hwbdocuments.env.nm.gov AFB/KAFB1612.pdf · alpha/beta (9310), organophosphorous pesticides (8190),...

'

377 ABW/EMR

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE HEADQUARTERS 377TH AIR BASE WING (AFMC)

2000 Wyoming Blvd SE Kirtland AFB NM 87117-5659

Ms. Nancy Morlock, Environmental Engineer RCRA Permits Branch U.S. EPA Region 6 1445 Ross Ave, Ste 1200 Dallas TX 75202-2733

Dear Ms. Morlock

. ..

~ Elf

3 May 1995

Enclosed are two courtesy copies of the Kirtland AFB RFI Appendix V, Stage 2E, Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP), which outlines the sampling and analysis Brown & Root Environmental will conduct at Stage 2E sites. Brown & Root will conduct field activities according to the EPA-approved Appendix III Health and Safety, Project Management, and Data Collection Quality Assurance plans.

The SAP contains the following variations we feel are necessary to adequately conduct this investigation:

a. Brown & Root will not collect background samples during the investigation, except at DP-67, Three Mine Shafts. They will use background sampling results from previous investigations conducted at Kirtland to establish background levels. These results will be included in the ~tage 2E RFI report.

b. Brown & Root will collect surface soil samples at SWMU ST-66, Trestle Facility, using a Geoprobe versus performing angle borings. They will core the concrete bottoms of the vehicle and aircraft pits, and collect soil samples directly beneath the pits. These methods allow direct access to the soils immediately beneath the pits.

c. At SWMU LF-56, Landfill D, Brown & Root will analyze samples for VOCs (8240), SVOCs (8270), pesticides/PCBs (8080), metals (7000 series), TPH (8015), gross alpha/beta (9310), organophosphorous pesticides (8190), herbicides (8150), dioxins/ furans (8280), and explosives (8330). These analyses provide a mechanism for obtaining a broad chemical characterization of each sample; they will include many chemical compounds on the Appendix VIII list and provide sufficient chemical data for site characterization.

KAFB1612

I\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ Ill\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ II\\ 1\\1

"'1111;1 t IQ! .. UMlll,QIJlil\$(,,i4U.1111.;tliili.i. iiAlliii.4 14 :;;::µcnqz:q;;z;;:;;;:;::e:;;;;44 :q;;:::rn:;u;µ::4;: 411::1:ue:1::4:4;4;a;1: li U"II 1.,,..,

LIBRJ.~RY COPY

l:N.STALLATION RESTO!tiit,:. / STAGE'2E RCRA FACILITI:. ··, .. ·

FIN&·, .. ·. ·, SAMPLING AND ... ;.••.ltvSll··.flitl ·. :

:·' ~ ' ; . ' ~· '

STAGE2E

RCRA FACILITY INVESTIGATION (RFI)

SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PLAN

KIRTLAND AIR FORCE BASE ALBUQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO

MAY 1995

PREPARED FOR HQ AFCEE/ES

ENVIRONMENT AL SERVICES DIRECTORATE BROOKS AFB, TX 78235-5328

DSN: 240-4482

USAF CONTRACT NO. F33615-90-D-4011

COMM: (210) 536-4482

DELIVERY ORDER NO. 0022

PREPARED BY HALLIBURTON NUS CORPORATION ALBUQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO 87106

NOTICE

This report has been prepared for the United States Air Force by Halliburton NUS Corporation for the purpose of aiding in the implementation of a final remedial action plan under the Air Force Installation Restoration Program (IRP). As the report relates to actual or possible releases of potentially hazardous substances, its release prior to an Air Force final decision on remedial action may be in the public's interest. The limited objectives of this report and the ongoing nature of the IRP, along with the evolving knowledge of site conditions and chemical effects on the environment and health, must be considered when evaluating this report, since subsequent facts may become known which may make this report premature or inaccurate.

Copies of this report may be purchased from:

Government agencies and their contractors registered with the Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC) should direct requests for copies of this report to: Defense Technical Information Center, Cameron Station, Alexandria, VA 22304-6145.

Non-Government agencies may purchase copies of this document from: National Technical Information Service (NTIS), 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161.

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Fonn Approved

0MB No. 0704-0188

Public reponing burden for this collection of infonnation is estimated to average I hour per response. including the ume for reviewing instructions, searching cxisiing data sources. gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of infonnauon. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other

aspect of this collection of infonnation. including suggestions for reducing this burden. to Washington Headquaners Services. Directorate for lnfonnation Operations and

Repons. 1215 Jefferson Davis Highwa~. Suite 1204. Arlington VA 22202-4302, and to the Office of Management and Budget. Paperwork Reduction Project (0704-0188).

Washington. DC 20503. I. AGENCY USE ONLY 2. REPORT DATE 3. REPORT TIPE AND DA TES COVERED

May 1995 Final Sampling and Analysis Ptan (SAP)

ii. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5. FUNDING NUMBERS

Final RCRA Facility Investigation SAP-Stage 2E, Appendix V USAF CONTRACT NO. F33615-90-D-40I I

for Kinland Atr Force Base, Delivery Order No. 0022

Albuquerque, New Mexico 6. Al;THOR(S)

Mark Thacker. Carolyn Wahl. Debora Johnson 7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NA!'t1E(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGASIZA TIO!li

REPORT StIMBER I Hallibunon NUS. Albuquerque Office !

2300 Buena Vista SE. Suite I I 0 I i

Albuquerque. New Mexico 87106 I

i 9. SPONSORING/ MONITORING AGENCY NA'.\1E(S) ASD ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPO"iSORl"iG I !'t10"ilTORI"iG

AGE:-.CY REPORT :'1,l"MBER Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence (AfCEE)

Environmental Ser. ices Office

Environmental Restoration Division (AFCEE.ESR)

800 I Inner Circle Ori-.. Suite 2

Brooks An Force Base. Texas 7 8235-5000

II. SlPPLDtE:-.TARY '.'/OTES

Ila. DISTRIBl"TION/AVAILABILITI" STATEME:'liT 12b. DISTRIBl'TION CODE

13. ABSTR"CT (Maximum 200 words)

This RCRA Facility lnvesugation SAP addresses the Stage ]E solid waste management uDlls and areas of concern within Append!\ V of the RCRA Pan B Permu

(No SM9 570 024-123) for Kinland AFB

14. Sl BJECT TERMS 15. 'ilMBER OF PAGES

RCRA Facility In-.stigation. Hazardous Waste Penn1t. sampling methods. analysis methods

16. PRICE CODE

17.SECl"RITI" CLASSIFICATION 18. SECl"RITI CLASSIFICA TIO'i 19. SEClRITY CLASSIFICA TIO"'i 20. Ll'.\1IT A TIO'i OF ABSTRACT

OF REPORT OFTHIS PAGE

L 'NCLASSIFIED l.J'NCLASSIFIED l.J'NCLASSIFIED SAR '-S~ 7::-40-01-280-5500

PREFACE

This RCRA Facility Investigation (RFI) Sampling and Analysis Plan describes the Stage 2E solid waste management units (SWMUs) and areas of concern and activities that will be used to investigate them during the Stage 2E RFI at the Kirtland Air Force Base (AFB). This plan was prepared to address the requirement for an RFI as specified in the RCRA Part B Permit for Kirtland AFB. This plan was prepared by Halliburton NUS Corporation from March 1995 through May 1995. Mr. Bassim D. Shebaro of the Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence (AFCEE) was the Restoration Team Chief and Mr. Rodney C. Arnold served as the Contracting Officer's Representative (COR).

~Ii!!. Roger A. Clark, Ph.D. Halliburton NUS Corporation Project Manager

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................................................. TOC-2

LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................................................... TOC-3

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS .......................................................................................................... TOC-4

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

I. I DESCRIPTION OF APPENDIX V STAGE 2E INVESTIGATION ....................................................................... 1-1

l) .1 Project Objectives .................................................................................................................... 1-1

I. /.2 Scoping Documents ................................................................................................................. 1-3 2.0 SWMU ST-59, ART DRUM (BLDG. 768, BURIED 55-GALLON DRUM), AND ST- 60, ART PIT

(BLDG. 765) ................................................................................................................................................... 2-1

2.1 SWMU ST-59, ART DRUM (BLDG. 768, BURIED 55-GALLON DRUM) .................................................... 2-1

2.1. l Site Description and History .................................................................................................... 2-1

2.1. 2 Contaminant Occurrence and Distribution ............................................................................. 2-1

2. 1.3 Data Gaps ................................................................................................................................ 2-3 2.1. 4 Work Plan and Rationale ......................................................................................................... 2-3

2.2 SWMU ST-60, ART PIT (BLDG. 765) ...................................................................................................... 2-7

22 I Site Description And History ................................................................................................... 2-7 2.2.2 Contaminant Occurrence and Distribution ............................................................................. 2-8

2.2.3 Data Gaps ................................................................................................................................ 2-8

2.2.4 Work Plan and Rationale ......................................................................................................... 2-9

3.0 SWMU ST-66, TRESTLE FACILITY (VEHICLE PIT AND AIRCRAFT PIT) ................................... 3-1

3 .1 SITE DESCR1PTION AND HISTORY .......................................................................................................... 3-1

3 .2 CONT A\1ISANT Ocn;RRENCE AND DISTRIBUTION .................................................................................. 3-1

3.3 DATA GAPS ................................................................................................................................................ 3-1

3.4 WORK PLAl-i AND RATIONALE ................................................................................................................... 3-2

4.0 SWMU LF-56, LANDFILL D ..................................................................................................................... 4-1

4.1 SITE DESCRIPTION AND HISTORY .............................................................................................................. 4-1

4.2 CONTAMP.'<ANT OCCURRENCE AND DISTRIBL'TION .................................................................................... 4-1

4.3 DATA GAPS ................................................................................................................................................ 4-1

4-l \v·oRK PLAN AND RATIONALE ................................................................................................................... 4-3

5.0 SWMU-58, EAST LAUNDRY (BLDG. 20451) .......................................................................................... 5-1

5. 1 SITE DESCRIPTION AND HISTORY ........................................................................................................... 5-1

5 .2 CONT AMIN ANT OCCURRENCE AND DISTRIBLTION ................................................................................. 5-1

5.3 DATA GAPS ................................................................................................................................................ 5-3

5.4 WORK PLA.'-J AND RATIONALE ................................................................................................................... 5-3

6.0 DP-67, THREE MINE SHAFTS .................................................................................................................. 6-1

6.1 SITE DESCRIPTION AND HISTORY .............................................................................................................. 6-1

6.2 CONTAMINANT OCCURRENCE AND DISTRIBUTION .................................................................................... 6-1

6.3 DA TA GAPS ............................................................................................................................ ···················· 6-1

6.4 WORK PLAN AND RATIONALE ................................................................................................................... 6-1

ATTACHMENT A .................................................................................................................................................. A- I

ATTACHMENT B ................................................................................................................................................... 8-l

ATTACHMENT C ................................................................................................................................................... C-1

TOC-1

Table 1-1

Table 2-1

Table 2-2

Table 2-3

Table 2-4

Table 2-5

Table 2-6

Table 2-7

Table 3-1

LIST OF TABLES

Stage 2E Sites at Kirtland AFB, NM ...................................................................... 1-1

SWMU ST-59, ART Drum (Bldg. 768, Buried 55-Gallon Drum) Analytical

Results at or Exceeding Detection Limits ............................................................... 2-3

Proposed Sampling for SWMU ST-59, ART Drum

(Bldg. 768, Buried 55-Gallon Drum) ...................................................................... 2-5

Summary of Analytical Parameters for SWMU ST-59, ART Drum

(Bldg. 768, Buried 55-Gallon Drum) ...................................................................... 2-6

SWMU ST-60, ART Pit (Bldg. 765) Sediment Analytical Results at or

Exceeding Detection Limits .................................................................................... 2-8

SWMU ST-60, ART Pit (Bldg. 765) Test Cell Floor (Water) Analytical


Proposed Sampling for SWMU ST-60, ART Pit (Bldg. 765) .............................. 2-10

Summary of Analytical Parameters for S\VMU ST-60. ART Pit (Bldg. 765) ..... 2-11

Proposed Sampling for SWMU ST-66, Trestle Facility

(Vehicle Pit and Aircraft Pit) .................................................................................. 3-4

Table 3-2 Summary of Analytical Parameters for S~tu ST-66. Trestle Facility

(Vehicle Pit and Aircraft Pit) .................................................................................. 3-5

Table 4-1 Proposed Sampling for SWMU LF-56, Landfill D ................................................ 4-5

Table 4-2 Summary of Anal)1ical Parameters for SWMU LF-56. Landfill D ....................... 4-7

Table 5-1 S\VMU WP-58, East Laundry (Bldg. 20451) Landscape Study Analytical


Table 5-2 SWMU WP-58, East Laundry (Bldg. 20451) Analytical Results at or

Exceeding Detection Limits .................................................................................... 5-5

Table 5-3 Proposed Sampling for SWMU \\lP-58, East Laundry (Bldg. 20451) ................... 5-6

Table 5-4 Summary of Analytical Parameters for S\V~1U WP-58. East Laundry

(Bldg. 20451) .......................................................................................................... 5-7

Table 6-1 Proposed Sampling for DP-67, Three Mine Shafts ................................................ 6-3

Table 6-2 Summary of Analytical Parameters for DP-67, Three Mine Shafts ....................... 6-5

