Final SR Field Characterization Rpt.pdf

Final Site Characterization of Various South Range Sites.

PN 68786 – Engineer Unit Operations and Maintenance Facilities; PN 68821 – MP Unit Operations and Maintenance Facilities; PN 68822 – EOD Unit Operations and Maintenance Facilities; and PN 69308 – GTF Infrastructure Schofield Barracks Oahu, Hawaii

Prepared for:

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Honolulu Engineer District Contract No: W9128A-07-P-0049

62-180 Emerson Road Haleiwa, Hawaii 96712

July 2009

Prepared by:

Project Report Site Characterization of Various South Range Sites Schofield Barracks, Oahu, Hawaii

Executive Summary

ES-1

Element Environmental, LLC (E2) completed an environmental site characterization of the PN 68786 – Engineer Unit Operations and Maintenance Facilities; PN 68821 – Military Police (MP) Unit Operations and Maintenance Facilities; PN 68822 – Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) Unit Operations and Maintenance Facilities; and PN 69308 – Grow the Force (GTF) Infrastructure Facilities project sites. The Engineer, MP, EOD, and GTF Infrastructure Facilities are planned to be located within the South Range of Schofield Barracks on the island of Oahu, Hawaii.

The project site is currently under consideration for redevelopment as operations and maintenance facilities and other infrastructure facilities. A conceptual site model (CSM) developed for the site identified future construction workers and users as potential receptors that may be exposed to soils that have been impacted by historical uses as pineapple cultivation fields and drainage ways and streams. The results of this site characterization may be used to help determine if design considerations and/or other precautions must be implemented to protect human health during the construction phase and future use of the site due to the presence of contamination.

Two multi-incremental soil sampling strategies, one for each of the historical use concerns, were employed to characterize the project site. Decision units were selected based on the historical uses and topography at the site and encompassed areas where chemical releases would likely migrate and/or accumulate. A systematic random sampling scheme was utilized to determine the increment sampling locations and multi-increment soil samples were collected as follows:

• Former Pineapple Field Decision Units – Three decision units encompassed the areas potentially impacted by pesticide application related to the three former pineapple cultivation fields. Multi-increment soil samples were collected analyzed for arsenic, organochlorine pesticides, carbamates, and Semi-Volatile Organic Compound (SVOC) pesticides.

• Utilities Crossing Decision Unit – This decision unit encompassed the drainage ways and streams around the former pineapple cultivation fields potentially impacted by storm water run-off transporting soil contaminated with pesticides. Multi-increment soil samples were collected from a 1,000 foot by 100 foot area representing a typical utility crossing and analyzed for arsenic, organochlorine pesticides, carbamates, and SVOC pesticides.

On January 21 and 22, 2009, the increment sample locations were located and the soil samples from the Former Field 68 Decision Unit were collected. The soil samples from the Field 67 Decision Unit were collected on January 26 and 28, 2009. The soil samples from the Field 06 Decision Unit were collected on February 4, 2009. The soil samples from the Utility Crossing Decision Unit were collected on February 4 and 5, 2009.

Statistical analysis of the multi-increment soil samples were completed per State of Hawaii, Department of Health (HDOH)’s Technical Guidance Manual for the Implementation of the Hawaii State Contingency Plan (HDOH, 2008b). In accordance with the guidance document, the average, standard deviation and 95% Upper Confidence Limit (UCL) of the mean were calculated for each analyte detected in each decision unit. In addition, an estimation of the

ES-2

upper end of the variation from the mean (mean plus one standard deviation) was also calculated. The results of the analysis indicated the following:

Former Field 06 Decision Unit

Four organochlorine pesticides (4,4’-DDD, 4,4’-DDE, 4,4’-DDT, and Heptachlor), one carbamate (Diuron), and two SVOC pesticides (Ametryne and Bromacil) were detected in the decision unit.

The 95% UCLs for these pesticides were all below U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region IX Industrial Regional Screening Levels (RSLs) and State of Hawaii Department of Health (HDOH) commercial/industrial land use Environmental Action Levels (EALs) with the exception of Bromacil, which does not have established RSLs or EALs. Arsenic was also detected in decision unit. The 95% Upper Confidence Limit (UCL) for Arsenic (11.83 mg/kg) exceeded the EPA Industrial RSL (1.6 mg/kg) and the HDOH commercial/industrial land use EAL (1.9 mg/kg). However, the arsenic concentrations do not exceed the HDOH assumed background level of 20 mg/kg.

Former Field 67 Decision Unit

Two organochlorine pesticides (4,4’-DDE and 4,4’-DDT) and one SVOC pesticide (Bromacil) were detected in the decision unit. The 95% UCLs for these pesticides were all below EPA Industrial RSLs and HDOH commercial/industrial land use EALs with the exception of Bromacil, which does not have established RSLs or EALs. Arsenic was also detected in decision unit.

The 95% Upper Confidence Limit (UCL) for Arsenic (3.80 mg/kg) exceeded the EPA Industrial RSL (1.6 mg/kg) and the HDOH commercial/industrial land use EAL (1.9 mg/kg). However, the arsenic concentrations do not exceed the HDOH assumed background level of 20 mg/kg.

Former Field 68 Decision Unit

Two organochlorine pesticides (4,4’-DDE and 4,4’-DDT) and one SVOC pesticide (Bromacil) were detected in the decision unit. The 95% UCLs for these pesticides were all below EPA Industrial RSLs and HDOH commercial/industrial land use EALs with the exception of Bromacil, which does not have established RSLs or EALs. Arsenic was also detected in decision unit.

The 95% Upper Confidence Limit (UCL) for Arsenic (3.13 mg/kg) exceeded the EPA Industrial RSL (1.6 mg/kg) and the HDOH commercial/industrial land use EAL (1.9 mg/kg). However, the arsenic concentrations do not exceed the HDOH assumed background level of 20 mg/kg.

