[THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK]

Draft Gagan Power Plant Site Investigation Sivuniq, Inc.

Kwajalein Atoll/Reagan Test Site i November 2011

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...........................................................................................................1

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

1.1 Project Information .............................................................................................. 1-1 1.2 Site Information ................................................................................................... 1-1

1.2.1 Previous Site Investigation ............................................................................ 1-1

1.2.2 Conceptual Site Model ................................................................................... 1-5 1.2.3 Investigation Approach .................................................................................. 1-5

1.3 Purpose, Scope, and Objective............................................................................. 1-5

2.0 SITE BACKGROUND AND PHYSICAL SETTING ................................................ 2-1

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

2.2 Physical and Environmental Setting .................................................................... 2-1

2.2.1 Environmental Setting ................................................................................... 2-1 2.2.2 Climate ........................................................................................................... 2-2

2.2.3 Regional Geology .......................................................................................... 2-4 2.2.4 Soil Characteristics ........................................................................................ 2-4 2.2.5 Hydrogeology ................................................................................................ 2-5

2.3 Operational History and Land Use ...................................................................... 2-5

3.0 FIELD ACTIVITIES ..................................................................................................... 3-1

3.1 Site Activities ....................................................................................................... 3-1 3.1.1 Field Documentation ...................................................................................... 3-2 3.1.2 Soil Gas Survey.............................................................................................. 3-2

3.1.3 Field Soil Screening ....................................................................................... 3-4 3.1.4 Soil Sampling ................................................................................................. 3-5

3.2 Deviations ............................................................................................................ 3-7 3.2.1 Soil Gas Survey.............................................................................................. 3-7

3.2.2 Soil Sampling ................................................................................................. 3-7 3.3 Conceptual Site Model Revision ......................................................................... 3-7

4.0 SAMPLE MANAGEMENT AND LABORATORY ACTIVITIES .......................... 4-1

4.1 Sample Management ............................................................................................ 4-1 4.2 Quality Control .................................................................................................... 4-1 4.3 Laboratory Analyses ............................................................................................ 4-2 4.4 Validation and Data Quality Objectives (DQOs) ................................................ 4-2

4.4.1 Accuracy/Bias ................................................................................................ 4-3

4.4.2 Precision ......................................................................................................... 4-3 4.4.3 Comparability ................................................................................................ 4-3 4.4.4 Completeness and Data Usability .................................................................. 4-4 4.4.5 Representativeness ......................................................................................... 4-4

4.4.6 Sensitivity ...................................................................................................... 4-4 4.4.7 Data Validation Results ................................................................................. 4-5

5.0 RESULTS ....................................................................................................................... 5-6

5.1 Field Screening Results........................................................................................ 5-6


Kwajalein Atoll/Reagan Test Site ii November 2011

5.2 Analytical Results ................................................................................................ 5-7

5.3 Nature and Extent of Contamination ................................................................... 5-7 5.4 Data Evaluation .................................................................................................... 5-9

5.4.1 Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) ................ 5-9

5.4.2 Summary of Findings ..................................................................................... 5-9

6.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................ 6-1

6.1 Summary .............................................................................................................. 6-1 6.2 Conclusions .......................................................................................................... 6-1 6.3 Future Work ......................................................................................................... 6-2

7.0 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 7-1

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1-1 Gagan Power Plant Fuel Spill Conceptual Site Model ............................................. 1-5

Table 3-1 Soil Gas Screening Summary ................................................................................... 3-2

Table 3-2 Field Soil Screening Summary ................................................................................. 3-4

Table 3-3 Soil Sampling Summary ........................................................................................... 3-5

Table 3-4 Revised Conceptual Site Model ................................................................................ 3-8

Table 4-1 Laboratory Analytical Methods for Soils ................................................................. 4-2

Table 5-1 Soil Gas Survey and Field Screening Results ........................................................... 5-6

Table 5-2 Results Summary for GRO, DRO and BTEX Compounds ...................................... 5-8

Table 5-3 Results Summary for PAH Compounds ................................................................... 5-5

Table 5-4 Frequency and Range of Detected Contaminants ..................................................... 5-7

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1-1 Gagan and Site Location ............................................................................................ 1-3

Figure 1-2 Gagan Power Plant Investigation Area ...................................................................... 1-4

Figure 2-1 Location of Kwajalein Atoll ...................................................................................... 2-3

Figure 3-1 Soil Gas Survey Locations ......................................................................................... 3-3

Figure 3-2 Gagan Power Plant Fuel Spill Soil Sample Locations ............................................... 3-6

APPENDICES

Appendix A Field Documents

Appendix B Analytical Data

Appendix C Data Validation Memorandum

Appendix D Field Photos

Appendix E Previous Studies


Kwajalein Atoll/Reagan Test Site iii November 2011

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

% percent

ARSTRAT U.S. Army Forces Strategic Command

ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials.

bgs below ground surface

BTEX benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylenes

ºC degrees Celsius

COC contaminants of concern

COPC contaminant of potential concern

CSM conceptual site model

CY cubic yards

DL detection limit

DQO data quality objectives

DRO diesel range organics

EDB ethylene dibromide

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

EPH extractable petroleum hydrocarbon

ESL Guam EPA Environmental Screening Levels

ºF degrees Fahrenheit

FS Feasibility Study

FSP Field Sampling Plan

g/cc grams per cubic centimeter

GEPA Guam Environmental Protection Agency

GPS Global Positioning System

GRO gasoline range organics

ICBM intercontinental ballistic missile

KMR Kwajalein Missile Range

KRS Kwajalein Range Services

LOQ limit of quantitation

LCS laboratory control sample

LCSD laboratory control sample duplicate

mg/kg milligram per kilogram

mi2 square miles

mph miles per hour

MS/MSD matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate


Kwajalein Atoll/Reagan Test Site iv November 2011

N No

Na not available

NC not calculated

ND not detected

NM not measured

PAH polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon

PID photoionization detector

PMRF Pacific Missile Range Facility

POL petroleum, oil, and lubricant

ppm parts per million

PRT post-run tubing (system)

Q qualifier

QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan

QC quality control

RAGS Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund

RL reporting limit

RMI Republic of the Marshall Islands

RPD Relative Percent Difference

RSL Regional Screening Level

RTS Reagan Test Site

SB soil boring

SDG Sample Data Group

SI site investigation

Sivuniq Sivuniq, Inc.

