total 5,105$

Attachment 2.5 - ReportingLabor Quant. Unit Unit Cost Cost SourceProject Manager, Senior 15 hr 165$ 2,470$ FY2011, AFCEE 4PAE08Env. Engineer, Senior 50 hr 158$ 7,924$ FY2011, AFCEE 4PAE08Env. Engineer, Mid 20 hr 126$ 2,526$ FY2011, AFCEE 4PAE08Geologist, Mid 100 hr 101$ 10,112$ FY2011, AFCEE 4PAE08Chemist, Senior 12 hr 147$ 1,765$ FY2011, AFCEE 4PAE08

Total 24,797$

Attachment 2.6 - 5 Year ReviewLabor Quant. Unit Unit Cost Cost SourceProject Manager, Senior 50 hr 165$ 8,235$ FY2011, AFCEE 4PAE08Env. Engineer, Senior 150 hr 158$ 23,772$ FY2011, AFCEE 4PAE08Env. Engineer, Mid 30 hr 126$ 3,788$ FY2011, AFCEE 4PAE08Geologist, Mid 30 hr 101$ 3,034$ FY2011, AFCEE 4PAE08Chemist, Senior 20 hr 147$ 2,942$ FY2011, AFCEE 4PAE08

Total 41,770$

C-9



ALTERNATIVE 3 - COST BREAKDOWNBioventing

Lead-Impacted Soil RemovalLand Use Controls and Long Term Monitoring

Item Units Unit Cost Extended

Capital

Implementation of Land Use Controls (Attachment 2.1) 1 LS 58,000$ 58,000$

Lead-Impacted Soil Excavation (Attachment 2.2) 1 LS 564,740$ 564,740$

Implementation of Bioventing Work Plan Reporting (Attachment 3.1) 1 LS 45,941$ 45,941$ Field Effort Preparations (Attachment 3.2) 1 LS 30,200$ 30,200$ Vent Well Installation ST01-A (Attachment 3.3) 5 each 3,686$ 18,432$ Vapor Monitoring Point Installation ST01-A (Attachment 3.4) 5 each 3,554$ 17,772$ Deep Nested VW/VMP Installation ST01-B (Attachment 3.5) 3 each 82,887$ 248,660$ Trenching, Air Lines, Surface Completions (Attachment 3.6) 1 LS 51,339$ 51,339$ Vegetation Clearing (Attachment 3.7) 1 LS 21,051$ 21,051$ Surveying (Attachment 3.8) 1 LS 7,515$ 7,515$ Bioventing System Installation (Attachment 3.9) 1 LS 92,942$ 92,942$ Construction Completion Reporting (Attachment 3.10) 1 LS 36,921$ 36,921$

Baseline Sampling Event Vapor Monitoring Point Sampling ST01-A & ST01-B (Attachment 3.11) 25 each 1,618$ 40,457$ Soil Sampling (Attachment 3.12) 20 each 1,825$ 36,500$ Field System Checks & Monitoring ST01-A & ST01-B (Attachment 3.13) 1 each 11,651$ 11,651$

Sub-Total 1,282,121$ Contingency (design + construction) 25% 320,500$

Capital Total 1,602,621$


Land Use Controls 1 each 3,200$ 3,200$ Contingency (design + construction) 25% 800$

Annual Total 4,000$

Bioventing System Operation & Monitoring (Years 1 to 5) Field System Checks & Monitoring ST01-A & ST01-B (Attachment 3.13) 2 each 11,651$ 23,302$ Electricity (annual kWh usage, Attachment 3.17) 205,000 kWh 0$ 33,661$ Vapor Monitoring Point Sampling ST01-A & ST01-B (Attachment 3.11) 25 each 1,618$ 40,457$ Annual O&M Labor (Attachment 3.14) 1 LS 36,662$ 36,662$ Progress Results Letter Report (Attachment 3.15) 2 LS 21,692$ 43,384$

177,466$ Contingency (design + construction) 25% 44,367$

Annual Total 221,833$

Long Term MonitoringYears 1 to 2 (Semi-Annual Sampling and Reporting) - Table C.5

Annual Total 172,300$

Years 3 to 5 (Annual Sampling and Annual Reporting) - Table C.5Annual Total 86,100$

Years 6 to 10 (Annual Sampling and Reporting) - Table C.5Annual Total 86,100$

Periodic

5-Year Review - Years 5 and 10 (Attachment 2.6) 1 each 41,800$ 41,800$ Contingency (design + construction) 25% 10,500$


Confirmation Soil Sampling - Year 6 (Attachment 3.12) 20 each 1,800$ 36,000$ Progress Results Letter Report (Attachment 3.15) 1 LS 21,692$ 21,692$ Contingency (design + construction) 25% 14,423$


Abandonment Activities - Shallow Wells (Attachment 3.16) 1 each 178,798$ 178,798$ Contingency (design + construction) 25% 44,700$

223,498$ Abandonment Activities - Basal Wells - Year 10 (Table C.2) 320,000$

Abandonment Activities - All Wells, Year 10 (Table C.2) Periodic Total 543,498$

TABLE C.9

C-10



ALTERNATIVE 3 - PRESENT VALUEBioventing


0 1,678,136$ -$ -$ 1,678,136$ 1.000 1,678,137$ 1 -$ 416,705$ -$ 416,705$ 0.969 403,980$ 2 -$ 468,572$ -$ 468,572$ 0.940 440,391$ 3 -$ 326,443$ -$ 326,443$ 0.911 297,441$ 4 -$ 326,443$ -$ 326,443$ 0.883 288,357$ 5 -$ 326,443$ 54,764$ 381,207$ 0.856 326,449$ 6 -$ 94,157$ 75,513$ 169,670$ 0.830 140,861$ 7 -$ 94,157$ -$ 94,157$ 0.805 75,783$ 8 -$ 94,157$ -$ 94,157$ 0.780 73,469$ 9 -$ 94,157$ -$ 94,157$ 0.756 71,225$

10 -$ 94,157$ 623,872$ 718,029$ 0.733 526,563$ TOTALS 1,678,137$ 2,335,390$ 754,150$ 4,767,700$ 4,322,700$

TABLE C.10

YearCapital Cost +

HI Tax ($)


($)




C-11



ALTERNATIVE 3 - PERIODIC COST BREAKDOWNBioventing


Annual O&M Cost Breakdown ($) Periodic Cost Breakdown ($)

01 4,000$ 394,133$ 2 4,000$ 443,666$ 3 4,000$ 307,933$ 4 4,000$ 307,933$ 5 4,000$ 307,933$ 52,300$ 6 4,000$ 86,100$ 72,115$ 7 4,000$ 86,100$ 8 4,000$ 86,100$ 9 4,000$ 86,100$ 10 4,000$ 86,100$ 52,300$ 543,498$

40,000$ 2,192,098$ 72,115$ 104,600$ 543,498$

TABLE C.11

Abandonment Activities

YearLUCs O&M

Confirmation Soil Sampling

5-year Review

C-12



TABLE C.12

ATTACHMENTSAttachment 3.1 - Work Plan Reporting

Labor Quant. Unit Unit Cost Cost Source CommentsEngineering Tech, Senior 120 hr 109$ 13,044$ FY 2011 T & M burdened labor rates

Env. Engineer, Mid 120 hr 126$ 15,154$ FY 2011 T & M burdened labor rates

Env. Engineer, Senior 60 hr 158$ 9,509$ FY 2011 T & M burdened labor rates

Project Manager, Senior 50 hr 165$ 8,235$ FY 2011 T & M burdened labor ratesTotal 45,941$

Attachment 3.2 - Preparations Prior to Field EffortConstruction Quant. Unit Unit Cost Cost Source CommentsProject Planning and Scheduling Support 1 Lump Sum $2,500 $ 2,500 Hickam LF05 Bioreactor (2009 bid analysis)Acquire Base Passes for all field personnel / subcontractors 1 Lump Sum $1,200 $ 1,200 Hickam LF05 Bioreactor (2009 bid analysis)Mobilization/Demobilization 1 Lump Sum $1,500 $ 1,500 Hickam LF05 Bioreactor (2009 bid analysis)Procurement of Subcontractors (lab, surveyor, etc.) 1 Lump Sum $25,000 $ 25,000 Hickam LF05 Bioreactor (2009 bid analysis)

Total 30,200$

Attachment 3.3 - Vent Well Installation at ST01-A - Per LocationConstruction Quant. Unit Unit Cost Cost Source CommentsDrilling - HSA with continuous sampling 25 ft 55$ 1,375$ Hickam ST03 Phase 2 (2009) 4.5-inch HSA drilling. No. 3 silica sand 12 ft 8$ 96$ Hickam ST03 Phase 2 (2009) Used 1/3 of ST03 costs due to reduced diameter boring size.Bentonite. 2 ft 8$ 16$ Hickam ST03 Phase 2 (2009) Used 1/3 of ST03 costs due to reduced diameter boring size.Grout 10 ft 8$ 80$ Hickam ST03 Phase 2 (2009) Used 1/3 of ST03 costs due to reduced diameter boring size.2-inch PVC well casing 15 ft 3$ 45$ Hickam ST03 Phase 2 (2009) 2-inch PVC well screen 10 ft 5$ 50$ Hickam ST03 Phase 2 (2009) 2” threaded end cap. 1 ea 10$ 10$ Hickam ST03 Phase 2 (2009) Construct VWs. (1 hours per VW) 1 hr 315$ 315$ Hickam ST03 Phase 2 (2009) 12-inch well box, 2’ x 2’ concrete pad, brass monument (labor and materials) 1 ea 250$ 250$ Hickam ST03 Phase 2 (2009) IDW Drums 3.00 drums 120$ 360$ Hickam ST03 Phase 2 (2009) Proper manifesting, transport, and disposal of 55-gallon drums of containerized non-hazardous contaminated soil. 3.00 drum 175$ 525$ Hickam LF05 Bioreactor (2009)Steam cleaner 0.07 Weeks 100$ 7$ Hickam ST03 Phase 2 (2009) Generator 0.07 Weeks 100$ 7$ Hickam ST03 Phase 2 (2009) Water tank (500 gallon) 0.07 Weeks 150$ 11$ Hickam ST03 Phase 2 (2009)

