Site Investigation of Nine Sites at the U.S. Army ...usagkacleanup.info/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/FINAL_Kwaj_Work_Pl… · Final 2010 Site Investigation Work Plan Sivuniq, Inc. Kwajalein

FINAL

2010 Work Plan

Site Investigation of Nine Sites at the

U.S. Army Kwajalein Atoll/Reagan Test Site

(USAKA/RTS) Republic of Marshall Islands

Kwajalein Harbor (Site ID CCKWAJ-001)

Kwajalein Landfill (Site ID CCKWAJ-002)

Roi-Namur Power Plant Fuel Spill (Site ID CCKWAJ-003)

Carlos Power Plant (Site ID CCKWAJ-004)

(Kwajalein) PCB Vaults (Site ID CCKWAJ-005)

(Kwajalein) Fuel Farm/Old Power Plant Fuel Line (Site ID CCKWAJ-006)

(Kwajalein) Cold Storage Warehouse (Site ID CCKWAJ-007)

(Roi-Namur) Drinking Water Well 8151 PCE/TCE (Site ID CCKWAJ-008)

Gagan Power Plant Fuel Spill (Site ID CCKWAJ-009)

October 2010

Contract No. DASG60-03-C-0081

Prepared for:

United States Army Space and Missile Defense Command

Von Braun Complex

Building 5220

Redstone Arsenal, Alabama 35898

Prepared by:

3150 C Street, Suite 250

Anchorage, Alaska 99503

DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A. Approved for Public Release. Distribution is unlimited.

Document No. 2145

[THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK.]

Final 2010 Site Investigation Work Plan Sivuniq, Inc.

Kwajalein Atoll/Reagan Test Site i October 2010

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 1-1

1.1 TECHNICAL APPROACH AND SCOPE OF SERVICES ................................................... 1-1

1.2 PROJECT ORGANIZATION AND RESPONSIBILITY ..................................................... 1-7

1.2.1 Roles ............................................................................................................. 1-8

1.2.2 Responsibilities ........................................................................................... 1-8

1.3 REGULATORY CRITERIA ........................................................................................... 1-9

1.4 PROJECT SCHEDULE ................................................................................................ 1-10

2.0 SITE BACKGROUND AND PHYSICAL SETTING ................................................... 2-1

2.1 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION .......................................................................... 2-1

2.2 PHYSICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ............................................................. 2-2

2.2.1 Environmental Setting ............................................................................... 2-2

2.2.2 Climate......................................................................................................... 2-3

2.2.3 Regional Geology ........................................................................................ 2-4

2.2.4 Soil Characteristics ..................................................................................... 2-4

2.2.5 Hydrogeology .............................................................................................. 2-4

2.3 INSTALLATION HISTORY AND MISSION .................................................................... 2-5

3.0 SCOPE OF WORK .......................................................................................................... 3-1

3.1 BACKGROUND RESEARCH ......................................................................................... 3-1

3.2 FIELD ACTIVITIES ..................................................................................................... 3-2

3.3 OFFICE ACTIVITIES ................................................................................................... 3-6

4.0 SITE DESCRIPTIONS .................................................................................................... 4-1

4.1 KWAJALEIN HARBOR (SITE CCKWAJ-001) ........................................................... 4-3

4.1.1 Site History .................................................................................................. 4-3

4.1.2 Previous Investigations .............................................................................. 4-3

4.1.3 Conceptual Site Model ............................................................................... 4-6

4.1.4 Investigation Approach .............................................................................. 4-7

4.1.5 Land Source Contaminant Identification ................................................ 4-7

4.2 KWAJALEIN LANDFILL (SITE CCKWAJ-002) ....................................................... 4-11

4.2.1 Site History ................................................................................................ 4-11

4.2.2 Previous Investigation .............................................................................. 4-11

4.2.3 Conceptual Site Model ............................................................................. 4-12

4.2.4 Investigation Approach ............................................................................ 4-13

4.2.4.1 Topographic and Bathymetric Survey ...................................... 4-13

4.2.4.2 Landfill Material Examination ................................................ 4-14

4.3 PCB VAULTS (KWAJALEIN) (SITE CCKWAJ-005) ............................................... 4-16


Kwajalein Atoll/Reagan Test Site ii October 2010

4.3.1 Site History ................................................................................................ 4-16

4.3.2 Previous Investigations ............................................................................ 4-16



4.3.4.1 Concrete Sampling .................................................................... 4-20

4.3.4.2 Soil Sampling ............................................................................ 4-21

4.3.4.3 Water Sampling ......................................................................... 4-22

4.4 FUEL FARM/OLD POWER PLANT FUEL LINE (SITE CCKWAJ-006) .................... 4-24

4.4.1 Site History ................................................................................................ 4-24




4.4.4.1 Soil-Gas Survey ......................................................................... 4-29

4.4.4.2 Soil Sampling ............................................................................ 4-30

4.4.4.3 Groundwater Sampling ............................................................. 4-30

4.4.4.4 Free Product Recovery.............................................................. 4-31

4.5 COLD STORAGE WAREHOUSE (SITE CCKWAJ-007) ........................................... 4-33

4.5.1 Site History ................................................................................................ 4-33




4.6 ROI POWER PLANT FUEL SPILL (SITE CCKWAJ-003) ........................................ 4-38

4.6.1 Site History ................................................................................................ 4-38




4.6.1.1 Soil-Gas Survey ......................................................................... 4-42

4.6.1.2 Soil Sampling ............................................................................ 4-42


4.6.1.4 Free Product Recovery.............................................................. 4-43

4.7 DRINKING WATER WELL 8151 PCE/TCE (ROI-NAMUR) (SITE CCKWAJ-

008) .......................................................................................................................... 4-45

4.7.1 Site History ................................................................................................ 4-45




4.7.4.1 Soil-Gas Survey ......................................................................... 4-48


4.7.4.3 Soil Sampling ............................................................................ 4-49

4.8 CARLOS POWER PLANT (SITE CCKWAJ-004) ..................................................... 4-51

4.8.1 Site History ................................................................................................ 4-51


Kwajalein Atoll/Reagan Test Site iii October 2010




4.8.4.1 Soil-Gas Survey ......................................................................... 4-53

4.8.4.2 Soil Sampling ............................................................................ 4-53


4.9 GAGAN POWER PLANT FUEL SPILL (SITE CCKWAJ-009) ................................... 4-56

4.9.1 Site History ................................................................................................ 4-56




4.9.4.1 Soil-Gas Survey ......................................................................... 4-59

4.9.4.2 Soil Sampling ............................................................................ 4-59


5.0 REFERENCES.................................................................................................................. 5-1

ANNEXES

Annex A Field Sampling Plan

Annex B Quality Assurance Project Plan

Annex C Site Safety and Health Plan

Annex D Archaeological Monitoring Plan (Kwaj-10-52)


Kwajalein Atoll/Reagan Test Site iv October 2010

TABLES

Table 3-1 Field Screening Methods for Soils ........................................................................ 3-3

Table 3-2 Field Screening Methods for Water ...................................................................... 3-3

Table 3-3 Laboratory Analytical Methods for Soils .............................................................. 3-4

Table 3-4 Laboratory Analytical Methods for Water ............................................................ 3-4

Table 3-5 Summary of Sample Container Requirements ...................................................... 3-5

Table 3-6 Example Data Screening Criteria for Chemicals of Potential Concern ................ 3-8

Table 4-1 Kwajalein Harbor Shoreside Source Conceptual Site Model ............................... 4-6

Table 4-2 Kwajalein Harbor Shoreside Source Field Activities Summary ........................... 4-8

Table 4-3 Kwajalein Landfill Site Conceptual Site Model .................................................. 4-12

Table 4-4 Kwajalein PCB Vaults Conceptual Site Model ................................................... 4-19

Table 4-5 Kwajalein PCB Vaults Field Activities Summary .............................................. 4-23

Table 4-6 Kwajalein Fuel Farm/Old Power Plant Fuel Line Conceptual Site Model ......... 4-28

Table 4-7 Kwajalein Fuel Farm/Old Power Plant Fuel Line Field Activities Summary ..... 4-32

Table 4-8 Kwajalein Cold Storage Warehouse Conceptual Site Model .............................. 4-34

Table 4-9 Kwajalein Cold Storage Warehouse Field Activities Summary ......................... 4-36

Table 4-10 Roi Power Plant Fuel Spill Conceptual Site Model ............................................ 4-41

Table 4-11 Roi Power Plant POL Spill Field Activities Summary ....................................... 4-44

Table 4-12 Roi-Namur Drinking Water Well 8151 PCE/TCE Conceptual Site Model ........ 4-47

Table 4-13 Roi-Namur Drinking Water Well 8151 Field Activities Summary .................... 4-50

Table 4-14 Carlos Power Plant Fuel Spill Conceptual Site Model ........................................ 4-51

Table 4-15 Carlos Power Plant Field Activities Summary .................................................... 4-54

Table 4-17 Gagan Power Plant Fuel Spill Conceptual Site Model ........................................ 4-58

Table 4-16 Gagen Power Plant Field Activities Summary .................................................... 4-60


Kwajalein Atoll/Reagan Test Site v October 2010

FIGURES

Figure 1-1 Project Organization .............................................................................................. 1-7

Figure 4-1 Kwajalein Atoll Sites ............................................................................................. 4-1

Figure 4-2 Kwajalein Island Sites ........................................................................................... 4-2

Figure 4-3 Kwajalein Harbor Sewer Drains ............................................................................ 4-9

Figure 4-4 Kwajalein Harbor Stormwater Conveyance Conceptual Sampling Plan ............ 4-10

Figure 4-5 Kwajalein Landfill ............................................................................................... 4-15

Figure 4-6 Kwajalein PCB Vaults ......................................................................................... 4-17

Figure 4-7 Kwajalein Fuel Farm Site .................................................................................... 4-25

Figure 4-8 Kwajalein Old Power Plant Fuel Line Site ......................................................... 4-26

Figure 4-9 Kwajalein Cold Storage Warehouse Site ............................................................ 4-37

Figure 4-10 Roi Power Plant Fuel Spill Site ........................................................................... 4-39

Figure 4-11 Roi-Namur Drinking Water Well 8151 PCE/TCE Site ....................................... 4-46

Figure 4-12 Carlos Power Plant Site ....................................................................................... 4-55

Figure 4-13 Gagan Power Plant Site ....................................................................................... 4-57


Kwajalein Atoll/Reagan Test Site vi October 2010

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

µg microgram

ARSTRAT U.S. Army Forces Strategic Command

AST aboveground storage tank

bgs below ground surface

BMP best management practices

CHPPM U.S. Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine

COPC contaminant of potential concern

CSM conceptual site model

DCE dichloroethene

DDT dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane

DESC Defense Energy Support Center

DNAPL dense nonaqueous-phase liquid

DoD U.S. Department of Defense

DQO data quality objectives

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

EPH extractable petroleum hydrocarbon

ERL effects range-low

FDA Food and Drug Administration

FOM Facilities, Operations, and Maintenance

FSP Field Sampling Plan

GIS Geographic Information System

ICBM intercontinental ballistic missile

KMR Kwajalein Missile Range

LNAPL light nonaqueous-phase liquid

MCL maximum contaminant level

mg/kg milligram per kilogram

mph miles per hour

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service

NOAA National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration

OWS oil/water separator

PA preliminary assessment

PAH polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon

PCB polychlorinated biphenyl

PCE tetrachloroethene


Kwajalein Atoll/Reagan Test Site vii October 2010

PID photoionization detector

POL petroleum, oil, and lubricant

ppm parts per million

PRG Preliminary Remediation Goal

QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

RMI Republic of the Marshall Islands

RMIEPA Republic of the Marshall Islands Environmental Protection Authority

RSL Regional Screening Levels

RTS Reagan Test Site

SAP Sampling and Analysis Plan

SI site investigation

SMDC U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command

SquiRT Screening Quick Reference Tables (NOAA)

SSHP Site Safety and Health Plan

SVOC semivolatile organic compound

SWM Solid Waste Management

TCE trichloroethylene

TCLP toxicity characteristic leaching procedure

TEO U.S. Army Test and Evaluation Office

TOC total organic carbon

TPH total petroleum hydrocarbons

TPHWG Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon Working Group

UES U.S. Army Kwajalein Atoll Environmental Standards

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

USAEHA U.S. Army Environmental Hygiene Agency

USAKA U.S. Army Kwajalein Atoll

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

USGS U.S. Geological Survey

UVF ultraviolet fluorescence

UXO unexploded ordnance

VOC volatile organic compound

VPH volatile petroleum hydrocarbon

VSP Visual Sampling Plan


Kwajalein Atoll/Reagan Test Site viii October 2010



Kwajalein Atoll/Reagan Test Site 1-1 October 2010

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command/U.S. Army Forces Strategic Command

(SMDC/ARSTRAT) tasked Sivuniq, Incorporated with the evaluation of areas of potential or

known contamination at nine sites located at Kwajalein Atoll in the Republic of the Marshall

Islands (RMI). The work is issued under Contract DASG60-03-C-0081, Task Assignment 10-

001. This Work Plan describes field activities planned for the 2010 Site Investigations (SIs).

The Field Sampling Plan (FSP), presented in Annex A, provides detailed procedures related to

the collection and analysis of soil, sediment, and water samples as well as other field activities

that will be used by the Sivuniq field team. The Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP),

presented in Annex B, describes the policies, organization, functional activities, and the data

quality objectives (DQOs) and measures necessary to obtain adequate data. Together, the FSP

and the QAPP constitute a Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP) that provides a process for

obtaining data of sufficient quality and quantity to satisfy project needs.

The Site Safety and Health Plan (SSHP) presented in Annex C examines the hazards associated

with performing investigative work and describes the practices to be implemented to ensure

worker safety.

A project-specific Archaeological Monitoring Plan, provided in Annex D, addresses the

significant concerns related to protecting and preserving cultural and historical resources at the

sites. A qualified professional archaeologist implements the requirements of this plan.

1.1 Technical Approach and Scope of Services

The technical approach adopted for each area that will be investigated in 2010 has been

developed by reviewing existing information and assessing the need for additional data required

to complete the characterization process. The field data collection activities are primarily soil

sampling, groundwater sampling, and surface water sampling to determine the nature and extent

of contamination. Table 1-1 presents the technical approach for the 2010 scope of work.



Table 1-1 Summary of 2010 Data Quality Objectives by Site

Site Name Objective Media of

Concern COPCs Proposed Activity

Kwajalein

Harbor

Identify and

characterize possible

shore side source areas

for organochlorine

contaminants detected

in Kwajalein Harbor.

Evaluate necessity and

options for future

remediation.

Soil Pesticides

PCBs

Sampling accumulated materials in the storm drains to

identify possible upstream source area(s).

Performing a video survey of buried drain segments to

evaluate the integrity of conveyances.

Defining location, nature and extent of source areas.

Kwajalein

Landfill

Identify bank

stabilization options at

the landfill.

Soil Metals

Reviewing historical photographs to document the

landfill area expansion.

Collecting field data to support evaluation of remedial

options.

Evaluating stabilization options to prevent migration of

landfill contaminants into the reef flat/ocean.

PCB Vaults

(Kwajalein)

(Buildings

708, 713,

803, 900,

1011,

1017)

Identify the

effectiveness of former

response efforts.

Determine if the sites

are contributing as a

source to harbor

contamination.

Concrete

Soil

Surface Water

PCBs

Surveying site features to establish site controls, former

building foundations and sample locations.

Surface wipe and chip sampling of concrete surfaces to

evaluate effectiveness of previous response efforts.

Surface water sampling to evaluate site contamination

impacts.

Magnetometer survey of potential soil sampling

locations to identify anomalies.

Soil sampling using hand auger and/or direct push

equipment to define the extent of product and site

contamination.

Monitoring to protect cultural resources during sampling

events.

Field screening analysis of soil to assist definition of site

contamination.

Laboratory analysis of soil, surface water, and concrete

wipes/chip samples to confirm nature of site

contamination.

