Attachment 7 Final Data Gap Investigation Report SWMU 36 and 37_2020.pdf

N00164_003166

NSA CRANE, IN

SSIC 5000-33a

FINAL DATA GAP INVESTIGATION REPORT SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT

UNITS 36 AND 37 (SWMU 36 AND SWMU 37) NSA CRANE IN

09/01/2020

RESOLUTION CONSULTANTS

Approved for public release: distribution unlimited.

NIRIS Cover sheet rev. 5, Aug 2020

FINAL

DATA GAP INVESTIGATION REPORT

SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT UNITS 36 AND 37

NAVAL SUPPORT ACTIVITY CRANE

CRANE, INDIANA

Revision Number: 0

Prepared For:

Department of the Navy Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Mid-Atlantic

9324 Virginia Avenue Norfolk, Virginia 23511

September 2020

Approved for Public Release; Distribution is Unlimited

This page intentionally left blank

FINAL

DATA GAP INVESTIGATION REPORT

SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT UNITS 36 AND 37

NAVAL SUPPORT ACTIVITY CRANE

CRANE, INDIANA

Revision Number: 0

Prepared for:

Department of the Navy Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Mid-Atlantic

9324 Virginia Avenue Norfolk, Virginia 23511

Prepared by:

Resolution Consultants A Joint Venture of AECOM & EnSafe

1500 Wells Fargo Building 440 Monticello Avenue

Norfolk, Virginia 23510

Contract Number: N62470-11-D-8013 Contract Task Order: WE77

September 2020

James Rathbone Task Order Manager i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Resolution Consultants has prepared this Data Gap Investigation Report for Solid Waste Management Units (SWMUs) 36 and 37 at Naval Support Activity Crane in Crane, Indiana, under the Comprehensive Long-Term Environmental Action Navy Contract Number N62470-11-D-8013, Contract Task Order WE77.

This Data Gap Investigation Report describes and summarizes the following for SWMUs 36 and 37:

background information, fieldwork conducted from September 2018 through January 2019, the nature and extent of contamination, and recommendations for future action.

The load and fill area, consisting of SWMUs 18, 36, and 37, is located in the west-central portion of Naval Support Activity Crane and encompasses approximately 1 square mile. The entire load and fill area was originally classified as SWMU 18 during the Preliminary Assessment/Site Investigation and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Facility Investigation (RFI) planning process. Due to its large size, SWMU 18 was divided into 10 subareas based on similar operations or use and geographic proximity to facilitate more efficient and effective investigation. The Navy administratively divided SWMU 18 into three separate SWMUs: 18, 36, and 37. This data gap investigation focuses on Subareas A, I, and J within SWMU 36 and Subareas D, E, and H within SWMU 37.

A summary of the analytical results compared to project screening levels (PSLs), along with conclusions and recommendations based on those results, are discussed for each of the six focus subareas. Note, background values for several metals are currently being updated and future site investigation documents will use the updated values.

Subarea A Based on the results of the human health and ecological risk assessments, the SWMUs 36 and 37 RFI report (Tetra Tech Inc. 2017) recommended no further action (NFA) for surface and subsurface soil at Subarea A, and a corrective measures study (CMS) to address unacceptable risk to human health due to metals (aluminum, beryllium, cobalt, iron, and manganese) in groundwater.

The Subarea A data gap investigation included collecting samples of sediment, surface water, and groundwater. Surface water did not demonstrate exceedances of PSLs, suggesting there is no direct groundwater to surface water discharge. Cobalt and manganese were identified above PSLs in sediment and groundwater. Also, one monitoring well exhibited exceedances of aluminum and iron.

The source for excess aluminum, cobalt, iron, and manganese in groundwater is unclear; it is possible these analytes are associated with parent rock and are liberated by redox fluctuations. The north end of Subarea A is the only remaining area where metal detections in groundwater are not bound by a monitoring well with detections less than tapwater screening levels and background concentrations.

ii

A CMS is recommended at Subarea A to address unacceptable risk to human health due to metals (aluminum, cobalt, iron, and manganese) in groundwater. Additional monitoring wells are necessary to bound metal contamination within the Upper Pennsylvanian water-bearing zone (Puz) to the north and east of monitoring wells 18AMWT004 and 18AR08. Additionally, three monitoring wells will be installed in the Middle Pennsylvanian water-bearing zone (Pmz) to determine if contamination has migrated vertically. One of the new Pmz wells will be located near existing Puz well 18AMWT004.

The CMS should also evaluate whether redox conditions are mobilizing metals from parent rock and assess long-term effects to either surface water or sediment receptors. Nitrate, nitrite, and ammonia were not assessed in prior investigations; the CMS should evaluate nitrogen compounds in surface water and groundwater due to Building 105 operations.

Subarea D Based on the results of the human health and ecological risk assessments, the RFI report (Tetra Tech 2017) recommended NFA for surface and subsurface soil at Subarea D and a CMS to address unacceptable risk to human health due to trichloroethylene (TCE), vinyl chloride, beryllium, cobalt, iron, and manganese in groundwater.