TOC-2

fuure

Figure 1-1

Figure 2-1

Figure 2-2

Figure 3-1

Figure 4-1

Figure 5-1

Figure 6-1

LIST OF FIGURES

Location of Stage 2E Sites ................................................................................... 1-2

Location of SWMU ST-59, ART Drum (Bldg. 768, Buried 55-Gallon Drum),

and ST-60, ART Pit (Bldg. 765) .......................................................................... 2-2

Proposed Sampling Locations at SWMU ST-59, ART Drum (Bldg. 768, Buried

55-Gallon Drum), and ST-60, ART Pit (Bldg. 765) ............................................ 2-4

Proposed Sampling Locations at SWMU ST-66, Trestle Facility

(Vehicle Pit and Aircraft Pit) .............................................................................. 3-3

Proposed Sampling Locations at SWMU LF-56, Landfill D .............................. 4-2

Proposed Sampling Locations at SWMU WP-58,

East Laundry (Bldg. 20451) ................................................................................. 5-2

Proposed Sampling Locations at DP-67, Three Mine Shafts .............................. 6-2

TOC-3

AFB AFCEE AOC ART BLDG bls BLVD CLP EOD ft IRP MWSA ows POL RCRA Rfl SAP SVOC S~VMU TAL TCL TPH us USEPA UST uxo voe QC

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

Air Force Base Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence Area of Concern Armament Research Test Building below land surface Boulevard Contract Laboratory Program Explosive Ordnance Disposal feet Installation Restoration Program Manzano Weapons Storage Area oil/water separator petroleum, oil, and lubricant Resource Conservation and Recovery Act RCRA Facility Investigation Sampling and Analysis Plan semivolatile organic compound Solid Waste Management Unit Target Analyte List Target Compound List total petroleum hydrocarbon United States CS Environmental Protection Agency Underground Storage Tank Unexploded Ordnance volatile organic compound quality control

TOC-4

l.OI INTRODUCTION

Ha.lliburton NUS has prepared this Appendix V, Stage 2E Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP) to describe the field activities to be conducted to investigate potential contamination associated with five newly identified solid waste management units (SWMUs) and three potential areas of concern (AOCs) at Kirtland Air Force Base (AFB). This SAP has been developed to serve as a guide in the field while the investigations are being conducted. The SAP contains site descriptions and history, contaminant occurrence and distribution, data gaps, and site-specific work plans and rationale. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Region 6 did not require a separate Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Facility Investigation (RFI) Work Plan for these new sites. Rather, the investigations will be conducted in accordance with the plans approved by the EPA on April 7. 1994, for the investigation of the Appendix III SWMUs.

1. :l DESCRIPTION OF APPENDIX V, STAGE 2E INVESTIGATION

Halliburton NUS will investigate six sites for possible soil contamination as part of this Appendix V, Stage 2E project. Five of these sites have been recently added to Kirtland's RCRA Part B Permit: ST-59, ST-60, ST-66, LF-56, and WP-58. The six Stage 2E sites are listed in Table 1-1 and their locations are shown in Figure 1-1.

SWMU/AOC Number

ST-59 ST-60 ST-66 LF-56 WP-58 DP-67

TABLE 1-1 STAGE 2E SITES

Description of Site ART" Drum (Bldg. 768, Buried 55-Gallon Drum) ART Pit (Bldg. 765) Trestle Facility (Vehicle Pit and Aircraft Pit) Landfill D East Laundry (Bldg. 20451) Mine # 1, located 1,500 feet northeast of the Optical Range Mine #2, located 4,000 feet east of the Optical Range Mine #3, located approximately 1.5 miles east-southeast of the Optical Range

a. ART= Armament Research Test

I. I. I Project Objectives

The objective of the Appendix V, Stage 2E study is to conduct investigations at the six sites.

Fiive of the sites, ST-59, ST-60, ST-66, LF-56, and WP-58 are listed as SWMUs on Kirtland's

1-1

I IJ

V-·JP 58 STAGE 2E IRP SIT[S -~------ --- -----

IAIJfJFILL D [A',l LAUNDRY (BLDG 20451) AR! ORUM (BLDG 768) ART PIT (BLOG. 765)

Ii'.- J11 1 ., flr •·• r,~-! ,-:-n·":' r '\

/

LF-56 WP-58 ST-59 ST-60 ST-66 DP-67

TPfSTLE FACILITY THRf_[ MINE SHAFTS

''

l ( /I

SI-60

M, 1 I IHMIU f,:AJ,JU I

SI- 59

,: r I l•

l

"'

. ~11, )

'<''-• I '/1

'f \ \ /1

1

''1,

1rr,IAI IAll))IJ lli'IIIJl 1AI•'•

.. : I ~ I '. ,

1

, i,: I ;.

1

,:Jl { ~( ., fl AN/AN

I , f))'/ '/ WI;/ I

I ,' ( I/ I k );/ I.

~\\)' . 1 I f I

I FOREST BOUNDAP,

__ J j )

( ~'Ill ,Ii,_

J ./ ----\

61 ~· ,,,, c1soLA NATIONAi ruREST ':'.)I

ldnd withdrawn by U.S. Air force tr,Hn LIS. rorest Sen,tee) CD

(I 11111.1 le,1~"" r,y if·, A1, t "H C 1,.,111 ',l,Jlt' .,/ n~ ... ~t'•1 .. ,)

,, ( \ ' !' \ / ~ 2

1 o, c,

I',.' I \. J I ) \ / \\ • 3

: '.' .• \ "'''"'" ~:·; ;) , , 1

) DP~67 -- -• :]

I '·/•., I .1

I ·, /, ·, . - -_f~E:~ ~J_N_?APY - - - - - - - - - - -L__j_ ___ _J_ __ ______.__ ____ _

fl

t V' I\

~, ~. '

U ~,(JI)( I I U()( Ill

'SlAU IN ff f T

Figure 1-1 Location ot Stage 2E Site• Kirtland APB. Albuquerque. New MeJCioo

RCRA Part B permit; thus an RFI will be conducted as part of the RCRA corrective action. The purpose of the RFI is to determine the nature and extent of any hazardous material releases from each SWMU. At some of these sites, no further action may be proposed if the facilities are functioning properly and contamination is not detected. At others, minor release of contaminants might have occurred, in which case this study is intended to gather enough information for a decision to be made concerning the need for any corrective action. One of these sites, DP-67 (Three Mine Shafts) is considered an AOC. Confirmatory sampling \\ill be conducted to determine if these sites should be listed as SWMUs and be included on Kirtland's RCRA permit.

The current investigation status of each of the eight Stage 2E sites and the proposed work is pn:sented in Sections 2.0 through 6.0 of this SAP.

1.1. 2 Scoping Documents

In addition to this SAP, the following project scoping documents, approved by the EPA on April 7, 1994, for the Appendix III SWMUs, will serve as guidance documents during the Appendix V investigations:

• Installation Restoration Program (IRP) Stage 2C RFI Final Data Collection Quality Assurance Plan (Document No. R-10-93-4) (An addendum detailing the soil gas survey is included with this SAP- Attachment A);

• Installation Restoration Program (IRP) Stage 2C RFI Final Project Management Plan (Document No. R-10-93-2), and

• Installation Restoration Program (IRP) Stage 2C RFI Final Health and Safety Plan (Document No. R-10-93-4) (An addendum detailing Confined Space Entry and Unexploded Ordnance (UXO) support is included \\ith this SAP- Attachments B and C).

Together these documents describe the scope of the proposed RFis and confirmatory sampling as well as address the requirements in Appendix B of the Kirtland AFB RCRA Part B permit. A discussion of the general site history and environmental setting of Kirtland AFB is included in the IRP Stage 2C RCRA Facility Investigation Final Non-Waste Line Investigation Work Plan (Halliburton NUS, May 1994, Doc. No. R-11-93-29).

1-3

2.0 SWMU ST-59, ART DRUM (BLDG. 768, BURIED 55-GALLON DRUM), AND ST-60, ART PIT (BLDG. 765)

Two SWMUs, ST-59, ART Drum (Bldg. 768, Buried 55-Gallon Drum), and ST-60, ART Pit (Bldg. 765), are located at the Armament Research Test (ART) Facility (Figure 2-1 ).

2.1 SWMU ST-59, ART ORUM (BLDG. 768, BURIED 55-GALLON DRUM)

2.1.1 Site Description and History

SWMU ST-59, ART Drum (Bldg. 768, Buried 55-Gallon Drum) is located near Building 768 at the: ART Facility in an area where helium and nitrogen have been stored in pressurized vessels (Figure 2-1). The drum is located approximately 2,300 ft northwest ofLF-07 (SWMU 6-3). The dnnn is a standard 55-gallon vessel that has been buried in a vertical position with its top flush with the ground surface. Although the inside walls and bottom are deteriorated, the deterioration is not extensive. No evidence of interior coating or cathodic protection is apparent. The deck of the drum has been perforated with numerous holes.

Current operating personnel and a former manager were contacted to determine previous usage of the drum. However, all those contacted were unaware that a buried drum existed and could not speculate regarding this drum's function. The only visible contents appear to be surface-soiltype sediments. Oily staining is present within the drum and on the surrounding surface soils.

A possible function of the drum is that it served as an evaporation vessel or as a drip barrel. In this capacity, water that accumulates in the pressure vessels and lines, or liquids that dripped during normal operations, would have been diverted to the drum where evaporation took place. Tite time period that the drum was in service is unkno\\n. It is also unkno\\n what wastes, if any, have been diverted into the vessel.

2.1.2 Contaminant Occurrence and Distribution

A sample of the sediment from within the drum was collected and analyzed by Assaigai Laboratory (Sample No. 9403081415). The sample contained a substantial amount of iron. According to laboratory personnel, this iron content may have interfered \\1th the analytical results for lead and chromium. Results from the analyses are listed in Table 2-1.

2-1

q <t 0 0::

b µ.l c., 0:: < b 1·)

) .

' ( ' ~ .. \ \ \.

)

~J •

;/'/

I N

fl (\

I I

I /

IJr,..,11 1'1t (ST-f)())

\(

( AHT

FA('ILITY

Bldg 7W) Test. Cell

\ I j Bldg 761l

I II 111

1 ~ • 1119 I , • )j

• EJ )\

\

\,

\

\ ¥, \ ' \ '

' \ \ \

\ ~ ', \

\ '

) \ \\ ) ····d,,, \ ) ··.. \ \

·v ' \

I , \ )/ \ I PAD 4 / \

I ; \ \ ' \

I (

~-....__ -------lluried 55-·Gallon Orum

(ST-59) --*------ -- ----

"' ~ ~ ' .. 0

~~=;;::;~~--=-=--_ _J; 0 100 200ft

Fteure 2-1 Locations of SWMUs ST-69, ART Drum (Blq. 768, Burled 156-Gallon Drum), and ST-60, ART Pit (Bldg. 765) at the ART Paolllty Kirtland AFB, Albuquerque, New Mexloo

2-2

TABLE 2-1 S'WMU ST-59, ART DRUM (BLDG. 768, BURIED 55-GALLON DRUM) ANALYTICAL

RESULTS AT OR EXCEEDING DETECTION LIMITS Detection Limit

Parameter (ppm) PIM Xylene

Bis (2-Ethylhexyl) Phthalate Arsenic Barium

Cadmium Chromium

Lead TPHC

a ~ Calculated based on proposed Subpart S b IEPA OSWER Directive 9355.4-02. 9-7-89 c TPH = Total Petroleum Hvdrocarbon

0.002 0.03

0.005 0.5 0.003 0.02 0.1 5.0

d New Mexico (NM) Unde;ground Storage Tank (UST) Standard

2.1.3 Data Gaps

Soil Action Level Result (ppm) (ppm)

0.0026 NA 0.22 NA

0.75 24a 965. 4000

5.82 40a 110.0 Cr O 400, Cr j 8000 794.0 500-l000b 141.0 lQOd

The presence or absence of a release of contaminants from this SWMU has not been determined.

2.1.4 Work Plan and Rationale

The proposed scope of the field investigation is summarized in Table 2-2 and sho½n in Figure 2-2. The field program has been designed to confirm the contents of residual waste in the 55-gallon drum, investigate any potential release from the 55-gallon drum. and quantify the extent of any confirmed release. Field activities include the collection of a sediment sample from within the buried 55-gallon drum. the excavation and removal of the drum, and the collection of a soil sample from beneath the drum. If field screening during collection of the soil sample from bt:neath the drum indicates the presence of contamination, sampling will continue at 5-foot intervals, using a Geoprobe, until field screening indicates no contamination for two consecutive intervals. All soil samples collected will be analyzed at the fixed-base laboratory for target compound list (TCL) volatile organic compounds (VOCs), TCL semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs), target analysis list (TAL) metals, total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH), soil moisture, arid pH. The analytical parameters and estimated samples for the ST-59 investigation are summarized in Table 2-3.

The excavated drum will be decontaminated and properly disposed of. The soil removed during the excavation will be placed on plastic and covered pending results of the soil analyses. The excavation will be covered with plywood and marked with safety cones. After the sample results have been evaluated to determine if additional sampling/excavation is needed, the excavation will be backfilled and the excavated soil properly disposed of.

2-3

SWMll ST-GO,

ART Pit (Bldg. 7G5)

or,.

'1 ,, '• I I O '• ~,, ('.)