Evaluating the nature and extent of contamination to

identify remedial options .





POL Yard

and

abandoned

fuel line to

Old Power

Plant

(Kwajalein)

Determine nature and

extent of contamination

and the risks to human

health and the

environment.

Soil

Groundwater POLs

Surveying site features to establish site controls and

sample locations.



Soil gas surveying using probes at potential release

locations to define the extent of contaminant vapor

migration.



contamination.

Installing monitoring points, perform groundwater

sampling, measure groundwater depths and product

thickness to define the extents of product and

contaminant migration.


events.

Field screening analysis of soil and groundwater to assist

definition of site contamination.

Laboratory analysis of soil and groundwater samples to

confirm nature of site contamination.

Installing product recovery systems to collect free-

floating product.


identify remedial options.

Cold

Storage

Warehouse

(Kwajalein)

Determine if this site is

contributing as a source

to harbor contamination.

Soil Pesticides







contamination.





Surface water sampling to evaluate site contamination

impacts.


events.

Field screening analysis of soil, groundwater, soil gas to

assist definition of site contamination.

Laboratory analysis of soil, groundwater, surface water,

and concrete wipes/chip samples to confirm nature of

site contamination.







Roi Power

Plant Fuel

Spill

Determine the extent of

product and

contamination.

Evaluate remedial

alternatives.

Conduct free-product

removal action.

Soil

Groundwater

POLs


sample locations.





migration.



contamination.





Field screening analysis of soil, groundwater and soil

gas to assist definition of site contamination.



Installing product recovery systems to collect free-

floating product.



Drinking

Water Well

8151

PCE/TCE

(Roi-

Namur)

Investigate the source of

tetrachloroethene (PCE)

contamination.

Conduct source area

removal action and

well-head treatment.

Evaluate remedial

alternatives for

groundwater plume

Soil

Groundwater

VOCs






equipment to define the extent of site contamination.

Installing monitoring points, performing groundwater

sampling and measuring groundwater depths to define

the extents of product and contaminant migration.


events.

Field screening analysis of soil and groundwater to assist










Carlos

Power

Plant




health and the

environment.

Soil

Groundwater POLs


sample locations.





migration.



contamination.






events.

Field screening analysis of soil, groundwater, soil gas to

assist definition of site contamination.





Gagan

Power

Plant Fuel

Spill




health and the

environment.

Soil POLs


sample locations.





migration.



contamination.

Field screening analysis of soil and soil gas to assist


Laboratory analysis of soil samples to confirm nature of

site contamination.





The proposed use of an accelerated site characterization process takes advantage of real-time

field screening data and direct comparison to site-specific conceptual site models (CSMs). The

process requires open communication channels between field teams and stakeholders to focus

sampling efforts on areas that indicate contaminant presence. As the site characterization is

refined, locations of dissolved/vapor-phase contamination will direct additional sampling toward

areas of higher contaminant concentrations and source locations.

The process relies on active data management and iterative review of field observations. The

“triad” approach involves daily reports from the field, stakeholder review and analysis, and

follow-up directions to the field crew. Candidate field sampling locations are identified in

advance, but actual sample locations are selected when additional data becomes available.

The field screening analyses provide information to delineate the extent of contaminant influence

and soil/groundwater sampling identifies the source of the contamination. The presence of free-

phase product or the highest detected contamination levels allow delineation of the source area.

Using several screening techniques will evaluate their usefulness while defining the location and

bounds of product surrounding the release point(s).

Results of confirmation sample analyses determine the horizontal and vertical extent of

contamination. A sample from the presumed midpoint of the contaminant mass provides

information about the nature of the contamination. Outlying sample locations at the contaminant

horizon (at or near the target screening level) and nearby uncontaminated locations provide the

extent of contamination.

Analytical data support the planning of remedial activities. Sivuniq intends to collect

information about the contaminants of potential concern (COPCs) as well as physical data that

support the evaluation of remedial alternatives. The specific analyses are detailed in subsequent

site-specific discussions.

In addition to site characterization, the project includes data evaluation through direct

comparison with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 9 Preliminary

Remediation Goals (PRGs) and EPA’s Regional Screening Levels (RSLs) as well as Guam EPA

Environmental Screening Levels. These screening levels, required by the USAKA



Environmental Standards (UES), allow efficient evaluation of threats to human health and the

environment. The CSM, validated by the field data, becomes the basis for completing a human-

health risk assessment for identified chemicals of potential concern (COPCs). The SI allows the

evaluation of remedial alternatives and recommendations for future action.

1.2 Project Organization and Responsibility

The project organization establishes a working framework and clear lines of communication for

stakeholders and the Contractor (Sivuniq). In the following chart, the vertical level indicates the

hierarchy of authorities; the solid lines indicate direct communication channel authorities.

Figure 1-1 Project Organization

US Army Kwajalein Atoll (USAKA)

Anthony Hoover Environmental

Coordinator

US Army Space and Missile Defense Command

Glen Shonkwiler Restoration Program

Manager

Sivuniq, Inc.

Norman Straub Project Manager

Sivuniq, Inc. Vendors

Test America (Lab)

Sivuniq, Inc. Office Team

Kent Richter (Data Manager) Leeann Brewster (Project Controls)

Sivuniq, Inc. Field Team

Anne Robinson (Leader) Renee LaFata (Alternate) Erik Dahl, Anna Hoessle,

Erik Anderson, Wyeth Bowdoin (Technicians)

Sivuniq, Inc. Subcontractors

AP Consulting iTerashima

CSU- CEMML

Sivuniq, Inc.

Catherine Shuman QA Manager

Sivuniq, Inc.

Catherine Shuman Technical Director

Sivuniq, Inc.

Catherine Shuman Program Manager

USAKA Environmental Standards Project

Team (RMI EPA, US EPA, USFWS, NMFS,

USACEHD)



1.2.1 Roles

The hierarchy of authorities dictates project roles to a large extent. The top level of authorities—

USAKA, SMDC, and the USAKA UES project team members—provide oversight and review

authority for the work being performed. Subordinate levels (i.e., contractors) obtain approvals

and concurrence for work aspects described in this Work Plan.

Sivuniq internally controls Team Leaders with prescriptive work authorizations and standard

operating procedures. Subcontractors and vendors perform in accordance with binding contract

agreements and purchase orders, respectively.

1.2.2 Responsibilities

This Work Plan presents assigned responsibilities limited to Sivuniq personnel.

The Sivuniq Technical Director provides performance review and technical oversight of the

project activities with respect to the regulatory and professional requirements (including quality

assurance). The Sivuniq Program Manager provides review and oversight related to contractual

obligations and requirements.

The Project Manager is the central manager in charge of work performance. In addition to the

conventional project constraints (scope, schedule, and budget), the Project Manager obtains and

assigns human, material, and equipment resources within the project and coordinates the

completion of all deliverables. The Project Manager is responsible for continuous project

monitoring and periodic performance reporting to higher authorities.

The Field and Office Team Leaders oversee Sivuniq staff in respective work locations. The

Project Manager assigns these individuals to fulfill specific requirements as dictated by the

approved Work Plan. These individuals coordinate staff efforts in fieldwork and deliverables

preparation, but have additional responsibilities that include health and safety oversight and

quality assurance duties. The Team Leaders act as Project Manager by proxy during emergencies

and times of staff resource limitations. Team Leaders have subcontractor and vendor

management authority only as prescribed in writing by the Program or Project Manager.



1.3 Regulatory Criteria

The USAKA Environmental Standards (USAKA, 2009) provide a regulatory framework for

restoration activities in this Work Plan. Section 3-6.5.8 of the UES classifies this effort as a

Phase III activity (SI).

Developing sufficient information to effectively evaluate alternatives and concerns necessary for

selecting a remedy is the basic goal of the SI. To this end, a well-developed strategy of planning,

reviews, and approvals ensure project success.

The USAKA Project Team, which provides oversight to environmental efforts at USAKA

include:

Republic of the Marshall Islands Environmental Protection Authority (RMIEPA)

U.S. EPA Region 9, Pacific Islands Office

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office

U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), Pacific Islands Area Office

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Honolulu District

The SI Work Plan elements detailed in later sections of this document include development of

CSMs for each site, screening, sampling, and analysis strategies, safety considerations, operating

procedures, and data validation approaches.

The Work Plan also includes a data evaluation consisting of a review and comparison of

chemical data against published screening criteria (USEPA PRGs/RSLs, National Ocean and

Atmospheric Administration [NOAA] Screening Quick Reference Tables [SquiRT], and Guam

EPA Environmental Screening Levels) to identify chemicals of potential concern. When

required, a risk assessment is used to specify “at-risk” receptors and appropriate cleanup levels.

The conclusion of the SI phase is the development of a decision document.

If remedial action is required, a feasibility study, remedial design, and remediation plan precede

the actual cleanup of contamination. These phases of work are not included in this task

assignment, but Sivuniq intends to collect sufficient information to support such efforts.



Removal Actions are possible in this task assignment (specifically free product recovery at Roi-

Namur or Kwajalein POL Yards and possible source remediation and/or well-head treatment at

the Roi-Namur solvent contaminated drinking water well #8151). For these possible removal

actions, a Removal Action Memorandum is under development as a separate document. For all

investigative and remediation efforts, confirmation sampling is needed to verify conditions and

ensure effectiveness.

1.4 Project Schedule

After obtaining all required approvals and authorizations, Sivuniq intends to execute this

proposed Work Plan in a timely fashion. Pending approvals, the fieldwork will commence

during the October 2010 and conclude within five months. Data collection, validation, and

review will lead to report publication shortly thereafter, with final document preparation during

2011.



2.0 SITE BACKGROUND AND PHYSICAL SETTING

2.1 Site Location and Description

The Kwajalein Atoll is located in the “Ralik” (sunset or western) chain of the Marshall Islands in

the West Central Pacific Ocean. It is 2,100 nautical miles southwest of Honolulu and

approximately 4,200 nautical miles southwest of San Francisco (just west of the international

dateline). Less than 700 miles north of the equator, Kwajalein is in the latitude of Panama and

the southern Philippines. It is in the longitude of New Zealand, 2,300 miles south, and the

Kamchatka Peninsula of the former Soviet Union, 2,600 miles north. The atoll’s remoteness

from centers of population and its proximity to the sea has a major bearing on the operation and

maintenance of USAKA/RTS.

The U.S. Army utilizes eleven of the over 100 islands in the atoll, with active facilities on all or

part of the following islands: Kwajalein (748 acres); Meck (55 acres); Roi-Namur (398 acres);

Carlos (71 acres from the middle portion of the island); Gagan (6 acres); Gellinam (5 acres);

Illegini (31 acres); Legan (18 acres); Eniwetak (15 acres); Ennugarret (6 acres); and Omelek (8

acres). Kwajalein and Roi-Namur were sites of extensive battles during World War II; thus,

investigation and remediation activities can be further complicated by unexploded ordnance

(UXO) and cultural/historical resource discoveries including human remains.

In 1947, the United Nations (U.N.) designated the Marshall Islands a U.N. Trust Territory. In

1986, the United States and the Marshall Islands signed a Compact of Free Association

(Compact) that granted the RMI sovereignty. The Compact contained provisions that the RMI

receive economic aid and U.S. military defense in exchange for the U.S. military’s use of the

missile testing range at Kwajalein Atoll. The United Nations officially ended the Trusteeship in

1990. A new Compact was agreed to in 2003 by the U.S. and RMI that extended the right to use

the Kwajalein military base in exchange for economic aid.



2.2 Physical and Environmental Setting

2.2.1 Environmental Setting

Kwajalein Atoll is a coral reef formation in the shape of a crescent loop enclosing a lagoon.

Situated on the reef are approximately 100 small islands with a total land area of only 5.6 square

miles (3,854 acres). The largest islands are Kwajalein (1.2 square miles), Roi-Namur, and

Ebadon at the extremities of the atoll; together they account for nearly half the total land area.

While the “typical” size of the remaining islands may be about 150 yards by 700 yards, the

smallest islands are no more than sand cays that merely break the water's surface at high tide.

The Kwajalein Atoll Lagoon enclosed by the reef is the world’s largest, having a surface area of

1,100 square miles, and a depth that is generally between 20 to 30 fathoms (120 to 180 feet).

However, there are numerous coral heads approaching or breaking the lagoon surface. The

atoll’s longest dimension is 75 miles from Kwajalein to Ebadon, and its average width is

approximately 15 miles. Kwajalein, at the atoll’s southern tip, and Roi-Namur, at its northern

extremity, are the principal islands at USAKA/RTS and are 50 miles apart; the other islands used

by USAKA/RTS are situated between these two, on both sides of the lagoon.

Coral atolls are believed to be seamounts that have been capped by calcareous marine growth

constructed by lime-secreting organisms (coral polyps and algae). Presumably, the lower parts

of the atolls are composed of noncalcareous rocks, most often volcanic materials. The coral

superstructures may be hundreds or even thousands of feet in thickness. Emergent portions of the

reef and islands are composed of loose, poorly consolidated calcareous materials derived from

foraminifera, coral, shells, and marine algae, or their debris resulting from destructive action of

the elements.

One notable characteristic of the atolls is the steep slopes of the mountain seaward of the reef.

Around Kwajalein Atoll, the depth plunges to as much as 1,000 fathoms (6,000 feet) within 2

miles of the atoll, and 2,200 fathoms within 10 miles. The Kwajalein Atoll reef lies at intertidal

level, mostly exposed at low tide and submerged at high tide. There are about 25 passages from

the open ocean into the lagoon, through or over the reef, which will allow access to small boats.

Oceangoing ships ordinarily use Gea Pass, located 10 miles north-northwest of Kwajalein.



All of the islands that comprise the atoll are relatively flat with few natural points exceeding 15

feet above mean sea level. The average elevation of Kwajalein is 5.9 feet. The highest point is

Mount Olympus, otherwise known as the “original missile launch hill.” This man-made hill is

approximately 58 feet high. As a result of the coral base and the lack of elevation of the islands,

there is a very shallow water table. This condition presents a major problem for underground

construction and allows spilled contaminants to easily reach the water table.

2.2.2 Climate

Kwajalein’s tropical marine climate exhibits little variation through the year. The atoll

experiences a relatively dry windy season from mid-December to mid-May, and a relatively wet

calm season from mid-May to mid-December. Normal annual rainfall is approximately 100

inches; approximately 72 percent of the annual rainfall occurs during the wet season and 28

percent occurs during the dry season. On average, the prevailing wind direction is from the east-

northeast during the entire year, although winds may become more variable during the wet

season when occasional southerly or even westerly winds occur. The average wind speed is

approximately 17 miles per hour (mph) from December to April, and 12 mph from May to

November.

The average daily maximum temperature is 86.5 degrees Fahrenheit (º F); the average minimum

temperature is 77.6º F. The extreme temperatures recorded at the atoll are 97º F and 68º F.

Average relative humidity ranges from 83 percent at local noon to 78 percent at midnight.

Most of the rainfall at Kwajalein comes from rain showers; thunderstorm occurrences are

infrequent. On average, thunderstorms occur fewer than 12 days each year. The frequency of

thunderstorms ranges from 0.1 per month from January to March to 2 per month in September.

During the modern era of recordkeeping, since 1919, a fully developed typhoon has never struck

Kwajalein Atoll; however, tropical storms with sustained winds from 40 to 74 miles per hour

(mph) impact the atoll about once every 4 to 7 years on average. Rainfall varies significantly

across the atoll with Roi-Namur receiving roughly on 60 to 70 percent of the Kwajalein Island

average of 100 inches per year.