The Subarea D data gap investigation included collecting samples of groundwater. Metals data suggest cobalt and manganese are present in groundwater in the dissolved form, field forms suggest dissolved oxygen is 0 milligrams per liter, and aquifer geochemistry may be anaerobic. While the bounds of the groundwater plume have not been defined, further evaluation of whether dissolved cobalt and manganese are associated with parent rock and redox fluctuations is also recommended.

TCE concentrations above PSLs on the downgradient edge of Subarea D remain unbound. Further delineation of metals and TCE in groundwater to the east, south, and west is not practical due to the surrounding tree cover and steep terrain.

A CMS is recommended at Subarea D to address unacceptable risk to human health due to metals (cobalt and manganese) and TCE in groundwater. Three monitoring wells will be installed in the Pmz to determine if contamination has migrated vertically. One of the new Pmz wells will be located in the area of existing Puz wells 18DR08 and 18DMWT004, and a second Pmz well will be located downgradient of or near well 18DMWT006, if feasible.

Subarea E Based on the results of the human health and ecological risk assessments, the RFI report (Tetra Tech 2017) recommended remedial actions or additional investigation for several areas within Subarea E, as follows:

iii

• A focused CMS or interim measure (IM) to address unacceptable risk to human health due to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in subsurface soil associated with a former underground storage tank (UST) at Building 2674.

• A focused CMS or IM to address unacceptable risk to ecological receptors due to metals (barium, chromium, hexavalent chromium, lead, and zinc) in the surface soil on the slope south of Building 104.

• A focused CMS to address unacceptable risk to human health due to volatile organic compounds (VOCs), explosives, and metals in groundwater.

• A vapor intrusion study to assess potential risks associated with vapor intrusion from groundwater to indoor air at Subarea E.

Due to the use of Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) screening levels and additional available information, multiple changes were made to the RFI report recommendations prior to implementation of the data gap investigation.

The Subarea E data gap investigation included collecting samples of sediment, soil, and groundwater.

Sediment samples collected from the head of a drainage ditch on the south side of Subarea E and an effluent pipe identified explosives, metals, and VOCs above one or more PSLs. These samples indicate historical discharges to the southern slope and the inorganic exceedances are consistent with analytes identified in surface soil. Chromium, hexavalent chromium, lead, and zinc were identified at concentrations above ecological screening values or background concentrations (except hexavalent chromium, which has no background concentration) in surface soil samples downslope of Subarea E.

The extent of soil contamination has not been delineated. Soil contamination is coincident with stressed/dead vegetation and seeps over an approximate 1 acre area downgradient of Building 104.

Hexahydro-1,3,5-trinitro-1,3,5-triazine (RDX) was not detected in either surface and subsurface soil samples collected around and beneath RFI location 18ESS007. TCE, cis-1,2-dichloroethylene, and vinyl chloride are present in groundwater across the southern portion of Subarea E at concentrations exceeding tapwater screening levels. However, insufficient data exists to delineate specific VOCs in groundwater. RDX is present in one well exceeding its tapwater screening level. Further delineation of the extent of VOCs and RDX in groundwater to the east, south, and west is not practical due to the surrounding tree cover and steep terrain, unless wells are installed south of the site along Highway 45. Comparison of TCE and vinyl chloride groundwater data to IDEM vapor exposure screening levels suggest the potential for vapor intrusion at Building 104.

iv

Note, metals were analyzed using Method 6010C during the RFI (Tetra Tech 2017) and Method 6020A during this data gap investigation. Variances in how the two methods and two different laboratories managed inter-elemental interferences is suspected to be the primary reason for the differences in some concentrations of metals, such as zinc, from the RFI to this investigation.

Due to the lack of RDX detections in both surface and subsurface soil during this data gap investigation, RDX in soil is not recommended to be carried forward in a CMS.

Additional delineation is recommended at Subarea E of the impacted soil downslope of Building 104, including the area downslope of sediment locations 18ESD007 and 18ESD008. The delineation should include an assessment of where the pipes originate, whether they are the source of the hexavalent chromium in surface soil, and if hexavalent chromium is present in other Subarea E media.

A CMS is recommended at Subarea E to determine future actions concerning groundwater. The CMS assessment should include evaluation of groundwater to surface water discharge, as well as migration from known and former surface water discharge points. Additional Puz and Pmz monitoring wells are required to delineate the extent of VOCs and RDX in groundwater around and west of Building 104, north and west of well 18ER09, and along Highway 45. Furthermore, Lower Pennsylvanian water-bearing zone monitoring wells are required to determine if VOC contamination is migrating vertically near wells 18EMWT002 and 18ER09.

Additional vapor assessments are required at Subarea E to determine whether vapor intrusion is occurring.

Subarea H Based on the results of the human health and ecological risk assessments, the RFI report (Tetra Tech 2017) found no surface soil human health chemicals of concern (COCs) or ecological chemicals of potential concern, TCE and vinyl chloride were identified as COCs for migration from subsurface soil to groundwater, and a focused CMS was recommended at Subarea H to address unacceptable risk to human health due to groundwater COCs (TCE, vinyl chloride, and RDX).