Fill water tank 0.07 Lump Sum 1,000$ 70$ Hickam ST03 Phase 2 (2009) 3,217$

LaborEngineering Tech., Senior 2 hr 108.70$ 217$ FY 2011 T & M burdened labor rates

Env. Engineer, Mid 2 hr 126.28$ 253$ FY 2011 T & M burdened labor rates470$

Total 3,686$

Attachment 3.4 - Vapor Monitoring Point Installation at ST01-A - Per LocationConstruction Quant. Unit Unit Cost Cost Source CommentsDrilling - HSA with continuous sampling 25 ft 55$ 1,375$ Hickam LF05 RA (2006) 4.5-inch HSA drilling. No. 3 silica sand 12 ft 8$ 96$ Hickam ST03 Phase 2 (2009) Used 1/3 of ST03 costs due to reduced diameter boring size.Bentonite 12 ft 8$ 96$ Hickam ST03 Phase 2 (2009) Used 1/3 of ST03 costs due to reduced diameter boring size.Construct VMPs. (1 hours per VMP) 1 hr 315$ 315$ Hickam ST03 Phase 2 (2009) Surface Completions (6-inch diameter well box, concrete) 1 each 250$ 250$ Hickam ST03 Phase 2 (2009) IDW Drums 3.00 drums 120$ 360$ Hickam ST03 Phase 2 (2009) Proper manifesting, transport, and disposal of 55-gallon drums of containerized non-hazardous contaminated soil. 3.00 drum 175$ 525$ Hickam LF05 Bioreactor (2009)Steam cleaner 0.05 Weeks 100$ 5$ Hickam ST03 Phase 2 (2009) Generator 0.05 Weeks 100$ 5$ Hickam ST03 Phase 2 (2009) Water tank (500 gallon) 0.05 Weeks 150$ 8$ Hickam ST03 Phase 2 (2009)

Fill water tank 0.05 Lump Sum 1,000$ 50$ Hickam ST03 Phase 2 (2009) 3,085$

LaborEngineering Tech., Senior 2 hr 108.70$ 217$ FY 2011 T & M burdened labor rates

Env. Engineer, Mid 2 hr 126.28$ 253$ FY 2011 T & M burdened labor rates470$

Total 3,554$

Attachment 3.5 - Deep Nested Vent Well / VMP Installation at ST01-B - Per LocationConstruction Quant. Unit Unit Cost Cost Source CommentsDrilling - Air Rotary 400 ft 95$ 38,000$ Hickam ST03 Phase 2 (2009) No. 3 silica sand 175 ft 25$ 4,375$ Hickam ST03 Phase 2 (2009) Bentonite. 20 ft 24$ 480$ Hickam ST03 Phase 2 (2009) Grout 200 ft 25$ 5,000$ Hickam ST03 Phase 2 (2009) 2-inch PVC well casing 910 ft 3$ 2,730$ Hickam ST03 Phase 2 (2009) 2-inch PVC well screen 130 ft 5$ 650$ Hickam ST03 Phase 2 (2009) 2” threaded end cap. 4 ea 10$ 40$ Hickam ST03 Phase 2 (2009) Construct VWs. (6 hours per VW) 6 hr 315$ 1,890$ Hickam ST03 Phase 2 (2009) 18-inch well box, 4’ x 4’ concrete pad, brass monument (labor and materials) 1 ea 350$ 350$ Hickam ST03 Phase 2 (2009) IDW Drums 20.00 drums 120$ 2,400$ Hickam ST03 Phase 2 (2009) Proper manifesting, transport, and disposal of 55-gallon drums of containerized non-hazardous contaminated soil. 20.00 drum 175$ 3,500$ Hickam LF05 Bioreactor (2009)Diesel fuel. Includes delivery. 5.00 trip 300$ 1,500$ Hickam ST03 Phase 2 (2009) - All Islands RentalSteam cleaner 0.20 Weeks 100$ 20$ Hickam ST03 Phase 2 (2009) Bobcat 0.20 Weeks 750$ 150$ Hickam ST03 Phase 2 (2009) Generator 2.00 Weeks 100$ 200$ Hickam ST03 Phase 2 (2009) Compressor 2.00 Weeks 400$ 800$ Hickam ST03 Phase 2 (2009) Water tank (500 gallon) 2.00 Weeks 150$ 300$ Hickam ST03 Phase 2 (2009)

Fill water tank 1.00 Lump Sum 1,000$ 1,000$ Hickam ST03 Phase 2 (2009) 63,385$

LaborEngineering Tech., Senior 40 hr 108.70$ 4,348$ FY 2011 T & M burdened labor rates

Env. Engineer, Mid 120 hr 126.28$ 15,154$ FY 2011 T & M burdened labor rates19,502$

Total 82,887$

ALTERNATIVE 3

C-13



TABLE C.12

ATTACHMENTSALTERNATIVE 3

Attachment 3.6 - Trenching, Installation of Air Lines, and Surface Completion Repairs - ST01-AConstruction Quant. Unit Unit Cost Cost Source CommentsProvide Subcontractor Safety Plan (SSP) & ObtainBase Passes 1 less 500$ 500$ Hickam ST03 Phase 2 (2009) Trenching and backfilling - 6” wide by18” deep 1,255 ft 25$ 31,375$ Hickam ST03 Phase 2 (2009)

Provide, assemble, and install 2” sch. 40 PVC pipe 1,255 ft 5$ 6,275$ Hickam ST03 Phase 2 (2009) Provide and place 6” sand bedding 1,255 hr 2.50$ 3,138$ Hickam ST03 Phase 2 (2009) Existing VW / VMP surface completion repair/replacement 20 ea 250$ 5,000$ Hickam ST03 Phase 2 (2009)

46,288$

LaborEnv. Engineer, Mid 40 hr 126.28$ 5,051$ FY 2011 T & M burdened labor rates

5,051$

Total 51,339$

Attachment 3.7 - Vegetation Clearing - ST01-AConstruction Quant. Unit Unit Cost Cost Source Comments

Provide Subcontractor Safety Plan (SSP) & Obtain Base

Passes 1 less 500$ 500$ Hickam ST03 Phase 2 (2009)

Provide labor, equipment, and materials to remove

vegetation (specify size of crew, labor category rates,

equipment, and materials) 1 less 12,000$ 12,000$ Hickam ST03 Phase 2 (2009) Assume 2000 sq ft of clearing required for ST01-A.

Transport and disposal ‐ Vegetation (specify

vehicle/load size) 1 less 3,500$ 3,500$ Hickam ST03 Phase 2 (2009) 16,000$

LaborEnv. Engineer, Mid 40 hr 126$ 5,051$ FY 2011 T & M burdened labor rates

5,051$

Total 21,051$

Attachment 3.8 - SurveyingConstruction Quant. Unit Unit Cost Cost Source CommentsProvide Subcontractor Safety Plan (SSP) & Obtain Base Passes 1 500$ 500$ Hickam ST03 Phase 2 (2009) Survey and Stake/Flag Property Corners and Lines (seeSection 2.1, Table A.1) 1 2,000$ 2,000$ Hickam ST03 Phase 2 (2009) Topographic Survey and Prepare Topographic Map 1 2,500$ 2,500$ Hickam ST03 Phase 2 (2009) Survey Boreholes, Wells, Vapor Monitoring Points at Site ST03 (See Section 2.1) 1 1,000$ 1,000$ Hickam ST03 Phase 2 (2009)

6,000$

LaborEnv. Engineer, Mid 12 hr 126.28$ 1,515$ FY 2011 T & M burdened labor rates

1,515$

Total 7,515$

Attachment 3.9 - Bioventing System InstallationEquipment Installation Quant. Unit Unit Cost Cost Source CommentsBioventing Blower 1 each 15,000$ 15,000$ Grainger 30 hp, 3 phase regenerativeBlower shipment 1 each 5,000$ 5,000$ EstimatedFittings and Piping 1 each 5,000$ 5,000$ EstimatedPre-fabricated Manifold 4 each 2,000$ 8,000$ EstimatedImprovements needed to make Building 22 secure and safe to house blower system and manifold. 1 each 5,000$ 5,000$ Estimated

Electrical Subcontractor for Connection (includes new disconnect switch, fuses, transformer, and heater) 1 each 12,000$ 12,000$ EstimatedSubcontracted Blower Installer 1 LS 5,000$ 5,000$ EstimatedBlower replacement & installer 1 each 20,000$ 20,000$ GraingerPortable toilet (rental & servicing) 6 week 250$ 1,500$ Hickam ST03 Phase 2 (2009)

76,500$

LaborEnvironmental Eng, Mid 80 hr 126.28$ 10,102$ FY 2011 T & M burdened labor rates

Environmental Eng, Sr 40 hr 158.48$ 6,339$ FY 2011 T & M burdened labor rates16,442$

Total 92,942$

Attachment 3.10 - Construction Completion ReportingLabor Quant. Unit Unit Cost Cost Source CommentsGeologist, Mid 120 hr 101.12$ 12,134$ FY 2011 T & M burdened labor rates

Env. Engineer, Mid 120 hr 126.28$ 15,154$ FY 2011 T & M burdened labor rates

Env. Engineer, Senior 40 hr 158.48$ 6,339$ FY 2011 T & M burdened labor rates

Project Manager, Senior 20 hr 164.69$ 3,294$ FY 2011 T & M burdened labor ratesTotal 36,921$

Attachment 3.11 - Vapor Monitoring, Sample Collection and Analysis / per VMPEquipment Installation Quant. Unit Unit Cost Cost Source CommentsPickup Truck 0.1 day 210$ 21$ expedia.com + 2 gal gas @ $5.00VOC Analysis (TO-15) 6 sample 220$ 1,320$ Air Toxics, Folsom, CA plus reporting, canister prep, TO 159 Proposal marked up 6%VOC Analysis (QA/QC) 0.2 sample 220$ 44$ Air Toxics, Folsom, CA plus reporting, canister prep, TO 159 Proposal marked up 6%Tedlar Bag 1 each 12$ 12$ SKC, TO 159 Proposal marked up 6%Teflon Tubing 2 ft 3.40$ 7$ SKC, TO 159 Proposal marked up 6%Multi Gas Meter 0.2 day 100$ 20$ Hickam ST03 Phase 2 (2009) Sample Pump 0.2 day 25$ 5$ EstimatedPPE 0.1 lump sum 100$ 10$ Hickam ST03 Phase 2 (2009) Sample Shipping 6.2 sample 10$ 62$