11 ::r IP ,, ...,

Io~ I .-

0

......J ..... ...... re ..., IP [fJ

• ..., ..., I I 0

'<: 0

'" Secondary Contai11n1cHI

• Outfall Sample

llld~.

!.F:GEN !J

0 I • Proposed Sampling Local 1011

& l<frnl1ficat.1on

0 15 :lOfl t.. I I

---- -- - ~----··-

LJ ~J

!1 A

01

cl SWMll ST-fl9, ART Drurn

(Hldg. 7GB, Buried 55-Gallon Dru1n) ST-GH-D1''-0 I

(~11111plr from inside of drum)

Bid~.

Figure 2-2 Proposed Sampling Looations at SWMUs ST-59, ART Drum

"' "' " ,0

" " ~ 'i Cl ... ., ' .. ;

(Bldg. 788, Buried 55-Gallon Drum), and ST-80, ART Pit (Bldg. 785) at the ABT P'acWt7 Kirtland APB, Albuquerque, New Mexloo

2-4 -

TABLE 2-2 PROPOSED SAMPLING FOR SWMU ST-59, ART DRUM (BLDG. 768, BURIED 55-GALLON DRUM)

Investigative Number of Selected Data Needs Technique Location Samples Analyses8 Analytical Optionb

Investigate potential Grab sample From within l TeL VOCs Level II contaminants within the the 55-gallon TeL SVOes Level II

55-gallon drum drum TAL Metals Level II TPH Levell

Soil Moisture, pH Level I Investigate potential Grab sample Directly beneath l TeL voes Level II

contaminant release to 55-gallon drum TeL SVOes Level II adjacent/underlying soil TAL Metals Level II

TPH Levell Soil Moisture, pH Level I

Investigate potential Drill l boring, Bottom of drum 2-5 TeL voes Level II contaminant release to sample at 5-ft intervals excavation TeL SVOes Level II

underlying soil until field screening TAL Metals Level II indicates no TPH Level I

contamination Soil Moisture, pH Level I

a. TCL VOCs will he hy Method SW 8240, TCL SVOCs will he hy Method SW 8270, TAL metals will be hy Method SW 6010, TPH will be by Method SW 8015, soil

moisture will be hy ASTM Method 2217. and soil pl I will he hy Method SW 9045.

b. The Level I/Level II designation in the "Selected Analytical Option" column refers lo the type of analytical data package requested of the analytical laboratory. Level I/Level II data packages are defined in the l J.S. Air Force ( ·enter for Environmental Excellence (AFC EE) contract, under which Halliburton NUS Laboratory will perform

analyses for Kirtland AFB. Within the specifications of the AITEE contract and the limitations of the analytical methodology, the Level II report is equivalent to an EPA

Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) report. Rigorous QA m1uiremenls are followed. and substantial supporting documentation is generated for a Level II data package [i.e., the data are considered EPA data quality objective (DQO) Level 4 analytical data).

2-5

TABLE 2-3 SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL PARAMETERS FOR SWMU ST-59, ART DRUM (BLDG. 768, BURIED 55-GALLON

DRUM)

TCLVOCs TCL SVOCs TAL Metals TPH Soil Moisture pH Sample Number SW 8240 SW 8270 SW 6010 SW 8015 ASTM 2217 SW9045 ST-59-DF-OI • • • • • • ST-59-01-00 • • • • • • ST-59-01-0507 • • • • • • • ST-59-01-1012 • • • • • • ST-59-01-1517 • • • • • • ST-59-01-2022 • • • • • • ST-59-01-2527 • • • • • •

Field QC Samplesb Trip Blank c 3 () 0 0 0 0 Equip Rinsate d 3 3 3 3 0 0 Field Duplicate e I I I I 0 0

a. Optional, based on field screening of surface sample (ST-59-01-00)

h. Estimated field QC samples for ST-59.

C. l'rip Blanks - Samples which originate from analyte-frce water taken from the laboratory w the sampling site and returned to the laboratory with the volatile organic compound samples. One trip blank per cooler containing voe samples. Trip Blanks are analyzed for VOes only.

d. Equipment Rinsate Blanks - collected for each type of nondcdicated sampling equipment used and analyzed for the same parameters as the samples they are used to collect. Equipment blanks will he collected and sent to the laboratory on a daily basis. Only equipment blanks collected every other day will be analyzed.

e. Field Duplicates - A single sample split into two portions during a single act of sampling. Assesses the overall precision of the sampling and analysis program. Collected at a frequency of I 0% of the total number of samples for chemical analyses and analyzed for the same parameters as equivalent samples.

2-6

2.2 SWMU ST-60, ART PIT (BLDG. 765)

2. 2.1 Site Description And History

SWMU ST-60, ART Pit (Bldg. 765) is located approximately 180 ft behind Building 765, which is a test cell for the ART Facility (Figure 2-2). The Pit is situated on a topographically low area and is approximately 2,500 ft northwest of LF-07 (SWMU 6-3). The Pit and its secondary containment are constructed of concrete. The Pit has dimensions of 9 ft 7 in by 6 ft 9 in by 5 ft 8 in deep with a concrete bottom and 9-inch thick concrete walls. The level of the Pit is approximately 3 ft below ground level. The secondary containment consists of a 9-inch thick concrete enclosure 22 ft 6 in by 16 ft 11 in by 2 ft l O in deep with an earthen bottom (Figure 2-2 ). The top of the secondary containment walls is just above ground level. The Pit and secondary containment are capable of holding a maximum of9,125 gallons.

The Pit was constructed with three 6-ft inlet/outlet lines. The 6-ft inlet line from Building 765 is located approximately 5 ft above the base of the pit. One outlet drain is located approximately 5 ft above the base of the pit and is capped. No discharge from this line has been observed in the area. A second outlet drain, which is located at the base of the pit, has been determined to be connected into the storm water discharge system. This system is situated about 60 ft east of the pi1t. The outfall for the storm water system extends into the Tijeras Arroyo.

The Pit was constructed in 1974 and remained in operation until 1983, when use of the test cell was terminated. The Pit served as a receptacle for noise-suppression water and combustion byproducts, which were generated during rocket engine test firings at the test cell in Building 765. Building 765 was equipped with a floor drain and 6-inch buried drain line. which conveyed the noise-suppression water and combustion by-products to the pit. The exhaust stack associated with the test cell allowed gaseous vapors generated during the test firings to vent to the atmosphere.

In conjunction with the test firings, deionized water was directed on the rocket engine to suppress the noise resulting from this activity's occurrence inside an enclosed building. The combustion process consisted of purging the system with liquid/gaseous nitrogen and helium, igniting the system with gaseous helium and oxygen, and fueling with methane and carbon monoxide during the time of combustion. Actual firing times during tests would last from 0.1 second to 5.0 seconds. Operations personnel familiar with the test cell utilization estimate that the aggregate usage during engine firings totaled about 3,000 to 4.000 seconds.

2-7

2. 2. 2 Contaminant Occurrence and Distribution

A sample of sediment from a discolored area directly below the discharge pipe into the pit was collected by Kirtland AFB and analyzed by Assaigai Laboratory (Sample No. 9402110825). In addition, the test cell floor was sealed, water was introduced into the test cell, and a sample was taken to determine if residual contamination remained in the building (Sample No. 9402110905). Results from these analyses are listed in Tables 2-4 and 2-5.

TABLEl-4 SWMU ST-60, ART PIT (BLDG. 765) SEDIMENT ANALYTICAL RESULTS AT OR

EXCEEDING DETECTION LIMITS

Detection Limit Parameter (ppm)

Mercury Arsenic Barium

Cadmium Chromium

Lead TPHC

a Calculated based in proposed Subpart S b EPA OSWER Directive 9355.4-02, 9-7-89

c TPH = Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons d ~\-1 CST Standard

0.0002 0.005 0.5 0.003 0.02 0.1 5.0

Result (ppm) 0.001 1.26

780.0 12.01 28.8

103.0 1580.0

TABLE 2-5

Soil Action Level (ppm) 20a 24a

4000 40a

Cr t> 400, Cr J 8000 500-l000b

lOOd

S\VMU ST-60, ART PIT (BLDG. 765) TEST CELL FLOOR (WATER) ANALYTICAL RES UL TS AT OR EXCEEDING DETECTION LIMITS

Parameter Detection Limit (ppm) Result (ppm) Barium 0.5 0.7

Chromium 0.02 0.02 Lead 0.1 0.1 TPH3 0.1 0.3

a TPH = Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons

2.2.3 Data Gaps

The presence or absence of a release of contaminants from this SWMU has not been determined.

2-8

2.2.4 Work Plan and Rationale

The proposed scope of the field investigation is summarized in Table 2-6 and shown in Figure 2-2. The field program has been designed to confirm or deny a release of contaminants from the Pit to soils immediately adjacent to and underlying the pit within the secondary containment are:a. If contaminants are detected within the secondary containment area, the horizontal and vertical extent of any contamination that may have migrated beyond the secondary containment will be determined. Potential contaminant release to the Tijeras Arroyo via the Pit outfall will also be investigated.

Field activities include the installation of four boreholes within the secondary containment area (011, 02, 03, 04). The borings will be drilled using a Geoprobe. Samples will be collected at the swface and at 5-ft intervals to a minimum depth of 10 ft below the base of the Pit [approximately 15 ft below land surface (bis)]. If field screening indicates the presence of contamination l Oft bellow the base of the Pit, sampling will continue at 5-ft intervals until field screening indicates no contamination for two consecutive intervals.

If contamination is detected within the secondary containment, the horizontal and vertical extent will be delineated by installing four boreholes outside the secondary containment area (05, 06, 07., 08). The boreholes will be located approximately 10 ft out from each of the boreholes drilled inside the secondary containment. The borings will be drilled using a Geoprobe. Samples will be collected at the surface and at 5-ft intervals to a minimum depth of 10 ft below the base of the Pit (approximately 17 ft bis). If field screening indicates the presence of contamination at a depth equivalent to 10 ft below the base of the Pit, sampling will continue at 5-ft intervals until field screening indicates no contamination for two consecutive intervals. Samples will be analyzed at the fixed-base laboratory for TeL voes, TeL SVOCs, T AL metals, TPH. soil moisture. and pH. The analy1ical parameters and estimated samples for the ST-60 investigation are- summarized in Table 2-7.

Geoprobe access to the Pit outfall at the Tijeras Arroyo is limited so a sediment sample will be collected. The sample will be analyzed at the fixed-base laboratory for TeL voes, TCL SVOCs, T AL metals, TPH, soil moisture, and pH (Table 2-7). In addition. the drain line connecting the Pit with the storm water drain system will be sealed.

2-9

TABLE 2-6 PROPOSED SAMPLING FOR SWMU ST-60, ART PIT (BLDG. 765)

Selected Investigative Number of Analytical

Data Needs Technique Location Samples Analyses• Optionb

Investigate potential Drill four soil borings within One soil boring along 16 (a minimum TeL voes Level II release of contaminants the secondary containment for each side of the Pit of 4 samples per TeL SVOes Level II

from the Pit to adjacent the Pit and sample at the within the secondary boring) TAL Metals Level II

soils surface and at 5-ft intervals to a containment TPH Levell minimum of 10 ft below the Soil Moisture, Levell

base of the Pit pH Investigate potential Drill four soil borings outside One soil boring along 16 (a minimum TeL voes Level II

release of contaminants of the secondary containment each side of the of 4 samples per TCL SVOes Level II from the secondary for the Pit and sample at the secondary containment boring) TAL Metals Level II

containment for the Pit to surface and at 5 f-t intervals to for the Pit TPH Level I adjacent soils a minimum of l O ft below the Soil Moisture, Level I

base of the Pit pH Investigate potential Grab sample Pit outfall at the 1 TeL voes Level II

contaminant release to Tijeras Arroyo TeL SVOes Level II the Tijeras Arroyo TAL Metals Level II

TPH Levell Soil Moisture, Levell

pH

a. TCL VOCs will be by Method SW 8240, TCL SVOCs will be by Method SW 8270, TAL metals will be by Method SW 6010, TPH will be by Method 8015, soil moisture will be by ASTM Method 2217, soil pll will be by Method SW 9045.

h. The Level I/Level II designation in the "Selected Analytical Option" column refers to the type of analytical data package requested of the analytical laboratory. Level I/Level

II data packages are defined in the AFCEE contract, under which Halliburton NUS Laboratory will perform analyses for Kirtland AFB. Within the specifications of the

AFCEE contract and the limitations of the analytical methodology, the Level II report is equivalent to an EPA Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) report. Rigorous QA requirements are followed, and substantial supporting documentation is generated for a Level II data package (i.e., the data are considered EPA DQO Level 4 analytical data).