2.2.3 Regional Geology

The detailed geology of Kwajalein Atoll is not nearly as well established as for Bikini and

Enewetak Atolls and is primarily based on shallow boring logs prepared by the USACE and

drilling logs prepared during the construction of monitoring wells. However, from the limited

geologic data available as well as from inferences, which can be made from various hydrologic

data, it appears as though many of the features observed on Bikini and Enewetak are also

common to Kwajalein. In particular, the uppermost unconformity observed on Bikini and

Enewetak at depths of 26 to 40 feet below sea level also appears to exist on Kwajalein, and

exhibits many of the same general hydrogeologic characteristics. The characteristics are

typically marked by the occurrence of a hard coral ledge and perhaps conglomerate horizons,

above which the aquifers are characterized by moderate permeabilities and generally fresh

groundwater, and below which the aquifers appear to have higher permeability and contain more

saline groundwater. The salinity differences have been confirmed by field data; however, the

permeability differences are only inferred (Global, 1980).

2.2.4 Soil Characteristics

Soils on Kwajalein Atoll mainly consist of unconsolidated, reef-derived calcium carbonate sand

and gravel with minor consolidated layers of coral, sandstone, and conglomerate. A study was

conducted on Kwajalein and Roi-Namur Islands to determine background concentrations of

metals and other inorganic constituents in soils. Composite samples were collected and analyzed

for total metals. The mean and maximum expected normal concentrations of each analyte are

presented in the 1991-1992 U.S. Army Environmental Hygiene Agency (USAEHA) Soil and

Contamination Study (USAEHA, 1991).

2.2.5 Hydrogeology

The thick accumulation of limestone layers, unconformities caused by sea level changes over

time, and tidal activity play an important role in the fresh groundwater dynamics. Groundwater

is very shallow throughout the atoll. A thin freshwater lens lies atop the brackish groundwater

on the largest islands, including Kwajalein and Roi-Namur.



The groundwater gradients radiate out from groundwater mounds near the center of the atoll

islands. Roi-Namur was once several islands, and fill material connected the two largest islands,

Roi and Namur. On the western side of Roi-Namur, the freshwater groundwater mound is

estimated to be in the eastern central portion of the island near the isthmus of fill (between the

former islands of Roi and Namur) and has a maximum thickness of 15 to 20 feet, as identified

during a 1990-1991 U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) investigation.

The water supply for both Kwajalein and Roi-Namur is from a combination of rainfall catchment

from airfield areas and from wells in the freshwater lens system. The lens wells are reportedly

constructed as lateral infiltration galleries placed several feet below the water table. Because the

soils are highly permeable, little of the rainfall is lost to runoff, and what water is not lost to

evapotranspiration recharges the groundwater (USAEHA, 1991). The shallow depth to

groundwater and the high permeability of the soils make the groundwater systems of the

Kwajalein Atoll islands highly vulnerable to contamination by chemicals (USAEHA, 1991).

2.3 Installation History and Mission

The U.S. Army control of Kwajalein Atoll was established in 1964 after being transferred from

the U.S. Navy. The Navy operated the facility from 1944 to 1964 after the U.S. liberation of the

atoll from the Japanese during WWII. The USAKA/Kwajalein Missile Range (KMR) was

renamed to U.S. Army Kwajalein Atoll/Ronald Reagan Ballistic Missile Defense Test Site at

Kwajalein Atoll (USAKA/RTS) on June 15, 2001.

The naming designations of the installation at Kwajalein Island throughout recent history are as

follows:

U.S. Army Kwajalein Atoll (USAKA) from November 14, 1986, through September 30,

1997.

Kwajalein Missile Range from April 15, 1968, through November 13, 1986.

Kwajalein Test Site from July 1, 1964, through April 14, 1968.



Navy Operating Base Kwajalein, Naval Air Station Kwajalein, Naval Station Kwajalein,

and Pacific Missile Range Facility (PMRF) Kwajalein at various times between 1945 and

1964.

The USAKA/RTS is a subordinate activity of the SMDC/ARSTRAT, headquartered in

Huntsville, Alabama. Command of the site, with regard to its range mission as an element of the

Department of Defense’s (DoD) Major Range and Test Facility Base (DoD Directive 3200.11),

is exercised under funding guidance from the U.S. Army Test and Evaluation Office (TEO).

The installation supports the RTS in support of theater missile defense, ballistic missile defense,

and intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) testing. Kwajalein also has a missile and space

objects tracking mission utilizing an array of powerful radar dishes located on Roi-Namur. In

addition, Kwajalein supports other Department of Defense (DoD) training activities as well as

commercial space launch operations.



3.0 SCOPE OF WORK

This Work Plan addresses the scope of activities for the 2010 SIs. The objectives include:

definition of the extent of contamination and assessment of the human health and environmental

risks at each site location. The 2010 SI scope satisfies the UES requirements for environmental

investigation of USAKA sites.

The planned technical approach adopted for each site intends to meet the objectives developed

for each site. The evaluation of existing information and the drafting of Conceptual Site Models

(CSMs) for each site identify additional data needs to meet project objectives. Use of the

accelerated site characterization process allows recurring evaluation of the CSM and the use of

output information from previous steps as inputs for a subsequent step. Figure 1-1 identifies site-

specific objectives for the 2010 project sites.

By combining preliminary assessment (PA) and SI activities (e.g., background research,

information gathering and file review, field reconnaissance, field sampling, and reporting

requirements), the site assessment process is streamlined, reducing tasks to one continuous SI.

These investigations are intended to:

Eliminate from consideration those sites that pose no threat to public health or the

environment;

Determine the potential need for a removal or remedial action;

Set priorities for future investigations; and

Gather existing or additional data to facilitate later components of the site

assessment/restoration process.

3.1 Background Research

In October 2009, Sivuniq Project Managers performed site reconnaissance to identify and

observe site conditions and begin assessment planning. Sivuniq performed historical research

while on site and during Work Plan development. In general, the historical records are

contemporary, as information has been obtained from the U.S. Army from as early as 1979.

Sivuniq intends to augment this information with other historical research for the Army through



1964, and the U.S. Navy from 1944 until 1964. Repositories include the National Archives and

the Naval Station in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. While on site, interviews will be conducted with

knowledgeable persons regarding any activities that may have contributed to impacts to the

islands.

At the site locations, proposed field activities include visual assessment, pipeline and feature

location surveys, vapor/soil/groundwater screening for contaminant indicators, field sampling

and analysis, and confirmation sampling for fixed-base laboratory analysis.

3.2 Field Activities

Visual assessments by the Field Team Leader prior to field sampling will identify surface

features or indications of contamination, sources, or other conditions that may affect the

effectiveness of the proposed approach. Notable site features will be included in the data

collection program, as appropriate, to provide a comprehensive site investigation and support

future remedial decision-making.

Some site information identified previous structures that may be sources of contamination. The

initial site activities shall include establishment of survey controls to locate these structures

(building footprints, pipelines, etc.) at the site. Control stations will be located with conventional

surveying equipment (i.e., theodolite transit and rod) using existing buildings and survey

monuments as reference controls. All sample locations shall be surveyed to provide accurate

spatial referencing.

Field activities include two phases of sampling – screening and confirmation. The sampling

objectives delineate the locations and extents of vapor and dissolved contaminant plumes, source

areas, and release points. Screening activities provide data to the field teams to identify

contaminant and source locations and direct field efforts. Indirect screening methods, such as

soil-gas surveys and headspace vapor analysis, indicate secondary impacts from contaminants in

soil and groundwater. Direct screening measurements use infrared absorbance, ultraviolet

fluorescence (UVF), turbidimetric, and immunoassay methods to quantify contaminants

contained within the medium. Table 3-1and 3-2 summarize screening techniques for soil and



groundwater, respectively. Although quality controls procedures for screening techniques will be

implemented, the data are typically qualitative or semi quantitative in nature.

Table 3-1 Field Screening Methods for Soils

Parameter Method

Organic Headspace Vapors

Physical Inspection (odor, etc.)

Photoionization Detector (PID)

Field Portable Gas Chromatography

Petroleum Product Sheen Screen Testing

Petroleum Hydrocarbons

Semiquantitative Immunoassay – EPA Method 40301

Quantitative Ultraviolet Fluorescence2

Infrared Spectroscopy – EPA Method 84403

Turbidimetric screening – EPA Method 90744

Pesticides Semiquantitative Immunoassay – EPA Method 40415

Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) Semiquantitative Immunoassay – EPA Method 40206

Quantitative Electrochemical Analysis – EPA Method 90787

Notes: 1 RaPIDAssay

TM Petroleum Fuels in Soil Field Test equipment provided by Strategic Diagnostics, Inc

2 UVF-3100 analyzer field test equipment provided by SiteLAB Corporation

3 InfraCal Model CVH IR Spectrometer field test equipment provided by Wilks Enterprise, Inc.

4 PetroFLAG analyzer system provided by Dexsil Corporation

5 EnviroGuard

TM Chlordane in Soil Test Kit provided by Strategic Diagnostics, Inc.

6 Ensys

TM PCB soil test kit provided by Strategic Diagnostics, Inc.

7 L2000DX analyzer field test equipment provided by Dexsil Corporation

Table 3-2 Field Screening Methods for Water

Parameter Method

Organic Headspace Vapors Field Portable Gas Chromatography

Petroleum Product Sheen Screen Testing

Petroleum Hydrocarbons Quantitative Ultraviolet Fluorescence1

Pesticides and Polychlorinated Biphenyls Quantitative Electrochemical Analysis – EPA Method 90782

Notes: 1 UVF-3100 analyzer field test equipment provided by SiteLAB Corporation

2 L2000DX analyzer field test equipment provided by Dexsil Corporation



The second sampling phase, confirmation sampling, provides high-quality data for decision-

making purposes. Utilizing a variety of quality control in the field and at the laboratory, these

data provide the basis for site characterization, risk assessment, and remedial evaluations. The

laboratory analyses that will be performed for soil and water matrices are listed in Tables 3-3 and

3-4. Table 3-5 provides a summary of sample container requirements for the specified methods.

Table 3-3 Laboratory Analytical Methods for Soils

Parameter Analytical Method

Volatile Petroleum Hydrocarbons (VPHs) EPA Method 8260B Modified

Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons (EPHs) EPA Method 8015B Modified

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) EPA Methods 8260B

Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) EPA Method 8270D-SIM

Organochlorine Pesticides EPA Method 8081A

Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) EPA Method 8082

Bulk Density ASTM D2937-10

Particle Size Distribution ASTM D6913-04

Total Organic Carbon (TOC) EPA Method 9060

Table 3-4 Laboratory Analytical Methods for Water

Parameter Analytical Method

Volatile Petroleum Hydrocarbons (VPHs) EPA Method 8260B Modified

Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons (EPHs) EPA Method 8015B Modified

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) EPA Method 8260B

Ethylene dibromide (EDB) EPA Method 8011

Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) EPA Method 8270D-SIM

Organochlorine Pesticides EPA Method 8081A

Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) EPA Method 8082

Bioremediation Indicators (nitrate, nitrite, ammonia, iron,

manganese, sulfide, chloride, fluoride, sulfate)



Table 3-5 Summary of Sample Container Requirements

Analysis Method Container Type Preservative Holding

Time Min Amt

Total

Containers

per sample

Soil Samples

EPH (DRO) 8015Mod 4, 8 or 16 oz glass 4°C 14 d 30 g 1

Pesticides 8081 4, 8 or 16 oz glass 4°C 14 d 20 g 1

PCBs 8082 4, 8 or 16 oz glass 4°C 14 d 20 g 1

VPH (GRO) 8260Mod

2 or 4 oz glass jar 4°C 14 d

5 g

1 VOCs 8260 5 g

HVOCs 8260 5 g

PAHs 8270-SIM 4, 8 or 16 oz glass 4°C 14 d 20 g 1

TOC 9060 4, 8 or 16 oz glass 4°C 14 d 20 g 1

Density ASTM

D2937

6” intact section of

PVC sampling

sleeve

4°C NA 250 g 1

Particle Size ASTM

D422 4, 8 or 16 oz glass 4°C NA 150 g 1

Total Fe/Mn EPA 6010 4, 8 or 16 oz glass 4°C 180 d 10 g 1

Cl/F/SO4 EPA300.0 4, 8 or 16 oz glass 4°C 14 d 50 g 1

Ammonia SM4500-

NH3 4, 8 or 16 oz glass 4°C 14 d 20 g 1

Nitrate-Nitrite SM4500-

NO3 4, 8 or 16 oz glass 4°C 28 d 100 g 1

Sulfide SM4500-S2- 4, 8 or 16 oz glass 4°C 7 d 20 g 1

Water Samples

EPH (DRO) 8015Mod 1 L amber glass 4°C 7 d 1000 mL 2

Pesticides 8081 1 L amber glass 4°C 7 d 1000 mL 2

PCBs 8082 1 L amber glass 4oC 7 d 1000 mL 2

VPH (GRO) 8260Mod

40 ml VOA vials 4oC 7 d 40 mL 3

VOCs 8260

HVOCs 8260

EDB 8011

Nitrate-Nitrite EPA 353.2 250 mL HDPE H2SO4 28 d 100 mL 1

Total Fe/Mn EPA 6010 250 mL HDPE HNO3 180 d 100 mL 1

Cl/F/SO4 EPA300.0 250 mL HDPE 4°C 28 d 200 mL 1

Ammonia SM4500-

NH3 250 HDPE H2SO4 28 d 250 mL 1

Sulfide SM4500-S2- 500 mL HDPE ZnAc2 &

NaOH 7 d 500 mL 1



Sample collection methods vary according to the media under investigation. Soil-gas sampling

relies on soil probes equipped with porous sampling ports advanced to discreet depths by manual

and direct-push methods. Soil sampling methods include the use of direct-push equipment, hand

augers, and shovels. Field crews use manual and direct-push equipment to install groundwater

sample points (screened drive points or pre-packed well points).

All sampling activities focus efforts inside areas of presumed release or impact. Many of these

locations, previously identified during records review and research, closely associate themselves

with structures and features such as buildings, pipelines, and stormwater conveyances. Other

locations include documented spill sites identified by spill reports. The perimeters of the

investigation areas include additional area around the presumed release points to allow

characterization of migrating contamination and previously unidentified release points.

Archeological and safety concerns characterize many of the investigation areas. Strict adherence

to the USAKA dig permitting process ensures that artifacts and critical infrastructure remain

protected and the worksite remains a safe operation. Even though the proper authorities permit

digging and intrusive activities, Sivuniq field personnel must remain vigilant to the possibility of

inadvertent discoveries of artifacts, ordnance, or equipment during fieldwork.

Intrusive activities associated with soil, soil gas, and groundwater sampling shall be monitored

by a qualified archeological specialist implementing the project-specific Archeological

Monitoring Plan (Kwaj-10-52) provided in Annex D. Major elements of the monitoring include

global positioning system (GPS)-positioning for all sample locations, inspection of coring

samples, and descriptive documentation of soil characteristics. The Archeological Monitoring

Plan includes USAKA Archeological Monitoring SOPs for GPS data collection field

documentation and discoveries of human remains, archeological artifacts and features, as well as

munitions and ordnance items.

3.3 Office Activities

During field activities, Sivuniq and stakeholders provide active support to the field crews. The

support ensures satisfaction of logistical, advisory, and performance needs. The Sivuniq Project

Manager monitors and fills requests for personnel, material, and equipment during daily



communications with the Field Team Leader. Communication enhancements provided by

satellite telephone, Web-based platforms (i.e., SharePoint or FTP sites), and daily

teleconferences ensure that the management team and field crew share information and

coordinate activities.

Open communication within the office environment also provides affirmative guidance to Task

Managers and staff. Appointed Task Managers lead efforts related to data compilation,

evaluation, and validation, risk assessment, and reporting.

An office-based Data Manager organizes and analyzes information from the field to guide field-

screening efforts and achieve sampling objectives. Using Geographic Information System (GIS)

based analysis tools such as Visual Sampling Plan, dynamic data analysis identifies areas of

highest likelihood for contamination. Under the accelerated site characterization process, site

sampling focuses on the identification of the source location and contaminant extent to allow risk

assessment and remedial alternative evaluation.

After completing fieldwork, the Data Manager organizes analytical laboratory data for

evaluation, validation, and presentation. The organized data, compiled for each site, media, and

analysis group, allows easy review for data completeness. Data validation involves a

comprehensive review of the laboratory data to verify conformance with quality controls;

qualifiers flag any deficient data to alert data users of possible quality concerns. Tables organize

all validated data, identifying the detected contaminants, frequency and range of detections, and

statistically representative contaminant levels.

