hwbdocuments.env.nm.gov afb/2018-07... · s department of the mr force 27th special operations...

S

DEPARTMENT OF THE MR FORCE27TH SPECIAL OPERATIONS MISSION SUPPORT GROUP (AFSOcJ LW j,

CANNON AIR FORCE BASE NEW MEXICO

Colonel John P. BoudreauxCommander27th Special Operations Mission Support Group110 E Alison Avenue Suite 1098Cannon AFBNM $8103

Mr. John E. KielingChief, Hazardous Waste BureauNew Mexico Environment Department2905 Rodeo Park Drive East. Bldg. 1Santa Fe NM 87505-6313

Dear Mr. Kieling

JUL 1 2 2O1

Cannon AFB is pleased to submit the attached ‘RCRA facility Investigcilion Work Plan cit

DP034”. If you have any questions regarding this submittal, please contact Mr. Steven Palmer,

Restoration Program Manager, at (575) 904-6744.

Attachment:RCRA Facility Investigation Work Plan at DP034

cc:NMED, David CobrainNMED, Gabriel AcevedoNMED, Benjamin Wear

USAF

Sincerely

FINAL

RCRA FACILITY INVESTIGATION WORK PLAN AT DP034

CANNON AIR FORCE BASE NEW MEXICO

RCRA PERMIT NO. NM7572124454

UNITED STATES AIR FORCE

Prepared for:

Cannon Air Force Base Air Force Special Operations Command

And Air Force Civil Engineer Center

Joint Base San Antonio - Lackland, TX

July 2018

Prepared by:

ATI, Inc., Columbia, MD and

HydroGeoLogic, Inc., Lakewood, CO

Under Contract to United States Army Corps of Engineers - Omaha District

Contract No. W9128F-17-D-0026

TABLE OF CONTENTS

RCRA Facility Investigation at DP034 ii Work Plan Cannon AFB W9128F-17-D-0026

1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 1-1 AUTHORITY ...................................................................................................... 1-1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE ..................................................................................... 1-1 FACILITY DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND ......................................... 1-2

Setting - Physical Geography ................................................................... 1-2 Demographics and Land Use Near Cannon AFB .................................... 1-3 Climatology.............................................................................................. 1-3 Geology .................................................................................................... 1-3 Hydrogeology .......................................................................................... 1-5 Soils.......................................................................................................... 1-6 Background Metals Concentrations in Soil ............................................. 1-7 Water Quality ........................................................................................... 1-7

PROJECT SCHEDULE ....................................................................................... 1-7

2 PROJECT/TASK ORGANIZATION .............................................................................. 2-1 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES ................................................................... 2-1

USACE .................................................................................................... 2-1 NMED ...................................................................................................... 2-1 ATI/HGL.................................................................................................. 2-2

CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBILITIES .............................................................. 2-4 Test America Project Manager ................................................................ 2-4 Test America QA Officer ......................................................................... 2-4 Radiological Support ............................................................................... 2-5 Direct Push Technology Drilling Services .............................................. 2-5 Excavation Contractor ............................................................................. 2-5 Waste Management Contractor ................................................................ 2-5

3 DECISION PROCESS..................................................................................................... 3-1 DESCRIPTION OF DECISION PROCESS ....................................................... 3-1 DEVELOPMENT OF PRELIMINARY SCEM .................................................. 3-2 CRITICAL DATA ............................................................................................... 3-3 DETECTION LIMITS ......................................................................................... 3-4

Screening Data ......................................................................................... 3-4 Definitive Data ......................................................................................... 3-4

EVALUATION OF BACKGROUND CONCENTRATIONS ........................... 3-5 HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT ......................................................... 3-5

Preliminary Site Conceptual Exposure Models ....................................... 3-6 Target Risk Levels ................................................................................... 3-6 Soil Exposure Intervals ............................................................................ 3-6 Comparison with Background ................................................................. 3-6 Screening Exposure Concentrations ........................................................ 3-7 Cumulative Human Health Risk Screening ............................................. 3-7 Radiologicals............................................................................................ 3-8 Evaluation of Petroleum Hydrocarbons ................................................... 3-8 Vapor Intrusion Risks .............................................................................. 3-8

Planned Risk Assessment Activities ........................................................ 3-8

TABLE OF CONTENTS

RCRA Facility Investigation at DP034 iii Work Plan Cannon AFB W9128F-17-D-0026

ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT ............................................................... 3-9

4 DP034 .............................................................................................................................. 4-1 SITE DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND ................................................... 4-1 PREVIOUS INVESTIGATION RESULTS ........................................................ 4-1 SAMPLING OBJECTIVES................................................................................. 4-1 SAMPLING LOCATIONS, FREQUENCIES, AND ANALYSIS ..................... 4-1

5 FIELD PROCEDURES ................................................................................................... 5-1 MOBILIZATION ................................................................................................ 5-1

Acquire Base Passes ................................................................................ 5-1 Facility Safety Requirements ................................................................... 5-1 Locate Utilities ......................................................................................... 5-1

GEOPHYSICAL SURVEY ................................................................................. 5-2 REMOVAL OF BURIED DEBRIS AND CONFIRMATION SAMPLING ...... 5-3

Site Preparation ........................................................................................ 5-3 Excavation................................................................................................ 5-3 Confirmation Sampling ............................................................................ 5-4 Quality Assurance/Quality Control.......................................................... 5-5 Decontamination ...................................................................................... 5-5

DIRECT PUSH TECHNOLOGY DRILLING AND SAMPLING..................... 5-5 Logging and Field Screening ................................................................... 5-6 DPT Soil Sampling Procedures ............................................................... 5-7 Sample Identification ............................................................................... 5-8 Borehole Abandonment ........................................................................... 5-8 RADIOLOGICAL SCREENING ............................................................ 5-8 DECONTAMINATION .......................................................................... 5-9

WASTE MANAGEMENT .................................................................................. 5-9 FIELD FORM MANAGEMENT ...................................................................... 5-10 REPORTING ..................................................................................................... 5-10

6 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................ 6-1

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1-1 Cannon Air Force Base Location Map Figure 1-2 DP034 (Debris Pit) Location Map Figure 1-3 Generalzed Geologic Strata at Cannon Air Force Base Figure 1-4 Elevation and Configuration of the Water Table in the Region of Cannon Air Force

Base Figure 1-5 Water Well Locations on and near Cannon Air Force Base Figure 1-6 Distribution of Soils by Type at Cannon Air Force Base Figure 2-1 Project Organizational Chart for Required Tasks Figure 3-1 Decision Diagram for RCRA Facility Investigation at DP034 Figure 3-2 Preliminary Site Conceptual Exposure Model - DP034

TABLE OF CONTENTS

RCRA Facility Investigation at DP034 iv Work Plan Cannon AFB W9128F-17-D-0026

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1-1 Summary of Background Elemental Concentrations in Soil Samples at Cannon AFB, New Mexico

Table 2-1 Key Project Personnel Table 4-1 Summary of Planned Sampling Locations and Analytical Parameters

LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A Analytical Laboratory Information: Reference Limits and Evaluation Tables and

Sample Containers, Preservation, and Hold Times

TABLE OF CONTENTS

RCRA Facility Investigation at DP034 v Work Plan Cannon AFB W9128F-17-D-0026

Acronyms and Abbreviations °C degrees Celsius °F degrees Fahrenheit AFB Air Force Base AFCEC Air Force Civil Engineer Center APP Accident Prevention Plan ATI ATI, Inc. AVESI American Veteran Environmental Services, Inc. B.P. before present bgs below ground surface CAC corrective action complete CEC cation exchange capacities CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act cm centimeter cm/sec centimeters per second COPC chemical of potential concern COR Contracting Officer’s Representative DRO diesel range organics DPT direct push technology DQO data quality objective EZ exclusion zone gpm gallon per minute GPR ground penetrating radar GPS global positioning system GRO gasoline range organics HHRA human health risk assessment HGL HydroGeoLogic, Inc. HI Hazard Index HP health physicist

IDW investigation derived waste

Lee Wan Lee Wan and Associates, Inc. L/min liters per minute

mg/kg milligrams per kilogram mg/L milligrams per liter m3/m cubic meters per meter MS/MSD matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate msl mean sea level

TABLE OF CONTENTS

RCRA Facility Investigation at DP034 vi Work Plan Cannon AFB W9128F-17-D-0026

NMED New Mexico Environment Department

ORO oil range organics

PID photoionization detector PM Project Manager PRG Preliminary Remediation Goal

QA quality assurance QC quality control RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act RFI RCRA Facility Investigation RPM Radiation Protection Manager RPP Radiation Protection Plan RSL Regional Screening Level

SCEM site conceptual exposure model SSHO Site Safety and Health Officer SSHP Site Safety and Health Plan SSL soil screening level SVOC semivolatile organic compound

TAL target analyte list TO Task Order TPH total petroleum hydrocarbon

U.S. United States USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers USDA United States Department of Agriculture USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency UTL upper tolerance limit

VOC volatile organic compound

WP Work Plan

SECTIONONE INTRODUCTION

RCRA Facility Investigation at DP034 1-1 Work Plan Cannon AFB W9128F-17-D-0026

1 Introduction This Work Plan (WP) has been prepared to support the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Facility Investigation (RFI) at DP034 at Cannon Air Force Base (AFB) near Clovis, New Mexico (Figure 1-1). DP034 is a historical disposal pit that was discovered on the west side of Building 3252 at Cannon AFB, New Mexico, by a construction contractor excavating for placement of an underground electrical distribution line in September 2017. The disposal pit contains various debris, including legacy scrap metal from vehicles and equipment. It has been confirmed that radiological material (most likely from luminous aircraft dials or thorium from magnesium-thorium alloy aircraft parts) exists in the pit.

AUTHORITY

ATI, Inc. (ATI) and HydroGeoLogic, Inc. (HGL) (referred to as “the ATI/HGL Team” hereafter), has been contracted by the United States (U.S.) Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Omaha District under Contract No. W9128F-17-D-0026, Task Order (TO) No. W9128F17F0223 to complete an RFI on a recently discovered historical disposal pit (DP034) proximal to Building 3252 at Cannon AFB. This RFI is being completed under the Environmental Restoration Program for Cannon AFB.

PURPOSE AND SCOPE

The purpose of this RFI is to provide the necessary information to define the horizontal and vertical extent of the debris pit and potential contaminated soil, as well as determine if unacceptable risks to human health or the environment exist at DP034. This Work Plan describes the scope of work required to be completed for this RFI and includes procedures for removal of the debris and associated contamination, if it is determined that the debris can be safely removed. The location of DP034 at Cannon AFB is presented in Figure 1-2.

This WP provides the technical approach, rationale, field procedures, and data quality objectives (DQO) to be followed to achieve the objectives of the RFI in accordance with the USACE Performance Work Statement dated September 5, 2017. This project will include the following activities:

• Prepare planning documents; • Complete a field investigation (geophysical survey using ground penetrating radar [GPR]

and EM61 electromagnetic induction to help define the vertical and lateral extent of the disposal pit);

• Remove the debris pit contents and surrounding contamination in soil as demonstrated by confirmation sampling, if the debris pit is determined to be no more than 15 feet by 15 feet by 5 feet deep;

• Sample discrete surface and subsurface soil and conduct analysis to identify the nature and extent of contaminants at the site, if the debris pit is greater than 15 feet by 15 feet by 5 feet deep or extends under a building structure;

• Compare the analytical results to established soil screening criteria; and conduct a radiation survey of all items/materials brought to the surface;

• Develop a preliminary site conceptual exposure model (SCEM); and, • Prepare the RFI Report.



If the debris can be safely excavated from the pit, the existing ground cover will be removed, material excavated from the pit, and confirmation samples will be collected from the base and sidewalls to ensure that the excavation is complete. All of the excavated soil will be properly disposed of off site, and none will be reused as backfill. Backfill of the excavation will include compaction, compaction testing, and restoration of the ground cover.

Planned soil sampling locations, sample depths, analytical parameters, quality control (QC), and matrix spike/matrix spike duplicates (MS/MSD) sampling locations, and technical rationale are summarized in Section 4. Sampling methods for activities described in Section 4 are further discussed in Section 5.

This work plan is organized as follows:

• Section 1 presents the authority, purpose and scope, facility description and background, and anticipated project schedule.

• Section 2 lists the project and task organization of this RFI at DP034.

• Section 3 presents the decision process, including DQOs developed for this project, a description of SCEM development, and screening level evaluation methodology.

• Section 4 presents the site description, background, and site-specific sampling activities that will be completed at DP034.

• Section 5 presents the field sampling procedure to be used for this project.

• Section 6 provides references used to develop the WP.

• Appendix A – Analytical Laboratory Information Reference Limits and Evaluation Tables and Sample Containers, Preservation, and Hold Times.

FACILITY DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND

Setting - Physical Geography

Cannon AFB is situated in the Southern High Plains Physiographic Province in the Llano Estacado subprovince. The Llano Estacado is a nearly flat plain sloping gently (10 to 15 feet per mile) to the east and southeast. Elevations in the eastern New Mexico portion of the Llano Estacado exceed 4,000 feet above mean sea level (msl). In the vicinity of Cannon AFB, elevations range from 4,250 feet to 4,350 feet above msl. The most prominent geomorphic features in the vicinity of Cannon AFB are blowouts and broad, widely spaced valleys. Less common landforms are relict sand dunes located along the northern side of the Portales Valley to the south of the base. Relict dunes are not found on or near Cannon AFB.

Blowouts are broad shallow depressions that form as the result of soil eroded by wind. Blowouts commonly collect surface runoff from small to moderate sized drainage areas. During periods of rainfall, runoff collects in blowouts to form ephemeral playa lakes. Playas have no external surface drainage. Water is lost by infiltration to the soil and evaporation; without recharge, playa lakes persist for only a few days or weeks. Three playas are located within the base, and several more are found to the north and east of the base.



Stream valleys tend to be fairly broad and widely spaced. Streams are ephemeral and drainages are poorly developed. No streams exist on or near Cannon AFB. Running Water Draw and Frio Draw (located about 10 and 20 miles, respectively, north of Cannon AFB) are the nearest streams. These are second-order streams. Both streams are very straight, flow southeast, and have rectilinear drainage patterns with short laterals (Woodward-Clyde, 1991).

Demographics and Land Use Near Cannon AFB

Cannon AFB is located just west of the city of Clovis, New Mexico, and just south of U.S. Highway 60/84 in a farming and ranching area. The majority of the land surrounding Cannon AFB is productive, irrigated farmland or grassland. The major crops are wheat, sorghum, sugar beets, corn, cotton, alfalfa, barley, and peanuts. The land is also used for cattle grazing, both beef and dairy. According to 2016 US census data, the population of Clovis was 39,373 while the population of Cannon AFB was 2,701.

Climatology

The climate of east-central New Mexico is classified as tropical semi-arid. Average monthly temperatures range from a January low of -3.9 degrees Celsius (°C) (25 degrees Fahrenheit [°F]) to a July high of 32.8°C (91°F) (U.S. Climate Data, 2013). Extreme daily temperatures range from a historical low of –24°C (–11°F) to a historical high of 41°C (106°F) (My Forecast, 2013). Average monthly precipitation ranges from 1.2 centimeter (cm) (0.39 inches) in February to 8.7 cm (3.43 inches) in July (U.S. Climate Data, 2013). The maximum-recorded 24-hour rainfall is 12.2 cm (4.8 inches), which occurred in the month of August. Rainfall occurs on an average of 8 days per month during the summer precipitation maximum (My Forecast, 2013). Mean annual precipitation is approximately 47 cm (18.51 inches) (U.S. Climate Data, 2013). The mean annual evapotranspiration rate is 285.9 centimeters per year (112.56 inches per year) (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [USEPA], 2013). Prevailing winds are from the southwest. Average wind speed is highest at an average of 23.34 kilometers per hour (14.5 miles per hour) during the month of April (U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA], 2013).

The atmosphere around the area of Cannon AFB is generally well mixed. The seasonal and annual average mixing heights can vary from 400 meters in the morning to 4,000 meters in the afternoon. The afternoon mixing heights are typically greater during the spring and fall seasons. The morning mixing heights are usually low, due to nighttime heat loss from the ground, producing surface-based temperature inversions. After sunrise, these inversions break up, and solar heating of the earth’s surface causes vertical mixing in the atmosphere.

Dust is frequently entrained into the atmosphere in this region of the country because of gusty winds and the semiarid climate. The Texas Panhandle-eastern New Mexico area is considered the worst area in the U.S. for windblown dust. Occasionally, this windblown dust is of sufficient quantity to restrict visibility (Woodward-Clyde 1991).

Geology

A generalized geologic section at Cannon AFB is shown in Figure 1-3. The near surface stratigraphic units of interest at Cannon AFB are the Late Miocene-Late Pliocene-age Ogallala Formation and the Early Triassic Dockum Group.



