Final_2015-2016_LUC_and_LTM_Report_Site_DP005,_AVGAS_Sludge_Burial_Site_A.pdf

FINAL

2015/2016 LAND USE CONTROL AND

LONG TERM MANAGEMENT REPORT

Site DP005, AVGAS Sludge Burial Site A

Dobbins Air Reserve Base Marietta, Georgia

JULY 2016

Prepared for:

AIR FORCE CIVIL ENGINEER CENTER

JOINT BASE SAN ANTONIO

Lackland, Texas

Prepared by:

PROFESSIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS, INC.

1600 Genessee Street, Suite 603 Kansas City, Missouri 64102 816-556-3290

FINAL

2015/2016 LAND USE CONTROL AND LONG‐TERM MANAGEMENT REPORT:

SITE DP005, AVGAS SLUDGE BURIAL SITE A

Marietta, Georgia

July 2016

Prepared for:

Air Force Civil Engineer Center

REVIEW AND APPROVAL

Project Manager: _________________________________________ ___5 July 2016__ Robert J. Louden Date Professional Environmental Engineers, Inc.

Program Manager: _________________________________________ ___5 July 2016__ Filippe B. Cade, P.E. Date Professional Environmental Engineers, Inc.

2015/2016 LAND USE CONTROL AND LONG TERM MANAGEMENT LUC/LTM REPORT

DOBBINS AIR RESERVE BASE TABLE OF CONTENTS

JULY 2016 FINAL

Page i Providing professional, cost-effective solutions

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Page No.

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 OBJECTIVE

1.2 ORGANIZATION OF LUC/LTM REPORT

1.3 PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER CERTIFICATION

2.0 BACKGROUND

2.1 SITE DESCRIPTION

2.2 PREVIOUS ACTIVITIES

2.3 REGULATORY OVERVIEW

3.0 GROUNDWATER SAMPLING AND WELL ABANDONMENT ACTIVITIES

3.1 APPROVED DEVIATIONS FROM THE WORK PLAN

3.2 WELL ABANDONMENT

3.3 WELL INSPECTIONS

3.4 GROUNDWATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS

3.5 SAMPLE COLLECTION

3.6 LABORATORY ANALYSES AND QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL

3.7 DATA VALIDATION

3.8 DATA USEABILITY AND OVERALL ASSESSMENT

3.8.1 Precision

3.8.2 Accuracy/Bias Contamination

3.8.3 Representativeness

3.8.4 Completeness

3.8.5 Comparability

3.8.6 Overall Assessment and Usability

3.9 INVESTIGATION-DERIVED WASTE

4.0 GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS

5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

6.0 REFERENCES

Page ii Providing professional, cost-effective solutions

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Site DP005 Well Inspection Summary Table 2 Site DP005 Groundwater Level Measurements Table 3 Site DP005 Detection Limits and Limits of Quantitation Table 4 Site DP005 Groundwater Analytical Results

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Site Location Map Figure 2 Groundwater Monitoring Well Locations Figure 3a Potentiometric Surface Map – February 2015 Figure 3b Potentiometric Surface Map – March 2016 Figure 4a Groundwater Quality Map – February 2015 Figure 4b Groundwater Quality Map – March 2016

APPENDICES

Appendix A Site Photographs Appendix B Field Forms and Logbook Appendix C Data Quality Evaluation Report Appendix D Georgia Environmental Protection Division Monitoring Only Report Appendix E Laboratory Analytical Data Sheets Appendix F Site Ranking Results

Page iii Providing professional, cost-effective solutions

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

% percent µg/L micrograms per liter AFCEC Air Force Civil Engineer Center amsl above mean sea level ARB Air Reserve Base AST aboveground storage tank Betts Betts Environmental BTEX benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes BTOC below top of casing COC contaminant of concern DL detection limit DoD U.S. Department of Defense DQO data quality objective DRO diesel range organics DVE dual-phase vacuum extraction EDD electronic data deliverable EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency EPD Environmental Protection Division ERP Environmental Restoration Program ft feet GA Georgia GPS Global Positioning System GRO gasoline range organics ID identification IDW investigation-derived waste ISWQS Georgia In-Stream Water Quality Standard LCS laboratory control sample LCSD laboratory control sample duplicate LOQ limit of quantitation LTM Long Term Management LUC Land Use Control MCL maximum contaminant level mg/L milligrams per liter mL milliliter MOR Monitor Only Report

Page iv Providing professional, cost-effective solutions

MS matrix spike MSD matrix spike duplicate MTBE methyl tert-butyl ether NA not applicable or not available NFA no further action ORO oil range organics PARCC precision, accuracy, representativeness, completeness, and comparability P.E. Professional Engineer PE Professional Environmental Engineers, Inc.

PQO project quality objective PVC polyvinyl chloride QA quality assurance QC quality control RI remedial investigation RPD relative percent difference SDG sample delivery group SO4 sulfate SVOC semi-volatile organic compound TestAmerica TestAmerica, Inc.

Tetra Tech Tetra Tech EM, Inc.

TO Task Order TOC total organic carbon TPH total petroleum hydrocarbon UFP-QAPP Uniform Federal Policy – Quality Assurance Project Plan UST underground storage tank VOC volatile organic compound

DOBBINS AIR RESERVE BASE 1.0 – INTRODUCTION

Page 1 Providing professional, cost-effective solutions

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Professional Environmental Engineers, Inc. (PE) was retained by the Air Force Civil Engineer Center (AFCEC), under Contract No. GS10F200BA, Delivery Order FA8903-15-F-0011, to conduct specified work at Dobbins Air Reserve Base (ARB), in Marietta, Georgia, as part of the Land Use Control (LUC) and Long Term Management (LTM) activities for Site DP005, AVGAS Sludge Burial Site A. The specified work included project management and planning, preparation and submittal of work plans, groundwater monitoring and sampling, monitoring well inspections and abandonment, analytical testing, investigation-derived waste (IDW) disposal, and preparation of an LUC/LTM report.

This LUC/LTM Report includes a summary of the groundwater sampling activities and an evaluation of the groundwater data collected on 8 to 11 March 2016. The work was performed in accordance with the site-specific Final Work Plan prepared by PE under this Delivery Order and the existing Facility-Wide Uniform Federal Policy – Quality Assurance Project Plan (UFP- QAPP) prepared by others under contract FA8903-09-D-8582 Task Order (TO) 0003 (2014). A Project Management Plan and Health and Safety Plan were also prepared by PE for work under this contract.

1.1 OBJECTIVE

The objective of the annual sampling event described in this LUC/LTM report was to collect groundwater data for the Air Force to monitor contaminant of concern (COC) concentration trends in groundwater over time. Groundwater data is collected annually by the Air Force to evaluate the effectiveness of the former remedy, and confirm that the LUCs at Site DP005 remain protective of human health and the environment.