2-10

TABLE 2-7 SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL PARAMETERS FOR SWMU ST-60, ART PIT (BLDG. 765)

TCLVOCs TCLSVOCs TAL Metals TPH Soil Moisture pH Sample Number SW 8240 SW 8270 SW6010 SW 8015 ASTM 2217 SW9045

S T-60-0 1-00 • • • • • • ST-60-01-0507 • • • • • • ST-60-01-1012 • • • • • • ST-60-01-1517 • • • • • • ST-60-02-00 • • • • • • ST-60-02-0507 • • • • • • ST-60-02-1012 • • • • • • ST-60-02-1517" • • • • • • ST-60-03-00 • • • • • • ST-60-03-0507 • • • • • • ST-60-03-1012 • • • • • • ST-60-03-1517" • • • • • • ST-60-04-00 • • • • • • ST-60-04-0507 • • • • • • ST-60-04-1012 • • • • • • ST-60-04-15 I 7" • • • • • • ST-60-05-00 • • • • • • ST-60-05-0507 • • • • • • ST-60-05-1012 • • • • • • ST-60-05-1517" • • • • • • ST-60-06-00 • • • • • • ST-60-06-0507 • • • • • • ST-60-06-1012 • • • • • • ST-60-06-1517" • • • • • • ST-60-07-00 • • • • • • ST-60-07-0507 • • • • • •

2-11

TABLE 2-7 (CONTINUED) SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL PARAMETERS FOR SWMU ST-60, ART PIT (BLDG. 765)

TCLVOCs TCLSVOCs TAL Metals TPH Soil Moisture pH Sample Number SW 8240 SW 8270 SW 6010 SW 8015 ASTM 2217 SW9045

ST-60-07-1012 • • • • • • ST-60-07-1517" • • • • • • ST-60-08-00 • • • • • • ST-60-08-0507 • • • • • • ST-60-08-1012 • • • • • • ST-60-08-1517" • • • • • • ST-60-09-00 • • • • • •

Field QC Samplesb Trip Blank' 3 0 0 0 0 0 Equip Rinsate d 3 3 3 3 0 0 Field Duplicate• 3 3 3 3 0 0

a. Optional, based on lield screening.

b. Estimated field quality control (Ql') sampks for ST-60.

' Trip Blanks - Samples which originate from analyte-free water taken from the laboratory to the sampling site and returned to the laboratory with the volatile organic compound samples. One trip blank per cooler containing VOC samples. Trip Blanks are analyzed for VOCs only.

d. Equipment Rinsate Blanks - collected for ea..:h type of nondedicated sampling equipment used and analyzed for the same parameters as the samples they are used to collect. Equipment blanks will be colkcted and sent to the laboratory on a daily basis. Only equipment blanks collected every other day will be analyzed.

e. Field Duplicates - A single sample split into two portions during a single act of sampling. Assesses the overall precision of the sampling and analysis program. Collected at a frequency of I 0% of the total number of samples for chemical analyses and analyzed for the same parameters as equivalent samples.

2-12

3.0 SWMU ST-66, TRESTLE FACILITY (VEHICLE PIT AND AIRCRAFT PIT)

SWMU ST-66 is located at the Trestle Facility (Figure 1-1) and contains two sites, the Vehicle Pit and the Aircraft Pit.

3.1 SITE DESCRIPTION AND HISTORY

TI1e Trestle Facility is located the northwest portion of the Base, near Pennsylvania Avenue, off Trestle Tow Road. Phillips Laboratory used the trestle for electromagnetic pulse testing of aircraft; the trestle is currently operated by Orion International Technologies, Inc., in a caretaker status for the U.S. Army, White Sands Missile Range. No plans exist to continue electromagnetic pulse tests at this facility. Two areas showing contamination or possible contamination include the following:

• An abandoned vehicle service ramp and pit. This portion of the site includes a 5-ft-deep visually contaminated concrete pit that has inside dimensions of 5 ft 3 in by 28 ft and outside dimensions of 9 ft 3 in by 32 ft with a service entrance to the pit on the east side (Figure 3-1 ). Visual soil contamination is evident within and immediately adjacent to the pit. A defunct oil/water separator (OWS) containing a mixture of water and petroleum, oil, and lubricant (POL) is located 11 ft 6 in north of the pit. Visual soil contamination is evident at the separator's outfall, which is connected to the Tijeras Arroyo.

• An abandoned concrete aircraft fuel spill pit that is 25 ft by 25 ft by 6 ft deep drains to the Tijeras Arroyo. An asphalt apron would have directed fuel spills into the pit (Figure 3-1 ). A recent records search and interviews determined that fuel trucks were used for refueling the aircraft; therefore. an underground storage tank was not present at the site. This pit shows no obvious contamination (no staining or obvious drain pipes). It is unkno\\'n whether the spill pit was ever used for its intended purpose.

Both the Vehicle Pit and Aircraft Pit are relatively recent construction and contain no visible cracks or other sources of release.

3 .2 CONTAMINANT OccL:RRENCE AND OISTRIBUTIO'S

Potential soil contamination has not been investigated at this SWMU. However, evidence of POL contamination within the Aircraft Pit and in small areas of the adjacent soils has been noted.

3.3 OATAOAPS

The presence or absence of contamination at the two sites at this SWMU has not been determined.

3-1

3.4 WORK PLAN AND RATIONALE

The proposed scope of the field investigation is shown in Figure 3-1 and summarized in Table 3-1. The field program has been designed to confirm or deny a release of contaminants from the Vehicle Pit to the underlying soils, quantify the nature and extent of contamination in areas of visibly stained soils surrounding the Vehicle Pit and its outfall, and verify if there has been a release of contaminants to underlying soils at the Aircraft Pit or along its outfall. Rather than installing angle borings, field activities will include the installation of two boreholes through the bottom of each pit (01, 02, 06, 07) to a depth of 10 ft below the bottom of the pits (approximately 15 ft bls) with samples collected at the surface and at 5-ft intervals. The concrete bottom of each pit will be cored to allow access to the underlying soils. Using this methodology will allow sampling of the soils immediately below the base of the pits. Once the boreholes are completed the concrete will be repaired. Three boreholes will be installed near the Vehicle Pit, OWS, and drain pipe (03, 04, 05) to a depth of 25 ft bls. Samples will be collected at the surface and at 5, l 0, 17, and 25 ft. In addition, two surface sediment samples will be collected from the outfall of the Aircraft Pit. All borings will be drilled using a Geoprobe. If field screening indicates the presence of contamination, sampling will continue at 5-ft intervals until field screening indicates no contamination for two consecutive intervals. All samples collected will be analyzed at the fixed-base laboratory for TCL VOCs, TCL SVOCs, T AL metals, TPH, soil moisture, and pH. The anal)1ical parameters and estimated samples for the ST-66 investigation are summarized in Table 3-2.

3-2

0 10

Vt•:I !ICU•: FIT

Flow lo Tij1•ras Arroyo

r_: Jl_fi- - ~, '- \,_ ......

-Qf> ... •\'

\ V1s11>I,·

Co11la111111,tl 1011

01

r~JI f'J'deep

:2or1

fl

~ 6) + I\

I.E(; t•:N ll

lows! <hi W1-1tPr S1•pr1ntlD1·

0 le l'1oprn•wd llon•l1"1•· l,111·,tl1011s .v. lde11t1f1<"11l 1011

• l.1111· l-'l11w lltr,•,·t 1<>11

• O11l fall S11111plP

AIRCRAFT PIT

,/

>

6' deep

• • IJ1scliarge I II Tijeras Arroyo

0 :i

Spill flow Direction

10ft

"' "' "' , . .. 0

1'.i (J

w "' I

l Plsur• 3·1 Propo• ed Sampllns Location• at SWMU ST-88, Trestle PaollUy (Vehicle PH and Airoratt Pit)

Kirtland AFB, Albuquerque, New Mezioo

1 1

TABLE 3-1 PROPOSED SAMPLING FOR SWMU ST-66, TRESTLE FACILITY (VEHICLE PIT AND AIRCRAFT PIT)

Investigative Number of Data Needs Technique Location Samples Analyses•

Investigate potential Drill 2 boreholes Through the bottom of 6 (3 samples per TCL voes

release of contaminants and sample at 0, 5, the pit on the east and boring) TCL SVOCs

to soils underlying the and 10 n. west sides TAL Metals

Vehicle Pit TPH Soil Moisture, pH

Investigate potential Drill 4 boreholes One borehole adjacent to 15 ( 5 samples TCL VOCs release of contaminants to and sample at 0, 5, the pit and OWS and 2 per boring) TCL SVOCs

soil adjacent to the Vehicle Pit, 10, 17 and 25 ft boreholes at visibly TAL Metals OWS, and drain pipe stained areas adjacent to TPH

drain Soil Moisture, pH

Investigate potential Drill 2 boreholes Through the bottom of 6 (3 samples per TCL voes release of contaminants and sample at 0, 5, the pit on the south side boring) TCL SVOCs to soils underlying the and IO ft TAL Metals

Aircraft Pit TPH Soil Moisture, pH

Investigate potential Grab Sample Aircraft Pit outfall 2 TCL VOCs release of contaminants TCL SVOCs

to outfall of the TAL Metals Aircraft Pit TPH

Soil Moisture, pH rCL VOCs will be: by Mdhod SW 8240, T<.'L SVOCs will be: by Mc:thod SW 8270, TAI. mc:tals will be by Mc:thod SW 6010, TPH will be by Mc:thod 8015, soil moisture will be by AS IM Method 2217, soil pll will he: hy SW Mc:thod 9045.

Selected Analytical Optioab

Level II Level II Level II Level I Level I Level II Level II Level II Level I Levell Level II Level II Level II Level I Level I Level II Level II Level II Levell Level I

b. The Level 1/Lc:vel II designation in the "Sele<:tcd Analytical Option" wlumn refers to the type of analytical data package requested of the analytical laboratory. Level I/Level II data packagc:s arc: defined in the AFCl·:I•: contract, under which l lallihurton NUS Laboratory will perform analyses for Kirtland AFB. Within the specifications of the AFCEE contract and the limitations of the: analytical mc:thodology, the: Level II report is equivalent to an EPA report. Rigorous QA requirements are followed, and substantial supporting dornmentation is generutcd for a I .cvel II da111 p1tck11ge (i.e., the d11ta arc considered EPA DQO Level 4 an11lytical data).

3-4

TABLE3-2 SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL PARAMETERS FOR SWMU ST-66, TRESTLE FACILITY (VEHICLE PIT AND

AIRCRAFT PIT)

TCLVOCs TCLSVOCs TAL Metals TPH Soil Mot.ture pH Sample Number SW 8240 SW 8270 SW6010 SW 8015 ASTM2217 SW 9045

ST-66-00-0 I • • • • • • ST-66-00-02 • • • • • • ST-66-01-00 • • • • • • ST-66-01-0507 • • • • • • ST-66-01-1012" • • • • • • ST-66-02-00 • • • • • • ST-66-02-0507 • • • • • • ST-66-02-1012" • • • • • • ST-66-03-00 • • • • • • ST-66-03-0507 • • • • • • ST-66-03-10121 • • • • • • ST-66-03-1719 • • • • • • ST-66-03-2527 • • • • • • ST-66-04-00 • • • • • • ST-66-04-0507 • • • • • • ST-66-04-1012" • • • • • • ST-66-04-1719 • • • • • • ST-66-04-2527 • • • • • • ST-66-05-00 • • • • • • ST-66-05-0507 • • • • • • ST-66-05-1012• • • • • • • ST-66-05-1719 • • • • • • ST-66-05-2527 • • • • • • ST-66-06-00 • • • • • • ST-66-06-0507 • • • • • • ST-66-06-1012" • • • • • •

3-5

TABLE 3-2 (CONTINUED) SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL PARAMETERS FOR SWMU ST-66, TRESTLE FACILITY (VEHICLE PIT AND

AIRCRAFT PIT)

TCL voes TCLSVOCs TAL Metals TPH Soil Moisture pH Sample Number SW 8240 SW 8270 SW 6010 SW 8015 ASTM 2217 SW904S

ST-66-07-00 • • • • • • ST-66-07-0507 • • • • • • ST-66-07-1012• • • • • • •

Field QC Samplesb Trip Blank c 2 0 0 0 0 0

Equip Rinsate d 2 2 2 2 0 0 Field Duplicate e 3 3 3 3 0 0

a. Optional, based on lidd screening.

b. Estimated field quality control (QC) samples for ST- 66.

c. Trip Blanks - Samples which originate from analyte-free water taken from the laboratory to the sampling site and returned to the laboratory with the volatile organic compound samples. One trip blank per cooler containing voe samples. Trip Blanks are analyzed for voes only.

d. Equipment Rinsate Blanks - collected for each type of nondedicated sampling equipment used and analyzed for the same parameters as the samples they are used lo collect. Equipment blanks will be collected and sent to the laboratory on a daily basis. Only equipment blanks collected every other day will be analyzed.

e. Field Duplicates - A single sample split into two portions during a single act of sampling. Assesses the overall precision of the sampling and analysis program. Collected at a frequency of 10% of the total number of samples for chemical analyses and analyzed for the same parameters as equivalent samples.

J-6

4.0 SWMU LF-56, LANDFILL D


SWMU LF-56, Landfill D, is located on Lovelace Road in the southeast part of Kirtland AFB (Fiigure 1-1 ). The site is situated north of Coyote Arroyo, adjacent to the southeast comer of the Manzano Weapons Storage Area (MWSA). The nearest SWMU is 10-21, Building 37504, Septic Tank and Leach Field, located 400 ft east of the site in the MWSA. Landfill D was discovered during the trench excavation for a fiber optic cable installation. The route for the fiber optic cable was subsequently diverted around the site to the west along Lovelace Road.