The Dockum Group consists of three formations: Santa Rosa Sandstone, Chinle formation, and the Redonda formation. Stratigraphically, the lowest unit is the Santa Rosa Sandstone. Overlying the Santa Rosa Sandstone are the Chinle and Redonda Formations. The Chinle and Redonda Formations are composed mainly of red shales with lesser interbedded sands and are known locally as “redbeds.” The top of the Dockum Group is marked by an erosional nonconformity having relief of up to several hundred feet (Lee Wan and Associates, Inc. [Lee Wan], 1990). Overlying the Dockum Group redbeds is the Ogallala Formation. The Ogallala Formation extends from eastern New Mexico and Colorado into Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, and South Dakota. Drillers’ logs from Cannon AFB indicate that the Ogallala Formation varies from 360 feet to 415 feet in thickness. The incised upper surface of Triassic redbeds strongly influences Ogallala thickness. Paleo valleys in the post Triassic nonconformity are deep and trend dominantly east to west. Ogallala thickness may vary significantly over short north to south distances (Lee Wan, 1990).

The Ogallala Formation is erosionally truncated to the south along the abandoned Portales Valley, to the west along the Pecos River Valley, and to the north in a series of ephemeral stream valleys. The Ogallala Formation extends more than 125 miles to the east before terminating as an escarpment in Briscoe County, Texas. Springs and seeps are common along the erosional margins of the Ogallala.

The Ogallala Formation dips gently and monoclinally to the southeast in the vicinity of Cannon AFB. Data suggest that some quaternary warping may have occurred; however, most of these structures are located well to the northwest and southwest of Cannon AFB. No faults or buried structural lineaments are known to exist in the vicinity of Cannon AFB (Lee Wan, 1990).

The Ogallala Formation is composed of unconsolidated poorly sorted gravel, sand, silts, and clays. The base of the Ogallala is generally marked by a gravel, cobble, and boulder deposit. This basal member contains sediments derived from igneous and sedimentary rocks transported from the mountains to the west. The Ogallala Formation was laid down as stream and overbank deposits formed within coalescing alluvial fans. These fans form a broad pediment along the eastern flank of the Rocky Mountains. As is typical of alluvial deposits, Ogallala internal stratigraphy varies vertically and horizontally over short distances.

Except where strongly cemented by calcium carbonate (caliche), the sediments of the Ogallala are loose and friable. Authigenic and allogenic clays are found as a trace to abundant matrix mineral. Five zones have been distinguished within the Ogallala of east central New Mexico on the basis of clay minerals. Smectites (montmorillonites) and attapulgite (with sepeotite) are the dominant clays throughout the Ogallala. Illite is a lesser, but persistent clay, as is kaolinite. Smectite is a swelling clay, causing deep cracks to form in dry surface soils. Smectite, in particular and to a lesser extent, attapulgite and illite, are clays with moderate to high cation exchange capacities (CEC). The formation as a whole should have a relatively high CEC, which should inhibit the migration of charged contaminants and ionic forms of metals (Lee Wan, 1990).

Caliche is a major feature of the Ogallala Formation, occurring as nearly continuous to discontinuous layers throughout. Caliche is hard, white to pale tan on fresh surfaces, weathering to gray, and has a chalky appearance. Caliche forms as calcium carbonate, leached from overlying sediments, and precipitates in the pore space of the host sediments. Precipitation is caused by the evaporation of downward percolating water. The caliche may thus mark the position of ancient



vadose zones. Radiocarbon dates for the upper “climax” caliche range from approximately 27,000 years before the present (B.P.) to approximately 42,000 years B.P. (Lee Wan, 1990).

Caliche is relatively soluble in acidic water (i.e., water with a pH less than 7) or in waters containing dissolved carbon dioxide. The top surface of the uppermost or “climax” caliche in a fresh outcrop typically shows solution etching. The Ogallala has numerous continuous to discontinuous caliche layers throughout its thickness. The climax caliche is pisolitic (i.e., consisting of spherical concentrically laminated aggregates 1 to 10 millimeters in diameter) (Lee Wan, 1990). The pisolites are thought to have formed as the caliche was repeatedly chemically weathered and brecciated during Pleistocene pluvials (wet climate episodes) and later recemented during drier intervals. This upper caliche crops out around playas and the bounding escarpments of the Ogallala, and is locally termed “caprock.” The climax caliche is typically 3 to 5 feet thick. Caliches that occur lower in the Ogallala are platy and harder. Caliche may be thin or absent below playas (Woodward-Clyde, 1991).

Hydrogeology

The lower portion of the Ogallala Formation is the primary regional aquifer for both potable and irrigation water. No deeper aquifers are utilized in the vicinity of Cannon AFB. The Ogallala aquifer is part of the High Plains Aquifer that extends continuously from Wyoming and South Dakota into New Mexico and Texas. In east-central New Mexico, the Ogallala aquifer rests on Dockum Group redbeds, which serve as the basal confining layer. The Ogallala is a water table, or unconfined, aquifer. The Ogallala aquifer has a southeasterly regional gradient of about 17 feet per mile (0.0032 meters per meter, see Figure 1-4). Well yields vary from less than 1 gallon per minute (gpm) in thin silts and sands, and up to 1,600 gpm in thick sands and gravels. Water quality is generally good, with hardness and fluorides being somewhat high (Lee Wan, 1990).

Based on data from the 2012 base-wide sampling event, the depth to groundwater at Cannon AFB varies from 287.04 to 349.79 feet below ground surface (bgs) (URS Group, Inc., 2015). Saturated thickness is influenced by the configuration of the erosional nonconformity surface marking the top of the Dockum Group. The local groundwater gradient is southeasterly at 7.5 feet per mile. Yields in tests of Cannon AFB water wells have ranged from 776 liters per minute (L/min) (205 gpm) to 4,353 L/min (1,150 gpm). Specific capacities range from 0.14 cubic meters per meter (m3/m) (11.4 gallons/feet) to 0.35 m3/m (27.9 gallons/feet) (Lee Wan, 1990).

Very rough estimates of hydraulic conductivity were made from well pump tests in water wells 5 and 9 (Figure 1-5) using the Theis equation. An estimate of hydraulic conductivity for water well 8 was based on water level recovery data using the Bouwer and Rice approach (Lee Wan, 1990). The data used in these calculations were obtained to evaluate pump rates, efficiency, and well yield, and were not intended for use in calculating aquifer properties. The results of these calculations should therefore be considered as first approximations.

Hydraulic conductivity values for water wells 5 and 9 were found to be approximately 2.0 x 10-3 centimeters per second (cm/sec). Calculations for water well 8 resulted in a hydraulic conductivity of 2.0 x 10-2 cm/sec. In addition, slug testing of two monitoring wells (MW-O and MW-N) was completed by Woodward-Clyde in February 1995 (Woodward-Clyde, 1995). The estimated hydraulic conductivities from these slug tests were both 3 x 10-3 cm/sec. These estimates appear to be low when compared to published hydraulic conductivity data for sands and gravels. As



reported in Lee Wan (1990), a groundwater flow velocity of about 4.5 x 101 meters per year (1.5 x 102 feet per year) has been estimated. This calculates out to a hydraulic conductivity of approximately 1.4 x 10-4 cm/sec. Again, this appears to be low when compared with published data (Freeze and Cherry, 1979).

The presence of interstitial clays may account for both the variability and the low values of hydraulic conductivities. Boring logs from Cannon AFB projects and published reports (Lee Wan, 1990) indicated that interstitial and interstratified clays are abundant in the Ogallala Formation.

Recharge to the Ogallala is primarily through precipitation. A recharge rate of 0.5 inches/year was calculated using the Theis equation; however, the recharge rate may be as much as 1.0 inches/year. Due to the high evapotranspiration rate and low precipitation, recharge probably occurs only during heavy rainfall events where the infiltration capacity of the soil is exceeded and runoff occurs, or during cool months when precipitation exceeds evapotranspiration. Excess runoff flows to playas, and the presence of water in playas may allow deep percolation to the aquifer. The occurrence of this process is evidenced by the presence of clay deposits in, and thin or nonexistent caliche layers directly below, playas. Caliche is soluble in acidic rainwaters and is leached over time to form percolation pathways (Lee Wan, 1990).

Discharge from the Ogallala occurs through well pumping and springs along the eroded margins of the formation. Spring discharge does not occur on or near Cannon AFB. Domestic and irrigation water wells are common on and around the Base. The rate of discharge exceeds the rate of recharge. Water levels in the Ogallala have declined steadily from the 1930s to the present. A decline of 50 to 100 feet has been observed in the area around Clovis, New Mexico, from the 1930s to 1980. The largest area of water level decline exceeding 100 feet occurs south of the Canadian River extending from Curry County, New Mexico, to Crosby County, Texas (Lee Wan, 1990).

The dominant uses of groundwater in the Cannon AFB area are as potable and irrigation water. Numerous wells are found in the Cannon AFB area, most of which provide only irrigation water (Figure 1-5).

The Ogallala will continue to be used as the primary source of potable and irrigation water for eastern New Mexico. The New Mexico State Engineer designated Curry County as a Water Basin in 1989. This designation allows for regulation of water rights, usage, and well drilling (Woodward-Clyde, 1991).

Soils

Soils in the vicinity of Cannon AFB are classified as silty sand to clayey sand under the Unified Soil Classification System, and as aridisols (calciorthids) under the Soil Conservation Service Comprehensive Soil Classification System. The following summary is based on the Soil Conservation Service Curry County Soil Survey (Lee Wan, 1990).

The most common soil type on the Base, and mapped in the area of DP034, is the Amarillo fine sandy loam, 0- to 2-percent slope phase (map symbol Ab on Figure 1-6). This soil consists of a thin sandy A horizon, well-defined clayey B1-3 horizons, with a calcic B3 horizon at depths below 40 inches. The calcic B3 horizon lies on a calcic C horizon, or on caliche. The Amarillo fine sandy loam is present on all relatively flat surfaces at the Base, but is also found on slopes associated with playas (map symbol Ac).



Clovis fine sandy loams, 0- to 2-percent slope phase (map symbol Cb) and 2- to 5-percent slope phase (map symbol Cc), are very similar to Amarillo fine sandy loams. In the Clovis soils, the depth to the calcic C horizon ranges from 28 to 56 inches. The depth to caliche exceeds 56 inches. Clovis and Amarillo fine sandy loams occur in close association.

In a few limited areas, particularly along the steeper slopes around playas, Mausker fine sandy loam, 0- to 2-percent slope phase (map symbol Ma) and 2- to 5-percent phase (map symbol M6), are found. Mausker fine sandy loams have no B horizons and are very calcareous. The calcic C horizon is within 2 feet of the surface.

The A and B horizons of Amarillo and Clovis fine sandy loams are rapidly to moderately permeable. Mausker fine sandy loam A and Ac horizons are rapidly permeable. Permeabilities in calcic B and C horizons are moderate (Lee Wan, 1990).

Background Metals Concentrations in Soil

The natural soils in the vicinity of Cannon AFB are alkaline and generally rich in metals. Typically, high concentrations of aluminum, iron, magnesium, manganese, and potassium combine with elevated levels of many other metals in the natural soils. Calcium is naturally present in the soils at levels up to nearly 2.00E+05 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg). Tightly cemented layers of “caliche” are present in several horizons in the natural soils and the Ogallala aquifer below. As stated in Section 1.3.4, the Ogallala Formation should have a relatively high CEC, which should, in turn, inhibit the migration of charged contaminants, especially the ionic forms of metals.

The background levels of inorganic compounds in surface and subsurface soil at Cannon AFB are presented in Table 1-1 in the form of a mean value and statistical information on the ranges encountered for each element. Table 1-1 has been adapted from a final report by Woodward-Clyde dated September 1997 entitled “Naturally Occurring Concentrations of Inorganics and Background Concentrations of Pesticides at Cannon Air Force Base, New Mexico” and a final report by FPM/URS dated September 2017 entitled “RFI for Sites SD012, SD017, and SD020.” These reports summarizes background data for soil from numerous past investigations in the vicinity. The upper tolerance limits (UTL) presented in Table 1-1 will be the background levels used in the screening of surface and subsurface soil chemical results for this RFI at DP034.

Water Quality

The groundwater quality at Cannon AFB is generally good, with dissolved solids ranging from 2.50E+02 to 5.00E+02 milligrams per liter (mg/L) (Gutentag et al., 1984) and fluorides ranging from 2.2E+00 to 2.7E+00 mg/L (William Matotan and Associates, Inc., 1985).

PROJECT SCHEDULE

Fieldwork is scheduled for the summer of 2019. Preparation for field sampling activities include mobilization, acquisition of base passes, and utility locates is described in Section 5 of this WP. The proposed project schedule is updated monthly and provided under separate cover in Monthly Status Updates to the USACE, Omaha District. Should New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) review and approval of this WP be obtained ahead of the scheduled timeframe, the field sampling activities schedule will be revised accordingly. Fieldwork is estimated to be completed in approximately 2 weeks.

£¤60

ST7

Clovis

W Llano Estacado Boulevard

ST311

DP034

Figure 1.1Cannon Air Force Base

Location Map

Legend

RFI Work PlanCannon AFB, New Mexico

0 3,500 7,0001,750

Feet

³ \\Gst-srv-01\HGLGIS\Cannon_Holloman_AFB\_MSIW\Cannon_AFB\ATI_WP\(1-01)Cannon_AFB_Location.mxd6/15/2018 JGSource: HGL, ESRI, U.S. Census Bureau TIGER

ArcGIS Online Imagery

NEW MEXICO

_̂Cannon

Air Force Base

General Location

0 15075

Miles

Cannon Air Force Base

Building 252

Building 3252 Building 257

Building 272

Building261

DP034

Figure 1.2DP034 (Debris Pit)

Location Map

Note:All locations approximate.

RFI Work PlanCannon AFB, New Mexico

0 40 8020

Feet

³ \\Gst-srv-01\HGLGIS\Cannon_Holloman_AFB\_MSIW\Cannon_AFB\ATI_WP\(1-02)Debris_Pit_Location.mxd6/15/2018 JGSource: HGL, ESRI, U.S. Census Bureau TIGER

ArcGIS Online Imagery

Legend

Trench for Underground Electrical Line

Gas Line

Water Line

Overhead Powerline

Cannon Air Force Base Boundary

Approximate Location of DP034

Elevation and Configuration of theWater Table in the Region of

Cannon Air Force BaseCannon Air Force Base, New Mexico

Figure 1-4Drawn By:

DPGChecked By:

MS

Date:Project No.11/9/2015

60440693

LegendBase BoundaryGroundwater Contour(feet above mean sea level)

NMAZ

TX

OKCOUT KSLocator Map

5000

4800

4600

4400

4200

42004400

4000

Tucumcari

Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed

¹ 10 0 105Miles

Z:\ca

nnon

\RFI\

FT00

8\1-4.

mxd

Revision:0

Cannon AFB^

Map projection: NAD83 State Plane Feet New Mexico East (FIPS 3001)

Water Well Locations on and NearCannon Air Force Base

Cannon Air Force Base, New Mexico

Figure 1-5

Drawn By:

DPGChecked By:

MS

Date:

Project No.11/9/201560440693

Legend!A Monitoring Well

!( Private Water Well

#* Base Water Well

Base Boundary

Clovis

Cannon AFB

Locator Map

!(

!(

!( !( !(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !( !(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*!A

!A!A!A !A

!A!A

!A!A

!A!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

W-5W-2W-1

W-3W-4

W-8

W-7 W-8

W-24

W-25

W-27W-26

W-28

W-12

W-13

W-16

W-14

W-15

W-17

W-22

W-23

W-21 W-20W-19

W-18

W-36

W-35

W-34W-33W-32W-31

W-29

W-30

W-9W-10W-11

6

9

5

1 37

84

2

12

MW-X

MW-W

MW-V

MW-N

MW-H

MW-G

MW-F

MW-E

MW-U

MW-T

MW-S

MW-D

MW-A

MW-Ra

MW-Pa

MW-C

MW-B

MW-Oa

¹ 4,000 0 4,0002,000Feet

Z:\c

anno

n\R

FI\F

T008

\1-5

.mxd

Revision:

0

Cannon AFB

Map projection: NAD83 State Plane Feet New Mexico, East (FIPS 3001)

Distribution of Soils by Type atCannon Air Force Base

Cannon Air Force Base, New Mexico

Figure 1-6Drawn By:

DPGChecked By:

MS

Date:Project No.11/24/2015

60440693

LegendBase Boundary

Clovis

Cannon AFB

Locator Map

¹ 2,000 0 2,0001,000Feet

Z:\ca

nnon

\RFI\

FT00

8\1-6.

mxd

Revision:0

Cannon AFB

Base SoilsAb Amarillo Fine Sandy Loam, 0-2% Slopes, Generally 46 in. ThickAc Amarillo Fine Sandy Loam, 2-5% Slopes, Generally 46 in. ThickCb Clovis Fine Sandy Loam, 0-2% Slopes, Generally 28 in. ThickCc Clovis Fine Sandy Loam, 2-5% Slopes, Generally 28 in. ThickMa Mansker Fine Sandy Loam, 0-2% Slopes, Generally 22 in. ThickMb Mansker Fine Sandy Loam, 2-5% Slopes, Generally 22 in. ThickPa Potter Fine Sandy Loam, 0-5% Slopes, Generally 7 in. Thick

Map projection: NAD83 State Plane Feet New Mexico East (FIPS 3001)

in. = inches

TABLE 1-1Summary of Background Elemental Concentrations(1) in Soil Samples(2,6)

Cannon AFB, New Mexico

Element Surface Soil Subsurface Soil Surface Soil Subsurface Soil Surface Soil Subsurface SoilAluminum 5,508 5,932 1,964 2,183 8,950 12,214Antimony ND (3) ND (3) ND (3) ND (3) 3.15 (3) 16 (3)

Arsenic 2.807 (6) 2.887 (6) 1.019 (6) 0.723 (6) 5.16 (6) 4.38 (6)

Barium 100 210 165 199 670 890Beryllium 0.35 (4) 0.35 (4) 0.13 (4) 0.17 (4) 0.78 (4) 0.73 (4)

Cadmium ND (3) ND (3) ND (3) ND (3) 0.435 (3) 1.3 (3)

Calcium 5,645 89,410 11,366 64,611 44,800 237,498Chromium (total) 7.1 5.6 1.3 2.33 10.5 13.3Cobalt 2.9 2.6 (4) 1.0 1.4 (4) 6.6 4.7 (4)

Copper 6.8 3.8 (4) 4.6 1.97 (4) 18.3 8.3 (4)

Iron 6,458 5,148 1,349 2,262 10,100 13,148Lead 6.8 4.7 1.6 1.7 12 8.7Magnesium 1,066 4,260 390 3,856 1,930 19,300Manganese 139 83 51 50 307 333Mercury 0.025 (4) ND (3) 0.016 (4) ND (3) 0.056 (4) 0.019 (3)

Nickel 5.5 5.9 (4) 1.6 2.41 (4) 11 14.9 (4)

Potassium 1,345 1,222 413 417 2,691 2,512Selenium ND (3) 0.47 (4) ND (3) 0.31 (4) 0.26 (3) 1.1 (4)

Silver --- (5) ND (3) --- (5) ND (3) 0.4 (5) 2.65 (3)

Sodium 91 351(4) 10 253 (4) 102 1,227 (4)

Thallium 0.172 (6) 0.117 (6) 0.0438 (6) 0.0271 (6) 0.262 (3,6) 0.172 (3,6)

Vanadium 14.9 16 2.8 5.2 23.3 32.8Zinc 15.4 12.1 5.2 4.8 32.2 30.6Notes:

(1) All concentrations are in mg/kg.