Utilities Crossing Decision Unit

Four organochlorine pesticides (4,4’-DDE, 4,4’-DDT, Heptachlor, and Mirex) and one SVOC pesticide (Ametryne) were detected in the decision unit. The 95% UCLs for these pesticides were all below EPA Industrial RSLs and HDOH commercial/industrial land use EALs. Arsenic was also detected in decision unit. The 95% Upper Confidence Limit (UCL) for Arsenic (3.96 mg/kg) exceeded the EPA Industrial RSL (1.6 mg/kg) and the HDOH commercial/industrial land use EAL (1.9 mg/kg). However, the arsenic concentrations do not exceed the HDOH assumed background level of 20 mg/kg.

In conclusion, multi-incremental soil sample results indicate that low levels of organochlorine pesticides, carbamates, and other SVOC pesticides are present within the soils throughout the project sites. These residual levels are likely due to the application of pesticides during former pineapple cultivation activities. The levels of organochlorine pesticides, carbamates, and other

ES-3

SVOC pesticides are all below the EPA Industrial RSLs and HDOH commercial/industrial land use EALs.

Arsenic was also detected in soils throughout the project sites. However, the concentrations present do not indicate a significant presence of arsenic-based pesticides as the levels detected are all below the HDOH accepted naturally occurring background concentration.

ES-4

This page is left intentionally blank.

TOC

i

Table of Contents Section Page List of Acronyms iv

Section 1 Introduction 1-1

1.1 Project Identification and Approvals...........................................................................1-1

1.2 Project Purpose .........................................................................................................1-2

1.3 Report Organization...................................................................................................1-2

Section 2 Location, Description and Site Setting 2-1

2.1 Site Location and Description ....................................................................................2-1

2.2 Site Setting.................................................................................................................2-1

2.2.1 Climate ................................................................................................................2-1

2.2.2 Geology...............................................................................................................2-1

2.2.3 Hydrogeology ......................................................................................................2-2

Section 3 Conceptual Site Model 3-1

3.1 Project Background and Historical Site Use ..............................................................3-1

3.2 Conceptual Site Model...............................................................................................3-1

3.3 Sampling Rationale....................................................................................................3-2

3.3.1 Former Pineapple Field Decision Units ...............................................................3-2

3.3.2 Utility Crossing Decision Unit ............................................................................3-11

Section 4 Site Characterization Field Tasks 4-1

4.1 Characterization Activities..........................................................................................4-1

4.1.1 Utility Clearance and Underground Toning .........................................................4-1

4.1.2 Sample Location Layout and Site Preparation....................................................4-1

4.1.3 Soil Sample Collection and Analysis...................................................................4-1

4.1.4 Site Restoration...................................................................................................4-4

Section 5 Sample Analysis and Characterization Results 5-1

5.1 Data Evaluation Criteria .............................................................................................5-1

5.2 Soil Sample Analysis Results ....................................................................................5-1

5.2.1 Former Field 68 Decision Unit.............................................................................5-1

5.2.2 Former Field 67 Decision Unit.............................................................................5-3

5.2.3 Former Field 06 Decision Unit.............................................................................5-4

5.2.4 Utility Crossing Decision Unit ..............................................................................5-6

Section 6 Data Quality Assessment and Quality Control 6-1

6.1 Field Sampling Quality Control ..................................................................................6-1

6.1.1 Field Replicates...................................................................................................6-1

6.1.2 Sample Handling and Custody............................................................................6-3

6.1.3 Deviations of Field Standard Operating Procedures...........................................6-3

6.2 Analytical Quality Control/Procedures .......................................................................6-3

6.2.1 Laboratory Analytical Procedures .......................................................................6-3

6.2.2 Deviations from Laboratory Standard Operating Procedures .............................6-4

6.3 Data Validation...........................................................................................................6-4

TOC

ii

Section 7 Summary and Conclusions 7-1

7.1 Summary....................................................................................................................7-1

7.1.1 Decision Unit Analytical Results..........................................................................7-2

7.2 Conclusions ...............................................................................................................7-4

Section 8 References 8-1

Tables Table 4-1: Soil Sample and Analysis Summary..................................................................4-3 Table 5-1: Field 68 Soil Sample Results Summary ............................................................5-2 Table 5-2: Field 67 Soil Sample Results Summary ............................................................5-3 Table 5-3: Field 06 Soil Sample Results Summary ............................................................5-5 Table 5-4: Utility Crossing Soil Sample Results Summary .................................................5-6

Figures Figure 2-1: Former Fields Site Location..............................................................................2-5 Figure 2-2: Drainage Way and Streams Site Location........................................................2-7 Figure 3-1: Conceptual Site Model .....................................................................................3-3 Figure 3-2: Former Pineapple Field Decision Units ............................................................3-5 Figure 3-3: Utility Crossing Decision Unit ...........................................................................3-7 Figure 3-4: Former Pineapple Field Sampling Locations....................................................3-9 Figure 3-5: Utility Crossing Sample Locations ..................................................................3-13 Figure 5-1: Former Pineapple Fields Soil Sample Analytical Results Summary.................5-9 Figure 5-2: Utility Crossing Soil Sample Analytical Results Summary..............................5-11

Appendices Appendix A Project Photographs Appendix B Project Field Notes Appendix C Soil Sample Analytical Results Summary Tables Appendix D Analytical Laboratory Report – Soil Samples Appendix E RSD Evaluation Tables Appendix F Quality Control Summary Report

Acronyms iii

List of Acronyms % Percent °C Degrees Celsius °F Degrees Fahrenheit bgs below ground surface cm/yr centimeters per year COC Chain of Custody COPC Contaminant of Potential Concern CSM Conceptual Site Model DPW United States Army Garrison Hawaii Directorate of Public Works E2 Element Environmental, LLC EAL Environmental Action Level EDR Environmental Data Resources, Inc.

