kdsjrt& - welcome to newmexico.gov afb/kafb3392.pdf · 2016. 4. 15. · 9005. 2 attachments: 1....

• DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE.~t EN'fE.-..... .,"' .. '~~~'902,, .. ·• ,. V\

HEADQUARTERS 377TH AIR BASE WING (AFMC) {:i'' . ; 'i" •·i•.''l '8, · . . \ ~ IIi . iJ1 ,

Colonel Michael S. Duvall 377 ABW/CC 2000 Wyoming Blvd SE Kirtland AFB NM 87117-5606

Mr. John Kieling Hazardous Waste Bureau New Mexico Environment Dept 2905 Rodeo Park Dr East, Bldg 1 Santa Fe NM 87505-6303

Dear Mr. Kieling

APR 1 ·-t 2010

Kirtland AFB is submitting the Accelerated Corrective Measures Work Plan for Solid Waste Management Unit WP-26, Sewage Lagoons and Golf Course Main Pond, in an electronic format as requested by the New Mexico Environment Department

If you have any questions regarding this submittal, please contact Mr. Mark Holmes at (505) 846-9005.

2 Attachments: 1. Electronic Copy of the ACM Work Plan 2. Hard Copy ofthe ACM Work Plan

cc: NMED HWB-KAB, Mr. McDonald, w/ Atchs 1 & 2 NMED HWB-Chief, Mr. Bearzi, w/o Atch USEPA-Region 6 (6PD-N), Ms. King, w/o Atch HQ AFMC/A7A1, Mr. Dave Fort, w/o Atchs AFECEEIEXEC, Ms. Doll, w/o Atchs CH2MHill, Ms. Karen Jarocki, w/o Atchs Admin Record, CNM, Montoya Campus, w/1 Atch File w/Atchs 1 & 2

KAFB3392

111111111111111111 11/llllll/1111 IIIII III/IIIII/III

Sincerely

/kdSJrt& MICHAEL S. DUVALL, Colonel, USAF Commander

' . .,; ' tj'~ '

·', -;:·

377 MSG/CEANR2050 Wyoming Blvd. SEKirtland AFB, New Mexico 87117-5670

ENVIROMENTAL RESTORATION PROGRAMKIRTLAND AIR FORCE BASE, NEW MEXICO

AM TERIELECRFO

ARI

COMMAND

Corrective Measures Study Work Planfor Solid Waste Management Unit WP-26, Sewage Lagoons and Golf Course Main Pond

March 2010

ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION PROGRAM KIRTLAND AIR FORCE BASE, NEW MEXICO

CORRECTIVE MEASURES STUDY WORK PLAN FOR SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT UNIT WP-26,

SEWAGE LAGOONS AND GOLF COURSE MAIN POND

March 2010

Prepared for

Air Force Center for Engineering and the Environment AFCEE/ACV

3515 S. General McMullen, Building 171 San Antonio, TX 78226

Contract No. FA8903-08-D-8769 Task Order No. 0099

Prepared by

CH2M HILL 4041 Jefferson Plaza NE, Suite 200

Albuquerque, NM 87109

NOTICE This work plan was prepared for the Air Force Center for Engineering and the Environment by CH2M HILL to aid in the implementation of a final remedial action plan under the Environmental Restoration Program (ERP). As the work plan relates to actual or possible releases of potentially hazardous substances, its release prior to an Air Force final decision on remedial action may be in the public’s interest. The limited objectives of this report and the ongoing nature of the ERP, along with the evolving knowledge of site conditions and chemical effects on the environment and health, must be considered when evaluating this plan, because subsequent facts may become known that may make this plan premature or inaccurate. A copy of this document is available for public review at the Central New Mexico Community College, Montoya Campus Library Reference Section, at 4700 Morris NE, Albuquerque, New Mexico. Government agencies and their contractors registered with the Defense Technical Information Center should direct requests for copies of this study to the Defense Technical Information Center, Cameron Station, Alexandria, Virginia 22304-6145. Nongovernmental agencies may purchase copies of this document from the National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161.

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved OMB No. 0704-0188

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, Virginia 22202-4302, and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0704-0188), Washington, D.C. 20503.

1. AGENCY USE ONLY

2. REPORT DATE March 2010

3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED Corrective Measures Study Work Plan, March 2010

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE Kirtland Air Force Base, New Mexico Corrective Measures Study Work Plan for Solid Waste Management Unit WP-26, Sewage Lagoons and Golf Course Main Pond

6. AUTHOR(S) Gretchen Engel and Karen E. Jarocki, CH2M HILL

5. FUNDING NUMBERS Contract No. FA8903-08-D-8769 Delivery Order No. 0099

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) CH2M HILL 4041 Jefferson Plaza NE, Suite 200 Albuquerque, NM 87109

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER

9. SPONSORING / MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) AFCEE/ACV 3515 S. General McMullen, Building 171 San Antonio, TX 78226 Project Manager: Kristi Doll

10. SPONSORING / MONITORING AGENCY REPORT NUMBER

11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

12a. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE

13. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words) This work plan specifies the activities that will be performed to evaluate corrective measures for Solid Waste Management Unit WP-26, Sewage Lagoons and Golf Course Main Pond, at Kirtland Air Force Base, New Mexico.

14. SUBJECT TERMS WP-26, corrective measures study, work plan

15. NUMBER OF PAGES 40

16. PRICE CODE

17. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF REPORT UNCLASSIFIED

18. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE

UNCLASSIFIED

19. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION

UNCLASSIFIED

20. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT

SAR

NSN 7540-01-280-5500

Standard Form 298 (Rev 2-89) Prescribed by ANSI Std 239-18 298-102

40 CFR 270.11 DOCUMENT CERTIFICATION

Kirtland AFB SWMU WP-26, CMS Work Plan ii

March 2010

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

PREFACE

Kirtland AFB SWMU WP-26, CMS Work Plan iii

March 2010

PREFACE This work plan describes the corrective measures study that will be conducted at Solid Waste Management Unit WP-26, Sewage Lagoons and Golf Course Main Pond at Kirtland Air Force Base, New Mexico. This work plan addresses the requirements designated in the U.S. Air Force statement of work dated 18 November 2008. This work plan was prepared by CH2M HILL in March 2010. The work was performed under the authority of the Air Force Center for Engineering and the Environment (AFCEE), Contract Number FA8903-08-D-8769, Task Order 0099. Ms. Kristi Doll served as the AFCEE Project Manager. Sharon L. Minchak, P.G. Karen E. Jarocki, P.G. CH2M HILL Program Manger CH2M HILL Project Manager

PREFACE

Kirtland AFB SWMU WP-26, CMS Work Plan iv

March 2010


CONTENTS

Kirtland AFB SWMU WP-26, CMS Work Plan v

March 2010

CONTENTS Section Page

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY..................................................................................................................... ES-1

1 Introduction...................................................................................................................................1-1 1.1 Description of the Corrective Measure Study Work Plan ................................................1-1 1.2 Scoping Documents .........................................................................................................1-1

2 Solid Waste Management Unit WP-26 .........................................................................................2-1 2.1 Site Description................................................................................................................2-1 2.2 Previous Investigations ....................................................................................................2-2

2.2.1 Sewage Lagoons .................................................................................................2-2 2.2.2 Golf Course Main Pond ......................................................................................2-7

3 Corrective Measures Study Work Plan .........................................................................................3-1 3.1 Corrective Measures Study Purpose ................................................................................3-1 3.2 Corrective Measures Objectives ......................................................................................3-1 3.3 Potential Corrective Measures Technologies ...................................................................3-1 3.4 Evaluation of Corrective Measures..................................................................................3-1