SMDC U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command

TPH total petroleum hydrocarbon

TOC total organic carbon

UCL Upper Confidence Limit

UES U.S. Army Kwajalein Atoll Environmental Standards

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

USAEC U.S. Army Environmental Center

USAEHA U.S. Army Environmental Hygiene Agency

USAKA U.S. Army Kwajalein Atoll

VPH volatile petroleum hydrocarbon

WWII World War II


Kwajalein Atoll/Reagan Test Site ES-1 November 2011

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In 2006, a pressure gauge ruptured at the generator building on Gagan Island (Facility 7510)

causing the release of approximately five thousand gallons of diesel fuel. Subsequent emergency

response actions removed and landfarm treated approximately 60 cubic yards (CY) of

contaminated soil. A 2007 after-action report by Kwajalein Range Services describes these

activities and indicates residual diesel range organic contaminants in the soils immediately

surrounding the building.

In November 2010, Sivuniq, Inc. (Sivuniq) performed a site investigation (SI) to evaluate

impacts near the generator building and landfarm. This investigation consisted of soil gas survey

and soil sampling. Soil sample analyses included gasoline- and diesel-range organic compounds.

The groundwater on the island is not potable; therefore, the investigation excluded this media.

Results confirmed localized amounts of petroleum residues immediately adjacent to the

generator building from the 2006 spill. The area surrounding the former landfarm also provided

detections of petroleum compounds. After comparing the maximum concentrations to screening

criteria, identified contaminants of potential concern (COPCs) included diesel range organics

(DRO), benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, and dibenzo(a,h)anthracene.

Data gaps in the soil data set prevented complete delineation of contamination extent and a

supplemental data collection event has been planned. Laboratory results suggest two isolated

areas of concern, of DRO near Building 7510 and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)

near the former landfarm area. Deeper soil samples are needed to define the vertical extent of

contamination and surface soil samples are neede to support evaluation of a future residential

exposure scenario. Groundwater is not considered developable and will only be sampled if

encountered during supplemental soil sampling.


Kwajalein Atoll/Reagan Test Site 1-1 November 2011

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 PROJECT INFORMATION

The U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command/U.S. Army Forces Strategic Command

(SMDC/ARSTRAT) tasked Sivuniq, Incorporated with the evaluation of areas of potential or

known contamination sites located at the U.S. Army Kwajalein Atoll (USAKA) installation in

the Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI). This work is issued under Contract DASG60-03-C-

0081, Task Assignment 10-001.

The scope of work for this task assignment includes, as required by the USAKA Environmental

Standards (UES), preliminary assessment (historic records and document review), site

investigation, data evaluation, treatment and feasibility studies, removal actions, and remedial

actions.

The Site Investigation phase summarized in this document follows UES Section 3-6.5.8(k) and

includes a presentation of soil and groundwater sampling data to evaluate contamination nature

and extent. Subsequent document submissions provide data evaluation/risk assessment,

feasibility studies, and remedial action plans.

1.2 SITE INFORMATION

The Gagan Power Plant is located on Gagan Island, in Kwajalein Atoll (Figure 1-1); the plant is

not permanently manned and telemetry equipment is remotely operated.

1.2.1 Previous Site Investigation

Following discovery of a 5,000-gallon fuel release at the generator building (Facility 7510)

caused by a ruptured pressure gauge on Gagan in 2006, Kwajalein Range Services (KRS)

launched spill response activities.

No immediate visible evidence of wildlife impact was observed at the site following discovery of

the spill. Damage to the environment has been assumed to be limited to the area surrounding the

release. The fuel released southeast of the building migrated vertically to approximately 5 feet

below ground surface (bgs); at this level, it is believed that the diesel fuel spread laterally. To the



northwest of the building, soil impact extended approximately 7 inches bgs nearest the building,

decreasing in depth further from the release area. Appendix D contains field photographs

showing where fuel was leaked.

One month subsequent to the spill, impacted soil was excavated until a dense non-porous coral

layer was encountered at approximately 5 feet bgs. Approximately 60 cubic yards (CY) of

impacted soil was placed on plastic sheeting and bermed such that run-on waters had minimal

contact with the soils, which were stockpiled into two rows, to the northwest of the facility; the

approximate location of the landfarmed soils (estimated using text and figures from a KRS

report) is shown in Figure 1-3 (KRS, 2007). Each row of soil was estimated to be approximately

30 CY. The placement of the soils into rows acted to facilitate the natural biodegradation of the

petroleum products and enhanced the treatment by photo-oxidation. Soil samples were collected

by KRS from the stockpiled soils immediately following excavation activities, and again nine

months after the excavation. Laboratory analytical results from the second sampling event

indicated a significant decrease in levels of diesel range organics (DRO) in the contaminated

soils. The soils were ultimately spread on the surface of the site.

Laboratory samples were collected from the excavation prior to backfilling. Analytical results

indicated the presence of DRO in all sidewall samples. The KRS report confirms an

undetermined amount of DRO-impacted soils remained beneath the building after excavation

activities. The greatest concentrations (15,000 milligrams per kilogram [mg/kg]) are identified

beneath the doors where the diesel fuel exited the power plant facility (KRS, 2007).

A detailed summary of previous studies is included as Appendix E.



Figure 1-1 Gagan and Site Location



Figure 1-2 Gagan Power Plant Investigation Area



1.2.2 Conceptual Site Model

Based on available information, primary contaminants of concern (COCs) include petroleum, oil

and lubricants (POL) compounds. Table 1-1 summarizes the preliminary conceptual site model

(CSM) for the Gagan Power Plant Fuel Spill Site.