(4) Values determined from a data set including one-half of the reporting limits for nondetects.

95% Upper Tolerance Limit of

(2) From reports entitled “Naturally Occurring Concentrations of Inorganics and Background Concentrations of Pesticides at Cannon Air Force Base,

New Mexico” (W-C 1997) and "RFI for Sites SD012, SD017, and SD020" (FPM/URS 2017).

(6) Value was calculated based on detected results from the combined 1997 and 2016 data collected (FPM/URS, 2017).

(3) All analytical samples were nondetect; therefore, a mean and standard deviation were not calculated. One-half the highest reporting limit is used as the 95% UTL. The actual mean, standard deviation, and UTL may be less than these values.

(5) Silver was detected in only one sample; therefore, a mean and standard deviation were not calculated. The single detected concentration is used as the 95% UTL.

Mean (x) Standard Deviation (s) Background Concentrations

SECTIONTWO PROJECT/TASK ORGANIZATION


2 Project/Task Organization The project management team and lines of authority are presented in Figure 2-1. This chart includes all individuals discussed below. The names of all key participants identified in Figure 2-1, including organization names and telephone numbers for project, field, and laboratory project managers are provided in Table 2-1 and will be updated as needed.

ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

This section describes the general roles and responsibilities for USACE, the Air Force Civil Engineer Center (AFCEC), Cannon AFB, NMED, and the ATI/HGL team.

USACE

AFCEC is administering this contract through USACE, Omaha District offices. The AFCEC Environmental Restoration Program Manager ensures compliance with project requirements and Cannon AFB subject matter experts to provide final review of the Remedial Investigation documents.

USACE Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR)

USACE is responsible for overall project administration and technical management services, including contracting and procurement, submittals management, cost and schedule management, and technical oversight. All regulatory correspondence is coordinated by Cannon AFB with approval by AFCEC through the USACE COR. The USACE Task Order Project Manager (PM) provides overall management of this project and will coordinate all project matters with other technical expert USACE team members, AFCEC, and Cannon AFB.

Cannon AFB Remedial Project Manager

The Cannon AFB Remedial Project Manager has the overall responsibility for all activities associated with this RFI at Cannon AFB. The Cannon AFB Remedial Project Manager will:

• Coordinate Base access with ATI/HGL and its subcontractors. • Review all plans and reports. • Complete oversight of investigation activities completed at Cannon AFB. • Coordinate reviews with the Environmental Flight Chief. • Be responsible for all direct contact/correspondence with the NMED for this project. • Assist ATI/HGL with obtaining digging permits and site access.

NMED

The NMED PM has overall responsibility to ensure the environmental program and the directives specified within the RCRA Hazardous Waste Permit No. NM 7572124454 comply with the state of New Mexico’s environmental program. NMED is the lead regulatory agency for this field work. The NMED PM will coordinate NMED’s involvement and receive all notices, reports, plans, and other documents prior to, during, and following the project. Where necessary, NMED will be responsible for coordinating efforts of other regulatory agencies. In addition to the NMED PM,



other NMED personnel may be involved in this project and may be on site during all or part of the field work.

ATI/HGL The roles and responsibilities of key ATI/HGL personnel are presented below.

Program Manager

The Program Manager will be responsible for monitoring the overall progress of the project and ensuring the necessary resources are available to the ATI PM. The Program Manager will provide oversight to ensure client satisfaction during performance of the contract.

Project Manager

The ATI PM is the primary contact for USACE. Within his area of responsibility, the PM will develop the project scope, schedule, and budget. He will provide day-to-day management of the ATI team and will schedule and lead kickoff meetings and review conferences. The PM will be responsible for the safe, efficient, and quality execution of the project and for ensuring that the subcontractors deliver their work safely and to specifications and quality standards. The PM’s authority will include making process, procedure, and managerial decisions regarding specific project issues; negotiating with subcontractors; approving subcontractor deliverable performance and invoices; and implementing the RFI WP. The PM responsibilities include the following:

• Define project objectives and develop a detailed work schedule. • Establish project policy and procedures to address the specific needs of the project as a

whole as well as the objectives of each task. • Develop site specific DQOs and ensure compliance with project DQOs. • Acquire and apply technical and corporate resources as needed to ensure performance

within budget and schedule constraints. • Orient all support staff concerning the project’s special considerations. • Monitor and direct the project staff. • Develop and meet ongoing project and/or task staffing requirements, including

mechanisms to review and evaluate each task product. • Review the work performed on each task to ensure its quality, responsiveness, and

timeliness. • Review and analyze overall task order performance with respect to planned requirements

and authorizations. • Approve all reports (deliverables) before their submission to USACE, AFCEC, Cannon

AFB, and NMED. • Be ultimately responsible for the preparation and quality of draft, draft final, and final

reports. • Represent the project team at meetings. • Update and submit the project schedule as necessary. • Submit monthly progress reports.



Deputy Project Manager

The HGL Deputy PM is an alternate contact for USACE. The Deputy PM will assist the ATI PM in the development of the project scope, schedule, and budget. He will assist in day-to-day management of the project team and will participate in kickoff meetings and review conferences. The Deputy PM will assist the PM in managerial decisions regarding specific project issues; approving deliverable performance and invoices; and developing and implementing the RFI WP. The Deputy PM reports to the PM.

Site Lead

The ATI/HGL Site Lead reports directly to the ATI PM and is responsible for completion of the assigned activities (i.e., site visits, report preparation, etc.). The Site Lead is responsible for understanding and implementing provisions of the project documents as they apply to project activities.

Technical Lead

The ATI/HGL Technical Lead reports directly to the ATI PM and is responsible for approved processes and procedures for radiological issues of the RFI. He will approve radiological resources, select techniques, schedule personnel, manage risks, and coordinate with QC and safety personnel to achieve conformance with the WP and deliver safe and effective services.

Project Chemist

The ATI/HGL Project Chemist reports to the ATI PM and also works directly with other project personnel. This person is responsible for data review of all sample results from the analytical laboratories. The ATI/HGL Chemist will be the point of contact for subcontractor laboratories.

Health and Safety Manager

The ATI/HGL Health and Safety Manager has overall responsibility for the health and safety of personnel on the project. The Health and Safety Manager will advise the PM on health and safety issues; however, the Health and Safety Manger operates independently of the PM and can also work directly with the Site Safety and Health Officer. Health and Safety Manager responsibilities include monitoring and verifying work is performed in accordance with ATI/HGL safety requirements. Safety requirements are provided in the Accident Prevention Plan (APP)/Site Safety and Health Plan (SSHP) prepared as a standalone document under separate cover (ATI/HGL, 2018).

Site Safety and Health and Safety Officer

The ATI/HGL Site Safety and Health Officer (SSHO) will provide day-to-day safety and industrial hygiene support, provide site safety orientations, oversee air monitoring and training, confirm appropriate personal protective equipment selection, conduct safety meetings, conduct daily site safety inspections, confirm work zone delineations and verify training and medical clearances of on-site personnel. The SSHO reports activities to the PM.



Project Radiation Protection Manager

The project Radiation Protection Manager (RPM) will advise the PM and SSHO on issues related to ionizing radiation and buried materials that may pose a risk associated with ionizing radiation. In addition, the project radiation protection manager is responsible for:

• Ensuring implementation of the radiation protection plan (RPP), which is included with the SSHP, as a separate standalone document prepared under separate cover (ATI/HGL, 2018);

• Managing the on-site health physicists (HP) personnel and verifying the successful implementation of the RPP; and

• Evaluating screening results and providing same to PM and SSHO, as needed.

Quality Assurance (QA)/ QC Officer

The ATI/HGL QA/QC Officer will ensure that all QA/QC procedures for the project are followed. The QA/QC Officer audits for compliance and established procedures to determine acceptance or rejection of field work and completed work.

Technical Reviewers

ATI/HGL Senior Technical Reviewers will be responsible for reviewing project documents prior to delivery. The review(s) will be conducted to ensure the data presented and conclusions made are reasonable and accurate.

Risk Assessor

The ATI/HGL Risk Assessor will be involved in determining risks to human health and/or the environment based on the results of the investigation.

CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBILITIES

All subcontractors chosen for the project will meet pre-established industry standards of quality criteria and experience for the types of work to be completed. Subcontractors for the project will include analytical laboratories, direct push services, excavation contractor, waste management contractor, and radiological support.

Test America Project Manager

The Test America PM will report the laboratory results to the ATI/HGL Project Chemist and will communicate with the ATI/HGL Project Chemist to facilitate the completion of laboratory activities for the project.

Test America QA Officer

The Test America QA Officer has the overall responsibility for data generated by the laboratory, as well as the adherence to acceptable practice. The laboratory QA Officer will communicate data issues through the laboratory PM. In addition, the laboratory QA Officer will:



• Oversee laboratory QA; • Oversee QA/QC documentation; • Conduct detailed data review; • Determine whether to implement laboratory corrective actions, if required; • Define appropriate laboratory QA procedures; and • Prepare laboratory Standard Operating Procedures.

Radiological Support

Radiological support in the field will be provided by American Veteran Environmental Services, Inc. (AVESI). AVESI will be responsible for providing certified personnel for screening and interpretation of radiological aspects of the WP in the field. They will be responsible for providing RPM services and radiological training for implementing the fieldwork in accordance with the RPP.

Direct Push Technology Drilling Services

Enviro-Drill, Inc., will be responsible for providing direct push technology (DPT) drilling services to collect subsurface geologic data and soil samples. All work will be completed in accordance with WP procedures and under the RPP, with radiological support provided by AVESI.

Excavation Contractor

The excavation contractor will be responsible for performing excavation of debris from DP034, if the pit is determined to be no larger than 15 feet by 15 feet by 5 feet deep and can be safely removed without compromising nearby structures (that is, the materials do not extend under nearby structures). The excavation contractor also will be responsible for backfilling the pit once confirmation sampling results indicate contaminated material has been removed. All work will be completed in accordance with WP procedures and under the RPP, with radiological support provided by AVESI.

Waste Management Contractor

A waste management contractor will ensure the facility identified for removed waste is licensed to receive the material and will be responsible for associated documentation. If radiological wastes are encountered, the vendor will have the current license and current acceptance limits will allow for full Class A licensed waste disposal.

Figure 2-1 Project Organizational Chart for Required Tasks

Project Manager David Nelson, P.G.

Data Validation

LDC

Excavation Talon LPE

Deputy PM/Task Manager Kevin Wierengo

Analytical Laboratory

Test America, Inc

Program Manager Lynn Kessler, P.G., PMP

New Mexico Environment Department

H&S Manager Anthony Kesslak

QA/QC Manager

David Heisler

Contracts Manager Aruna Velu

Technical Lead Jeff DeVaughn, P.G.

Surveyor TBD

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Omaha District Todd Renkema - PM

AFCEC Robin Paul

Cannon AFB

Steven Palmer

Site Lead Ryan Sullivan

Radiological Support AVESI

GEITA Support

Mark Fuchs

GPR GPRS

T&D Philotechnics

DPT Drilling

EnviroDrill

TABLE 2-1Key Project PersonnelCannon AFB, New MexicoTodd Renkema Project Manager USACE 402-995-2744 [email protected]

Robin Paul Environmental Restoration Program Manager AFCEC 210-395-0684 [email protected]

Steven Palmer Remedial Project Manager Cannon AFB 575-904-6744 [email protected] Mark Fuchs Environmental Scientist Cannon AFB 575-904-6743 [email protected] Kessler Program Manager ATI/HGL 703-478-5186 [email protected] Nelson Project Manager ATI/HGL 404- 915-5021 [email protected] Ryan Sullivan Site Lead ATI/HGL 720-381-5594 [email protected] Velu Contracts Manager ATI/HGL 410-992-3424 [email protected] Kesslak Health and Safety Manager ATI/HGL 865-659-0499 [email protected] David Heisler Program QC Manager ATI/HGL 925-626-7121 [email protected] DeVaughn Technical Lead ATI/HGL 330-463-3306 [email protected]

303-524-3658 (office)231-343-6698 (cell)

Kevin Wierengo Deputy Project Manager/Task Manager ATI/HGL [email protected]

SECTIONThree DECISION PROCESS


3 Decision Process This section presents the decision process that will be used to assess the data needs and approach at DP034. The investigation decision process is designed to identify appropriate actions for DP034 based on three potential recommendations: corrective action complete (CAC) without controls, CAC with controls, or further investigation, evaluation, or action. Site-specific recommendations for the selection of an appropriate action will depend on whether it is feasible to remove the buried debris, and on whether chemicals of potential concern (COPC) are detected in the remaining soils at the site at levels that may pose an unacceptable risk to human health or the environment. This section provides a summary of the decision-making process that will be used for DP034.

DESCRIPTION OF DECISION PROCESS

The following decision process will be used to assess the data needs and investigative approach for DP034. The DQO process is designed to provide geophysical data of sufficient quality and quantity to evaluate whether the material in the debris pit may be feasibly removed, and soil data of sufficient quantity to evaluate if debris and potentially impacted soil have been successfully removed (if feasible), or if a release has occurred from the debris in the pit that could pose a risk to human health or the environment.

A general decision diagram (Figure 3-1) was developed for DP034 to present a logical decision process that will be used to evaluate the data resulting from the investigation to ensure that project objectives are met.

The decision process will be implemented by first evaluating and summarizing existing information and performing a geophysical assessment to determine the approximate size and location of the buried debris. If the volume of debris is less than 15 feet by 15 feet by 5 feet and located where its removal will not compromise nearby structures, the material will be removed and subsurface soil forming the walls and floor of the pit will be sampled to confirm the surrounding soil does not pose a risk to human health or the environment. If the volume of the debris is larger than 15 feet by 15 feet by 5 feet deep or extends to locations that would compromise nearby structures if removed, the material will remain in place, and surrounding soils will be evaluated to determine if a release has occurred from the debris in the pit that could pose a risk to human health. Based on the unknown contents of the pit, with the exception of the confirmed presence of radiological material (most likely from luminous aircraft dials or thorium from magnesium-thorium alloy aircraft parts), surface and subsurface soil samples will be collected and analyzed for total petroleum hydrocarbon (TPH) gasoline, diesel, and oil range organics (GRO, DRO, and ORO, respectively), target analyte list (TAL) metals, volatile organic compounds (VOC), semivolatile organic compounds (SVOC), isotopic thorium, and radium to identify a potential release.