The Subarea H data gap investigation included collecting samples of sediment, surface water, and groundwater. TCE, vinyl chloride, and RDX were not detected in sediment, while TCE concentrations identified in surface water did not exceed PSLs. TCE and RDX were present in groundwater above PSLs on the downgradient edge of Subarea H and remain unbound. Comparison of TCE data to IDEM vapor exposure screening levels suggest the potential for vapor intrusion at Building 198.

v

Due to the lack of TCE, vinyl chloride, and RDX detections in sediment and the lack of detections above PSLs in surface water, sediment and surface water at Subarea H are not recommended to be carried forward in a CMS. Additionally, based on the human health and ecological risk assessments in the RFI report (Tetra Tech 2017) and a comparison of TCE and vinyl chloride concentrations to the IDEM migration to groundwater screening levels, surface and subsurface soil are not recommended to be carried forward in a CMS.

A CMS is recommended at Subarea H to determine future actions concerning groundwater. Additional Puz monitoring wells are recommended north of well 18HR08, west of well 18HR05, and west of well 18HMWT001 to further refine the contamination boundary. Pmz monitoring wells are also recommended on the north, west, and south sides of Building 198 to determine if contamination has migrated vertically.

Additional vapor assessments are required at Subarea H to determine whether vapor intrusion is occurring.

Subarea I Based on the results of the human health and ecological risk assessments, the RFI report (Tetra Tech 2017) recommended the following for Subarea I:

• Groundwater required no further evaluation.

• An IM or focused CMS with confirmation sampling to address polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) contamination in soil between Buildings 200 and 2504.

• The sediments within the settling basins should be considered for removal during an IM or CMS due to the fuel oil parameters detected within the sediment.

The settling basin in the southwest portion of Subarea I had not previously been investigated for PCBs, so a sample of the sediment in the southwest settling basin was collected for analysis of PCBs.

Also, a re-evaluation of soil data from RFI soil boring 18ISB001 near a former UST west of Building 2505 and north of Building 200 indicated samples had only been collected to a depth of 5 feet, while the former tank was installed at least 6 feet deep. Therefore, soil borings were proposed to be advanced to 12 to 15 feet deep to collect subsurface soil and groundwater samples for analysis of VOCs and PAHs.

The Subarea I data gap investigation included a ground penetrating radar investigation and collecting samples of sediment and groundwater. Proposed soil samples at the location of a former UST could vi not be collected due to shallow bedrock or sand fill and water continually filling in the shallow boreholes. Hand augering in the area did not identify any visual/olfactory evidence of contamination. PCBs detected in sediment from the southwest settling basin exceeded the Toxic Substances Control Act cleanup levels for high and low occupancy, Toxic Substances Control Act disposal criteria for PCBs, as well as IDEM residential and industrial screening levels for soil. Groundwater samples from wells near the former UST did not exhibit VOCs or PAHs above PSLs.

Based on the absence of VOC and PAH contamination in shallow groundwater at Subarea I, groundwater and VOCs and PAHs in soil are not recommended to be carried forward in a CMS.

An IM removal action is warranted for PCBs in sediment within the settling basin at Subarea I. Also, as stated in the RFI report, an IM or focused CMS with confirmation sampling is warranted to address PCB contamination in soil between Buildings 200 and 2504, and sediments within the settling basins should be considered for removal during an IM or CMS due to fuel oil parameters detected within the sediment.

Subarea J Based on the results of the human health and ecological risk assessments, the RFI report (Tetra Tech 2017) found no surface or subsurface soil human health COCs or ecological chemicals of potential concern for surface soil and recommended a focused CMS at Subarea J to address unacceptable risk to human health due to cobalt, iron, manganese, nickel, and perchlorate in groundwater.

The Subarea J data gap investigation included collecting samples of sediment, surface water, soil, and groundwater. Iron and manganese were identified above PSLs in sediment, while surface water did not demonstrate exceedances of PSLs. In addition, cobalt, iron, manganese, and nickel were identified in groundwater above background concentrations and tapwater screening levels.

Metals data suggest analytes are present in the dissolved form, field forms suggest dissolved oxygen is 0 milligrams per liter, and aquifer geochemistry may be anaerobic. The source for excess cobalt, iron, and manganese in groundwater is unclear; it is possible these analytes are associated with parent rock and are liberated by redox fluctuations. Further delineation of the extent of metals in groundwater to the south and west is not practical due to the surrounding tree cover and steep terrain. Soil delineation activities did not identify manganese above PSLs.

The RFI report (Tetra Tech 2017) found no surface or subsurface soil human health COCs or surface soil ecological chemicals of potential concern at Subarea J. This data gap investigation did not identify manganese in soil above PSLs. Therefore, soils at Subarea J are not recommended to be carried forward in a CMS.

vii

A CMS is recommended at Subarea J to address unacceptable risk to human health due to metals (cobalt, iron, manganese, and nickel) in groundwater. Pmz monitoring wells should be installed near wells 18JMWT003 and 18JMWT004 to determine if contamination has migrated vertically. The CMS should also evaluate whether redox conditions are mobilizing metals from parent rock and assess long-term effects to either surface water or sediment receptors.

viii ix

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................. I LIST OF ACRONYMS ............................................................................................................. XIII