The site, which covers approximately 4 acres, is bound on the west by Lovelace Road, on the south by the Coyote Arroyo, and on the north and east by the MWSA (Figure 4-1 ). The site geology, as exposed during the trenching operations, consists of a thin alluvial sequence of sand and gravel overlying a hard, well-cemented breccia/conglomerate bedrock. The bedrock is exposed at the ground surface over much of the site. It appears the alluvial overburden, above the bedrock, was removed and used to construct a berm around the site. The alluvial overburden was also used as cover material. A mound of covered refuse material is prominent in the center of the bermed area (Figure 4-1 ). Although the landfill is unlined, it is generally protected from storm water runoff by the berms.

The exact period of operation of the landfill is not known. A dra~ing dated December 1965 identified the site as a burning and disposal area for grounds maintenance waste for the MWSA. The site was probably active from the 1950s to the 1970s. Materials exposed during the fiber optic cable excavation include wood debris, railroad ties. abundant metal debris, cans and other storage containers. and general construction debris. Large quantities of waste asphalt from road construction activities were disposed at the site. Approximately 10 cubic yards of sewage sludge were dumped in the southeastern part of the site (Figure 4-1 ). Other debris noted during a site inspection includes concrete rubble. fencing. cable, various empty 1- to 5-gallon metal containers, telephone poles, and miscellaneous metallic debris.

4.2 CONTAMINANT OCCURRE1'iCE AND DISTRIBUTI0~

Potential soil contamination has not been investigated at this site.

4.3 DATA GAPS

The presence or absence of contamination at this site has not been determined.

4-1

I I

LEGE\D

• Grab :=:ample

' Approximate L:::,cat10~1 of - Soil Gas :3amplmg Po1nt

C 75 l '50ft

\ \\ I \\ I)<

\ \I I \ i \,

i\

\ \\ IX \ \\ I I ' \ ' I\

\\ 1\

\

I I

\ I I \ I

I \ I ! >< I I

\ I I .I \

'~ \ /_, 'ii\

'1 \\ \ . \

)(

\ \ \ I ~ "--,\ "

"✓ x '~," '' I ( '

\I 1 - -

I

'<

I I I I

·-0

'.\ote: 20 Geoprob"" locations will be selected based on Soil Gas Survey Results

------- -------- ------

Fieure 4·1 Proposed Sampline Locations at SWMU LF-58, Landfill D Kirtland AFB. Albuquerque, New Mezico

4-2


The proposed scope of the investigation is shown in Figure 4-1 and summarized Table 4-1. The investigative program has been designed to evaluate the history of the site to allow adequate scoping of the field investigation, to use screening techniques to establish areas of potential contamination, and to use soil sampling and analyses to confirm or deny any suspected contamination.

An aerial photograph analysis has been initiated. Aerial photograph coverage in this portion of Kirtland AFB is limited. The following photographs have been reviewed to determine patterns of waste disposal and the period of operation of the Landfill:

• Date: 11 /I 6/1959 • Agency: United States Geologic Survey (USGS) • Scale: 1: 19,400 • Project: VZR • Frame: 3 and 4 • Roll: 1

• Date: 3/23/1989 • Agency: United States Air Force • Scale: 1 :4800 • Project: USAF-35 00 06-106 29 25 • Frame: 12 and 13 • Roll:4

One additional aerial photograph, listed below, has not yet been received for review. Once received. it will be analyzed to determine patterns of waste disposal and that information 'will be incorporated into the design of the field program.

• Date:9/21/1967 • Agency: USGS • Scale: 1 :25.952 • Project: VBUG • Frame: 51 • Roll: 1

The aerial photograph analysis determined the following waste disposal patterns:

• The 1959 USGS photos clearly show the landfill. The boundary of the Landfill in 1959 appears to be the same as the current boundary.

• The mound of covered refuse material in the center of the Landfill is prominent in the 1959 photos and appears to be of the same extent as seen in the 1989 photo and what remains currently.

4-3

• Much of the mound is currently covered with highly degraded asphalt that appears to be present in the 1959 photos.

• No trenching or significant waste disposal patterns can be seen in the photographs. • Little change in the extent of the Landfill or waste disposal patterns can be seen between

1959 and 1989.

Based on the aerial photograph analysis, soil gas sampling locations were chosen (Figure 4-1 ). Initial field activities will include a soil gas survey of 50 sampling points in the disposal areas (Attachment A). The soil gas survey will focus on the debris mound and areas of the Landfill with alluvial overborder. Twenty-five soil gas detectors will be placed throughout the debris mound on an approximate 50-ft grid pattern. The remaining 25 soil gas detectors will be placed throughout the Landfill in areas with alluvial overborder on an approximate 100-ft grid pattern. l11e results of the soil gas survey will be used to select 20 soil sampling locations. Samples will be collected at the surface and at 5-ft intervals until either field screening indicates no contamination for two consecutive intervals or bedrock is reached (assumed to be a maximum of 25 ft bls). All borings will be drilled using a Geoprobe. All samples will be analyzed at the fixed-base laboratory for TeL voes, TeL SVOes, ReRA metals, TPH, soil moisture, and pH. In addition, five soil samples with positive field screening results will be analyzed for TeL voes, TeL svoes, ReRA metals, TPH, soil moisture, pH, Gross Alpha/Beta, Organophosphorous Pesticides, Herbicides, Dioxins/Furans, Explosives, and Pesticides/PCBs. Two samples will be collected from the sewage sludge pile and analyzed for TCLP metals. Pending results of the analyses, the sewage sludge pile will be excavated and the sludge properly disposed of. The analytical parameters and estimated samples for the LF-56 investigation are summarized in Table 4-2. If groundwater is encountered during soil sampling operations, the EPA and the New Mexico Environment Department will be notified by Kirtland AFB so that a groundwater sampling plan may be developed and approved.

4-4

TABLE 4-1 PROPOSED SAMPLING FOR SWMU LF-56, LANDFILL D

Investigative Number of Analyses• Selected Data Needs Technique Location Samples Analytical

Optioab Determine pattern of waste Aerial photograph Site-Wide

disposal analysis Investigate potential Conduct a soil gas Throughout disposal areas 50 locations Target VOCs Levell

release of voes to soils survey in disposal within disposal areas areas Investigate potential Drill 20 boreholes Throughout disposal areas 120 ( 6 samples TeL voes Level II

release of contaminants to and sample at the based on the soil gas per boring). TeLSVOes Level II soils within the disposal areas surface and 5-foot survey results ReRA Metals Level II

intervals until no TPH Level I contamination or Soil Moisture, pH Level I

refusal Samples with positive 5 TeL VOes Level II field screening results TeL SVOes Level II

ReRA Metals Level II TPH Levell

Soil Moisture, pH Level I Gross Alpha/Beta Level II

Organophosphorous- Level II Pesticides Herbicides Level II

Dioxins/Furans Level II Explosives Level II

Pesticides/PeBs Level II Evaluate potential metals Grab samples From sewage sludge pile 2 TeLP Metals Level II

contamination in sludge pile

4-)

TABLE 4-1 (:ontinued

a. ICL VOCs will be by Method SW 8240, TCI. SVOl's will be by Method SW 8270, TAL metals and RCRA Metals will be by Method SW 6010, TPH will be by Method 80 IS, soil moisture will be hy ASTM Method 2217, soil pl I will be by Method SW 904S, Gross Alpha/Beta will be by Method SW 9310, Organophosphorous Pesticides will be by Method SW 8190, I lerbicides will be by Method SW 8150, Dioxins/Furans will be by Method SW 8280, Explosives will be by Method SW 8330, Pesticides/PCBs will be by Method SW 8080.

b. The Level I/Level II designation in the "Selected Analytical Option" column refers lo the type of analytical data package requested of the analytical laboratory. Level I/Level II data packages are defined in the AFCU-: contract, under which I lalliburton NUS Laboratory will perfonn analyses for Kirtland AFB. Within the specifications of the AFCEE contract and the limitations of the analytical methodology, the Level II report is equivalent to an EPA CLP report. Rigorous QA requirements are followed, and substantial supporting documentation is generated for a Level II data package (i.e., the data are considered EPA DQO Level 4 analytical data).

4-6

TABLE 4-2 SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL PARAMETERS FOR SWMU LF-56, LANDFILL D 8

TCLVOCs TCLSVOCs TCLP Metals RCRA Metals TPH Soil Moisture pH Sample Number SW 8240 SW 8270 EPA 1311 7000 Series SW 8015 ASTM2217 SW9045

LF-56-1-SL-0 I • LF-56-2-SL-0 I • LF-56-01-00 • • • • • • • LF-56-01-0507 • • • • • • • LF-56-01-1012 • • • • • • • LF-56-01-1517" • • • • • • • LF-56-01-2022 • • • • • • • LF-56-01-2527 • • • • • • • LF-56-02-00 • • • • • • • LF-56-02-0507 • • • • • • • LF-56-02-10 I 2 • • • • • • • LF-56-02-1517" • • • • • • • LF-56-02-2022 • • • • • • • LF-56-02-2527 • • • • • • • LF-56-03-00 • • • • • • • LF-56-03-0507 • • • • • • • LF-56-03-1012 • • • • • • • LF-56-03-1517° • • • • • • • LF-56-03-2022 • • • • • • • LF-56-03-2527 • • • • • • • LF-56-04-00 • • • • • • • LF-56-04-0507 • • • • • • • LF-56-04-1012 • • • • • • • LF-56-04- l 5 l 7D • • • • • • • LF-56-04-2022 • • • • • • •

4-7

T AHLE 4-2 (CONTINUED) SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL PARAMETERS FOR SWMU LF-56, LANDFILL D 8

TCLVOCs TCLSVOCs TCLP Metals RCRA Metals TPH Soil Moisture pH

Sample Number SW 8240 SW 8270 EPA 1311 7000 Series SW 8015 ASTM2217 SW9045

LF-56-04-2527 • • • • • • • LF-56-05-00 • • • • • • • LF-56-05-0507 • • • • • • • I .F-56-05-1012 • • • • • • • LF-56-05-1517° • • • • • • • LF-56-05-2022 • • • • • • • LF-56-05-2527 • • • • • • • LF-56-06-00 • • • • • • • LF-56-06-0507 • • • • • • • LF-56-06-1012 • • • • • • • LF-56-06- I 517° • • • • • • • LF-56-06-2022 • • • • • • • LF-56-06-2527 • • • • • • • LF-56-07-00 • • • • • • • LF-56-07-0507 • • • • • • • LF-56-07-1012 • • • • • • • LF-56-07-1517° • • • • • • • LF-56-07-2022 • • • • • • • LF-56-07-2527 • • • • • • • LF-56-08-00 • • • • • • • LF-56-08-0507 • • • • • • • LF-56-08-1012 • • • • • • • LF-56-08-1517° • • • • • • • LF-56-08-2022 • • • • • • • LF-56-08-2527 • • • • • • • LF-56-09-00 • • • • • • •

4-8

TABLE 4-2 (CONTINUED) SUMMARY O•' ANALYTICAL PARAMETERS FOR SWMU LF-56, LANDFILL D a

TCLVOCs TCLSVOCs TCLP Metals RCRA Metals TPH Soil Moisture pH Sample Number SW 8240 SW 8270 EPA 1311 7000 Series SW8015 ASTM2217 SW9045

LF-56-09-0507 • • • • • • • LF-56-09-1012 • • • • • • • LF-56-09-1517° • • • • • • • LF-56-09-2022 • • • • • • • LF-56-09-2527 • • • • • • • LF-56-10-00 • • • • • • • LF-56-10-0507 • • • • • • • LF-56-10-1012 • • • • • • • LF-56-10-1517" • • • • • • • LF-56-10-2022 • • • • • • • LF-56-10-2527 • • • • • • • LF-56-11-00 • • • • • • • LF-56-11-0507 • • • • • • • LF-56-11-1012 • • • • • • • LF-56-11-1517° • • • • • • • ,

LF-56-11-2022 • • • • • • • LF-56-11-2527 • • • • • • • LF-56-12-00 • • • • • • • LF-56-12-0507 • • • • • • • LF-56-12-1012 • • • • • • • LF-56-12-1517" • • • • • • • LF-56-12-2022 • • • • • • • LF-56-12-2527 • • • • • • • LF-56-13-00 • • • • • • • LF-56-13-0507 • • • • • • • LF-56-13-1012 • • • • • • •

4-9

TABLE 4-2 (CONTINUED) SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL PARAMETERS FOR SWMU LF-56, LANDFILL D 8

TCLVOCs TCLSVOCs TCLP Metals RCRA Metals TPH Soll Moisture pH Sample Number SW 8240 SW 8270 EPA 1311 7000 Series SW 8015 ASTM2217 SW9045

LF-56-13-1517° • • • • • • • LF-56-13-2022 • • • • • • • LF-56-13-2527 • • • • • • • LF-56-14-00 • • • • • • • LF-56-14-0507 • • • • • • • LF-56-14-1012 • • • • • • • LF-56-14-1517° • • • • • • • LF-56-14-2022 • • • • • • • LF-56-14-2527 • • • • • • • LF-56-15-00 • • • • • • • LF-56-15-0507 • • • • • • • LF-56-15-1012 • • • • • • • LF-56-15-151 ?u • • • • • • • LF-56-15-2022 • • • • • • • LF-56-15-2527 • • • • • • • LF-56-16-00 • • • • • • • LF-56-16-0507 • • • • • • • LF-56-16-1012 • • • • • • • LF-56-16-1517° • • • • • • • LF-56-16-2022 • • • • • • • LF-56-16-2527 • • • • • • • LF-56-17-00 • • • • • • • LF-56-17-0507 • • • • • • • LF-56-17-1012 • • • • • • • LF-56-17- 1517° • • • • • • • LF-56-17-2022 • • • • • • •

