SOW_Attachment_7.f._-_Environmental_Site_Assessment_MKAB_Haz_Cargo.pdf

APPENDIX F

ENVIRONMENTAL A SESSMENT

Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) Hot Cargo Apron, Mihail Kogâlniceanu (MK) Air Base, Romania Part I: ESA Report –Final Contract No. W912GB-16-D-0049, Task Order No: W912GB18F0066

Amec Foster Wheeler Project No. 580560002G

27 September 2018

To: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Europe District Konrad-Adenauer-Ring 39 D-65187 Wiesbaden

From: Amec Foster Wheeler E & I GmbH Weserstrasse 4 D-60329 Frankfurt/Main

Phase II ESA at Hot Cargo Apron, MK Air Base, Romania 27 September 2018 – Final Report Project Number 580560002G

© Amec Foster Wheeler E & I GmbH Page I

Executive Summary

Background

Amec Foster Wheeler E & I GmbH (Amec Foster Wheeler) was contracted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Europe District to conduct a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) at Mihail Kogâlniceanu (MK) Air Base, Romania. The U.S. Government plans to construct a Hot Cargo Apron at MK Air Base, the proposed site of which is the focus of this study.

The work was performed under Contract No. W912GB-16-D-0049, Task Order (TO) No.

W912GB18F0066 in accordance with the scope of services incorporating Modification P00001 dated 18 June 2018.

This document presents the findings and conclusions of the environmental site investigations. The geotechnical findings will be presented in a separate report.

Environmental Scope of Work

The primary objective of this ESA was to obtain environmental baseline data; in order to achieve this, 22 soil borings to depths between 2.5 and 17.5 meters (m) below ground surface (bgs) were performed, temporary piezometers were installed, and groundwater samples were collected from six wells. A total of 57 soil samples (plus six duplicate samples for Quality Assurance/Quality Control [QA/QC] purposes) were collected and analyzed.

Environmental soil and groundwater samples were analyzed for chlorinated hydrocarbons (CHC) Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH), aromatic hydrocarbons (AHC) including benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylenes (BTEX), heavy metals (As, Pb, Cd, Crtotal, Cu, Ni, Hg, Zn and CrVI) and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH). In addition, selected soil samples were analyzed for polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB), herbicides, organophosphorus pesticides, perchlorates, chlordane, and/or perfluorooctane sulfonate and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOS + PFOA). Selected groundwater samples were also analyzed for PCB, herbicides, pesticides, perchlorates, radioactivity suite (radium 226 and 228, gross alpha, gross beta, uranium), and/or PFOS + PFOA.

Summary and Conclusions

A Phase II Environmental Site Assessment was conducted at the area planned for the future construction of a Hot Cargo Apron at MK Air Base. Soil and groundwater samples were collected and analyzed for the same suite of parameters plus additional parameters for selected samples.

From an environmental perspective, the project represents a continuation of previous investigations at various locations throughout the MK area, in particular the 2015 Environmental Baseline Survey

(EBS).

SOIL

Soil analysis did not reveal any AHC (including BTEX), CHC, pesticides/herbicides, PFOS + PFOA or chlordane. PCB were detected in one sample at a concentration below the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Carcinogenic Screening Level (SL) of 0.5 mg/kg.

Single detects of TPH and/or PAH indicate that confined and isolated spot contamination may be present especially within the fill material in the northern part of the site.

© Amec Foster Wheeler E & I GmbH Page II

In soil, arsenic was consistently detected at levels slightly exceeding the U.S. EPA SL of 3 mg/kg for industrial soil. The elevated arsenic concentrations are regarded as being of geogenic origin. For all other metals (lead, cadmium, total chromium, chromium VI, copper, nickel, mercury, and zinc), no concentrations exceeding the applied environmental trigger values were noted.

GROUNDWATER

Hydrocarbons in groundwater such as TPH, AHC and BTEX were not detected, or in the case of CHC, were detected only at very low concentrations. No PCB or PFOS + PFOA were detected in samples taken from selected wells.

Regarding pesticides/herbicides, only atrazine was detected in groundwater with a single concentration (0.758 μg/l at D01) exceeding the U.S. EPA Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) of

0.3 μg/l.

Perchlorate concentrations ranged from 1.5 to 3.8 μg/l, below the U.S. EPA Regional Screening Level (RSL) of 14 μg/l.

For heavy metals, total chromium and chromium VI exceeded environmental triggers at five of the six sampled wells with a very high maximum concentration of 7.681 mg/l at permanent well B19.

While chromium VI concentrations were in the same order of magnitude as those recorded during the 2015 EBS, total chromium concentrations were significantly higher during the current investigation. Due to the ratio of highly soluble chromium VI to total chromium, these high to very high total chromium concentrations appear to be inconclusive and not representative of the groundwater conditions.

In addition, lead and nickel concentrations exceeded regulatory trigger values in samples from three wells.

Analysis of a radioactivity suite revealed gross alpha at 18.65 pCi/l, and uranium at 0.051 μg/l at piezometer D14, slightly exceeding the respective U.S. EPA MCLs of 15 pCi/l and 0.03 μg/l.

Piezometer D14 is located at the downgradient edge of the investigated site, while the results at the upgradient D01 were unremarkable. While this supports the thesis that no radioactive ammunition has been used during firing tests at the northern berm, a low-level source of radioactivity may be present within the investigated area. However, considering the fluctuating heavy metal concentrations identified throughout MK Air Base, a geogenic source is possible.

COMPARISON OF RECENT RESULTS WITH PREVIOUS 2015 EBS RESULTS

In general, the results of the 2015 EBS were confirmed with a low potential for hydrocarbon impacts outside the tank farm area.

Additionally, the investigation confirmed the presence of elevated concentrations of various heavy metals exceeding environmental triggers in groundwater but not in soil.