1,501$

LaborEngineering Tech., Senior 0.5 hr 108.70$ 54$ FY 2011 T & M burdened labor rates

Env. Engineer, Mid 0.5 hr 126.28$ 63$ FY 2011 T & M burdened labor rates117$

Total: 1,618$

C-14



TABLE C.12

ATTACHMENTSALTERNATIVE 3

Attachment 3.12 - Soil Sample Collection and Analysis / per BoringEquipment Quant. Unit Unit Cost Cost Source CommentsPickup Truck 0.2 day 210$ 42$ expedia.com + 2 gal gas @ $5.00VOC Analysis (SW8260B) w/TCE, EDP, 1,2 DCA 2 sample 85$ 170$ EMAXPAH Analysis (SW8270C) 2 sample 155$ 310$ EMAXTPH-G, M, R Analyses (SW8015) 2 sample 110$ 220$ =sum of TPH-G, M & R costs (EMAX)VPH & EPH (MADEP) 2 sample 320$ 640$ =sum of VPH and EPH costs (EMAX)Lead, Total (SW6020) 2 sample 20$ 40$ EMAXProper manifesting, transport, and disposal of non-hazardous contaminated water. 0.2 drum 325$ 65$ Hickam LF05 Bioreactor (2009 bid analysis)PPE 0.05 lump sum 340$ 17$ TO 159 Proposal marked up 6%Tubing 1 ft 8$ 8$ TO 159 Proposal marked up 6%Hach Equipment 1 lump sum 30$ 30$ EstimatedSample Shipping 6 sample 8$ 48$ Estimated

1,590$ LaborEnv. Engineer, Mid 1 hr 126.28$ 126$ FY 2011 T & M burdened labor rates

Engineering Tech., Senior 1 hr 108.70$ 109$ FY 2011 T & M burdened labor rates235$

Total: 1,825$

Attachment 3.13 - Field System Check & MonitoringEquipment Installation Quant. Unit Unit Cost Cost Source CommentsPickup Truck 5 day 210$ 1,050$ expedia.com + 2 gal gas @ $5.00Tedlar Bag 10 each 12$ 120$ SKC, TO 159 Proposal marked up 6%Teflon Tubing 30 ft 3$ 102$ SKC, TO 159 Proposal marked up 6%Multi Gas Meter 5 day 100$ 500$ Hickam ST03 Phase 2 (2009) PID 1 wk 255$ 255$ Enviro-Equipment Inc. 2011Sample Pump 5 day 25$ 125$ EstimatedPPE 1 lump sum 100$ 100$ Estimated

2,252$

LaborEngineering Tech., Senior 40 hr 108.70$ 4,348$ FY 2011 T & M burdened labor rates

Env. Engineer, Mid 40 hr 126.28$ 5,051$ FY 2011 T & M burdened labor rates9,399$

Total: 11,651$

Attachment 3.14 - Annual O&M LaborLabor Quant. Unit Unit Cost Cost Source CommentsEngineering Tech, Mid 392 hr 75.71$ 29,678$ FY 2011 T & M burdened labor rates Assume 6 hrs/wk plus two full week for repairs/optimization.

Environmental Eng, Mid 24 hr 126.28$ 3,031$ FY 2011 T & M burdened labor rates

Project Manager, Senior 24 hr 164.69$ 3,953$ FY 2011 T & M burdened labor ratesTotal: 36,662$

Attachment 3.15 - Progress Results Letter ReportingLabor Quant. Unit Unit Cost Cost Source CommentsGeologist, Mid 40 hr 101.12$ 4,045$ FY 2011 T & M burdened labor rates

Env. Engineer, Mid 80 hr 126.28$ 10,102$ FY 2011 T & M burdened labor rates

Env. Engineer, Senior 24 hr 158.48$ 3,804$ FY 2011 T & M burdened labor rates

Project Manager, Senior 12 hr 164.69$ 1,976$ FY 2011 T & M burdened labor rates

Chemist, Senior 12 hr 147.09$ 1,765$ FY 2011 T & M burdened labor ratesTotal: 21,692$

Attachment 3.16 - Abandonment ActivitiesConstruction Quant. Unit Unit Cost Cost Source CommentsProvide Subcontractor Safety Plan (SSP) & Obtain Base Passes 1 less 500$ 500$ Hickam ST03 Phase 2 (2009) VW / Shallow MW Abandonment 4000 ft 28$ 112,000$ Hickam LF05 RA (2006) ST01-0A 25 locations x 25' = 625' / ST01-B 4 locations to 400' = 1600'VMP Abandonment - over drilling to 10' & grouting 250 ft 45$ 11,250$ Hickam LF05 RA (2006) / estimate ST01-A 20 locations x 10' = 200' / ST01-B 5 locations x 10' = 50' IDW Drums 30 drums 120$ 3,600$ Hickam ST03 Phase 2 (2009) Proper manifesting, transport, and disposal of 55-gallon drums of containerized non-hazardous contaminated soil. 30 drum 175$ 5,250$ Hickam LF05 Bioreactor (2009)Blower system abandonment 1 less 8,000$ 8,000$ estimateRemove and Dispose of Abandonment Material 1 less 10,000$ 10,000$ Hickam LF05 RA (2006) / estimate

150,600$

LaborEngineering Tech., Senior 120 hr 109$ 13,044$ FY 2011 T & M burdened labor rates

Env. Engineer, Mid 120 hr 126$ 15,154$ FY 2011 T & M burdened labor ratesTotal: 28,198$

178,798$

Attachment 3.17 - Electricity Unit CostDescription Quant. Unit Unit Cost Cost Source CommentsElectricity Cost 25,754 kWh $0.1642 $4,229 HECO, Pages 5 and 6 of Attachment A.Note: 0.42 KW x 24 hrs/day x 365 day/year x 7 years = 25,754 kWh Hickam ST03 Phase 2 (2009)

C-15



EXCAVATION OF HYDROCARBON-IMPACTED SOIL ST01AROM COST FOR SCREENING

Hydrocarbon-Impacted Soil RemovalCapitalExcavation of Hydrocarbon-Impacted SoilArea 1 - Excavate from 0 to 15 feet bgs and set aside 136,200 CY 12$ 1,634,400$ Area 2 - Excavate from 15 to 35 feet for disposal 181,500 CY 12$ 2,178,000$ Haul and Dispose of Area 2 Soil (15-35 feet) 181,500 CY 74$ 13,360,542$ Area 2 - Place 3B gravel in Area 2 (15-35 feet) 181,500 CY 3$ 544,500$

3B Fine - material 181,500 CY 19$ 3,448,500$ Area 1 - Replace set aside soil 136,200 CY 3$ 408,600$ Laboratory Confirmation Samples 200 Suite** 690$ 138,000$ Surveying 1 LS 30,000$ 30,000$

Sub-Total 21,742,542$ Design & ConstructionLabor Quant. Unit Unit Cost CostEngineering Technician - Senior 767 hr 108.70$ 83,419$ Environmental Engineer - Midlevel 7,674 hr 126.28$ 969,109$ Project Manager - Senior 1,535 hr 164.69$ 252,776$

9,977 hr 1,305,304$

Capital Total 23,048,000$ Say 23,000,000$

Area and Volume Calculations

Area 1 (Surface to 15 feet - excavate, samples, set aside, replace)

AA1 245,000 SF Hours

VA1 =AA1 *15 ft * 1 CY / 27 sf = 136,200 CY 3,405

Assumes 40 CY per hour per excavator for both excavation and placement

Area 2 (15 to 35 feet - excavate, haul, sample, import and place fill)

AA2 245,000 SF Hours

VA2, 0-2 ft = AA2 * 20 ft * 1 CY / 27 sf = 181,500 CY 432

Assumes 40 CY per hour per excavator for both excavation and placement

Excavation and Disposal (disposal costs* from Ford Island FFS, May 2010)

HandlingExcavation 9.00$ CYErosion Control 3.00$ CY

Excavation and Erosion Control 12.00$ CY

Replacement 3.00$ CY

Hauling (Kipapa FSA to Nanakuli) 7.00$ CY*Special waste disposal $90/ton + tipping 67$ CY PVT price for special waste disposal is $90/ton +$90/load handling

Disposal TOTAL 74.00$ CY converted to $/CY, including tipping fee

Laboratory Analyses (includes QC Samples) Unit Cost VOC Analysis (SW8260B) w/TCE, EDP, 1,2 DCA 85.00$ EMAX PAH Analysis (SW8270C) 155.00$ EMAX TPH-G, M, R Analyses (SW8015) 110.00$ EMAX = sum of TPH-G, M & R costs VPH & EPH (MADEP) 320.00$ EMAX = sum of VPH and EPH costs Lead, Total (SW6020) 20.00$ EMAX

Unit Cost per Suite** 690.00$

3B Fine (see Grace Pacific Invoice) Unit Cost 3B Fine 27.50$ Ton 3B Fine (assume 2,898 lbs/CY) 19.00$ CY

TABLE C.13

C-16



TABLE C.14

COST BREAKDOWNItem Units Unit Cost Extended

Capital

Implementation of iSOC Work Plan Reporting (Attachment 4.1) 1 less $45,941 $45,941 Field Effort Preparations (Attachment 4.2) 1 less $30,200 $30,200 O2 Infusion Well Installation ST01-A (Attachment 4.3) 70 each $4,518 $316,253 Monitoring Well Installation ST01-A (Attachment 4.3) 10 each $4,518 $45,179 Trenching, Air Lines, Surface Completions (Attachment 4.4) 1 less $36,231 $36,231 Vegetation Clearing (Attachment 4.5) 1 less $67,854 $67,854 Surveying (Attachment 4.6) 1 less $10,015 $10,015 iSOC System Installation (Attachment 4.7) 1 less $447,751 $447,751 Construction Completion Reporting (Attachment 4.8) 1 less $36,921 $36,921

Baseline Groundwater Sampling Event Monitoring Well and iSOC well sampling (Attach 4.9) 45 each $1,348 $60,658 Field System Checks & Monitoring ST01-A & ST01-B (Attachment 4.10) 1 each $4,950 $4,950