EOD Explosive Ordnance Disposal EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency ft feet GPS Global Positioning System GTF Grow the Force HED Honolulu Engineer District HDOH State of Hawaii Department of Health ID Identification in inch KyA Kunia silty clay LDC Laboratory Data Consultants mg/kg milligrams per kilogram mg/l milligrams per liter MoC Manana silty clay loam MP Military Police msl mean sea level NA Not Applicable NELAC National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Conference NS No Standard QAPP Quality Assurance Procedures Plan QA/QC Quality Assurance/Quality Control QC Quality Control QCSR Quality Control Summary Report RSD Relative Standard Deviation RSL Regional Screening Level SCR Site Condition Report SSHO Site Safety and Health Officer SSHP Site Safety and Health Plan SVOC Semi-Volatile Organic Compound UCL Upper Confidence Limit of the Mean USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers USDA United States Department of Agriculture WP Work Plan

Acronyms iv

Schofield Barracks, Oahu, Hawaii

Section 1 Introduction

1-1

Section 1 Introduction

1.1 Project Identification and Approvals

Project Name: Site Characterization of Various South Range Sites. PN 68786 –

Engineer Unit Operations and Maintenance Facilities; PN 68821 – Military Police (MP) Unit Operations and Maintenance Facilities;

PN 68822 – Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) Unit Operations and Maintenance Facilities; and PN 69308 – Grow the Force (GTF) Infrastructure Facilities, Schofield Barracks, Oahu, Hawaii

Contract Number: W9128A-07-P-0049

Company and Address: Element Environmental, LLC.

62-180 Emerson Road Haleiwa, HI 96712 Ph: (808) 637-1200; Fax: (808) 637-0001

E2 Project Number: 070041

Date of Issue: July 2009

Approvals:

July 24, 2009 Roger Aoki, Primary Author, Element Environmental, LLC. Date

July 24, 2009 Ryan Yamauchi, President, Element Environmental, LLC. Date

Schofield Barracks, Oahu, Hawaii

Section 1 Introduction

1-2

1.2 Project Purpose

This report presents the results of a site characterization conducted at various sites, including PN 68786 – Engineer Unit Operations and Maintenance Facilities; PN 68821 – Military Police (MP) Unit Operations and Maintenance Facilities; PN 68822 – Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) Unit Operations and Maintenance Facilities; and PN 69308 – Grow the Force (GTF) Infrastructure Facilities, within the South Range of Schofield Barracks on the island of Oahu, Hawaii.

Element Environmental, LLC (E2) conducted surface and subsurface soil sampling at the sites in anticipation of the development of new operations, maintenance, and infrastructure facilities.

The site characterization was conducted in order to determine the presence and/or extent of pesticide-related contamination in surface and subsurface soils.

The results of this site characterization may be used to help determine if design considerations and/or other precautions must be implemented in order protect the health of future construction workers and future residents from the presence of contamination (if any).

This report has been prepared by E2 for the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Honolulu Engineer District (HED) under Contract No. W9128A-07-P-0049 and is based on the scope of work entitled “Site Characterizations, U.S. Army Garrison, Hawaii” dated 17 September 2007; “Site Condition Report, FY09 PN 68786, Engineer Unit Operations and Maintenance Facilities, Schofield Barracks, Oahu, Hawaii” dated May 23, 2008; “Site Condition Report, FY09 PN 68821, MP Unit Operations and Maintenance Facilities, Schofield Barracks, Oahu, Hawaii” dated May 23, 2008; “Site Condition Report, FY09 PN 68822, EOD Unit Operations and Maintenance Facilities, Schofield Barracks, Oahu, Hawaii” dated May 23, 2008; FY09 PN 69308, GTF Infrastructure Facilities, Schofield Barracks, Oahu, Hawaii” dated May 23, 2008;

and project correspondence. This site characterization was developed in accordance with industry standards and United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) guidelines for sampling and analysis. All work was conducted by E2 and E2’s subcontractors in accordance with the project-specific Work Plan (WP) and Site Safety and Health Plan (SSHP), both submitted under separate cover by E2.

1.3 Report Organization

This report is organized into the following sections:

• Section 1 – Introduction

• Section 2 – Location, Description and Site Setting

• Section 3 – Conceptual Site Model

• Section 4 – Site Characterization Field Tasks

• Section 5 – Sample Analysis and Characterization Results

• Section 6 – Data Quality Assessment and Quality Control

• Section 7 – Summary and Conclusions

Schofield Barracks, Oahu, Hawaii

Section 2 Location, Description and Site Setting

2-1

Section 2 Location, Description and Site Setting

2.1 Site Location and Description

The Engineer, MP, EOD, and GTF Infrastructure Facilities are planned to be located within the South Range of Schofield Barracks. As the design of the Engineer, MP, EOD, and GTF Infrastructure facilities have not been finalized, the site characterization boundaries were based on the historic use and topography.

South Range consists of three former pineapple cultivation fields (Former Fields 06, 67, and 68) and various drainage ways and streams that converge to form Waikele Stream (Figure 2-1 and Figure 2-2). On the western end of the site, the area to be developed is generally bounded by tributaries of Waikele Stream. The eastern end of the site is generally bounded by Waikele Stream to the north, Hauula Street to the south and Kunia Station to the east.

2.2 Site Setting

2.2.1 Climate

The climate at the project site is characterized as warm with moderate rainfall. Approximate temperatures for the site range from 68 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) to 76°F and relative humidity ranges from 30 to 80 percent. Approximate median annual rainfall for the Schofield Barracks area is 120 centimeters per year (cm/yr). The prevailing wind direction is from the east and northeast. Northeasterly trade winds prevail over Oahu approximately 80 percent of the time, with average wind speeds ranging from 10 to 15 miles per hour. The trade winds blow most strongly and consistently from April through November. Southerly or “Kona” winds occur roughly less than half the time during the months of December through March.

2.2.2 Geology

2.2.2.1 Regional Geology

The island of Oahu has an area of 604 square miles and is comprised of four geomorphic provinces: 1) Koolau Range; 2) Waianae Range; 3) Schofield Plateau; and 4) Coastal Plain.

The Koolau Range forms the eastern part of Oahu and forms the backdrop of Honolulu. The range is 37 miles long with a maximum elevation of 3,105 feet above mean sea level (msl) at Puu Konahuanui. It is the younger of the two ranges and is comprised of thin, narrow tholeiitic basaltic lava flows piled on each other with minor amounts of volcanic ash and numerous dikes.