Table 1-1 Gagan Power Plant Fuel Spill Conceptual Site Model

Model Element Input Rationale

Primary source Petroleum products (diesel fuel) Documented release

Primary Transport

Mechanism Direct product discharge

Release from power plant generator engine

pressure gauge

Secondary source Soil Contamination from direct discharge

Secondary Transport

Mechanisms

Product migration from the release

point(s) Reported soil contamination at various locations

Exposure Media Soil Reported contamination in soil

Exposure Pathways Incidental ingestion of soil

Dermal contact with soil Direct contact and use at site location

Current Receptors On-site operations personnel

On-site (construction) workers

USAKA and contractor personnel are potentially

exposed during work at site locations

Complete/Significant

Exposure Scenarios Incidental soil ingestion and dermal contact with contaminated soil by on-site operations

personnel and onsite construction workers

1.2.3 Investigation Approach

Fieldwork on Gagan focused on investigation, delineation, and documentation of soil

contamination to establish a feasible remediation strategy. Sampling methods included a soil gas

survey and soil sampling. Soil samples were field screened for petroleum hydrocarbons to

establish contaminant boundaries. Confirmation samples were submitted for laboratory analysis,

the results of which were used to characterize and determine extent of impact.

1.3 PURPOSE, SCOPE, AND OBJECTIVE

The core focus of the site investigation (SI) at the Gagan Power Plant Fuel Spill site includes

delineation of residual fuel contamination in soil at the point of release, and assessment of the

secondary impacts associated with the landfarm operations. Remedial actions will be

implemented as needed to mitigate human health impacts.



2.0 SITE BACKGROUND AND PHYSICAL SETTING

2.1 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION

The Kwajalein Atoll is located in the “Ralik” (sunset or western) chain of the Marshall Islands in

the West Central Pacific Ocean. It is located 2,100 nautical miles southwest of Honolulu and

approximately 4,200 nautical miles southwest of San Francisco (just west of the international

dateline). Less than 700 miles north of the equator, Kwajalein is in the latitude of Panama and

the southern Philippines, and in the longitude of New Zealand, 2,300 miles south, and the

Kamchatka Peninsula of the former Soviet Union, 2,600 miles north (see Figure 2-1). The atoll’s

remoteness from centers of population and proximity to the sea has a major bearing on the

operation and maintenance of U.S. Army Kwajalein Atoll/Reagan Test Site (USAKA/RTS).

The U.S. Army utilizes 11 of the over 100 islands in the atoll, with active facilities on all or part

of eleven islands, one of which is Gagan. Two of the islands, Kwajalein and Roi-Namur, were

sites of extensive battles during World War II. Kwajalein, at the atoll’s southern tip, and Roi-

Namur, at its northern extremity, are the principal islands at USAKA/RTS and are 50 miles

apart; the other islands used by USAKA/RTS are situated between these two, on both sides of

the lagoon. Gagan is located on the east side of the atoll approximately 10 miles southwest of

Roi-Namur.

2.2 PHYSICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

2.2.1 Environmental Setting

Kwajalein Atoll is a coral reef formation in the shape of a crescent loop enclosing a lagoon. The

approximately 100 small islands share a total land area of only 5.6 square miles (mi2). The

largest islands are Kwajalein (1.2 mi2), Roi-Namur, and Ebadon at the extremities of the atoll;

together they account for nearly half the total land area. While the “typical” size of the remaining

islands may be about 450 by 2,100 feet, the smallest islands are no more than sand cays that

merely break the water's surface at high tide. The island of Gagan is approximately 6 acres.

The Kwajalein Atoll lagoon enclosed by the reef is the world’s largest, with a surface area of

1,100 mi2, and a depth that is generally between 120 to 180 feet. Coral atolls are seamounts that



have been capped by calcareous marine growth constructed by lime-secreting organisms (coral

polyps and algae). The lower parts of atolls are composed of noncalcareous rocks, most often

volcanic materials. The overlying coral superstructures may be hundreds or even thousands of

feet in thickness. Emergent portions of the reef and islands tend to be composed of loose, poorly

consolidated calcareous materials derived from foraminifera, coral, shells, and marine algae, or

their debris resulting from destructive action of the elements. One notable characteristic of the

atolls is the steep slopes of the mounts seaward of the reef. Around Kwajalein Atoll, the depth

plunges to as much as 6,000 feet within two miles of the atoll, and to 13,200 feet within 10

miles.

All of the islands that comprise the atoll are relatively flat with few natural points exceeding 15

feet above mean sea level. This condition presents a major problem for underground construction

and allows spilled contaminants to easily reach the water table.

2.2.2 Climate

Kwajalein’s tropical marine climate exhibits little variation through the year. The atoll

experiences a relatively dry windy season from mid-December to mid-May, and a relatively wet

calm season from mid-May to mid-December. Normal annual rainfall is approximately 100

inches; approximately 72 percent (%) of the annual rainfall occurs during the wet season and

28% during the dry season. On average, the prevailing wind direction is from the east-northeast

during the entire year, although winds may become more variable during the wet season when

occasional southerly or even westerly winds occur. The average wind speed is approximately 17

miles per hour (mph) from December to April, and 12 mph from May to November.

The average daily maximum temperature is 86.5 degrees Fahrenheit (ºF); the average minimum

temperature is 77.6 ºF. The extreme temperatures recorded at the atoll are 97 ºF and 68 ºF.

Average relative humidity ranges from 83% at local noon to 78% at midnight.



Figure 2-1 Location of Kwajalein Atoll



Most of the rainfall at Kwajalein comes from rain showers; thunderstorm occurrences are

infrequent. On average, thunderstorms occur fewer than 12 days each year. The frequency of

thunderstorms ranges from 0.1 per month from January to March to two per month in September.

Since 1919, a fully developed typhoon has never struck Kwajalein Atoll; however, tropical

storms with sustained winds from 40 to 74 mph affect the atoll on average about once every four

to seven years. Rainfall varies significantly across the atoll with Roi-Namur receiving roughly 60

to 70% of the Kwajalein Island average of 100 inches per year.