3.4.1 Preliminary Screening of Corrective Measures Technologies ............................3-1 3.4.2 Development of Corrective Measures Alternatives ............................................3-2 3.4.3 Evaluating Specific Corrective Measures Alternatives.......................................3-2 3.4.4 Justification and Recommendation of the Corrective Measures Alternative ......3-6 3.4.5 Corrective Measures Study Report .....................................................................3-6 3.4.6 Proposed Schedule..............................................................................................3-8

References ................................................................................................................................................ R-1

FIGURES AND TABLES

Kirtland AFB SWMU WP-26, CMS Work Plan vi

March 2010

FIGURES Figure Page 1-1 Site Location Map for Solid Waste Management Unit WP-26, Sewage Lagoons and

Golf Course Main Pond, Kirtland Air Force Base, New Mexico ................................................1-2 2-1 Trichloroethene Concentrations in Soil Vapor, Depths between 115 and 225 feet,

Solid Waste Management Unit WP-26, Sewage Lagoons ............................................................2-5 2-2 Trichloroethene Concentrations in Perched and Regional Groundwater at Solid Waste

Management Unit WP-26, Sewage Lagoons ................................................................................2-6 2-3 Soil and Soil Vapor Sample Locations, Solid Waste Management Unit WP-26,

Golf Course Main Pond .............................................................................................................. 2-11 3-1 Proposed Schedule for Implementation of the Corrective Measures Study for Solid

Waste Management Unit WP-26, Sewage Lagoons and Golf Course Main Pond........................3-9

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

Kirtland AFB SWMU WP-26, CMS Work Plan vii

March 2010

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS AFB Air Force Base AFCEE Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence bgs below ground surface CFC chlorofluorocarbon CMS corrective measures study COPC contaminant of potential concern CSM conceptual site model DCA dichloroethane DCE dichloroethene DPT direct push technology EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ERP Environmental Restoration Program ft foot/feet Freon-12 dichlorodifluoromethane GCMP golf course main pond HDPE high density polyethylene LTM Long-Term Monitoring Program MCL maximum contaminant level MEK methyl ethyl ketone μg/L micrograms per liter mg/kg milligram per kilogram mg/L milligram per liter MtBE methyl tert-butyl ether NMED New Mexico Environment Department NMSWMR New Mexico Solid Waste Management Regulations NMWQCC New Mexico Water Quality Control Commission PAH polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons PCB polychlorinated biphenyls PCE tetrachloroethene ppbv parts per billion by volume RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act RFI RCRA facility investigation

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

Kirtland AFB SWMU WP-26, CMS Work Plan viii

March 2010

ACRONYMS AND ABREVIATIONS (Concluded) SGMP soil gas monitoring point SSL soil screening level SVOC semivolatile organic compound SWMU solid waste management unit TCE trichloroethene TKN total Kjeldahl nitrogen TOC total organic carbon TPH total petroleum hydrocarbon USAF United States Air Force VOC volatile organic compound

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Kirtland AFB SWMU WP-26, CMS Work Plan ES-1

March 2010

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This work plan was prepared as guidance for the Corrective Measures Study (CMS) to be conducted at Solid Waste Management Unit (SWMU) WP-26, Sewage Lagoons and Golf Course Main Pond (GCMP) at Kirtland Air Force Base (AFB), New Mexico. The SWMU WP-26 is made up of two geographically distinct locations, the former sewage lagoons and the GCMP. The sewage lagoons consisted of north and south square cells separated by an earthen wall. Each lagoon covered approximately 7 acres with a total area of 14 acres for both sewage lagoons. The GCMP is located between holes three and four of the Tijeras Arroyo Golf Course at Kirtland AFB and currently covers approximately 1.85 acres. These two areas are part of the same site because sewage effluent was processed at both locations. Sewage Lagoons Data collected from the 2006 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) facility investigation (RFI) and 2009 RFI provided sufficient information for evaluations of the nature and extent of contamination of soil vapor and perched groundwater at the former sewage lagoons. Data indicate that the soil vapor in the vadose zone between the ground surface and the perched groundwater zone is contaminated with volatile organic compounds (VOCs), including trichloroethene (TCE); 1,1-dichloroethane (DCA); fuel-related VOCs such as benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene; and degradation products including acetone and methyl ethyl ketone (MEK). Soil vapor concentrations tend to be highest on the west and northeast side of the former sewage lagoons and increase with depth towards the perched groundwater at 200 feet (ft) below grade surface (bgs). Soil vapor is not contaminated in the vadose zone between the perched groundwater zone and the regional aquifer. Groundwater in the perched zone is currently contaminated by VOCs. The TCE concentrations in perched groundwater exceed the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) maximum contamination limit (MCL) of 5 micrograms per liter (µg/L) for drinking water, but are below the New Mexico Water Quality Control Commission (NMWQCC) standard of 100 µg/L for groundwater. Groundwater in the perched zone beneath the former sewage lagoons is isolated from the larger perched groundwater to the east, and is present in a relatively thin and discontinuous layer. A CMS for soil vapor and perched groundwater was recommended based on the results of the 2006 and 2009 RFIs. Golf Course Main Pond The objective of the 2006 RFI at the GCMP was to evaluate the nature and extent of potential contamination in the vadose zone under the footprint of the original and current GCMP. The contaminants of potential concern (COPCs) included VOCs, metals, and nitrogen species, and were based on the site history and results of previous investigations at SWMU WP-26. The 2006 RFI activities included collecting soil vapor and soil samples from both shallow and deep locations beneath the GCMP. Based on the results of the 2006 RFI and previous investigations, neither the GCMP nor the vadose zone underlying the previous and current GCMP footprint are contributing nitrate contamination to the underlying aquifers. Some VOCs were present in a limited number of soil vapor samples collected from beneath the GCMP.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Kirtland AFB SWMU WP-26, CMS Work Plan ES-2

March 2010

A corrective measures study for soil vapor and soil will be prepared based on the results of the 2006 RFI and previous investigations. Corrective Measures Study The corrective measures study will consist of the following elements: Preparation of human health and ecological risk assessments for the sewage lagoons and GCMP; Determination of cleanup standards; Identification, screening, and development of corrective measures alternatives; Evaluation of final corrective measures alternative; and Recommendation of final corrective measures alternative.

SECTION 1

Kirtland AFB SWMU WP-26, CMS Work Plan 1-1

March 2010

1.0 INTRODUCTION This work plan was prepared as guidance for a Corrective Measures Study (CMS) to be conducted at Solid Waste Management Unit (SWMU) WP-26, Sewage Lagoons and Golf Course Main Pond (GCMP) at Kirtland Air Force Base (AFB), New Mexico. The location of the SWMU is shown in Figure 1-1. The CMS goal is to select the appropriate remedial alternatives to reduce the potential risks to human health and the environment. Soil vapor and groundwater contamination were identified during investigations at the SWMU conducted from 1988 to 2009. Soil contamination was also identified at the SWMU but was remediated during previous remedial actions. This CMS work plan was developed to serve as a guide for the CMS, and contains background information, identification of potential remedies, and a schedule for completing the CMS. 1.1 Description of the Corrective Measure Study Work Plan Based on the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Facility Investigation (RFI) and other investigation results for SWMU WP-26, a CMS was recommended for the sites. The CMS work plan will consist of the following: • A description of the purpose of the CMS; • A description of the corrective measure objectives with respect to federal and state standards and

applicable guidance documents; • A description of corrective measure technologies and corrective measure alternatives to be studied; • A description of the general approach to evaluate potential corrective measures; • An outline for the CMS Report and how information will be presented; and • A project schedule for completing the CMS. 1.2 Scoping Documents This CMS work plan is based on guidance developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and published in the RCRA Corrective Action Plan (EPA, 1994). The model scope of work has been modified as necessary to complete the CMS considering facility-specific conditions, the requirements of the Kirtland AFB RCRA Part B Permit, and the New Mexico Environment Department (NMED).