Sub-Total $1,101,953 Contingency (design + construction) 25% $275,500

Capital Total $1,377,453


iSOC System Operation & Monitoring (Year 1) Weekly Field System Checks & Monitoring (Attach 4.10) 4 each 4,950$ $19,799 Monthly Field System Checks & Monitoring (Attachment 4.10) 11 each $4,950 $54,446 Sampling of 10 add'l monitoring wells (Attach 4.9) 10 each $1,348 $13,480 Equipment Servicing (Attachment 4.11) 1 less $18,080 $18,080 Progress Results Letter Report (Attachment 4.12) 1 less $21,692 $21,692

$127,496 Contingency (design + construction) 25% $31,874

Annual Total, Year 1 $159,370

iSOC System Operation & Monitoring (Years 2 to 5) Monthly Field System Checks & Monitoring (Attachment 4.10) 12 each 4,950$ $59,396 Sampling of 10 add'l monitoring wells (Attach 4.9) 10 each 1,348$ $13,480 Equipment Servicing (Attachment 4.11) 1 less 18,080$ $18,080 Progress Results Letter Report (Attachment 4.12) 1 less 21,692$ $21,692

$112,647 Contingency (design + construction) 25% $28,162

Annual Total, Years 2-5 $140,809

Periodic

Abandonment Activities (Year 6) (Attachment 4.13) 1 each $133,948 $133,948 Contingency (design + construction) 25% $33,500

Periodic Total $167,448

Assumptions1) Well spacing will vary according to the stratigraphy: 10' in clay-rich zones and 20' in more permeable zones.3) 4 lines of iSOC wells with 200' spacing between lines, with total length of 940 ft.2) 50% of length of iSOC well lines will have wells at 10' spacing and 50% at 20' spacing. 4) Target treatment depth is 15-35 ft bgs.5) 10 new monitoring wells installed downgradient of iSOC lines for DO and COC monitoring6) 5-year system operation time frame

Oxygen Diffusion via iSOC - Plume Treatment

C-17



TABLE C.15Oxygen Diffusion via iSOC - Plume Treatment

PRESENT VALUE

0 $1,442,359 $0 $0 $1,442,359 1.000 $1,442,3591 $0 $159,370 $0 $159,370 0.969 $154,5042 $0 $140,809 $0 $140,809 0.940 $132,3403 $0 $140,809 $0 $140,809 0.911 $128,2994 $0 $140,809 $0 $140,809 0.883 $124,3815 $0 $140,809 $0 $140,809 0.856 $120,5836 $0 $0 $175,338 $175,338 0.830 $145,567

Total $1,442,359 $722,605 $175,339 $2,340,400 $2,248,100



YearCapital Cost +

HI Tax ($)


($)


C-18



TABLE C.16Oxygen Diffusion via iSOC - Plume Treatment

PERIODIC COST BREAKDOWNAnnual O&M Cost Breakdown ($) Periodic Cost Breakdown ($)

01 $159,3702 $140,8093 $140,8094 $140,8095 $140,8096 $167,448

-$ 722,605$ -$ -$ 167,448$

5-year Review Abandonment

Activities Year

LUCs OM&M Confirmation Soil Sampling

C-19



TABLE C.17Oxygen Diffusion via iSOC

ROM Cost EstimateAttachment 4.1 - Work Plan

Labor Quant. Unit Unit Cost Cost Source CommentsEngineering Tech, Senior 120 hr 108.70$ 13,044.00$ FY 2011 T & M burdened labor rates

Env. Engineer, Mid 120 hr 126.28$ 15,153.60$ FY 2011 T & M burdened labor rates

Env. Engineer, Senior 60 hr 158.48$ 9,508.80$ FY 2011 T & M burdened labor rates

Project Manager, Senior 50 hr 164.69$ 8,234.50$ FY 2011 T & M burdened labor ratesTotal 45,940.90$

Attachment 4.2 - Preparations Prior to Field EffortConstruction Quant. Unit Unit Cost Cost Source CommentsProject Planning and Scheduling Support 1 Lump Sum $2,500 $2,500 Hickam LF05 Bioreactor (2009 bid analysis)Acquire Base Passes for all field personnel / subcontractors 1 Lump Sum $1,200 $1,200 Hickam LF05 Bioreactor (2009 bid analysis)Mobilization/Demobilization 1 Lump Sum $1,500 $1,500 Hickam LF05 Bioreactor (2009 bid analysis)Procurement of Subcontractors (lab, surveyor, etc.) 1 Lump Sum $25,000 $25,000 Hickam LF05 Bioreactor (2009 bid analysis)

Total $30,200.00

Attachment 4.3 - iSCOC Well and Monitoring Installation - Per LocationConstruction Quant. Unit Unit Cost Cost Source CommentsDrilling - HSA with continuous sampling 35 ft 55.00$ 1,925.00$ Hickam ST03 Phase 2 (2009) 4.5-inch HSA drilling. No. 3 silica sand 17 ft 8.00$ 136.00$ Hickam ST03 Phase 2 (2009) Used 1/3 of ST03 costs due to reduced diameter boring size.Bentonite. 2 ft 8.00$ 16.00$ Hickam ST03 Phase 2 (2009) Used 1/3 of ST03 costs due to reduced diameter boring size.Grout 15 ft 8.00$ 120.00$ Hickam ST03 Phase 2 (2009) Used 1/3 of ST03 costs due to reduced diameter boring size.2-inch PVC well casing 20 ft 3.00$ 60.00$ Hickam ST03 Phase 2 (2009) 2-inch PVC well screen 15 ft 5.00$ 75.00$ Hickam ST03 Phase 2 (2009) 2” threaded end cap. 1 ea 10.00$ 10.00$ Hickam ST03 Phase 2 (2009) Construct wells (1 hour per well) 1 hr 315.00$ 315.00$ Hickam ST03 Phase 2 (2009) 12-inch well box, 2’ x 2’ concrete pad, brass monument (labor and materials) 1 ea 250.00$ 250.00$ Hickam ST03 Phase 2 (2009) IDW Drums 3 drums 120.00$ 360.00$ Hickam ST03 Phase 2 (2009) Proper manifesting, transport, and disposal of 55-gallon drums of containerized non-hazardous contaminated soil. 3 drum 175.00$ 525.00$ Hickam LF05 Bioreactor (2009)Steam cleaner 0.07 Weeks 100.00$ 7.00$ Hickam ST03 Phase 2 (2009) Generator 0.07 Weeks 100.00$ 7.00$ Hickam ST03 Phase 2 (2009) Water tank (500 gallon) 0.07 Weeks 150.00$ 10.50$ Hickam ST03 Phase 2 (2009)

Fill water tank 0.07 Lump Sum 1,000.00$ 70.00$ Hickam ST03 Phase 2 (2009) 3,886.50$

LaborEnv. Engineer, Mid 5 hr 126.28$ 631.40$ FY 2011 T & M burdened labor rates

Total 4,517.90$

Attachment 4.4 - Trenching, Installation of Air LinesConstruction Quant. Unit Unit Cost Cost Source CommentsProvide Subcontractor Safety Plan (SSP) & Obtain Base Passes 1 less 500.00$ 500.00$ Hickam ST03 Phase 2 (2009) Trenching and backfilling - 6” wide by18” deep 1,040 ft 25.00$ 26,000.00$ Hickam ST03 Phase 2 (2009)

Provide and install airlines in trench 1,040 ft 2.00$ 2,080.00$ Hickam ST03 Phase 2 (2009) Provide and place 6” sand bedding 1,040 hr 2.50$ 2,600.00$ Hickam ST03 Phase 2 (2009)

31,180.00$

LaborEnv. Engineer, Mid 40 hr 126.28$ 5,051.20$ FY 2011 T & M burdened labor rates

Total 36,231.20$

Attachment 4.5 - Vegetation Clearing Construction Quant. Unit Unit Cost Cost Source CommentsProvide Subcontractor Safety Plan (SSP) & Obtain Base Passes 1 Lump Sum 500.00$ 500.00$ Hickam ST03 Phase 2 (2009)

Provide labor, equipment, and materials to remove

vegetation (specify size of crew, labor category rates,

equipment, and materials) 1 Lump Sum 40,200.00$ 40,200.00$ Hickam ST03 Phase 2 (2009) Assume 6,700 sq ft of clearing required

Transport and disposal ‐ Vegetation (specify

vehicle/load size) 1 Lump Sum 12,000.00$ 12,000.00$ Hickam ST03 Phase 2 (2009) 52,700.00$


Total 67,853.60$

Attachment 4.6 - SurveyingConstruction Quant. Unit Unit Cost Cost Source CommentsProvide Subcontractor Safety Plan (SSP) & Obtain Base Passes 1 500.00$ 500.00$ Hickam ST03 Phase 2 (2009) Survey O2 Infusion and Monitoring Wells 80 100.00$ 8,000.00$ Hickam ST03 Phase 2 (2009)

8,500.00$


Total 10,015.36$

C-20



TABLE C.17Oxygen Diffusion via iSOC

ROM Cost EstimateAttachment 4.7 - iSOC System Installation

Equipment Installation Quant. Unit Unit Cost Cost Source CommentsiSOC units 70 each 4,250.00$ 297,500.00$ iSOC 30 hp, 3 phase regenerativeGas supply per well 70 each 750.00$ 52,500.00$ iSOCGas cylinder rental / exchange 420 each 100.00$ 42,000.00$ EstimatedTemporary Shed 4 each 2,000.00$ 8,000.00$ EstimatedPortable toilet (rental & servicing) 6 week 250.00$ 1,500.00$ EstimatedEquipment Shipping 1 Lump Sum 10,000.00$ 10,000.00$ EstimatedO2 transmission tubing 1040 each 2.00$ 2,080.00$ Estimated

413,580.00$

LaborEnvironmental Eng, Mid 120 hr 126.28$ 15,153.60$ FY 2011 T & M burdened labor rates

Environmental Eng, Sr 120 hr 158.48$ 19,017.60$ FY 2011 T & M burdened labor ratesTotal 447,751.20$

Attachment 4.8 - Construction Completion ReportingLabor Quant. Unit Unit Cost Cost Source Comments

Geologist, Mid 120 hr 101.12$ 12,134.40$ FY 2011 T & M burdened labor rates



Project Manager, Senior 20 hr 164.69$ 3,293.80$ FY 2011 T & M burdened labor ratesTotal 36,921.00$