2.2.3 Regional Geology

The detailed geology of Kwajalein Atoll is primarily based on shallow boring logs prepared by

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and drilling logs prepared during the construction

of monitoring wells. However, from the limited geologic data available as well as from

inferences, which can be made from various hydrologic data, it appears as though many of the

features observed on Bikini and Enewetak are also common to Kwajalein. In particular, the

uppermost unconformity observed on Bikini and Enewetak at depths of 26 to 40 feet below sea

level also appears to exist on Kwajalein, and it exhibits many of the same general hydrogeologic

characteristics. The characteristics are typically marked by the occurrence of a hard coral ledge

and perhaps conglomerate horizons, above which the aquifers are characterized by moderate

permeabilities and generally fresh groundwater, and below which the aquifers appear to have

higher permeability and contain more saline groundwater. The salinity differences have been

confirmed by field data; however, the permeability differences are only inferred (Global, 1980).

2.2.4 Soil Characteristics

Soils on Kwajalein Atoll mainly consist of unconsolidated, reef-derived calcium carbonate sand

and gravel with minor consolidated layers of coral, sandstone, and conglomerate. A study was

conducted on Kwajalein and Roi-Namur Islands to determine background concentrations of

metals and other inorganic constituents in soils; composite samples were collected and analyzed

for total metals. The mean and maximum expected normal concentrations of each analyte are

presented in the 1991-1992 U.S. Army Environmental Hygiene Agency (USAEHA) Soil and

Contamination Study (USAEHA, 1991).



2.2.5 Hydrogeology

The thick accumulation of limestone layers, unconformities caused by sea level changes over

time, and tidal activity play an important role in the fresh groundwater dynamics. Groundwater is

very shallow throughout the atoll; a thin freshwater lens lies atop the brackish groundwater on

the largest islands, including Kwajalein and Roi-Namur. Groundwater gradients radiate out from

groundwater mounds near the center of the islands. The shallow depth to groundwater and the

high permeability of the soils make the groundwater systems of the Kwajalein Atoll islands

highly vulnerable to contamination by chemicals (USAEHA, 1991). Groundwater has not been

encountered on Gagan Island.

2.3 OPERATIONAL HISTORY AND LAND USE

The Navy operated the facility from 1944 to 1964 after the U.S. liberation of the atoll from the

Japanese during World War II (WWII). The U.S. Army established control of Kwajalein Atoll in

1964 after being transferred from the U.S. Navy. The USAKA/Kwajalein Missile Range (KMR)

was renamed to USAKA/RTS on June 15, 2001.

The naming designations of the installation at Kwajalein Island throughout recent history are as

follows:

Navy Operating Base Kwajalein, Naval Air Station Kwajalein, Naval Station Kwajalein,

and Pacific Missile Range Facility (PMRF) Kwajalein at various times between 1945 and

1964.

Kwajalein Test Site from July 1, 1964, through April 14, 1968;

Kwajalein Missile Range from April 15, 1968, through November 13, 1986;

USAKA from November 14, 1986, through September 30, 1997.

The USAKA/RTS is a subordinate activity of the U.S. SMDC/ARSTRAT, headquartered in

Huntsville, Alabama.

The installation supports the RTS in support of theater missile defense, ballistic missile defense,

and intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) testing.



3.0 FIELD ACTIVITIES

The SI at Gagan Island consisted of the following elements:

Establish site controls and perform a magnetometer survey to identify possible hazards

and utility conflicts within the investigation area.

Perform a soil gas survey within the investigation area to locate and assess the impacted

area.

Soil sample collection using a direct-push sampling system for direct assessment of soil

impacts.

Field screening analysis by a number of methods to provide daily data for dynamic

sampling adjustments in the field.

Confirmation sampling within the most impacted area allowed for characterization of the nature

of the contamination. Additional confirmation sampling at the contaminant horizon provided

accurate definition of the extent of contamination. Sampling points were surveyed to allow for

accurate delineation of impacts.

Although not specifically required as part of the dig permitting process, all intrusive activities on

Gagan Island were monitored by a qualified archeological specialist implementing the project-

specific Archeological Monitoring Plan (Kwaj-10-52). Major elements of this monitoring

included global positioning system (GPS) locating for all sample locations, inspection of coring

samples, and descriptive documentation of soil characteristics.

3.1 SITE ACTIVITIES

A summary of sampling activities is provided in the 2010 Site Investigation Work Plan (Sivuniq,

2010). Details related to the field/sampling techniques can be found in the Field Sampling Plan

and Standard Operating Procedures, both located in Annex A of the Work Plan.

The field crew surveyed sample locations with a handheld magnetometer prior to conducting

intrusive activities to identify possible conflicts and hazards.



3.1.1 Field Documentation

A field report form, describing the summary of activities each day, was completed by the Field

Team Leader and provided to the Project Manager. In addition to the activities completed, a

description of the equipment used, the field analyses conducted, and any other pertinent

information was documented. The procedures for documenting field observation and data are

located in the Work Plan. Digital photographs were taken during fieldwork to document field

activities.

3.1.2 Soil Gas Survey

A soil-gas survey was conducted to provide rapid assessment of potential areas of contamination

with the following equipment and methods presented in Table 3-1. A total of 54 soil gas points

were installed at this site. Additional details of the soil gas sampling method are presented in the

Field Sampling Plan standard operating procedures.

Table 3-1 Soil Gas Screening Summary

Soil Gas

Sampling

Equipment

Direct-push rig (soil sampling) or slide hammer (soil screening), post-run tubing system

(PRT) soil gas probes, peristaltic pump, Tedlar® bags

Sampling

Locations

Coarse sampling: 50’ interval inside and adjacent to the power plant; probe inserted to depth

of 3’ bgs

Refined sampling: 25’ interval surrounding perimeter of coarse sampling locations

exhibiting soil-gas vapors; probe inserted to depth of 3’ bgs

Field Analyses Petroleum headspace vapor screening with Mini-RAE 2000 photoionization detector

Soil gas screening began to the east of the generator building (facility number 7510). Soil gas

monitoring was limited to days with no rainfall, as the soil moisture affects photoionization

detector (PID) readings. The field crew began by identifying the area of concern. A 10- or 25-

foot spacing soil-gas survey grid was typically applied to locations of suspected release, allowing

for delineation of the contaminant mass (Figure 3-1). Soil gas monitoring points north/northwest

of Facility Number 7510 were placed on a 25-foot grid due to the greater distance from the

known spill.