4-10

'r A 1n I.' .L.., ('"'ONTINI 1 ~fl\ I r-..I.JIL.Ja.:., "'T-., '--' , • •'-,. ..._, .....,_ /

SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL PARAMETERS FOR SWMU LF-56, LANDFILL D a

TCLVOCs TCLSVOCs TCLP Metals RCRA Metals TPH Soil Moiltare pH Sample Number SW 8240 SW 8270 EPA 1311 7000 Series SW8015 ASTM2ll7 SW9045

LF-56-17-2527 • • • • • • • LF-56-18-00 • • • • • • • LF-56-18-0507 • • • • • • • LF-56-18-1012 • • • • • • • LF-56-18-1517" • • • • • • • LF-56-18-2022 • • • • • • • LF-56-18-2527 • • • • • • • LF-56-19-00 • • • • • • • LF-56-19-0507 • • • • • • • LF-56-19-1012 • • • • • • • LF-56-19-1517° • • • • • • • LF-56-19-2022 • • • • • • • LF-56-19-2527 • • • • • • • LF-56-20-00 • • • • • • • LF-56-20-0507 • • • • • • • LF-56-20-1012 • • • • • • • LF-56-20-1517" • • • • • • • LF-56-20-2022 • • • • • • • LF-56-20-2527 • • • • • • •

Field QC Samples< Trip Blank d 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 Equip Rinsate e 7 7 1 7 0 0 0 Field Duplicate r 12 12 0 12 0 0 0

4-11

TABLE 4-2 (CONTINUED) SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL PARAMETERS FOR SWMU LF-56, LANDFILL D 8

a. Five soil samples (and associated equipment rinsates and/or field duplicates) will be analyzed for TCL VOCs, TCL SVOCs, RCRA Metals, TPH, Soil Moisture, pH, Gross Alpha/Beta, Organophosphorous Pesticides, Herbicides, Dioxins/Furans, Explosives, and Pesticides/PCBs where field screening indicates contamination.

b. Optional, based on field screening.

c. Estimated field quality control (QC) samples for LF - 56

d. Trip Blanks - Samples which originate from analyte-free water taken from the laboratory to the sampling site and returned to the laboratory with the volatile organic compound samples. One trip blank per cooler containing VOC samples. Trip Blanks are analyzed for VOCs only.

e. Equipment Rinsate Blanks - collected for each type of nondedicated sampling equipment used and analyzed for the same parameters as the samples they are used to collect. Equipment blanks will be collected and sent to the laboratory on a daily basis. Only equipment blanks collected every other day will be analyzed.

f. Field Duplicates - A single sample split into two portions during a single act of sampling. Assesses the overall precision of the sampling and analysis program. Collected at a frequency of 10% of the total number of samples for chemical analyses and analyzed for the same parameters as equivalent samples.

4-1~

5.0 SWMU WP-58, EAST LAUNDRY (BLDG. 20451)


The East Laundry, SWMU WP-58, (Bldg. 20451) is located at 2251 Wyoming Blvd. SE, on the east side of Kirtland AFB (Figure 1-1). The nearest SWMUs are ST-259 and 260, Building 20423 OWS and Area Drain, located 100 ft to the southwest. The nearest Sandia National Laboratories S WMU is Site 190, Tank Farm for the Stearn Plant, 300 ft east of the site.

The East Laundry functioned as the Sandia Army Base laundry facility. Although the exact period of operation is not known, the building was built in 1950 and probably operated as a laundry into the mid- l 960s. The building was renovated in 1983 and currently is used as an office for the Defense Evaluation Support Activity. The building is a single story, 17,500 ft2, slab on grade structure. The facility used washers, dryers, steam presses, and a water softening unit during its operation. The washers discharged effiuent to a central concrete drainage trench that drained to a below-grade sump on the east side of the building (Figure 5-1 ). Constructed of concrete with a holding capacity of about 500 gallons, the sump discharged to the sanitary sewer via a 6-in discharge line. This sump was removed during the building renovation. A second, smaller sump was located inside the building next to the water softening units. This sump also discharged to the sanitary sewer via of a 4-in line on the east side of the building (Figure 5-1 ).

Wastes generated at the site included detergent and water effiuent from the washers and calcium salts from the water softeners. It is not known if the laundry offered a dry-cleaning service. If dry cleaning was performed at the facility, it is possible that solvents such as carbon tetrachloride or trichloroethane were also used. Herbicides have been used in the past for weed control on the building grounds.

- .., :, .... co,TA\1INA1',;T OCCCRRENCE AND DISTRIBUTI0,

Two borings, designated TH-1 and TH-2. were drilled in 1983 for a site landscaping study. Soil samples which were collected at depths of 1.5 and 6 ft, were analyzed for herbicides. Results from the analyses are listed in Table 5-l.

TABLE 5-1 SWMU WP-58, EAST LAUNDRY (BLDG. 20451) LANDSCAPE STUDY A.~ALYTICAL RESULTS

AT OR EXCEEDING DETECTION LIMITS

Boring Depth (ft) Parameter Result (ppm) TH-1 1.5 2,4 - D 0.308 TH-1 1.5 Dicarnba 0.247 TH-1 6 Dicarnba 0.147 TH-2 1.5 Dicamba 0.106 TH-2 6 Dicarnba 0.054

5-1

191 TII # I ,----------: WP-58

BUILD INC 204 ~> 1

N

1 ]r'

l.EG1':ND

Ole Proposed Boreholt• Location & ldenl1fical1on

e :;WMU Assess111e11l !Jonng

NOT TO ~CALE

Figure 5-1

Washer Tn~nch lkt1111

j~_

Aba11dont•d Sumps.. ·· · ~ 01

.05

Boring

-7~LoR e eo2 eo3

204:i I - 1

TQ__.5~.r _____ _,J!!._

--r- ,:, OR ... ------ To St>wer

Wi:iler Soft t•111·1 s

• ()!I

Bonng 204~> I G

191 Tl! #2

Propoaed Sampling Looationa at SIIWU WP-58, East Laundry (Blda. 20451) Kirtland AFB, Albuquerque, New lle:a:ioo

5-2

Two borings, designated 20451-1 and 20451-2, were drilled by Kirtland AFB to determine if hazardous constituents were released from the sumps that drained the facility. The borings were driilled on the building's east side, along the discharge pipe for the small sump and in the former location of the large sump (Figure 5-1 ). The borings were advanced to a depth of 5 ft with a 4-in flight auger, and from 5 to l O ft with a stainless steel hand auger. Samples, which were collected at depths of 5 and 10 ft in the boreholes, were analyzed for RCRA metals (SW 7000 series), TCL VOCs (SW 8240), TCL SVOCs (SW 8270), and chlorinated herbicides (SW 509b). A duplicate sample was taken in Boring 20451-2 at a depth of 9 to 10 ft. Results from the analyses are listed in Table 5-2.

Numerous SVOC's were detected in boring 20451-1 and 2. Benzidine and Anthracene were detected at concentrations up to 49 and 12 mg/kg, respectively, at a depth of 5 feet in boring 20451-1. The concentrations ofBenzidine and Anthracene decreased to 3.0 and 0.76 mg/kg, respectively, at a depth of 10 feet. Benzidine was detected in concentrations ranging from 0.28 to 1.3 mg/kg in boring 20451-2, while Anthracene was detected only at the 5 foot depth at a concentration of 0.077 mg/kg. These compounds were formally used in the production of dyes and were probably leached from clothing being washed at the laundry, and were deposited in the soils surrounding the sump via leaks in the sump or associated piping. The other SVOC's detected such as Fluoranthene (max. conc.=12 mg/kg), Pyrene (max.conc=l l mg/kg), Benzo(a)anthracene (max.conc.=5.1 mg/kg), Chrysene (max.conc.=4. 7 mg/kg), and Benzo(a)pyrene are common constituents of coal tar. These compounds are much more prevalent and found in higher concentrations in boring 20451-1 than in boring 20451-2. the source for these compounds is probably from the degradation of asphalt which \.Vas used along with other construction debris as fill when the sump was removed in 1983. The herbicides Dicamba and 2,4-D were detected in borings TH-I and 2 at concentrations up to .308 and .247 mg/kg, respectively. These herbicides were used for weed control around the building grounds. No herbicides were detected in borings, 20451-1,2. Metals exceeding natural background concentrations common to Kirtland AFB were not detected in any of the samples. No VOC' s were detected which indicates that dry cleaning was probably not performed at the facility.

5.3 DATA GAPS

The extent of confirmed contamination at this SWMU has not been determined.


The proposed scope of the investigation is sho\,\,n in Figure 5-1 and summarized in Table 5-3. The field program has been designed to delineate the areal extent of any confirmed contamination at the former sump locations. A total of ten boreholes will be installed. Two boreholes will be installed at the former sump locations (01, 02). Samples will be collected at the surface, 15 ft bls, and 25 ft bls or until field screening indicates no contamination for two consecutive intervals. Seven boreholes will be installed along the former path of the sump drain (03, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09) and samples will be collected at the surface, 5 ft bis and 15 ft bis or

5-3

until field screening indicates no contamination for two consecutive intervals. One borehole will be installed along the discharge line of the former large sump ( 10) and samples will be collected at the surface and at 5-ft bis. All borings will be drilled using a Geoprobe. All samples collected will be analyzed at the fixed-base laboratory for TCL SVOCs, soil moisture, and pH. The analytical parameters and estimated samples for the WP-58 investigation are summarized in Table 5-4.

5-4

TABLE 5-2 SWMU WP-58, EAST LAUNDRY (BLDG. 20451) ANALYTICAL RESULTS AT OR EXCEEDING DETECTION LIMITS

Boring

Boring 20451-1 Boring 2045 l-1 Boring 20451-2 Boring 20451-2 20451-2 9-10 Ft

Detection Limit 5-6 Ft 9-10 Ft 5-6 Ft 9-10 Ft Duplicate

Parameter (ppm)

ORGANICS

Acetone 0.0050 - - 0.031 - -Naphthalene 0.030 1.9 0.091 - - -2-Methylnapthalene 0.030 0.55 - - - -Acenapthylene 0.030 1.9 0.098 - - -Ch lorobenzene 0.0010 - - - 0.001 -Dibenzofuran 0.030 0.85 - - - -Flourene 0.030 1.3 0.075 - - -Benzidine 0.030 49 3.0 0.28 1.3 0.20

Phenantherene 0.030 2.5 0.16 - - -Anthracene 0.030 12 0.76 0.077 - -Di-n-butylphthalate 0.030 0.39 0.16B 0.35 1.48 0.128

Fluoranthene 0.030 12 0.83 0.10 - -Pyrene 0.030 11 0.75 0.088 - -Benzo(a)anthracene 0.030 5.1 0.33 - - -Chrysene 0.030 4.7 0.30 - - -bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate 0.030 - 0.076 - - -Benzo(b )fluoranthene 0.030 4.8 0.28 - - -Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.030 2.4 0.17 - - -Benzo( a )pyrene 0.030 4.7 0.28 - - -ldeno( 1,2,3-cd)pyrene 0.030 2.8 0.19 - - -Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 0.030 3.0 0.2 - - -

METALS Arsenic 0.0050 3.34 l.79 9.6 1.29 0.960 Barium 0.50 135 166 914 121 IOI Chromium 0.020 4.00 7.4 3.45 8.9 9.8 Mercury 0.15 0.47 - - - -Lead 0.10 - - - 7.4 -

5-5

TABLE 5-3 PROPOSED SAMPLING FOR SWMU WP-58, EAST LAUNDRY (BLDG. 20451)

Investigative Number of Selected Data Needs Technique Location Samples Analyses• Analytieal

Optioab Investigate extent of SVOC Drill 2 boreholes Former sump 6 (3 samples TCL SVOCs Level II contamination at former sump and sample at 0, locations per boring) Soil Moisture, pH Level I locations 15 and 25 ft Investigate the areal extent of Drill 7 boreholes Surrounding former 21 (3 samples TCL SVOCs Level II SVOC contamination in the and sample at sump locations per boring) Soil Moisture, pH Levell area of the former sumps surface, 5 and 15

ft. Investigate the areal extent of Drill l boreholes Former large sump 2 TCL SVOCs Level II SVOC contan1ination along and sample at 0 discharge line Soil Moisture, pH Levell discharge line of former large and 5 ft. sump

a. TCL SVOCs will he by Method SW 8270, soil moisture will be by ASTM Method 2217, and soil pl! will be by Method SW 904~.

h The Level I/Level II designation i11 the "Selected Analytical Option" column refers to the type of analytical data package requested of the analytical laboratory. Level I/Level II data packages are defined in the AFCU: contrad, under which Halliburton NUS Lahoratory will perform analyses for Kirtland AFB. Within the specifications of the AFCEE contract and the limitations of the analytical methodology, the Level II report is equivalent to an EPA CLP report. Rigorous QA requirements arc followed, and substantial supporting documentation is generated for a Level II data package (i.e, the data are considered EPA DQO Level 4 analytical data).