SECTION 1


March 2010

Figure 1-1. Site Location Map for Solid Waste Management Unit WP-26, Sewage Lagoons and Golf Course Main Pond,

Kirtland Air Force Base, New Mexico

U.S

. For

est S

ervi

ce(L

and

With

draw

n Fr

om P

ublic

Acc

ess)

Pennsylva

nia Ave.

Sprin

g

Coyote

Roa

d

Ranch Road

Universi

ty

Isleta Road

Mag

azin

e R

oad

Road

San

ta F

eAl

buqu

erqu

e

Las

Cru

ces

Kirt

land

AFB

050

0010

000

McC

orm

ick

Ran

ch

Man

zano

Are

a

Gol

f Cou

rse

Mai

n Po

nd

Sca

le in

feet

N

New

Mex

ico

Wyoming Blvd.

Louisiana Blvd.

Gib

son

Blv

d.

F Av

e.

South

Gat

eRo

ad

Ran

dolp

h A

ve.

20thSt.

Har

din

Drive

Tije

ras

Arro

yo

SWM

U W

P-26

Sew

age

Lago

ons

I

II

IV

III

SWM

U W

P-26

G

olf C

ours

e M

ain

Pond

SNL/

NM

Tech

nica

lAr

eas

Love

laceManzano Fence

Road

Mor

tar

Ran

geR

oad

V

Figu

re 1

-1.

Site

Loc

atio

n M

ap fo

r Sol

id W

aste

Man

agem

ent U

nit W

P-26

, Se

wag

e La

goon

s an

d G

olf C

ours

e M

ain

Pond

, Kirt

land

Air

Forc

e B

ase,

New

Mex

ico

SECTION 2


March 2010

2.0 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT UNIT WP-26 2.1 Site Description SWMU WP-26 is made up of two geographically distinct locations, the former sewage lagoons and the GCMP. The former sewage lagoons are located in the northwest portion of Kirtland AFB approximately 1.5 miles southeast of the main runway at the Albuquerque International Sunport. The sewage lagoons consist of north and south square cells separated by an earthen wall. Each lagoon covered approximately 7 acres with a total area of 14 acres for both sewage lagoons. The GCMP is located between holes three and four of the Tijeras Arroyo Golf Course at Kirtland AFB. The golf course is located in the north central portion of Kirtland AFB and currently covers approximately 1.85 acres (Figure 1-1). These two areas are part of the same site because sewage effluent was processed at both locations. The sewage lagoons were constructed in 1962 and modifications were made in 1970 and 1975, when the sides and slopes were reinforced with soil cement and capped with concrete to minimize berm erosion. The lagoons received 40 to 100 percent of Kirtland AFB’s residential and light industrial raw sewage from April through October of each year from 1962 to 1987. From November through March, base sewage was routed to the City of Albuquerque sanitary sewer system. Gauging was not performed at the lagoons during operation, so the volume of raw sewage discharged in any given year can only be estimated. The combined north and south lagoons cover an area of 14 acres and were generally filled to a depth of 6 feet (ft) during use, resulting in a storage capacity of approximately 84 acre-ft (27.4 million gallons). The sewage lagoons operated with a turnover rate of approximately 2 weeks, allowing approximately 330 million gallons of raw sewage to be discharged from April through October each year. Effluent was transferred from the sewage lagoons to the GCMP through a gravity draining effluent line. The effluent from the lagoons was mixed with well water at the GCMP at a ratio of one part sewage effluent to three parts well water. The effluent supplied the inorganic nitrate ion as an important nutrient to the golf course grass when the GCMP contents were pumped into the irrigation system. The sewage lagoons were closed in 1987, and the remaining liquid was allowed to evaporate, leaving a thin layer of dry sludge. The former sewage lagoons are no longer used for any purpose (U.S. Air Force [USAF], 2000). The SWMU WP-26 sewage lagoons lie within the security radius of Aircraft Pad No. 5 operations and are surrounded by open space and industrial facilities. In the Kirtland AFB General Plan (USAF, 2002), SWMU WP-26 is in an area that is designated as airfield operations and maintenance (similar to a standard industrial land use). There are no proposed land use changes for the former sewage lagoons area. Therefore, it is not anticipated that the area will be used for residential purposes in the future. However, analytical data will be evaluated against residential standards for unrestricted land use per NMED requirements, which are premised on the fact that the State of New Mexico currently has no enforceable mechanism in place to restrict future land use and thus ensure that a nonresidential land use will be maintained in the future. The original GCMP was constructed by the USAF in 1962. The pond was constructed by excavating below the surrounding grade in a preexisting drainage, building an earthen dam on the west end of the excavated area, and lining the base of the pond with plastic, making the GCMP a surface-water catchment (USAF, 1993a). The GCMP was used for storage of wastewater delivered via pipeline from the sewage lagoons. The GCMP received wastewater during the months of April through October from 1962 to 1987. As part of a water conservation program, the wastewater in the pond was mixed with surface-water runoff and well water, and was pumped through a sprinkler system to irrigate the golf course. Depending

SECTION 2


March 2010

upon irrigation needs, 40 to 100 percent of the untreated base sewage was routed through the sewage lagoons to the GCMP during this period. From November to March of each year, base sewage was routed to the City of Albuquerque sewage treatment facilities. The pond last received water from the sewage lagoons in 1987 and reportedly evaporated to dryness in January 1989. The pond liner material had weathered and disintegrated in most locations and by 1998 the pond bottom had re-vegetated with a number of native plants including sage, grasses, and non native salt cedar and Russian olive (USAF, 1993a and 1999). The pond was reconstructed in 1998 and 1999. Reconstruction activities included re-grading and shaping the pond, and lining the pond with a 40-mil, high-density polyethylene (HDPE) liner. In 2006 repairs to the pond liner at the GCMP were made. These repairs included removing the vegetation growing on and through the upper portion of the existing liner, applying HDPE patches over the tears and holes exposed in the liner; and replacing the riprap over the repaired areas. 2.2 Previous Investigations 2.2.1 Sewage Lagoons The former sewage lagoons have been investigated in numerous studies. These investigations have focused on characterizing the dry sludge, surface soil, subsurface soil, soil vapor, perched groundwater, and regional groundwater. These previous investigation are discussed in detail in the 2006 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Facility Investigation Comprehensive Report for Solid Waste Management Unit WP-26, Sewage Lagoons and Golf Course Main Pond (USAF, 2007). In addition, human health and ecological risk from dry sludge, surface soil, and subsurface soil were evaluated in the Ecological and Human Health Risk Assessment for Solid Waste Management Unit WP-26, Sewage Lagoons (USAF, 2008). The human health and ecological risk assessment recommended the excavation of dry sludge material with silver concentrations greater than 1,000 milligram per kilogram (mg/kg) in order to reduce potential ecological risk. This remedial approach for soil contamination at the former sewage lagoons (that is, excavation of dry sludge material) was implemented at the site in January 2010. Site data for soil vapor and perched groundwater from previous investigations are summarized and referenced below. 2.2.1.1 Supplemental Investigation for Post-Closure Activities at the Sewage Lagoons In 1998 and 1999, a supplemental investigation for post-closure activities was conducted at the former sewage lagoons (USAF, 2000). As part of this investigation, perched groundwater monitoring well KAFB-0506 was installed. This groundwater monitoring well was not sampled during this investigation but was incorporated into the long-term monitoring (LTM) program for groundwater. Soil samples were collected from the KAFB-0506 borehole during drilling and were analyzed for volatile organic compounds (VOCs), semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs), polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), total organic carbon, nitrogen species, metals, radium, gross alpha, and gross beta. Soil sampling results indicate that VOCs, SVOCs, and PAHs were rarely detected. Nitrogen species were detected throughout the vadose zone but at concentrations less than the NMED residential soil screening levels (SSLs). Metals, radium, gross alpha, and gross beta were detected at concentrations typical of background values seen at Kirtland AFB. 2.2.1.2 Soil Vapor and Groundwater Sampling A groundwater monitoring well and four soil vapor monitoring points were installed within the former sewage lagoons as part of a 2002-2003 field investigation (CH2M HILL, 2003a). Monitoring well