Figure 3-1 Soil Gas Survey Locations



Soil was penetrated with a 1-inch diameter post-run tubing system (PRT) soil gas probe installed

with a slide hammer. After the probes were installed to an average depth of 3 feet bgs, a PID

reading was recorded directly from the soil gas monitoring tip, without flexible tubing inserted

into the tip. The method of measurement collected directly from the soil gas monitoring tip was

found to be sufficiently accurate and more efficient than the other methods (described in Section

3.2.1), and was therefore used for the 52 of the 55 soil gas survey points. Soil gas survey results

are presented in Table 5-2.

3.1.3 Field Soil Screening

A field laboratory was set up to facilitate screening of soil samples to augment field screening

techniques, and to decrease the bulk of samples sent out for laboratory analysis. Detailed

descriptions of these methods are outlined in the approved Work Plan. Soil collection locations

and methods are presented in Section 3.1.4. Results of field screening are presented in Table 5-2.

Field screening of soil samples included a visual inspection of the soil, petroleum headspace

vapor screening with a PID, and direct product screening (sheen screen test). Additional

analyses were completed in the onsite field lab, including petroleum extraction/analysis with

RaPID Assay immunoassay kits, PetroFLAG®

turbidimetric analyzer, and InfraCal CVH infrared

spectrometer. Tests performed in the field laboratory for total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) in

soils include the methods presented in Table 3-2. Table 5-1 presents soil screening results.

Table 3-2 Field Soil Screening Summary

Field Analyses

Petroleum headspace vapor screening with Mini-RAE 2000 photoionization detector

Petroleum in soil by physical examination, texture, smell, sheen screen

Petroleum extraction/analysis with Wilks InfraCal CVH infrared spectrometer

Petroleum extraction/analysis with PetroFLAG turbidimetric analyzer

Petroleum extraction/analysis with RaPID Assay immunoassay kits



3.1.4 Soil Sampling

Soil samples for field screening and analysis were collected using direct-push technology; soil

screening and confirmation sample locations are presented on Figure 3-2. A summary of the

methodology of intrusive soil investigation is presented in Table 3-3.

Table 3-3 Soil Sampling Summary

Sampling

Equipment Direct-push rig with macro-core samplers; stainless steel sampling spoons

Sampling

Locations

Nature of contamination: For the release point near Facility 7510, at least 3 locations along

building footer and near the center of contaminant mass, samples at 3’ bgs.

Extent of contamination: Perimeter locations radially distributed between the contaminant mass

and the horizon of detected contamination (as determined by soil field screening results),

samples at 3’ bgs and groundwater interface or 6’ bgs (whichever is deeper). At least 30% of

perimeter sampling locations placed outside of area of contamination to accurately define the

extent of contamination.

Soil sampling locations were chosen based on soil gas survey results; samples were collected in

locations where high PID readings were observed, as well as in clean locations in order to define

the boundaries of impact. Twenty-eight soil borings were installed with a Geoprobe MT540

direct push unit to 3 feet bgs, at points where soil gas had been monitored (Figure 3-2). The

direct push sampler used static force and a percussion hammer to advance the small-diameter

sampling tools. Soil samples were captured in clear polyethylene terphthalate liners, which were

inserted into the sampling tool prior to being pushed into the soil. To recover the soil, the

sampler was retrieved from the hole and the liner containing the soil sample was cut open with a

specialized cutting tool that safely sliced the entire length of the liner.

Confirmation sampling of soil within the product plume and at the contaminant horizon was

completed to provide accurate characterization of the nature and extent of contamination. The 0

to 3 foot interval was typically sampled for field screening analyses, including PID and sheen; a

portion of the sample was collected in a four ounce glass container for field screening.

Additionally, composite soil samples were collected at each location for laboratory analysis of

extractable petroleum hydrocarbons (EPH), volatile petroleum hydrocarbons (VPH) and

polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs).



Figure 3-2 Gagan Power Plant Fuel Spill Soil Sample Locations



3.2 DEVIATIONS

This investigation was conducted according to the Site Investigation Work Plan (Sivuniq, 2010);

however, deviations from the original plan were necessary in some instances. Deviations from

the plan are detailed in the following subsections.

3.2.1 Soil Gas Survey

Soil gas monitoring points were originally laid out as a 10 foot grid rather than the coarse (50-

foot interval) and refined (25-foot interval) sampling grid (Figure 3-1). The soils were penetrated

with a 1-inch diameter PRT soil gas probe installed with a slide hammer. After the probes were

installed to an average depth of 3 feet bgs, a soil gas monitoring tip was deployed into the

opening, flexible tubing was inserted, and a peristaltic pump used to purge the line for 15

seconds. Once the line was purged, the peristaltic pump was used to fill a tedlar bag, from which

a PID reading was recorded. A second reading was recorded directly from the soil gas

monitoring tip, without flexible tubing inserted into the tip. A third reading was recorded directly

from the flexible tubing, without the peristaltic pump to aid airflow.

The method of measurement collected directly from the soil gas monitoring tip (second method)

was found to be sufficiently accurate and more efficient than the other methods, and was

therefore used for the remainder of the soil gas survey. Soil gas monitoring was limited to days

with no rainfall, as the soil moisture affects PID readings. Soil gas monitoring points

north/northwest of Facility Number 7510 were placed on a 25-foot grid due to the greater

distance from the known contamination.

3.2.2 Soil Sampling

No deviations from the work plan are noted.