5-6

TABLE 5-4 SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL PARAMETERS FOR SWMU WP-58, EAST LAUNDRY

(BLDG. 20451)

TCLSVOCs Soil Moisture pH Sample Number SW8270 ASTMll17 SW 9045

WP-58-01-00 • • • WP-58-01-1517 • • • WP-58-01-2527 • • • WP-58-02-00 • • • WP-58-02-1517 • • • WP-58-02-2527 • • • WP-58-03-00 • • • WP-58-03-0507 • • • WP-58-03-1517 • • • WP-58-04-00 • • • WP-58-04-1517 • • • WP-58-04-2527 • • • WP-58-05-00 • • • WP-58-05-1517 • • • \VP-58-05-2527 • • • WP-58-06-00 • • • WP-58-06-1517 • • • WP-58-06-2527 • • • WP-58-07-00 • • • WP-58-07-0507 • • • WP-58-07-1517 • • • WP-58-08-00 • • • WP-58-08-0507 • • • \\/P-58-08-1517 • • • WP-58-09-00 • • • WP-58-09-0507 • • • WP-58-09-1517 • • • WP-58-10-00 • • • WP-58-10-0507 • • •

Field QC Samples• Equip Rinsate b 3 0 0 Field Duplicate c. 3 0 0

a. Estimated field quality control ( QC) samples for WP - 58. b. Equipment Rinsate Blanks - collected for each type ofnondedicated sampling equipment used and analyzed for the same

parameters as the samples they are used to collect. Equipment blanks will be collected and sent to the laboratof) on a daily basis. Only equipment blanks collected every other day will be analyzed.

c. Field Duplicates - A single sample split into two portions during a single act of sampling. Assesses the overall precision of the sampling and analysis program. Collected at a frequency of I 0% of the total number of samples for chemical analyses and analyzed for the same parameters as equivalent samples.

5-7

6.0 DP-67, THREE MINE SHAFTS


The three mine shafts (AOC) are located on withdrawn U.S. Forest Service lands south of the Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) range in the southeast portion of Kirtland AFB (Figure 1-1 ). All mines were fluorite mines operated in the 1940s. The three mine shafts show evidence of po1st-mining activity that may have released contamination to the environment.

• The first mine (DP-67-1) is located approximately 1,500 ft northeast of the optical range. No surface expression of the former shaft remains, and its former depth is unknown. Evidence of large circular subsidence fractures and scattered shrapnel indicate that an explosive charge was detonated in this shaft. It is not known if the detonation was a result of testing or disposal.

• The second mine (DP-67-2) is a steeply dipping shaft of unknown depth located approximately 4,000 ft east of the optical range. A large metal plate covers a portion of this shaft, and a set of conductive cable or detonation lines was seen leading into the shaft. Unconfirmed reports indicate that motor or propellant testing may have been conducted at this site.

• The third mine (DP-67-3) is a near vertical shaft, at least 50 ft deep, located approximately 1.5 miles east-southeast of the optical range. On one occasion standing water was observed in this shaft at a depth of approximately 40 ft. Galena (PbS), barite (BaSO4 ), and other metal containing minerals were also observed in the tailings. Scattered fragments of a lightweight slag are located at the entrance of this shaft. indicating it may have been used to incinerate waste or dispose of incinerated waste.

6 .2 CO!'.JT A~INA1'iT OCCURRENCE AND DISTRIBL:TION

Potential soil contamination has not been investigated at this AOC.

6.3 DAT A GAPS

The presence or absence of contamination at this AOC has not been determined.


1be proposed scope of the investigation is sho~n in Figure 6-1 and summarized in Table 6-1.

The field program has been designed to determine if a collapsed shaft exists at DP-67-1 and if

contamination exists in the area. At DP-67-2, the field program has been designed to determine

6-1

~ \\\ \ \

1 •,, ~P-87-1

\

~ (,eoprob . DP-67-1 _e Bonngs: llP-67-l-8~

/ I llttck I Dl'-6fr,c~'fp<I S11111ple:

r - _/~---\ . ,Q>W"~R~",/ ·~. \

Rood r=n,. • , \ ">, '

l \

1/\") \ \\~ ~, ( .

~\ °I 1 f -==-~

\// \ Opt,cal •~ng• f \,~ \

) / \

~. I )

\ /,,·

\ I

I

I

'1 \ - DP-87-2 \ •. , ~f.ab ~a1A1vles: -§z-~-0A

·=o+=2=0:\ ~_;;::,,:.-•

I llaeke:round Samvt,•: nP--6,-2-TP

- I

(

I I

\

I

(

\ I

j

I ( =~=--

-- -~ . ~···- ... \ \ 1 ,,L-~~--- -~-~~J

r-1

I l

\I 6 f

I\

•

l

,/

()

---

\ \ \

- --:;-:-::: -

\ \

--:.=.-~;·

\ Ml V43shitltz.t00 ~~~~-""-~~•="''"".--

- ~->''~·===-' --;- ------~- -

j /. /]

( / ( ( ,J j

J ~----- • /~ /

_{" I /

I I j _ I f,

!. ( I / /

_.- . I .. () I /- -

I/'' - I

DP-87-3 I S ii: • of-b,-3 --

I ( /. 1.E(;f:ND

Mme Shaft l.cwal1ons

ll1rl. lfoad

f100 I 000ft

1 WBter: , · l>P -67- 3 SW l

I Slai: ( --·- DP~7-3-SL _

I Hacke:round . ample:1 C'"''·TP I - \

(\ ·· 1 ( ~ Pteure 8-1 Propo•ed Sampling Looationa at DP-87, Three Mine Shaft•

Kirtland APB. Albuquerque, New Mezloo

(,-:,

TARI.F. 6-1

PROPOSED SAMPLING FOR DP-67, THREE MINE SHAFTS Investigative Number of Selected

Data Needs Technique Location Samples Analyses8 Analytical Optionb

Investigate potential Drill 2 boreholes and Through fill in suspected 6 (3 samples per TCL voes Level II contamination in suspected shaft sample at the surface, mine shaft at DP-67-1 boring) TCL SVOCs Level II

at DP-67-1 10 and 25 ft or until TAL Metals Level II no contamination or Explosives Level II

refusal Radiology Level II

Investigate potential Collect grab samples From bottom of shafts at 4 soil from TCL voes Level II contamination in abandoned of soil, water (if DP-67-2 and DP-67-2, TCL SVOCs Level II

mine shafts DP-67-2 present) and slag DP-67-3 1 soil, l water, TAL Metals Level II and DP-67-3 and 1 slag from Explosives Level II

DP-67-3 Radiology Level II 1 sample for Level II

TCLP voes, SVOCs, Metals

(DP-67-3)

Determine background Grab samples From tailings piles at all 3 TCL voes Level II concentrations in tailings three shafts TCL SVOCs Level II

TAL Metals Level II Explosives Level II Radiology Level II

a. TCL VOCs will be by Method SW 8240, TCL SVOCs will he by Method SW 8270, TAL metals will be by Method SW 6010, explosives will be by Method SW 8330, radiology will be hy SW 9:110, and TCLP analyses will be by Method SW D 11.

b. The Level I/Level II designation in the "Selected Analytical Option" column refers to the type of analytical data package requested of the analytical laboratory. Level 1/1.evd II data p11ckages are de tined in the AF( Tl: contract, under which Halliburton NUS Laboratory will pcrfonn analyses for Kirtland AFB. Within the specifications of the AFC EE contract and the limitations of the analytical methodology, the Level II report is equivalent to an EPA CLP report. Rigorous QA requirements arc followed, and substantial supporting documentation is gcnm1ted for a Level II data package (i.e., the data are considered EPA DQO Level 4 analytical data).

6-.1

if ,;ontaminants exist in the shaft. The field program at DP-67-3 has been designed to determine if contaminants exist in the water (if present) and soil in the shaft, and to determine the nature of the: slag located at the entrance of the shaft. Background concentrations will be determined by sampling the tailings piles located at all three mine shafts. A total of two boreholes will be installed at DP-67-1 (01, 02). Samples will be collected at the surface, at IO ft and at 25 ft or until field screening indicates no contamination for two consecutive intervals or refusal is reached (assumed to be a maximum of 25 ft). The borings will be drilled using a Geoprobe. The remaining samples at the mine shafts will be collected as grab samples using stainless steel spoons and trowels. All samples will be analyzed at the fixed-base laboratory of TCL VOCs, TCL SVOCs, T AL metals, radiology and explosives. In addition, TCLP VOCs, TCL SVOCs, and TAL metals will be analyzed on a sample of the slag from DP-67-3. The analytical parameters and estimated samples for the DP-67 investigation are summarized in Table 6-2. Attachment B, the Confined Space Addendum, details the procedures to be followed when collecting samples within the mine shafts. Attachment C, Unexploded Ordnance (UXO) Addendum, details UXO support when working in these areas.

6-4

TABLE 6-2 SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL PARAMETERS FOR DP-67, THREE MINE SHAFTS

TCLP voes,

TCLVOCs TCLSVOCs TAL Metals Explosives Radiology SVOCs, Sample Number SW 8240 SW 8270 SW 6010 SW 8330 SW9310 Metals

SW 1311

DP-67-1-TP-0I • • • • • DP-67-1-01-00 • • • • • DP-67-1-01-1012 • • • • • DP-67-1-0 l-252'fl • • • • • DP-67-1-02-00 • • • • • OP-67-1-02- IO 12 • • • • • DP-67-1-02" • • • • • DP-67-2-TP-0 I • • • • • DP-67-2-01-00 • • • • • DP-67-2-02-00 • • • • • DP-67-2-03-00 • • • • • DP-67-2-04-00 • • • • • OP-67-3-TP-0 I • • • • • DP-67-3-01-00 • • • • • • DP-67-3-SW-0 I • • • • • DP-67-3-SL-0 I • • • • •

6-)

TABLE 6-2 (CONTINUED) SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL PARAMETERS FOR DP-67, THREE MINE SHAFTS

TCLP voes,

TCLVOCs TCLSVOCs TAL Metals Explosives Radiology SVOCs, Sample Number SW 8240 SW 8270 SW 6010 SW 8330 SW9310 Metals

SW 1311

Field QC Samplesb Trip Blank t 2 0 0 0 0 0 Equip Rinsate d 2 2 2 2 0 0 Field Duplicate e I I I I 0 0

a. Optional, based on fidd screening

b. Estimated field quality control (QC) sampks for ST- 67

c. Trip Blanks - Samples which originate from analyte-frce water taken from the laboratory to the sampling site and returned to the laboratory with the volatile organic compound samples. One trip hlank per cookr containing VOC samples. Trip Blanks are analyzed for VOCs only.

d. Equipment Rinsate Blanks - collected for each type of nondcdicatcd sampling equipment used and analyzed for the same parameters as the samples they are used to collect. Equipment blanks will be collectcd and sent to the laboratory on a daily basis. Only equipment blanks collected every other day will be analyzed.

e. Field Duplicates - A single sampk split into two portions during a single act of sampling. Assesses the overall precision of the sampling and analysis program. Collected at a frequency of I 0% of the total number or sampks for chemical analyses and analyzed for the same parameters as equivalent samples.

6-6

ATTACHMENT A

Addendum to the Field Sampling Plan, Stage lC Soil Gas Survey at SWMU LF-56, Landfill D

As an initial screening tool, a soil gas survey will be performed at SWMU LF-56, Landfill D, to aid in the placement of Geoprobe locations. Results obtained from the survey will assist in defining the nature and extent of potential contamination at the site. The soil gas survey will be performed using the patented PETREX Passive Soil Gas Technique. The PETREX Technique is a geochemical method used to identify voes and SVOes found in soil gases. The PETREX sampler contains two collector wires. Activated charcoal fixed to the tips of the wires serves as the! adsorbent for the voes and SVOes.

SURVEY METHOD

TI1e sampling grid will be laid out over the approximately 4-acre site. Locations for the placement of the soil gas samplers were chosen based on the results of the aerial photograph search. The samplers will be installed in a narrow hole, hand-augured below the surface to a de::pth of approximately 18 inches. The samplers will be placed in the bottom of the hole. The hole will be covered with soil and marked with a pin flag for later surveying. The detectors will remain in the ground continuously for approximately 2 weeks collecting soil gases.

Time Calibration Samples will be placed at. three locations. Each location will have 2 collections. At the end of l week, one of the Time Calibration Samples will be collected and sent to the Laboratory for analysis. This analysis will be used to determine if the detectors should be retrieved or left for another week based on whether a large number of compounds are present after the first week. The same procedure will be followed after 2 weeks to determine the optimum duration of the soil gas survey.

At the end of 2 weeks the samplers -will be collected, packed in a cooler (ice is not required) and shipped overnight to the Northeast Research Institute (NERI) Inc., laboratory for analysis by thermal desorption-mass spectrometry. Analytical results and a brief narrative report will be rieceived in approximately two weeks. These results will be reviewed -with Kirtland AFB and used to determine the Geoprobe locations for the collection of surface and subsurface soil samples for fixed base laboratory analyses as described in Section 4.0 of the SAP.

A-1

ATTACHMENT 8

Addendum to Health and Safety Plan, Stage 2C Confined Space Entry

1..0 INTRODUCTION

This section is intended to provide infonnation on confined space entry procedures, and the basic safety and health precautions to be utilized when entering a confined space. Adherence to these procedures and precautions will be required during the sampling of DP-67-2 and DP-67-3, two of three mine shafts to be investigated as part of the Stage 2E investigation. The three mine shafts are located on withdrawn U.S. Forest Service land south of the Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) range in the southeast portion of Kirtland AFB. The mines were fluorite mines operated in the 1940s and show evidence of post-mining activity that may have rdeased contamination to the environment.