Total chromium concentrations were significantly higher than those recorded during the 2015 EBS, while chromium VI concentrations were in the same range as those previously identified. The total chromium results of this investigation appear to be inconclusive and not representative of the groundwater conditions at the site while the results for all other heavy metal parameters do not appear impaired.

© Amec Foster Wheeler E & I GmbH Page 1

Contents

1. Introduction 5

1.1 Project Background 5

1.2 Environmental Scope of Work 5

1.3 Key Personnel 7

2. Site Description 8

2.1 Location and Installation Description 8

2.2 Previous Investigations 9

2.3 Regional Geology and Hydrogeology 14

2.4 Local Geology and Hydrogeology 15

3. Field and Laboratory Procedures 17

3.1 Objectives 17

3.2 Fieldwork 18

UXO Avoidance and Utility Clearance 18 Soil Borings 18 Well Installation and Development 19 Soil Sampling (Environmental) 19 Groundwater Sampling 20 Duplicate Sampling 20 Well Abandonment 21

3.3 Analytical Testing 21

3.4 Assessment Criteria 21

Romanian Assessment Criteria 21 U.S. EPA Assessment Criteria 21 Combined Application of Romanian and U.S. EPA Criteria 22

4. Investigation Results 23

4.1 Field Results 23

Soil Borings 23 Groundwater 23

4.2 Laboratory Analysis Results 23

Soil Samples 23 Groundwater Samples 25 QA/QC Samples 27

5. Summary and Conclusions 28

© Amec Foster Wheeler E & I GmbH Page 2

6. References 30

Table 1 Borehole Data Summary 18

Figure 1 3D-Model of Investigation Area 6 Figure 2 Overview Map 8 Figure 3 MK Air Base Location 9 Figure 4 Investigation Area at MK Air Base 17

Appendix A FIGURES Appendix B TABLES WITH ANALYTICAL RESULTS Appendix C CROSS SECTIONS Appendix D SOIL PROFILES AND WELL CHARTS Appendix E COPIES OF LABORATORY REPORTS FOR SOIL INCL. COCs Appendix F COPIES OF LABORATORY REPORTS FOR GROUNDWATER INCL. COCs Appendix G GROUNDWATER SAMPLING FORMS Appendix H HAZARDOUS MATERIAL SURVEY

© Amec Foster Wheeler E & I GmbH Page 3

Abbreviations and Acronyms

AHC Aromatic Hydrocarbons including BTEX

AMEC AMEC Environment & Infrastructure GmbH

Amec Foster Wheeler Amec Foster Wheeler E & I GmbH bgs below ground surface

BTEX Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, and Xylenes

CHC Chlorinated Hydrocarbons

COC Chain Of Custody

EBS Environmental Baseline Survey

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

ESA Environmental Site Assessment

FOS Forward Operating Site

F&R F&R Worldwide S.R.L.

LNAPL Light Non-Aqueous Phase Liquid

MCL Maximum Contaminant Level

MDL Method Detection Limit

MK Mihail Kogâlniceanu

MO Ministerial Order

N/A Not applicable

PAH Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons

PCB Polychlorinated Biphenyls

PFOS + PFOA Perfluorooctane Sulfonate + Perfluorooctanoic Acid

PFOS Permanent Forward Operating Site

PID Photoionization Detector

POC Point of Contact

POL Petroleum, Oil and Lubricants

PVC Polyvinyl Chloride

QA/QC Quality Assurance / Quality Control

RPD Relative Percentage Difference

SL Screening Level

SPT Standard Penetration Test

© Amec Foster Wheeler E & I GmbH Page 4

TO Task Order

TPH Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons

U.S. United States

USACE US Army Corps of Engineers

USACHPPMEUR US Army Center of Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine Europe

USAREUR United States Army, Europe

UXO Unexploded Ordnance

© Amec Foster Wheeler E & I GmbH Page 5

1. Introduction

1.1 Project Background

Amec Foster Wheeler E & I GmbH (Amec Foster Wheeler) was contracted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Europe District to conduct a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) at Mihail Kogâlniceanu (MK) Air Base, Romania. The U.S. Government plans to construct a Hot Cargo Apron MK Air Base, the proposed site of which is the focus of this study.

The primary objectives of the ESA were to conduct environmental soil borings, install temporary monitoring wells, perform associated sampling of soil and groundwater, and conduct laboratory analyses on the collected samples. Furthermore, geotechnical tests were conducted during drilling and geotechnical samples were collected and analyzed for suitability for construction to inform the Hot Cargo Apron foundation design. From an environmental perspective, the project represents a continuation of previous investigations at various locations throughout the MK area pursuant to the provisions of the US-Romanian Implementing Arrangement on Environmental Matters.

The work was performed under Contract No. W912GB-16-D-0049, Task Order (TO) No.

W912GB18F0066 in accordance with the scope of services, incorporating Modification P00001 dated 18 June 2018.

This document presents the findings and conclusions of the environmental site investigations. The geotechnical findings will be presented in a separate report.

1.2 Environmental Scope of Work

In order to achieve the above-stated primary objectives for this investigation, the following work was conducted:

1. Scan of all drilling locations for unexploded ordnance (UXO) and underground utilities prior to intrusive fieldwork.

2. Drilling of 22 soil borings to depths between 2.5 and 17.5 meters (m) below ground surface (bgs).

3. Collection of three environmental soil samples from each soil boring including one surface sample plus two subsurface samples. If no indication of contamination was observed, environmental soil samples were collected at the surface, at approximately 2.5 m bgs, and at approximately 5 m bgs.

4. Installation and sampling of six temporary wells using the above-mentioned soil borings.

5. Environmental soil and groundwater samples were analyzed for chlorinated hydrocarbons (CHC) Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH), aromatic hydrocarbons (AHC) including benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylenes (BTEX), heavy metals (As, Pb, Cd, Crtotal, Cu, Ni, Hg, Zn and CrVI) and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH).