3.3 CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL REVISION

Upon further consideration, the CSM has been revised to include future residents as a potential

receptor. The updated CSM is presented below:



Table 3-4 Revised Conceptual Site Model

Model Element Input Rationale

Primary source Petroleum products (diesel fuel) Documented release

Primary Transport Mechanism Direct product discharge Release from power plant generator engine

pressure gauge

Secondary source Soil Contamination from direct discharge

Secondary Transport

Mechanisms

Product migration from the release

point(s) Reported soil contamination at various locations

Exposure Media Soil Reported contamination in soil

Exposure Pathways Incidental ingestion of soil

Dermal contact with soil Direct contact and use at site location

Current Receptors On-site operations personnel

On-site (construction) workers

USAKA and contractor personnel are potentially

exposed during work at site locations

Complete/Significant

Exposure Scenarios Incidental soil ingestion and dermal contact with contaminated soil by on-site operations

personnel, onsite construction workers and future residents



4.0 SAMPLE MANAGEMENT AND LABORATORY ACTIVITIES

4.1 SAMPLE MANAGEMENT

Samples were managed according to the work plan. Once collected in the field, samples were

immediately placed in a cooler on ice. Upon returning from the field, samples were placed in a

refrigerator in order to maintain a temperature of 4 degrees Celsius (°C). A chain-of-custody

form for each sample set was completed to maintain a record of sample collection, transfer

between personnel, and receipt by the laboratory. When custody of samples was relinquished, the

chain-of-custody form was signed, and the date and time of transfer noted. Because the samples

were shipped by air to the Test America Laboratories in Honolulu, Hawaii, chain-of-custody

forms were completed and placed inside a 1-gallon Ziploc® bag and taped inside the top of the

cooler. One sample data group (SDG) is associated with the investigation conducted in Gagan

(SDG HTK0125).

4.2 QUALITY CONTROL

A series of quality control (QC) samples were collected in the field to confirm quality and

defensible analytical results. The QC samples collected and submitted for analysis included field

duplicates and matrix spike/matrix spike duplicates (MS/MSDs). The field duplicates were

collected at a rate of 10% (1 in 10 samples); MS/MSDs were collected at a rate of 5% (1 in 20

samples).

Three field duplicate samples were collected in conjunction with 25 primary soil samples.

Duplicate sample results are used to assess the precision of the sample collection process. The

field duplicate was collected at the same location as the primary sample either simultaneously or

in immediate succession using identical recovery techniques, and was treated in an identical

manner during storage and transportation. The primary and duplicate sample containers were

assigned unique identification numbers.

The MS/MSD is used to document the bias of a method due to the sample matrix. MS/MSDs are

aliquots of samples spiked by the laboratory with known concentrations of the analytes to be

analyzed, prior to sample preparation and analysis. The sample set did not include sufficient

sample volume for a specified MS/MSD sample, thus the laboratory split MS/MSD analyses



between three different samples for gasoline range organics (GRO)/benzene, toluene,

ethylbenzene and xylenes (BTEX), DRO, and PAHs to apply this QC method.

A trip blank is typically submitted with each sample cooler containing samples to be analyzed

for VPH; however, no trip blank was included with SDG HTK0125. No adverse impacts to the

data are suspected since no systemic detections were present that would indicate trip blank

contamination issues.

4.3 LABORATORY ANALYSES

Results of confirmation sample analyses establish the horizontal and vertical extent of

contamination at the site. These results as well as physical data support the evaluation of

remedial alternatives. The specific analyses for soil are detailed below in Table 4-1. The

laboratory analytical results are presented in Appendix B.

Table 4-1 Laboratory Analytical Methods for Soils

Parameter Analytical Method

Volatile Petroleum Hydrocarbons (VPH) EPA Method 8260M

Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons (EPH) EPA Method 8015

Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) EPA Method 8270-SIM

Bulk Density ASTM D2937

Grain Size Distribution ASTM D422

Total Organic Carbon (TOC) EPA Method 9060

Notes: ASTM = American Society for Testing and Materials. TOC = total organic carbon. EPA = U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency.

4.4 VALIDATION AND DATA QUALITY OBJECTIVES (DQOS)

After completing fieldwork, the Data Manager organized analytical laboratory data for

evaluation, validation and presentation. Data validation involves a comprehensive review of the

laboratory data to verify conformance with quality controls; qualifiers flag any deficient data to

alert data users of possible quality concerns. Analytical results were validated using a set of

quality checks, which addressed different data quality objectives (DQOs) including accuracy,

precision, comparability, completeness, representativeness, and sensitivity.



4.4.1 Accuracy/Bias

ACCURACY was a measurement of correctness and includes components of random error

(variability due to imprecision) and systemic error. Accuracy was quantified as the degree of

agreement between a measurement with a known reference. The accuracy was evaluated from

the percent recovery (%R), percent difference (%D), or percent drift (%Df) of the initial and

continuing calibration samples, internal standards, surrogate spikes, laboratory control samples,

and matrix spike samples.

Results of the method blank, calibration blank, and trip blank provide a measure of method bias

from the field and laboratory procedures.

4.4.2 Precision

Precision is defined as the degree of mutual agreement among independent measurements as the

result of repeated application of the same process under similar conditions. Analytical precision

is evaluated via the relative percent difference (RPD) values of laboratory control sample and

laboratory control sample duplicate (LCS/LCSD) and the MS/MSD analyses. The RPD values of

field duplicate analyses represent the combined precision of sample collection and analysis

procedures, as well as sample homogeneity.

The RPD values for MS/MSD and LCS/LCSD were all within the laboratory control limits for

all analytes. The RPD values for two field duplicate samples were within the laboratory control

limits except for the PAH analyses. The precision associated with the project analyses achieved

the DQOs in the Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP).

ComparabilityComparability describes the confidence with which one data set can be compared

to another data set. Comparability was achieved through the use of standardized operating

procedures analytic methods techniques, and equipment to collect and analyze representative

samples.



Data generated during this sampling event maintained the comparability within this sampling

event.

4.4.3 Completeness and Data Usability

Completeness is a measure of the amount of valid data obtained for each analyte. The

completeness was measured as the total number of samples with valid results of target analytes

compared to the total number of collected samples’ target analytes, expressed as a percentage.

The data quality objective of a 95% completeness goal (valid data/ total possible data*100) was

expected.

The Gagan data set met completeness and data usability criteria for all analytical parameters.

4.4.4 Representativeness

Representativeness is a qualitative characteristic that measures the ability to collect a sample

reflecting the characteristics of the part of the environment being assessed. Representativeness

was achieved through use of the standard field, sampling, and analytical procedures.

Representativeness was also determined by appropriate program design, with consideration of

elements such as proper sample locations and sampling procedures. The evaluation of associated

method blanks also assists in identifying artifacts that may skew the representativeness of the

samples. To assure that the sample results were as representative as possible, the field sampling

procedures described in the work plan were diligently followed with all deviations noted.