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

1.1 Purpose of the Study ....................................................................................... 1-1

1.2 Regulatory Framework ..................................................................................... 1-1

1.3 Site Location and Background ........................................................................... 1-1

1.4 Previous Investigations .................................................................................... 1-2

1.5 Data Gap Investigation Report Organization ....................................................... 1-5

2.0 DATA GAP INVESTIGATION FIELD ACTIVITIES ............................................................. 2-1

2.1 Sampling Activities ........................................................................................... 2-1

2.1.1 Media Sampling .................................................................................... 2-1

2.1.2 Slug Tests ............................................................................................ 2-2

2.1.3 Ground Penetrating Radar and Follow-Up Assessment .............................. 2-3

2.2 Investigative Methodologies ............................................................................. 2-3

2.2.1 Soil Borings .......................................................................................... 2-3

2.2.2 Rock Drilling ......................................................................................... 2-4

2.2.3 Borehole and Sample Logging ................................................................ 2-4

2.2.4 Borehole Abandonment ......................................................................... 2-4

2.3 Monitoring Well Installation and Development .................................................... 2-4

2.4 Sampling Operations ........................................................................................ 2-5

2.4.1 Sediment Samples ................................................................................ 2-5

2.4.2 Surface Water Samples ......................................................................... 2-6

2.4.3 Soil Samples ......................................................................................... 2-6

2.4.4 Groundwater Samples ........................................................................... 2-7

2.5 Field Sample Documentation ............................................................................ 2-7

2.6 Sample Handling, Packaging, and Shipping ........................................................ 2-8

2.7 Quality Control Samples ................................................................................... 2-8

2.8 Field Instrument Measurements ........................................................................ 2-9

2.9 Surveying ....................................................................................................... 2-9

2.10 Decontamination ........................................................................................... 2-10

2.11 Groundwater Level Measurements .................................................................. 2-11

2.12 Field Corrective Action ................................................................................... 2-11

2.13 Investigation-Derived Waste Handling ............................................................. 2-11

2.14 Site Management and Facility Support ............................................................. 2-12

2.15 Recordkeeping .............................................................................................. 2-12

3.0 DATA PRESENTATION AND QUALITY ........................................................................... 3-1

3.1 Screening Levels .............................................................................................. 3-1

3.2 Background Datasets ....................................................................................... 3-2

3.2.1 Soil Background Data ............................................................................ 3-2

3.2.2 Groundwater Background Data .............................................................. 3-3

3.3 Data Quality Summary ..................................................................................... 3-3

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING......................................................................................... 4-1

4.1 Physiography and Topography .......................................................................... 4-1

4.2 Geology and Stratigraphy ................................................................................. 4-1 x

4.2.1 Unconsolidated Deposits ........................................................................ 4-2

4.2.2 Bedrock ............................................................................................... 4-2

4.3 Surface Water Hydrology .................................................................................. 4-3

4.4 Hydrogeology .................................................................................................. 4-3

4.5 Ecology ........................................................................................................... 4-4

5.0 SUBAREA A — BUILDING 105 AREA ............................................................................. 5-1

5.1 Sediment Results ............................................................................................. 5-1

5.2 Surface Water Results ...................................................................................... 5-2

5.3 Groundwater Results ........................................................................................ 5-2

5.4 Attainment of Investigation Objectives .............................................................. 5-4

5.5 Subarea A Recommendations ........................................................................... 5-4

6.0 SUBAREA D — SPECIAL PROGRAMS AREA .................................................................... 6-1

6.1 Groundwater Results ........................................................................................ 6-1

6.2 Attainment of Investigation Objectives .............................................................. 6-3

6.3 Subarea D Recommendations ........................................................................... 6-3

7.0 SUBAREA E — BUILDING 104 AREA ............................................................................. 7-1

7.1 Geology/Hydrogeology ..................................................................................... 7-1

7.2 Sediment Results ............................................................................................. 7-3

7.3 Surface Soil Results ......................................................................................... 7-3

7.4 Subsurface Soil Results .................................................................................... 7-5

7.5 Groundwater Results ........................................................................................ 7-5

7.6 Attainment of Investigation Objectives .............................................................. 7-6

7.7 Subarea E Recommendations ........................................................................... 7-7

8.0 SUBAREA H — BUILDING 198 AREA ............................................................................ 8-1

8.1 Sediment Results ............................................................................................. 8-1

8.2 Surface Water Results ...................................................................................... 8-1

8.3 Groundwater Results ........................................................................................ 8-2

8.4 Attainment of Investigation Objectives .............................................................. 8-3

8.5 Subarea H Recommendations ........................................................................... 8-3

9.0 SUBAREA I — BUILDING 200 AREA ............................................................................. 9-1

9.1 Sediment Results ............................................................................................. 9-1

9.2 Soil Results ..................................................................................................... 9-1

9.3 Groundwater Results ........................................................................................ 9-2

9.4 Attainment of Investigation Objectives .............................................................. 9-2

9.5 Subarea I Recommendations ............................................................................ 9-3

10.0 SUBAREA J — APPLIED SCIENCE DEPARTMENT II ...................................................... 10-1

10.1 Sediment Results ........................................................................................... 10-1

10.2 Surface Water Results .................................................................................... 10-2

10.3 Surface Soil Results ....................................................................................... 10-2

10.4 Subsurface Soil Results .................................................................................. 10-2

10.5 Groundwater Results ...................................................................................... 10-3

10.6 Attainment of Investigation Objectives ............................................................ 10-4

10.7 Subarea J Recommendations .......................................................................... 10-4 xi

11.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.................................................................. 11-1