SECTION 2


March 2010

KAFB-2601 was installed as a perched groundwater monitoring well but was dry and instead can be used as a soil vapor monitoring point. Soil vapor monitoring points KAFB-2602A, B, C, and D were installed at four depth intervals between 180 and 250 ft below ground surface (bgs). The shallowest soil vapor monitoring point (KAFB-2602A) contained measurable amounts of perched groundwater. Soil vapor samples were collected from the vapor wells in November 2002 and February 2003 and analyzed for VOCs, total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH), and fixed gasses. Groundwater was collected from monitoring point WP-2602A in February 2003 and analyzed for VOCs. Halogenated VOCs (tetrachloroethene [PCE], trichloroethene [TCE], cis-1,2-dichloroethene [DCE], 1,1-DCE, vinyl chloride, 1,1-dichloroethane [DCA], dichlorodifluoromethane [Freon-12], and methylene chloride) and compounds associated with petroleum hydrocarbons (styrene, 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene, 1,3,5-trimethlybenzene, benzene, ethylbenzene, toluene, and xylenes) were detected in the soil vapor samples. The TCE concentrations in soil vapor ranged from not detected to 90.8 parts per billion by volume (ppbv). The 1,1-DCA was detected at concentrations ranging from not detected to 35.1 ppbv (CH2M HILL, 2003a). Chlorinated VOCs (PCE, TCE, 1,1-DCE, 1,1-DCA, and 1,2-DCA) and petroleum related compounds (acetone and toluene) were detected in the groundwater collected from KAFB-2602A. TCE was measured above the EPA maximum contaminant level (MCL) of 5 micrograms per liter (μg/L) at a concentration of 9.12 μg/L. All other VOCs were detected at low concentrations, well below their respective MCLs (CH2M HILL, 2003b). 2.2.1.3 2006 Soil Vapor and Perched Groundwater Investigation A comprehensive RFI at SWMU WP-26 was implemented in 2004 through 2006. The objective of this investigation was to understand the nature and extent of contamination in the different environmental media at the site. The investigation evaluated contaminant levels in soil vapor, perched groundwater, soil, and dry sludge. The results of the investigation are documented in the 2006 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Facility Investigation Comprehensive Report for Solid Waste Management Unit WP-26 Sewage Lagoons and Golf Course Main Pond (USAF, 2007). Results of the soil vapor and perched groundwater investigation are summarized in this section. A soil vapor survey was performed in and around the former sewage lagoons during 2004. Seventeen boreholes were installed using direct-push technology (DPT). The DPT boreholes were advanced to the depth of refusal, approximately 115 to 125 ft bgs. Five soil vapor sampling points were installed in each borehole at 25-ft intervals (25, 50, 75, 100 ft bgs and at the bottom of the borehole). Soil vapor samples were collected from the soil vapor sampling points and analyzed for VOCs. Twenty-eight VOCs were positively identified at concentrations above the reporting limit from soil vapor analytical results, including the primary constituent of concern, TCE. The contaminant TCE was detected in many of the soil vapor samples and at most sampling depths. TCE concentrations ranged from non detect to 110 ppbv and generally increased with depth. The horizontal extent of TCE contamination was not evident from the 2004 data, as highest TCE concentrations were detected at the edges of the former sewage lagoons. The 1,1-DCA concentrations ranged from non detect to 580 ppbv. Similar to TCE, the general trend in 1,1-DCA concentrations was increasing with depth. However, the horizontal extent of 1,1-DCA was well constrained with highest concentrations centered beneath the former sewage lagoon boundaries. Acetone was the most commonly detected compound, with a maximum detected concentration of 470 ppbv. The horizontal extent and detection pattern was not clearly discernable from the 2004 data.

SECTION 2


March 2010

2.2.1.4 2009 Soil Vapor and Perched Groundwater Investigation An RFI was performed from January through April of 2009 at SWMU WP-26 to determine the extent of VOC contamination in soil vapor and perched groundwater. The 2009 RFI consisted of installing soil vapor monitoring points at 18 locations at depths ranging from 10 ft bgs to 200 ft bgs. Soil vapor samples were collected from the soil vapor sampling points and analyzed for VOCs. Soil vapor samples were also collected analyzed for VOCs from three dry groundwater monitoring wells. Three groundwater monitoring wells were drilled and installed into the perched groundwater zone at the site. Soil samples were collected during drilling activities and were analyzed for nitrogen species and VOCs. Groundwater samples were collected from the newly installed groundwater monitoring wells following well development and were analyzed for nitrogen species, VOCs, and perchlorate (USAF, 2009). Soil vapor samples contained the following VOCs in greater than 5 percent of samples and with maximum detections greater than 10 ppbv: • Petroleum related compounds: benzene, ethylbenzene, toluene, xylenes, 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene,

2-hexanone, and methyl tert-butyl ether (MtBE); • Biodegradation products of petroleum hydrocarbons: acetone, 2-butanone, methyl ethyl ketone

(MEK), and carbon disulfide; • Chlorinated VOCs: TCE, PCE, 1,1-DCA, 1,1-DCE, cis-1,2-DCE, chloroform, and methylene

chloride; and • Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs): trichlorofluoromethane and Freon-12. The soil vapor VOC concentrations generally increase with depth with the highest detected concentrations occurring closer to the perched groundwater that occurs at 200 ft bgs. The lateral extent of the soil vapor contamination is defined by low VOC concentrations in soil vapor monitoring points located on the northern, western, and southeastern sides of the former sewage lagoons (Figure 2-1). Soil samples collected during borehole drilling did not indicate the presence of constituents at concentrations that exceed the NMED residential SSLs. Soil surrounding the former sewage lagoons is not contaminated by past operations. Perched groundwater samples contained measurable concentration of several chlorinated VOCs. Trichloroethene is present in the newly installed monitoring well KAFB-2625 at a concentration of 6.6 µg/L which exceeds the EPA MCL for drinking water but does not exceed the New Mexico Water Quality Control Commission (NMWQCC) standard of 100 µg/L for groundwater. Perched groundwater occurs over a limited area near the former sewage lagoons as evidenced by the dry monitoring wells located on the eastern side of the lagoons (Figure 2-2).

SECTION 2


March 2010

Figure 2-1. Trichloroethene Concentrations in Soil Vapor, Depths between 115 and 225 feet, Solid Waste Management Unit WP-26, Sewage Lagoons

SECTION 2


March 2010

Figure 2-2. Trichloroethene Concentrations in Perched and Regional Groundwater at Solid Waste Management Unit WP-26, Sewage Lagoons

SECTION 2


March 2010

2.2.1.5 Sewage Lagoons Conceptual Site Model This section presents a conceptual site model (CSM) for soil vapor and perched groundwater at SWMU WP-26, sewage lagoons, based on data and analysis from the 2009 RFI and previous investigations. The primary findings relating to soil vapor and perched groundwater contamination are listed below. • The former sewage lagoons cover an area of approximately 14 acres for the north and south

lagoons combined. The sewage lagoons are unlined and have concrete reinforced earthen berms. • The former sewage lagoons received municipal and light industrial raw sewage for 6 to 8 months

of every year for approximately 20 years. It is estimated that 330 million gallons of raw sewage were handled each year at the sewage lagoons.

• The contaminants of potential concern (COPCs) for soil vapor and perched groundwater at the

former sewage lagoons are limited to VOCs. • Volatile organic compounds including chlorinated solvents, fuel hydrocarbons, fuel breakdown

VOCs, and refrigerants (CFC) were identified in soil vapor. VOCs, including chlorinated solvents, were detected in perched groundwater beneath the sewage lagoons. Phase separated hydrocarbons or NAPL have not been observed and are not suspected to be present at the former sewage lagoons.