No anomalies were identified in sample preservation, handling, preparation, and analysis that

affected data representativeness, except for the QC anomalies affecting the precision (Section

4.4.2) as discussed above. The uncertainty of the data quality potentially resulted from these

anomalies were conceivable, and were not significantly affecting the data representativeness.

4.4.5 Sensitivity

Sensitivity was the ability of an analytical method and instruments to detect a target component

in a sample matrix with a defined level of confidence. The sensitivity was evaluated from the

reporting limits (RL) compared to the goals set forth in the QAPP. The analytical laboratory was



responsible for ensuring that sensitivity requirements of the data as described in the QAPP were

achieved and documented in the data package.

4.4.6 Data Validation Results

Data validation was performed on SDG HTK0125. Some of the data was qualified by the

laboratory, and additional qualification of data resulted from validation, as presented below:

Some GRO and BTEX data were qualified as not detected due to method blank

contamination;

Some PAH data were qualified as estimated due to field duplicate anomalies.

Other data are accepted without qualifiers; no data were rejected. The complete data validation

memoranda are presented in Appendix C.



5.0 RESULTS

Field screening and analytical results have been evaluated to determine the nature and extent of

contamination in order to develop a feasible remediation strategy for the Gagan POL site.

5.1 FIELD SCREENING RESULTS

Table 5-1 Soil Gas Survey and Field Screening Results

Sample Name

1011KWAJ009-

Soil Gas

(ppm)

Soil PID

(ppm)

Soil

Sheen

RaPID Assay

(mg/kg)

InfraCal

(ppm)

PetroFLAG®

(ppm)

SB01003-10 12.1 2.1 N 235 825 62

SB02003-10 14.8 4.1 N 12 7 64

SB03003-10 NM 10.3 N 14 6 32

SB04003-10 NM 9.5 N 6 12 35

SB05003-10 0.9 1.5 N 21 9 28

SB06003-10 12.4 7.2 N 9 8 80

SB07003-10 0.1 7.5 N 18 14 41

SB08003-10 NM 3.7 N 12 12 52

SB09003-10 1.8 3.2 N 8 10 81

SB10003-10 0 3.8 N 16 18 102

SB11003-10 0.1 6.1 N 22 20 92

SB12003-10 0.2 4.2 N 17 22 90

SB13003-10 2.5 8 N 42 65 154

SB14003-10 3.2 2.2 N 88 126 174

SB15003-10 0 6.8 N 16 15 345

SB15003-11 0 6.8 N 12 14 81

SB16003-10 13.2 7.8 N 22 51 93

SB17003-10 36 6.3 N 8 10 31

SB17003-11 36 6.3 N 12 17 26

SB18003-10 5.1 4.2 N 9 7 24

SB19003-10 231 6.4 N 9 5 69

SB20003-10 NM 2.8 N 11 10 37

SB21003-10 174 4.3 N 9 6 114

SB22003-10 NM 5.3 N 17 9 40

SB23003-10 50.7 6.3 N 124 210 125

SB23003-11 50.7 6.3 N 141 201 137

SB24003-10 2.1 2 N 18 11 48

SB25003-10 5.2 9.8 N 14 15 26

SB26003-10 69.7 6.6 N 16 22 68

SB26003-11 69.7 6.6 N NM NM NM

SB27003-10 NM 3.1 N 8 3 42

SB28003-10 NM 10.4 N NM 6 47

Notes:

mg/kg: milligrams per kilogram; NM: not measured; N: no; ppm: parts per million



Sample naming conventions are explained in the Field Sampling Plan (FSP), which is included

in the work plan (Sivuniq, 2010). The sample 1011KWAJ009-SB01003-10 represents a sample

taken in 2010 (10) in November (11); the sample location is Gagan Island (KWAJ009); the

sample was collected from the first soil boring (SB01), from a depth of 3 feet below ground

surface (003); the sample is a primary sample (rather than a dup) (-10).

5.2 ANALYTICAL RESULTS

Laboratory data indicates detections of petroleum constituents in the soil at the Gagan Power

Plant Fuel Spill site. Table 5-2 and Table 5-3 present a summary of results for all compounds.

The analytical laboratory report is presented in Appendix B.

Of the six field screening techniques utilized on 28 Gagan soil samples, the comparison of

analytical data to field screening data support the following techniques as useful (the most

accurate listed first): RaPID Assay (30% relative percent difference), InfraCal (42% relative

percent difference), and PetroFLAG (93% relative percent difference).

Physical characteristics data from four samples collected at the site confirm field observations.

Grain size analysis indicates that the area of contamination is predominantly medium grained

sand, with varying amounts of gravel, coarse and fine sand, silt, and clay. The average bulk

density is 1.44 grams per cubic centimeter (g/cc). The average organic carbon content of the soils

at the site is 120,000 mg/kg.

Appendix B contains complete results of the chemical and physical characteristics analyses.



Table 5-2 Results Summary for GRO, DRO and BTEX Compounds

DRO GRO Benzene Toluene

Ethyl-

benzene m,p-Xylene o-Xylene

Sample ID Soil

Boring

Depth

(feet

bgs)

Analytical Results

1011KWAJ009

SB01003-10 SB01 0 - 3 407

0.61 U

ND

(0.0122)

ND

(0.0122)

ND

(0.0122)

ND

(0.0122)

ND

(0.0122)

1011KWAJ009

SB02003-10 SB02 0 - 3 4.09 J 0.591 U

ND

(0.0118) 0.0118 U

ND

(0.0118)

ND

(0.0118)

ND

(0.0118)

1011KWAJ009

SB03003-10 SB03 0 - 3 24.9

0.567 U

ND

(0.0113)

ND

(0.0113)

ND

(0.0113)

ND

(0.0113)

ND

(0.0113)

1011KWAJ009

SB04003-10 SB04 0 - 3 3.43 J 0.599 U

ND

(0.012)

ND

(0.012)

ND

(0.012)

ND

(0.012)

ND

(0.012)

1011KWAJ009

SB05003-10 SB05 0 - 3 10.2

0.645 U

ND

(0.0129)

ND

(0.0129)

ND

(0.0129)

ND

(0.0129)