The Waianae Range which forms the western part of the island is 22 miles long with a maximum height of 4,025 feet above msl at Mount Kaala. The range is composed almost entirely of basaltic rock erupted between 2.8 to 3.5 million years ago from three rift zones. The Schofield Plateau which is located in the central portion of the island was formed by lavas from the Koolau Range banking against the older Waianae Range (Stearns 1985).

Waianae Volcano is the older of the two and forms a range roughly 22 miles long, oriented in two principal directions trending towards the northeast and to the south and aligned with the two principal rift zones of the Volcano. Age dating (Presley, 1997) of Waianae lavas indicates that both the main shield building lavas and later volcanic landforms, such as Puu Kapolei, erupted over a relatively short time period between 2.9 to 3.3 million years ago. Waianae Volcano became extinct before the initiation of volcanic activity on Koolau Volcano to the east, as

Schofield Barracks, Oahu, Hawaii

Section 2

2-2 evidenced in the field by exposures that show Koolau lavas overlapping the eroded, soil-covered Waianae lavas.

The principal shield building lavas of Koolau Volcano erupted roughly 1.8 to 2.3 million years ago, forming a 37-mile long range of mountains trending in a northwesterly direction, and extending parallel to the two principal rift zones. Subsequent post-erosional volcanism on Koolau Volcano over roughly the last million years has produced some of the well-known landforms on Oahu, including Diamond Head, Punchbowl, and Koko Head. Both mountain ranges have been extensively eroded, forming the Pali on the northeastern side of the Koolau Range and huge valleys on southwestern side of the Waianae Range. The origin of this characteristic geomorphology is currently believed to have largely formed as a result of large-scale landslide events, which removed large sections of the original volcanic edifice. Stream erosion along the faults and dikes of the original caldera of the volcano also likely contributed to production of the steep lava flows.

2.2.2.2 Site Geology and Soils

The project site lies on the Schofield Plateau, which is composed of lava flows of the Koolau Volcanic Series (Macdonald, et al, 1983). Soils at the project site are primarily composed of the Kunia Series, more specifically Kunia silty clay (KyA) (United States Department of Agriculture [USDA], 2007). The Kunia Series consists of well-drained soils on upland terraces of the island of Oahu, and is geographically associated with Kolekole, Lahaina and Wahiawa soils.

The soils in the northwestern portion of the project site are composed of the Manana Series, more specifically, Manana silty clay loam (MoC). The Manana Series consists of well-drained soils on uplands on the island of Oahu, and is geographically associated with Leileihua, Paaloa and Wahiawa soils.

Observations made during sampling indicate soils at the site consist of dark reddish-brown, silty clays with no observed exceptions other than slight color variations.

2.2.3 Hydrogeology

2.2.3.1 Regional Hydrogeology

The primary modes of freshwater occurrence on Oahu are as a basal lens of fresh groundwater floating on saltwater, as dike-impounded groundwater, and as perched groundwater. The majority of potable groundwater on Oahu is found in thick basal lens that extend inland from the coastal sedimentary deposits that fringe the majority of Oahu’s shoreline region. On Oahu, basal groundwater occurs both in volcanic-rock aquifers and in aquifers in the sedimentary deposits under confined and unconfined conditions. The thickness of the freshwater lens depends on recharge, aquifer permeability and the presence or absence of confinement in the shoreward discharge areas. Recharge to a given basal water body may occur by direct infiltration of precipitation or stream flow and by groundwater inflow from up-gradient groundwater aquifers. Mean annual pre-development recharge is estimated to have been about 368 million gallons per day and was entirely from rainfall. Groundwater discharge is to streams and by groundwater outflow to adjacent aquifers; withdrawals from wells, shafts, and springs;

evapotranspiration; and outflow to the ocean.

Schofield Barracks, Oahu, Hawaii

Section 2

2-3

2.2.3.2 Site Hydrogeology

Groundwater resources beneath the site are part of the Wahiawa aquifer system of the Central aquifer sector (Mink and Lau, 1990). The aquifer is high level, where fresh water is not in contact with sea water, and unconfined, where the water table is the upper surface of the saturated aquifer (Mink and Lau, 1990). The aquifer is listed as fresh (<250 milligrams per liter [mg/l] of chloride), with a high vulnerability to contamination, and is considered to be irreplaceable (Mink and Lau, 1990). The aquifer is currently used as a drinking water source.

The primary source of recharge to this volcanic aquifer is from infiltration of rainfall and stream runoff that occurs in the inland portions of the Koolau Range.

Dikes, which are regions of low-permeability material forming groundwater dams, apparently act as barriers to north-south groundwater flow in the vicinity of Schofield Barracks. Although the exact locations and nature of the groundwater dam boundaries are not known, the existence of these dams has been inferred by potentiometric head differences as great as 256 feet between the high-level water body that underlies the site and the Honolulu-Pearl Harbor Basal Water Body to the south. The groundwater level beneath Schofield Barracks is estimated to be approximately 270 to 300 feet above msl. The ground surface elevation of the former pineapple fields at South Range varies from approximately 865 feet above msl to approximately 1,125 feet above msl (Environmental Data Resources [EDR], 2007). The ground surface elevation of the drainage ways and streams vary from approximately 1,000 feet above msl to approximately 800 feet above msl (EDR, 2007).

Based on regional topography, the regional groundwater flow direction is expected to be south towards the Kunia Aquifer System of the Pearl Harbor Aquifer Sector. The nearest drinking water supply well is a public water supply well located approximately two miles east northeast of the Field 06 of the South Range site (EDR, 2007).

Schofield Barracks, Oahu, Hawaii

Section 2

2-4

Schofield Barracks, Oahu, Hawaii

Section 3 Conceptual Site Model

3-1

Section 3 Conceptual Site Model

3.1 Project Background and Historical Site Use

The project site was historically used for pineapple cultivation by Del Monte from the 1940s until 2005. Since then, the site has been generally left fallow. Occasionally, the southwestern portion of the site is used by Schofield Barracks Range Operations for off-road driver training.