• TCE is the only VOC detected in perched groundwater at concentrations greater than the MCL

(5 µg/L for TCE). The TCE concentrations are less than the NMWQCC groundwater standard of 100 µg/L.

• Nitrate concentrations are less than the NMWQCC standard and MCL of 10 mg/L in perched

groundwater (KAFB-2602A, -2622, -2624, 0506) and in most recent samples from regional groundwater monitoring wells (KAFB-0501, -0502, -0503, -0504, -0505, -0507) directly adjacent to the former sewage lagoons. The VOCs are not present in regional groundwater at or down gradient of the former sewage lagoons.

• Potential human receptors include site visitors and construction workers; access to the site is

limited by a locked fence. • Potential ecological receptors include small mammals, ground-dwelling birds and animals,

foraging small birds, raptors, and plants. • The potential exposure pathway is inhalation of VOCs from the vadose zone. The perched

groundwater exposure pathway is considered incomplete because perched groundwater does not occur in sufficient quantities near the former sewage lagoons for even limited water production and is not used for any purpose.

2.2.2 Golf Course Main Pond The GCMP has been investigated in numerous studies. These investigations have focused on characterizing the surface water, pond sediment, surface soil, subsurface soil, soil vapor, perched groundwater, and regional groundwater. These previous investigation are discussed in detail in the 2006 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Facility Investigation Comprehensive Report for Solid Waste Management Unit WP-26, Sewage Lagoons and Golf Course Main Pond (USAF, 2007).

SECTION 2


March 2010

Site data for soil, soil vapor, and perched groundwater from previous investigations are summarized and referenced below. 2.2.2.1 Phase II, Stage 2/2A Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Facility Investigation As part of the Phase II, Stage 2 RFI, the United States Geological Survey (USGS) collected dry-pond sediment, soil, and groundwater samples from the GCMP and vicinity. These samples were collected between November 1989 and December 1990. Four groundwater monitoring wells (KAFB-0602, KAFB-0608, KAFB-0609, and KAFB-0610) were installed in the perched aquifer as part of the Phase II, Stage 2 RFI. Boreholes were advanced at four locations around the GCMP (KAFB-0601, -0602, -0603, and -0604). These boreholes were augered to a total depth of 100 ft bgs. 2-ft core samples every 5 ft were taken for lithologic description, and soil samples were collected at 5-, 20-, 50-, and 100 ft bgs in each borehole. The soil samples were analyzed for VOCs, metals, chromium, mercury, nitrogen (nitrite-nitrite, ammonia, and total Kjeldahl nitrogen [TKN]), and Extraction Procedure Toxicity Test metals and pesticides. The only analyte of interest that was detected above an action level was beryllium, which was determined to be consistent with naturally occurring concentrations. All nitrate and nitrite concentrations in the soil samples were below 10 mg/kg, with the highest value measured at 50-ft bgs in sample KAFB-0603. The highest soil TKN value was measured at 5 ft bgs in sample KAFB-0603 (USAF, 1993a). Groundwater samples were collected from monitoring wells KAFB-0602, -0608, -0609, and -0610 in May, August, September, November, and December 1990. Samples from the May 1990 event were analyzed for petroleum hydrocarbons, arsenic, chromium, lead, mercury, selenium, total dissolved solids, common anions, nitrogen (nitrate, nitrite, ammonia, and TKN), RCRA Appendix IX (52 Federal Register 25492) contaminants (VOCs, SVOCs, dioxins and furans, organochlorine pesticides and polychlorinated biphenyls [PCBs], chlorinated herbicides, total recoverable and dissolved metals, cyanide, fluoride, and sulfide), gross alpha and beta, radium-226, and radium-228. Samples from the August/September and November/December 1990 events were analyzed for a reduced parameter list including metals, anions, nitrate-nitrite (August/September 1990 only), and SVOCs. Constituents detected at or above action levels in the 1990 groundwater samples included dissolved chromium, total-recoverable chromium, nitrate, and gross alpha activity. Dissolved chromium was detected above the action-level in the May 1990 groundwater sample collected from well KAFB-0602. Dissolved chromium concentrations were below the action level of 0.010 milligrams per liter (mg/L) in the August/September and November/December 1990 samples collected from KAFB-0602, and in all the ground-water samples collected from wells KAFB-0608, KAFB-0609, and KAFB-0610. Gross alpha activity was reported above the action level in the May 1990 groundwater samples collected from KAFB-0608 and KAFB-0609. Radiochemistry analysis was not performed on the August/September and November/December 1990 groundwater samples. Total-recoverable chromium was reported above the action level in the May 1990 groundwater sample collected from well KAFB-0602, and in the August 1990 groundwater sample collected from well KAFB-0610. Total-recoverable chromium concentrations were below the action level in all other 1990 groundwater samples. The detected total-recoverable chromium was considered to have been introduced into the groundwater samples by well construction and completion methods. Other detected constituents, including bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, hexane, and petroleum hydrocarbons also were considered to be present due to well installation procedures, sampling procedures, or field decontamination procedures.

SECTION 2


March 2010

Nitrate was reported above the action level in all the May 1990 groundwater samples. Nitrate concentrations ranged from 21.7 mg/L to 31.7 mg/L. Nitrate was not analyzed in the next sample round (August/September 1990), but nitrate plus nitrite concentrations ranged from 20.9 mg/L to 26.4 mg/L in the groundwater samples. Nitrate represented 83% to 100% of the nitrate plus nitrite concentrations in the May 1990 samples; therefore, most of the nitrate plus nitrite reported in the August/September 1990 round of groundwater samples probably also represented nitrate. No nitrogen analyses were performed on the ground-water samples collected in November/December 1990. Groundwater samples were collected from the four wells in February/March 1991, May/June 1991, November 1991, and May 1992 during the Stage 2A RFI (USAF, 1993b). Samples were analyzed for nitrate plus nitrite during each event. Samples were also analyzed for total and dissolved chromium, and total and dissolved hexavalent chromium during the first three events. Samples collected in May 1992 were analyzed for RCRA Appendix IX VOCs, SVOCs, pesticides, herbicides, dioxins, total and dissolved metals, cyanide, and sulfide. All groundwater samples collected from wells KAFB-608 and KAFB-609 also included uranium, gross alpha and gross beta radioactivity. Constituents exceeding action levels during the Stage 2A RFI sampling events included nitrates, which exceeded the action level in groundwater from all wells during all four events (concentrations raged from 18.8 mg/L to 32.3 mg/L), heptachlor epoxide in one groundwater sample during one event, gross beta in one groundwater sample during one event, and PCE in one groundwater sample during one event. Other detected VOCs (including acetone, methylene chloride, and MEK) and one SVOC (bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate) were attributed to laboratory or field contamination. One additional groundwater sample was collected from monitoring well KAFB-610 in February 1993 and analyzed for RCRA Appendix IX VOCs to confirm the previous VOC detections in this well. Only methylene chloride (a common laboratory contaminant) was detected in the February 1993 sample. 2.2.2.2 Post-Closure and Long-Term Groundwater Monitoring A Post-Closure Plan (USAF, 1994) for the Sewage Lagoons and GCMP was approved by the NMED in correspondence dated July 6, 1994. Quarterly groundwater monitoring under the Post-Closure Plan was initiated in June 1994 and continued through March 1996, and included analyses for total and hexavalent chromium and turbidity. Statistical analysis of chromium detections performed after the March 1996 sampling event indicated that the one event during which chromium exceeded the action levels (February 1995) was not significant. A request for clean closure was submitted to NMED on 18 April 1996; and in a letter dated 9 July 1996, NMED indicated the GCMP was eligible for clean closure based the low frequency of chromium detections above action levels. However, Kirtland AFB agreed to continue monitoring the GCMP wells for nitrates and VOCs based on historical results. The Interim Corrective Measures Report for Site WP-26, Golf Course Main Pond (WP-26), and Areas of Concern SS-79, Building 381 Spill Site (SS-79), and WP-87, GRABS Site Waste Pile (WP-87), Kirtland Air Force Base, Albuquerque, New Mexico (USAF, 1999) indicated that groundwater samples were collected from monitoring wells KAFB-0608, -0609, and -0610 in March and September 1996 for VOCs and nitrates analyses. Groundwater monitoring at the GCMP during and after March 1996 included monitoring wells KAFB-0608, 0609, and 0610. Groundwater samples were analyzed for VOCs and nitrates based on historical results. During the March 1996 sampling event, chloroform (1.1 µg/L) and TCE (0.4 µg/L) were detected in groundwater from well KAFB-0609. Toluene was detected in groundwater from two wells during the June 1996 event: KAFB-0608 (1.2 µg/L) and KAFB-0610 (2.9 µg/L). No VOCs were detected in any of the groundwater samples collected in September 1996. The September 1996 event was the last monitoring event prior to incorporating the GCMP into the LTM Program in December 1996.