6. In addition to the above-listed suite of environmental parameters, selected soil samples were analyzed for polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB), herbicides, organophosphorus pesticides, perchlorates, chlordane, and/or perfluorooctane sulfonate + perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOS + PFOA). Selected groundwater samples were analyzed for PCB, herbicides, © Amec Foster Wheeler E & I GmbH Page 6 pesticides, perchlorates, a radioactivity suite (radium 226 and 228, gross alpha, gross beta, uranium), and/or PFOS + PFOA.

7. The geotechnical soil samples were analyzed for moisture content, grain size distribution (sieve/hydrometer) bulk density, specific gravity, liquid/plastic limit, Atterburg limit, maximum dry density/optimum moisture content, direct shear, electrical resistivity, unconfined compression, direct shear, organic content, and Expansion Index for clay soils.

8. Ten buildings, multiple aboveground bunkers and several underground bunkers are located in the site area. Buildings on the site include offices, warehouses, weapons repair and maintenance facilities, and a heating plant. Amec Foster Wheeler conducted an assessment of each building including evaluation of lead-based paint, asbestos and other hazardous materials.

Figure 1 3D-Model of Investigation Area

© Amec Foster Wheeler E & I GmbH Page 7

1.3 Key Personnel

USACE Project Manager Mr. James T. Lyons U.S. Army Corps of Engineers – Europe District

ATTN: CENAU-PP-E

Konrad Adenauer Ring 39 65187 Wiesbaden Tel +49 (0) 611-9744-2216 Email: james.t.lyons@usace.army.mil

USAREUR Environmental Engineer Ms. Georgiana Tase Environmental Engineer, DPW Mihail Kogâlniceanu Air Base, Romania Tel: (314) 656-5098 (DSN) Tel: +40 241835098 (CIV) Cell: +40 (0)767 641 372 (CIV) Email: georgiana.tase.ctr@mail.mil

Amec Foster Wheeler Sector Lead/CAM Ms. Holly Bigelow Amec Foster Wheeler E & I GmbH Brüsseler Str. 6 67657 Kaiserslautern Tel +49 (0) 631-414016-27 Cell +49 (0) 172-6934163 Email: holly.bigelow@woodplc.com

Amec Foster Wheeler Project Manager Mr. Konstantin Summ Amec Foster Wheeler E & I GmbH Weserstr. 4 60329 Frankfurt/Main Tel +49 (0) 69-756007-44 Cell +49 (0) 172 6604 113 Email: konstantin.summ@woodplc.com

Amec Foster Wheeler Field Manager Mr. Alexander Bartenstein Amec Foster Wheeler E & I GmbH Weserstr. 4 60329 Frankfurt/Main Tel +49 (0) 69-756007-44 Cell +49 (0) 172 6604 113 Email: a.bartenstein@woodplc.com

Subcontractors

F&R Worldwide S.R.L.

Role: Soil Borings and Well Installation

Str. Biserica Floreasca No 6, Sector 2, 020322 Bucuresti Romania POC: Ms. Monica Sava Tel +40 (21) 402 0443 Cell +40 (728) 300 832 Email: msava@fandr.ro

F&R Worldwide S.R.L.

Role: Environmental Laboratory (subcontracted)

Str. Biserica Floreasca No 6, Sector 2, 020322 Bucuresti Romania POC: Ms. Monica Sava Tel +40 (21) 402 0443 Cell +40 (728) 300 832 Email: msava@fandr.ro

© Amec Foster Wheeler E & I GmbH Page 8

2. Site Description

2.1 Location and Installation Description

MK Air Base is located adjacent to the Constanta International Airport, approximately 26 kilometers

(km) northwest of Constanta, the main Romanian port on the Black Sea, capital of the Constanta region, and second-largest city in Romania. The base is situated at an elevation of approximately 100 to 105 m above sea level, and lies in the Dobruja plain, between the northern course of the Danube River and the Black Sea. MK Air Base and Constanta International Airport share a single 3,500-meter-long runway. The airfield also has a taxiway parallel to the runway, various aircraft aprons, and associated maintenance, support and storage areas.

Figure 2 Overview Map

The airfield is located within the fence line of the Romanian MK Air Base. The proposed Hot Cargo Apron is located on the northwest side of the runway. The cargo apron project consists of two taxiways running perpendicular to the runway connecting to a large (37,703 m2) parking apron. The smaller Hot Cargo Apron (8,515 m2) is located at the western end of the northern taxiway.

Location of MK Air Base

© Amec Foster Wheeler E & I GmbH Page 9

Figure 3 MK Air Base Location

2.2 Previous Investigations

1 USACHPPMEUR 2006

Environmental Health Site Assessment Project Number 47-6R- 4375-06

The objective of this study (conducted by the U.S. Army Center of Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine Europe [USACHPPMEUR]) was to evaluate potential health threats to U.S.

Forces at the planned Forward Operating Site (FOS), which was formerly used by the Romanian forces. Low-level health risks were identified from drinking water, soil, air, the sanitary sewer system, environmental noise emissions, asbestos, agricultural industry, solid waste, hazardous waste and medical waste. Surface soil contamination with TPH was identified at various locations, including the former heating plant, vehicle maintenance rack, and petroleum, oil and lubricants (POL) yard. Recommendations included the performance of ambient air monitoring and a noise contour survey.

2 AMEC Environment & Infrastructure GmbH 2006 Environmental Baseline Survey (EBS), Phase 1 Contract W912GB-04-D-

0016, TO 0017

A Phase I EBS was conducted to compile available information on environmentally significant past uses of the MK FOS and MK Air Base, including Romanian and U.S. Government records, aerial photography, occupant interviews and soil and groundwater sampling results from a variety of

MK Air Base

MK PFOS

MK Village Hot Cargo Apron

© Amec Foster Wheeler E & I GmbH Page 10 investigations. Findings were used to make recommendations for a subsequent comprehensive intrusive soil and groundwater investigation (EBS Phase II).