The potential for site-related contaminants to impact groundwater will be assessed by re-evaluating the vertical distribution of contaminants in the soil column. It is not expected that there is potential for impact to groundwater, which is encountered at approximately 330 feet bgs in the site area. If COPCs are identified at concentrations that exceed the soil to groundwater soil screening levels (SSL) and do not decrease with depth, fate and transport modeling will be completed to evaluate the potential for contaminant transportation to groundwater.



Concentrations of COPCs will be evaluated for potential risks by comparing maximum detected concentrations to risk screening criteria. This conservative screening approach will indicate if no further evaluation or action will be required other than confirmation sampling after the proposed removal action is completed or ensuring controls remain in place, if the debris cannot be feasibly removed. Derivation of human health risk screening criteria are presented in Section 3.

The results of this evaluation will be used to make recommendations regarding the alternatives stated above. The recommendations will be made on the following basis:

• If the debris has been removed and the vertical and lateral extent of impact in surrounding soil has been assessed, no threat to human health exists above residential screening criteria, and no potential threat to the environment is apparent, then CAC without controls status will be recommended.

• If the debris has not been removed and the vertical and lateral extent of contamination in remaining soil has been assessed, no threat to human health exists above residential screening criteria, and no potential threat to the environment is apparent, then CAC with controls status will be recommended (to maintain the debris in place).

• If the debris has not been removed and there is a potential threat to human health or the environment, then further investigation and/or evaluation will be recommended for the site. Further investigation and/or evaluation may include additional field investigation, baseline risk assessment, or completion of a corrective action.

DEVELOPMENT OF PRELIMINARY SCEM

The initial step in the evaluation of DP034 is the development of a SCEM, which provides a framework for evaluating potential risks associated with the site, aids in the identification of data needs, and assists in the identification of appropriate preliminary remediation goals targeted at significant exposure pathways. The SCEM was developed based on available information and observations made upon the discovery of the buried debris adjacent to Building 3252. The SCEM is presented in Figure 3-2. Upon completion of the field sampling program, the SCEM will be reviewed and modified (if necessary) to reevaluate the site, taking into consideration the analytical results of all COPCs for surface and subsurface soil.

The SCEM presents chemical release sources and transport media, potential human or ecological receptors, and intake-mechanisms for each potential exposure pathway. An exposure pathway describes the means by which release, transport, and intake by receptor population of COPCs occurs. An exposure pathway consists of five necessary elements:

• Source; • Transport mechanism of chemical release to the environment; • Environmental exposure medium for the released chemical (e.g., contaminated soil); • Point of potential human or ecological exposure to transported chemicals (e.g., a domestic

drinking water well); and • A human or ecological intake mechanism (e.g., inhalation or ingestion) at the point of

exposure.

All five elements must be present for an exposure pathway to be complete and for chemical exposure to occur. In the SCEM, potentially significant pathways are denoted with solid lines.



Potential exposure pathways are evaluated with respect to potential chemical sources at the site. Exposure pathways are considered potentially complete if all five necessary elements are present. Incomplete exposure pathways do not result in actual exposure to human or ecological receptors and, therefore, do not pose a potential risk. Partial or possible pathways are those that could conceivably be complete and results in an exposure, but the resulting exposure would be at levels that would not pose a significant risk.

The primary source at DP034 is the legacy scrap metal from vehicles and equipment, including the radiation source from buried airplane parts.

Chemicals from the primary sources may be transported away from the primary source area, affecting other media that may in turn act as secondary sources. Leaching of the chemicals to the subsurface soil are shown as primary chemical release mechanisms. Subsurface soils are an important secondary source of potential chemical releases. COPCs in surface and subsurface soils may leach or percolate through the subsurface soil and be released to groundwater, even though the buried material is below an asphalt/concrete surface and depth to groundwater is expected to be at least 330 feet bgs.

Other release mechanisms, such as direct contact (soil ingestion and dermal contact), surface runoff, wind erosion, or volatilization to the atmosphere, are also depicted in the SCEMs. These are not considered significant pathways for human exposures under the current scenario because the buried material is beneath an impervious surface.

There is no current complete and significant pathway for human and ecological receptors because the material is beneath an impervious surface and was only uncovered during proposed construction for burying cable. Surface and subsurface soil may provide exposure to base workers (occupational exposures), and hypothetical future construction workers, site workers, or residents. The pit was uncovered beneath a concrete/asphalt cover and is located in an industrial area of Cannon AFB. The site area meets the site exclusion criteria regarding risk to ecological receptors (NMED, 2017). DP034 does not include viable ecological habitat nor is it utilized by potential (current and/or future) ecological receptors); complete or potentially complete exposure pathways do not exist due to the presence of concrete/asphalt cover in an industrial setting. Therefore, DP034 does not require further ecological assessment.

CRITICAL DATA

Critical data are data that are crucial for decision-making (that is, determining whether a site warrants no further investigation or whether additional investigation should be considered). Critical data may be from a select sampling location or from a selected subset of samples from locations of roughly equal importance. Data from a specific field sample, such as a soil sample immediately downgradient of a discharge point, may be designated as critical if it is necessary to evaluate contaminant concentrations at that specific location for source or exposure pathway characterization. In other cases, data from a select number of field samples (e.g., a subset of all surface soil samples collected at a site) may be designated as critical when the objective is to estimate mean contaminant concentrations over an area.

Following NMED guidance (NMED, 2017), critical data must be from environmental media representing each major exposure pathway and must be 100-percent complete. That is, valid results must be obtained for all data deemed critical. A complete set of critical data may be taken from



more than one sample (i.e., if one sample has missing or rejected analytes, data from another comparable sample can be used to complete the critical data set). If the missing or rejected data do not hinder the decision-making process (e.g., they are not COPCs), they are not considered critical data, and the critical data set is still 100-percent complete. If decisions cannot be made because of missing or rejected data, a recommendation for an appropriate corrective action will be made. This allows for the retention of valid data from the original data set and compiling a complete, representative, and valid set of critical data without unnecessary resampling.

DETECTION LIMITS

The two general categories of data that will be generated for use in project decision making are: (1) screening data and (2) definitive data.

Screening Data

Screening data are generated by rapid methods of analysis with less rigorous sample preparation, calibration, or QC requirements than are necessary to produce definitive data. Sample preparation steps may be restricted to simple procedures such as dilution with a solvent, instead of elaborate extraction/digestion and cleanup. Screening data may provide analyte identification and quantitation, although the quantitation may be relatively imprecise. Screening data may be considered of unknown quality without corresponding definitive confirmation data. Several screening methods identified for use in this project have no corresponding definitive method and results from these methods will not require confirmation. Some methods that routinely produce definitive data can also produce screening level data if the data validation process is not performed or is reduced. This does not necessarily indicate a lower level of data quality; it is an indication of a restriction on the usability of the affected results. A photoionization detector (PID) will be used to screen soil cores for potential selection of soil sampling intervals. Additionally, radiation screening will be conducted by the RPM to support determination of the nature and extent of radiological materials and/or contamination associated with the disposal pit, and to support radiological survey and site release requirements described in the project-specified RPP, which is provided in the APP/SSHP, a standalone document under separate cover.

Definitive Data

Definitive data is generated using rigorous analytical methods, such as approved USEPA reference methods. The data can be generated in a mobile or fixed-base laboratory. Definitive data is analyte-specific, and both identification and quantitation are confirmed. Definitive analytical methods have standardized QC and documentation requirements and produce data for which analytical error (bias) can be determined. For data to be classified as definitive, the data must be validated after the results are reported to verify that the appropriate QC measures were taken and were in control. Also, the sample must be collected in a manner that is representative of current site conditions. Samples not collected in accordance with the procedures presented in the Work Plan will be evaluated and the associated results may not be considered definitive, if the discrepancies are determined to have an adverse effect on data quality. Definitive data is not restricted in its use unless quality problems identified in the validation process require data qualification. To select



appropriate analytical methods, detection limits have been compared with analyte-specific concentrations of concern.

The data quality objectives for this project address the performance of soil sampling and delivery of chemical analytical data and investigation derived waste sampling and characterization. Data quality objectives specific to sample collection, chemical analysis, and chemical parameter measurements are presented in Appendix A. Analytical methods selected for this RFI at DP034, and their associated detections limits, are included in Appendix A. Analytical results will be compared to residential soil screening levels and TPH Soil Screening Levels (residential exposure), NMED Risk Assessment Guidance for Investigations and Remediation (March 2017) and are provided as Project Action Levels listed in the Appendix A tables.

EVALUATION OF BACKGROUND CONCENTRATIONS

If metals are detected in surface and/or subsurface soils, the metals concentration data will be compared to established background concentrations to determine whether metals detected are site-related.

Soils are derived from parent geologic materials as a result of physical, chemical, and biological processes. The soil system is naturally a highly heterogeneous matrix of inorganic and organic components. The relative proportions of these components are dependent upon factors influence soil formations, such as topography, climate, depositional processes, and time. Total concentrations of metals in soils may vary depending upon location; for example, at the surface, soils are influenced by leaching, runoff, atmospheric deposition, and biotic uptake, as well as anthropogenic activity. The ranges of naturally occurring or “background” concentrations of metals in soils vary greatly due to the composition of parent material; therefore, care must be taken in the interpretation of metals data generated during an investigation.

Metals concentrations identified in soil samples during this investigation will be compared to background soils concentrations presented in Naturally Occurring Concentrations of Inorganics and Background Concentrations of Pesticides at Cannon Air Force Base, New Mexico (Woodward-Clyde, 1997) and the RFI for Sites SD012, SD017, and SD020 (FPM/URS, 2017). Background concentrations of metals at Cannon AFB are summarized in Table 1-1. The approach will compare the maximum concentrations detected at a given site to the 95-percent UTL of the background concentrations. Using this technique, individual samples at the site with high concentrations relative to background levels (i.e., which could represent a site-related release) can be identified.

HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT

This section describes the general approach that will be used to complete a human health risk assessment (HHRA) at DP034. Potential human health impacts will be evaluated by comparing maximum chemical concentrations (above background) found at the site with NMED human health soil screening levels for residential exposure (NMED, 2017). Where SSLs are not available, concentration data will be compared with USEPA human health regional screening levels (RSL) for residential exposure (USEPA, 2018). In addition, TPH data will be compared to NMED TPH screening guidelines for Potable Groundwater (GW-1) (Table 6-2 of the NMED Risk Assessment Guidance) (NMED, 2017).



Although DP034 is not used for residential purposes, the residential SSLs are more stringent than other SSLs (e.g., occupational, construction worker). Screening against residential SSLs will account for possible future changes in land use. If residential SSLs are exceeded, then existing concentrations will be compared to industrial SSLs to determine the level of potential risk present.

Preliminary Site Conceptual Exposure Models

One of the first steps in formulating a risk assessment for a site is developing a conceptual model of the site that identifies relevant exposure pathways and exposure scenarios. A preliminary SCEM is presented and discussed in Figure 3-2. Four groups of human receptors were identified as potentially applicable to the sites:

• Site workers (also referred to as an industrial/occupational worker); • Resident; and • Construction worker.

There are no surface water bodies associated with DP034, nor is groundwater readily accessible (greater than 330 feet bgs); therefore, these two pathways are incomplete and will not be addressed in this evaluation. The primary routes of exposure are ingestion of contaminated soil, dermal contact with contaminated soil, and inhalation of airborne soil particulates.

Target Risk Levels

A range of 1E-06 to 1E-04 (1 in 1,000,000 to 1 in 10,000) is USEPA’s target excess cancer risk range for cleanup under both the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and RCRA. NMED SSLs are based on 1E-05 (1 in 100,000) target excess cancer risk or a target hazard quotient of 1 for noncarcinogens. Exceeding NMED SSLs means that further evaluation of chemical concentrations and exposure assumptions may be warranted.

Soil Exposure Intervals

NMED guidance assumes that residents could be exposed to surface and subsurface soils during home maintenance activities, yard work, landscaping, and outdoor play activities, and specify that an exposure interval of 0 to 10 feet bgs be assumed. NMED guidance assumes construction workers are involved in digging, excavation, maintenance, and building construction projects and could be exposed to surface as well as subsurface soil. Therefore, a soil exposure interval of 0 to 10 feet bgs is considered appropriate for the construction worker. Further, NMED guidance assumes that the industrial/occupational worker activities occur at or near the surface at not greater than 1 foot bgs. Therefore, the soil exposure interval for industrial/occupational worker is defined as 0 to 1 foot bgs (NMED, 2017).

Comparison with Background

Site concentrations will be compared with background concentrations for inorganic constituents. Background concentrations, expressed as the 95 percent UTL are available at Cannon AFB for both surface and subsurface soils (FPM/URS, 2017). The industrial worker is only exposed to surface soils (0 to 1 foot), therefore, background comparisons for these receptors will be compared with surface background concentrations. As described previously, the residential and construction



worker are exposed to soils from 0 to 10 feet; therefore, background levels for subsurface soils will be used for these receptors. If the maximum concentration for a constituent is below background, it will not be included further in the screening analysis.

Screening Exposure Concentrations

The maximum concentration in the soil exposure interval applicable to each receptor will be selected as the screening exposure concentration for datasets with limited samples and/or detections. For appropriate datasets (i.e., those with ≥ 8 samples and ≥ 5 detections), 95% upper confidence limits will be calculated using USEPA’s statistical software ProUCL (Version 5.1) and used as the exposure point concentration.

Cumulative Human Health Risk Screening

NMED guidance indicates that the potential cumulative risks and hazards should be evaluated in the screening evaluation to conclude whether further evaluation may be necessary. Therefore, consistent with the guidance, screening will be performed by comparing maximum chemical concentrations detected at the site with NMED human health SSLs. NMED has published SSLs for a resident, industrial/occupational worker, and construction worker. In the absence of NMED SSLs, USEPA RSLs will be selected (carcinogenic RSLs will be adjusted to a risk of 1E-05, consistent with NMED SSLs). Residential soil RSLs will be selected for resident user scenarios. Industrial soil RSLs will be selected for the industrial/occupational worker and construction worker (NMED, 2017).

SSLs for individual carcinogenic chemicals are based on a cancer risk of 1E-05. SSLs for individual noncarcinogenic chemicals are based on a hazard quotient of 1. Cumulative site screening risks and hazards will be calculated as follows:

Site Screening Risk = � 𝐶𝐶1𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆1

+ 𝐶𝐶2𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆2

+ ⋯ 𝐶𝐶𝑖𝑖𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑖𝑖

� 𝑥𝑥 10−5

Site Screening Hazard Index (HI) = � 𝐶𝐶1𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆1

+ 𝐶𝐶2𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆2

+ ⋯ 𝐶𝐶𝑖𝑖𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑖𝑖

� 𝑥𝑥 1

Where:

C1…Ci = Screening exposure concentration for chemical “1” to chemical “i.”

SSL1…SSLi = Soil screening level for chemical “1” to chemical “I” based on an SSL carcinogenic risk of 1E-05 or noncarcinogenic hazard of 1.

A screening HI of 1 or less means that noncarcinogenic effects are acceptable and no further evaluation is necessary. A cumulative risk of 1E-05 or less indicates the carcinogenic risks are acceptable and no further evaluation is warranted. If the screening HI is 1 or less and the cumulative risk is 1E-05 or less, CAC without controls will be recommended. If the screening HI is greater than 1 or the cumulative risk is greater than 1E-05, further investigation and/or evaluation of potential risks may be recommended.



Radiologicals

Radionuclides (thorium-232 and radium-226) are included in the site’s analytical suite and are not directly discussed in NMED (2017). Radionuclide data will be screened against receptor-specific radionuclide preliminary remedial goals (PRG) calculated using USEPA’s calculator available at https://epa-prgs.ornl.gov/cgi-bin/radionuclides/rprg_search. The PRGs will be calculated using default exposure parameters and a target cancer risk of 1E-05 and a non-cancer HQ of 1.0 in accordance with NMED (2017).

Evaluation of Petroleum Hydrocarbons

The SSLs adopted by NMED for petroleum hydrocarbons are screening guidelines for potential impacts to potable groundwater and are not necessarily risk-based values but may reflect a ceiling level (NMED, 2017). Petroleum hydrocarbons represent a complex mixture of compounds and the amount and types of constituent compounds differ between products. Hazard quotients are not calculated for petroleum hydrocarbons. For screening, the maximum detected concentration is presented simply as a comparison with the receptor-specific screening guideline. NMED (NMED, 2017) provides screening guidelines for residential exposures and industrial exposures. Residential guidelines will be used for residential receptors. Industrial guidelines will be used for industrial/occupational and construction scenarios. Note that there are no NMED screening guidelines for GRO. Rather, NMED guidance refers to screening values that may comprise gasoline (such as benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes), and therefore, detections of GRO will also be interpreted in the context of these constituents.