The groundwater sampling event described in this report and the evaluation of data obtained during this activity was conducted under the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) Environmental Restoration Program (ERP).

1.2 ORGANIZATION OF LUC/LTM REPORT

The LUC/LTM Report is organized as follows:

• Section 1.0, Introduction – provides a brief introduction to the project, the objective, and contents of this document.

• Section 2.0, Background – provides a site description, an abbreviated chronology of historical use and previous activities conducted at the site, and the present regulatory status of Site DP005.

• Section 3.0, Groundwater Sampling and Well Abandonment Activities – discusses well abandonment, groundwater sampling event tasks, deviations from the Final Work Plan, Page 2 Providing professional, cost-effective solutions laboratory analyses and quality assurance (QA)/quality control (QC), data validation/usability and overall assessment, and IDW management.

• Section 4.0, Groundwater Analytical Results – discusses the analytical results for the samples collected during the groundwater monitoring/sampling event.

• Section 5.0, Conclusions and Recommendations – presents the conclusions and recommendations for Site DP005.

• Section 6.0, References – provides list of references cited in text.

Figures and tables are presented at the end of the report text. In addition, this LUC/LTM Report includes the following appendices:

• Appendix A, Photographs – presents photographs of site features and wells.

• Appendix B, Field Forms and Logbook – provides the completed field forms and logbook entries used to document field activities.

• Appendix C, Quality Assurance Review, Data Validation Checklists, Validated Laboratory Form 1s, and Level IV Laboratory Data Packages – provides the checklists used to document data validation, laboratory form 1s, and the complete laboratory data packages.

• Appendix D, Georgia Environmental Protection Division (EPD) Monitor Only Report (MOR) – provides a completed MOR report (required form by GA EPD).

• Appendix E, Laboratory Analytical Data Sheets – provides the complete analytical data package for this work.

• Appendix F, Site Ranking Results – provides a ranking of the site based on contamination levels (required form by GA EPD).

Page 3 Providing professional, cost-effective solutions

1.3 PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER CERTIFICATION

I certify that I am a qualified professional engineer who has received a baccalaureate degree in engineering, and have sufficient training and experience in groundwater hydrology and related fields, as demonstrated by state registration and completion of accredited university courses that enable me to make sound professional judgments regarding groundwater monitoring and contaminant fate and transport. I further certify that this report was prepared by myself or by a subordinate working under my supervision.

5 July 2016

DOBBINS AIR RESERVE BASE 2.0 – BACKGROUND

Page 4 Providing professional, cost-effective solutions

2.0 BACKGROUND

The following subsections provide the site description, an abbreviated chronology of historical use and previous activities conducted at the site, and the present regulatory status of Site

DP005.

2.1 SITE DESCRIPTION

Site DP005 is situated in the northern part of Dobbins ARB (see Figure 1). It is co-located with the base’s fuel storage area and is immediately adjacent to the location of six former (removed) 25,000-gallon fuel underground storage tanks (USTs) and two existing aboveground storage tanks (ASTs) containing jet fuel. Fuel tanks for various purposes have existed in this area since the 1940’s, and the two ASTs are still in daily use. Up until approximately 1973, it was common practice to dispose of fuel sludge in unlined burial pits during tank cleanouts. During at least one of these cleanouts, tank sludge was disposed of in a pit in the general proximity of the six former USTs and Site DP005 (AFCEC, 2014).

2.2 PREVIOUS ACTIVITIES

An abbreviated chronology of historical use and previous activities at Site DP005 is summarized below.

• 1940’s to 1973: The site is used as a storage and handling facility for aviation fuels and waste disposal of sludge residues from cleaning tanks.

• August 1991: Six USTs were removed from the site; closure samples were collected during UST removal activities.

• September 1996: A comprehensive analytical report was prepared, which included environmental site data collected through 1996. The analytical report included data on soil, groundwater, and surface water samples collected as part of a Phase II confirmation and quantification study conducted in 1986, remedial investigations (RIs) conducted in 1988 and 1993, and other ERP investigations conducted in 1995 and 1996.

• April 2004: A dual-phase vacuum extraction (DVE) system with five remediation wells began operation at Site DP005; oversight and enforcement of the cleanup activities occurred through the Georgia EPD UST Program. Quarterly groundwater monitoring was implemented from 2004 to 2006; semi-annual groundwater monitoring was implemented from 2006 to 2008.

• March 2009: The Georgia EPD approved deactivation of the DVE system. The system was shut down following groundwater monitoring in December 2008. Post-shutdown semiannual groundwater monitoring was implemented through December 2010.

• October 2009: The DVE system was decontaminated and removed from active service;

however, the equipment was left in place.

DOBBINS AIR RESERVE BASE 2.0 – BACKGROUND

Page 5 Providing professional, cost-effective solutions

• March 2011: The Georgia EPD UST program approved No Further Action (NFA) for Site DP005 and requested a completion report and certification documenting that the associated monitoring wells and remediation equipment were properly abandoned.

However, Dobbins ARB elected to retain the remediation equipment and associated wells in order to evaluate the remedy effectiveness and to determine if any additional activities were warranted.

• March 2012: Inspection and maintenance of the DVE system was conducted.

Maintenance activities include operating the blower, cleaning and lubricating the equipment, removing accumulated rainwater, and spraying the blower with a rust inhibitor.

• July 2012: Maintenance activities at seven monitoring wells were performed, which included rust removal and painting, repair of metal covers and casings, and replacement of broken external well parts. The exterior of the protective steel bollards and the well covers were painted safety yellow. LUCs and applicable restrictions were also inspected to verify change in land use, land disturbances, or indication of drilling activity over the previous year.

• February 2015: Inspection and groundwater sampling of six monitoring wells was performed, groundwater levels were measured, and liquid IDW was transferred to the Dobbins ARB hazardous waste storage site and then shipped to an off-site licensed facility.

• March 2015: PE was awarded Delivery Order FA8903-15-F-0011 (under existing Contract # GS10F200BA) to perform LUC/LTM activities at Site DP005 for a 1-year period.

Figure 2 shows the site features including groundwater monitoring wells, the location of the DVE system, suspected AVGAS sludge burial pit, existing ASTs, and approximate location of the six former 25,000 gallon fuel USTS. A detailed summary of the site, historical investigations and analytical results, and remedial activities conducted at Site DP005 are presented in the Final Remediation System Report [Tetra Tech EM, Inc. (Tetra Tech), 2011] and 2014 Five Year Review Report (HDR, 2014).

2.3 REGULATORY OVERVIEW

In December 2010, the requirements for NFA under the Georgia UST Program regulations were attained (Georgia EPD, 2011). Based on the NFA determination recommendations in the 2014 Five Year Review Report (HDR, 2014), LUCs are being implemented at Site DP005, supplemented by groundwater monitoring. The groundwater data is currently scheduled to be collected annually to evaluate the effectiveness of the remedy and to assure that LUCs at Site DP005 remain protective of human health and the environment.