Data reviewers compare the maximum detected soil and groundwater contaminant levels to the

published risk-based screening criteria for each site. The EPA PRGs/RSLs evaluate potential

human-health risk concerns and the NOAA SquiRT values identify potential ecological risk

drivers. Volatile and extractable petroleum hydrocarbons, which are not cited by either

reference, are evaluated against Guam EPA Environmental Screening Levels (Guam EPA,

2008). Table 3-6 provides example screening criteria for some of the potential chemicals of

concern that may be detected during the USAKA site investigations.



Table 3-6 Example Data Screening Criteria for Chemicals of Potential Concern

Chemical

EPA Regional Screening Levels (RSL) 1 NOAA SQuiRT 2

Soils Groundwater

(mg/L)

Surface Water

(mg/L) Industrial

(mg/Kg)

Groundwater

Protection (mg/Kg)

Petroleum, Oil, and Lubricant (POL) Compounds

Benzene 5.4 0.00021 0.005 2.3

Toluene 45,000 1.6 2.3 0.0098

Benzene 5.4 0.00021 0.005 2.3

Toluene 45,000 1.6 2.3 0.0098

Ethylbenzene 2.7 0.0017 0.007 0.0073

Xylene, Mixture 2700 0.2 0.2 0.013

Xylene, m- 17000 1.2 1.2 0.0018

Xylene, o- 19000 1.2 1.2 0.35

Xylene, p- 17000 1.2 1.2 N/A

Benzo(a)pyrene 0.21 0.0035 0.0000029 0.000014

Volatile Petroleum Hydrocarbons (Guam ESLs)3 100 100 0.100 -

Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons (Guam ESLs)3 100 100 0.100 -

Volatile Organic Compounds

Tetrachloroethene 2.6 0.000049 0.005 0.098

Trichloroethene 14 0.00072 0.005 0.021

1,1-Dichloroethane 170 0.00069 0.0024 0.047

1,2-Dichloroethane 2.2 0.000042 0.00015 0.1

Vinyl Chloride 1.7 0.0000056 0.002 0.93

Chloroform 1.5 0.000053 0.00019 0.0018

Dibromochloromethane 3.3 0.000039 0.00015 11

Methylene Chloride 53 0.0012 0.0048 N/A

Pesticides

Chlordane 6.5 0.013 0.002 0.00000215

Polychlorinated Biphenyls

Aroclor 1260 0.74 0.024 0.000034 14 4

Notes:

1. Values taken from Environmental Protection Agency’s Regional Screening Level Table for Region 9 (December 2009)

2. Values taken from NOAA Screening Quick Reference Guide (SquiRT) (2008)

3. Values taken from Guam EPA’s Environmental Screening Levels (2008)

4. The value for surface water is for total PCBs.



For site contaminants that exceed the PRG/RSL/ESLs or SquiRT screening levels, Sivuniq

performs baseline risk assessments to quantify risks. The assessment considers the impacted

media, complete transport and migration routes, and exposure pathways for each receptor group

defined by the CSM. The site background sections, which follow later in this document, present

site-specific CSMs for each site. Stakeholders confirm and refine the CSMs during the

fieldwork phase of the investigation effort to include all appropriate considerations.

The risk assessment conclusions identify specific media and chemicals of concern and any need

for further data gathering or remedial response. The risk assessment also provides chemical-

specific cleanup goals. The preliminary remedial response evaluation identifies candidate

strategies, models feasibility, and outlines rough costs of implementation. The Federal

Remediation Technologies Roundtable Treatment Technologies Screening Matrix acts as the

primary source of strategies under consideration, but other potentially relevant approaches and

technologies will be considered as appropriate (USAEC, 2002).

The SI report deliverable will provide a full summary of the field activities, data evaluation, risk

assessment, and remedial evaluations. Representatives from the SMDC and UES project team

provide oversight and review of the document. The final report addresses stakeholder concerns

presented during the review and comment period.






4.0 SITE DESCRIPTIONS

The scope of the site investigations includes the locations presented on Figures 4-1 and 4-2.

Figure 4-1 Kwajalein Atoll Sites



Figure 4-2 Kwajalein Island Sites



4.1 Kwajalein Harbor (Site CCKWAJ-001)

4.1.1 Site History

Kwajalein Harbor, located on the lagoon side of Kwajalein Island, is the primary embarkation

point for barges and ships for all of the islands in the Kwajalein Atoll since the U.S. military

assumed control of the atoll in 1944.

During the last several decades, human activities and industrial processes have contributed to

contaminants entering the harbor. The corrosive environment at Kwajalein requires routine

sandblasting to remove rust from equipment. Previous investigations indicate that sandblasting

activities at the synchrolift dry dock and the former vehicle paint and preparation shop provide

the primary source of contamination (USAEHA, 1991). Marine vessel coatings contain copper,

butyltins, and/or pesticides as antifouling agents, lead as a stabilizer, and polychlorinated

biphenyls (PCBs) as a component of coatings.

Contaminants are also suspected to migrate to the harbor via wind and nonpoint-source runoff.

The harbor sediments are known to contain metals (chromium, lead, copper, zinc, and

dibutyltin), PCBs, and to a limited extent, pesticides (dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane [DDT]

and chlordane) from point and nonpoint discharges from Kwajalein Island. Additionally, a

2008-2009 human-health risk assessment noted PCBs and pesticides in stormwater discharges

(CHPPM, 2009).

4.1.2 Previous Investigations

In 1991/1992, the USAEHA conducted a soil and groundwater contamination study to evaluate

the potential impacts of contamination on human health and the environment in the harbor area

of the Kwajalein boat ramp. The study indicated that sandblasting wastes on the ground surface

around the boat ramp impacted the surface runoff, and that dark-colored material was clearly

visible in aerial photographs (USAEHA, 1991).

Sandblasting and painting was performed at the dry dock equipment facility (former Building

614). The building was demolished in 1990, but prior to being removed, the sandblasting grit

and paint waste was allowed to remain on the ground around the structure. During the study, it



was noted that the wastes were no longer evident because of construction activities, and the

waste grit was reportedly placed into a pile at the west end of the Kwajalein landfill (USAEHA,

1991).

Clean fill was placed over the area where the dry dock was formerly located, thus no soil

samples were collected during the study. The USAEHA did, however, collect two composite

soil samples from each side of the boat ramp, and one composite sample of the sandblast grit.

Soil sample analyses included total metals, and the sandblast waste grit underwent toxicity

characteristic leaching procedure (TCLP) and analysis for Resource Conservation and Recovery

Act (RCRA) metals.

The study results showed that concentrations of copper, chromium, barium, arsenic, and lead in

the soil and waste grit samples exceeded background concentrations. The sandblast grit

contained the same metals, but was less than the toxic characteristic thresholds that would

classify the material as a regulated hazardous waste.

Lagoon sediment sampling and analysis by a previous contractor also confirmed elevated levels

of copper, lead, zinc, nickel, chromium, cadmium, and arsenic. Sediment sampling revealed

concentrations up to 360 parts per million (ppm) chromium, 3,080 ppm copper, 543 ppm lead,

and 930 ppm zinc, all exceeding NOAA effects range-low (ERL) screening criteria for sediment

toxicity. The lead concentrations also exceeded the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)

consumption guidelines (CHPPM, 2001). The ERL criterion is the concentration of a chemical

in sediment below which toxic effects are rarely observed among sensitive species.

The 1991/1992 USAEHA study suggested that the potential for environmental impacts in the

boat ramp area and lagoon related to past sandblasting practices. The amount of metals entering

the lagoon during past activities was probably much greater than what would enter from

presently contaminated soil in the future. The potential for runoff of contaminants from the

remaining contamination at the boat ramp is small if the area is not disturbed by construction

work. Migration of dissolved metals into the lagoon via groundwater is not expected to be

significant in comparison to past and potential future migration via other modes of transport.



A follow-up clam bioaccumulation study conducted in 1999 from the harbor point-source

discharge area revealed significantly elevated concentrations of copper, lead, zinc, pesticides,

PCBs, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in clam tissues. A 1990 oyster and fish

tissue metals study also revealed significantly high concentrations of chromium, copper, and lead

exceeding the International Consumption Guidelines (ASI, 1991).

In 1999, the Kwajalein Environmental Standards Release Determination Workgroup concluded

that a release of butyltins and metals, including chromium, copper, lead, and zinc, had occurred

in the Kwajalein Harbor. Best management practices (BMPs) were employed in 2004 that have

reduced the amount of contamination that enters the harbor. These actions included the

replacement of the open air vehicle paint and preparation facility with a newly constructed, fully

enclosed Vehicle Paint and Preparation Facility, Facility 856, and the partial covering of the

shiplift/dry dock area. The dry dock is now enclosed on the top and two sides. Furthermore,

cargo containers are piled up on the lagoon side during blasting operations to further prevent

sand blast grit from entering the harbor. However, in 2008, it was discovered that the power

washing operations (infrequent in occurrence) at the harbor ship lift might still be contributing to

harbor contamination. USAKA is evaluating design solutions to prevent power wash runoff

from entering the harbor (operation has currently been suspended). Due to the known historical

contamination at the harbor, signs were erected in an attempt to prevent fishing at the harbor and

consumption of aquatic species that could be potentially contaminated (KRS, 2008).

The US Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine (CHPPM) released a Draft

PA/SI Report for the Kwajalein Harbor release area in July 2009. The PA/SI report

characterized the nature and extent of contamination in the harbor and presented human-health

risk assessment results to assess the potential for unacceptable risk to humans consuming harbor

fish.

The PA/SI study included two concurrent phases. Phase I characterized the nature and extent of

contamination by sampling sediment from the harbor area, and analyzing the samples for the

COPCs, namely metals, butyltins, PAHs, pesticides, and PCBs. The concentrations were

compared to reference levels and sediment screening guidelines for human and ecological health.



Because the potential health risks resulting from fish consumption by humans were not fully

understood, a Phase II was conducted to determine which COPCs would be considered in the

site-specific human-health risk assessment. Concentrations of COPCs in water, sediment, and

fish tissue were compared to screening guidelines to assess risk to humans who could come into

direct contact with sediment or could eat the fish from the harbor. Of the exposure pathways

considered to potentially pose health risks to human populations that utilize Kwajalein Harbor

(surface water, sediment, edible fish), only fish consumption posed a concern (CHPPM, 2009).

4.1.3 Conceptual Site Model

Based on the previous investigations, detected contaminants (primarily pesticides and PCBs)

may originate from one or more shoreside sources. Pesticides and PCBs are manmade

contaminants that have presumed points of origin (i.e., spill or release sites). Table 4-1

summarizes the preliminary CSM for the shoreside Kwajalein Harbor sites.

Table 4-1 Kwajalein Harbor Shoreside Source Conceptual Site Model

Model Element Significant Input Rationale

Primary source Spill or release of pesticides and/or PCBs Presumed shoreside sources

Primary Transport

Mechanism

Direct release Intentional pesticide applications and releases of

transformer fluids

Secondary source Soil Presumed soil contamination at source

Secondary Transport

Mechanisms

Surface transport of contaminated soils

eroded by stormwater

Reported stormwater contamination presumed to

contain contaminated soil

Exposure Media Soil Presumed soil contamination at source

Reported stormwater contamination

Exposure Pathways Incidental ingestion of soil

Dermal contact with soil

Ingestion of contaminated biota

Presumed soil contamination at source

Presumed soil contamination at source

Use of aquatic biota for subsistence purposes

Current Receptors USAKA personnel

Transient contractors

Transient personnel

Aquatic biota

Subsistence fishermen

USAKA, contractors, and transient personnel are

potentially exposed through direct contact with

contaminated soil and indirect contact with

contaminated dust

Reported contamination in aquatic biota

Harvesters of contaminated biota.

Complete/Significant

Exposure Scenarios

Incidental soil ingestion by USAKA, contractors, and transient personnel (direct

ingestion, dermal contact, fugitive dust)

Ingestion of contaminated fish and shellfish by subsistence users (direct ingestion)



The complete and significant exposure scenarios presented by the CSM consider reasonable and

appropriate receptor contact under this preliminary model. Subsequent revision of this model is

likely, based on additional information and stakeholder input. Other potential media of concern

(groundwater and sediment), transport pathways, and receptors (human and/or ecological) may

also become relevant as new information becomes available.

4.1.4 Investigation Approach

The 2009 CHPPM investigation identified a need to identify potential sources of contaminants in

stormwater. Although COPCs identified in the harbor sediments and biota include metals

(copper, chromium, lead, and zinc), butyltins, PAHs, PCBs, and pesticides, only pesticides and

PCBs in finfish provide notable human health risks (CHPPM, 2009).

Field activities will attempt to identify and delineate shore side sources of the pesticide and PCB

contamination that are contributing to discharges into the harbor. By focusing on the stormwater

conveyances as a physical transport pathway, the approach intends to identify breaches that may

promote erosion and soil discharge and to locate points along the system that retain contaminated

soils, serving as an ongoing source. If analytical results identify potential source areas,

additional sampling efforts will attempt to locate and define release points and collaterally

affected media. Table 4-2 provides a summary of the Kwajalein Harbor Storm Drain field

activities.

4.1.5 Land Source Contaminant Identification

The storm sewer survey includes two phases of activity – visual survey and sampling. The visual

survey involves physical inspection of the stormwater conveyances from discharge points

upstream to the points of origin. Areas of material accumulation and sewer line breaches are of

special interest during this examination. At locations where the sewer breaks are suspected, a

video survey may be used to identify breaches. Table 4-2 summarizes proposed field activities.

Materials in the storm drains will be sampled using hand tools and analyzed for pesticide

(Method 8081A) and PCB compounds (Method 8082) to identify contaminated materials in the

drains. Initial sampling will occur near the discharge points, with additional sampling at

upstream storm sewer junctions in segments noted to contain target contaminants. The phased



approach outline in Table 4-2 systematically directs the sampling effort toward presumed source

locations by eliminating noncontributory storm sewer drains. Figure 4-3 presents the major

storm sewer drain areas that discharge to the harbor area. Figure 4-4 presents a conceptual

sampling plan for one of the storm sewer drain areas (SW01).

Table 4-2 Kwajalein Harbor Shoreside Source Field Activities Summary

Storm Drain Material Sampling

Sampling Equipment Stainless steel sampling spoons, sampling arm extensions

Sampling Locations Locations inside storm drains are sampled in sequence as data indicate possible upstream sources

1st phase: samples to be collected at catch basins along main

SW01 - samples from catch basins 103, 107, 113, and 115 (or 114, if 115 is submerged)

SW02 - samples from within open storm drain near Buildings 813, 1759, and 816

SW03 - samples from catch basins 120 and 121

SW04 - samples from catch basins 124, 125, and 212 (if not submerged)

SW05 - samples from catch basins 126 (127 if 126 is submerged), 128, 140, and 144

2nd phase: Samples to be collected from catch basins and locations upstream of where contaminant

detections are noted in 1st phase samples, for example:

SW01 - samples from catch basins 65, 71, and 102

SW02 - samples from catch basins 116, 117, 118, and/or 119

SW03 - samples from surface drains feeding catch basins 120 and/or 122

SW04 - samples from surface drains feeding catch basins 123 and/or 124

SW05 - samples from catch basins 136, 137, 138, 139, 145 and/or surface drain feeds into

open storm drains along north side of lagoon road near Buildings 849 and 898

3nd phase: Samples to be collected from catch basins and locations upstream of where contaminant

detections are noted in 2nd phase samples, for example:

SW01 - samples from catch basins 66-69, 57-64, 72-77, and/or 89, 94, 97, 210, and 211

Field Analyses None

Laboratory Analyses Organochlorine Pesticides by EPA Method 8081A – 8 oz wide mouth amber jar

Polychlorinated Biphenyls by EPA Method 8082 – 8 oz wide mouth amber jar

Quality Control Field – field duplicate samples (1 in 10 samples)

Matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate samples (1 in 20 samples, collected from a sample location

presumed to contain detectable levels of contamination)

Keep all samples cool (< 4°C) and avoid sunlight while in the field, deliver all samples to laboratory as

soon as possible, maintain secure custody at all times.