Attachment 4.9 - Monitoring Well and iSOC Well Sample Collection and Analysis / per WellEquipment Installation Quant. Unit Unit Cost Cost Source CommentsPickup Truck 0.2 day 210.00$ 42.00$ expedia.com + 2 gal gas @ $5.00GRO Analysis 1 sample 150.00$ 150.00$ DRO Analysis 1 sample 150.00$ 150.00$ PID 0.2 each 50.00$ 10.00$ Poly Tubing 30 ft 1.00$ 30.00$ Silicone Tubing 1 ft 1.00$ 1.00$ Multi Parameter Meter 0.2 day 50.00$ 10.00$ Sample Pump 0.2 day 30.00$ 6.00$ PPE 0.2 Lump Sum 100.00$ 20.00$ Hickam ST03 Phase 2 (2009) Sample Shipping 2 sample 10.00$ 20.00$

439.00$ 878.00$

LaborEngineering Tech., Senior 2 hr 108.70$ 217.40$ FY 2011 T & M burdened labor rates

Env. Engineer, Mid 2 hr 126.28$ 252.56$ FY 2011 T & M burdened labor ratesTotal 1,347.96$

Attachment 4.10 - Weekly or Monthly Field System Check & MonitoringEquipment Installation Quant. Unit Unit Cost Cost Source CommentsPickup Truck 2 day 210.00$ 420.00$ expedia.com + 2 gal gas @ $5.00Multi Parameter Meter 2 day 50.00$ 100.00$ Hickam ST03 Phase 2 (2009) PID 2 day 50.00$ 100.00$ Enviro-Equipment Inc. 2011PPE 1 Lump Sum 100.00$ 100.00$

720.00$ LaborEngineering Tech., Senior 18 hr 108.70$ 1,956.60$ FY 2011 T & M burdened labor rates

Env. Engineer, Mid 18 hr 126.28$ 2,273.04$ FY 2011 T & M burdened labor ratesTotal 4,949.64$

Attachment 4.11 - Equipment / Regulator Servicing (Annual)Labor Quant. Unit Unit Cost Cost Source CommentsEngineering Tech, Mid 40 hr 75.71$ 3,028.40$ FY 2011 T & M burdened labor rates

Environmental Eng, Mid 40 hr 126.28$ 5,051.20$ FY 2011 T & M burdened labor rates

Equipment service/replace 1 each 10,000.00$ 10,000.00$ FY 2011 T & M burdened labor ratesTotal 18,079.60$

Attachment 4.12 - Progress Results Letter Reporting (Annual)Labor Quant. Unit Unit Cost Cost Source CommentsGeologist, Mid 40 hr 101.12$ 4,044.80$ FY 2011 T & M burdened labor rates



Project Manager, Senior 12 hr 164.69$ 1,976.28$ FY 2011 T & M burdened labor rates

Chemist, Senior 12 hr 147.09$ 1,765.08$ FY 2011 T & M burdened labor ratesTotal 21,692.08$

Attachment 4.13 - Abandonment Activities - iSOC system and New Monitoring WellsConstruction Quant. Unit Unit Cost Cost Source CommentsProvide Subcontractor Safety Plan (SSP) & Obtain Base Passes 1 Lump Sum 500.00$ 500.00$ Hickam ST03 Phase 2 (2009) iSOC well and MW Abandonment 2800 ft 28.00$ 78,400.00$ Hickam LF05 RA (2006) VMP Abandonment - over drilling to 10' & grouting 0 ft 45.00$ -$ Hickam LF05 RA (2006) / estimateIDW Drums 30 drum 120.00$ 3,600.00$ Hickam ST03 Phase 2 (2009) Proper manifesting, transport, and disposal of 55-gallon drums of containerized non-hazardous contaminated soil. 30 drum 175.00$ 5,250.00$ Hickam LF05 Bioreactor (2009)Gas Distribution system abandonment 1 Lump Sum 8,000.00$ 8,000.00$ estimateRemove and Dispose of Abandonment Material 1 Lump Sum 10,000.00$ 10,000.00$ Hickam LF05 RA (2006) / estimate

105,750.00$

LaborEngineering Tech., Senior 120 hr 108.70$ 13,044.00$ FY 2011 T & M burdened labor rates

Env. Engineer, Mid 120 hr 126.28$ 15,153.60$ FY 2011 T & M burdened labor ratesTotal 133,947.60$

C-21




APPENDIX D

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS




NEIL ABERCROMBIE GOVERNOR OF HAWAII

LORETIA J. FUDDY, A.C.S.W., M.P.H. DIRECTOR OF HEALTH

STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH

P. 0. BOX 3378 HONOLULU, HI 96801-3378

In reply, please refer to: File:

11-718-SPM

Ms. Jocelyn Tamashiro Restoration Project Manager NAVFAC Hawaii 75 H Street Bldg. 1202

December 12, 2011

Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam, HI 96853-5233

Facility/Site: Hickam POL ST01, Kipapa Fuel Storage Annex

Subject: Review of Draft Record of Decision/Response Action Memorandum, Kipapa Fuel Storage Annex, Hickam POL, Joint Base Pearl HarborHickam, Oahu, Hawaii

Dear Ms. Tamashiro: ·

The Hawaii Department of Health Hazard Evaluation and Emergency Response (HEER) Office has reviewed the draft Record of Decision/Response Action Memorandum and has no comments at this time. Please send the finalized document to the HEER office for signature at your earliest convenience. Should you have any questions concerning the above please feel free to contact me at 586-7574.

Sincerely,

~-~ Steven P. Mow Remedial Project Manager Hazard Evaluation and Emergency Response Office




APPENDIX E

PROPOSED PLAN PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES TRANSCRIPT




1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 PROPOSED PLAN PUBLIC MEETING FOR 9 SITE ST01 - KIPAPA FUEL STORAGE ANNEX 10 Hickam Petroleum, Oils, and Lubricants 11 Pipeline and Facilities 12 JOINT BASE PEARL HARBOR-HICKAM, OAHU, HAWAII 13 Leeward Community College 14 96-045 Ala Ike Street, Room PS201-B 15 Pearl City, Hawaii 96782 16 September 1, 2011 17 7:00 p.m to 9:00 p.m. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 BEFORE: ELSIE TERADA, CSR NO. 437 25 Certified Shorthand Reporter

2 1 PEARL CITY, HAWAII; THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 1, 2011 2 7:00 P.M. 3 4 JOCELYN TAMASHIRO: Thank you for attending 5 tonight's meeting. This is the Proposed Plan Public 6 Meeting for Site ST01, Kipapa Fuel Storage Annex In 7 Mililani. 8 The agenda includes a brief introduction and 9 orientation, an overview of what the Proposed Plan is, 10 and why it's required, and then we'll go into the 11 site-specific presentation for ST01, and I'll take 12 comments or questions at the end of the presentation. 13 So I'm Joycelin Tamashiro. I'm the Restoration 14 Program Manager for NAVFAC Hawaii. I've been managing 15 Site ST01 since 2009. Mr. Steven Mow, from the Hawaii 16 Department of Health, Hazard Evaluation and Emergency 17 Response Office, is our state regulator, and he's been 18 overseeing this site since 2004. Mr. Bill Stohler is 19 the Parsons Project Manager, and Ms. Cindy Conway, in 20 Denver, is the Parsons Deputy Project Manager. They're 21 mainly responsible for compiling years worth of data 22 from various contractors and preparing the technical 23 reports for this site. And then there is Mr. Bryan 24 Matsunobu, who is the Parsons Field Task Manager, who 25 is mainly responsible for doing the sampling and data

3 1 collection. Parsons has been the primary contractor 2 for Site ST01 since 2007. 3 Before we get started, I'd like to remind 4 everybody to please sign in on our sign-in sheet, if 5 you haven't already done so. The meeting is being 6 recorded by a court stenographer just so that we get 7 everything down, accurately. If you would, please hold 8 all your comments until the end of the presentation, 9 then I'd be happy to take your comments and questions. 10 If you do have a comment or a question, please state 11 your name and any affiliation you have. If you want, 12 you can provide comments and questions in writing. 13 There is a 30-day public comment period on this 14 Proposed Plan, and it ends on September 19. 15 The comments will be responded to, in a section 16 of the Record of Decision, which is called the 17 Responsiveness Summary. If you haven't received a copy 18 of it, the Proposed Plan is right next to the sign-in 19 sheet. Otherwise, it can also be reviewed at the 20 information repository located at the Pearl City Public 21 Library, which is at 1138 Waimano Home Road, in Pearl 22 City. The Record of Decision and Response Action 23 Memorandum, when it's available, will be advertised in 24 the major local newspaper after it's been finalized and 25 signed, and it, too, will be made available at the

4 1 Pearl City Public Library, as well as U.H.'s Hamilton 2 Library and the Wahiawa Public Library. 3 So why do we have Proposed Plans? The Proposed 4 Plan is a legal requirement under the Comprehensive 5 Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability 6 Act, better known as CERCLA, which was signed in 1980. 7 It's part of the National Contingency Plan, which 8 requires the lead agency to make this information 9 public and to write a Proposed Plan for the public's 10 consumption. It also allows an opportunity for the 11 public to provide comment and have this meeting, and to 12 receive any comments that you might have on a proposed 13 remedy for this site. 14 So, a quick overview of the CERCLA process and 15 where the Proposed Plan fits in, is shown here. After 16 becoming a site, a preliminary assessment and site 17 inspection is performed. If there is evidence that a 18 release occurred, it becomes a site, and a remedial 19 investigation is performed to find the nature and 20 extent of the release. A feasibility study is 21 prepared, which evaluates the alternatives and 22 recommends a remedy for this site. 23 At this point in time, we produced the Proposed 24 Plan, which summarizes what we found in the R.I. and 25 F.S. phase, and announces what proposed remedy will be.