DOBBINS AIR RESERVE BASE 3.0 – GROUNDWATER SAMPLING AND WELL ABANDONMENT ACTIVITIES

Page 6 Providing professional, cost-effective solutions

3.0 GROUNDWATER SAMPLING AND WELL ABANDONMENT ACTIVITIES

The following sections describe the tasks that were implemented for the 2015/2016 groundwater sampling event, including recording static water level measurements and GPS locations for on-site monitoring wells, monitoring well inspections, well abandonment, groundwater purging and sample collection, laboratory analyses and QA/QC, data validation, and IDW management. The following sections also summarize approved deviations from the Final Work Plan and provide an assessment of data usability.

3.1 APPROVED DEVIATIONS FROM THE WORK PLAN

Originally, PE was contracted to sample ten on-site wells and abandon eight others. However, following early discussions with AFCEC and Georgia EPD, it was discovered that there was some questions on the status of the wells currently existing on site. On 20 January 2016, PE mobilized to the site to perform a field check of wells to be sampled and wells to be abandoned. Monitoring wells D5-W52, D5-W53 and D5-W54 were scheduled to be sampled, but could not be located and were presumed to have previously been abandoned. Monitoring wells D5-W9, D5-W10, D5-W11, D5-W26, D5-W34, D5-W37, and D5-W48, all scheduled for abandonment on this TO, could also not be located and were presumed to have already been abandoned prior to PE’s site visit. It should be noted that PE used existing maps and GPS coordinates (where available) in an attempt to locate these missing wells. Additionally, PE used shovels to dig into the subsurface in areas where the wells were supposed to be located.

Although there was no written record of the previous well abandonments, PE often found pieces of grout material within the areas where these wells were supposed to be located, suggesting that they had already been abandoned.

3.2 WELL ABANDONMENT

One monitoring well, D5-W49, from the original AFCEC abandonment list remained on site (based on the January 2016 inspection by PE). PE contracted Betts Environmental (Betts) of Adel, Georgia to abandon the well; Betts mobilized an all-terrain vehicle drill rig to the site on 8 March 2016. The well casing was removed by Betts, and the annular space was filled with a bentonite-grout mixture to a depth of approximately one foot below ground surface. The remaining void was filled with native soil in accordance with State of Georgia well abandonment guidelines/regulations. Waste materials from the well abandonment were removed off site by Betts and properly disposed of.

3.3 WELL INSPECTIONS

As part of the original scope of work, PE noted the condition of all DP005 wells (including wells that were not sampled under this contract) and well features, such as concrete pads, protective casings, etc. A summary of the well inspections is provided in Table 1; photographs are included in Appendix A.

Page 7 Providing professional, cost-effective solutions

3.4 GROUNDWATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS

PE recorded static groundwater level measurements on 9 March 2016; additional groundwater level measurements were recorded on 10 and 11 March 2016 (see Appendix B). Groundwater level measurements were made using an electronic water level indicator, and recorded as depth to water from the top of the polyvinyl chloride (PVC) well casing. The depth to water was then subtracted from the surveyed elevation of the top of casing to determine the groundwater elevation in each well. The groundwater level measurements and groundwater elevations, including the identification of each well gauged/ sampled, are provided in Table 2.

Groundwater elevations were used to prepare a potentiometric surface map, which is provided as Figure 3b. Groundwater elevations and contours from the previous (February 2015) sampling event are provided in Figure 3a for comparison purposes. Both sampling events indicate a groundwater flow direction to the east/northeast (toward creek) at a gradient between 0.010 (February 2015) and 0.024 (March 2016) feet per feet. In general, groundwater elevations were several feet higher in March 2016 than they were in February 2015.

3.5 SAMPLE COLLECTION

Groundwater sampling for the seven specified and remaining monitoring wells was conducted using low-flow sampling methods via a bladder pump. The seven monitoring wells sampled included: D5W-11R, D5W-35, D5W-36, D5W-51, D5W-57, D5W-58, and ITS-7. Water quality/ stabilization parameters were monitored during purging using a multi-parameter water-quality instrument capable of monitoring temperature, specific conductivity, dissolved oxygen, pH, and oxidation-reduction potential. A turbidity meter was utilized to collect turbidity measurements.

The field forms, including the Well Purging/Field Water Quality Measurements Forms, are provided in Appendix B. The groundwater analytical results are summarized in Section 4.0.

3.6 LABORATORY ANALYSES AND QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL

Groundwater samples were analyzed by TestAmerica, Inc. (TestAmerica), of Savannah, Georgia.

The analytes were selected based on the historical COCs and to assess continued remedy protectiveness for the cleanup of Site DP005. The groundwater samples were analyzed for volatile organic compounds (VOCs), including benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and total xylenes (BTEX) and methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE), in accordance with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Method 8260B. Groundwater samples were also analyzed for semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) in accordance with EPA Method 8270D; total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH)-gasoline range organics (GRO), TPH-diesel range organics (DRO), and TPH-oil range organics (ORO) in accordance with EPA Method 8015C; methane, ethane, and ethylene in accordance with Method RSK 175; nitrate and nitrite as nitrogen, and sulfate in accordance with EPA Method 9056A; sulfide in accordance with EPA Method 9034; total organic carbon in accordance with EPA Method 9060; and alkalinity in accordance with Standard Method 2320B. Analytical results were reported to their respective detection limits (DLs). The default laboratory DLs and limits of quantitation (LOQs) for this event are presented in Table 3.

Page 8 Providing professional, cost-effective solutions

The laboratory QA/QC program performed by TestAmerica included analyses of laboratory replicates, method blanks, surrogate spikes, internal standards, laboratory control samples (LCS), matrix spikes (MS), and matrix spike duplicates (MSD). To allow the analytical laboratory to run MS/MSD analyses, additional samples were collected in the field to provide sufficient volume. A total of one MS/MSD sample pair was analyzed and complied with the QAPP-specified frequency rate requirement of an MS/MSD pair for every 20 field samples collected.

One field duplicate sample was collected as part of the field QC program to comply with the QAPP-specified frequency rate requirement of one field duplicate for every 10 field samples collected. In addition, trip blanks (provided by the laboratory) were also submitted as part of the field QC program. Trip blanks were added to the shipping cooler with groundwater samples for VOCs collected each day. A total of three trip blanks were analyze and are associated with samples collected on 8 through 10 March 2016 (no target analytes were detected in the trip blanks).

3.7 DATA VALIDATION

PE conducted data validation in accordance with the Final Site-Specific Work Plan and Facility- Wide UFP-QAPP, applicable methodologies, and laboratory established accuracy and precision control limits. In addition, the laboratory electronic data deliverables (EDDs) were verified by comparing 10 percent (%) of the EDD data against the validate laboratory Form 1s. In Appendix C, copies of the laboratory reports with data qualifiers applied as a result of data validation are provided (Form 1s). Appendix C also contains copies of the completed Quality Assurance Review Data Validation Checklists that were used to document the data validation effort. DL and LOQ values were checked, and the data is considered usable and acceptable.