3 AMEC Environment & Infrastructure GmbH 2007 Environmental Baseline Survey (EBS), Phase 2 Contract W912GB-04-D-

0016, TO 0025

Following the recommendations from the EBS Phase I, AMEC conducted soil and groundwater sampling at five areas of the MK military installation, including the site of the current MK FOS (formerly 34th Cazarma). TPH and metals concentrations exceeding the Romanian threshold values were detected in the groundwater, while low-level PAH were identified in surface soil throughout the site. Areas of concern included a former burn pit, a former landfill, a heating plant, underground storage tanks, a vehicle maintenance rack, and hazardous building materials.

4 USACHPPMEUR 2008

Groundwater Monitoring MK Complex Romania Contract W912GB-07-D-

0031, TO 0001

This investigation included the sampling of two deep and four shallow permanent groundwater monitoring wells at the MK FOS. Groundwater samples were analyzed for metals, TPH, BTEX, and PAH. Three of the analyzed samples exceeded the Romanian threshold value for total chromium, and one sample exceeded the Romanian threshold values for lead and TPH. PAH concentrations did not exceed Romanian threshold values.

5 AMEC Environment & Infrastructure GmbH 2009 Monitoring Well Installation and Groundwater Sampling Contract W912GB-04-D-

0016, TO 0016

After previously installed groundwater monitoring wells were damaged during FOS construction, AMEC installed and sampled 13 new shallow groundwater monitoring wells and six deep monitoring wells. Two soil samples were collected from each of the shallow drilling locations and one groundwater sample was collected from each of the 19 wells. Samples were analyzed for BTEX, TPH, CHC, PAH, and heavy metals; a gas chromatography/mass spectrometry broad scan was used for volatile and semi-volatile organic compounds. None of the soil samples exceeded Romanian threshold values for the parameters of concern. One groundwater sample reached the Romanian Alert Value of 0.1 mg/l for TPH. Total chromium concentrations in groundwater exceeded the Romanian Action Value of 0.05 mg/l, with a maximum detected concentration of

0.13 mg/l. No other contaminant concentrations exceeded the Romanian threshold values.

6 AMEC Environment & Infrastructure GmbH 2010

Groundwater Sampling MK Romania Contract W912GB-08-D-

0031, TO 0012

AMEC performed an additional sampling round in March 2010 at the groundwater monitoring wells installed in 2009. As total chromium concentrations had exceeded the Romanian threshold values in earlier investigations, analysis for hexavalent chromium (chromium VI) was added to the scope of this investigation. Romanian Action Values for mercury and selenium were exceeded in one groundwater sample. Romanian legislation does not define threshold limits for chromium VI;

© Amec Foster Wheeler E & I GmbH Page 11 however, the concentration of chromium VI exceeded the Romanian Action Value for total chromium in eight samples.

7 AMEC Environment & Infrastructure GmbH 2010 Quality Control Analyses for Chromium (VI) in Groundwater Contract W912GB-04-D-

0016, TO 0019

In June 2010, resampling and analyses for chromium VI were performed to validate the March 2010 groundwater laboratory results. AMEC collected six groundwater samples (plus one Quality Assurance/ Quality Control [QA/QC] sample), which were taken from three on-site groundwater monitoring wells and three off-site drinking water wells. Chromium VI concentrations exceeded the 50 μg/L Romanian drinking water limit for total chromium in all samples collected from all on-site wells and in one sample from one of the three off-site wells. The highest concentrations of chromium VI were detected in samples from on-site wells.

8 AMEC Environment & Infrastructure GmbH 2011

GW and Raja-Supplied WQA MK Romania Contract W912GB-09-D-

0063, TO 0023

Analytical data from the April 2011 sampling event indicated that chromium was present in groundwater, predominantly in the chromium VI state at concentrations above the provisional guideline value of 0.05 mg/l for chromium VI, according to the World Health Organization Guidelines for Drinking Water Quality.

An elevated TPH concentration in groundwater reaching the Romanian Alert Value of 0.1 mg/l was detected in shallow well PSW-86 located at the downgradient site boundary, indicating that TPH-impacted groundwater was migrating off-site.

Metals (selenium and chromium) were present in groundwater at concentrations above Romanian screening criteria. Barium, selenium, and zinc were present in tap water at concentrations below Romanian screening criteria and below U.S. drinking water standards defined by the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Adverse effects on human health through the use of the tap water at the Permanent Forward Operating Site (PFOS) were not indicated.

With regard to the detected contaminants, it was recommended that the annual monitoring of selected wells in the months of April to May be continued, including analyses for TPH, metals, and chromium VI.

9 AMEC Environment & Infrastructure GmbH 2013 Groundwater Sampling at MK PFOS, Romania Contract W912GB-09-D-

0063, TO 0043

In the course of this groundwater investigation performed in October 2013, groundwater samples were collected from 12 shallow wells (screened between 2.5 and 17 m bgs) and six deep wells (screened between 18 and 27 m bgs). A total of 18 groundwater samples (plus two QA/QC groundwater duplicate samples) were collected and analyzed for CHC, BTEX, TPH and metals including chromium VI.

At well PSW-74 the TPH concentration was 0.23 mg/L, exceeding the Romanian Alert Value of

0.1 mg/l. At well PSW-76 the TPH concentration was 620 mg/L, significantly exceeding the Romanian Action Value of 0.6 mg/l. The extremely high TPH concentration at well PSW-76 was attributed to the presence of Light Non-Aqueous Phase Liquid (LNAPL) observed during sampling.

© Amec Foster Wheeler E & I GmbH Page 12

BTEX was not present above method detection limits (MDLs) in any samples. CHC was found in one shallow well at a low concentration of 0.9 μg/l (trichloroethene), well below the Romanian Alert Value of 10 μg/l. The chromatogram of PSW-76 showed hydrocarbons within the boiling range of kerosene.