Site Condition Reports (SCRs) were prepared for each of the four sites. The SCRs indicated that various pesticides were historically applied throughout the sites for cultivation of pineapples (E2, 2008a, 2008b, 2008c, 2008d). Del Monte, which cultivated pineapples at the sites from the 1940s through 2005, provided a list of pesticides used at the sites. The application of pesticides was considered to be a recognized environmental condition at the sites (E2, 2008a, 2008b, 2008c, 2008d).

3.2 Conceptual Site Model

As indicated above, the project site was historically used for pineapple cultivation and drainage ways containing run-off from the fields. Resulting environmental concerns from these historic uses and topography include the following:

• Pineapple cultivation – Application of pesticides to surface and near surface soils throughout the site.

• Drainage way – Pesticides may have been transported to surface soils in drainage ways and streams.

Potential future receptors at the site include construction workers and users of the Engineer, MP, EOD, and GTF Infrastructure Facilities. Based on the nature of the contaminants of potential concern (COPCs), complete exposure pathways at the site include: (1) dermal contact with site soils; (2) inhalation of dust and semi-volatile organic compounds; and (3) incidental ingestion of site soils.

Based on the relatively low mobility of the COPCs, the application of the COPCs to the surface and shallow subsurface, and the depth to groundwater at the site (approximately 500 to 700 feet below ground surface [bgs]), it is unlikely that the groundwater beneath the site has been impacted by the COPCs. Therefore, exposure to contaminated groundwater is not considered to be a complete pathway.

The complete conceptual site model (CSM) is presented on Figure 3-1. In order to address the exposure concerns, multi-increment sampling strategies were utilized in this site characterization to achieve the following objectives:

1. Determine the nature and extent of pesticide contamination related to pineapple cultivation in surface and subsurface soils throughout the site.

2. Determine the nature and extent of pesticide contamination in surface and subsurface soils within a representative utility crossing area of the drainage ways throughout the site.

Schofield Barracks, Oahu, Hawaii

Section 3

3-2

The multi-increment sampling rationales along with the identified COPCs are presented in the following subsection.

3.3 Sampling Rationale

Multi-increment sampling decision unit boundaries were developed based on areas where chemical releases would likely migrate and/or accumulate. Four decision units were identified for sampling as follows:

• Former Pineapple Field Decision Units (Figure 3-2) – encompasses the area potentially impacted by pesticide application related to historic pineapple cultivation. Three decision units were established, one for each of the three former fields.

• Utility Crossing Decision Unit (Figure 3-3) – encompasses the drainage ways and stream bed and slopes surrounding the former pineapple cultivation fields. The decision unit was represented by a 1,000 foot by 100 foot area depictive of a typical utility crossing.

The specific sampling strategy for each of the decision units is described below.

3.3.1 Former Pineapple Field Decision Units

Based on the conclusions of the SCRs (E2, 2008a, 2008b, 2008c) and discussions with HED and the U.S. Army Garrison Hawaii Directorate of Public Works (DPW), organochlorine pesticides, carbamates, other semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs), and arsenic in surface and subsurface soils were determined to be potential contaminants of concern. Organochlorine, carbamate, other SVOC, and arsenic-based pesticides were typical pesticides that were applied at the former pineapple fields prior to the transfer of the property to the U.S. Army in 2005.

Since the former pineapple cultivation activities were reported to be relatively consistent within each field, three decision units, one for each field, were established. Also, due to the nature of the pesticide fumigant application (i.e. injection into the shallow subsurface), it was assumed that the potential pesticide contamination would be dispersed from the surface to 3 feet bgs. A systematic random multi-incremental sampling scheme was used to evaluate the nature and extent of contamination in the soil volume up to 3 feet in depth throughout each decision unit.

Systematic grids consisting of 30 sampling nodes with a random starting location were developed. The grids were developed with the following constraints:

• The boundary of each grid would be within the former field boundaries, and

• The grid consists of at least 30 but no more than 35 sampling nodes.

The resultant increment sampling grids were 500 feet long by 500 feet wide for Field 06, 400 feet long by 400 feet wide for Field 67, and 350 feet long by 350 feet wide for Field 68 (Figure 3-4). A primary sample and two replicates were collected from the grid nodes, from the surface to 3 feet bgs.

H

IS

TO

R

IC

A

L U

S E

(1

) P

IN

E A

P P

LE

C

U

LT

IV

A

TI

O

N (2

) D R

A

IN

A G

E W

A Y

H

IS

TO

R

IC

A

L U

S E

(1

) P

IN

E A

P P

LE

C

U

LT

IV

A

TI

O

N (2

) D R

A

IN

A G

E W

A Y

D A

TE

M

AY

PR

O

JE

C

T

TI

TL

E:

M U

LT

IP

LE

S

IT

E

C H

A R

AC

TE

R

IZ

A

TI

O N

S U

.S . A

R M

Y C

O R

PS

O

F E

N G

IN

EE

R S

H O

N O

LU

LU

E N

G

IN

E

ER

D

IS

TR

IC

T

FI

G

U R

E

TI

TL

E:

C O

N C

E P

TU

AL

S

IT

E M

O D

EL

FI

G

U R

E N

O

3-

P

IN

E A

P P

LE

C

U

LT

IV

A

TI

O

N F

IE

LD

S

A P

P

LI

C A

TI

O

N O

F P

E S

TI

C

ID

E

S C

O P

C S

(1

) A R

S E

N

IC

(2

) O R

G A

N O

C H

LO

R

IN

E

P E

S

TI

C

ID

E S

(3 ) C

A R

B A

M A

TE

S

(4 ) S

V O

C P

E S

TI

C

ID

E

S

P

IN

E A

P P

LE

C

U

LT

IV

A

TI

O

N F

IE

LD

S

A P

P

LI

C A

TI

O

N O

F P

E S

TI

C

ID

E

S C

O P

C S

(1

) A R

S E

R

G A

N O

C H

LO

R

IN

E

P E

S

TI

C

ID

E S

(3 ) C

A R

B A

M A

TE

S

(4 ) S

V O

C P

E S

TI

C

ID

E

S

D R

A

IN

A G

E W

A Y

R

U N

-O

FF

O

F C

O N

TA

M

IN

A

TE

D

S O

IL

S

F R

M

P

IN

E

A P

P

LE

C U

LT

IV

A

TI

O N

F

IE

LD

S

C O

P C

S

(1 ) A

R S

E

R G

A N

O C

H

LO

R

IN

E P

E S

TI

C

ID

E

S (3

) C A

R B

A M

A

TE

S (4

) S V

O C

P E

S

TI

C

ID

E S

D R

A

IN

A G

E W

A Y

R

U N

-O

FF

F C

O N

TA

M

IN

A

TE

D

S O

IL

S

F R

E

A P

P

LE

C U

LT

IV

A

TI

O N

F

IE

LD

S

C O

P C

S

(1 ) A

R S

E

R G

A N

O C

H

LO

R

IN

E P

E S

TI

C

ID

E

S (3

) C A

R B

A M

A

TE

S (4

) S V

O C

P E

S

TI

C

ID

E S

FU

TU

R E

U S

E

E N

G

IN

E E

R , M

P , A

N D

E

D

E R

A

TI

O N

S A

N D

M A

IN

TE

N A

N C

E

FA

IL

IT

IE

S

A N

D O

TH

R

FR

A S

TR

U

C

TU

R E

F A

C

IL

IT

IE

S

FU

TU

R E

U S

E

E N

G

IN

E E

R , M

P , A

N D

E

D

E R

A

TI

O N

S A

N D

M A

IN

TE

N A

N

FA

IL

IT

IE

S

A N

D O

TH

FR

A S

TR

U

C

TU

R E

F A

C

IL

IT

IE

S

P O

TE

N

TI

A

L R

E C

E P

TO

R

S

(1 ) C

O N

S

TR

U C

TI

O

N W

O R

K E

R S

(2 ) I

N D

U S

TR

IA

L S

IT

E

U S

E R

S

P O

TE

N

TI

A

L R

E C

E P

TO

R

S

(1 ) C

O N

S

TR

U C

TI

O

N W

O R

K E

R S

(2 ) I

N D

U S

TR

IA

L S

IT

E

U S

E R

S

E X

P O

S U

R E

P A

TH

W

A Y

S F

O R

S

IT

E S

O

IL

S

•D E

R M

A L

C O

N

TA

C T

•IN

H

A

LA

TI

O

N

•IN

G E

S

TI

O N

E X

P O

S U

R E

P A

TH

W

A Y

S F

O R

S

IT

E S

O

IL

S

•D E

R M

A L

C O

N

TA

C T

•IN

H

A

LA

TI

O

N

•IN

G E

S

TI

O N

E X

P O

S U

R E

P A

TH

W

A Y

S F

O R

G R

O U

N D

W A

TE

R

•N

O N

E D

U E

T O

D E

P

TH

T O

G R

O U

N D

W A

TE

R

E X

P O

S U

R E

P A

TH

W

A Y

S F

O R

G R

O U

N D

W A

TE

R

•N

O N

E D

U E

T O

D E

P

TH

T O

G R

O U

N D

W A

TE

R

M I S

O

IL

S A

M P

LI

N

G

N E

A R

S U

R

FA

C E

S O

IL

F

R

P R

E S

E N

TA

TI

V

U

TI

LI

TY

O S

S

IN

G

M I S

O

IL

S A

M P

LI

N

G

N E

A R

S U

R

FA

C E

S O

IL

F

R

P R

E S

E N

TA

TI

V

TI

LI

TY

O S

S

IN

G

M I S

O

IL

S A

M P

LI

N

G

S U

R

FA

C E

T

S

B

S U

R

FA

C E

S O

IL

F

R O

M E

A

FO

M

E A

P

LE

FI

LD

M I S

O

IL

S A

M P

LI

N

G

S U

R

FA

C E

T

S

B

S U

R

FA

C E

S O

IL

F

R O

M E

A

FO

M

E A

P

LE

FI

LD

Schofield Barracks, Oahu, Hawaii

Section 3

3-11

The State of Hawaii Department of Health’s (HDOH’s) multi-increment sampling guidance recommends that replicate samples be collected from laterally offset boreholes (HDOH, 2008b).

Due to budgetary constraints, DPW and HED decided that replicate samples would not be collected from laterally offset boreholes as recommended by the guidance. Instead, replicate subsurface soil samples would be collected from within the same boreholes as the primary samples, but with vertical offsets. The vertically offset replicates were deemed appropriate for completing a quality assurance/quality control evaluation of the data. A description of the vertical offset sampling procedure is provided in Section 4.1.3.1.

3.3.2 Utility Crossing Decision Unit

Based on the conclusions of the SCR (E2, 2008d) and discussions with HED and DPW, organochlorine pesticides, carbamates, other SVOCs, and arsenic in near surface soils were determined to be potential contaminants of concern. Organochlorine, carbamate, other SVOC, and arsenic-based pesticides were typical pesticides that were applied at the former pineapple fields prior to the transfer of the property to the U.S. Army in 2005. It was assumed that storm water run-off may have transported some of the soil containing pesticides into the drainage ways and streams where they may have accumulated. A 1,000 foot by 100 foot area that crossed a drainage channel was selected to represent a typical utility crossing for the entire decision unit. Due to the nature of the storm water transport, it was assumed that the potential pesticide contamination would be dispersed from the surface to approximately one foot bgs. A systematic random multi-incremental sampling scheme was used to evaluate the nature and extent of contamination in the soil volume up to 1 foot in depth throughout the decision unit.

Systematic grids consisting of 30 to 32 sampling nodes with a random starting location were developed for the primary and replicate samples. The grids were developed with the following constraints:

• The boundary of each grid would be within the representative area, and

• The grid consists of at least 30 but no more than 35 sampling nodes.

The resultant increment sampling grids were 100 feet long by 30 feet wide for the primary grid, 70 feet long by 50 feet wide for the first replicate, and 120 feet long by 20 feet wide for the second replicate (Figure 3-5). A primary sample and two replicates were collected from the grid nodes, from the surface to 1 foot bgs.