Vapor Intrusion Risks

The identified disposal pit that comprises Site DP034 is located within approximately 100 feet of two existing buildings, Building 252 and Building 3252. It is conservatively assumed that these buildings are regularly staffed and have a potentially complete vapor intrusion exposure pathway, though this information will be verified during the field investigation. The results of the soil samples collected from the DP034 disposal pit will be evaluated to assess the types of contaminants identified. If the disposal pit appears to be only contaminated with radiological compounds, as expected, the vapor intrusion exposure pathway will be qualitatively determined to be incomplete and require No Further Action. If soil is shown to be contaminated with sufficiently volatile and toxic chemicals (e.g., VOCs or SVOCs), additional site characterization (e.g., soil gas sampling) may be necessary to fully evaluate the vapor intrusion exposure pathway. However, dependent on the size of the DP034 disposal pit, excavation activities (i.e., source removal) may be recommended in lieu of additional investigation to characterize the vapor intrusion exposure pathway.

Planned Risk Assessment Activities

The HHRA will be completed for DP034 in accordance with NMED guidance (NMED, 2017) if required, based on a comparison of analytical results to SSLs and background concentrations (for metals). The site-specific HRA will be conducted incorporating the results of the soil samples collected during the RFI.

https://epa-prgs.ornl.gov/cgi-bin/radionuclides/rprg_search



ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT

The overall objectives of an ecological risk assessment are to understand how site-related chemicals may be distributed in relation to ecological receptors (including both habitats and/or species potentially present), and to evaluate how the entities may be affected by those chemicals. The debris pit at DP034 was uncovered beneath a concrete/asphalt cover located in an industrial area of Cannon AFB. It is assumed that the site area meets the site exclusion criteria regarding risk to ecological receptors (NMED, 2017), as DP034 does not include viable ecological habitat; is not utilized by potential (current and/or future) ecological receptors), and complete or potentially complete exposure pathways do not exist due to the presence of concrete/asphalt cover in an industrial setting. However, the site will be evaluated relative to the exclusion criteria, consistent with NMED Guidance (NMED, 2017), during the site visit and documented in the RFI.

Do any detected analytes exceed residential screening

criteria? Recommend CAC Without Controls No

Recommend further evaluation for human health receptors

Do any detected analytes exceed industrial screening criteria?

Recommend CAC With Controls No

Will removal of the pit compromise existing

structures?

Conduct geophysical survey and data analysis

Yes

No

Is ecological risk acceptable?

Yes

Yes

Conduct Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment

Yes

Recommend further evaluation for ecological receptors

No

Do any detected analytes require evaluation for ecological

receptors?

FIGURE 3-1 DECISION DIAGRAM FOR RCRA FACILITY INVESTIGATION AT DP034

Is the debris pit larger than 15 feet by15 feet

by 5 feet deep?

Define dimensions and location of the buried debris

No

Yes

Follow procedures defined in RFI Work Plan, Implement Excavation Plan, Conduct Confirmation Sampling

Yes

No

Advance soil borings to confirm verticaland horizontal extent of the buried debrisand contaminated soil

Advance soil borings to confirm verticaland horizontal extent of the buried debrisand contaminated soil

Is the extent of contamination (vertical and

horizontal) defined? Collect Additional SamplesNo

Yes

CAC - Corrective Action Complete

FIGURE 3-2 PRELIMINARY SITE CONCEPTUAL EXPOSURE MODEL

DP034

Debris, including legacy scrap metal from vehicles and equipment; radiation source from aircraft parts

Leaking or emission from parts

SOURCE Primary Source Media Exposure

Routes Human Receptors (Current / Future)

Release Mechanism

Transport and Migration

INTERACTION RECEPTORS Media Ecological

Receptors

Inhalation of Dust

Ingestion

Dermal Contact

Ingestion

Dermal Contact

Ingestion

Ingestion

Dermal Contact

Human Activities

Ingestion

Dermal Contact

Precipitation/ Run-off

Fugitive Dust

Surface Soil

Airborne Soil

Particulate

Surface Soil

Inland Surface Water/

Sediments

Subsurface Soil

Uptake

Subsurface Soil

Biota

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ /

/ /

/

Inhalation of Gas Air

LEGEND Flow-chart stops here

Flow-chart continues

Partial/possible flow

Potential pathway

Incomplete pathway

/ /

Leaching/ Infiltration

Soil Vapor

Shallow Groundwater

/ /

/

/

/

Note: Ecological receptors have no potentially complete exposure pathway based on concrete cover.

SECTIONFour DP034


4 DP034 This section provides a site description and background, and an overview of the planned activities for DP034.

SITE DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND

DP034 is located on the north central side of Cannon AFB (Figure 1-1). During recent excavation for subsurface placement of an overhead electrical distribution line (still present) on the west side of the Building 3252 at Cannon AFB, a construction contractor discovered buried debris in the subsurface (Figure 1-2). The excavation was halted, and it was confirmed, through screening by Base Bioenvironmental personnel, that there is radiological material in the pit. The disposal pit contains various debris, including legacy scrap metal from vehicles and equipment, and the radiation source is thought to be magnesium-thorium alloy aircraft parts, although luminous aircraft dials containing radium may also be present. NMED was notified of the discovery and of plans to further characterize the solid waste discovery and implement the proper corrective actions, as necessary, in a letter dated November 17, 2016.

PREVIOUS INVESTIGATION RESULTS

There have been no previous investigations at DP034.

SAMPLING OBJECTIVES

Investigation for this project will include a geophysical survey using GPR and EM61 electromagnetic induction to define the vertical and lateral extent of the disposal pit and determine if the debris may be feasibly removed. The general sampling objective at DP034 is to define the horizontal and vertical extent of impacts to soil from the buried debris. Because the site has not previously been investigated, soil sampling and analysis to identify the possible contaminants at the site will include TPH, GRO, DRO, and ORO, TAL metals, VOCs, SVOCs, and radionuclides including thorium-232 and radium-226; and a radiation survey of all items/materials brought to the surface.

SAMPLING LOCATIONS, FREQUENCIES, AND ANALYSIS

A geophysical survey will be conducted in the area of DP034 adjacent to Building 3252 using GPR and an EM61 electromagnetic induction instrument to determine the lateral and vertical extent of the historical disposal pit and to locate underground utilities to support dig permits and excavation planning. The geophysical survey will be spatially referenced using real-time global positioning system (GPS) and/or a fixed grid. The raw and final processed geophysical data, including the master geophysical database, packed Oasis map, and results of the instrument functional tests documented in the Microsoft Access database will be reviewed to establish the dimensions of the debris pit.

If the buried debris can be feasibly removed, the material will be removed, characterized, and transported for disposal at a facility licensed to receive the waste. Confirmation samples will be collected from the floor and sidewalls of the excavation to confirm the remaining soils do not pose

SECTIONFour DP034


a risk to human health. The number of floor and sidewall samples to be collected will be determined based on the size of the excavation. At a minimum, four sidewall and one floor sample will be collected. Additional samples will be determined as the length of the sidewalls increase from 25 lineal feet and the floor of the excavation increases by 500 square feet.

If the buried debris cannot be feasibly removed, then six DPT borings will be advanced in the area around the debris pit after evaluation of the geophysical mapping. The borings will be placed so that soil logging and sampling will be sufficient to characterize soil potentially affected by a release of contamination, define the consistency and distribution of soils, and evaluate the material within the disposal pit as defined by the results of the geophysical mapping.

Soil cores will be scanned for radiological presence then extracted for visual and physical description, lithologic logging, and collection of samples for laboratory analysis (VOCs, SVOCs, TAL metals, TPH-GRO/DRO/ORO, thorium-323, and radium-226). The soil borings are expected to be completed to a total depth of approximately 20 feet, but actual depth and location will be dependent on the observed depth of the debris pit as identified by the geophysical survey. Three discrete samples will be collected from each of the six borings. The samples will be collected based on visible observation of staining, VOCs detected using a PID, radiological screening results above the instrument critical level, and relative to depth of the material in the debris pit as identified during the geophysical survey.

Table 4-1 provides a summary of proposed soil borings and analyses, if excavation is feasible and debris will remain in place.

TABLE 4-1Summary of Planned Sampling and Analytical ParametersCannon AFB, New Mexico

Sampling Location/ID Number

Sampling Location/ID Number

SW - sidewallFL - floorSB - soil boringVOC – volatile organic compoundSVOC – semivolatile organic compound

MS/MSD - Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike DuplicateQC - Quality Control

Matrix Depth Analytical Methods Number of Samples (identify field QC)

DP034-SW01

Soil

Minimum one sample from mid-depth of each sidewall (+1 for each additional 25 linear feet of excavation) and one sample from the floor

(+1 for each additional 500 square feet of floor)

VOCs, SVOCs, TPH-GRO/DRO/ORO, metals, thorium-323, radium-226

1 duplicate/10 samples; 1 trip blank/VOC sample shipment; 1 equipment blank per field sampling day/ 1 MS/MSD sample/20 samples

DP034-SW02

DP034-SW03

DP034-SW04

DP034-SW0X (for each additional 25 linear feet of excavation)

DP034-FL0X (for each additional 500 square feet of excavation)

(Excavation Completed)

DP034-FL01

TPH-GRO/DRO/ORO – total petroleum hydrocarbon – gasoline range organics/diesel range organics/oil range organics

Matrix Depth Analytical Methods Number of Samples (identify field QC)

DP034-SB01 (depth1; depth2; depth 3)

Soil three 2-foot intervals selected from 20-foot depth (vadose zone only)

VOCs, SVOCs, TPH-GRO/DRO/ORO, metals, thorium-323, radium-226

1 duplicate/10 samples; 1 trip blank/VOC sample shipment; 1 equipment blank per field sampling day/ 1 MS/MSD sample/20 samples






(Excavation Not Feasible)

SECTIONFive FIELD PROCEDURES


5 FIELD PROCEDURES

MOBILIZATION

This task consists of mobilizing personnel and equipment to the project site and establishing a decontamination and equipment laydown area.

Acquire Base Passes

Field personnel and subcontractors will coordinate with the Cannon AFB Remedial Project Manager to acquire passes that will allow entry onto Cannon AFB to complete the planned activities.

Contractor Identification

Prior to the field investigation, ATI/HGL and all subcontractors onsite will be identified to the Cannon AFB Environmental Restoration Office. Restoration will make all arrangements to notify base personnel and security of the pending field investigation. On-site ATI/HGL personnel and subcontractors will be issued base visitor passes, which they will be required to have with them at all times while on base. In addition, all ATI/HGL personnel and ATI/HGL subcontractors may be required to attend a safety briefing provided by the Base.

Vehicle Passes

All vehicles that enter the Base must be registered at the Main Gate. The vehicle registration applicant will need to furnish proof of insurance, rental agreement (if applicable), and a valid driver’s license to register a vehicle.

Facility Safety Requirements

ATI/HGL will take preventative measures required for safe work activities at Cannon AFB. ATI/HGL will follow all procedures necessary to ensure that the safe practices employed comply with Occupational Safety and Health Administration, American National Standards Institute, and Cannon AFB regulations. ATI/HGL will provide a SSHO at all times during completion of the investigations. The SSHO, as well as all project personnel, will observe the safety procedures to provide a safe work environment.

Prior to the start of field activities, a site walk will be completed to identify possible safety concerns. Possible safety concerns may include physical hazards (e.g., underground/overhead utilities, holes, or uneven terrain), biological hazards, or radiological hazards.

Locate Utilities

The ATI/HGL Team will coordinate with Cannon AFB to complete a site utility survey, acquire utility layout plans of the area, and complete the dig permit prior to completing soil borings or excavation activities. Subsequent work to be completed prior to advancing the borings includes geophysical investigation, which will also be used to identify subsurface structures.



Because the work that resulted in the discovery of the pit included re-locating of aboveground utilities (still present) to the subsurface, it is not expected that subsurface utilities are present in the immediate area of the pit. However, subsurface utilities are known to be located south of Building 3252 (Figure 1-2). Utilities in the work areas will be marked with paint and stakes, as appropriate. In addition, the progress of subsurface work will be continuously monitored for evidence of obstructions.

GEOPHYSICAL SURVEY

A geophysical survey will be used to determine the lateral and vertical extent of the historical disposal pit and to locate underground utilities to support dig permits and excavation planning. The survey extends out from the known burial pit (Figure 1-2), using GPR and an EM61 electromagnetic induction instrument. The geophysical survey will be spatially referenced using real-time GPS and/or a fixed grid. The RPM will review potential soil sampling areas and perform gamma radiation scan surveys prior to sampling and after sampling to minimize the potential for disturbing radioactive material during these activities.

The EM61 is a digital time-domain all metals detector that consists of a coaxial transmitter and receiver loops in a 1- by 0.5-meter rectangular configuration. The EM61-MK2 nominally transmits EM pulses at 75 to 150 hertz and records the secondary magnetic field at four distinct time gates after each pulse. The measurements are recorded using an Allegro CX, Archer, or comparable data logger. These data loggers support real-time graphic display of data for review during field operations and nonvolatile memory for data storage. Serial port or Universal Serial Bus connections are also available for integration of GPS data.

Position data from a real-time kinetic GPS will be used to survey the subsurface in the pit area. Two dual-frequency geodetic quality receivers that are in radio communication with each other allow position data to be streamed directly into the data logger used to capture the EM61-MK2 data. Before collecting data, the instrument functional tests will be performed. Raw and final processed data will be reviewed, and initial testing will be used to identify appropriate instrument settings, accounting for interference from below ground utilities, buildings, and large metal objects (vehicles, aboveground containers, fencing). Although the depth of the pit is unknown, anticipated detection depth will be to approximately 20 feet.

The EM61-MK2 wheeled cart and stretcher carry arrays collect a 1-meter swath of data. The sensor velocity will be maintained to ensure that 98 percent of the EM61-MK2 measurements have a sample-to-sample distance of less than 0.25 meter. A line spacing of 0.75 meter (approximately 2.5 feet) is planned for the geophysical survey. The proposed line spacing provides overlap of the coil footprint on adjacent lines.

The raw and final processed geophysical data, including the master geophysical database, packed Oasis map, and results of the instrument functional tests documented in the Microsoft Access database will be reviewed to establish the dimensions of the debris pit.



REMOVAL OF BURIED DEBRIS AND CONFIRMATION SAMPLING

If evaluation of the geophysical results indicates excavation of the buried debris is feasible, the site will be prepared for excavation by establishing a support zone, contamination reduction zone, and exclusion zone (EZ) prior to the start of field activities.

Site Preparation

The use and placement of erosion controls will be evaluated and implemented as needed to prevent the migration of contamination from the excavation area. Only personnel required to perform the work will be allowed into the EZ, which will be monitored in accordance with the RPP, which is included with the SSHP, as a separate standalone document prepared under separate cover (ATI/HGL, 2018).

Radiation screening will be conducted by the RPM to support the determination of the nature and extent of radiological materials and/or contamination associated with the disposal pit, and to support radiological survey and site release requirements described in the project-specific RPP provided as an attachment to the APP/SSHP, a standalone document provided under separate cover.

Excavation

The estimated horizontal extent of the excavation will be marked with paint and/or survey stakes prior to excavation activities. Excavation of the debris will be accomplished using a track excavator and supporting equipment (for example, waste container, dump truck, skid-steer loader). The surface cover (concrete or asphalt) will be removed and staged separately for potential recycling. Excavation of the debris and soil will be conducted in relatively thin lifts (0.5’ - 1’ thick) to allow for radiological screening of excavated material. HP personnel will scan each bucket of excavated material brought to the surface during the excavation for elevated radioactivity using a Ludlum Model 2221 rate meter and Ludlum Model 44-10 NaI scintillation gamma detector (or equivalent). Excavated material will be scanned in the excavator bucket prior to being placed directly in a waste container. HP personnel will notify the Site Lead of areas of elevated activity discernable from background.

If elevated radioactivity above discernible background is identified, the material will be segregated and placed on plastic sheeting to allow for a more detailed investigation to identify the source of elevated activity. The vertical and horizontal extent of the debris pit will be excavated similarly until all visible material is removed, and soil appears non-impacted or native. Open excavation areas will be clearly marked with tape, cones, and/or construction fencing depending on the amount of vehicle or foot traffic in the area. ATI/HGL does not anticipate the necessity for personnel to enter the excavation (for example, to take measurements, guide equipment, etc.); however, as a precaution the sides of the excavation will be properly stepped or slopped away from the excavation before any personnel can enter the excavation.

Excavated material will be staged in waste containers pending characterization and disposal at a facility licensed to receive the waste and approved by Cannon AFB. A signed waste manifest will



accompany each load, and all vehicles and drivers will be licensed and comply with New Mexico Department of Transportation regulations.

When all excavation activities are complete, the RPM will perform dose rate and surface contamination surveys for each waste container subject to off-site disposal. The dose rate surveys and surface contamination surveys will be conducted as detailed in the RPP (included in the standalone APP/SSHP under separate cover). These site release surveys will confirm the waste containers are suitable for shipping per US DOT requirements. Additional radiation survey and monitoring requirements associated with field personnel, tools, and equipment are addressed in the RPP. Backfilling and grading will be conducted at the conclusion of the excavation process to restore excavated areas to the original grade. Backfill material will consist of clean soil from an offsite borrow pit that has been tested and cleared of any contaminants. Clean soils from the borrow pit will be sampled prior to use as backfill materials. Backfill material will be applied in approximate 12-inch lifts and compacted with heavy equipment or with the machine bucket. Moisture will be added as necessary to improve compaction. Density tests will be performed to ensure 95% compaction (modified proctor density). This process will be repeated until desired grades are achieved. The concrete or asphalt surface cover will be replaced in kind.