10 AMEC Environment & Infrastructure GmbH 2014 Environmental Sampling at MK PFOS, MK Air Base and MK Civilian Airport, Romania

Contract W912GB-09-D-

0063, TO 0045

Soil Samples Collected at MK Air Base and MK Civilian Airport Chromium VI concentrations were detected in four out of 66 soil samples with a maximum concentration of 8.7 mg/kg, which is below the Romanian Alert Value (10 mg/kg). Metal concentrations were found to be well below the respective Alert or Action Values indicated by the Romanian Environmental Authorities. TPH detected in 12 out of 66 samples was at concentrations below the Romanian Alert Value. BTEX and CHC were not detected in concentrations above the respective MDL.

Surface Soil Samples Collected at MK PFOS Surface soil samples analyzed for chromium VI revealed no concentrations above the MDL.

Gauging of LNAPL at Well PSW-76 A total thickness of 38 cm of free oil product was detected at well PSW-76. The detected TPH impact at well PSW-76 was deemed to require further environmental action.

Soil Vapor Samples Collected at MK PFOS in the Vicinity of Well PSW-76 No concentrations of TPH, BTEX (including higher alkylated benzenes) or CHC were detected in soil vapor samples. However, due to the extremely cold ambient temperature of -10 °C during sampling, the samples were regarded as being unrepresentative.

11 AMEC Environment & Infrastructure GmbH 2015 MK Soil Vapor Study Contract W912GB-09-D-

0063, TO 0048

Based on the results of the October 2014 field campaign, further investigation was performed in April 2015 consisting of 20 soil borings for collection of soil samples, collection of active soil vapor samples, and groundwater monitoring with collection of groundwater samples from 18 wells.

Soil samples were analyzed for BTEX, TPH C10 – C40, CHC, and heavy metals: arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium VI, total chromium, copper, lead, nickel, mercury, selenium, silver and zinc.

Soil vapor samples were analyzed for aromatic and aliphatic hydrocarbons, BTEX and CHC.

Groundwater samples were analyzed for metals (including chromium VI), TPH, CHC and BTEX.

Soil Vapor Results Based on the results of the previous 2014 passive soil vapor investigation and the 2015 active soil vapor investigation, no threat to human health for building occupants or soldiers accommodated in tents was identified.

Soil Results Only two samples taken from the groundwater fluctuation zone from borings SB1 and SB2 (1,400 mg/kg and 1,200 mg/kg, respectively) revealed concentrations exceeding regulatory limits.

Since the upper soil samples of the respective borings did not contain TPH, it was concluded that most likely no local spill occurred at these sampling points.

© Amec Foster Wheeler E & I GmbH Page 13

In the course of the soil investigation, no major spills or indications of historical major spills were detected, therefore a threat to human health via direct contact was deemed not to exist.

Groundwater Results Elevated concentrations of chromium VI and TPH were detected at several wells. Chromium VI was detected at levels exceeding the Romanian Action Value in six shallow and three deep wells.

The TPH-contaminated well PSW-76 again revealed concentrations exceeding the Romanian Action Value of 0.6 mg/l with a TPH concentration of 1.3 mg/l. LNAPL at well PSW-76 was measured at a thickness of 30 cm. Furthermore, TPH was detected for the first time at concentrations exceeding the Romanian Alert value of 0.1 mg/l in deep well PDW-77 with a concentration of 0.4 mg/l.

The following recommendations were made:

• To delineate TPH impacts, install four additional shallow monitoring wells east of well PSW-76 on the area east of the fence and two shallow groundwater monitoring wells directly downgradient of well PSW-76. The monitoring wells should be installed within the upper shallow aquifer with a maximum depth of 15 m bgs to prevent cross-contamination of the deeper aquifer.

• If US operations expand to the MK Air Base, perform a detailed risk assessment to determine or exclude any health risks to US soldiers and employees.

• Gauge and measure the thickness of the LNAPL at well PSW-76 on a quarterly basis.

• Regarding the chromium VI concentrations in groundwater, inform the respective

Environmental Authority of the repeated exceedance of the Romanian Action Value.

• Continue annual monitoring via sampling of all existing wells.

12 Amec Foster Wheeler E& I GmbH 2015

FY15 MK Romania Environmental Baseline Survey Contract W912GB-10-

D-0030, TO 0008

At the MK Air Base and PFOS, several areas planned for potential future construction were investigated for subsurface contaminants of concern. Soil and groundwater samples were collected and analyzed for the same suite of parameters.

A TPH impact in groundwater accompanied by BTEX contaminants was identified at several wells (B08 through B14) located east and south of the central tank farm in the central part of the Air Base. The tank farm was assumed to be the most likely source of this fuels-derived contamination.

While it was assumed that multiple impacts may have occurred at the tank farm, an additional source (e.g., resulting from fueling activities along the taxiway) was considered to be possible, in particular for the area around well B13.

Regarding TPH in shallow soil, high concentrations at two locations (A16 and B08) indicated locally confined spot contamination. In general, moderate TPH concentrations were detected in multiple shallow soil samples from numerous locations indicating several distinct spills or impacts generated as a result of flight activities. In areas of groundwater contamination near the tank farm, TPH concentrations increased near the saturated zone. Elevated TPH was often accompanied by high BTEX concentrations.

CHC concentrations in soil and groundwater were close to or below the MDLs and therefore of no concern.

© Amec Foster Wheeler E & I GmbH Page 14

Total chromium was identified in groundwater from eight wells distributed throughout the Air Base with concentrations exceeding the Romanian Action Value at three locations. The chromium in these samples mainly or totally consisted of chromium VI, thus indicating an anthropogenic source.

Other metals repeatedly exceeding environmental trigger values in groundwater comprised arsenic (mainly during the first sampling round) and selenium (mainly during the second sampling round). In addition, single exceedances of environmental trigger values were noted for lead, nickel, and mercury, while barium, cadmium, copper, silver, and zinc concentrations remained below trigger values.