Schofield Barracks, Oahu, Hawaii

Section 3

3-12

Schofield Barracks, Oahu, Hawaii

Section 4 Site Characterization Field Tasks

4-1

Section 4 Site Characterization Field Tasks E2 collected and analyzed multi-increment soil samples from the decision units described in Section 3 in order to evaluate the potential impact pesticide usage has had on the site.

Project COPCs include: arsenic, organochlorine pesticides, carbamates, and SVOC pesticides.

4.1 Characterization Activities

The following tasks were completed during this site characterization:

• Sample location layout and site preparation;

• Soil sample collection and analysis; and

• Site restoration.

Select photographs taken during the field activities are included in Appendix A and a copy of the field notes are included in Appendix B.

4.1.1 Utility Clearance and Underground Toning

E2 completed a DPW Excavation Permit, October 6, 2008 version for the South Range site.

Hawaii One Call Center was utilized and the site was cleared one week prior to conducting intrusive, subsurface activities.

4.1.2 Sample Location Layout and Site Preparation

The sample locations for the investigation were based on locations developed in the Project WP. Decision unit boundaries were set based on the site boundaries and/or the boundaries of the historical activities that occurred at the site. The increment sample locations are shown on Figure 3-4 and Figure 3-5. Increment soil sample locations were located in the field using a hand-held global positioning system (GPS) device.

Systematic random sampling schemes were developed for each of the decision units (See Section 3.3).

• For the Former Pineapple Cultivation Field Decision Units, the boundaries of each of the former pineapple cultivation fields were used as the decision units. A randomly generated starting point and the systematic grid were located using a handheld GPS.

• For the Utility Crossing Decision Unit, a 1,000 foot by 100 foot area that crossed a drainage channel was selected to represent the entire decision unit. Randomly starting points and the systematic grids were located using a handheld GPS.

4.1.3 Soil Sample Collection and Analysis

Project personnel utilized the secured gates and radio contact with Schofield Barracks Range Control to establish a safe perimeter around the project site. Prior to starting work, a safety and health meeting was conducted by the Site Safety and Health Officer (SSHO) as required by the SSHP. The E2 Site Foreman conducted a meeting describing the work that was to be performed.

Schofield Barracks, Oahu, Hawaii

Section 4

4-2

Project personnel were responsible for collecting samples and decontaminating the sampling equipment. To avoid cross contamination of the samples and to protect worker safety and health, the person performing the sample collection donned a new pair of disposable nitrile gloves while collecting each sample.

Field notes were maintained by E2 personnel recording the location, sample media, number, date and time for each sample collected as well as any appropriate observations. The field notes were recorded in a bound notebook using an indelible marker. A copy of the field notes is included in Appendix B. Digital color photographs were taken to document the field investigation, and select photographs are included in Appendix A.

The Former Field 68 Decision Unit, multi-increment soil samples were collected on January 21 and 22, 2009. The Former Field 67 Decision Unit, multi-increment soil samples were collected on January 26 and 28, 2009. The Former Field 06 Decision Unit, multi-increment soil samples were collected on February 4, 2009. The Utility Crossing Decision Unit, multi-increment soil samples were collected on February 4 and 5, 2009.

4.1.3.1 Collection of Former Field Decision Unit Multi-increment Soil Samples Subsurface multi-increment soil samples were collected from the three former pineapple field decision units utilizing a post-hole digger to dig to 2 feet bgs and a slide hammer to 3 feet 6 inches bgs. Primary and replicate increment samples were collected from the hole while post-hole digging between 6 inches and 2 feet bgs. Then, a slide hammer equipped with a hollow sampler was driven into the hole to approximately 3 feet 6 inches bgs. Primary and replicate increment samples were collected from the acetate sleeve or directly from the sampler between 2 feet and 3 feet 6 inches bgs. The primary increments were collected at depths of approximately 6 inches, 1 foot 6 inches, and 2 feet 6 inches bgs using a Terra-Core soil plunger.

Each increment consisted of approximately 20 grams. Each multi-increment sample consisted of 90 increments (30 borings with 3 increments per boring).

Two replicate multi-increment subsurface samples were collected from each subsurface soil volume decision unit. The replicate samples were collected in the same boreholes as the primary sample and consisted of the same number of increments. The increment samples were collected at offset depth intervals from the primary sample. The increment depths for the first replicate were 10 inches (in), 1 foot (ft) 10in, and 2ft 10in bgs. The increment depths for the second replicate were 1ft 2in, 2ft 2in, and 3ft 2in bgs.

The increment soil samples were placed directly into Ziploc bags. Increment samples from the same multi-increment sample were combined in the field.

4.1.3.2 Collection of Utility Crossing Decision Unit Multi-increment Soil Samples Approximately 4 to 12-inches bgs, surface, triplicate multi-increment soil samples were collected from the utility crossing decision unit via slide hammer equipped with a hollow sampler driven directly into the ground. The sampler was pushed to approximately one foot bgs at each increment sample boring location. Within each soil boring, increments were collected at a depth of approximately 6 inches and 1 foot bgs using a Terra-Core soil plunger. Each increment consisted of approximately 20 grams. Each multi-increment sample consisted of 30 to 32 increments. The increment soil samples were placed directly into Ziploc bags. Increment samples from the same multi-increment sample were combined in the field.

Schofield Barracks, Oahu, Hawaii

Section 4

4-3

4.1.3.3 Sample Identification and Handling

All soil samples were labeled with the sample identification information described below and placed into insulated coolers filled with ice for preservation. The samples were chilled and maintained at a temperature of 4 degrees Celsius (ºC) ± 2 ºC and managed under chain of custody protocol and documentation until delivery to the analytical laboratory.

Soil samples were hand delivered to TestAmerica – Honolulu where the multi-incremental sample preparation was conducted. The samples were then shipped to TestAmerica – Tacoma for analysis of Arsenic (EPA Method 6010B). TestAmerica-Tacoma shipped the samples for Organochlorine Pesticides (EPA Method 8081A) and Carbamates (EPA Method 8321A) analysis to TestAmerica-Denver and SVOC Pesticides (EPA Method 8270CM) analysis to Anatek Laboratory.