12.0 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................... 12-1

Figures

Figure 1-1 SWMUs 36 and 37 Site Location Map ................................................................. 1-7 Figure 1-2 Site Map of SWMUs 18, 36, and 37 ................................................................... 1-9 Figure 2-1 Subarea A Sample Locations ........................................................................... 2-13 Figure 2-2 Subarea D Sample Locations .......................................................................... 2-15 Figure 2-3 Subarea E Sample Locations ........................................................................... 2-17 Figure 2-4 Subarea H Sample Locations .......................................................................... 2-19 Figure 2-5 Subarea I Sample Locations ........................................................................... 2-21 Figure 2-6 Subarea J Sample Locations ........................................................................... 2-23 Figure 2-7 Surface Water and Sediment Sample Locations ................................................ 2-25 Figure 2-8 Subarea I Former UST ................................................................................... 2-27 Figure 4-1 Generalized Stratigraphic Column ...................................................................... 4-7 Figure 4-2 Surface Drainage Basins ................................................................................... 4-9 Figure 4-3 Surface Water Flow Direction .......................................................................... 4-11 Figure 5-1 Subarea A Potentiometric Surface Map .............................................................. 5-7 Figure 5-2 Subarea A Sediment Sample Results ................................................................. 5-9 Figure 5-3 Subarea A Surface Water Sample Results ........................................................ 5-11 Figure 5-4 Subarea A Groundwater Sample Results .......................................................... 5-13 Figure 6-1 Subarea D Potentiometric Surface Map .............................................................. 6-5 Figure 6-2 Subarea D Groundwater Sample Results ............................................................ 6-7 Figure 7-1 Subarea E Geologic Cross Section Location Map ................................................. 7-9 Figure 7-2 Subarea E Geologic Cross Section A-A’ ............................................................ 7-11 Figure 7-3 Subarea E Potentiometric Surface Map ............................................................ 7-13 Figure 7-4 Subarea E Sediment Sample Results................................................................ 7-15 Figure 7-5 Subarea E RFI Soil Sample Results .................................................................. 7-17 Figure 7-6 Subarea E Surface Soil Sample Results ............................................................ 7-19 Figure 7-7 Subarea E Groundwater Sample Results .......................................................... 7-21 Figure 8-1 Subarea H Potentiometric Surface Map .............................................................. 8-5 Figure 8-2 Subarea H Surface Water Sample Results .......................................................... 8-7 Figure 8-3 Subarea H Groundwater Sample Results ............................................................ 8-9 Figure 9-1 Subarea I Potentiometric Surface Map ............................................................... 9-5 Figure 9-2 Subarea I Sediment Sample Results .................................................................. 9-7 Figure 9-3 Subarea I Groundwater Sample Results ............................................................. 9-9 Figure 10-1 Subarea J Potentiometric Surface Map ............................................................. 10-7 Figure 10-2 Subarea J Sediment Sample Results ................................................................ 10-9 Figure 10-3 Subarea J Groundwater Sample Results ......................................................... 10-11

Tables

Table 1-1 Solid Waste Management Units 36 and 37 Subarea Data Gaps .......................... 1-11 Table 2-1 Installation Dates and Depths of Monitoring Wells and Soil Borings .................... 2-29 Table 2-2 Monitoring Well Construction Information and Water Level Measurements ......... 2-31 xii

Table 3-1 Summary of Analytical Results for Soil Group 3 — Alluvial, Mississippian, and Pennsylvanian Surface Soil ............................................................................... 3-5

Table 3-2 Summary of Analytical Results for Soil Group 8 — Pennsylvanian Subsurface Clay and Silt .................................................................................................... 3-6

Table 3-3 Summary of Basewide Pennsylvanian Bedrock Background Groundwater Evaluation ....................................................................................................... 3-7

Table 5-1 Subarea A Sediment Sample Results Solid Waste Management Unit 36 ......... 5-15 Table 5-2 Subarea A Surface Water Sample Results Solid Waste Management

Unit 36 ......................................................................................................... 5-16 Table 5-3 Subarea A Groundwater Sample Results Solid Waste Management Unit 36 ......... 5-17 Table 6-1 Subarea D Groundwater Sample Results Solid Waste Management Unit 37 ........... 6-9 Table 7-1 Subarea E Sediment Sample Results Solid Waste Management Unit 37 .............. 7-23 Table 7-2 Subarea E Surface Soil Sample Results Solid Waste Management Unit 37 ........... 7-27 Table 7-3 Subarea E Subsurface Soil Sample Results Solid Waste Management Unit 37 ...... 7-29 Table 7-4 Subarea E Groundwater Sample Results Solid Waste Management Unit 37 ......... 7-31 Table 8-1 Subarea H Sediment Sample Results Solid Waste Management Unit 37 .............. 8-11 Table 8-2 Subarea H Surface Water Sample Results Solid Waste Management