In soil, arsenic was consistently detected at levels slightly exceeding the U.S. EPA Carcinogenic Screening Level (SL) of 3 mg/kg. The elevated arsenic concentrations were regarded as being of geogenic origin.

For all other metals (barium, lead, cadmium, total chromium, chromium VI, copper, nickel, mercury, selenium, silver, and zinc), no concentrations exceeding the applied environmental trigger values were noted.

Sixteen of the 19 wells were installed so as to be permanent and thus available for future groundwater monitoring. It was recommended that these 16 permanent wells be sampled on an annual basis to obtain a better understanding of TPH, BTEX and metal distribution in groundwater and their dynamics over time.

2.3 Regional Geology and Hydrogeology

The subsurface at the site is characterized by two main features: folded Precambrian crystalline bedrock and a thick sedimentary cover of Mesozoic to Cenozoic age. The Precambrian crystalline bedrock in the MK area generally consists of greenschists that are encountered at depths of 10 to 30 m bgs. The overlying sedimentary cover includes Jurassic, Cretaceous, and Quaternary deposits. The Jurassic deposits consist of highly fractured and permeable calcarenites, limestones, dolomites, and calci-rudites, which have reportedly been encountered at depths of 15 m and deeper in the MK area. The Cretaceous deposits, consisting of interbedded gravel, sands and clay, are only encountered locally in the MK area. The uppermost deposits in the study area are of Quaternary age and reach thicknesses of 10 to 20 m. These sediments can be subdivided into aeolian silty sediments (i.e. Loess) of Pleistocene age and interbedded alluvial sands, clayey loess, and sandy clayey loess of Holocene age. Surface soils of loess deposits comprise yellow silty and clayey sand with calcium carbonate concretions.

The available literature and local hydrologists characterize the groundwater hydrogeology of the area by the presence of two aquifer zones: a) a shallow phreatic aquifer zone within the Quaternary sediments, and b) a deeper fractured aquifer within the lowest Jurassic and the uppermost Precambrian bedrock layers.

The shallow Quaternary Phreatic Aquifer is a semi-confined aquifer residing within the lower portions of the Quaternary loess deposits. The depth to groundwater strongly depends on topography, ranging from approximately 5 to 12 m bgs in MK area. The base of the phreatic aquifer is encountered at depths of 10 to 30 m and is underlain by an impermeable layer composed of red silty clays or compact greenschists.

The phreatic aquifer is used locally for agriculture and drinking water supply. Water supply wells in the phreatic aquifer were reportedly tested in 1999 by HIDROROM STAR S.R.L. as part of a water

© Amec Foster Wheeler E & I GmbH Page 15 supply study, which found the water to be drinkable in accordance with Romanian drinking water quality standards, although in several areas water contained elevated concentrations of nitrite and phosphate. Data from this study are not publicly available. Furthermore, sampling conducted by USACHPPMEUR as part of the Environmental Health and Safety Assessment raised concerns pertaining to the quality of the water in existing wells at the site.

The Deeper Aquifer Complex is characterized by water-bearing fractured bedrock. Locally, the deep aquifer complex consists of two zones defined by their bedrock matrices: a fractured and karstic Jurassic limestone and dolomite zone, and a fractured Precambrian schist zone. The Jurassic limestones and dolomites, only present in certain locations, consist of karstic and fractured limestone and dolomite deposits situated between the overlying Quaternary deposits and the underlying Precambrian schists. The Precambrian schist bedrock underlies the entire MK region; however, the presence and degree of weathering, and its water-bearing capacity, vary locally.

The deep aquifer zones are used locally for water supply. Water qualities in the Jurassic and Precambrian zones are generally similar. Water supply wells in the deep aquifer zone were reportedly tested in 1999 by HIDROROM STAR S.R.L. as part of a water supply study, which found the water to be drinkable in accordance with Romanian drinking water quality standards. However, in several areas the water contained elevated concentrations of nitrite and phosphate. Data from this study are not publicly available.

In some areas, the phreatic and deep aquifer zones are separated by a low permeability to impermeable silty clay layer. However, the two aquifers may be well connected in other areas. Many of the water supply wells in the region draw from both aquifers, thereby providing a conduit between the aquifers.

2.4 Local Geology and Hydrogeology

The uppermost layer during this investigation consisted of topsoil or anthropogenic fills mainly with thicknesses between 0.5 and 2 m bgs in the southern and the central portion of the site. In the area along the planned northern taxiway, fill reaches up to 6 m bgs. Underneath the fill or topsoil, a medium-brown to light-brown, calcareous silt was encountered, with the occasional presence of light-brown silty fine sand layers mainly down to approximately 4-6 m bgs. These layers are underlain by light-brown sandy silts to silty sands to depths between 8 and 14 m bgs. More often sandy silts rather than silty sands, these layers form the shallow aquifer with thicknesses between 0.7 m and several meters.

Bedrock consisting of greenschists, the deepest geological unit encountered during this investigation, was encountered during a previous investigation at 22.5 m bgs (boring C01). While the first few meters of greenschists were rather fractured, the greenschists became more competent towards the final drilling depth of 30 m bgs. Also, at the previous boring location B18, chunks of greenschists within silty deposits between 11.5 and 12.3 m bgs indicated the proximity to bedrock.

Groundwater within this investigation was only encountered within the shallow aquifer formed by sandy silts to silty sands. Due to the presence of siltier layers above, the groundwater is mainly confined and was encountered during the June 2018 sampling event at depths between 8.84 and

14.10 m bgs. In general, the groundwater yield is rather low and two wells (B13 and C01) located close to each other could only be sampled using a bailer.

Previous investigations identified a shallow groundwater flow from the northern part of the Air Base towards the PFOS in a southwesterly direction. Based on observations from the 2015 EBS, a southwesterly flow direction seems to exist only in the northernmost part of the Air Base while the flow direction tends more to the south and even the southeast in the southern part of the Air Base.