Notes of Special

Concern Identify sampling locations by reference to the catch basin or manhole

Archeological monitoring is required in the event of sampling outside of drain structures

Manage all IDW (solid waste, wastewater, and hazard wastes) according to installation

requirements



Figure 4-3 Kwajalein Harbor Sewer Drains



Figure 4-4 Kwajalein Harbor Stormwater Conveyance Conceptual Sampling Plan



4.2 Kwajalein Landfill (Site CCKWAJ-002)

4.2.1 Site History

The Kwajalein landfill has been in operation for at least 20 years (CHPPM, 2006). Prior to 1996,

solid wastes were burned in an open burn pit, and ash residues were removed from the pit at least

once per week and buried or placed at the landfill. Medical wastes from the Kwajalein hospital

and dental clinic were also burned in the burn pit prior to disposal. Other past practices in the

landfill area included the burning of oil and solvents in two unlined pits and an asbestos burning

area. The pits have been reportedly remediated; however, the asbestos pit is still present.

The entire Kwajalein Solid Waste Management (SWM) Facility occupies approximately 13 acres

near the western edge of Kwajalein Island. The landfill itself is approximately 6 acres, while the

SWM facility includes one new (construction completed 2009) incinerator with three bays

(replaced three separate incinerators), a scrap metal segregation and storage area, a composting

and recycling center, stockpiled cover material, and several small office trailers. The entire

facility is on a portion of the island created by dredge and fill from reef excavation. The

elevation of the fill area varies from a few feet above sea level in the inland side to over 40 feet

along the seaward side. High tides inundate the seaward side of the landfill daily.

Current practice is to landfill noncombustible wastes and incinerator ash in cells along the

seaward perimeter of the landfill, creating a berm that helps prevent runoff to the ocean. Cover

material is applied to the landfill weekly, which often consists of abrasive blast media that have

been tested for metals and cleared for use (CHPPM, 2006).

4.2.2 Previous Investigation

Investigation of possible contaminants entering the ocean from the landfill has been ongoing

since the late 1990s (CHPPM, 2003). Potential contaminant sources were identified to be the

active portions of the landfill, the closed portions of the landfill at sea-level elevation, and metal

debris on the shoreline. A field study, whereby media at the landfill were sampled and a clam

bioaccumulation study performed in 1998, identified the COPCs at the landfill as copper, lead,

silver, and zinc. The sample results from the studies showed the same metals that



bioaccumulated in the clam tissue were present at elevated levels in the landfill soils,

groundwater, stormwater runoff, and the ocean water next to the landfill.

In addition to the evidence collected in 1998, groundwater monitoring has been ongoing since

the same year, when eight monitoring wells were installed near the landfill (CHPPM, 2006). The

data collected from biannual groundwater monitoring indicated that as the groundwater flows

from the centerline of the island to the shoreline, the contaminant concentrations increase

significantly as it passes through the landfill. Based upon the groundwater monitoring results,

CHPPM indicated that the COPCs at the landfill should be expanded to include arsenic,

cadmium, chromium, mercury, nickel, pesticides, and PCBs.


Based on available information, detected contaminants likely originate from landfill sources.

Table 4-3 summarizes the preliminary CSM for the Kwajalein Landfill site.

Table 4-3 Kwajalein Landfill Site Conceptual Site Model


Primary source Landfill wastes containing metals,

pesticides, and PCBs Presumed shoreside sources

Primary Transport

Mechanism

Erosion of contaminated soils by wave

action and stormwater

Presumed transport of adsorbed contamination

from source location

Secondary source Groundwater Reported groundwater contamination

Secondary Transport

Mechanisms

Dissolved (aqueous) transport by

groundwater

Presumed transport of dissolved contamination

from source location

Exposure Media Surface water Groundwater discharge from source location

Exposure Pathways Ingestion of contaminated biota Use of aquatic biota for subsistence purposes

Current Receptors Aquatic biota Reported contamination in aquatic biota


Exposure Scenarios

Ingestion of contaminated fish and shellfish by subsistence users (direct ingestion)

Direct contact with contaminated groundwater discharges by aquatic biota





likely, based on additional information and stakeholder input. Other potential media of concern,

transport pathways, and receptors (human and/or ecological) may also become relevant as new

information becomes available.


Recognizing concerns of contamination migrating from the landfill and erosion on the seaward

side of the landfill face, the investigative approach addresses two fundamental elements –

physical stabilization and contaminant fate and transport. Field data will be collected to support

a rough order of magnitude estimate of remedial options.

Currently, little to no action is taking place to stabilize the embankment on the seaward side of

the landfill. Bank stabilization needs to occur to ensure no migration of debris to the reef flat

and ocean. Native material is not readily available on Kwajalein Island; therefore, engineered

stabilization approaches will be considered. Shore protection guidance from the USACE

(Environmental Engineering for Coastal Protection, EM-1110-2-1204) (USACE, 1989) provides

an operating basis to evaluate the stabilization remedy.

To address the contaminant discharge concern, other remedial alternatives include barrier

systems and complete removal. Both approaches require estimates of material quantity and

composition to allow effective evaluation.

4.2.4.1 Topographic and Bathymetric Survey

A topographic and bathymetric survey proposed for this area provides critical information to

promote a future engineering design of any stabilization project. This data also provides

quantitative inputs to evaluate the barrier system and removal project costs.



4.2.4.2 Landfill Material Examination

To support other potential remedies, surface observation of landfill debris at a number of

locations within the landfill allows a determination of the material types and compositions.

Samples of the surrounding native and cover materials also feed the engineering analysis for

barrier system design. Figure 4-5 presents the location of the landfill.



Figure 4-5 Kwajalein Landfill



4.3 PCB Vaults (Kwajalein) (Site CCKWAJ-005)

4.3.1 Site History

Reports indicate that electrical equipment at several transformer vaults on Kwajalein Island

leaked PCB-containing fluids. Although response actions removed fluids and, in some cases,

contaminated concrete, the effectiveness of the efforts is not well documented. These sites may

be contributing to the previously discussed Kwajalein Harbor contamination. The sites,

identified by building numbers, include Buildings 708, 713, 803, 900, 1011, and 1017. Figure 4-

6 presents the locations of the PCB Vault sites on Kwajalein Island.

Demolition of two of these buildings left these sites vacant. The sites include former buildings

708 and 713, located on the western side of Kwajalein Island. Reports indicate observed

contamination during demolition. Buildings 803, 900, 1011, and 1017 remain in use, but the

source equipment was previously removed.


Building 708: This site includes the location of a transformer vault that served the former

bachelor’s quarters. Anecdotal reports suggest the vault, contained in an equipment room on the

south end of the former structure, released fluids. No specific reports provide additional

information.

Building 713: Reports indicate PCB contamination (Aroclor-1260) in surface and subsurface

soils and groundwater, but the extent of contamination is unknown. Demolition activities

removed the transformer, vault, and all associated electrical equipment (KRS, 2004).

The transformer, formerly located within an electrical vault, leaked approximately 4 pounds (lbs)

of PCB-containing dielectric fluid to the concrete floor in June 1991. An additional spill of

approximately 0.8 lbs of PCBs also occurred during 1991 while the transformer was drained

prior to removing it from the vault. An investigation of the Building 713 vault site detected

PCBs in the soil and groundwater at approximately 3 feet below ground surface (bgs) (RSE,

2001).



Figure 4-6 Kwajalein PCB Vaults



The spills were remediated in 2002 and 2005 by cleaning (using diesel fuel as a solvent) and

later removing a section of the concrete flooring of the vault. The soil beneath the flooring was

excavated to the hard coral base. The excavation extended under a portion of the vault wall and

beneath part of the remaining flooring of the vault structure.

Building 803: Building 803, currently used as a vehicle maintenance facility, was the site of a

former power plant with a switchgear maintenance shop. No contamination or response reports

provide specific information for this site. However, the nature of the maintenance activities and

the widespread use of PCB fluids in transformers during the operational period of this facility

make it a likely candidate for evaluation.

Building 900: Building 900 houses several transformers in the vicinity of the airfield operations

facility. Available information indicates that PCB contamination is present within the subsurface

soils beneath the concrete slab of the building (KRS, 2004). A restoration report from June 29,

2001, indicated that the transformer had leaked approximately one gallon of dielectric fluid

containing PCBs to the concrete floor of the vault. Spill response included cleaning and later

removing a section of the concrete floor of the vault. Reports indicate that the area was

backfilled with rock and gravel, and new concrete was poured to match the existing concrete

floor (RSE, 2001b). However, the October 2009 site reconnaissance showed an open trench and

standing water immediately beneath the floor.

Building 1011: Raytheon Service Company Range Systems Engineering (Raytheon) listed the

vault as requiring further remediation in the Annual USAKA Inventory of PCB Items and

Equipment since 1995 (KRS, 2004). Reports indicate that two transformers were removed from

the building on October 28, 1991, and another transformer was removed on August 25, 1994. At

the time of removal, transformer oil was reported with a PCB concentration of 350,000 ppm.

The October 2009 site reconnaissance did not provide any visual confirmation of the release

point and subsequent repairs to the vault floor.

Building 1017: Raytheon listed the vault as requiring further remediation in the Annual USAKA

Inventory of PCB Items and Equipment since 1995 (KRS, 2004). No other specific information

is immediately available.




Based on available information, PCB contaminants may remain within the concrete vault floors

or within the soil (and groundwater) at the former locations of transformer use and maintenance.

Table 4-4 summarizes the preliminary CSM for the PCB Vaults site.

Table 4-4 Kwajalein PCB Vaults Conceptual Site Model


Primary source Transformer dielectric fluids Documented source

Primary Transport

Mechanism Direct fluid discharge Release from transformer

Secondary source Concrete Contamination from direct discharge

Secondary Transport

Mechanisms

Adsorption to soils during concrete

demolition at uncontrolled site locations

Dissolved (aqueous) transport to

groundwater by infiltrating stormwater

Reported soil contamination at demolished

building locations

Reported groundwater contamination at

demolished building locations

Exposure Media

Concrete

Soil

Groundwater

Reported contamination in concrete, soil,

groundwater

Exposure Pathways

Dermal contact with concrete and soil

Incidental ingestion of soil

Ingestion of and contact with groundwater

Direct contact and use at site locations

Current Receptors On-site personnel

On-site (construction) workers

USAKA and contractor personnel are potentially

exposed during work at site locations


Exposure Scenarios

Dermal contact with contaminated concrete by on-site workers at controlled sites

Incidental soil ingestion and dermal contact with contaminated soil by on-site

(construction) workers at uncontrolled sites

Contaminated groundwater use









A site-specific investigation addresses, as appropriate, the effectiveness of previous response

action at controlled site locations or the nature and extent of contaminant releases at uncontrolled

site locations.

Based on the CSM, controlled site locations, characterized by intact structures and contained

release points, lack secondary release mechanisms that would potentially affect soil and

groundwater. These site locations (i.e., Buildings 803, 1011, and 1017) possess inherent

containment structures (concrete floor) that prohibit impacts to secondary media. Sivuniq field

team members shall perform concrete wipe sampling activities to evaluate the effectiveness of

previous response efforts and characterize potential concerns. If the field team identifies site

conditions that suggest the possibility of incomplete controls during the course of investigation

(e.g., open floor joints or drains) the site classification will switch to uncontrolled.

Uncontrolled site locations (i.e., Buildings 708, 713, and 900), where buildings were demolished

or containment features are incomplete, receive multimedia evaluation to determine all

potentially affected media and the nature/extent of contamination. The Sivuniq field team will

use land surveying techniques to locate the footprint of Buildings 708 and 713. The building

perimeter (corners) shall be marked to define the foundation lines. Sivuniq samplers will utilize

soil and water sampling procedures described in the FSP. Sivuniq field teams intend to manage

all potentially contaminated media as regulated, unless analyses indicate otherwise.

4.3.4.1 Concrete Sampling

Concrete wipe and chip sampling and analysis provides data to evaluate risks to onsite workers

that may receive potential exposure. Surface wipe samples are used to evaluate the smooth

concrete surfaces of floors and walls near former PCB transformers and equipment. Porous and

rough concrete surfaces cannot be wiped effectively, so the concrete is chipped over a similar

amount of surface area to provide a minimum 20-gram material sample for analysis. If the wipe

sampling results indicate that PCB contamination is greater than 100 micrograms (µg) per 100

square centimeters, concrete core or chip sampling may be conducted to assess the presence of



PCBs within concrete surfaces. Concrete wipe and chip samples shall be analyzed for PCBs

using EPA Method 8082.

4.3.4.2 Soil Sampling

Former PCB Vault samples will be collected using direct-push and hand auger sampling

equipment at former Buildings 708 and 713. At each site, four stations will be located on the

north, south, east and west sides of the former foundation line. Soil sample groups, comprised of

three discreet sample locations, will be located at each station. Soil sampling is subject to

archeological monitoring when operating at locations outside of post-1945 fill or previously

disturbed construction areas, as indicated by the dig permit.

While sampling along the building foundation line, field crews shall examine the soil cores for

indications of backfill and disturbance from the building demolitions. The soil samples along the

foundation line shall be collected at depths below the former foundation footer to identify

downward migration of PCBs that may have occurred during previous releases. Soils will also

be sampled approximately 5 feet inside and outside of the foundation line at each of the four

stations at a depth of 2 feet bgs to evaluate lateral contaminant migration.

Since petroleum oils were often used in transformer oils, the four soil samples collected along

the foundation line shall be split in the field and undergo field screening analyses for both

petroleum constituents and PCBs. Field analyses include physical inspection, headspace

screening with PID and GC, IR Spectroscopic and UV Fluorometric analysis, electrochemical

conductivity analysis, and EnSys PCB soil test kits. Results of the field screening analysis will

be correlated to the laboratory data to evaluate usefulness of the techniques if remedial action is

needed.

Laboratory soil samples shall be analyzed for PCBs by EPA Method 8082. At least one soil

sample at each site will also be analyzed for physical parameters (total organic carbon, bulk

density and grain size distribution). A minimum of one field duplicate and one matrix

spike/matrix spike duplicate sample and one field duplicate sample shall be included with the

PCB sample sets.



All sample locations shall be located daily by land survey using a transit and stadia rod. Site

controls shall be tied to the nearest Kwajalein Island survey monuments, if possible, to provide

definite locations of all site sampling points.

4.3.4.3 Water Sampling

During the October 2009 site visit, the Sivuniq field survey crew observed standing water in the

excavation at Building 900. If standing water is again noted during the Building 900 site visit in

2010, the field sampling crew will collect a surface water sample to evaluate potential secondary

media impacts. The water shall be analyzed for PCBs by EPA Method 8082. A minimum of

one matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate sample and one field duplicate sample shall be included

with this sample set.

Table 4-5 provides a summary of the field activities for the PCB vault sites.



Table 4-5 Kwajalein PCB Vaults Field Activities Summary

Concrete Sampling

Sampling Equipment Wipe kits, star drill, hammer

Sampling Locations Wipe samples from smooth concrete surfaces; concrete chip samples from porous concrete surfaces

Floors at, and adjacent to, former PCB transformers and equipment that are suspected to have leaked

in Buildings 803, 1011 and 1017. Special consideration should be afforded to collecting wipe samples

at locations with visible oil staining.

Field Analyses None

Laboratory Analyses Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) by EPA Method 8082 – 8 oz wide mouth amber jar

Special notes Concrete chip sampling requires a minimum of 30 grams of material for analysis; provide sufficient

sample materials for analysis of the environmental sample and quality control samples, as needed.