Confirmation Sampling

Following completion of the excavation, a minimum of four sidewall samples will be collected from the midpoint of each side of the removal area. A minimum of one floor sample will be collected from the floor of the excavation. Discrete samples will be collected from the excavator bucket and placed in the appropriate sample containers. The sample container will be placed in the sample in a cooler with ice and chilled to 4 °C and shipped to the TestAmerica Laboratories, located in Earth City Missouri. TestAmerica Laboratories is a Department of Defense Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program-certified and NMED-approved analytical laboratory, under proper chain of custody procedures.

Sample labels will include sample identification number, date and time of collection, requested analytical methods, and sampler’s name.

Sample identification will include the site name and type of sample with a designated unique number (DP034-SW01 for the first sidewall sample; DP034-FL01 for the first floor sample). An additional wall sample will be collected for each additional 25 linear feet of excavation (e.g., DP034-SW05) and an additional floor sample will be collected for each additional 500 square feet of floor (e.g., DP034-FL02).

Field duplicate samples will use the same numbering scheme as the parent sample, and the identity of the parent and duplicate sample will be clearly recorded in the field log book and the sampling log. These QC samples will be sent to the laboratory as blind samples. However, proper notes will be entered into the field sampling logbook, as well as the field sampling report, to track the sample as a field duplicate. Additional QC samples will be labeled as follows:

• Add “-MS” or “-MSD” to the end of the parent sample identification for matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate samples.

• Identify equipment rinsate blanks as DP034-EB-MMDDYY, where MMDDYY is the date.



• Identify soil IDW samples as DP034-IDW-Soil-MMDDYY. • Identify aqueous IDW samples as DP034-IDW-Water-MMDDYY.

Quality Assurance/Quality Control

This section provides an overview of several key QA/QC elements in addition to other elements considered critical for the successful completion of the RFI.

QA/QC Samples

The sampling activities will include collection of QA/QC samples. Field duplicates will be collected at a frequency of 1 per 10 samples and sent with the samples to the laboratory. Matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate samples will be collected at a frequency of 1 per 20 samples and sent to the laboratory to be used for laboratory QC. A trip blank will be included in each cooler that contains samples for analysis of VOCs. Finally, an equipment rinsate blank will be collected at a frequency of one per day from decontaminated DPT sampling equipment. With the exception of the duplicate sample, associated QA/QC samples will be clearly marked on the chain of custody form and entered into the logbook to be associated with the proper sampling location.

Data Management

Before project analytical data can be used, the data must undergo several stages of review to determine the following:

• Data were produced in accordance with the requirements of the project QC documents, method requirements, and good laboratory practices;

• Reports are complete and accurate; and • Data are usable for the intended purposes.

Decontamination

A dry brush decontamination procedure will be used for equipment that is no longer needed and has never entered the contamination area. A radiological survey will be performed for verification. For equipment that has been used for excavation, a radiological survey will be conducted prior to leaving the contamination area. If decontamination is required based on this survey, a decontamination area will be constructed, and equipment will be decontaminated in accordance with the RPP. Equipment will undergo a radiological survey prior to being released.

DIRECT PUSH TECHNOLOGY DRILLING AND SAMPLING

If evaluation of the geophysical results indicates excavation of the buried debris is not feasible, soil borings will be advanced at locations to be determined based on characterization of the disposal pit and soil samples will be collected as described in this section. All drilling activities will be supervised by qualified personnel. The location of all borings will be coordinated with the USACE PM and the U.S. Air Force before drilling commences.



The DPT rig to be used will be in good repair and will be routinely inspected to ensure the equipment does not leak any fluids that may potentially enter the borehole or contaminate tools or equipment placed in the borehole. The use of rags or absorbent materials to absorb leaking fluids is unacceptable so will not be permitted.

No drilling fluids or downhole lubricants will be used. Activities for each location where drilling is conducted will be recorded on a boring log (see Appendix E) and documented in a field logbook. Information recorded on the boring log and in the logbook will include location, time on site, personnel and equipment present, down time, materials used, samples collected, measurements taken, and any observations or information that would be necessary to reconstruct field activities at a later date.

Boreholes will be advanced using either a single rod (for example, a Macro-Core) or dual-tube sampling system. The samples obtained using DPT will be collected in acetate, plastic, or polyvinyl chloride liners. All soil and other material brought to the surface during the RFI will undergo radiation screening as described in Section 5.4.

DPT sampling procedures include the following:

• Core and remove asphalt at the ground surface.

• Insert the liner into the selected coring device.

• Attach the appropriate cutting shoe to the coring device and attach the coring assembly to the DPT rods.

• Begin advancing the coring device and rods to the desired sample depth.

• Remove the coring device and rods from the borehole once the desired depth is reached.

• Remove the liner from the coring device and mark the liner with the top and bottom depth of the sample interval. Should DPT drilling activities proceed at a rate faster than field screening and logging and analytical sampling can proceed, the liners may be capped on each end until the logger is ready to proceed.

• Open the liner with a cutting tool.

• Once the liner is opened, begin field screening and lithologic logging as described in Section 5.3.1.

• If required, collect analytical samples.

• Decontaminate the DPT tooling.

Logging and Field Screening

During drilling, in addition to radiological screening, every 2-foot sample interval collected for logging purposes will be screened with a calibrated PID. In addition, field headspace measurements will be collected if the initial PID response and visual and casual olfactory observations identify areas of contamination. If collected, field headspace measurements will be measured from every 2-foot sample interval collected for logging purposes and will be collected



by placing a representative portion of the sample in a sealable plastic bag. The soil will be shaken gently to expose the soil to the air trapped in the container and then allowed to equilibrate with the bag’s headspace for approximately 5 minutes. The volatile organic vapors in the headspace of the plastic bag will then be measured by inserting the probe of a calibrated PID into the plastic bag. The maximum volatile organic vapor concentration for each measured interval will be recorded.

During the advancement of each boring, lithologic descriptions will be recorded in accordance with ASTM D2488, “Standard Practice for Description and Identification of Soils (Visual-Manual Procedure).” Additionally, photographs of the soil cores collected will be taken for documentation. The following descriptive information will be included in the lithologic descriptions:

• Unified Soil Classification System descriptive classification and group symbol; use of terms such as “trace,” “some,” and “several” must be consistent with ASTM D2488;

• Estimated percentages of gravel, sand, and fines (silt/clay);

• Munsell color (when wetted), consistency of cohesive materials and density of noncohesive materials, plasticity, angularity;

• Moisture content (moist, wet, saturated);

• Visual and casual olfactory observations of contamination;

• Cementation of intact coarse-grained soils; and

• Other descriptive features such as fill material, bedding characteristics, fractures, organic material.

DPT Soil Sampling Procedures

During DPT drilling, samples for laboratory analysis will be collected from either the Macro-Core or dual tube sampling system at the desired depth, based on field observations of potential contamination, elevated PID readings, or depth in relation to the debris pit. Soil samples will be collected from three 2-foot intervals within each of the six borings. Sample intervals will be selected based on observed staining, elevated PID readings, radiological readings exceeding the instrument critical level, or, if no indication of impact is observed, within the first 5 feet, middle (8 to 12 feet), and bottom 5 feet of each boring. Selected depth may vary dependent on the observed depth of the debris pit. Samples will be collected in accordance with the following procedures:

• Collect sample directly from the liner.

• Extract the sample from the target interval using a disposable stainless-steel spoon or trowel and place the sample in a glass jar with a labeled, Teflon® lid. Samples designated for VOC analysis will be collected directly with either a TerraCore® or Encore® sampler.

• Place the sample in a cooler with ice and chill to 4 °C.

• Record the appropriate information in the field log book and field sampling log once the container(s) have been filled.

• Ship the samples to the TestAmerica Laboratories located in Earth City, Missouri TestAmerica Laboratories is a Department of Defense Environmental Laboratory



Accreditation Program-certified and NMED-approved analytical laboratory, under proper chain of custody procedures.

Sample Identification

The following information will be written on the field sampling report, in the field logbook, and on the sample label when samples are collected for laboratory analysis:

• Sample identification number; • Preservatives added; • Date and time of collection; • Requested analytical methods; and • Sampler’s name.

Sample identification will include the site name and boring number (DP034-SB01 to DP034-SB06), followed by sample depth.

QC samples will be collected as described in Section 5.3.3 for confirmation sampling following excavation. QA/QC procedures will be implemented as described in Section 5.3.4 for confirmation sampling following excavation.

Borehole Abandonment

After the borehole is completed, the borehole will be backfilled with hydrated granular bentonite to 6 inches bgs. The surface will be completed with a concrete patch and spray painted black to match the surrounding asphalt.

RADIOLOGICAL SCREENING

Radiological screening will be conducted by an HP to support the determination of the nature and extent of radiological materials and/or contamination associated with the disposal pit, and to support radiological survey and site release requirements described in the project-specific RPP provided as an attachment to the APP/SSHP, a standalone document provided under separate cover. Prior to the start of DPT drilling at each soil boring location, the RPM will survey the asphalt surface in the work area for potential radiological presence not associated with RFI activities (i.e., pre-existing conditions) by performing a non-GPS assisted gamma walkover using a Ludlum model 44-10 scintillator with a Ludlum model 2221 rate meter (or equivalent). Areas with elevated activity (in excess of the instrument critical level) will be designated for further investigation. The RPM will conduct gamma radiation scan surveys of each soil core retrieved during DPT drilling to identify the potential presence of radiological contamination. Soil core screening will be conducted for radiation using a using a Ludlum Model 2221 rate meter and Ludlum Model 44-10 NaI scintillation gamma detector. Radiological screening results will be recorded on the soil boring log so that discrete zones of contamination can be identified (if present).



When all RFI IDW generating activities are complete, the RPM will perform dose rate and surface contamination surveys for each IDW container subject to off-site disposal. The dose rate surveys and surface contamination surveys will be conducted as detailed in the RPP (included in the standalone APP/SSHP under separate cover). These site release surveys will confirm the IDW containers are suitable for shipping per US DOT requirements. Additional radiation survey and monitoring requirements associated with field personnel, tools, and equipment are addressed in the RPP.

DECONTAMINATION

A fixed-location decontamination pad is not required for DPT sampling; however, the DPT subcontractor shall provide mobile decontamination of DPT equipment. At a minimum, the decontamination process must consist of the following:

• DPT samplers and rods will be decontaminated (washed and scrubbed with a brush) on site with an Alconox® and potable water solution and rinsed with clean water.

• DPT equipment decontamination will occur prior to each use and during demobilization. Where radiological screening data indicates levels above the Radiological Screening Action Levels, decontamination will occur according to procedures defined in the RPP, included with the standalone APP/SSHP document.

WASTE MANAGEMENT

Investigative derived waste (IDW) for this investigation will include waste materials within the pit; excess soil sample material generated during both the excavation and soil sampling activities; decontamination water used to decontaminate sampling equipment; used personal protective equipment (for example, nitrile/latex disposable gloves); and general refuse. Soil and aqueous IDW are expected to be characterized as non-hazardous. In compliance with the RPP, the RPM will conduct radiological release and dose rate surveys on each IDW container to confirm suitability for subsequent shipping to an appropriately licensed or permitted disposal facility. If high activity items are identified during radiological screening, these items will be segregated for proper disposal.

Used personal protective equipment and general refuse will be placed in plastic trash bags and disposed of as municipal waste. Soil and aqueous IDW are discussed below.

Waste debris, soil, and aqueous IDW will be segregated into separate containers. Excavated material will be loaded into roll-off bins pending characterization for disposal. Aqueous waste will be placed in U.S. Department of Transportation approved, open top, 55-gallon drums. All IDW containers will be labeled to include the site name, drum number, date of generation, type of waste, generating activities (e.g., soil sampling), and the ATI/HGL Team contact information. IDW containers will be labeled as “DP034 IDW Pending Analysis” and include the Cannon AFB point of contact name and number until waste characterization is complete. If the waste characteristics are known and the IDW is identified as nonhazardous waste, a “nonhazardous waste” label will be placed on the waste container. In the event the waste is characterized as a hazardous waste, “hazardous waste” labels will be placed on all waste containers with the requisite information. At



the completion of each day, a Waste Inventory Tracking Form will be updated to include the latest waste management information.

IDW generated during the drilling, sampling, and excavation activities may include decontamination towels and fluids, soiled sampling containers, smears, air sample filters, excavated material, and personal protective equipment. Based on available information, IDW is not expected to contain radiological material above release limits. If items with significantly elevated radioactivity are identified that are considered inconsistent with the assumed presence of Mag/Thor alloy scrap metal, HP personnel will determine appropriate waste containerization, storage, and personnel monitoring requirements.

Characterization sampling of soil and water IDW will be conducted at the conclusion of the sampling activities. If multiple soil containers are necessary, characterization sample(s) may be composited to reflect the waste in more than one container. During sample collection, soil from each container will be placed in an inert container and homogenized before filling up sample containers. Each characterization sample will be analyzed for analyte requirements of WCS, including reactivity, ignitability and corrosivity. If radioactive IDW is generated, the RPM will assist the Site Lead in the proper storage and labelling of radioactive IDW on Cannon AFB property.

After characterization is complete, a waste profile will be generated. All waste characterized as nonhazardous will be disposed of at a properly licensed RCRA Subtitle D facility. In the event soil and aqueous IDW are characterized as hazardous, the material will be manifested and disposed of at a properly licensed RCRA Subtitle C facility.

All IDW will be treated or transported to the appropriate disposal facility within approximately 90 days from the accumulation date. The ATI/HGL Team will coordinate all IDW transportation activities with Cannon AFB personnel and will provide records of proper disposal to USACE and the Cannon AFB Remedial Project Manager.

FIELD FORM MANAGEMENT

All field forms completed during the RFI field activities will be submitted to the ATI/HGL PM for review to ensure all required information has been collected during site activities in accordance with this WP. Field forms will be maintained by the PM in a central location and will be accessible to all project employees. Electronic scanned copies of all field forms will be maintained in the electronic project file.

REPORTING

Following the completion of the RFI field activities, and receipt and evaluation of the soil sample analytical reports, the ATI/HGL Team will provide the results of the investigation in an RFI Report that will include the following:

• Geophysical survey results; • Vertical and lateral definition of the disposal pit; • Observations during advancing of the six soil borings; • Summary of the soil sampling results; • Description of the QA/QC program used during field activities;



• Results of radiation screening; and • Laboratory analytical reports.

Evaluation of the soil analytical results will include comparison to USEPA RSLs, NMED soil screening levels, and Cannon AFB facility-specific background values for metals and radionuclides (as available). Groundwater is not expected to be impacted based on the impermeable cover placed over the buried debris, the depth of the buried debris (to be confirmed during the RFI) and depth to groundwater (approximately 330 feet bgs in the site area).

SECTIONSix REFERENCES


6 References ATI/HGL, 2017. Project Management Plan, RCRA Facility Investigation at DP034, Cannon Air

Force Base, New Mexico. October.

ATI/HGL, 2018. Accident Prevention Plan/Site Safety and Health Plan, RCRA Facility Investigation and Interim Stabilization Measures, DP034, Cannon Air Force Base, New Mexico. February.

FPM/URS, 2017. RFI for Sites SD012, SD017, and SD020. September.

Freeze, R.A. and J.A. Cherry, 1979. Groundwater. Prentice-Hall, Inc. Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Gutentag, Edwin D., et al., 1984. Geohydrology of the High Plains Aquifer in Parts of Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska, New Mexico, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, and Wyoming. USGS Professional Paper 1400-B.

Lee Wan Associates, Inc, 1990. RCRA Facility Investigation Work Plan, Field Sampling Plan, and Program Management Plan. Alexandria, Virginia. June.

My Forecast, 2013. Almanac: Historical Information for Clovis, NM. http://www.myforecast.com/bin/climate.m?city=23653&zip_code=88102&metric=true.

New Mexico Environment Department (NMED), 2003. Hazardous Waste Facility Permit No. NM7572124454, Cannon Air Force Base. October.

NMED, 2016. Fact Sheet/Statement of Basis. Request for Corrective Action Complete Status for One Area of Concern and Four Solid Waste Management Units, Cannon Air Force Base, New Mexico. February.

NMED, 2017. Risk Assessment Guidance for Site Investigations and Remediation. March.

United States Department of Agriculture, 2013. Curry County, New Mexico Climate Narrative. ftp://www.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/support/climate/soil-nar/nm/CurryCo.doc.

United States Department of Energy, 2011. Radiation Protection of the Public and the Environment. DOE O 458.1. Change 2. June.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 2001. USEPA Contract Laboratory Program National Functional Guidelines for Low Concentration Organic Data Review. Final. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response 9240.1-34. EPA 540-R-00-006. June.

USEPA, 2004. Contract Laboratory Program National Functional Guidelines for Inorganic Data Review. Final. OSWER 9240.1-45. EPA 540-R-04-004. October.