SECTION 2


March 2010

2.2.2.3 Long-Term Monitoring Groundwater Sampling Under the LTM Program, groundwater elevation data were collected between 1996 and 2003 from all four GCMP monitoring wells, and groundwater samples were collected from KAFB-0608, 0609, and 0610 on a quarterly basis or semi-annual basis. From 1996 through 2003, the parameter list included VOCs, groundwater quality parameters (chloride, iron, manganese, phenols, sodium, and sulfate); contaminant indicator parameters (specific conductance, pH, total organic carbon [TOC], total dissolved solids, and total organic halogen); radionuclides (gross alpha, gross beta, and radium); dissolved RCRA metals (arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury [total and dissolved], selenium, and silver); beryllium; calcium; potassium; magnesium; and sodium; pesticides (endrin, lindane, methoxychlor, and toxaphene); herbicides (2,4-D and Silvex [2,4,5-TP]); nitrate; and fluoride. The LTM sampling frequency was revised to annual beginning in September 2003 and analysis of VOCs by EPA Method 504.1, total organic halogen, TOC, phenols, pesticides, herbicides, sodium, and beryllium was discontinued. To date, only nitrates have exceeded the federal drinking water MCL and the NMWQCC Human Health Groundwater Standards and New Mexico Solid Waste Management Regulations (NMSWMR) health-based groundwater standards in the GCMP LTM groundwater samples. TCE was detected in well KAFB-0608 during the March 1998 event at a concentration of 0.7 µg/L, and in well KAFB-0609 during the September 1998 and March 1999 events at concentrations ranging from 0.6 to 0.9 µg/L (for reference, the federal drinking water MCL for TCE is 5.0 µg/L). MEK was detected in KAFB-0609 during the March 1999 event at a concentration of 27 µg/L. Toluene was detected in upgradient well KAFB-0609 during the March 2002 event at a concentration of 2.2 µg/L. No VOCs were detected during the 2000 or 2001 monitoring periods. All historical detections of TCE and the detection of toluene during the March 2002 event were significantly less than the NMSWMR health-based standards. There is no NMSWMR groundwater standard for MEK. Beginning in 2001, semi-annual groundwater samples have been collected from the four GCMP wells to comply with the Stage 1/Stage 2 abatement plans to investigate nitrate-contaminated groundwater (USAF, 2006). Groundwater samples are analyzed for nitrate, nitrite, TKN, and ammonia. Nitrate concentrations in all four wells have consistently been above the NMWQCC standard of 10 mg/L. 2.2.2.4 2006 Soil and Soil Vapor Investigation An RFI was conducted at SWMU WP-26 GCMP between October and December 2006 (2006 RFI). During the 2006 RFI, six shallow and three deep soil borings were drilled at an angle under the GCMP to collect soil and soil vapor samples for laboratory analyses (Figure 2-3). The primary objective of the 2006 RFI was to determine the nature and extent of nitrogen species, metals, and VOCs in the unsaturated (vadose) zone underlying the footprint of the original and current GCMP.

SECTION 2


March 2010

Figure 2-3. Soil and Soil Vapor Sample Locations, Solid Waste Management Unit

WP-26, Golf Course Main Pond

SECTION 2


March 2010

The results of the 2006 RFI indicate that significant concentrations of nitrogen species and metals are not present in the vadose-zone soil beneath the original or current GCMP footprint. Therefore, it can be concluded that the vadose zone beneath the GCMP is not contributing nitrate contamination to the underlying aquifers. Several VOCs were detected in the 2006 RFI soil and soil vapor samples; however none of the VOCs detections in soils exceeded the NMED SSLs (NMED, 2006). Based on the VOC detections, it is conceivable that past activities at the GCMP (prior to relining) contributed VOCs to the underlying vadose zone, which in turn contributed VOCs to the perched aquifer. However, the results of the LTM program indicate that VOC detections in groundwater sampled from the GCMP monitoring wells are sporadic and at concentrations below federal and state drinking water standards. 2.2.2.5 Golf Course Main Pond Conceptual Site Model This section presents a CSM for the golf course main pond based on data and analysis from the 2006 RFI and previous investigations. • The GCMP covers an area of approximately 1.85 acres between holes three and four of the

Tijeras Arroyo Golf Course. The GCMP is lined and stores well water used for irrigation. • The GCMP formerly received municipal and light industrial sewage for 6 to 8 months of every

year for approximately 20 years from the former sewage lagoons. The sewage was mixed with well water at the pond and used for golf course irrigation.

• The COPCs for soil, soil vapor, and groundwater at the GCMP are limited to VOCs, metals, and

nitrogen species. • Low levels of VOCs occur in soil vapor and perched groundwater beneath the GCMP. Low

levels of metals occur in soil samples beneath the GCMP. Nitrogen species occur in surface water and groundwater at the GCMP.

• Potential human receptors include site visitors and construction workers. • Potential ecological receptors include small mammals, ground-dwelling birds and animals,

foraging small birds, raptors, and plants. • The potential exposure pathways are inhalation of VOCs from the vadose zone and exposure to

perched groundwater pumped into the GCMP.

SECTION 3


March 2010

3.0 CORRECTIVE MEASURES STUDY WORK PLAN 3.1 Corrective Measures Study Purpose The purpose of the CMS is to develop and evaluate the corrective action alternative or alternatives and to recommend the corrective measure or measures to be taken for SWMU WP-26 at Kirtland AFB, New Mexico to meet human health and environmental standards. 3.2 Corrective Measures Objectives The CMS will develop and present site-specific objectives for the corrective action. These objectives will be developed in conjunction with NMED, and will be based on: • Results of human health and ecological risk assessments prepared for the sewage lagoons

and GCMP; • Public health and environmental criteria; • NMED and EPA guidance; and • Requirements of applicable federal or state statutes. 3.3 Potential Corrective Measures Technologies Based on existing site data, the CMS will evaluate several corrective measures technologies. These include: • No action (the baseline condition to which the other technologies will be compared); • Monitored natural attenuation; • Soil vapor extraction; • Air sparging; and • A combination of the above technologies or other applicable technologies, to be determined. Technologies will be evaluated separately for the sewage lagoons and GCMP since contaminants and concentrations vary between the two sites. 3.4 Evaluation of Corrective Measures 3.4.1 Preliminary Screening of Corrective Measures Technologies The potential corrective measures technologies listed above will be screened to eliminate those that may prove infeasible to implement, that rely on technologies unlikely to perform satisfactorily or reliably, or that do not achieve the corrective measures objective within a reasonable time period. This screening process will focus on eliminating those technologies that have severe limitations for the conditions at

SECTION 3


March 2010

SWMU WP-26. The screening step may also eliminate technologies based on inherent technology limitations. Site waste and technology characteristics that will be used to screen inapplicable technologies are described in more detail below. • Site Characteristics-Site data will be reviewed to identify conditions that may limit or promote the use

of certain technologies. Technologies whose use is clearly precluded by site characteristics will be eliminated from further consideration.