3.8 DATA USEABILITY AND OVERALL ASSESSMENT

Analytical results were evaluated in accordance with precision, accuracy, representativeness, completeness, and comparability (PARCC) parameters to ensure the attainment of project quality objectives (PQOs). Of these PARCC parameters, precision and accuracy were evaluated quantitatively through the collection of QC samples. The parameters discussed below were assessed.

3.8.1 Precision

Quality control data, including field duplicates and MS/MSD audit results, were used to assess the field precision for the Site DP005 data. One field duplicate sample was collected and submitted to the laboratory for analysis. The maximum relative percent difference (RPD) for aqueous samples is 30%, when the concentrations in the native sample and the associated field duplicate sample are greater than five times the LOQ. For duplicate results exceeding those criteria, the results in the native sample and the associate field duplicate sample were qualified as estimated (“J” and/or “UJ”), indicating possible field sampling error and/or possible sample nonhomogeneity. When the concentrations in the native and associated field duplicate sample

Page 9 Providing professional, cost-effective solutions were less than five times the LOQ, the absolute value of the native sample and the duplicate was calculate and compare to two times the LOQ value. Results that were greater than two times the LOQ value were qualified as estimated (“J” and/or “UJ”).

Laboratory precision was measured by the analysis of MS/MSD samples, LCS/laboratory control sample duplicate (LCSD) samples, and/or laboratory replicate samples. Laboratory precision within the analytical batches and across all analytical batches was reviewed. Precision objectives for the respective analyses are listed in the Facility Wide UFP-QAPP. For laboratory replicate RPD values exceeding those criteria, the result in the native sample (or in all samples within the sample delivery group depending on professional judgment) were qualified as estimated (“UM” or “M” for MS/MSD samples and “UJ” or “J” for LCS/LCSD and laboratory replicates).

Precision was within control limits. Field duplicates, laboratory duplicates, and MS/MSD RPD indicate precision in the sample results. The field duplicate and laboratory duplicate RPD were within control. However, the MS/MSD RPD was above control limits for some of the analytes.

The parent sample was qualified due to matrix spike precision issues. No data were rejected due to precision issues.

3.8.2 Accuracy/Bias Contamination

Accuracy in the laboratory was measured by (1) sample holding times and preservation, (2) instrument calibration, (3) QC samples such as laboratory blanks, (4) MS/MSD and LCS/LCSD percent recoveries, (5) internal standard recovery, and (6) surrogate compound recovery.

MS/MSD percent recovery and instrument blank contamination discrepancies were noted during the data validation and review process. Discrepancies were documented in the Quality Assurance Review Data Validation Checklists of Appendix C. Analytical results were qualified accordingly.

Accuracy in the field was assessed through the collection and analysis of MS/MSD samples and trip blanks. The procedures used to collect these QC audit samples are describe in the Facility Wide UFP-QAPP.

Accuracy was within control limits. LCS, MS, and MSD recoveries can indicate bias in the sample results. Exceptions were noted in the LCS recoveries, and the associated data were qualified accordingly. No data were rejected due to accuracy issues.

3.8.3 Representativeness

For this project, representative data were obtained through careful selection of sampling locations and analytical parameters as described in the sampling rationale specified in the Final Work Plan. Representative data were also obtained through proper collection and handling of samples to avoid interference and minimize contamination.

Page 10 Providing professional, cost-effective solutions

Representativeness of data was also confirmed through established field and DoD Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program certified laboratory procedures and their consistent application. Sample data were representative of the site conditions at the time of sample collection. All samples were properly stored and preserved.

3.8.4 Completeness

Completeness is a measure of the percentage of project-specific data that is valid. Valid data is obtained when samples are collected and analyzed in accordance with QC procedures outlined in the Facility-Wide UFP-QAPP and when none of the QC criteria that affect data usability are exceeded. The percent-completeness value was calculated by dividing the number of usable sample results by the total number of sample results planned for this investigation. The completeness goal for this project was 90%.

No data were rejected, and completeness was calculated to be 100%.

3.8.5 Comparability

Comparability represents the confidence with which one data set can be compared to another.

In accordance with the Facility Wide UFP-QAPP, data are comparable when collection techniques, measurement methods, and reporting procedures are equivalent for the samples within a sample set. Implementation of appropriate procedures for sampling and shipping, as specified in the Facility Wide UFP-QAPP, were performed for Site DP005.

3.8.6 Overall Assessment and Usability

The overall analytical performance within the Site DP005 data set is considered acceptable. The data generated from the water sample analyses is of sufficient quality and quantity necessary for accomplishing project objectives. Sample results accurately indicate the presence and/or absence of target analyte contamination at sampled locations. Samples were collected and analyzed as specified in the project work plan and the UFP-QAPP except as noted in this report.

The associated QC indicators were generally in control and no systematic errors were observed.

Sample bias was minimal, leading to some sample result qualification. Sample results are believed to be representative of site conditions at the time of collection. Results obtained are comparable to industry standards in that collection and analytical techniques followed approved, documented procedures. All results are reported in industry standard units. The results obtained for associated sample/analyses reflect the best achievable data for the site-specific conditions and are usable for project objectives. No project data were rejected.

3.9 INVESTIGATION-DERIVED WASTE

Liquid IDW generated during monitoring and sampling activities included decontamination fluids and purge water from monitoring wells; approximately 20 gallons of liquid IDW were

Page 11 Providing professional, cost-effective solutions generated for this work. The liquid IDW was transferred (for disposal) to the Dobbins ARB hazardous waste storage site on 12 April 2016.

DOBBINS AIR RESERVE BASE 4.0 – GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS

Page 12 Providing professional, cost-effective solutions

4.0 GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS

Groundwater analytical data were evaluated against EPA Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs), (EPA, 2015) and Georgia In-Stream Water Quality Standards (ISWQS - Georgia Department of Natural Resources, 2012). The analytical results are summarized below; analytical results for the sampling event are also presented in Table 4 and shown on Figure 4b (results from the February 2015 sampling event are shown on Figure 4a for comparison purposes). The complete laboratory analytical packages are provided in Appendix E.

• Groundwater monitoring well D5-W11R showed detectable concentrations of isopropylbenzene (2.9 micrograms per liter (µg/L)), TPH-DRO (650 µg/L), TPH-GRO (81 µg/L), ethane (7.9 µg/L), ethylene (7.7 µg/L), methane (1,300 µg/L), nitrate as nitrogen (58 µg/L), sulfate (610 µg/L, estimated), total organic carbon (1,900 µg/L), and alkalinity (52,000 µg/L). None of these concentrations exceed EPA MCLs or EPD ISWQSs.