USEPA, 2013. Water Budget Data Finder - data for zip code 88101 (Clovis, NM). USEPA website http://www.epa.gov/watersense/new _homes/wb_data_finder.html.

USEPA, 2018. Regional Screening Levels. USEPA website https://www.epa.gov/risk/regional-screening-levels-rsls-generic-tables. May.

URS Group, Inc., 2015. 2014 Biennial Groundwater Monitoring and Annual Landfill Inspection Report, Cannon AFB, New Mexico. May.

http://www.myforecast.com/bin/climate.m?city=23653&zip_code=88102&metric=true

ftp://www.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/support/climate/soil-nar/nm/CurryCo.doc

https://www.epa.gov/risk/regional-screening-levels-rsls-generic-tables

https://www.epa.gov/risk/regional-screening-levels-rsls-generic-tables



US Climate Data, 2013. Climate data for Clovis, New Mexico from 1951 to 1990 normals. US Climate Data website http://www.usclimatedata.com/climate.php?location=USNM0070#.December.

US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 2006. Consolidated Decommissioning Guidance, Decommissioning Process for Materials Licenses. Final Report. NUREG-1757, Vol. 1, Rev. 2. September.

William Matotan and Associates, 1985. Water Well Master Plan Survey. Prepared for Department of the Air Force, Cannon Air Force Base, New Mexico.

Woodward-Clyde, 1991. Field Sampling Plan. Remedial Investigation. Phase I (18 SMUs). Cannon AFB, Clovis, New Mexico.

Woodward-Clyde, 1995. Appendix II SWMUs RCRA Facility Investigation.

Woodward-Clyde, 1997. Naturally Occurring Concentrations of Inorganics and Background Concentrations of Pesticides at Cannon Air Force Base, New Mexico. September.

APPENDIX A ANALYTICAL LABORATORY INFORMATION: REFERENCE

LIMITS AND EVALUATION TABLES AND SAMPLE CONTAINERS, PRESERVATION, AND HOLD TIMES

Table A-1: REFERENCE LIMITS AND EVALUATION TABLE – VOCS IN SOIL BY 8260B

A-1

Analyte CAS

Number

TAL Sensitivity Limits (µg/kg) PAL(2) (µg/kg)

Accuracy Control

Limits (%)

ME (%R)

DL LOD LOQ Lower Limit

Upper Limit

1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane 630-20-6 0.56 1.6 5.0 27,800 78-125 70 133 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 71-55-6 0.52 1.6 5.0 14,300,000 73-130 64 139 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 79-34-5 0.61 1.6 5.0 7,930 70-124 61 133 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 79-00-5 0.88 3.2 5.0 2,590 78-121 71 128 1,1-Dichloroethane 75-34-3 0.21 0.8 5.0 77,900 76-125 68 133 1,1-Dichloroethene 75-35-4 0.59 1.6 5.0 436,000 70-131 60 141 1,1-Dichloropropene 563-58-6 0.54 1.6 5.0 -- 76-125 68 133 1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene 87-61-6 0.75 1.6 5.0 (63,000) 66-130 55 141 1,2,3-Trichloropropane 96-18-4 0.81 3.2 5.0 51 73-125 64 134 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 120-82-1 0.73 1.6 5.0 82,200 67-129 57 139 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 95-63-6 0.58 1.6 5.0 (30,000) 75-123 67 131 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane 96-12-8 0.60 1.6 10.0 85.1 61-132 49 144 1,2-Dibromoethane (Ethylene Dibromide) 106-93-4 0.52 1.6 5.0 668 78-122 71 129

1,2-Dichlorobenzene 95-50-1 0.45 1.6 5.0 2,140,000 78-121 71 128 1,2-Dichloroethane 107-06-2 0.70 1.6 5.0 8,2520 73-128 64 137 1,2-Dichloropropane 78-87-5 0.55 1.6 5.0 17,600 76-123 68 131 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 108-67-8 0.57 1.6 5.0 (270,000) 73-124 65 132 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 541-73-1 0.48 1.6 5.0 -- 77-121 70 128 1,3-Dichloropropane 142-28-9 0.51 1.6 5.0 (2,600) 77-121 70 128 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 106-46-7 0.78 1.6 5.0 1,290,000 75-120 67 128 2,2-Dichloropropane 594-20-7 0.44 1.6 5.0 ‘-- 67-133 56 144 2-Butanone 78-93-3 1.83 6.4 20.0 37,300,000 51-148 35 164 2-Chlorotoluene 95-49-8 0.51 1.6 5.0 1,560,000 75-122 67 130 2-Hexanone 591-78-6 4.89 12.8 20.0 (200,000) 53-145 38 160 4-Chlorotoluene 106-43-4 0.78 1.6 5.0 (1,600,000) 72-124 63 133 4-Methyl-2-pentanone 108-10-1 4.36 12.8 20.0 5,810,000 65-135 53 147 Acetone 67-64-1 5.38 12.8 20.0 66,300,000 36-164 15 185 Benzene 71-43-2 0.47 1.6 5.0 17,700 77-121 70 128 Bromobenzene 108-86-1 0.49 1.6 5.0 (290,000) 78-121 71 128


A-2

Analyte CAS

Number


Accuracy Control

Limits (%)

ME (%R)


Upper Limit

Bromochloromethane 74-97-5 0.30 0.8 5.0 (150,000) 78-125 70 133 Bromodichloromethane 75-27-4 0.22 0.8 5.0 6,140 75-127 67 135 Bromoform 75-25-2 0.23 0.8 5.0 (19,000) 67-132 56 143 Bromomethane 74-83-9 0.560 1.6 10.0 17,600 53-143 38 158 Carbon disulfide 75-15-0 0.42 1.6 5.0 1,540,000 63-132 51 143 Carbon tetrachloride 56-23-5 0.63 1.6 5.0 10,600 70-135 59 146 Chlorobenzene 108-90-7 0.54 1.6 5.0 376,000 79-120 72 127 Chlorodibromomethane 124-48-1 0.57 1.6 5.0 13,800 74-126 65 135 Chloroethane 75-00-3 0.89 3.2 10.0 18,800,000 59-139 46 152 Chloroform 67-66-3 0.29 0.8 10.0 5,850 78-123 70 131 Chloromethane 74-87-3 0.77 1.6 10.0 40,800 50-136 36 150 cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 156-59-2 0.56 1.6 5.0 156,000 77-123 69 131 cis-1,3-Dichloropropene 10061-01-5 1.29 3.2 5.0 29,100 74-126 65 135 Dibromomethane 74-95-3 0.84 3.2 5.0 57,400 78-125 70 133 Dichlorodifluoromethane 75-71-8 0.52 1.6 10.0 180,000 29-149 9 169 Ethylbenzene 100-41-4 0.67 1.6 5.0 74,500 76-122 68 130 Hexachlorobutadiene 87-68-3 0.55 1.6 5.0 (1,200) 61-135 49 147 Isopropylbenzene 98-82-8 0.59 1.6 5.0 2,350,000 68-134 57 145

m&p-Xylene 108-38-3/ 106-42-3 1.04 3.2 3.2 757,000 77-124 69 132

Methyl tert-butyl ether 1634-04-4 0.34 0.8 20.0 968,000 73-125 64 134 Methylene chloride 75-09-2 1.6 3.2 5.0 766,000 70-128 60 138 n-Butylbenzene 104-51-8 0.56 1.6 5.0 (3,900,000) 70-128 60 138 n-Propylbenzene 103-65-1 0.58 1.6 5.0 (3,800,000) 73-125 64 134 Naphthalene 91-20-3 0.63 1.6 5.0 1,160,000 62-129 51 140 o-Xylene 95-47-6 0.61 1.6 5.0 798,000 77-123 69 131 p-Isopropyltoluene 99-87-6 0.49 1.6 5.0 -- 73-127 64 136 sec-Butylbenzene 135-98-8 0.77 1.6 5.0 (7,800,000) 73-126 64 135 Styrene 100-42-5 0.63 1.6 5.0 7,230,000 78-124 68 132 tert-Butylbenzene 98-06-6 0.50 1.6 5.0 (7,800,000) 73-125 64 134 Tetrachloroethene 127-18-4 0.59 1.6 5.0 110,000 73-128 64 137 Toluene 108-88-3 0.69 1.6 5.0 5,220,000 77-121 70 128 trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 156-60-5 0.39 0.8 5.0 293,000 74-125 65 134 trans-1,3-Dichloropropene 10061-02-6 0.67 1.6 5.0 29,100 71-130 61 140


A-3

Analyte CAS

Number


Accuracy Control

Limits (%)

ME (%R)


Upper Limit

Trichloroethene 79-01-6 0.23 0.23 5.0 6,720 77-123 69 131 Trichlorofluoromethane 75-69-4 1.04 3.2 10.0 1,220,000 62-140 49 153 Vinyl chloride 75-01-4 1.34 3.2 5.0 741 56-135 43 148 Surrogates 1,2-Dichloroethane-d4 17060-07-0 NA NA NA NA 71-136 NA NA 4-Bromofluorobenzene 460-00-4 NA NA NA NA 79-119 NA NA Dibromofluoromethane 1868-53-7 NA NA NA NA 78-119 NA NA Toluene-d8 2037-26-5 NA NA NA NA 85-116 NA NA

1 Aqueous QC sample sensitivity and accuracy limits are not included in this RFI Work Plan but will be analyzed for the same list of analytes as soil samples and comply with QSM v5.1. 2 Project Action Levels (PAL) are residential soil screening levels from Table A-1 NMED Risk Assessment Guidance for Investigations and Remediation, March 2017. If a screening value was not

available from Table A-1 for a given analyte, the EPA Residential Soil RSL (November 2017) was used and these values are in parentheses. CAS = Chemical Abstracts Service µg/Kg = micrograms per kilogram

Table A-2: Reference Limits and Evaluation Table – SVOCs in Soil by 8270D1

A-4

Analyte CAS

Number

TAL Sensitivity Limits (µg/kg)

PAL(2) (µg/kg)

Accuracy Control

Limits (%)

Marginal Exceedance

(%R)


Upper Limit

Base/Neutral Extractable Fraction 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 120-82-1 28 67 330 82,200 34-118 20 132 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 95-50-1 22 67 330 2,140,000 33-117 19 131 1,2-Diphenylhydrazine 122-66-7 22 67 330 6,660 41-125 27 139 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 541-73-1 12 33 330 -- 30-115 16 129 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 106-46-7 13.6 33 330 1,290,000 31-115 17 129 2,2ʹ-oxybis(1-Chloropropane) 108-60-1 23 67 330 99,300 33-131 17 147 2,4-Dinitrotoluene 121-14-2 66 133 330 17,100 48-126 35 139 2,6-Dinitrotoluene 606-20-2 28 67 330 3,560 46-124 33 137 2-Chloronaphthalene 91-58-7 10 33 330 6,260,000 41-114 29 126 2-Methylnaphthalene 91-57-6 19 67 330 232,000 38-122 24 136 2-Nitroaniline 88-74-4 50 133 1600 (630,000) 44-127 30 141 3,3ʹ-Dichlorobenzidine 91-94-1 90 267 1,600 11,800 22-121 6 137 3-Nitroaniline 99-09-2 73 267 1,600 -- 33-119 19 133 4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether 101-55-3 19 67 330 -- 46-124 33 137 4-Chloroaniline 106-47-8 81.9 267 330 (2,700) 17-106 2 121 4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether 7005-72-3 21 67 330 -- 45-121 32 134 4-Nitroaniline 100-01-6 72.5 267 1,600 (27,000) 64-125 39 140 Acenaphthene 83-32-9 10.3 33 330 3,480,000 40-123 26 137 Acenaphthylene 208-96-8 17 67 330 -- 32-132 15 149 Anthracene 120-12-7 17 67 330 17,400,000 47-123 34 136 Benzo(a)anthracene 56-55-3 20 67 330 1,530 49-126 36 139 Benzo(a)pyrene 50-32-8 20 67 330 1,120 45-129 31 143 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 205-99-2 26.2 67 330 1,530 45-132 31 146 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 191-24-2 16 33 330 -- 43-134 28 149 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 207-08-9 40 133 330 15,300 47-132 33 146


A-5

Analyte CAS

Number


Accuracy Control

Limits (%)

Marginal Exceedance

(%R)


Upper Limit

Benzyl alcohol 100-51-6 10 33 330 (6,300,000) 29-122 13 138 bis(2-Chloroethoxy)methane 111-91-1 23 67 330 (190,000) 36-121 22 135 bis(2-Chloroethyl)ether 111-44-4 16.6 33 330 3,100 31-120 16 135 bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate 117-81-7 46 133 330 380,000 51-133 37 147 Butyl benzyl phthalate 85-68-7 43 133 330 (290,000) 48-132 34 146 Carbazole 86-74-8 36 133 330 -- 50-123 38 135 Chrysene 218-01-9 27 67 330 153,000 50-124 38 136 Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 53-70-3 19 67 330 153 45-134 30 149 Dibenzofuran 132-64-9 20 67 330 (73,000) 44-120 31 133 Diethyl phthalate 84-66-2 26 67 330 49,300,000 50-124 38 136 Dimethyl phthalate 131-11-3 23 67 330 61,600,000 48-124 35 137 Di-n-butyl phthalate 84-74-2 29 67 330 6,160,000 51-128 38 141 Di-n-octyl phthalate 117-84-0 14.4 67 330 (630,000) 45-140 29 156 Fluoranthene 206-44-0 36 133 330 2,320,000 50-127 37 140 Fluorene 86-73-7 18 67 330 2,320,000 43-125 29 139 Hexachlorobenzene 118-74-1 29 67 330 3,330 45-122 32 135 Hexachlorobutadiene 87-68-3 10 33 330 (1,200) 32-123 17 138 Hexachlorocyclopentadiene 77-47-4 50 133 1,700 2,280 47-125 32 140 Hexachloroethane 67-72-1 21.3 67 330 43,100 28-117 13 132 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 193-39-5 22 67 330 1,530 45-133 30 148 Isophorone 78-59-1 17 67 330 5,610,000 30-122 15 137 Naphthalene 91-20-3 31 67 330 1,160,000 35-123 20 138 Nitrobenzene 98-95-3 22 67 330 59,900 34-122 19 137 N-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine 621-64-7 31 67 330 (78) 36-120 22 134 N-Nitrosodiphenylamine 86-30-6 21 67 330 1,090,000 38-127 23 142 N-Nitrosopyrrolidine 930-55-2 64 167 330 2,540 45-126 31 140 Phenanthrene 85-01-8 17 67 330 1,740,000 50-121 38 133 Pyrene 129-00-0 12.1 33 400 1,740,000 47-127 34 140


A-6

Analyte CAS

Number


Accuracy Control

Limits (%)

Marginal Exceedance (%R)

DL LOD LOQ Lower Limit Upper Limit Base/Neutral Extractable Fraction Surrogates

2-Fluorobiphenyl 321-60-8 NA NA NA NA 44-115 NA NA Nitrobenzene-d5 4165-60-0 NA NA NA NA 37-127 NA NA Terphenyl-d14 1718-51-0 NA NA NA NA 54-127 NA NA

Acid Extractable Fraction 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol 95-95-4 10 33 330 6,160,000 41-124 27 138 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol 88-06-2 10 33 330 61,600 39-126 25 140 2,4-Dichlorophenol 120-83-2 10 33 330 185,000 40-122 26 136 2,4-Dimethylphenol 105-67-9 66 133 330 1,230,000 30-127 14 143 2,4-Dinitrophenol 51-28-5 333 1,000 1,600 123,000 46-125 31 140 2,6-Dichlorophenol 87-65-0 69 167 330 -- 41-117 28 130 2-Chlorophenol 95-57-8 21 67 330 391,000 34-121 20 135 2-Methylphenol 95-48-7 13 33 330 (3,200,000) 32-122 17 137 2-Nitrophenol 88-75-5 10 33 330 -- 36-123 22 137 4-Nitrophenol 100-02-7 97 267 1,600 -- 30-132 13 149

3&4-Methylphenol 108-39-4/ 106-44-5 33 67 330 (3,200,000) 34-119 20 133

4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol 534-52-1 330 1,000 1,600 (5,100) 29-132 12 149 4-Chloro-3-methylphenol 59-50-7 66 133 330 (6,300,000) 45-122 32 135 Benzoic acid 65-85-0 330 1,000 1,600 (250,000,000) 32-125 17 140 Pentachlorophenol 87-86-5 330 1,000 1,600 9,850 25-133 7 151 Phenol 108-95-2 18 67 330 18,500,000 34-121 20 135 Acid Extractable Fraction Surrogates 2,4,6-Tribromophenol 118-79-6 NA NA NA NA 39-132 NA NA 2-Fluorophenol 367-12-4 NA NA NA NA 35-115 NA NA Phenol-d5 4165-62-2 NA NA NA NA 33-122 NA NA

1 Aqueous QC sample sensitivity and accuracy limits are not included in this RFI Work Plan but will be analyzed for the same list of analytes as soil samples and comply with QSM v5.1. 2 Project Action Levels (PALs) are residential soil screening levels from Table A-1 NMED Risk Assessment Guidance for Investigations and Remediation, March 2017. If a screening value was not

available from Table A-1 for a given analyte, the EPA Residential Soil RSL (November 2017) was used and these values are in parentheses. CAS = Chemical Abstracts Service µg/kg = micrograms per kilogram

Underlined accuracy control limits indicate that control limits are not presented in the QSM or the method and have been provided by the laboratory. Values in italics indicate a PAL that is greater than the laboratory LOD but by less than the preferred factor of 3.