© Amec Foster Wheeler E & I GmbH Page 16

This implies that the airfield is located on a local groundwater divide; this theory is supported by the local topography and the presence of two creeks with southerly flow directions located at similar distances to the west and to the east. Groundwater within the deeper bedrock aquifer was encountered neither during this nor the previous investigation.

During this investigation a southwesterly groundwater flow direction was determined, which is consistent with the 2015 EBS results indicating the same direction for the northern area of the Air Base.

© Amec Foster Wheeler E & I GmbH Page 17

3. Field and Laboratory Procedures

3.1 Objectives

The U.S. Army plans to further develop its operations at the MK Air Base. The purpose of this Phase II ESA was to perform a topographic and geophysical UXO survey, characterize the soil and groundwater conditions with regard to human health and environmental safety, perform a hazardous material survey at the buildings present within the planned construction area, and conduct geotechnical testing and sampling required to inform the Hot Cargo Apron foundation design for potential future construction. The survey included soil borings, installation of temporary monitoring wells, environmental and geotechnical laboratory analyses, and field-screening of soil cuttings.

The soil boring and drilling locations to the greatest extent possible evenly distributed over the planned construction area. The investigation area as depicted in Figure 3 is located in the northern part of MK Air Base.

Figure 4 Investigation Area at MK Air Base

© Amec Foster Wheeler E & I GmbH Page 18

3.2 Fieldwork

UXO Avoidance and Utility Clearance Each drilling location was checked for the potential presence of UXO prior to the start of intrusive fieldwork. At no drilling location were signals detected that would have required relocation of the drilling.

All drilling locations were cleared for potential underground utility lines in close coordination with Romanian Air Base representatives prior to starting intrusive fieldwork. No underground utilities were encountered or damaged during fieldwork for this investigation.

Soil Borings Twenty-two soil borings (D01 through D19 and D04A, D04B, and D04C) were performed between 21 May and 14 June 2018 by the subcontractor F&R Worldwide S.R.L. (F&R), Bucharest. The soil boring locations were spread over the entire investigation area.

Table 1 Borehole Data Summary

Depth Elevation

(m) Easting Northing (m)

D1 13.0 618228 4914258 96.46 Piezometer D2 10.5 618263 4914315 100.70 D2A 5.0 618266 4914304 100.70 D3 10.5 618418 4914270 100.85 D3A 3.0 618432 4914269 101.20 D4 4.5 618514 4914258 101.90 D4A 2.5 618513 4914269 101.93 D4B 3.5 618525 4914263 102.20 D4C 2.8 618545 4914263 102.50 D5 10.5 618283 4914198 99.10 D6 10.5 618427 4914189 99.70 D7 14.0 618369 4914155 98.55 Piezometer D8 10.5 618282 4914116 96.88 D9 10.5 618419 4914148 99.40 D10 14.0 618351 4914072 98.22 Piezometer D11 10.5 618292 4914063 97.00 D12 10.5 618415 4914052 99.63 D13 10.5 618359 4914023 98.40 D14 13.0 618300 4914004 97.07 Piezometer D15 10.5 618405 4913983 99.55 D16 17.5 618476 4913954 100.48 Piezometer D16A 3.0 618462 4913958 100.46

Boring ID UTM Coordinates

Remarks

Piezometer installation not possible. Permanent well B19 was sampled instead.

© Amec Foster Wheeler E & I GmbH Page 19

Soil drilling was performed using a CME-55 drill rig mounted on an ex-military 6 x 6 truck. Drilling was accomplished in accordance with ASTM D-1586 using typical Standard Penetration Test (SPT) sampling methods.

Between the SPT sampling intervals, a continuous soil sample was taken with a larger split barrel sampler which was hammered or pushed into the subsurface. This oversized split spoon consisted of a split barrel, drive shoe, sample catcher and threaded adaptor. The unit was approximately 1.5 m long with a diameter of approximately 100 mm.

Soil cuttings recovered from the boreholes were visually classified in the field and photoionization detector (PID) readings were noted. Cross-sections of the subsurface are presented in Appendix C, and the soil profiles are presented in Appendix D.

Well Installation and Development Selected soil borings were used for the installation of temporary groundwater monitoring wells. At boring location D04, well installation failed due to the presence of underground concrete obstacles, although three offset borings (D04A, D04B, and D04C) were performed. However, monitoring well B19, located nearby, was found to be still productive so that groundwater monitoring from a total of six wells, as originally planned, could be performed.

Temporary monitoring wells were installed using 2-inch diameter polyvinyl chloride (PVC) screen and riser pipes, with the filter pack extending 0.5 m above the top of the screened section, followed by a 0.2-0.3-m-thick layer of fine sand and a 0.5-m bentonite seal above the gravel-sand filter pack.

Following installation, each well was allowed to stabilize for a minimum of 48 hours before initiating well development. The wells were developed using air-lift method at a rate between 5 and 10 L/minute until the extracted water was visually clean and without sediment. In total more than 5 standing volumes were removed per well.

Table 2 Well Development Summary

Well ID Depth (m)

Water Column (m)

Volume exchanged (l)

D1 13 4.16 110-120l

D7 14 2.85 90-100l

D10 14 2.30 90-100l

D14 13 2.87 90-100l

D16 17.5 3.40 90-100l

The well charts from the temporary piezometers D01, D07, D10, D14 and D16 and the permanent well B19 are presented in Appendix D together with the soil profiles.

Soil Sampling (Environmental) A total of 57 soil samples (plus six QA/QC samples) were collected from soil borings for laboratory analysis of the standard suite of parameters (CHC, TPH, AHC including BTEX, PAH, and heavy metals).

© Amec Foster Wheeler E & I GmbH Page 20

Further samples were also collected during soil borings for analysis of selected additional environmental parameters (PCB, herbicides/pesticides, perchlorates, and/or PFOS + PFOA).