Table 4-1 below summarizes the soil sample identification and analyses by decision unit.

Table 4-1: Soil Sample and Analysis Summary

Decision Unit Sample

Location Sample

Description Sample IDs Analytes

Primary Sample 070041-69308-B01-S001-3.5

Replicate Sample 070041-69308-B01-S002-3.5

Former Field subsurface increment locations throughout Field 68

Replicate Sample 070041-69308-B01-S003-3.5

Arsenic (EPA Method 6010B) Organochlorine Pesticides (EPA Method 8081A) Carbamates (EPA Method 8321A) SVOC Pesticides (EPA Method

8270CM)

Primary Sample 070041-69308-B02-S004-3.5

Replicate Sample 070041-69308-B02-S005-3.5 Former Field subsurface increment locations throughout Field 67

Replicate Sample 070041-69308-B02-S006-3.5

Arsenic (EPA Method 6010B) Organochlorine Pesticides (EPA Method 8081A) Carbamates (EPA Method 8321A) SVOC Pesticides (EPA Method

8270CM)

Primary Sample 070041-69308-B03-S007-3.5

Replicate Sample 070041-69308-B03-S008-3.5

Former Field subsurface increment locations throughout Field 06

Replicate Sample 070041-69308-B03-S009-3.5

Arsenic (EPA Method 6010B) Organochlorine Pesticides (EPA Method 8081A) Carbamates (EPA Method 8321A) SVOC Pesticides (EPA Method

8270CM)

Schofield Barracks, Oahu, Hawaii

Section 4

4-4

Decision Unit Sample

Location Sample

Description Sample IDs Analytes

Primary Sample 070041-69308-B04-S010-1.0

Replicate Sample 070041-69308-B05-S011-1.0

Utility Crossing

30 to 32 surface increments throughout the 1000 ft x 100 ft representa-tive utility crossing

Replicate Sample 070041-69308-B06-S012-1.0

Arsenic (EPA Method 6010B) Organochlorine Pesticides (EPA Method 8081A) Carbamates (EPA Method 8321A) SVOC Pesticides (EPA Method

8270CM)

4.1.4 Site Restoration

Site restoration for this project was minimal due to the relatively low intrusiveness of the sampling. Upon completion, holes were backfilled with the excavated soil and leveled to match the existing surface.

Schofield Barracks, Oahu, Hawaii

Section 5 Sample Analysis and Characterization Results

5-1

Section 5 Sample Analysis and Characterization Results Project soil samples were analyzed by TestAmerica-Tacoma, TestAmerica-Denver, and Anatek Laboratory, all commercial analytical laboratories. Analytical methods used by the laboratories are from EPA publication SW-846 “Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods.”

The following subsections summarize the results generated from this investigation. Summary analytical data tables for soil samples are included in Appendix C. Complete laboratory data packages are included in Appendix D.

5.1 Data Evaluation Criteria

Statistical analysis of the multi-increment soil samples were completed per the HDOH’s Technical Guidance Manual for the Implementation of the Hawaii State Contingency Plan (HDOH, 2008b). In accordance with the guidance document, the average, standard deviation and 95% Upper Confidence Limit (UCL) of the mean have been calculated for each analyte detected in each decision unit. In addition, an estimation of the upper end of the variation from the mean (mean plus one standard deviation) has also been calculated. As the CSM indicated future industrial use at the project site, the results are compared to HDOH Environmental Action Levels (EALs) as well as EPA Region IX Regional Screening Levels (RSLs) for Industrial Soils updated in September 2008. Specific EALs to be used are the Commercial/Industrial Land Use and Construction/Trench Worker Human Health, Direct Exposure values listed in the HDOH Guidance document Screening for Environmental Concerns at Sites with Contaminated Soil and Groundwater, Tables I-2 and I-3 for Soil, updated in October 2008.

5.2 Soil Sample Analysis Results

5.2.1 Former Field 68 Decision Unit

One primary soil sample and two replicates were collected from 30 increment sample locations within the Former Field 68 decision unit. Samples were collected from the subsurface soil as described in Section 4.1.3.1. The soil samples were analyzed for Arsenic (EPA Method 6010B), Organochlorine Pesticides (EPA Method 8081A), Carbamates (EPA Method 8321A), and SVOC Pesticides (EPA Method 8270CM).

Analytical results of soil samples indicated the following:

• Arsenic was detected in all three samples at concentrations ranging from 2.8 to 3.0 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg). All three samples exceeded the EPA Industrial RSL of

1.6 mg/kg and the HDOH commercial/industrial land use EAL of 1.9 mg/kg. The concentrations do not exceed the HDOH assumed background level for arsenic of 20 mg/kg.

• Two organochlorine pesticides (4,4’-DDE and 4,4’-DDT) were detected in all three samples, but at levels below EPA Industrial RSLs and HDOH commercial/industrial land use EALs.

Schofield Barracks, Oahu, Hawaii

Section 5

5-2

• No carbamates were detected in any of the three samples.

• One SVOC pesticide (Bromacil) was detected in all three samples. There are no EPA Industrial RSLs and HDOH commercial/industrial land use EALs for Bromacil.

Analytical results are summarized in Table 5-1 below and shown on Figure 5-1. A complete summary of the soil sample analytical results is presented in Appendix C. The complete analytical laboratory report is presented in Appendix D.

Table 5-1: Field 68 Soil Sample Results Summary

Analyte

Average Conc.

(mg/kg)

Standard Deviation (mg/kg)

Average + Standard Deviation (mg/kg)

95% UCL

(mg/kg)

EPA

RSL

(mg/kg)

HDOH EAL

(mg/kg)

Arsenic by EPA Method 6010B 1.9

89 (construction worker) Arsenic 2.93 0.12 3.05 3.13 1.6

20 (background) Organochlorine Pesticides by EPA Method 8081A

Chlopyriphos NA NA…