A-7

Table A-3: Reference Limits and Evaluation Table – TPH-GRO in Soil by 8015-Modified1

Analyte CAS Number

TAL Sensitivity Limits (mg/kg)

PAL(2)

(mg/kg)

Accuracy Control Limits

(%)

ME (%R)


Upper Limit

TPH-GRO (C6-C10) 307-27 0.325 1.1 1.2 1,000 79-122 72 129 Surrogates a,a,a-Trifluorotoluene 98-08-8 NA NA NA NA 79-125 NA NA

1 Aqueous QC sample sensitivity and accuracy limits are not included in this RFI Work Plan but will be analyzed for the same list of analytes as soil samples and comply with QSM v5.1. 2 Project Action Levels (PALs) are from Table 6-2, TPH Soil Screening Levels (residential exposure), NMED Risk Assessment Guidance for Investigations and Remediation, March 2017. CAS = Chemical Abstracts Service mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram Underlined accuracy control limits indicate that control limits are not presented in the QSM or the method and have been provided by the laboratory.

Table A-4: Reference Limits and Evaluation Table – TPH-DRO and TPH-ORO in Soil by 8015-Modified1

Analyte CAS Number

TAL Sensitivity Limits (mg/kg)

PAL(2)

(mg/kg)


(%)

ME (%R)


Upper Limit

TPH-DRO (C10-C28) 303-04 0.678 2.0 4.0 1,000 38-132 22 148 TPH-ORO (C20-C38) 307-51 3.91 10 12 1,000 39-106 28 117 Surrogates o-Terphenyl 84-15-1 NA NA NA NA 45-130 NA NA

1 Aqueous QC sample sensitivity and accuracy limits are not included in this RFI Work Plan but will be analyzed for the same list of analytes as soil samples and comply with QSM v5.1. 2 Project Action Levels (PALs) are residential soil screening levels from Table 6-2, TPH Soil Screening Levels (residential exposure), NMED Risk Assessment Guidance for Investigations and

Remediation, March 2017 CAS = Chemical Abstracts Service mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram

A-8

Table A-5: Reference Limits and Evaluation Table – Metals in Soil by Methods 6010C, 6020A, and 7471B1

Analyte CAS

Number

TAL Sensitivity Limits (µg/kg) PAL(2)

(µg/kg)

Accuracy Control

Limits (%)

ME (%R)


Upper Limit

ICP-MS Metals by 6020A Antimony 7440-36-0 14 50 200 31,300 72-124 63 133 Arsenic 7440-38-2 50.6 200 600 7,070 82-118 76 124 Barium 7440-39-3 70.5 200 250 15,600,000 86-116 81 121 Beryllium 7440-41-7 22.5 80 100 156,000 80-120 73 127 Cadmium 7440-43-9 9.38 35 100 70,500 84-116 78 122 Chromium 7440-47-3 76 175 600 96,600 83-119 77 125 Cobalt 7440-48-4 6.63 25 100 23,400 84-115 79 120 Copper 7440-50-8 71.1 200 2500 3,130,000 84-119 78 125 Lead 7439-92-1 18.2 70 400 84-118 78 124 Manganese 7439-96-5 33 100 1000 10,500,000 85-116 80 121 Nickel 7440-02-0 25.3 100 350 1,560,000 84-119 78 125 Selenium 7782-49-2 133 400 500 391,000 80-119 73 126 Silver 7440-22-4 20.3 80 100 391,000 83-118 77 124 Thallium 7440-28-0 3.51 10 100 782 83-118 77 124 Vanadium 7440-62-2 38.5 100 500 394,000 82-116 76 122 Zinc 7440-66-6 316 950 2500 23,500,000 82-119 76 125 Mercury by 7471B Mercury 7439-97-6 5.53 13.3 17 23,600 80-124 72 132 ICP-AES Metals by 6010C Aluminum 7429-90-5 1550 6000 5000 78,000,000 74-119 67 127 Calcium 7440-70-2 14100 50000 100000 13,000,000,000 81-116 75 122 Iron 7439-89-6 3800 15000 80000 54,800,000 81-118 75 124 Magnesium 7439-95-4 3700 14000 30000 20,900,000,000 78-115 72 121 Potassium 7440-09-7 41000 160000 300000 15,600,000,000 81-116 75 122 Sodium 7440-23-5 59000 200000 500000 12,000,000,000 83-118 77 124

1 Aqueous QC sample sensitivity and accuracy limits are not included in this RFI Work Plan but will be analyzed for the same list of analytes as soil samples and comply with QSM v5.1. 2 Project Action Levels (PALs) are residential soil screening levels from Table A-1 NMED Risk Assessment Guidance for Investigations and Remediation, March 2017. If a screening value was not

available from Table A-1 for a given analyte, the EPA Residential Soil RSL (November 2017) was used and these values are in parentheses. CAS = Chemical Abstracts Service µg/kg = micrograms per kilogram

Underlined accuracy control limits indicate that control limits are not presented in the QSM or the method and have been provided by the laboratory.

A-9

Table A-6: Reference Limits and Evaluation Table – Radium-226 by 903.0 and Radium-228 by 904.01

Analyte CAS Number

TAL Sensitivity Limits (pCiL)

PAL(2)

(pCi/g)


(%)

ME (%R)


Upper Limit

Radium-226 13982-63-3 -- -- 1.0 5 68-137 No ME No ME Radium-228 15262-20-1 -- -- 1.0 5 56-140 No ME No ME Carrier Barium 7440-39-3 -- -- -- -- 40-110 No ME No ME Yttrium 7440-65-5 -- -- -- -- 40-110 No ME No ME

1 Aqueous QC sample sensitivity and accuracy limits are not included in this RFI Work Plan but will be analyzed for the same list of analytes as soil samples and comply with QSM v5.1. 2 The Code of Federal Regulations specifies in 40 CFR §192.12(a) that the concentration of radium-226 in land averaged over an area of 100 square meters shall not exceed background (native

concentrations of radioactivity or radioactive materials in the area prior to disturbance) by more than 5 pCi/g averaged over the first 15 cm of soil below the surface. Department of Energy Order 458.1 Change 2 provides Pre-Approved Authorized Limits, stating: “For radium-226 and radium-228 in soil - 5 pCi/g (0.2 Bq/gram) in excess of background levels, averaged over 100 m2 , in the first 15 cm depth of the surface layer of soil.”

CAS = Chemical Abstracts Service pCi/g = picocuries per gram

Underlined accuracy control limits indicate that control limits are not presented in the QSM or the method and have been provided by the laboratory.

Table A-7: Reference Limits and Evaluation Table – Isotopic Thorium by A-01-R1

Analyte CAS Number

TAL Sensitivity Limits (pCi/g)

PAL(2)

(pCi/g)


(%)

ME (%R)


Upper Limit

Thorium-228 14274-82-9 -- -- 1 4.7 NA NA NA Thorium-230 14269-63-7 -- -- 1 1.8 81-118 No ME No ME Thorium-232 7440-29-1 -- -- 1 1.1 NA NA NA Tracer Thorium-229 15594-54-4 -- -- -- -- 30-110 NA NA

1 Aqueous QC sample sensitivity and accuracy limits are not included in this RFI Work Plan but will be analyzed for the same list of analytes as soil samples and comply with QSM v5.1. 2 PALs are screening values of common radionuclides for surface soil provided in Table B.2, Consolidated Decommissioning Guidance, Decommissioning Process for Materials Licensees (NUREG-

1757, rev.2), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, September 2006. CAS = Chemical Abstracts Service pCi/g = picocuries per gram Underlined accuracy control limits indicate that control limits are not presented in the QSM or the method and have been provided by the laboratory.

A-10

Table A-8: Reference Limits and Evaluation Table – Radium-226 and Cesium-137 by GA-01-R 1

Analyte CAS Number

TAL Sensitivity Limits (pCi/g)

PAL(2)

(pCi/g)


(%)

ME (%R)


Upper Limit

Radium-226 13982-63-3 -- -- 1 5 NA NA NA Cesium-137 10045-97-3 -- -- -- 11 87-120 No ME No ME Americium-241 14596-10-2 -- -- -- 2.1 30-110 No ME No ME Cobalt-60 10198-40-0 -- -- -- 3.8 87-115 No ME No ME

1 Aqueous QC sample sensitivity and accuracy limits are not included in this RFI Work Plan but will be analyzed for the same list of analytes as soil samples and comply with QSM v5.1. 2 The Code of Federal Regulations specifies in 40 CFR §192.12(a) that the concentration of radium-226 in land averaged over an area of 100 square meters shall not exceed background (native

concentrations of radioactivity or radioactive materials in the area prior to disturbance) by more than 5 pCi/g averaged over the first 15 cm of soil below the surface. Department of Energy Order 458.1 Change 2 provides Pre-Approved Authorized Limits, stating: “For radium-226 and radium-228 in soil - 5 pCi/g (0.2 Bq/gram) in excess of background levels, averaged over 100 m2 , in the first 15 cm depth of the surface layer of soil.” Additional PALs are screening values of common radionuclides for surface soil provided in Table B.2, Consolidated Decommissioning Guidance, Decommissioning Process for Materials Licensees (NUREG-1757, rev.2), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, September 2006.

CAS = Chemical Abstracts Service pCi/g = picocuries per gram Underlined accuracy control limits indicate that control limits are not presented in the QSM or the method and have been provided by the laboratory.

A-11

Table A-9: Reference Limits and Evaluation Table – Waste Characterization Analyses Method Analyte Regulatory Limit (mg/L) TAL LOQ (mg/L)

Analysis of Aqueous Waste and Solid Waste Extracts for Toxicity Characteristic 8260B 1,1-Dichloroethene 0.7 0.01

1,2-Dichloroethane 0.5 0.01 2-Butanone (methyl ethyl ketone) 200 0.1 Benzene 0.5 0.01 Carbon tetrachloride 0.5 0.01 Chlorobenzene 100 0.01 Chloroform 6.0 0.01 Tetrachloroethene 0.7 0.01 Trichloroethene 0.5 0.01 Vinyl chloride 0.2 0.01

8270D1 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 7.5 0.02 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol 400 0.05 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol 2.0 0.025 2,4-Dinitrotoluene 0.13 0.05 2-Methylphenol 200 (total cresols) 0.05 3&4-Methylphenol 0.05 Hexachlorobenzene 0.13 0.05 Hexachlorobutadiene 0.5 0.05 Hexachloroethane 3.0 0.05 Nitrobenzene 2.0 0.05 Pentachlorophenol 100 0.25 Pyridine 5.0 0.10

8082A PCBs, total (aqueous) 50 0.0005 PCBs, total (soil) 50 milligrams per kilogram 0.0005 milligrams per kilogram

6010C Arsenic 5.0 0.5 Barium 100 1.0 Cadmium 1.0 0.1 Chromium 5.0 0.5 Lead 5.0 0.5 Selenium 1.0 0.1 Silver 5.0 0.5

7470A Mercury 0.2 0.002

A-01-R Isotopic Thorium NA 1 picocuries per gram

GA-01-R Radium 2261 NA 1 picocuries per gram

1Other detected isotopes will also be reported. mg/L = milligrams per liter

A-12

Table A-10: Sample Containers, Preservation, and Hold Times Prior to sampling at a site, the project laboratory will be provided with the list of tests to be performed and required turnaround times. The field sampling team should work with the project laboratory to identify samples for analytical methods that can be combined in the same sampling container to optimize sampling time and reduce shipping costs and sample waste. Holding times expressed in hours should be evaluated based on time of collection to time of preparation or analysis, as measured in hours and minutes. Holding times expressed in days should be evaluated on the basis of calendar days elapsed, with the sampling date considered day “0.”

Matrix Parameter

Analytical and Preparation Method/

SOP Reference Containers Preservation

Requirements Maximum Holding Time

Soil

VOCs 8260B (SOPs L-1)1

a) 3 x 40 mL glass vials, Teflon septum b) 3 x 40 mL glass vials, Teflon septum c) Sealed syringe-type corer (Encore® or Terracore® equivalent)

a) Cool ≤6°C; NaHSO4 to pH <2 b) Cool ≤6°C, methanol c) Cool ≤6°C

a) 14 days b) 14 days c) 48 hours; 14 days if frozen within 48 hours of collection

SVOCs 8270D (SOPs L-2 and P-1) 1 x 4oz jar Cool ≤6°C 7 days to prepare and 40 days from extraction to analysis

GRO 8015M (SOPs L-3)

a) 3 x 40 mL glass vials, Teflon septum b) Sealed syringe-type corer (Encore® or Terracore® equivalent)

a) Cool ≤6°C, methanol b) Cool ≤6°C

a) 14 days b) 14 days; must be preserved with methanol within 48 hours of collection

DRO/ORO 8015A (SOP L-4 and P-6) 1 x 4 oz jar Cool ≤6°C 14 days

Metals and mercury 6010C (SOPs L-5 and P-3), 6020A (SOPs L-6 and P-5), and 7470A (SOP L-7)

1 x 4 oz jar

Cool ≤6°C for mercury, no preservation required for remaining metals

180 days (metals); 28 days (mercury)

Isotopic Thorium A-01-R (SOPs L-12 and P-9) 1L PE bottle None 180 days Radium 226 GA-01-R (SOPs L-13 and P-

8)

Table A-10: Sample Containers, Preservation, and Hold Times

A-13

Matrix Parameter

Analytical and Preparation Method/

SOP Reference Containers Preservation

Requirements Maximum Holding Time

Aqueous matrix, including

aqueous QC and Wastewater2

VOCs 8260B (SOPs L-1) 3 x 40 mL glass vials, Teflon septum

Cool ≤6°C; zero headspace; HCl to pH <2

14 days; 7 days if unpreserved with acid

SVOCs 8270D (SOPs L-2 and P-1) 2 x 1 L amber glass Cool ≤6°C 7 days to prepare and 40 days from extraction to analysis

GRO 8015M (SOPs L-3) 3 x 40 mL glass vials, Teflon septum Cool ≤6°C 14 days

DRO/ORO 8015A (SOP L-4 and P-1) 2 x 1 L amber glass Cool ≤6°C 7 days to prepare and 40 days from extraction to analysis

Metals and mercury 6010C (SOPs L-5 and P-3), 6020A (SOPs L-6 and P-5), and 7470A (SOP L-7)

500 mL PE bottle HNO3 to pH <2 180 days (metals); 28 days (mercury)

Isotopic Thorium A-01-R (SOPs L-12 and P-9) 2 x 1 L PE bottle HNO3 to pH <2 180 days

Radium 226/228 903.0/904.0 (SOPs L-11 and P-7) 1 x 1 L PE bottle HNO3 to pH <2 180 days

Cesium 137 GA-01-R(SOPs L-13 and P-8) 1 x 1 L PE bottle HNO3 to pH <2 180 days

Waste Soil

PCBs 8015A (SOP L-4 and P-6) 1 x 4 oz jar Cool ≤6°C 14 days Isotopic Thorium A-01-R (SOPs L-12 and P-9) 1L PE bottle None 180 days Radium 226 GA-01-R(SOPs L-13 and P-8) TCLP (zero headspace extraction) 1311 (SOP E-1) 4 oz. glass jar, no

headspace Cool ≤6°C 14 days

TCLP 1311 (SOP E-1) Two 8 oz. glass jars Cool ≤6°C 14 days (SVOCs, pesticides, and herbicides); 28 days (mercury); 180 days (metals)

Waste soil extracts

VOCs 8260B (SOPs L-1 and P-1) NA3 NA2 14 days

SVOCs 8270D (SOPs L-2 and P-2) NA3 NA2 7 days to prepare and 40 days from extraction to analysis

Metals and mercury 6010C (SOPs L-5 and P-4) and 7471B (SOP L-8)

NA3 NA2 180 days (metals); 28 days (mercury)

1 If soils are being analyzed for VOCs then an additional 4oz jar should be collected for percent moisture. 2If aqueous wastes containing an observable nonaqueous phase are encountered, the laboratory will be contacted to provide appropriate sampling protocols and containers. 3TCLP extracts will be containerized, preserved, and stored in accordance with the laboratory’s SOP and the associated analytical method SOPs. HCl = hydrochloric acid HNO3 = nitric acid L = liters Ml = milliliters NaHSO4 = sodium bisulfate NaOH = sodium hydroxide PE = polyethylene

hwbdocuments.env.nm.gov afb/2018-07... · s department of the mr force 27th special operations...

Documents