5 1 The Proposed Plan facilitates public 2 involvement and presents the preferred alternative that 3 best address the contamination of this site. It also 4 explains the reason the lead agency recommended that 5 preferred alternative. 6 In this approach, started by the Air Force and 7 continued by the Navy, the Proposed Plan and Record of 8 Decision are developed, proposing to close this site 9 out, under CERCLA, and proposing a remedy under the 10 State Contingency Plan, in the form of a Response 11 Action Memorandum. Following the final Record of 12 Decision/Response Action Memorandum, remedial actions 13 at the site would solely follow the State Contingency 14 Plan. 15 Site ST01 was investigated under the 16 Installation Restoration Program, following the CERCLA 17 process with the Navy as the lead agency. Petroleum 18 releases are exempt from the requirements of CERCLA 19 because they were excluded from the definition of a 20 hazardous substance. Contaminants associated with this 21 site are petroleum related. Therefore, the State of 22 Hawaii is the lead regulatory agency that oversees the 23 environmental cleanup process. 24 Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam has agreed to 25 conduct response activities at this site in a manner

6 1 consistent with CERCLA and the National Contingency 2 Plan, and following the Hawaii State Contingency Plan, 3 Hawaii Revised Statutes, and Hawaii Administrative 4 Rules 11-451 and 11-281. 5 And so now we're going to get into Site ST01, 6 Kipapa Fuel Storage Annex. Site ST01, also known as 7 the Kipapa Fuel Storage Annex, is a former fuel storage 8 facility that operated from May 1943 to February 1993. 9 The facility is one of two bulk fuel storage annexes 10 along the Hickam petroleum, oils, and lubricants 11 pipeline, which is identified on this figure in red. 12 And it was primarily designed for the long-term storage 13 of war reserve fuel, such as aviation gasoline and jet 14 propulsion fuel, grade number 4. 15 The Kipapa Fuel Storage Annex is located 16 approximately 7 miles north/northwest of Joint Base 17 Pearl Harbor-Hickam, there, and is adjacent to the 18 residential community of Mililani. It occupies 19 approximately 56 acres of Kipapa Valley, and 31 acres 20 of easement beneath the Mililani upland area. 21 So here we see a photo, a close-up photo of the 22 Kipapa Fuel Storage Annex. This dark line is the 23 boundary of the fuel storage annex. And Site ST01 is 24 made up of three subsites. ST01A is the sludge 25 disposal pit and valve pit spill area, in front of the

7 1 tanks, and that's indicated by this green boundary. 2 ST01B is the area beneath the four underground storage 3 tanks, and that's indicated by the blue boundary. And 4 ST01C is the former drumming facility, and that's at 5 the south end of the facility and it's indicated by 6 this pink dashed line. 7 The Kipapa Fuel Storage Annex is an inactive 8 facility and is classified as Light Industrial and Open 9 Space. The future land use is not expected to change 10 because of the large quantity of infrastructure 11 remaining at this site. There are two groundwater 12 sources beneath the facility. The shallow groundwater 13 aquifer is a discontinuous water body located between 14 10 and 25 feet below ground surface, and it is not a 15 drinking water source. 16 The deeper groundwater aquifer is located 17 approximately 310 feet below ground surface and is a 18 drinking water source, although there are no drinking 19 water wells within 2,600 feet of the facility. This 20 distance is important to remember, since petroleum does 21 not travel more than 500 feet in groundwater. 22 There is one other site located within the 23 Kipapa Valley, and that is Disposal Area 30, and that's 24 indicated by this orange line. Disposal Area 30 is 25 east of Kipapa Stream, and it was an abandoned drum

8 1 site and was investigated in 2007. It was cleaned, 2 under a separate contract, and the site was closed with 3 no further action by the Hawaii Department of Health. 4 So, the Proposed Plan tonight will not talk about 5 Disposal Area 30. It will only focus on Site ST01. 6 Here we see photos taken from the 1950's, of 7 the infrastructure at ST01A. Infrastructure includes 8 this pump house, valve pits, a hydrocarbon emission 9 control facility with a flare burner, and a 300-gallon 10 fuel vapor condensate tank. The tank was removed in 11 2006. 12 On the photo on the left, you'll also see the 13 tunnel entrance that leads to the four tanks, and steps 14 going up will lead to the portal entrance that goes 15 above the tanks. Sources, known sources of 16 contamination at ST01A include a valve pit release that 17 happened in 1975, and the burial of tank sludge 18 resulting from the cleaning of the tanks in 1952, 1966, 19 1975, and 1985. 20 ST01B consists of four horizontal steel tanks, 21 each 975 feet long and 27 feet in diameter. The 22 storage capacity of each tank was 2.5 million gallons. 23 The tanks were placed in reinforced concrete tunnels 24 that were bored into the north slope of Kipapa Valley. 25 The tops of the tanks are approximately 360 feet above

9 1 mean sea level. And overlying the tanks is weathered 2 Koolau basalt that ranges from 160 feet at the front 3 end of the tanks to 220 feet at the back end of the 4 tanks. 5 The photo on the left shows you the front face 6 of Tank No. 3, and as a scale, this round manhole, 7 here, is about 2 and a half feet in diameter. So this 8 is the 27-foot diameter of the Tank No. 3. 9 And this photo on the right shows the tunnel 10 that connects all four tanks with 10-inch- and 11 8-inch-diameter pipelines going through it. 12 Known sources of contamination include cleaning 13 activities and tank corrosion. The tanks were cleaned 14 every eight to ten years while in service. And in that 15 August 1952 inspection report indicates that the sludge 16 and other foreign matter present in all the tanks was 17 removed, as required for the tank inspection, by 18 scraping into buckets or slurrying the water from 19 high-velocity streams, and pumping them out through 20 existing units or temporarily installed air-operated 21 pumps. No chlorinated solvents were used to clean the 22 tanks. 23 Records of cleaning operations indicate that 24 approximately 8,500 gallons of sludge were buried each 25 cleaning event in shallow pits near the entrance to

10 1 Tank No. 1 for weathering. In 1985, Tanks 3 and 4 were 2 cleaned, but were not placed back in service. Tanks 1 3 and 2 were emptied in 1992, but weren't cleaned until 4 2002. 5 And at ST01C, this is the former drumming 6 plant, back here, and it's located in the southern 7 portion of the facility. Infrastructure includes the 8 plant itself, which was an open bay plant, 2 700-gallon 9 oil-water separators, a former boiler house and 10 1,000-gallon fuel oil tank, latrine and cesspool that 11 were located here, off of the photo. And if you look 12 at this photo, this feature, here, is a part of ST01A. 13 It's a valve pit pump house and it has a search tank 14 and an 850-gallon diesel fuel tank. The sources of 15 contamination at ST01C are from tank releases from the 16 1,000-gallon fuel oil tank and the oil-water 17 separators. 18 Our investigation activities performed include 19 Phase I investigations from 1984 to 1987. These 20 include record searches, map reviews, and interviews 21 with anybody that we could identify as having worked at 22 the facility; multiple remedial investigations which 23 included soil, shallow groundwater, basal groundwater, 24 surface water, and sediment sampling; a bioventing 25 pilot scale study; a bioventing interim removal action;

11 1 the cleaning and closure of the fuel pipelines and four 2 underground storage tanks; excavation of lead-impacted 3 soil; and the removal of the smaller underground 4 storage tanks. And, lastly, we conducted a feasibility 5 study this year. 6 Soil, soil vapor, and groundwater samples were 7 collected, following the Department of Health 8 Underground Storage Tank Technical Guidance Manual, and 9 Technical Guidance Manual for implementing the Hawaii 10 State Contingency Plan. Analyses include total 11 petroleum hydrocarbons as gasoline and diesel, 12 hydrocarbon fractionation, sampling for volatile 13 organic compounds which include trichloroethane and 14 trichloropropane, semi-volatile organic compounds, 15 polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons, polychlorinated 16 biphenyls, metals, and geochemical parameters. 17 Our results were compared to the most stringent 18 environmental action levels. And we have exceedances 19 of these environmental levels in shallow soil, as 20 indicated by the yellow circles on the figure. The 21 contaminants of concern that we exceeded are total 22 petroleum hydrocarbons as gasoline and diesel, volatile 23 organic compounds, semi-volatile organic compounds, 24 polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons, and lead. 25 In the shallow soil, which is indicated by the

12 1 orange circles, we have the same contaminants of 2 concern exceeding the action levels except for lead. 3 And in the basal groundwater, which is indicated, 4 samples are indicated by the red triangles, we have 5 exceedances of 1,2,3-trichloropropane, although the 6 trichloropropane is not a chemical that we used or 7 stored at the Kipapa Fuel Storage Annex, and it is 8 believed to have come from the agricultural uses in 9 this area. 10 In the surface water flowing through Kipapa 11 Stream, there were no exceedances, and although we had 12 detections of polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons in the 13 stream sediment, there are no environmental action 14 levels to compare them to. 15 This conceptual site model is a graphical 16 depiction of what we know about the site. So, we know 17 that groundwater beneath the residential area, above 18 the tanks, the basal groundwater is located greater 19 than 500 feet from the residential area. As we get 20 down into Kipapa Valley, the basal groundwater is 21 greater than 300 feet from the ground surface. Our 22 known sources of contamination are the underground 23 storage tank, the sludge disposal pit, the pipelines, 24 the smaller underground storage tanks. 25 So, we look at this conceptual site model to

13 1 tell us the potential pathways that the contamination 2 could reach possible receptors. And what this is -- 3 what we found out, is that the contamination that is 4 coming, that was released from the underground storage 5 tank do not reach the basal groundwater aquifer. We 6 know that the sludge disposal pit's contamination did 7 reach the shallower groundwater aquifer. 8 However, this groundwater aquifer is not 9 connected to Kipapa Stream because the stream doesn't 10 have a continuous flow throughout the entire year, 11 whereas this aquifer remains here, throughout the year, 12 so contaminants are not discharging to Kipapa Stream 13 from the shallow aquifer. And that leaves the 14 volatilization of contaminants coming off of the 15 shallow groundwater, and going up into the air and 16 potentially reaching human and ecological receptors at 17 the surface. 18 So this tells us that our potential receptors 19 are the human and ecological receptors at the ground 20 surface as a result of the volatilization coming off of 21 the groundwater. And there's also lead in the soil 22 from the sludge disposal pits. 23 Here are the contaminants of concern with 24 exceedances of the most stringent environmental action 25 levels in shallow soil, less than 10 feet below ground