• Groundwater monitoring well D5-W35 showed detectable concentrations of TPH-DRO (82 µg/L, estimated), ethane (4.7 µg/L), ethylene (4.6 µg/L), methane (4.9 µg/L), nitrate as nitrogen (190 µg/L), sulfate (1,200 µg/L),sulfide (1,100 µg/L), total organic carbon (980 µg/L, estimated), and alkalinity (14,000 µg/L). None of these concentrations exceed EPA MCLs or EPD ISWQSs.

• Groundwater monitoring well D5-W36 showed detectable concentrations of benzene (8.6 µg/L), ethylbenzene (7.7 µg/L), isopropylbenzene (44 µg/L), methylcyclohexane (190 µg/L), total xylenes (540 µg/L), acetophenone (15 µg/L), 1-1’-biphenyl (2.1 µg/L, estimated),2-methylnaphthalene (20 µg/L), naphthalene (28 µg/L), TPH-DRO (2,000 µg/L), TPH-GRO (3900 µg/L), ethane (1.1 µg/L), methane (3.8 µg/L), total organic carbon (1,900 µg/L), and alkalinity (46,000 µg/L). The benzene concentration exceeded the EPA MCL, but was below the EPD ISWQS.

• Groundwater monitoring well D5-W51 showed detectable concentrations of benzene (1.1 µg/L), ethylbenzene (2.1 µg/L), 2-hexanone (3.3 µg/L, estimated), isopropylbenzene (2.3 µg/L), carbazole (3.8 µg/L, estimated), TPH-DRO (6,300 µg/L), TPH-ORO (500 µg/L), TPH-GRO (110 µg/L), methane (120 µg/L), nitrate as nitrogen (830 µg/L), nitrite as nitrogen (27 µg/L, estimated), sulfate (770 µg/L), total organic carbon (10,000 µg/L), and alkalinity (100,000 µg/L). None of these concentrations exceed EPA MCLs or EPD ISWQSs.

• Groundwater monitoring well D5-W57 showed detectable concentrations of benzene (560 µg/L), chlorobenzene (1.8 µg/L), ethylbenzene (200 µg/L), isopropylbenzene (14 µg/L), methylcyclohexane (49 µg/L), toluene (7 µg/L), total xylenes (300 µg/L), 1-1’-biphenyl (1.3 µg/L, estimated), carbazole (1.6 µg/L, estimated), 2,4-dimethylphenol (14 µg/L), 2-methylnaphthalene (3.4 µg/L, estimated), 2-methylphenol (7.9 µg/L, estimated), naphthalene (11 µg/L), phenanthrene (0.96 µg/L, estimated), phenol (5.1

DOBBINS AIR RESERVE BASE 4.0 – GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS

Page 13 Providing professional, cost-effective solutions µg/L, estimated), TPH-DRO (3,200 µg/L), TPH-GRO (3,700 µg/L), ethane (9.5 µg/L), ethylene (1.9 µg/L), methane (3,700 µg/L), total organic carbon (5,000 µg/L), and alkalinity (170,000 µg/L). Benzene concentrations for well D5-W57 exceeded both the EPA MCL and the GA EPD ISWQS for this compound.

• Groundwater monitoring well D5-W58 showed detectable concentrations of benzene (0.47 µg/L, estimated), isopropylbenzene (0.7 µg/L, estimated), fluoranthene (4.6 µg/L, estimated), fluorene (1.2 µg/L, estimated), pyrene (4.6 µg/L, estimated), TPH-DRO (1,300 µg/L), TPH-ORO (340 µg/L, estimated), TPH-GRO (110 µg/L), methane (120 µg/L), sulfate (920 µg/L, estimated), total organic carbon (1,900 µg/L), and alkalinity (27,000 µg/L). None of these concentrations exceed EPA MCLs or EPD ISWQSs.

• Groundwater monitoring well ITS-7 showed detectable concentrations of TPH-DRO (110 µg/L), TPH-GRO (44 µg/L), methane (15 µg/L), nitrate as nitrogen (930 µg/L), sulfate (1,100 µg/L), total organic carbon (360 µg/L, estimated), and alkalinity (5,100 µg/L).

None of these concentrations exceed EPA MCLs or EPD ISWQSs.

DOBBINS AIR RESERVE BASE 5.0 – CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Page 14 Providing professional, cost-effective solutions

5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

As part of the LUC/LTM activities performed by the Air Force, groundwater samples were collected in accordance with directives from AFCEC from groundwater monitoring wells D5-11R, D5-W35, D5-W36, D5-W53, D5-W57 D5-W58, and ITS-7. Samples were analyzed for VOCs, SVOCs, TPH, and monitored natural attenuation parameters. Groundwater analytical data was evaluated against EPA MCLs, and Georgia ISWQS. Benzene was the only COC that had concentrations in groundwater higher than either the EPA MCL or the Georgia ISWQS (well D5- W36 had a benzene concentration that exceeded the MCL of 5 µg/L but was below the ISWQS of 71.28 µg/L; well D5-W57 had a benzene concentrations above both the MCL and ISWQS).

None of the other wells had concentrations of COC exceeding the MCL or the ISWQS for benzene (or any other COC).

PE recommends that the site continue to be monitored on an annual basis. Groundwater monitoring wells proposed by AFCEC for the 2016/2017 sampling event include D5-11R, D5- W35, D5-W36, D5-W51, D5-W52, D5-W57, D5-W58, and ITS-7. It is proposed that these wells be sampled for VOCs and SVOCs using EPA SW-846 Methods 8260B and 8270D, respectively.

DOBBINS AIR RESERVE BASE 6.0 – REFERENCES

Page 15 Providing professional, cost-effective solutions

6.0 REFERENCES

Air Force Civil Engineer Center, 2015. Performance Work Statement for Land Use Control and Long Term Management at Dobbins ARB, Contract # GS10F200BA, Delivery Order

FA8903-15-F-0011.

Georgia Department of Natural Resources, 2012. Georgia In-Stream Water Quality Standards.

Georgia Environmental Protection Division, 2011. Letter from William E. Logan, Advanced Geologist, Corrective Action Unit II, Georgia Underground Storage Tank Management Program, to Hal Huddleston, USAF 94th MSG/CC, Dobbins ARB, 28 March.

HDR, 2014. Second Five-Year Review, Revision 1, 94th Airlift Wing, Dobbins Air Reserve Base, Marietta, Georgia, January.

Sullivan-Weston Services JVA, LLC, 2013. Facility-Wide Uniform Federal Policy – Quality Assurance Project Plan for Performance-Based Remediation, Air Force Plant 6 and Dobbins Air Reserve Base, Marietta, Georgia, June.

Sullivan-Weston Services JVA, LLC, 2015. Final Long Term Monitoring Report: Perform Land Use Control and Long Term Monitoring for Site DP005 AVGAS Sludge Burial Site, Dobbins Air Reserve Base, Marietta, Georgia, May.