Unit 37 ......................................................................................................... 8-11 Table 8-3 Subarea H Groundwater Sample Results Solid Waste Management Unit 37 ......... 8-13 Table 9-1 Subarea I Sediment Sample Results Solid Waste Management Unit 36 ............... 9-11 Table 9-2 Subarea I Groundwater Sample Results Solid Waste Management Unit 36 .......... 9-12 Table 10-1 Subarea J Sediment Sample Results Solid Waste Management Unit 36 ............. 10-13 Table 10-2 Subarea J Surface Water Sample Results Solid Waste Management

Unit 36 ....................................................................................................... 10-14 Table 10-3 Subarea J Surface Soil Sample Results Solid Waste Management Unit 36 .... 10-15 Table 10-4 Subarea J Subsurface Soil Sample Results Solid Waste Management Unit 36 .... 10-16 Table 10-5 Subarea J Groundwater Sample Results Solid Waste Management Unit 36 .. 10-17

Appendices

Appendix A Boring Logs Appendix B Well Development Sheets Appendix C Miscellaneous Field Documentation Appendix D Hydraulic Conductivity Data Appendix E Ground Penetrating Radar Documentation and Historical Tank Records Appendix F Survey Data Appendix G Chain-of-Custody Records Appendix H Data Validation Summary Review Report Appendix I Regulator Comments and Responses xiii

List of Acronyms bgs Below ground surface

CMS Corrective measures study COC Chemical of concern

DCE Dichloroethylene DO Dissolved oxygen DPT Direct push technology

GPR Ground penetrating radar

HHRA Human health risk assessment HMX Octahydro-1,3,5,7-tetranitro-1,3,5,7-tetrazocine

IDEM Indiana Department of Environmental Management IM Interim measure μg/L Micrograms per liter mg/kg Milligrams per kilogram mg/L Milligrams per liter msl Mean sea level

NFA No further action NSA Naval Support Activity NTU Nephelometric turbidity unit

ORP Oxidation-reduction potential

PAH Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons PCB Polychlorinated biphenyl Plz Lower Pennsylvanian water-bearing zone Pmz Middle Pennsylvanian water-bearing zone PSL Project screening level Puz Upper Pennsylvanian water-bearing zone

QA/QC Quality assurance/quality control

RDX Hexahydro-1,3,5-trinitro-1,3,5-triazine RFI Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Facility Investigation

SAP Sampling and analysis plan SOP Standard operating procedure SWMU Solid waste management unit

TCE Trichloroethylene TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act

UST Underground storage tank U.S. EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency xiv

VESLs Vapor exposure screening levels VOC Volatile organic compound

Data Gap Investigation Report Solid Waste Management Units 36 and 37

Naval Support Activity Crane, Crane, Indiana Revision: 0; September 2020

1-1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This Data Gap Investigation Report for Solid Waste Management Units (SWMU) 36 and 37 at Naval Support Activity (NSA) Crane in Crane, Indiana, was prepared by Resolution Consultants for the Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Mid-Atlantic, under Comprehensive Long-Term Environmental Action Navy, Contract Number N62470-11-D-8013, Contract Task Order WE77.

Resolution Consultants conducted fieldwork in 2018 and 2019. The lead regulatory agency for the data gap investigation was the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM).

1.1 Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this report is to describe, present, and interpret the data gap investigation activities conducted and results generated at SWMUs 36 and 37. This report provides information regarding concentrations of organic and inorganic chemicals detected in SWMUs 36 and 37 samples collected from surface soil, subsurface soil, sediment, surface water, and groundwater.

1.2 Regulatory Framework

NSA Crane operates under Hazardous Waste Management Permit IN5170023498, originally issued by the IDEM and United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) in August 1995 (Part B Application). The U.S. EPA was the lead agency for the initial Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Facility Investigation (RFI) at SWMUs 36 and 37. The IDEM assumed the lead regulatory role circa 2016.

1.3 Site Location and Background

NSA Crane is located in a rural, sparsely populated region of southwest Indiana, approximately 75 miles southwest of Indianapolis, 60 miles northwest of Louisville, Kentucky, and immediately east of Burns City and Crane Village, Indiana. A site location map of the NSA Crane facility is provided as Figure 1-1 (figures are located at the end of each section). NSA Crane encompasses approximately 62,463 acres or approximately 98 square miles of the northern portion of Martin County and smaller portions of Greene and Lawrence Counties.

The Load and Fill Area The load and fill area, consisting of SWMUs 18, 36, and 37, is located in the west-central portion of NSA Crane, encompasses approximately 1 square mile (Figure 1-1), and includes approximately 100 buildings. The area is bound on the north and south by drainage channels to Boggs Creek, on the east by Boggs Creek, and on the west by Highway 101. Buildings used by the Crane Army Ammunition Activity (and not included in SWMUs 18, 36, or 37) are located west of Highway 101.

Highway 45, which parallels a surface water tributary to Boggs Creek, generally bisects the load and

1-2 fill area into northern and southern areas along two east-west trending ridges. Access to the southern portion of the site is from Highway 45, and access to the northern portion is from Highway 101.

Surface elevations within the load and fill area range from approximately 700 feet above mean sea level (msl) along western areas of the ridges to approximately 515 feet above msl along Boggs Creek on the southeast side of the site. The tops of the ridges are generally cleared and level, whereas the slopes are wooded and steep, with relief of 150 to 200 feet. Buildings within the load and fill area are generally situated along the ridgelines (Tetra Tech, Inc. 2017).