Soil Sampling

Sampling Equipment Direct push rig, macro-core samplers, hand augers, stainless steel sampling spoons

Sampling Locations Four stations along the former foundation lines of Buildings 708 and 713

Three sampling locations at each station –

one located approximately 5 feet inside of the foundation line at 2’ bgs

one located approximately 5 feet outside of the foundation line at 2’ bgs

one on the foundation line at approximately 3-4’ bgs (just below former footer disturbance)

Field Analyses Petroleum headspace vapor screening with Mini-RAE 2000 photoionizing detector

Petroleum headspace vapor screening with PhotoVac Voyager field gas chromatograph

Petroleum in soil by physical examination, texture, smell and sheen screen

Petroleum in soil extraction/analysis with Wilks InfraCal CVH infrared spectrometer

Petroleum in soil extraction/analysis with SiteLab UVF-3100 ultraviolet fluorometer

PCBs in soil extraction/analysis with Dexsil L2000DX electrochemical detector

PCBs in soil extraction/analysis with EnSys immunoassay kits


Physical Characteristics – TOC (EPA Method 9060), Grain Size (D6913), and Density (D2937)

Water Sampling

Sampling Equipment

/ Technique

Direct grab (surface water)

Sampling Locations Surface water in Building 900 (if present)

Field Analyses None


Quality Control Field – field duplicate samples (1 in 10 samples, at least one per site)

Matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate samples (1 in 20 samples, at least one per site, collected from a

sample location presumed to contain detectable levels of contamination)



Notes of Special

Concern Archeological monitoring is required during intrusive coring and hand excavation activities

Solid wastes shall be bagged, secured and disposed properly on a daily basis

Hazardous wastes derived from field activities (field analytical extractions, aerosol cans, etc.)

must be properly accumulated and disposed according to installation requirements



4.4 Fuel Farm/Old Power Plant Fuel Line (Site CCKWAJ-006)

4.4.1 Site History

This industrial site consists of two principal components – a fuel storage tank farm and an

abandoned fuel pipeline. The tank farm, depicted on Figure 4-6, includes two distinct areas: a

main facility with 13 field-constructed aboveground storage tanks (ASTs) (for power plant and

aviation fuels), two of which are abandoned; and a smaller area that includes four abandoned

ASTs. Lined dikes provide secondary containment for the bulk fuel storage and all tanks have

inventory gauging and leak detection equipment. The Defense Energy Support Center (DESC)

capitalized the fuel farm in 2001. As such, the DESC currently owns the infrastructure and

product and provides funding for the operation and maintenance of the facility. USAKA

provides the direct operational support at the facility on behalf of DESC.

A preliminary records search yielded few construction details and as-built drawings on the

system. Recent spill reports suggest some of these tanks have leaked, but the amount of product

release cannot be accurately confirmed as some of the alleged release appears to be water from

the tank bottoms.

The old power plant fuel line site follows an approximate 6,000-foot route on the north side of

Lagoon Road, as shown on Figure 4-7. Records indicate that the pipeline operated between 1950

and 1995, delivering diesel fuel for electrical generation. After decommissioning, the power

plant was converted into a generator shop. The installation abandoned the former fuel line in

place; no available records indicate whether the line was purged and cleaned to remove

contained fuel. Anecdotal reports of product detections along the fuel line during construction

projects suggest that at least some fuel remained in the line or there were leaks/discharges during

operation of the line.


The preliminary records review indicates no previous investigations for the fuel farm facility.

Numerous construction activities encountered petroleum contamination in and around the fuel

line location, but there has been no known removal of contaminated soils.



Figure 4-7 Kwajalein Fuel Farm Site



Figure 4-8 Kwajalein Old Power Plant Fuel Line Site



In 1991, a team from the Oak Ridge National Laboratory performed a limited site

characterization in the areas around the desalination plant and the old power plant. The

fieldwork included six test pits (three in each area) and soil sampling. The sample analyses

included volatile and semivolatile organic compounds and total petroleum hydrocarbons.

Although no significant contamination was detected near the site of the desalination plant, the

power plant site provided notable diesel detection (8,920 ppm) at the groundwater interface (5.5

feet below ground surface).

In 1992, the Oak Ridge National Laboratory also performed a field evaluation of in situ and ex

situ bioremediation technologies. The demonstration project did not include site

characterization. The project demonstrated potential viability of the bioremediation approaches,

with ex situ methods providing relatively better results. Nutrient limitations (principally

phosphorus) and oxygen availability constrained the effectiveness of the treatments.

To date, no comprehensive investigation of the extent of contamination for the POL Yard and the

former pipeline has been performed.


Based on available information, primary contaminants include POLs. Table 4-6 summarizes the

preliminary CSM for the Kwajalein Fuel Farm and Old Power Plant Fuel Line site.








Table 4-6 Kwajalein Fuel Farm/Old Power Plant Fuel Line Conceptual Site Model

Model Element Input Rationale

Primary source Petroleum products Documented source

Primary Transport

Mechanism

Direct product discharge Release from storage tanks and abandoned

pipeline

Secondary source Soil Contamination from direct discharge

Secondary Transport

Mechanisms

Product migration from the release

point(s)


groundwater

Reported soil contamination at various locations

Suspected groundwater contamination at release

locations

Exposure Media Soil

Groundwater

Reported contamination in soil

Suspected contamination in groundwater



Inhalation of vapors

Ingestion of and contact with

groundwater


Current Receptors On-site operations personnel





Exposure Scenarios

Incidental soil ingestion and dermal contact with contaminated soil by on-site workers

Dermal contact with contaminated soil by on-site workers

Inhalation of vapors by on-site workers



Due to the lack of as-built documentation and construction details, the first order of business

includes identifying and locating the pipelines, valves, and associated equipment at the fuel farm

and along the pipeline. Excavation of pipeline segments at a number of locations allows

confirmation of the pipeline location and segment lengths. A survey of the system provides the

as-built detail.

Gas surveys of soils within the fuel farm and along the pipeline allow rapid location and

assessment of release points. Direct-push soil sampling and the installation of groundwater

monitoring points provide a similar rapid technique for direct assessment of the soil and

groundwater. Field screening analysis by a number of methods provides daily data updates to

managers and stakeholders in the office and dynamic sampling adjustments in the field.



Confirmation sampling at the release point provides characterization of the nature of the

contamination. Additional confirmation sampling at the contaminant horizon provides accurate

definition of the extent of contamination.

Surveying all screening and confirmation sampling points during data collection supports

accurate mapping of the sample locations, release points, and groundwater conditions. Any

breaches to the secondary containment liner inside the fuel farm will be repaired immediately to

ensure the operational viability of the containment system.

Chemical-specific concentrations in soil and groundwater at the release locations allow risk-

based screening for some COPCs. However, the EPA Region 9 PRG and RSL tables do not

provide risk-based screening criteria for petroleum products. Sivuniq intends to screen volatile

and extractable petroleum hydrocarbons against provisional risk-based criteria previously

presented in Table 3-5. These values, established by the Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon Working

Group (TPHWG), provide risk-based screening levels for volatile (i.e., gasoline-range) and

extractable (i.e., diesel-range) organic contaminants.

4.4.4.1 Soil-Gas Survey

The soil-gas survey, conducted in three phases, provides rapid assessment of potential release

points. Immediately outside the fuel farm, a coarse (nominal 100-foot) grid allows macro-level

assessment of the storage tanks and piping. A condensed (50-foot spacing) and refined (25-foot

spacing) grid, applied to locations of detected soil-gas vapors, allow the soil-gas survey to locate

specific release points with approximately 20 feet of resolution.

A similar soil-gas survey approach for the pipeline focuses on possible releases at pipeline joints.

Soil gas collection at 100-foot intervals will provide coarse evaluation of releases along the

pipeline and enable detection of vapor plumes within 50 feet of a release. A follow-up

(condensed and refined) survey grid with 50-foot spacing allows rapid assessment and location

of soil gas plumes within 25 feet of release points. The soil-gas data provide geometry and

location information to define the extent of contamination.




Using the soil gas mapping as a guide to define the extent of petroleum contamination at the

POL Yard and pipeline, the Sivuniq field team will use direct-push sampling equipment to

identify the location of the contaminant mass, extent of product migration, and contamination

horizon. The dual-tube sampling system will be used to collect continuous sample cores up to 8

feet bgs. The macro-core sampling system has a drive point insert that allows rapid sampling of

discreet sample intervals up to 8 feet bgs. Both sampling systems provide 48-inch long recovery

cores.

Soil samples undergo physical inspection, headspace screening with PID and GC, IR

Spectroscopic and UV Fluorometric analysis, Petroflag turbidimetric analysis, and RaPID Assay

immunoassay analysis for petroleum constituents. Results of the field screening analysis will

assist locating the extent product and the contaminant horizon. The data will also be correlated

to the laboratory data to evaluate usefulness of the techniques if remedial action is needed.

Laboratory soil samples shall be analyzed for VPH (EPA Method 8260 Modified), EPH (EPA

Method 8015 Modified) and PAH compounds (EPA Method 8270-SIM). At least one soil

sample at each discreet site will also be analyzed for physical parameters (total organic carbon,

bulk density and grain size distribution). A minimum of one field duplicate and one matrix

spike/matrix spike duplicate sample shall be included with the sample sets. Trip blanks shall

accompany all VPH sample containers.

4.4.4.3 Groundwater Sampling

The dual tube direct-push soil boring easily converts into a groundwater monitoring point by

installing a screened drive point or pre-packed monitoring well inside the boring probe prior to

removal. Each discreetly identified site will include groundwater sampling points at the

presumed upgradient, cross-gradient, and downgradient locations. Groundwater sample analyses

will include petroleum constituents and bioremediation indicators. If free product is noted within

a release area, at least one well point will be installed near the center of product mass to allow

measurement of the product thickness. Water level data at these locations will assist evaluation

of the groundwater flow characteristics.



4.4.4.4 Free Product Recovery

If free product is detected, a product removal system will be installed and operated once the

release area and the extent of free product is delineated. The removal system will be designed to

remove free product to the maximum extent practicable.

The recoverability of free product from the subsurface will depend on the lateral extent of the

free product, the thickness of accumulated free product, and continuity of the product within the

soil formation. Additional soil samples will be collected and submitted for bulk density, organic

carbon content, and particle size to aid in determining appropriate remedial options.

Table 4-7 provides a summary of the field sampling activities.



Table 4-7 Kwajalein Fuel Farm/Old Power Plant Fuel Line Field Activities Summary

Soil Gas

Sampling Equipment Direct push rig, PRT soil gas probes, peristaltic pump, Tedlar® bags

Sampling Locations Coarse sampling: 100’ interval along pipeline/POL Yard perimeter, probe inserted to depth of 3’bgs

Condensed sampling: 50’ interval surrounding perimeter of coarse sampling locations indicating vapor

contamination, probe inserted to depth of 3’bgs

Refined sampling: 25’ interval surrounding perimeter of condensed sampling locations indicating vapor contamination, probe inserted to depth of 3’bgs



Soil Sampling


Sampling Locations Nature of contamination: 3 locations near the center of contaminant (product) mass, samples at 3’ bgs

and at the groundwater interface

Extent of contamination: 12 locations radially distributed between the contaminant mass and the

horizon of detected contamination (as determined by soil field screening results), samples at 3’ bgs and groundwater interface or 6’ bgs (whichever is deeper)–at least four locations outside contamination

Field Analyses Petroleum headspace vapor screening with Mini-RAE 2000 photoionizing detector Petroleum headspace vapor screening with PhotoVac Voyager field gas chromatograph

Petroleum in soil by physical examination, texture, smell, sheen screen

Petroleum extraction/analysis with Wilks InfraCal CVH infrared spectrometer

Petroleum extraction/analysis with SiteLab UVF-3100 ultraviolet fluorometer

Petroleum extraction/analysis with Petroflag turbidimetric analyzer

Petroleum extraction/analysis with RaPID Assay immunoassay kits

Laboratory Analyses Volatile Petroleum Hydrocarbons (VPH) by EPA Method 8260 Mod – 2 oz wide mouth amber jar Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons (EPH) by EPA Method 8015 Mod – 8 oz wide mouth amber jar

Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH) by EPA Method 8270D-SIM - 8 oz wide mouth amber jar


(Note: EPH and PAH analyses can be obtained from a single 8 oz sample jar if needed by limited

sample recovery; separate sample containers should be provided for each analysis, if possible)

Groundwater Sampling (required only if petroleum contamination is indicated by soil field sample analyses)

Sampling Equipment Direct push rig, dual tube samplers, groundwater well piezometer, peristaltic pump, low flow method

Sampling Locations Up to four locations: (1) upgradient, (1) downgradient, and (1) laterally outside of the product plume; and (1) located at the center of product mass to allow product thickness measurement

Field Analyses Petroleum headspace vapor screening with PhotoVac Voyager field gas chromatograph

Petroleum in groundwater by physical examination (odor, sheen screen)


Laboratory Analyses Volatile Petroleum Hydrocarbons (VPH) by EPA Method 8015 Mod – 40 mL VOA vial

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) by EPA Method 8260B – 40 mL VOA vial

Ethylene Dibromide (EDB) by EPA Method 8011 – 40 mL VOA vial

Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons (EPH) by EPA Method 8015 Mod – 1 L wide mouth amber jar

Bioremediation indicator parameters [Nitrate, nitrite, ammonia, iron, manganese, sulfide, and chloride/fluoride/sulfate) – 3 each 250 mL HDPE and 1 each 500 mL HDPE bottles (see bottle spec)

Quality Control Field duplicate samples (1 in 10 samples, at least one per site)

Matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate samples (1 in 20 samples, at least one per site, collected from a sample location presumed to contain detectable levels of contamination)

Trip Blank (1 for each cooler containing VPH vials/samples)

Notes of Special

Concern

Survey sample locations with magnetometer prior to intrusive activities, avoid piping/anomalies

Archeological monitoring is required during intrusive coring and hand excavation activities

Identify all high concentration samples (containing product) on chain-of-custody forms

Survey locations of all sample locations by transit and rod at the end of each sampling day

Measure depth to groundwater (if sampled) after 24 hour equilibration allowance



4.5 Cold Storage Warehouse (Site CCKWAJ-007)

4.5.1 Site History

The former cold goods storage warehouse included former Building Numbers 610, 612, and 701.

The buildings, constructed in 1953, 1968, and 1951, respectively, were located toward the west

and central portion of Kwajalein Island near the lagoon side of the island.

Kwajalein Range Services Environmental Office staff identified chlordane contamination during

demolition of the cold storage warehouse buildings in 2004. Chlordane at this and other

locations is potentially contributing to the impacts identified at the Kwajalein Harbor.

Since the warehouse buildings were demolished, site surveying will be used to relocate the

former building foundations. Sivuniq field teams will establish site control and the office team

will use historic aerial photography and GIS tools to establish geometries for relocating the

foundations.


No previous investigations have been conducted at the Cold Storage Warehouse site.


Based on available information, primary contaminants include pesticides (chlordane). Table 4-8

summarizes the preliminary CSM for the Kwajalein Cold Storage Warehouse site.








Table 4-8 Kwajalein Cold Storage Warehouse Conceptual Site Model


Primary source Pesticide products Inferred source

Primary Transport

Mechanism Direct product discharge Use of pesticide by application

Secondary source Soil Contamination from direct application

Secondary Transport

Mechanisms


point(s)


groundwater


Suspected groundwater contamination at

application locations

Exposure Media Soil

Groundwater



Exposure Pathways










Exposure Scenarios





Initial field activities will use land surveying to locate the footprint of the former warehouse

structures. The building perimeter (corners) shall be marked to define the foundation lines.

Figure 4-9 presents the foundation lines and site perimeter of former cold storage warehouse.

Soil sample groups, comprised of three discreet samples, will be located at eight stations along

the former building foundation lines and collected using direct-push and hand auger sampling

equipment. The eight foundation stations include three locations each on the east and west sides

of the foundation, and one each on the north and south ends of the former building foundation.

Soil sampling is subject to archeological monitoring when operating at locations outside of post-

1945 fill and previously disturbed construction areas.