Site DP-67-2 in a steeply dipping shaft of unknov.n depth located approximately 4,000 ft east of the optical range. There is a large metal plate covering a portion of this shaft, and a set of conductive cable or detonation lines can be seen leading into the shaft. Unconfirmed reports indicate testing of motors or propellants may have been conducted at this site.

Site DP-67-3 is a near vertical shaft, at least 50 ft deep, located approximately 1.5 miles eastsoutheast of the optical range. Standing water was observed on one occasion in this shaft at a depth of approximately 40 ft. Scattered fragments of a lightweight slag are located at the entrance of this shaft, indicating it may have been used to incinerate waste or dispose of incinerated waste.

Entry into the mine shafts will be required in order to collect soil and/or water samples as part of the Stage 2E investigation. An EOD representative v.ill survey and clear the area prior to any field activities. This shall be pre-coordinated through the Restoration Project Manager, Environmental Management Division.

It is the intention of Halliburton NUS to follow all applicable federal, state, and local regulations regarding confined space entry. The infonnation listed in this section is intended to set minimum acceptable requirements for Halliburton NUS personnel

B-1

2.0 DEFINITIONS

2.1 Confined or Enclosed Space

A confined space is any space with a limited means of entry or exit, which might be subject to the accumulation of toxic or flammable gases or vapors, and is not designed for continuous human occupancy. Confined spaces are normally considered to be hazardous due to the safety and health of an employee. Confined spaces include the following:

• Enclosures with limited access openings for employees, such as closed storage tanks, process vessels, and enclosed holds or tanks on marine vessels.

• Tanks, pits. tubs, vaults, boilers, vessels, or other confined spaces with one side open to the air, but designed to require entrance by or aid in exiting from an assistant in case of emergency.

• Ventilation or exhaust ducts, sewers, sumps, underground utility tunnels, pipelines. or excavations more than four feet deep.

2.2 Competent Person

A competent person is one who, because of training and experiences:

• Is capable of identifying existing or potential hazards in the job being performed.

• Is capable of identifying working conditions that are unsanitary, hazardous. or dangerous to the safety and health of the employee.

• Has the authorization to take prompt, corrective measures to eliminate the above conditions.

2.3 Entry

Entry into a confined space is the insertion of the head or trunk of the body into a confined space in which the possibility of a health haz.ard or injury exists.

2. 3. I Standby or Entry Attendant

A standby or entry attendant is a person who is qualified to act as an attendant on standby during entry into a confined space.

B-2

3.0 RESPONSIBILITIES

3.1 Project Manager

The Project Manager is ultimately responsible for all confined space entry operations, but may delegate procedural compliance to the Site Safety Supervisor for the following activities:

• Surveying of work operation and identifying and evaluating potential hazards.

• Completing a Halliburton NUS entry permit, and consulting with the designated competent person before allowing entry.

• In an operating facility, ensuring continual liaison and job planning between Halliburton NUS personnel and the Restoration Project Manager, Environmental Management Division.

• Ensuring all employees involved know the company's policy and procedures and are trained in the nature and hazards of the entry, correct use of required personal protective equipment, and emergency evacuation and rescue.

3 .2 Competent Person

The project manager designates the competent person for a confined space entry. The competent person is responsible for the following:

• Evaluating and monitoring the work environment to determine the hazards associated \\ith the confined space.

• In the absence of other safety policies, determining which personal protective and rescue equipment is used while working in the confined space.

4.0 PROCEDURES

4.1 Preparation of the Confined Space

No formal preparation procedures will be required for entry into mine shafts DP-67-2 and DP-67-3. The shafts are open to the atmosphere and well ventilated.

B-3

4.2 Testing the Atmosphere

Testing is done before initial entry, before the entry of each new shift, and after absences of personnel for lunch, breaks, and so on.

Testing is done, if feasible, without entering the confined space, and readings are taken over a cross section of the confined space. The supervisor of the crew or other designated person accompanies the designated representative doing the tests to ensure entry is safe. Continuous monitoring may be necessary to guard against changes that may otherwise go undetected.

4.3 Flammable/Combustibles

Flammable/combustible material are not believed to be present in the mine shafts and the shafts are well ventilated.

4.4 Oxygen

Prior to entry, the competent person or designated representative tests the confined space for oxygen content. Minimum content cannot be below 19.5 percent ambient content by volume or above 21 percent.

In a case when the oxygen content is outside these levels, additional measures must be taken to protect employees. Consideration should be given to air-supplied respirators or delaying work until the atmosphere is more favorable to entry. The mine shafts are open to the atmosphere and ambient oxygen levels are expected.

4.5 Toxic Gases or Vapors. Corrosives or Other Harmful Substances

Toxic gases or vapors. corrosives. or other harmful substances may be present even though a flammability check is negative. Depending on what the confined space contained, additional tests are done to ensure exposure of personnel is below allowable limits. An OVA will be used to check for gases or vapors in the mine shafts.

4 .. 6 Entry Permit

4. 6.1 Client Entry Permit

The Halliburton NUS Project Manager, Site Safety Supervisor, and the competent person for the confined space entry review and complete the entry permit. The Project Manager and Site Safety Supervisor determines by personal investigation. immediately before entry and before signing the permit, if the entry and work is safe.

B-4

No entry authorization is valid except for the job, location, time, and persons specified on the entry permit.

To ensure continuation of safe conditions should a pause in significant duration occur during a job, such as lunch periods, breaks, and shift changes, the space is re-investigated by the permit signers before the job resumes. The Project Manager or Site Safety Supervisor must endorse the permit at the commencement of a new shift.

4. 6. 2 Halliburton NUS Entry Permit

As Kirtland AFB does not issue confined space entry permits to contractor personnel, company procedures are followed and the Halliburton NUS Confined Space Entry Permit is completed. The Project Manager and Site Safety Supervisor review and complete the permit jointly \1.-ith the competent person, and they must agree on a safe working environment before signing the permit.

The permit certifies and records approval for entry into the confined space. It serves as a method of formalizing agreed-upon procedures and also as a checklist to ensure that all existing hazards are considered and evaluated, and correct protective measures are taken.

R,evalidation of the permit is required if the work continues beyond the permit duration period. No permit is valid except for the job, location, personnel, and time specified or for a period longer that 24 hours unless the project manager issues an authorization in \vriting for the vanance.

4. 7 Entry Into a Confined Space

No employee will enter a confined space without obtaining permission from his/her Site Safety Supervisor and the Project Manager. The Site Safety Supervisor or Project Manager discusses the job in detail with those entering the confined space, and reviews the associated hazards.

4.8 Equipment for Confined Space Entry

-1.8.1 Hand Tools and Equipment

Follow these procedures when using hand tools and related equipment in a confined space:

• Use clean hand tools in good condition.

• Tie a ladder at the top and, if possible, also at the bottom.

• Do not use a rope ladder unless there is no other means of entry.

B-5

• If a rope ladder is used, tie it securely at the top and bottom.

• A ladder will be used for entrance to DP-67-2. It will be secured at the top and a safety rope will be attached to each person entering the shaft.

• A safety rope and belayer will be used for entrance to DP-67-3. The belayer will also be secured at the surface.

4 .. 9 Personal Protective Equipment

4.. 9. 1 Protective Clothing

The Site Safety Supervisor ensures that suitable protective clothing is made available to the employees as needed. Protective clothing ranges from specially designed, whole-body coverage suits for protection against highly toxic chemicals harmful by absorption through the skin, to chemical goggles, hard hats, gloves, and safety shoes normally worn to protect against routine hazards. Mod Level D will be used which includes hardhats, steel-toe boots, safety glasses, gloves, and Tyvek® .

An employee never unduly exposes the skin when working a confined space and wears a full coverage of clothing at all times. An employee with sores, bums, or other skin lesions requiring medical treatment is not allowed to work at his or her regular job in the confined space until authorized by medical personnel.

-l 9. 2 Respirators

The Site Safety Supervisor determines the specific type of respiratory protection necessary and indicates it on the entry permit. No respiratory equipment is anticipated. ~fonitoring will be conducted prior to entry to determine if respiratory equipment \I.ill be necessary.

Breathing air is supplied if the integrity of the atmosphere cannot be guaranteed and if there is any possibility of harmful air contamination or oxygen deficiency while employees are in a confined space. Under these conditions, canister-type gas masks may not afford adequate protection and are not used.

The respirators must have National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) and Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) approval numbers and be fitted and maintained in accordance with the company's Respiratory Protection Program.

8-6

4.10 Emergency Rescue Procedures

4.10. 1 Standby Attendant Responsibilities

While an employee is inside the confined space, a qualified standby attendant must observe the entry operation from outside the confined space at all times.

The standby attendant is responsible for the following:

• Keeping rescue equipment available.

• Staying aware of the condition of the employee in the confined space.

• Keeping tools and materials immediately available and passing them to the employee in the confined space.

4.11 Communications

The standby attendant, if possible, will keep the employees in the confined space always in his or her vision. When that is impossible, a clearly understood signal system is established prior to the start of operations. The signals can be either by radio or line-jerk.

Line-jerk signals are as follows:

• One pull--allow more slack in the line.

• Two pulls--lead line inadequate.

• Three pulls--emergency: pull employee out of the confined space.

4.12 Lifelines

If potential exposure in the confined space is acutely hazardous or if rescue may be difficult, the employee wears a body harness, wristlets with a lifeline attached, or coveralls with a built-in harness and lifeline. Employees entering the mine shaft will wear body harnesses attached to safety lines.

'When the shape, size, location, or work performed in the confined space limits exit of personnel, a specific procedure for the rescue of the personnel is developed in the pre-planning stage of the entry work and is made a part of the entry permit. In some cases, it is advisable to have a block and tackle positioned on a tripod or otherwise fastened above a manhole. When a confined space

B-7

limits exit because of size, the standby attendant secures the free end of the lifeline to a fixed object.

4.13 Rescue

Equipment to effect a timely rescue is located at the entrance to the confined space or immediately available to the rescue team. The equipment includes at least one self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) or equivalent air line equipment, a harness, rope, and other emergency equipment that is indicated. Due to the remote location of the mine shafts emergency vehicle access will be limited. The field vehicle will serve as the emergency vehicle and be located as close to the mine shafts as possible ( approximately ¼ mile).

The Site Safety Supervisor determines what equipment is required to effect a rescue, if assistance is readily available, and if there is an effective means of communication between the standby attendant and those who will provide assistance. On a relatively small project, the competent person consults with both the safety supervisor and the supervisor who oversees the work in the confined space to determine these requirements.

In case of an emergency, the standby attendant NEVER enters the confined space until he or she is relieved at the post by a replacement. The standby attendant must summon aid immediately, attempt to remove the victim by use of a lifeline, and perform all other necessary rescue functions from outside the confined space until he or she is relieved. A cellular phone will be on-site during all confined space entry work for communication \\1th Kirtland AFB emergency response personnel, if necessary.

Employees well-trained in first aid, rescue breathing. and CPR should always respond to confined space incidents.

Any rescuer entering the confined space must be protected \\1th the safety equipment required by the situation (i.e .. lifeline and harness as well as personal protective equipment).

8-8

ATTACHMENT C

Addendum To The Health And Safety Plan, Stage 2C Unexploded Ordnance (UXO)

Contact with UXO is a potential problem at Site DP-67. An EOD representative will survey and clc~an the area prior to any field activities. This shall be pre-coordinated through the Restoration Project Manager, Environmental Management Division.

"If explosive contamination or UXO is discovered at any time during operations at a site, operations shall immediately cease: the senior team member shall immediately contact the Kirtland AFB EOD unit, while simultaneously clearing personnel from the area. All personnel shall adhere to any orders given by the EOD unit. The affected area shall remain clear until EOD officials give the senior team member permission to return. The senior team member shall notify the Restoration Project Manager, Environmental Division, when he or she is personally outside of the danger zone."

The following are hazards associated with UXO:

• Fire

• Jet

• Blast

• Overpressure

• Heat

• Ejection

• Fragmentation

• Propulsion

These are all produced m varymg combinations as a result of the intended or unintended detonation of a high or low explosive. The most effective protection from all hazards of explosives is a safe distance. The risk of exposure to these hazards by personnel conducting field activities must be kept to the absolute minimum necessary to perform the operation and comply with requirements established by Kirtland's EOD unit. All other personnel must be at or beyond the safe separation distance. The distance will be adjusted by the Kirtland AFB UXO specialist as the situation dictates and the procedure given above ½ill be followed.

Due to the potential of encountering UXO during the field activities at site DP-67, arrangements will be made by Kirtland AFB to provide UXO surveying and clearing before these activities commence. All Halliburton NUS employees involved in the field activities will be briefed by the Project Manager, and competent person to ensure they are aware of their personal responsibilities and are properly trained prior to initiation of site activities.

C-1

hwbdocuments.env.nm.gov AFB/KAFB1612.pdf · alpha/beta (9310), organophosphorous pesticides (8190),...

Documents

Transcript of hwbdocuments.env.nm.gov AFB/KAFB1612.pdf · alpha/beta (9310), organophosphorous pesticides (8190),...