• Waste Characteristics-Identification of waste characteristics that limit the effectiveness or feasibility

of technologies is an important part of the screening process. Technologies clearly limited by these waste characteristics will be eliminated from consideration. Waste characteristics particularly affect the feasibility of in-situ methods, direct treatment methods, and land disposal (onsite/offsite).

• Technology Limitations-During the screening process, the level of technology development,

performance record, and inherent construction, operation, and maintenance problems will be identified for each technology considered. Technologies that are unreliable, perform poorly, or are not fully demonstrated will be eliminated in the screening process.

3.4.2 Development of Corrective Measures Alternatives Corrective measures alternatives will be identified based on the corrective action objectives and analysis of preliminary screening of corrective measure technologies. Engineering practice will be used to determine which of the previously identified technologies appear most suitable for the site. Technologies may be combined to form the overall corrective action alternative or alternatives. The alternative or alternatives developed will represent a workable number of option(s) that each appear to adequately address all site problems and corrective action objectives. Each alternative may consist of an individual technology or a combination of technologies. The reasons for excluding technologies will be documented during this phase. 3.4.3 Evaluating Specific Corrective Measures Alternatives During this task, each corrective measures alternative that passes through the preliminary screening will be described and evaluated. The evaluation will be based on technical, environmental, human health, and institutional concerns. Cost estimates for implementation of each corrective measure alternatives will also be developed. 3.4.3.1 Technical, Environmental, Human Health, and Institutional Concerns A description of each corrective measure alternatives will be developed, which may include, but is not limited to, the following: • Preliminary process flow sheets; • Preliminary sizing and type of construction for buildings and structures; and • Rough quantities of utilities required.

SECTION 3


March 2010

Each alternative will be evaluated in the four following areas:

1. Technical-Each corrective measure alternative will be evaluated based on performance, reliability,

implementability, and safety.

a. Performance will be evaluated based on the effectiveness and useful life of the corrective measure: i) Effectiveness will be evaluated in terms of the ability to perform intended functions (such as

containment, diversion, removal, destruction, or treatment). The effectiveness of each corrective measure will be determined either through design specifications or by performance evaluation. Any specific waste or site characteristics that could potentially impede effectiveness will be considered. The evaluation will also consider the effectiveness of combinations of technologies.

ii) Useful life is defined as the length of time the level of effectiveness can be maintained. Most

corrective measure technologies, with the exception of destruction or natural attenuation, deteriorate with time. Often, deterioration can be slowed through proper system operation and maintenance, but the technology eventually may require replacement. Each corrective measure will be evaluated in terms of the projected service lives of its component technologies. Resource availability in the future life of the technology, as well as appropriateness of the technologies, will be considered in estimating the useful life of the project.

b. The reliability of each corrective measure including their operation and maintenance requirements

and their demonstrated reliability will be evaluated, including: i) Operation and maintenance requirements (the frequency and complexity of necessary

operation and maintenance). Technologies requiring frequent or complex operation and maintenance activities will be regarded as less reliable than technologies requiring little or straightforward operation and maintenance. The availability of labor and materials to meet these requirements will also be considered.

ii) Demonstrated and expected reliability, as a way of measuring the risk and effect of failure. It

will be determined whether the technologies have been used effectively under analogous conditions; whether the combination of technologies have been used together effectively; whether failure of any one technology has an immediate impact on receptors; and whether the corrective measure has the flexibility to deal with uncontrollable changes at the site.

c. The implementability of each corrective measure including the relative ease of installation

(constructability) and the time required to achieve a given level of response will be described, including: i) Constructability, as determined by conditions both internal and external to the facility

conditions and including such items as location of underground utilities, depth to water table, heterogeneity of subsurface materials, and location of the site (i.e., remote location vs. a congested urban area). The measures that can be taken to facilitate construction under these conditions will be determined. External factors that affect implementation include the need for special permits or agreements, equipment availability, and the location of suitable offsite treatment or disposal facilities.

SECTION 3


March 2010

ii) Time has two components that will be addressed – the time it takes to implement a corrective

measure, and the time it takes to actually see beneficial results. Beneficial results are defined as the reduction of contaminants to some acceptable, pre-established level.

d. Each corrective measure alternative will be evaluated with regard to safety. This evaluation includes threats to the safety of nearby communities and environments as well as those to workers during implementation. Factors to be considered are fire, explosion, and exposure to hazardous substances.

2. Environmental-An assessment of environmental conditions will be performed for each alternative. The environmental assessment will focus on the site conditions and pathways of contamination actually addressed by each alternative. The environmental assessment for each alternative will include, at a minimum, an evaluation of:

a. Short-term beneficial and adverse effects of the response alternative; b. Adverse effects on environmentally sensitive areas; c. Long-term analysis of measures to mitigate adverse effects; and d. Sustainability of the alternatives.

3. Human Health-Each alternative will be assessed in terms of the extent to which it mitigates short- and

long-term potential exposure to any residual contamination and protects human health both during and after implementation of the corrective measure. The assessment will describe the levels and characterizations of contaminants onsite, potential exposure routes, and potentially affected population. Each alternative will be evaluated to determine the level of exposure to contaminants and the reduction over time. For management of mitigation measures, the relative reduction of impact will be determined by comparing residual levels of each alternative with existing criteria, standards, or guidelines acceptable to EPA and NMED.

4. Institutional-The relevant institutional needs will be assessed for each alternative. Specifically, the

effects of federal, state, and local environmental and public health standards, regulations, guidance, advisories, ordinances, or community relations on the design, operation, and timing of each alternative will be evaluated.

3.4.3.2 Cost Estimate An estimate of the cost of each corrective measure alternative (and for each phase or segment of the alternative) will be developed. The cost estimate will include both capital and operation and maintenance costs. 1. Capital costs consist of direct (construction) and indirect (non construction and overhead) costs.

a. Direct capital costs include:

i) Construction costs include costs of materials, labor (including fringe benefits and worker's compensation), and equipment required to install the corrective measure.

SECTION 3


March 2010

ii) Equipment costs include costs of treatment, containment, disposal, and/or service equipment necessary to implement the action; these materials remain until the corrective action is complete.

iii) Land and site development costs include expenses associated with purchase of land and

development of existing property. iv) Buildings and services costs include costs of process and non process buildings, utility

connection, purchased services, and disposal costs. b. Indirect capital costs include:

i) Construction supervision, drafting, and testing of corrective measure alternatives. ii) Legal fees and license of permit costs. Administrative and technical costs necessary to obtain

licenses and permits for installation and operation. iii) Startup and shakedown costs include costs incurred during corrective measure startup. iv) Contingency allowances include funds to cover costs resulting from unforeseen

circumstances, such as adverse weather conditions, strikes, and inadequate facility characterization.

2. Operation and maintenance costs are post-construction costs necessary to ensure continued

effectiveness of a corrective measure. The following operation and maintenance cost components will be considered:

a. Operating labor costs include wages, salaries, training, overhead, and fringe benefits associated

with the labor needed for post-construction operations. b. Maintenance materials and labor costs include costs for labor, parts, and other resources required

for routine maintenance of facilities and equipment. c. Auxiliary materials and energy include costs of such items as chemicals and electricity for

treatment plant operations, water and sewer service, and fuel. d. Purchased services include sampling costs, laboratory fees, and professional fees for which the

need can be predicted. e. Disposal and treatment costs include costs of transporting, treating, and disposing of waste

materials, such as treatment plant residues, generated during operations. f. Administrative costs include costs associated with administration of corrective measure operation

and maintenance not included under other categories. g. Insurance, taxes, and licensing costs include costs of such items as liability and sudden accidental

insurance; real estate taxes on purchased land or rights-of-way; licensing fees for certain technologies; and permit renewal and reporting costs.