Samples for analysis of chlordane were taken from shallow soil near selected buildings using a shovel.

Soil recovered from the probe was inspected for obvious signs of contamination and field-screened using a PID, which served to guide the final selection of samples for laboratory analysis. In general three soil samples were collected from each boring. Where no signs of contamination were observed, soil samples were collected from shallow soil, at approximately 2.5 m bgs, and at approximately 5 m bgs. Sampling depths were coordinated with geotechnical soil sampling requirements and therefore varied slightly. Sample containers were placed in a travel cooler and maintained at an approximate temperature of 4 °C until delivery to the laboratory. The laboratory results for soil and the chain of custody (COC) forms are attached as Appendix E.

Groundwater Sampling A comprehensive groundwater sampling round was conducted at the five newly installed temporary wells and existing well B19 in the week of 11 June 2018, as outlined below:

1. The depth to water was measured using an electronic water level meter, which included checking the well for the presence of LNAPL.

2. The well was purged by lowering a new disposable submersible pump into the well;

disposable polyethylene tubing was connected to a flow meter to monitor the purged water for the standard field parameters of pH, temperature, dissolved oxygen, and electrical conductivity.

At well D16, the groundwater yield was too low to use the pump; this wells was sampled using a bailer.

3. The sampled groundwater was filled in sample containers provided by the laboratories. For heavy metal analysis, the sampled groundwater was filtered before being filled in the dedicated sampling containers.

4. All groundwater samples were shipped to the chemical laboratory for analysis of CHC, TPH, AHC including BTEX, PAH, heavy metals, pesticides/herbicides, PFOS + PFOA, and perchlorates.

5. Groundwater samples from wells D01 and D16 were additionally analyzed for a radioactivity suite (radium 226 and 228, gross alpha, gross beta, uranium), and samples from wells D07 and D10 for PCB.

Sample containers were placed in a travel cooler and maintained at an approximate temperature of 4 °C until delivery to the laboratory. The laboratory results for groundwater including the COC forms are attached in Appendix F. Groundwater sampling forms are included in Appendix G.

Duplicate Sampling Using the procedures for soil sampling and groundwater sampling as described above, a total of six duplicate soil samples and one duplicate groundwater sample (approximately 10% of original samples) were collected by Amec Foster Wheeler for analysis by the analytical laboratory.

© Amec Foster Wheeler E & I GmbH Page 21

Well Abandonment Following the completion of the groundwater monitoring round, temporary wells D01, D07, D10, D14 and D16 were abandoned by complete removal of all PVC filter and riser pipes, grouting the remnant borehole with bentonite-cement suspension to close to the surface and backfilling to the surface with clean soil.

3.3 Analytical Testing

All environmental site investigation samples were submitted to I.M.U Laboratories S.R.L., Bucharest via F&R. I.M.U Laboratories S.R.L. subcontracted analysis of some of the additional parameters to ALS Life Sciences Romania S.R.L., Prahova, including their Salt Lake City laboratory.

3.4 Assessment Criteria

Romanian Assessment Criteria Environmental data was evaluated using standards promulgated by the Romanian Ministry of Waters, Forests, and Environmental Protection for “less sensitive” land uses. Less sensitive land uses are defined as existing industrial and commercial developments as well as land areas zoned for future such development. These environmental standards, as stipulated in Romanian Ministerial Order 756/3 (MO 756/3), Environmental Contamination Assessment, include the two tiers of evaluation defined below.

Alert Value - the concentration of a contaminant in air, water, or soil that signals the existence of a potential environmental impact and triggers requirements for additional monitoring and/or control of the contaminant source.

Action Value - the concentration of a contaminant in air, water, or soil that signals the existence of an actual environmental impact and may result in restrictions on property use/development and/or the requirement to perform a risk assessment.

There is no specific Romanian regulation for the assessment of groundwater contamination. For groundwater assessment, MO 756/3 refers to threshold values according to the Romanian Law on Drinking Water Quality No. 458/2002, amended by Law No. 311/2004, and 182/2011. The law on Drinking Water Quality transposes the European Council Directive 98/83/EC on the quality of water intended for human consumption. Groundwater is commonly used in Romania as drinking water, especially in rural areas, and is thus evaluated using drinking water criteria.

U.S. EPA Assessment Criteria The U.S. EPA provides guidance (latest version dated May 2018) which presents generic SLs that may serve as a basis for risk assessments at Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) sites. The guidance is recommended, but not mandatory, and serves as an approach to assessing risk. The generic screening levels, provided for most contaminants potentially present at contaminated sites, are based upon human health risk (not ecological risk). For this site investigation, potential contamination of soil and groundwater is assessed according to criteria published in this this guidance. The SLs are a harmonization of regional screening levels from the U.S. EPA regions 3, 6, and 9, and were calculated based on the toxicity of each contaminant.

© Amec Foster Wheeler E & I GmbH Page 22

The SLs provided for use are chemical-specific concentrations for individual contaminants in air, drinking water and soil that may warrant further investigation or evaluation of site clean-up. While they can be used as remedial targets, in this case they will be used, if exceeded, as indicators of contamination above that which may be expected in a natural uncontaminated environment.

Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) are drinking water standards, which, in effect, identify the highest concentration of a contaminant allowed in U.S. drinking water.

Combined Application of Romanian and U.S. EPA Criteria In general, the Romanian Alert or Action Values were applied whenever appropriate. In the event that no applicable Romanian trigger value existed, the U.S. EPA SLs or MCLs were applied. In addition, EPA criteria were also applied in the event that the respective Romanian Alert Value was not exceeded but the U.S. EPA SL (which is often more stringent) was exceeded.

Exceedances identified for specific parameters were highlighted in the figures in Appendix A and the tables in Appendix B as follows:

Romanian Alert Value yellow

Romanian Action Value…