Tetra Tech EM, Inc., 2011. Final Remediation System Report No. 17. August 2010 to December 2010, AVGAS Sludge Burial Site A (DP-05), 531 Atlantic Avenue, Dobbins Air Reserve Base, Marietta, Georgia, March.

United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2016. Maximum Contaminant Levels, May.

TABLES

Table 1 - Site DP005 Well Inspection Summary Dobbins Air Reserve Base

Marietta, Georgia

Well Labeled?

Condition of Well Label

Locked?

Flush

Mount or Stickup

Well Cap Type and

Status

Condition of

Protective Casing

Condition of

Concrete Pad

Measuring Point

Marked?

Comment

D5-W11R Yes good yes stickup PVC good intact intact yes 2” well outside fenced area

D5-W35 Yes good yes stickup PVC good intact intact yes 2” well outside fenced area

D5-W36 Yes good yes stickup PVC good intact intact yes 2” well outside fenced area

D5-W51 No N/A yes stickup PVC good Intact intact yes 2” well in fenced area

D5-W57 no N/A No* Flush mount

PVC good intact intact No 2” well in fenced area

D5-W58 no N/A No* Flush mount

PVC good intact intact Np 2” well in fenced area

ITS-7 yes good yes stickup PVC good intact intact yes 2” well outside fenced area

B10587 yes good yes stickup ---- intact intact ----- 2” well outside fenced area

B10MWL yes good yes stickup ---- intact intact ----- 2” well outside fenced area

B10MWM yes good yes stickup ---- intact intact ----- 4” well outside fenced area

ITS 8 yes good yes stickup ---- intact intact ----- 2” well outside fenced area

Table 1 - Site DP005 Well Inspection Summary Dobbins Air Reserve Base

Marietta, Georgia

Well Labeled?

Condition of Well Label

Locked?

Flush

Mount or Stickup

Well Cap Type and

Status

Condition of

Protective Casing

Condition of

Concrete Pad

Measuring Point

Marked?

Comment

B10B11 Yes good yes stickup --- intact intact yes 4” well outside fenced area

PZ 1A Yes Labeled in paint yes stickup ---- intact None ---- 1” well outside fenced area

PZ 1B Yes Labeled in paint yes stickup ---- intact None ---- 1” well outside fenced area

PZ 1C Yes Labeled in paint yes stickup ----- Intact None ----- 1” well outside fenced area

Note: All wells that were sampled are now locked.

Table 2 - Site DP005 Groundwater Level Measurements 9 March 2016

Dobbins Air Reserve Base Marietta, Georgia

Well Date Top of Casing Elevation (ft amsl)

Depth to Groundwater

Groundwater Elevation (ft amsl)

D5-W11R 3/7/2016 1065.54 (W11) 14.25 1051.29

D5-W35 3/7/2016 NA 16.19 NA

D5-W36 3/7/2016 1061.51 9.95 1051.56 D5-W51 3/7/2016 1074.74 19.15 1055.59 D5-W57 3/7/2016 1072.07 15.60 1056.47 D5-W58 3/7/2016 1071.57 15.04 1056.53

ITS-7 3/7/2016 NA 19.08 NA

Notes:

amsl above mean sea level BTOC below top of casing ft feet NA not available

Table 3 - Site DP005 Detection Limits and Limits of Quantitation Dobbins Air Reserve Base

Marietta, Georgia

Analyte Limit Of Quantitation Detection Limit Unit Volatile Organic Compounds Benzene 1 0.43 µg/L Chlorobenzene 1 0.26 µg/L 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 1 0.48 µg/L Ethylbenzene 1 0.53 µg/L 2-Hexanone 10 2 µg/L Isopropylbenzene 1 0.35 µg/L Methylcyclohexane 1 0.43 µg/L Methyl tert-butyl ether 10 0.3 µg/L Toluene 1 0.48 µg/L Total Xylenes 2 0.23 µg/L Semivolatile Organic Compounds Acenaphthene 9.9 0.75 µg/L Acenaphthylene 9.9 0.84 µg/L Acetophenone 9.9 0.56 µg/L Benzo (a) anthracene 9.9 0.54 µg/L 1-1'-Biphenyl 9.9 0.57 µg/L Carbazole 9.9 0.7 µg/L 2-Chloronaphthalene 9.9 0.79 µg/L Dibenzofuran 9.9 0.78 µg/L 2,4-Dimethylphenol 9.9 4 µg/L Fluoranthene 9.9 0.73 µg/L Fluorene 9.9 0.95 µg/L 2-Methylnaphthalene 9.9 0.77 µg/L 2-Methylphenol 9.9 0.88 µg/L Naphthalene 9.9 0.69 µg/L Phenanthrene 9.9 0.76 µg/L Phenol 9.9 0.82 µg/L Pyrene 9.9 0.62 µg/L Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons TPH-DRO 0.096 0.048 mg/L TPH-ORO 0.48 0.19 mg/L TPH-GRO 25 10 µg/L Monitored Natural Attenuation Parameters Ethane 1.1 0.55 µg/L Ethylene 1 0.5 µg/L Methane 0.58 0.29 µg/L Nitrate-N 0.05 0.023 mg/L Nitrite-N 0.05 0.023 mg/L Sulfate 1 0.4 mg/L Sulfide 1 1 mg/L Total Organic Carbon 1 0.16 mg/L Alkalinity 5 1.1 mg/L

Notes:

Only analytes detected above detection limit are shown on this table µg/L micrograms per liter mg/L milligrams per liter