While sampling along the building foundation line, field crews shall examine the soil cores for

indications of backfill and disturbance from the 2004 building demolition. The soil samples

along the foundation line shall be collected at depths below the former foundation footer to

identify downward migration of pesticides that may have been directly applied to the foundation

walls. Soils will also be sampled approximately 5 feet inside and outside of the foundation line

at each of the eight stations at a depth of 2 feet bgs to evaluate lateral contaminant migration.

Soil samples from the (24) Cold Storage Warehouse sample locations shall be analyzed for

VPH/EPH (EPA Method 8015 Modified) and organochlorine pesticides (EPA Method 8081A).

A minimum of one matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate sample and two field duplicate samples

shall be included with this sample set. Trip blanks shall accompany all VPH sample containers.

The eight soil sample collected along the foundation line shall be split in the field and undergo

field screening analyses for petroleum constituents and pesticides (chlordane). Petroleum

constituent field analyses include headspace screening with PID and GC, IR Spectroscopic and

UV Fluorometric analysis, turbidimetry with PetroFLAG® kits, and immunoassay with

BTEX/TPH RaPID Assay kits. Chlordane field analysis includes electrochemical analysis with

the Dexsil L2000DX and immunoassay with the EnSys Chlordane in Soil test kit. Results of the

field screening analysis will be correlated to the laboratory data to evaluate usefulness of the

techniques if remedial action is needed.

If chlordane or hydrocarbon is detected in soil screening sample analyses, a temporary

groundwater monitoring drive point will be installed and confirmation groundwater samples

collected at up to four of stations to evaluate potential impacts to the groundwater resource.

Samples collected with a peristaltic pump and low-flow sampling techniques shall be analyzed

for VPH/EPH (EPA Method 8015 Modified) and organochlorine pesticides (EPA Method

8081A). A minimum of one matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate sample and two field duplicate

samples shall be included with this sample set. Trip blanks shall accompany the VPH samples

containers. The sample locations shall be located at the end of each day by surveying using a

transit and stadia rod. Site controls shall be tied to the nearest Kwajalein Island survey

monuments, if possible, to provide definite locations of all site sampling points. Table 4-7

provides a summary of field activities.



Table 4-9 Kwajalein Cold Storage Warehouse Field Activities Summary

Soil Sampling


Sampling Locations Eight stations along the former foundation line of the Cold Storage Warehouse

Three sampling locations at each station –

one located approximately 5 feet inside of the foundation line at 2’ bgs

one located approximately 5 feet outside of the foundation line at 2’ bgs

one on the foundation line at approximately 3-4’ bgs (just below former footer disturbance)







Petroleum extraction/analysis with BTEX/TPH RaPID Assay immunoassay kits

Pesticides extraction/analysis with EnSys Chlordane in Soil immunoassay kits

Pesticides extraction/analysis with Dexsil L2000DX electrochemical detector

Laboratory Analyses Volatile Petroleum Hydrocarbons (VPH) by EPA Method 8015 Mod – 2 oz wide mouth amber jar

Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons (EPH) by EPA Method 8015 Mod – 8 oz wide mouth amber jar

Organochlorine Pesticides by EPA Method 8081A – 8 oz wide mouth amber jar


(Note: EPH and Pesticide analyses can be obtained from a single 8 oz sample jar if needed by limited


Groundwater Sampling (required only if petroleum or pesticides are indicated by soil field sample analyses)


Sampling Locations Up to four locations along former foundation line where field analysis of soils indicate contamination

Field Analyses Petroleum headspace vapor screening with PhotoVac Voyager field gas chromatograph

Petroleum in groundwater by physical examination (smell, sheen screen)


Pesticides extraction/analysis with Dexsil L2000DX electrochemical detector

Laboratory Analyses Volatile Petroleum Hydrocarbons (VPH) by EPA Method 8015 Mod – 40 mL VOA vial


Organochlorine Pesticides by EPA Method 8081A – 1 L wide mouth amber jar


Matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate samples (1 in 20 samples, at least one per site, collected from a

sample location presumed to contain detectable levels of contamination)

Trip Blank (1 for each cooler containing VPH bottles/samples)



Notes of Special

Concern Survey sample locations with magnetometer prior to intrusive activities, avoid anomalies


All sample locations surveyed by transit and rods at the end of each sampling day

Depth to groundwater (if sampled) measurements taken after 24 hour equilibration allowance

Manage all IDW (solid waste, wastewater, and hazard wastes) according to installation

requirements



Figure 4-9 Kwajalein Cold Storage Warehouse Site



4.6 Roi Power Plant Fuel Spill (Site CCKWAJ-003)

4.6.1 Site History

This Roi-Namur site is the POL storage area for the power plant (Facility 8046). A large diesel

fuel oil release of approximately 22,500 gallons occurred at one of the two power plant ASTs on

January 30, 1996. The 350,000-gallon AST (#1) was overfilled because the available tank

volume was erroneously calculated and, because of a faulty level sensing system, the release was

not noticed until the tank was full (RSE, 2001a). At the time of the release, there was no

secondary containment around the POL tanks (although a secondary containment has since been

added). The fuel release occurred at the overflow pipe at the base of the tank. Figure 4-10

presents the Roi-Namur Power Plant Fuel Spill site.

When the release was discovered, attempts were made to stop the flow. Emergency response

teams recovered approximately 8,550 gallons of fuel within six days of the spill. Approximately

13,050 gallons of fuel was recovered within the next four months (RSE, 2001). Reports indicate

that about 14,625 gallons of fuel percolated into the porous coral rock and was assumed to be

migrating away from the source of the spill that was immediately adjacent to the storage tank.

In the 2001 restoration report, it was noted that no humans inhabit the spill site and that no viable

pathways of exposure exist. Product removal from the groundwater is reportedly feasible

because of the fine- to coarse-grained calcareous sands, relatively shallow depth to groundwater,

somewhat predictable tides, and constant temperatures, which facilitate the remediation process.


Initial recovery efforts included recovering free product from trenches, and the recovery

operations continued throughout 1996 at primarily one of the trenches where the majority of the

free product had accumulated. In addition to the trenches, four wells were installed with

skimmers to recover product. One of the wells continued to operate until March 1997, when

recovery operations ceased for unknown reasons.



Figure 4-10 Roi Power Plant Fuel Spill Site



Historical contamination from previous activities at the site had become apparent during the

recovery operations because of the weathered product that was being recovered. The 2001 RSE

report indicates pipeline monitoring during transfer operations because of previous leaks that had

occurred that required rapid response to keep the product from entering the lagoon. Also, this

report suggests it was common practice to dispose of engine crank oil, solvents, contaminated

fuel, and petroleum sludge in an unlined pit adjacent to the site of the 1996 diesel fuel oil spill.

The amount of fuel recovered was significantly less than the amount suspected of being spilled.

Soil and groundwater are known to be contaminated; however, no sheen, staining, or other

evidence of contamination has been visually seen in the lagoon or ocean.


Based on available information, primary contaminants include POL constituents. Table 4-10

summarizes the preliminary CSM for the Roi Power Plant Fuel Spill site.







Due to the lack of as-built documentation and construction details, the first order of business

includes identifying and locating the pipelines, valves, and associated equipment at the Roi

Power Plant. A survey of the system provides the as-built detail.

A soil-gas survey within and immediately around the power plant allows rapid location and

assessment of the impacted area. Direct-push soil sampling and groundwater monitoring point

installation provides a similar rapid assessment technique for direct assessment of the soil and

groundwater. Field screening analysis by a number of methods provides daily data updates to

managers and stakeholders in the office and dynamic sampling adjustments in the field.



Table 4-10 Roi Power Plant Fuel Spill Conceptual Site Model


Primary Source Petroleum products Documented source

Primary Transport

Mechanism Direct product discharge

Release from storage tanks and abandoned

pipeline

Secondary Source Soil Contamination from direct discharge

Secondary Transport

Mechanisms


point(s)


groundwater



locations

Exposure Media Soil

Groundwater



Exposure Pathways




Ingestion of and contact with

groundwater







Exposure Scenarios

Incidental soil ingestion and dermal contact with contaminated soil by on-site workers and

future residents


Inhalation of vapors by on-site workers and future residents

Contaminated groundwater use by future residents

Confirmation sampling within the most impacted area provides characterization of the nature of

the contamination. Additional confirmation sampling at the contaminant horizon provides

accurate definition of the extent of contamination.


accurate mapping of the sample locations, release points, and groundwater conditions. Any

breaches to the secondary containment liner shall be repaired immediately to ensure the

operational viability of the containment system.

Chemical-specific concentrations in soil and groundwater at the release locations allow risk-

based screening for some COPCs. However, the EPA PRG/RSL tables do not provide risk-based

screening criteria for petroleum products. Sivuniq intends to screen volatile and extractable



petroleum hydrocarbons against provisional risk-based criteria established by the TPHWG for

gasoline-range and diesel-range organic contaminants.


A soil-gas survey, conducted in three phases, provides rapid assessment of potential release

points. Inside and adjacent to the power plant, a coarse (nominal 100-foot) grid allows macro-

level assessment of the storage tanks and piping. A condensed (50-foot spacing) and refined (25-

foot spacing) grid, applied to locations of detected soil-gas vapors, allow the soil-gas survey to

locate specific release points with approximately 20 feet of resolution.


Using the soil gas mapping as a guide to define the extent of petroleum contamination at the Roi

Power Plant site, the Sivuniq field team will use direct-push sampling equipment to identify the

location of the contaminant mass, extent of product migration, and contamination horizon. The

dual-tube sampling system will be used to collect continuous sample cores up to 8 feet bgs. The

macro-core sampling system has a drive point insert that allows rapid sampling of discreet

sample intervals up to 8 feet bgs. Both sampling systems provide 48-inch long recovery cores.

Soil samples undergo physical inspection, headspace screening with PID and GC, IR

Spectroscopic and UV Fluorometric analysis, Petroflag turbidimetric analysis, and RaPID Assay

immunoassay analysis for petroleum constituents. Results of the field screening analysis will

assist locating the extent product and the contaminant horizon. The data will also be correlated

to the laboratory data to evaluate usefulness of the techniques if remedial action is needed.

Laboratory soil samples shall be analyzed for VPH (EPA Method 8260 Modified), EPH (EPA

Method 8015 Modified) and PAH compounds (EPA Method 8270-SIM). At least one soil

sample at each discreet site will also be analyzed for physical parameters (total organic carbon,

bulk density and grain size distribution). A minimum of one field duplicate and one matrix

spike/matrix spike duplicate sample shall be included with the sample sets. Trip blanks shall

accompany all VPH sample containers.




The dual tube direct-push soil boring easily converts into a groundwater monitoring point by

installing a screened drive point or pre-packed monitoring well inside the boring probe prior to

removal. Each discreetly identified site will include groundwater sampling points at the

presumed upgradient, cross-gradient, and downgradient locations. If free product is noted within

the release area, up to five well points will be installed near the center of product mass to allow

measurement of the product thickness. Water level data at these locations will assist evaluation

of the groundwater flow characteristics.

4.6.1.4 Free Product Recovery

A free product removal system will be installed and operated once the release area and the extent

of free product is delineated. The removal system will be designed to remove free product to the

maximum extent practicable. The fuel product at the site consists of diesel fuel, a light non-

aqueous-phase liquid (LNAPLs) that floats on the groundwater surface.

The recoverability of free product from the subsurface will depend on the lateral extent of the

free product, the thickness of accumulated free product, and continuity of the product within the

soil formation. Additional soil samples will be collected and submitted for bulk density, organic

carbon content, and particle size to aid in determining appropriate remedial options.

Table 4-11 provides a summary of the field sampling activities.



Table 4-11 Roi Power Plant POL Spill Field Activities Summary

Soil Gas


Sampling Locations Coarse sampling: 100’ interval along POL Yard perimeter, probe inserted to depth of 3’bgs

Condensed sampling: 50’ interval surrounding perimeter of coarse sampling locations indicating vapor contamination, probe inserted to depth of 3’bgs




Soil Sampling


Sampling Locations Nature of contamination: Up to10 locations near the center of contaminant (product) mass, samples at

3’ bgs and at the groundwater interface

Extent of contamination: Perimeter locations radially distributed between the contaminant mass and

the horizon of detected contamination (as determined by soil field screening results), samples at 3’

bgs and groundwater interface or 6’ bgs (whichever is deeper)–at least 30% of perimeter locations

must be outside of area of contamination to accurately define the extent of contamination















Sampling Locations Up to four locations: (1) upgradient, (1) downgradient, and (1) laterally outside of the product plume;

and (1) located at the center of product mass to allow product thickness measurement

Field Analyses Petroleum headspace vapor screening with PhotoVac Voyager field gas chromatograph Petroleum in groundwater by physical examination (odor, sheen screen)


Laboratory Analyses Volatile Petroleum Hydrocarbons (VPH) by EPA Method 8015 Mod – 40 mL VOA vial Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) by EPA Method 8260B – 40 mL VOA vial







Notes of Special

Concern








4.7 Drinking Water Well 8151 PCE/TCE (Roi-Namur) (Site CCKWAJ-008)

4.7.1 Site History

A drinking water lens well (Well 8151) located on the western central portion of the island of

Roi-Namur is contaminated with tetrachloroethene (PCE) and its breakdown products,

trichloroethene (TCE), and dichloroethene (DCE) isomers. Figure 4-11 presents the Roi-Namur

Drinking Water Well 8151 PCE/TCE site location. PCE and TCE were detected in Well 8151 at

concentrations almost three times greater than the EPA maximum contaminant levels (MCLs).

Well 8151 had been unused because of the solvent contamination, but a December 2008 storm

contaminated all six of the remaining lens wells with salt water. Well 8151 was used as a raw

water source during 2009 for drinking water; dilution with rainwater or brackish water attains

MCLs and allows its use. A reverse osmosis treatment system has since been added to the Roi-

Namur drinking water treatment facility to allow it to treat brackish water.

Based on information provided in a Groundwater Contamination Study (USAEHA, 1991), Well

8151 includes three radially-oriented catchment structures that extend 300 feet out from the well

house. The source location(s) of solvent contamination is currently unknown, but suspicion

focuses on two former Facilities, Operations, and Maintenance (FOM) buildings that are located

immediately east (upgradient) of Well 8151 and within the presumed lens radius.

Historical photographs indicated that the Well 8151 area and upgradient locations were used for

aircraft maintenance activities during and after World War II. Well 8151 is currently located

within the Roi-Namur golf course and is immediately southwest of FOM Building 8376. South

of FOM Building 8376 is a vacant concrete pad that appears to be a former building foundation.

Records search activities need to be completed to determine the previous use of this pad. Source

areas for the solvent contamination in the aquifer are suspected to be associated with FOM

Building 8376, the vacant concrete pad, or upgradient aircraft maintenance activities.


No previous investigations have been conducted in the vicinity of the Well 8151 site.



Figure 4-11 Roi-Namur Drinking Water Well 8151 PCE/TCE Site




Based on available information, primary contaminants include chlorinated volatile organic

constituents. Table 4-12 summarizes the preliminary CSM for the Roi-Namur Drinking Water

Well 8151 PCE/TCE site.

Table 4-12 Roi-Namur Drinking Water Well 8151 PCE/TCE Conceptual Site Model


Primary source Chlorinated solvents Presumed source

Primary Transport

Mechanism Direct product discharge Presumed release from improper disposal


Secondary Transport

Mechanisms


point(s)


groundwater

Presumed soil contamination

Reported groundwater contamination at drinking

water well

Exposure Media Soil

Groundwater

Suspected contamination in soil

Reported contamination in groundwater

Exposure Pathways











Exposure Scenarios


and future residents



Contaminated groundwater use by on-site workers









Using existing data indicating PCE and TCE contamination at the location of Well 8151, Sivuniq

intends to use direct-push equipment to install a series of soil-gas and groundwater well points

outward in a radial pattern from this location to track the soil-gas and groundwater contamination

plume. Field portable gas chromatographic analysis of groundwater sample headspace from

these well points facilitates definition of the contamination plumes. Higher contaminant

concentrations, presumed to be closer to the release point, also allow identification of the source

area. After completing plume delineation and source location, several of the drive points will be

converted to groundwater monitoring wells, and the soils at the source area will be sampled to

provide information about the nature and extent of contamination.