14 1 surface. The risk drivers we compared the maximum 2 detections to, were gross contamination, which is taste 3 and odor; direct exposure; the vapor emissions to 4 indoor air; and terrestrial ecotoxicity, so animals 5 that could potentially eat off of the ground, the soil 6 on the surface. 7 So the maximum detected concentrations for some 8 of these contaminants, as you can see, they don't 9 exceed the Tier 1 environmental action levels by much. 10 However, for lead and the total petroleum hydrocarbons, 11 these are considered to significantly exceed the 12 environmental action levels. 13 In the shallow groundwater, the risk drivers we 14 compared the maximum detections to, were vapor 15 emissions to indoor air, which is the only potentially 16 complete exposure pathway for potential future on-site 17 residents and industrial workers. We put the aquatic 18 habitat risk driver for comparison, which is the most 19 stringent action level on this slide, even though it's 20 not a complete pathway, since the Kipapa Stream does 21 not have continuous flow of water year-round. 22 So, again, we see some slight exceedances for 23 the polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons, but then we have 24 methane being produced off of the groundwater, and 25 that's a result of the natural degradation process when

15 1 naturally occurring bacteria eat the hydrocarbons, they 2 produce methane. And, again, significant exceedances 3 are for the total petroleum hydrocarbons. 4 In the basal groundwater, trichloropropane is 5 the only contaminant of concern that exceeds the 6 environmental action level for drinking water toxicity. 7 Although trichloropropane was tested for, in each 8 sampling event, the highest detection of 1.2 µg/L only 9 appeared in 1998 and 2003. And as previously 10 mentioned, trichloropropane is a fumigant that's 11 relating to past agricultural practices and not fuels 12 that were stored or used at Kipapa Fuel Storage Annex. 13 And this is evident in the fact that trichloropropane 14 was found upgradient of Site ST01 in the basal 15 groundwater, but not in the soil or shallow groundwater 16 beneath this site. 17 Environmental hazard evaluations were performed 18 that evaluated the risk to each receptor for each 19 completed pathway. In shallow groundwater, there is an 20 unacceptable non-cancer risk. However, the cancer risk 21 is within the Environmental Protection Agency's cancer 22 risk management range. Also in shallow groundwater, 23 methane may pose an explosive hazard. In the basal 24 groundwater, trichloropropane is the only contaminant 25 that exceeds the EPA cancer risk, but, again, it

16 1 appears to have originated from off-site sources and is 2 not related to Site ST01. 3 In the soil, the hazard is a result of high 4 lead levels in some areas that are unacceptable for 5 future potential on-site residents, construction 6 workers, and ecological receptors. The surface water, 7 there were no exceedances, and so the hazards fall 8 below the risk management range. And in the sediment, 9 there is a potential for low-level impacts to any 10 sediment-dwelling organisms that live in Kipapa Stream 11 due to the polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons. But, 12 again, because there are no environmental action levels 13 for sediment, we have nothing to compare the levels to. 14 As a result of the environmental hazard 15 evaluations, we developed proposed Remedial Action 16 Cleanup Goals to help us identify when we've met 17 cleanup for this site. These Remedial Action Cleanup 18 Goals, otherwise known as RACGs, for soil, were 19 developed, assuming that soils may be contacted 20 directly, and that human and ecological receptors at 21 the site may be exposed via ingestion, dermal contact, 22 and inhalation. 23 And, again, these are proposed cleanup goals 24 for soil, and it's subject to approval by the 25 Department of Health. So the goals will be presented

17 1 in the Record of Decision for this site. 2 The RACGs for shallow groundwater were 3 developed, assuming that no residents or workers would 4 come into contact with the groundwater, since the 5 groundwater is deeper than 10 feet. We also assumed 6 that it would not be used as a drinking water source, 7 since the water is not drinkable, and that discharge of 8 groundwater to Kipapa Stream is not a complete pathway, 9 since Kipapa Stream does not have continuous year-round 10 flow. So the only exposure pathway for shallow 11 groundwater is by volatilization to the air. And 12 that's what these cleanup goals are based on. Again, 13 these proposed RACGs are subject to approval by the 14 Department of Health. 15 The Remedial Action Cleanup Goals for soil gas 16 were developed in the event that soil or groundwater 17 results exceed the RACGs on the previous two slides. 18 In other words, if there is an exceedance of 19 contaminants in the soil or groundwater, then we would 20 collect soil gas samples and compare them to the RACGs 21 on this slide, here. 22 So knowing that there is unacceptable risk in 23 soil and shallow groundwater, we've identified three 24 alternatives. The first alternative really is just 25 there because it's a requirement that we need to put in

18 1 for comparison purposes. The cost of doing No Further 2 Action is estimated to be $500,000, and this is because 3 we would need to abandon the existing bioventing system 4 and all of the wells that are currently located at this 5 site. 6 Alternative 2 involves long-term monitoring, 7 land use controls, and performing lead-impacted soil 8 excavation. The land use controls and engineering 9 controls would be repairing the fence around the 10 property boundary and putting up proper signage to warn 11 people that there is contamination in the area. 12 Long-term monitoring of contaminant concentrations in 13 groundwater would be performed, and this would be to 14 evaluate concentrations in the shallow and deep 15 groundwater, and to evaluate if natural attenuation is 16 working at this site. And then in the soil, we would 17 excavate areas with lead exceedances, in excess of the 18 Remedial Action Cleanup Goals of 200 milligrams per 19 kilogram, and we would transport that soil off-site. 20 And, lastly, Alternative 2 includes abandonment of the 21 bioventing system and all of the wells currently on 22 site. So the estimated cost for Alternative 2 is 23 $3.8 million. 24 And Alternative 3 is long-term monitoring, land 25 use controls, lead-impacted soil excavation, and

19 1 bioventing. So it includes all of the components in 2 Alternative 2, but it also adds on conducting 3 bioventing at ST01A. The proposed bioventing area is 4 indicated in the orange line, here. 5 The cost would include the repair and expansion 6 of the existing bioventing system. That would increase 7 the area of influence of the bioventing system and make 8 it more effective. On this photograph, the yellow line 9 indicates the land use control and long-term monitoring 10 boundary, and the red line indicates the extent of 11 where we would remove lead-impacted soil. The 12 estimated cost for Alternative 3 is $4.8 million. 13 So, as required by the National Contingency 14 Plan, we evaluated the alternatives, using the nine 15 criteria. And as you can see, Alternative 1, which is 16 No Action, really does not, it's not effective in 17 addressing the eight evaluation criteria, I'm minus-ing 18 the cost. Alternative 2 would meet half of the 19 evaluation criteria. But Alternative 3 is the one that 20 would meet most, if not all of the evaluation criteria. 21 The Navy recommends Alternative 3, which is 22 long-term monitoring, land use controls, lead-impacted 23 soil excavation, and then expansion of the bioventing 24 system, as the remedy for Site ST01. This alternative 25 is the most protective of human health in the

20 1 environment. It essentially meets all of the NCP 2 evaluation criteria, and it would comply with all 3 applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements. 4 So, at this time I will take any comments or 5 questions from the audience. 6 Could you state your name and affiliation? 7 MICHAEL DAU: Okay. I'm Michael Dau, Kipapa Gulch 8 Estates. I also take care of Kipapa water system. 9 Kipapa Acres, CPR, would be the name of it. 10 I don't get this one that you're talking about. 11 Well, first of all, Kipapa Stream may flow for years at 12 a time, and sometimes in the summertime it dries up. I 13 don't get what you mean, where is the shallow 14 groundwater not meeting the Kipapa Stream water? 15 JOCELYN TAMASHIRO: It's not considered a pathway, 16 the shallow aquifer is not considered a pathway, 17 because to be a completed pathway, it would need to 18 have a continuous discharge to the stream, and because 19 the stream gets dry sometimes, there is no continuous 20 discharge of that shallow aquifer to the stream. 21 MICHAEL DAU: What happens when the stream is 22 running? It's right next to it, it's gotta be getting 23 in the stream. 24 JOCELYN TAMASHIRO: We've sampled the sediment in 25 the stream, and what we found are polynuclear aromatic

21 1 hydrocarbons, which are the more persistent chemicals, 2 contaminants of concern. The more volatile 3 contaminants are gone from the stream. So what would 4 happen is, you know, if there were any organisms living 5 in Kipapa Stream, there is a potential for them to be 6 impacted by the polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons, but 7 really nothing else. 8 MICHAEL DAU: Okay. What's the other one you were 9 talking about, that fuel only can go 500 feet from 10 where it entered the ground? How did they figure that 11 out? 12 JOCELYN TAMASHIRO: There -- and I think I might 13 ask the Department of Health for assistance. There are 14 studies, mainly on the mainland, that show that 15 petroleum only travels as much as 500 feet. And so our 16 state environmental action levels, they are based on a 17 distance of whether or not your release is within 18 150 meters, which is 500 feet of a surface water body. 19 MICHAEL DAU: How does that work? I mean, fuel 20 would probably go miles and miles, spilled into the 21 ground. I don't see it just stopping at 500 feet for 22 no reason. 23 JOCELYN TAMASHIRO: Fuel hydrocarbons tend to 24 attract and stick to soil molecules. The contaminants 25 that tend not to stick to soil molecules are the

22 1 chlorinated solvents, which is why they travel far. 2 They travel for miles. Fuels tend to -- they readily 3 stick because of the electron receptors to soil, so, 4 which is why they don't travel very far. 5 MICHAEL DAU: Okay. How do you guys know there was 6 no solvent used in the fuel tank farm? What kind of 7 records, is there any records left over or where are 8 the records kept for the fuel tank farm? 9 JOCELYN TAMASHIRO: There was one report, it was an 10 August 1952 report that spelled out how they clean the 11 tanks. And granted, it was for that one 1952 event, 12 when they cleaned the tanks, and I think that was the 13 very first time they cleaned it, but that one report 14 said that the sludge was removed by scraping it into 15 buckets, slurrying it with water from high-velocity 16 streams, and pumping it out through existing units or 17 temporarily installed air-operated pumps. 18 They said the workers donned on protective 19 masks and protective clothing so that they weren't 20 impacted by the fumes and by the residuals. But that's 21 all it says was, they scraped it out and they pumped it 22 out, and they used high-pressure water. So, coupled 23 with the fact that we didn't find high levels of 24 chlorinated solvents in our source areas, our known 25 source areas, that's why we know that they didn't use