Table 4 – Site DP005 Groundwater Analytical Results Dobbins Air Reserve Base

Marietta, Georgia

Screening Levels Georgia

ISWQS

EPA

MCL

D5-W11R D5- W11R

D5-W35 D5-W35 D5-W36 D5-W36

Date December

March

December

March

December

February µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L Volatile Organic Compounds Benzene 71.28 5 0.054 U 1 U 0.054 U 1 U 15.2 10 F Chlorobenzene 21,000 100 NA 0.5 U NA 0.5 U NA NA 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 2,600 75 NA 1 U NA 1 U NA NA Ethylbenzene 28,718 700 NA 1 U NA 1 U NA 5.8 F 2-Hexanone NA NA NA 5 U NA 5 U NA NA Isopropylbenzene NA NA NA 2.9 NA 0.5 U NA NA Methylcyclohexane NA NA NA 1 U NA 1 U NA NA Methyl tert-butyl ether NA NA NA 0.5 U NA 0.5 U NA NA Toluene 200,000 1,000 NA 1 U NA 1 U NA 4.4 U Total Xylenes NA 10,000 NA 0.5 U NA 0.5 U NA 620 Semivolatile Organic Compounds Acenaphthene 990 NA NA 1.9 U NA 2 UJ NA NA Acenaphthylene NA NA NA 1.9 U NA 2 UJ NA NA Acetophenone NA NA NA 1.9 U NA 2 U NA NA Benzo (a) anthracene 0.0311 NA NA 0.95 U NA 0.99 U NA NA 1-1'-Biphenyl NA NA NA 1.9 U NA 2 UJ NA NA Carbazole NA NA NA 1.9 U NA 2 U NA NA 2-Chloronaphthalene NA NA NA 1.9 U NA 2 UJ NA NA Dibenzofuran NA NA NA 1.9 U NA 2 UJ NA NA 2,4-Dimethylphenol NA NA NA 9.5 U NA 9.9 U NA NA Fluoranthene 370 NA NA 1.9 U NA 2 U NA NA Fluorene 14,000 NA NA 1.9 U NA 2 U NA NA 2-Methylnaphthalene NA NA NA 1.9 U NA 2 UJ NA NA 2-Methylphenol NA NA NA 1.9 U NA 2 U NA NA Naphthalene NA NA NA 1.9 U NA 2 UJ NA NA Phenanthrene NA NA NA 1.9 U NA 2 U NA NA Phenol 300 NA NA 1.9 U NA 2 U NA NA Pyrene 11,000 NA NA 1.9 U NA 2 U NA NA Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons

TPH-DRO NA NA NA 650 NA 82 J NA NA

TPH-ORO NA NA NA 190 U NA 100 U NA NA

TPH-GRO NA NA NA 81 MH NA 25 UH NA NA

Monitored Natural Attenuation Parameters Ethane NA NA NA 7.9 NA 4.7 NA 1.8 Ethylene NA NA NA 7.7 NA 4.6 NA 3.8 Methane NA NA NA 1,300 NA 4.9 NA 2,500 Nitrate-N 10,000 10,000 NA 58 M NA 190 M NA 35 U Nitrite-N NA 1,000 NA 46 U NA 46 U NA NA

Sulfate NA NA NA 610 JM NA 1,200 NA 250 F Sulfide NA NA NA 1,000 U NA 1,100 NA 3,000 UM Total Organic Carbon NA NA NA 1,900 NA 980 J NA 2500 Alkalinity NA NA NA 52,000 B NA 14,000 B NA 75,000

Table 4 – Site DP005 Groundwater Analytical Results (continued) Dobbins Air Reserve Base

Marietta, Georgia

Screening Levels Georgia

ISWQS

EPA

MCL

D5-W36 D5-W47R

D5-W51

D5-W51 D5-W51 D5-W52

Date March

December

December

February

March

December µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L Volatile Organic Compounds Benzene 71.28 5 8.6 D 917 3.62 4.5 1.1 478 Chlorobenzene 21,000 100 1 U NA NA NA 0.5 U NA 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 2,600 75 2 U NA NA NA 1 U NA Ethylbenzene 28,718 700 7.7 D NA NA 9.2 2.1 NA 2-Hexanone NA NA 10 U NA NA NA 3.3 J NA Isopropylbenzene NA NA 44 D NA NA NA 2.3 NA Methylcyclohexane NA NA 190 D NA NA NA 1 U NA Methyl tert-butyl ether NA NA 1 U NA NA NA 0.5 U NA Toluene 200,000 1,000 2 U NA NA 0.22 F 1 U NA Total Xylenes NA 10,000 540 NA NA 0.43 U 0.5 U NA Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds Acenaphthene 990 NA 2 U NA NA NA 2 U NA Acenaphthylene NA NA 2 U NA NA NA 2 U NA Acetophenone NA NA 15 NA NA NA 2 U NA Benzo (a) anthracene 0.0311 NA 1 U NA NA NA 0.98 U NA 1-1'-Biphenyl NA NA 2.1 J NA NA NA 2 U NA Carbazole NA NA 2 U NA NA NA 3.8 J NA 2-Chloronaphthalene NA NA 2 U NA NA NA 2 U NA Dibenzofuran NA NA 2 U NA NA NA 2 U NA 2,4-Dimethylphenol NA NA 10 U NA NA NA 9.8 U NA Fluoranthene 370 NA 2 U NA NA NA 2 U NA Fluorene 14,000 NA 2 U NA NA NA 2 U NA 2-Methylnaphthalene NA NA 20 NA NA NA 2 U NA 2-Methylphenol NA NA 2 U NA NA NA 2 U NA Naphthalene NA NA 28 NA NA NA 2 U NA Phenanthrene NA NA 2 U NA NA NA 2 U NA Phenol 300 NA 2 U NA NA NA 2 U NA Pyrene 11,000 NA 2 U NA NA NA 2 U NA Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons

TPH-DRO NA NA 2,000 NA NA NA 6,300 NA

TPH-ORO NA NA 190 UQ NA NA NA 500 Q NA

TPH-GRO NA NA

3,900

MHQ NA NA NA

MHQ NA

Monitored Natural Attenuation Parameters Ethane NA NA 1.1 UM NA NA 1.2 1.1 U NA Ethylene NA NA 1 U NA NA 0.46 F 1 U NA Methane NA NA 3.8 M NA NA 770 120 NA Nitrate-N 10,000 10,000 46 U NA NA 35 U 830 MH NA Nitrite-N NA 1,000 46 U NA NA NA 27 JMH NA Sulfate NA NA 800 UM NA NA 1,000 770 JM NA Sulfide NA NA 1,000 U NA NA 3,000 UM 1,000 U NA Total Organic Carbon NA NA 1900 NA NA 14,000 10,000 NA Alkalinity NA NA 46,000 B NA NA 110,000 100,000 B NA

Dobbins Air Reserve Base

Marietta, Georgia

Screening Levels D5-W52

D5-W52

DUP D5-W53 D5-W54 D5-W55 D5-W55

Georgia

ISWQS

EPA

Date February

February

December

December

December

February µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L Volatile Organic Compounds Benzene 71.28 5 1800 1500 101 0.054U 11.2 9.9 Chlorobenzene 21,000 100 NA NA NA NA NA NA 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 2,600 75 NA NA NA NA NA NA Ethylbenzene 28,718 700 13 F 12 F NA NA NA 32 2-Hexanone NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Isopropylbenzene NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Methylcyclohexane NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Methyl tert-butyl ether NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Toluene 200,000 1,000 11 U 11 U NA NA NA 0.51 F Total Xylenes NA 10,000 22 U 22 U NA NA NA 2.9 Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds Acenaphthene 990 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Acenaphthylene NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Acetophenone NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Benzo (a) anthracene 0.0311 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 1-1'-Biphenyl NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Carbazole NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 2-Chloronaphthalene NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Dibenzofuran NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 2,4-Dimethylphenol NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Fluoranthene 370 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Fluorene 14,000 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 2-Methylnaphthalene NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 2-Methylphenol NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Naphthalene NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Phenanthrene NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Phenol 300 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Pyrene 11,000 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons

TPH-DRO NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

TPH-ORO NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

TPH-GRO NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Monitored Natural Attenuation Parameters Ethane NA NA 5.4 6.3 NA NA NA 2.4 Ethylene NA NA 0.13 U 0.13 U NA NA NA 1.6 Methane NA NA 1,800 J 1,300 J NA NA NA 1,600 Nitrate-N 10,000 10,000 35 U 35 U NA NA NA 35 U Nitrite-N NA 1,000 NA NA NA NA NA NA Sulfate NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Sulfide NA NA 130 U 130 U NA NA NA 130 F Total Organic Carbon NA NA 3,000 UM 3,000 UM NA NA NA 940 U Alkalinity NA NA 4,900 4,900 NA NA NA 17,000

Dobbins Air Reserve Base

Marietta, Georgia

Screening Levels Georgia

ISWQS

EPA

MCL D5-W56 D5-W57 D5-W57 D5-W57

D5-W57

DUP

D5 W 58

Date December

December

February

March

March

December µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L Volatile Organic Compounds Benzene 71.28 5 0.054 U 63 690 560 D 560 D 3.61 Chlorobenzene 21,000 100 NA NA NA 1.8 1.8 NA 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 2,600 75 NA NA NA 1 U 2.4 NA Ethylbenzene 28,718 700 NA NA 110 200 D 200 D NA 2-Hexanone NA NA NA NA NA 5 U 5 U NA Isopropylbenzene NA NA NA NA NA 14 15 NA Methylcyclohexane NA NA NA NA NA 49 46 NA Methyl tert-butyl ether NA NA NA NA NA 0.5 U 0.5 U NA Toluene 200,000 1,000 NA NA 4.4 U 6.8 7 NA Total Xylenes NA 10,000 NA NA 84 300 330 NA Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds Acenaphthene 990 NA NA NA NA 1.9 U 1.9 U NA Acenaphthylene NA NA NA NA NA 1.9 U 1.9 U NA Acetophenone NA NA NA NA NA 1.9 U 1.9 U NA Benzo (a) anthracene 0.0311 NA NA NA NA 0.97 U 0.96 U NA 1-1'-Biphenyl NA NA NA NA NA 1.3 J 1.4 J NA Carbazole NA NA NA NA NA 1.6 J 1.6 J NA 2-Chloronaphthalene NA NA NA NA NA 1.9 U 1.9 U NA Dibenzofuran NA NA NA NA NA 1.9 U 1.9 U NA 2,4-Dimethylphenol NA NA NA NA NA 14 15 NA Fluoranthene 370 NA NA NA NA 1.9 U 1.9 U NA Fluorene 14,000 NA NA NA NA 1.9 U 1.9 U NA 2-Methylnaphthalene NA NA NA NA NA 3.4 J 4.1 J NA 2-Methylphenol NA NA NA NA NA 7.9 J 12 NA Naphthalene NA NA NA NA NA 11 14 NA Phenanthrene NA NA NA NA NA 0.96 J 1 J NA Phenol 300 NA NA NA NA 5.1 J 2.9 J NA Pyrene 11,000 NA NA NA NA 1.9 U 1.9 U NA Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons

TPH-DRO NA NA NA NA NA 3,200 3,400 NA

TPH-ORO NA NA NA NA NA 190 UQ 200 UQ NA

TPH-GRO NA NA NA NA NA

3,700

MHQ

3,600

MHQ NA

Monitored Natural Attenuation Parameters Ethane NA NA NA NA 2.5 9.5 8.6 NA Ethylene NA NA NA NA 1.5 1.9 1.6 NA Methane NA NA NA NA 960 1,900 M 1,800 NA Nitrate-N 10,000 10,000 NA NA 35 U 46 UH 46 UH NA Nitrite-N NA 1,000 NA NA NA 46 UH 46 UH NA Sulfate NA NA NA NA NA 130 U 800 UM NA Sulfide NA NA NA NA 130 U 3000 UM 1000 U NA Total Organic Carbon NA NA NA NA 3,000 UM 4,200 5000 NA Alkalinity NA NA NA NA 4,200 180,000 170,000 B NA

Dobbins Air Reserve Base

Marietta, Georgia

Screening Levels Georgia

ISWQS

EPA

D5 W58 D5 W58

ITS 7

ITS 7

Date February

March

December

March µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L Volatile Organic Compounds Benzene 71.28 5 0.83 F 0.47 J 0.054 U 1 U Chlorobenzene 21,000 100 NA 0.5 U NA 0.5 U 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 2,600 75 NA 1 U NA 1 U Ethylbenzene 28,718 700 0.22 1 U NA 1 U 2-Hexanone NA NA NA 5 U NA 5 U Isopropylbenzene NA NA NA 0.7 J NA 0.5 U Methylcyclohexane NA NA NA 1 U NA 1 U Methyl tert-butyl ether NA NA NA 0.5 U NA 0.5 U Toluene 200,000 1,000 0.51 F 1 U NA 1 U Total Xylenes NA 10,000 1 F 0.5 U NA 0.5 U Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds Acenaphthene 990 NA NA 1.9 UQ NA 1.9 UQ Acenaphthylene NA NA NA 1.9 UQ NA 1.9 UQ Acetophenone NA NA NA 1.9 U NA 1.9 U Benzo (a) anthracene 0.0311 NA NA 0.64 JQ NA 0.96 UQ 1-1'-Biphenyl NA NA NA 1.9 U NA 1.9 U Carbazole NA NA NA 1.9 U NA 1. 9 U 2-Chloronaphthalene NA NA NA 1.9 U NA 1.9 U Dibenzofuran NA NA NA 1.9 U NA 1.9 U 2,4-Dimethylphenol NA NA NA 9.5 U NA 9.6 U Fluoranthene 370 NA NA 4.6 JQ NA 1.9 UQ Fluorene 14,000 NA NA 1.2 JQ NA 1.9 UQ 2-Methylnaphthalene NA NA NA 1.9 U NA 1.9 U 2-Methylphenol NA NA NA 1.9 U NA 1.9 U Naphthalene NA NA NA 1.9 UQ NA 1.9 UQ Phenanthrene NA NA NA 1.9 UQ NA 1.9 UQ Phenol 300 NA NA 1.9 U NA 1.9 U Pyrene 11,000 NA NA 4.6 JQ NA 1.9 UQ Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons

TPH-DRO NA NA NA 1300 NA 110

TPH-ORO NA NA NA 340 JQ NA 200 UQ

TPH-GRO NA NA NA 110 MH NA 44 MH

Monitored Natural Attenuation Parameters Ethane NA NA NA 1.1 U NA 1.1 U Ethylene NA NA NA 1 U NA 1 U Methane NA NA NA 120 NA 15 Nitrate-N 10,000 10,000 35 U 46 UH NA 930 M Nitrite-N NA 1,000 NA 46 UH NA 46 U Sulfate NA NA 1,400 920 J NA 1,100 Sulfide NA NA 940 U 1000 U NA…