The entire load and fill area was originally classified as SWMU 18 during the Preliminary Assessment/Site Investigation and RFI planning process. Due to its large size, SWMU 18 was divided into 10 subareas based on similar operations or use and geographic proximity to facilitate more efficient and effective investigation.

After the RFI planning process and field investigations were completed, the Navy administratively divided SWMU 18 into three separate SWMUs: 18, 36, and 37. The subareas included within each of the three SWMUs are listed below.

Solid Waste Management Unit Subarea Area Description

B Buildings 101, 102, and 103 Area C Inert Operation Area F Buildings 2084, 2085, and 2540 Area

— The length of Boggs Creek within the original SWMU 18

A Building 105 Area G Applied Science Department I Area I Building 200 Area J Applied Science Department II Area

D Special Program Area E Building 104 Area H Building 198 Area

A separate RFI report was prepared for SWMU 18 (Tetra Tech, October 2013) and no further action (NFA) was approved by the IDEM. NFA was also approved by the IDEM for SWMU 36, Subarea G in 2017. Subareas retained for additional investigation are delineated on Figure 1-2.

1.4 Previous Investigations

Several previous investigations have been conducted in the SWMUs 36 and 37 area.

1-3

Installation Assessment The Installation Assessment, prepared by the Army in 1978 and summarized in the RFI report for SWMUs 36 and 37 (Tetra Tech 2017), identified the main areas of potential contamination within the load and fill area as being associated with Building 104. The report identified explosives, such as Composition A and Explosive D, and acids and caustics as constituents potentially adversely impacting environmental media. The report also stated chemicals were discharged directly to Boggs Creek from the Applied Science Department complex. The principal constituents discharged were likely explosives, magnesium oxide, and dyes.

Initial Assessment Study The Initial Assessment Study (Naval Energy and Environmental Support Activity 1983) identified Buildings 104, 105, 198, and 200 within the load and fill area as suspected contamination sites.

Mercury, chromium, cadmium, ammonium picrate, hexahydro-1,3,5-trinitro-1,3,5-triazine (RDX), octahydro-1,3,5,7-tetranitro-1,3,5,7-tetrazocine (HMX), 2,4,6-trinitrotoluene, and trichloroethylene (TCE) were identified as chemicals of potential concern. Sampling was recommended to investigate potential contamination to soil, surface water, and groundwater.

Preliminary Review/Visual Site Inspection A Preliminary Review/Visual Site Inspection Report (A.T. Kearney, Inc. 1987) identified several “units” and other areas of concern at the load and fill area. The report indicated wastes managed at the site contained heavy metals and explosives, including lead, chromium, ammonium picrate, RDX, and HMX. The load and fill area operations produced particulate emissions, which were assumed to migrate to surface waters (Boggs Creek) and percolate to groundwater. The report recommended obtaining information on the design and operation of the various units.

RFI Report for SWMUs 36 and 37 The RFI report (Tetra Tech 2017) described the site investigation activities conducted at SWMU 36 Subareas A, G, I, and J, and SWMU 37 Subareas D, E, and H, interpreted the results, and presented a baseline human health risk assessment (HHRA) and a screening level ecological risk assessment for each subarea. The conclusions and recommendations by subarea follow. Note, since Subarea G was approved for NFA by the IDEM in 2017, this subarea is not discussed further in this data gap investigation report.

1-4

Subarea A Soils at Subarea A were recommended for NFA. Additional investigation of groundwater was recommended to address unacceptable risk to human health due to metals, including aluminum, beryllium, cobalt, iron, and manganese.

Subarea D Soils at Subarea D were recommended for NFA. Additional investigation of groundwater was recommended to address unacceptable risk to human health due to TCE, vinyl chloride, beryllium, cobalt, iron, and manganese.

Subarea E Additional investigation of subsurface soil was recommended at Subarea E to address unacceptable risk to human health due to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) associated with a former underground storage tank (UST) near Building 2674. Additional investigation of surface soil was recommended to address unacceptable risk to ecological receptors due to various metals in surface soil on the slope south of Building 104. Further investigation of groundwater was recommended to address unacceptable risk to human health due to 1,1,2-trichloroethane, cis-1,2-dichloroethylene (DCE), chloroform, TCE, vinyl chloride, RDX, aluminum, iron, and manganese. A vapor intrusion study was recommended to assess potential risks associated with groundwater contamination.

Subarea H No surface soil human health chemicals of concern (COCs) or ecological chemicals of potential concern were found at Subarea H. TCE and vinyl chloride were identified in the HHRA as COCs for the migration from subsurface soil to groundwater pathway. Additional investigation of groundwater was recommended to address unacceptable risk to human health due to TCE, vinyl chloride, and

RDX.

Subarea I An interim measure (IM) or focused corrective measures study (CMS) was recommended at Subarea I to address polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in soil. Sediments within two settling basins should be considered for removal during an IM or CMS due to the fuel oil parameters detected within the sediment. No further evaluation of groundwater was considered necessary.

1-5

Subarea J No surface or subsurface soil human health COCs or surface soil ecological chemicals of potential concern were found at Subarea J. A focused CMS of groundwater was recommended to address unacceptable risk to human health due to cobalt, iron, manganese, nickel, and perchlorate.