SECTION 3


March 2010

h. Maintenance reserve and contingency funds include annual payments into escrow funds to cover (1) costs of anticipated replacement or rebuilding of equipment and (2) any large unanticipated operation and maintenance costs.

i. Other costs include items that do not fit any of the above categories.

3.4.4 Justification and Recommendation of the Corrective Measures Alternative The CMS report will present justification and recommend corrective measures alternative(s) based upon technical, human health, and environmental criteria. These recommendations will include summary tables, which allow the alternative or alternatives to be understood easily. Tradeoffs among health risks, environmental effects, and other pertinent factors will be highlighted. The corrective measure alternative or alternatives to be implemented will be selected based on the results of the evaluations. At a minimum, the following criteria will be used to justify the final corrective measures alternative or alternatives: 3.4.4.1 Technical 1. Performance–Corrective measure or measures that are most effective at performing their intended

functions and maintaining the performance over extended periods of time will be given preference. 2. Reliability–Corrective measure or measures that do not require frequent or complex operation and

maintenance activities and that have proven effective under waste and facility conditions similar to those anticipated will be given preference.

3. Implementability–Corrective measure or measures that can be constructed and operating to reduce

levels of contamination to attain or exceed applicable standards in the shortest period of time will be preferred.

4. Safety–Corrective measure or measures that pose the least threat to the safety of nearby residents and

environments as well as workers during implementation will be preferred. 3.4.4.2 Human Health The corrective measures alternative must comply with existing EPA criteria, standards, or regulations for the protection of human health. Corrective measures that provide the minimum level of exposure to contaminants and the maximum reduction in exposure with time are preferred. 3.4.4.3 Environmental The corrective measure or measures posing the least adverse impact (or greatest improvement) over the shortest period of time on the environment will be favored. 3.4.5 Corrective Measures Study Report 3.4.5.1 Proposed Corrective Measures Report Outline The CMS Report will use the following format. Investigation summaries, site condition descriptions, corrective action goals, corrective action options, selection criteria, and schedules will be included in the CMS Report. In general, interpretation of historical investigation data will be presented only in the background sections. At a minimum, detection of contaminants encountered during previous site

SECTION 3


March 2010

locations. The other text section of the CMS Report will be reserved for presentation of corrective action-related information regarding anticipated or potential site-specific corrective action options and methods relevant to the project. The proposed format for CMS Reports is as follows. • Title page and signature block (for the name, title and organization of the preparer and the

responsible facility representative); • Executive summary(abstract); • Table of contents; • Introduction; • Background information; • Site conditions including, as appropriate, surface, subsurface, and groundwater conditions; • Potential receptors including sources, pathways, and receptors; • Regulatory criteria; • Identification of corrective measures technologies; • Evaluation of corrective measures alternatives; • Selection of a proposed preferred remedy; • Design criteria to meet cleanup objectives; • Schedule; • Tables; • Figures; and • Appendices. 3.4.5.2 Corrective Measures Study Report Required Elements The CMS report will include the following required elements: • A description of the location, status, and current use of the site; • A description of the history of site operations, including and identification of hazardous and solid

wastes managed at the site, and any release of hazardous waste or hazardous constituents; • A description of site surface conditions and subsurface conditions; • A description of onsite and any offsite contamination in all affected media;

SECTION 3


March 2010

• An identification and description of all sources of contaminants and migration pathways; • An identification and description of potential contaminant receptors; • An identification and description of applicable cleanup standards or other regulatory criteria; • An identification and description of remedial alternatives; • A detailed evaluation and rating of each of the corrective measures alternatives; • An identification of a proposed preferred remedy; • Basic design criteria of the proposed preferred remedy; and • A schedule for implementation of the proposed preferred remedy. 3.4.6 Proposed Schedule The proposed schedule for preparation of the corrective measures study is show on Figure 3-1.

SECTION 3


March 2010

Figure 3-1. Proposed Schedule for Implementation of the Corrective Measures Study for Solid Waste Management Unit WP-26, Sewage Lagoons and Golf Course Main Pond

SECTION 3


March 2010


REFERENCES

Kirtland AFB SWMU WP-26, CMS Work Plan R-1

March 2010

REFERENCES 52 Federal Register 25492, 1987. Part 264, Subpart F. July 9. CH2M HILL, 2003a. Technical Memorandum, WP-26 Soil Gas Sampling Results. Prepared for

Kirtland Air Force Base, New Mexico. March 20. CH2M HILL, 2003b. Technical Memorandum, Groundwater Sampling at Monitoring Wells KAFB-0903,

KAFB-0904, KAFB-8282, KAFB-7001, KAFB-2004, and WP26-02A: February and March 2003 (1st Quarter 2003). Prepared for Kirtland Air Force Base, New Mexico. March 20.

EPA, 1994. RCRA Corrective Action Plan. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Waste

Programs Enforcement, Office of Solid Waste. May. NMED, 2009. Technical Background Document for Development of Soil Screening Levels, Revision 5.0.

New Mexico Environment Department, Santa Fe, New Mexico. August. USAF, 2009. 2009 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Facility Investigation Report for Solid

Waste Management Unit WP-26, Sewage Lagoons and Golf Course Main Pond. U.S. Air Force, Kirtland Air Force Base, New Mexico. September.

USAF, 2008. Ecological and Human Health Risk Assessment for Solid Waste Management Unit WP-26,

Sewage Lagoons. U.S. Air Force, Kirtland Air Force Base, New Mexico. USAF, 2007. 2006 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Facility Investigation Comprehensive

Report for Solid Waste Management Unit WP-26, Sewage Lagoons and Golf Course Main Pond. U.S. Air Force, Kirtland Air Force Base, New Mexico. August.

USAF, 2006. Tenth Semiannual Groundwater Monitoring Report for the Phase 1 and Interim Stage 2

Abatement Plans for Nitrate Contaminated Groundwater at Kirtland Air Force Base, New Mexico. U.S. Air Force, Kirtland Air Force Base, New Mexico. December.

USAF, 2002. Kirtland Air Force Base 2002 General Plan. U.S. Air Force, Kirtland Air Force Base, New

Mexico. USAF, 2000. Supplemental Investigation Report for Post-Closure Activities at Site WP-26, Sewage

Lagoons and Golf Course Main Pond. U.S. Air Force, Kirtland Air Force Base, New Mexico. March.

USAF, 1999. Interim Corrective Measures Report for Site WP-26, Golf Course Main Pond (WP-26), and

Areas of Concern SS-79, Building 381 Spill Site (SS-79), and WP-87, GRABS Site Waste Pile (WP-87), Kirtland Air Force Base, Albuquerque, New Mexico. U.S. Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence, Environmental Services Office, Environmental Restoration Division, Brooks Air Force Base. May.

USAF, 1994. Post-Closure Plan Sewage Lagoons and Golf Course Main Pond. U.S. Air Force, Kirtland

Air Force Base, New Mexico. April 1.

REFERENCES

Kirtland AFB SWMU WP-26, CMS Work Plan R-2

March 2010

REFERENCES (Concluded)

USAF, 1993a. RFI Technical Report, Stage 2, Kirtland Air Force Base, Albuquerque, New Mexico. U.S.

Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence, Environmental Services Office, Environmental Restoration Division, Brooks Air Force Base. December.

USAF, 1993b. RFI Technical Report, Stage 2A, Kirtland Air Force Base, Albuquerque, New Mexico.

U.S. Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence, Environmental Services Office, Environmental Restoration Division, Brooks Air Force Base. December.