A grid will be set up in the vicinity of Well 8151. Temporary drive-point screens will be installed

systematically within the grid, and a passive soil-gas survey will be conducted. Soil-gas samples

collected at the origin provide a basis for operational performance. The initial (coarse) grid

spacing of 100 feet is used within a 300-foot radius of the well to capture the extent of the soil-

gas plume. Subsequent (refined) grid spacing of 50 feet and 25 feet provides plume mapping

within a 20-foot horizon. The soil-gas survey targets the subsurface soils immediately above the

water table as a likely accumulation basin for the chlorinated solvent vapors.


Groundwater samples will be collected from the temporary drive-point wells screened at depths

that approximate the depth of the catchment trenches that feed Well 8151 (about 10 to 15 feet

bgs). The groundwater well points will be sited in a manner identical to the approach used in the

soil-gas survey. Sivuniq field chemists will perform field portable gas chromatographic analysis

of the groundwater sample headspace to identify contamination in the field; these samples are

also sent to a contract laboratory for volatile organic compounds analysis (EPA Method 8260)

for verification. The objective of this survey is to provide the location and site five permanent

well points that surround the likely source of observed solvent contamination.




The soil-gas survey and groundwater screening data will direct the soil sampling efforts to

discreetly identified source area(s). Direct-push equipment using macro-core and/or dual-tube

soil sampling tolls will allow rapid sampling and enable sampling of the entire soil horizon.

Since the presumed contaminant source is a dense non-aqueous phase liquid (DNAPL), the

sampling strategy will involve continuous soil sampling from the surface to refusal at the

bedrock interface.

Soil samples will be collected and field screened at four-foot intervals using field gas

chromatography and PID. The soil sample intervals exhibiting the highest headspace vapor

concentrations (via field portable gas chromatography) will be analyzed at an off-site laboratory

as confirmation samples to evaluate the nature of the contamination. The extent of contamination

shall be ascertained by selecting confirmation soil samples from borings exhibiting the lowest

(nondetect) headspace vapor concentrations that are nearest to the horizontal limits of detected

contamination. Optimal separation distances for these “clean” locations should not exceed 20

feet from other “contaminated” locations. Table 4-13 provides a summary of the field activities

for the Well 8151 site.

The operational importance of Well 8151 to the Roi-Namur facility makes removal of identified

contamination sources an integral part of the project. If the source or sources are identified,

reasonable efforts shall be undertaken to remove contaminated materials as part of an interim

removal action. Sivuniq intends to develop a Removal Action Memorandum (RAM), pursuant

to UES Section 3-6.5.8(g), to preemptively address this contingency. The RAM documents, to

the extent available, the information about the nature of the source materials, provides a baseline

engineering evaluation/cost analysis, and details related to the sampling, analysis, and quality

assurance objectives.

Conceptually, the removal action will involve excavating contaminated soils, installing a

treatment system to address residual contamination (as needed), and treating or disposing the

generated wastes. It is premature to provide specific details of the effort without additional

supporting data.



Table 4-13 Roi-Namur Drinking Water Well 8151 Field Activities Summary

Soil Gas


Sampling Locations Coarse sampling: 100’ grid centers surrounding Well 8151, probe inserted to depth of 3’bgs





Groundwater Sampling

Sampling Equipment Direct push rig, macro-core samplers, groundwater well piezometer, peristaltic pump









Soil Sampling

Sampling Equipment Direct push rig, macro-core samplers, dual-tube samplers, stainless steel sampling spoons

Sampling Locations Nature of contamination: At least 3 locations near the center of detected contaminant mass, screening

samples every 4’to maximum depth of 16’or refusal, confirmation samples from highest screening

results

Extent of contamination: Perimeter locations radially distributed between the presumed source location

and the horizon of detected contamination (as determined by field GC results), samples screened

every 4’to maximum depth of 16’or refusal

Note: at least 50% of perimeter locations must be outside of area of contamination to accurately

define the extent of contamination

Field Analyses VOCs vapor screening with Mini-RAE 2000 photoionizing detector VOCs vapor screening with PhotoVac Voyager field gas chromatograph

VOCs in soil by physical examination, texture, smell, sheen screen

Laboratory Analyses Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) by EPA Method 8260B – 2 oz wide mouth amber jar Physical Characteristics – TOC (EPA Method 9060), Grain Size (D6913), and Density (D2937)




Notes of Special

Concern








4.8 Carlos Power Plant (Site CCKWAJ-004)

4.8.1 Site History

The Carlos Power Plant was the power plant for telemetry stations located on Ennylabegan (also

known as Carlos) Island. The plant operated for many years and discharged oily water to what

was believed to have been a functioning oil/water separator (OWS). The OWS, it turns out, may

have never been installed, and oily water was discharged directly into a dry well. During an

attempt to create a pond for turtles, POL contamination was discovered, and since then,

contamination has been observed in nearby excavated soils. Another potential source of

contamination is the subsurface fuel line extending from the pier to the power plant fuel tank.


No previous investigations occurred at the Carlos Power Plant.



summarizes the preliminary CSM for the Carlos Power Plant Fuel Spill site.

Table 4-14 Carlos Power Plant Fuel Spill Conceptual Site Model



Primary Transport

Mechanism

Direct product discharge Release from storage tanks and abandoned

pipeline

Secondary source Soil

Contamination from direct discharge

Secondary Transport

Mechanisms


point(s)


groundwater



locations

Exposure Media Soil

Groundwater












On-site (construction) workers USAKA and contractor personnel are potentially


Future Receptors Residents Future land and groundwater use by Marshallese


Exposure Scenarios


and future residents


Inhalation of vapors by on-site workers and future residents

Contaminated groundwater use by future residents







After locating and surveying the pipelines and site features, a soil-gas survey within the

investigation area allows rapid location and assessment of the impacted area. Direct-push soil

sampling and installation of groundwater monitoring points provide a similar rapid assessment

technique for direct assessment of the soil and groundwater. Field screening analysis by a

number of methods provides daily data updates to managers and stakeholders in the office and

dynamic sampling adjustments in the field. Confirmation sampling within the most impacted

area provides characterization of the nature of the contamination. Additional confirmation

sampling at the contaminant horizon provides accurate definition of the extent of contamination.


accurate mapping of the sample locations, release points, and groundwater conditions.

Since the EPA PRG/RSL tables do not provide risk-based screening criteria for petroleum

products, Sivuniq intends to screen volatile and extractable petroleum hydrocarbons against

provisional risk-based criteria established by the TPHWG for gasoline-range and diesel-range

organic contaminants.






level assessment of the OWS discharge dry well and piping. A refined (25-foot spacing) soil-gas

survey grid, applied to locations of detected soil-gas vapors, allows location of specific release

points with approximately 20 feet of resolution.


Soil sampling with a direct-push system and dual-tube samplers provides efficient, complete soil

sampling from ground surface to water table in a single push. Determination of product at the

identified release points, provided by direct product screening (sheen screen test) and field

analysis (UVF and others previously identified), accurately defines the extent of product around

the release point. Confirmation sampling of soil within the product plume and at the

contaminant horizon provides accurate characterization of the nature and extent of

contamination. The analytical data provides well-defined locations and volume of contaminated

soil requiring remedial action.


The direct-push soil boring easily converts into a groundwater monitoring point by installing a

(temporary) screened drive point or (semipermanent) prepacked monitoring well inside the

boring probe prior to removal. A network of groundwater sampling points at the presumed

downgradient edge of the contaminant horizon characterizes the dissolved-phase plume. Water

level data collection at these locations assists evaluation of the hydrologic site characteristics.

Table 4-15 provides a summary of proposed field activities. Figure 4-12 presents the Carlos

Power Plant site location.



Table 4-15 Carlos Power Plant Field Activities Summary

Soil Gas


Sampling Locations Coarse sampling: 100’ interval along POL pipeline, probe inserted to depth of 3’bgs





Soil Sampling


Sampling Locations Nature of contamination: For each release point, at least 3 locations near the center of contaminant

(product) mass, samples at 3’ bgs and at the groundwater interface






























Notes of Special

Concern








Figure 4-12 Carlos Power Plant Site



4.9 Gagan Power Plant Fuel Spill (Site CCKWAJ-009)

4.9.1 Site History

The Gagan Power Plant Fuel Spill site is located on Gagan Island in Kwajalein Atoll. The

Gagan Power Plant is not permanently manned, and telemetry equipment is remotely operated.

The site is the location of an approximately 5,000-gallon diesel spill that occurred in February

2006. Figure 4-13 presents the Gagan Power Plant site location.


A periodic maintenance crew arrived at the power plant on March 1, 2006, and discovered the

fuel release caused by a ruptured pressure gauge. Spill response activities were initiated, but

were hampered by building foundations, utility lines, and hardpan. The excavated soil was land-

farmed for over a year at an area immediately northwest of the spill site. No known site

characterization activities have been conducted.



summarizes the preliminary CSM for the Gagan Power Plant Fuel Spill site.








Figure 4-13 Gagan Power Plant Site



Table 4-16 Gagan Power Plant Fuel Spill Conceptual Site Model



Primary Transport

Mechanism Direct product discharge Release from power plant pressure gauge


Secondary Transport

Mechanisms


point(s) Reported soil contamination at various locations

Exposure Media Soil Reported contamination in soil

Exposure Pathways










Exposure Scenarios





After locating and surveying the pipelines and site features, a soil-gas survey within the

investigation area allows rapid location and assessment of the impacted area. Direct-push soil

sampling and installation of groundwater monitoring points provide a similar rapid assessment

technique for direct assessment of the soil and groundwater. Field screening analysis by a

number of methods provides daily data updates to managers and stakeholders in the office and

dynamic sampling adjustments in the field. Confirmation sampling within the most impacted

area provides characterization of the nature of the contamination. Additional confirmation

sampling at the contaminant horizon provides accurate definition of the extent of contamination.


accurate mapping of the sample locations, release points, and groundwater conditions.

Since the EPA PRG/RSL tables do not provide risk-based screening criteria for petroleum

products, Sivuniq intends to screen volatile and extractable petroleum hydrocarbons against

provisional risk-based criteria established by the TPHWG for gasoline-range and diesel-range

organic contaminants.






level assessment of the discharge point. A refined (25-foot spacing) soil-gas survey grid, applied

to locations of detected soil-gas vapors, allows location of the contaminant horizon with

approximately 20 feet of resolution.


Soil sampling with a direct-push system and dual-tube samplers (if needed) provides efficient,

complete soil sampling from ground surface to water table in a single push. Determination of

product at the identified release points, provided by direct product screening (sheen screen test)

and field analysis (UVF and others previously identified), accurately defines the extent of

product around the release point. Confirmation sampling of soil within the product plume and at

the contaminant horizon provides accurate characterization of the nature and extent of

contamination. The analytical data provides well-defined locations and volume of contaminated

soil requiring remedial action.


Groundwater is not considered a potential media of concern. Previous response activities did not

encounter groundwater during response activities; the soil excavations encountered intact

hardpan at a depth of approximately 3 feet bgs.



Table 4-17 Gagen Power Plant Field Activities Summary

Soil Gas

Sampling Equipment Direct push rig or slide hammer, PRT soil gas probes, peristaltic pump, Tedlar® bags

Sampling Locations Coarse sampling: 100’ interval along POL pipeline, probe inserted to depth of 3’bgs

Condensed sampling: 50’ interval surrounding perimeter of coarse sampling locations indicating vapor

contamination, probe inserted to depth of 3’bgs

Refined sampling: 25’ interval surrounding perimeter of condensed sampling locations indicating

vapor contamination, probe inserted to depth of 3’bgs



Soil Sampling

Sampling Equipment Direct push rig, macro-core samplers, or hand augers, stainless steel sampling spoons

Sampling Locations Nature of contamination: For each release point, at least 3 locations near the center of contaminant

(product) mass, samples at 3’ bgs and at the groundwater interface





Field Analyses Petroleum headspace vapor screening with Mini-RAE 2000 photoionizing detector Petroleum headspace vapor screening with PhotoVac Voyager field gas chromatograph









(Note: EPH and PAH analyses can be obtained from a single 8 oz sample jar if needed by limited sample recovery; separate sample containers should be provided for each analysis, if possible)




Notes of Special

Concern








5.0 REFERENCES

Advanced Sciences, Incorporated (ASI, 1991). Final Technical Report, Marine Heavy Metals

Study, U.S. Army Kwajalein Atoll. February 1991.

Global Associates (Global, 1980). Groundwater Resources of Kwajalein Island, Marshall

Islands; Technical Report No. 126; University of Hawaii at Manoa. January 1980.

Guam Environmental Protection Agency (Guam EPA, 2008). Evaluation of Environmetnal

Hazards at Sites with Contaminated Soil and Groundwater. October 2008 update.

Kwajalein Range Services (KRS, 2004). PCB Vault Contamination. Transmittal -05-0010 to

SMDC, November 24, 2004.

Kwajalein Range Services (KRS, 2008). Analysis of Existing Facilities, U.S. Army Kwajalein

Atoll Marshall Islands. July 2008.

Raytheon Service Company Range Systems Engineering (RSE, 2001). Preliminary Assessment

for Remediation of PCB Vault 713. July 5, 2001.

Raytheon Service Company Range Systems Engineering (RSE, 2001a). Restoration Report – Roi

Namur Power Plant Diesel Spill. July 17, 2001.

Raytheon Service Company Range Systems Engineering (RSE, 2001b). Restoration Report –

Transformer Facility 900. June 29, 2001.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE, 1989). Engineering and Design - Environmental

Engineering for Coastal Shore Protection. Publication No. EM 1110-2-1204. July 10,

1989.

U.S. Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine (CHPPM, 2003). Updated

Position Paper: Release Determination Kwajalein Landfill, USAKA, Release

Determination Group. May 2003.



U.S. Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine (CHPPM, 2006).

Geohydrologic Study No. 38-EH-7415-05, Groundwater Monitoring at Landfills,

USAKA, RMI 26 April – 7 May, 2005. September 2006.

U.S. Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine (CHPPM, 2009). Draft

Kwajalein Harbor Release Area Preliminary Assessment/Site Inspection, USAKA, RMI.

July 2009.

U.S. Army Environmental Center (USAEC, 2002). Federal Remediation Technologies

Roundtable Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide. Version

4.0. http://www.frtr.gov/matrix2/. January 2002.

U.S. Army Environmental Hygiene Agency (USAEHA, 1991). Soil and Groundwater

Contamination Study No. 38-26-K144-91 Kwajalein Atoll. October 1990 – August 1991.

U.S. Army Kwajalein Atoll (USAKA, 2009). Environmental Standards and Procedures for

United States Army Kwajalein Atoll (USAKA) Activities in the Republic of the Marshall

Islands. Eleventh Edition, September 2009.


Kwajalein Atoll/Reagan Test Site A-1 October 2010

Annex 1 Field Sampling Plan


Kwajalein Atoll/Reagan Test Site A-2 October 2010



Kwajalein Atoll/Reagan Test Site B-1 October 2010

Annex 2 Quality Assurance Project Plan


Kwajalein Atoll/Reagan Test Site B-2 October 2010



Kwajalein Atoll/Reagan Test Site C-1 October 2010

Annex 3 Site Safety and Health Plan


Kwajalein Atoll/Reagan Test Site C-2 October 2010



Kwajalein Atoll/Reagan Test Site D-1 October 2010

Annex 4 Archaeological Monitoring Plan (Kwaj-10-52)


Kwajalein Atoll/Reagan Test Site D-2 October 2010


Documents

Site Investigation of Nine Sites at the U.S. Army ...usagkacleanup.info/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/FINAL_Kwaj_Work_Pl… · Final 2010 Site Investigation Work Plan Sivuniq, Inc. Kwajalein