The U.S. EPA was the lead agency during the initial RFI work, so the HHRA within the RFI report for SWMUs 36 and 37 (Tetra Tech 2017) used the U.S. EPA 2013 regional screening levels to examine exposure pathways and potential receptors, and to determine COCs. The IDEM has since assumed the lead agency role for SWMUs 36 and 37. IDEM uses their own risk-based screening levels as well as considers other closure options outlined in their Remediation Closure Guide (IDEM 2012).

The U.S. EPA regional screening levels evaluate carcinogenic risks based on an incremental lifetime cancer risk of 1E-06. The IDEM screening levels reflect a risk/hazard criteria based on an incremental lifetime cancer risk of 1E-05 and a hazard quotient of 1. As a result of the change in lead regulatory agency and therefore a change in screening levels, several human health COCs identified in the RFI report were found to have concentrations less than the IDEM screening levels and to not require further investigation.

The data gap investigation Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP; Resolution Consultants 2018) used the IDEM 2017 screening levels. Based on a comparison of parameter concentrations found during the RFI to IDEM 2017 screening levels, the data gap investigation scope of work by subarea is shown in Table 1-1 (tables are located at the end of each section).

1.5 Data Gap Investigation Report Organization

This data gap investigation report is divided into the following sections:

• Section 1.0 — Introduction

• Section 2.0 — Data Gap Investigation Field Activities

• Section 3.0 — Data Presentation and Quality

• Section 4.0 — Environmental Setting

• Section 5.0 — Subarea A — Building 105 Area

• Section 6.0 — Subarea D — Special Programs Area

• Section 7.0 — Subarea E — Building 104 Area

• Section 8.0 — Subarea H — Building 198 Area

• Section 9.0 — Subarea I — Building 200 Area

• Section 10.0 — Subarea J — Applied Science Department II

1-6

• Section 11.0 — Conclusions and Recommendations

• Section 12.0 — References

Figures and tables referenced in the text are included at the end of each section to maintain text continuity.

Appendices A through I provide supporting documentation including the following:

• Appendix A — Boring Logs

• Appendix B — Well Development Sheets

• Appendix C — Miscellaneous Field Documentation

• Appendix D — Hydraulic Conductivity Data

• Appendix E — Ground Penetrating Radar Documentation and Historical Tank Records

• Appendix F — Survey Data

• Appendix G — Chain-of-Custody Records

• Appendix H — Data Validation Summary Review Report

• Appendix I — Regulator Comments and Responses

X:

\N av y\

N

SA

_C ra ne \S ite O ve rv ie w

_3

7.

m xd FIGURE 1-1 SWMUs 36 AND 37 SITE LOCATION MAP

NAVAL SUPPORT ACTIVITY CRANE

CRANE, INDIANA

DATE: 7/15/2019

DRAWN BY:

REQUESTED BY:

PROJECT: 0888818767

J. RATHBONE

M. SENNE

Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), swisstopo, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and

SOLID WASTE

MANAGEMENT UNIT (SWMU) DESCRIPTION

36 SUBAREAS - A, I, J

37 SUBAREAS - D, E, H 0 1 2

Miles

NSA Crane

Illinois Indiana Ohio

Kentucky

Michigan

Missouri 0 50 10025

Miles

DATA GAP INVESTIGATION SITES

SWMU 37 SWMU 36

1-7

1-8

Highway 45

Highway 10

Hig hw ay

SWMU 37

E

SWMU 36

A

SWMU 36

G

NFA

SWMU 37

H

SWMU 36

I

SWMU 36

J

SWMU 37

D

SWMU 18

B

NFA

SWMU 18

C

NFA

SWMU 18

F

NFA

SWMU 08

31092947

3323 2508

3308 227

27812707

635 1161

230 1987

17A

631621

1186632

144A

2379 2216

557 2241

30872084

1982540

622 1184

X:

\N av y\

N S

A _C ra ne

\S W

M U

_B ou nd ar yM ap V

2.

m xd

FIGURE 1-2

SITE MAP OF SWMUs 18, 36, AND 37

NAVAL SUPPORT ACTIVITY CRANE

CRANE, INDIANA

0 600 1,200 Feet

DATE: 4/5/2019

DRAWN BY:

REQUESTED BY:

TASK ORDER NUMBER: WE77M. SENNE

J. RATHBONE

Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS

BUNKERS

EXISTING BUILDING

SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT UNIT (SWMU) BOUNDARY

SUBAREA BOUNDARY

NFA = NO FURTHER ACTION

1-9

1-10

1-11

Table 1-1 Solid Waste Management Units 36 and 37 Subarea Data Gaps

Naval Support Activity Crane, Crane, Indiana Subarea A (SWMU 36) Sediment and Surface Water: The Indiana Department of Environmental Protection (IDEM) identified the potential for downgradient migration of groundwater in Subarea A as an additional data gap and questioned what mobilized metals at Subarea A. Collocated sediment and surface water samples were collected in the drainage channel before the confluence with an unnamed tributary of Boggs Creek originating north of Subarea A. The samples were analyzed for aluminum, cobalt, iron, and manganese.