23 1 chlorinated solvents. 2 MICHAEL DAU: Okay. Well, what kind of records is 3 left of this fuel tank farm? Is there a place where 4 they were kept or documented, how much it pumped, how 5 it was cleaned, what needs there were, is there 6 anything left, or all went to the shredder or -- 7 JOCELYN TAMASHIRO: In my office, we have just this 8 1952 report and, you know, there may be a couple of 9 other reports, a U.S. Geological Survey report and then 10 the most recent tank cleaning report from AHTNA, when 11 they cleaned the tanks in 2002. I don't have any 12 records of all the cleaning events that happened 13 between, you know, when they installed the tanks, to 14 1985. And my contractors have looked for records. 15 And, have you been able to find any, about tank 16 cleaning? 17 WILLIAM STOHLER: No. 18 MICHAEL DAU: What kind of records are there, on 19 this fuel tank farm? Is there a place where they're 20 kept or documented, or are they just scattered all over 21 the military base or -- 22 JOCELYN TAMASHIRO: We would have to get back to 23 you on that. I can't speak for where all of the 24 operations folks kept their records. All I know is 25 from the time we cleaned the tanks, we have all of the

24 1 records and the investigations that we've done. We 2 have all of those records. But operational use, I 3 would have to find out where all those records are, if 4 they still exist. 5 MICHAEL DAU: Okay. Because, well, the reason I'm 6 asking, I went, back in the '90s, Bishop Museum used to 7 have Family Sunday, and they had an environmental 8 thing, and I was reading it, and that was the Kipapa 9 fuel tank farm, and it said they usually get hundreds 10 of 55-gallon drums of solvents and cleaned the tanks 11 out and just dump it out on shallow trenches in front 12 of the tank farm. And our well had trace amounts of 13 TCE, and it was picking up higher levels back in the 14 '90s, but nobody has really been monitoring it in the 15 2000's, so. 16 JOCELYN TAMASHIRO: I went back to the Bishop 17 Museum Web site and looked at all of their exhibits 18 that they've put on display since the 1990's through 19 today, and I was not able to find the exhibit that you 20 were talking about. So that was a lead that I really 21 couldn't verify. But regarding the TCE in your well, 22 there is a report that's put out by the U.S. Geological 23 Survey, and it's called "The Groundwater Quality and 24 Its Relation to Land Use on Oahu, Hawaii," it's a 2000, 25 2001 version. This report talks about a regional TCE,

25 1 and not just TCE, but all the chemicals that are 2 popping up in groundwater supply wells throughout the 3 island of Oahu. But mainly in the Central Oahu area, 4 there is a known TCE plume that extends from Schofield 5 all the way on down through the Pearl Harbor aquifer. 6 I don't know, you know, if the TCE that you're 7 finding in your well could be coming from other 8 sources, but it's not coming from Kipapa. 'Cause we 9 haven't found it in our wells, in the shallow wells, in 10 the deeper wells, it's not in the soil. 11 MICHAEL DAU: How deep are your guys' deeper wells? 12 JOCELYN TAMASHIRO: They go just over 300 feet. 13 MICHAEL DAU: Okay. What else I have here. 14 Because our Kipapa water system, they go by the 15 State of Hawaii Source Water Assessment program, our 16 Wellhead C protection area encompasses all over this 17 fuel tank farm and above it. So that's why I'm kind of 18 nervous where you have land use and recommend people 19 don't live there, and that's in our wellhead capture 20 area, our Zone C. 21 JOCELYN TAMASHIRO: Uh-huh. 22 MICHAEL DAU: So that's kind of upsetting. I don't 23 know if it's going to get into our water or not. 24 JOCELYN TAMASHIRO: The chemicals that were 25 released by sources at Kipapa Fuel Storage Annex do not

26 1 appear to be reaching your well. As you know, we 2 sampled your well -- 3 MICHAEL DAU: Yeah. 4 JOCELYN TAMASHIRO: -- in February of this year, 5 and the chemicals that we found were -- I think it was, 6 there was a detection of TCE and no detection of TCP. 7 MICHAEL DAU: Yeah. TCP is our greatest problem. 8 JOCELYN TAMASHIRO: Right. 9 MICHAEL DAU: And TCE hasn't been monitored 10 regularly. TCP has, so. I don't know if it varies, if 11 it's higher or lower. Because the TCP one gets higher 12 and lower. It's been like .8, gone down to .5. It 13 hasn't stayed steady. So I don't know if TCE is the 14 same way. 15 What's this other one, it says there's an 16 unacceptable risk, but is non-cancerous? On the 17 environmental hazard evaluation? 18 JOCELYN TAMASHIRO: For shallow groundwater? 19 MICHAEL DAU: Yeah. 20 JOCELYN TAMASHIRO: That was due to exceedances of 21 the total petroleum hydrocarbons and the polynuclear 22 aromatic hydrocarbons. 23 MICHAEL DAU: What does that mean, though, 24 unacceptable but non-cancerous? 25 JOCELYN TAMASHIRO: That means some of these

27 1 chemicals of concern are not, they don't fall within 2 the Environmental Protection Agency's cancer risk 3 range. Some chemicals are cancer causing and some are 4 not. And so the non-cancer causing chemicals were the 5 ones that were exceeded the action levels. 6 MICHAEL DAU: So they could have a health risk, but 7 they're just non-cancerous? 8 JOCELYN TAMASHIRO: Yes. 9 MICHAEL DAU: I mean, it's not drinkable? 10 JOCELYN TAMASHIRO: No. The entire shallow 11 groundwater beneath Kipapa is non-drinkable. You know, 12 the groundwater aquifer classification does not 13 identify shallow groundwater, this area to be 14 drinkable. 15 MICHAEL DAU: Because, I mean, like our well is 16 downstream of this, and, you know, there's cracks and 17 crevices and fissures in them. The ground, maybe in 18 certain times of year, water just keeps flowing down 19 the river. Other times a year, it dries up, and they 20 start going down into the groundwater. There's no 21 guarantee that it won't. Would that be a true 22 evaluation of it, or -- 23 JOCELYN TAMASHIRO: Well, we know that the 24 contamination is not flowing into Kipapa Stream. So 25 assuming that Kipapa Stream flowing down to your well

28 1 would go into cracks and crevices and contaminate your 2 well, I don't think, is possible. 3 MICHAEL DAU: 'Cause, I mean, this thing is right 4 next to the stream. I don't see how it doesn't get 5 into the stream. You're talking like 20, 30 feet in 6 places. 7 JOCELYN TAMASHIRO: At one point when there was a 8 fuel release, the fuel did reach the stream, and this 9 was in 1975, and that's why we sampled the stream 10 sediment and the stream water, and we found that only 11 the polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons were still in the 12 sediment. But everything else appeared to have 13 volatilized away. You know, that, coupled with the 14 fact that when we sampled your drinking water well and 15 we didn't find anything that was related to Kipapa fuel 16 contaminants, tells me that that contamination that we 17 have in the shallow groundwater is not reaching your 18 well. 19 MICHAEL DAU: Okay. Well, like I said, I see TCP 20 fluctuate up and down. Maybe they took the sample 21 things weren't as high levels or, you know, different 22 times a year might be more. One sample wouldn't be a 23 real good sample, but after many samples, you get a big 24 picture. 25 JOCELYN TAMASHIRO: Uh-huh.

29 1 MICHAEL DAU: Kipapa Stream sometimes will flow for 2 years. And then sometimes it will, I've seen it dry up 3 in January. And I've seen it flowing all summer long. 4 And then sometimes it will be in the summer, it will 5 dry up, and other times it will be flowing. Every time 6 I cross it, I wish I wrote down every day what I saw. 7 JOCELYN TAMASHIRO: Yeah. Again, I think that 8 shows that the shallow aquifer beneath our site is not 9 discharging to Kipapa Stream. If there are periods, 10 there are dry episodes in that stream, then it's not 11 discharging and refilling the stream. 12 The other thing is that the shallow aquifer was 13 found to be discontinuous, meaning when we poked holes 14 at the southern end of the facility, the shallow 15 aquifer disappeared. So, it tapers off somewhere on 16 the military's property and it doesn't -- you know, so 17 the contamination that's within the shallow aquifer is 18 confined to the military's property, and it's not 19 traveling off our property. 20 But, you know, we're going to continue to 21 monitor, we're going to do long-term monitoring. We're 22 going to check the shallow groundwater, we're going to 23 check the basal, the deeper groundwater, and that's our 24 path forward for this site and once we reach the 25 Remedial Action Cleanup Goals, then, you know, at that

30 1 point we're going to be done with remedial activities 2 at this site. 3 MICHAEL DAU: Okay. Well, for the record, I don't 4 think that -- this fuel tank farm is so close to the 5 river, that I think stuff is getting in it, whether 6 your data shows that or not. But that's what I think, 7 I think it's still getting in there. 8 JOCELYN TAMASHIRO: Are there any other comments or 9 questions? No? Okay. 10 So if you want to submit comments in writing, 11 the public comment period is open until September 19. 12 There is a form at the back of the Proposed Plan that 13 you can fill out and send to us. Once we receive the 14 comments, we will prepare a Responsiveness Summary that 15 demonstrates how all those comments are addressed, and 16 it will be included in the Record of Decision/Response 17 Action Memorandum for this site. 18 Once the Record of Decision is finalized, the 19 Navy will sign it and provide it to the Department of 20 Health for their signature, if they concur. Then a 21 notice of availability for the Record of Decision will 22 be published in the newspaper, so that the public, if 23 they want to, can review the final Record of Decision. 24 So if there are no other comments, this 25 concludes the Proposed Plan Public Meeting, and I thank

31 1 you very much for coming. 2 (Session concluded at 8:00 p.m.) 3 -oOo- 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

•

•

•

32

1 C E R T I F I C A T E

2 STATE OF HAWAII ss .

3 CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU

4

5 I, Elsie Terada , Certified Shorthand

6 Reporter , Certificate No. 437 , for the State of Hawaii ,

7 hereby cert i fy :

8 The foregoing transcript is a true and

9 correct copy of the original transcript of the

10 proceeding taken before me as therein stated .

11 Dated this 1 4th day of September , 20 11, in

12 Honolulu , Hawaii .

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

~~~ ------------------------------

ELSIE TERADA, CSR NO . 437

RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTE RS (808)524 - 2090

Documents

Final Site ST01 Record of Decision/Response Action ...Aiea Realty, Inc. 99-860 Iwaena Street, #101 Aiea, HI 96701 Mr. Koro-A-Bahjat (1 copy) 2929 Ala Ilima Street, #1102 Honolulu,