ND

(0.0129)

1011KWAJ009

SB06003-10 SB06 0 - 3 46

0.636 U

ND

(0.0127)

ND

(0.0127)

ND

(0.0127)

ND

(0.0127)

ND

(0.0127)

1011KWAJ009

SB07003-10 SB07 0 - 3 2.28 J 0.604 U

ND

(0.0121)

ND

(0.0121)

ND

(0.0121)

ND

(0.0121)

ND

(0.0121)

1011KWAJ009

SB09003-10 SB09 0 - 3 25.2

0.664 U

ND

(0.0133)

ND

(0.0133)

ND

(0.0133)

ND

(0.0133)

ND

(0.0133)

1011KWAJ009

SB10003-10 SB10 0 - 3 8

0.621 U

ND

(0.0124)

ND

(0.0124)

ND

(0.0124)

ND

(0.0124)

ND

(0.0124)

1011KWAJ009

SB11003-10 SB11 0 - 3 7.11

0.653 U

ND

(0.0131)

ND

(0.0131)

ND

(0.0131)

ND

(0.0131)

ND

(0.0131)

1011KWAJ009

SB12003-10 SB12 0 - 3 26.1

0.605 U

ND

(0.0121)

ND

(0.0121)

ND

(0.0121)

ND

(0.0121)

ND

(0.0121)

1011KWAJ009

SB14003-10 SB14 0 - 3 135

0.628 U

ND

(0.0126)

ND

(0.0126)

ND

(0.0126)

ND

(0.0126)

ND

(0.0126)

1011KWAJ009

SB16003-10 SB16 0 - 3 16

0.619 U

ND

(0.0124)

ND

(0.0124)

ND

(0.0124)

ND

(0.0124)

ND

(0.0124)

1011KWAJ009

SB17003-10 SB17 0 - 3 16

0.632 U

ND

(0.0126)

ND

(0.0126)

ND

(0.0126)

ND

(0.0126)

ND

(0.0126)

1011KWAJ009

SB17003-11 SB17 0 - 3 12.2

0.686 U

ND

(0.0137)

ND

(0.0137)

ND

(0.0137)

ND

(0.0137)

ND

(0.0137)

1011KWAJ009

SB18003-10 SB18 0 - 3 12.5

0.661 U

ND

(0.0132)

ND

(0.0132)

ND

(0.0132)

ND

(0.0132)

ND

(0.0132)

1011KWAJ009

SB19003-10 SB19 0 - 3 2.84 J 0.673 U

ND

(0.0135)

ND

(0.0135)

ND

(0.0135)

ND

(0.0135)

ND

(0.0135)

1011KWAJ009

SB20003-10 SB20 0 - 3 8.97

0.652 U

ND

(0.013)

ND

(0.013)

ND

(0.013)

ND

(0.013)

ND

(0.013)

1011KWAJ009

SB21003-10 SB21 0 - 3 59.7

0.62 U

ND

(0.0124)

ND

(0.0124)

ND

(0.0124)

ND

(0.0124)

ND

(0.0124)

1011KWAJ009

SB22003-10 SB22 0 - 3 0.91 J 0.626 U

ND

(0.0125)

ND

(0.0125)

ND

(0.0125)

ND

(0.0125)

ND

(0.0125)

1011KWAJ009

SB23003-10 SB23 0 - 3 83

0.627 U

ND

(0.0125)

ND

(0.0125)

ND

(0.0125)

ND

(0.0125)

ND

(0.0125)

1011KWAJ009

SB23003-11 SB23 0 - 3 119

0.619 U

ND

(0.0124)

ND

(0.0124)

ND

(0.0124)

ND

(0.0124)

ND

(0.0124)

1011KWAJ009

SB24003-10 SB24 0 - 3 7.66

0.602 U

ND

(0.012) 0.012 U

ND

(0.012)

ND

(0.012)

ND

(0.012)

1011KWAJ009

SB25003-10 SB25 0 - 3 1.76 J 0.684 U

ND

(0.0137)

ND

(0.0137)

ND

(0.0137)

ND

(0.0137)

ND

(0.0137)

1011KWAJ009

SB26003-10 SB26 0 - 3 19.3 J 0.655 U

ND

(0.0131)

ND

(0.0131)

ND

(0.0131)

ND

(0.0131)

ND

(0.0131)

1011KWAJ009

SB26003-11 SB26 0 - 3 15.9 J 0.584 U

ND

(0.0117)

ND

(0.0117)

ND

(0.0117)

ND

(0.0117)

ND

(0.0117)

1011KWAJ009

SB27003-10 SB27 0 - 3 3.81 J 0.666 U

ND

(0.0133)

ND

(0.0133)

ND

(0.0133)

ND

(0.0133)

ND

(0.0133)

1011KWAJ009

SB28003-10 SB28 0 - 3 2.31 J 0.616 U

ND

(0.0123)

ND

(0.0123)

ND

(0.0123)

ND

(0.0123)

ND

(0.0123) Notes, Acronyms and Abbreviations:

Bolded values are positive detections

Non-detects are reported at the limit in the parenthesis

J Reported concentration is an estimated value

U Reported as a nondetection at the indicated limit due to qualification UJ Reported as a nondetection, and the indicated limit is an estimated value

Draft Gagan Power Plant Site Investigation Report Sivuniq, Inc.


Table 5-3 Results Summary for PAH Compounds

Analyte

2-Methyl-

naphthalene Acenaphthene Acenaphthylene Anthracene

Benzo (a)

anthracene

Benzo (a)

pyrene

Benzo (b)

fluoranthene

Benzo (g,h,i)

perylene

Benzo (k)

fluoranthene Chrysene

Dibenzo

(a,h)

anthracene

Fluoranthene Fluorene Indeno (1,2,3-

cd) pyrene Naphthalene Phenanthrene Pyrene

Sample ID SB

Depth

(feet

bgs)

Analytical Results

1011KWAJ009

SB01003-10 SB01 0 - 3 0.0028 J 0.00734 J 0.00105 J

0.020

3 J

0.0059

5 J 0.00315 J 0.00595 J

ND

(0.0176) 0.00245 J 0.00455 J

ND (0.00839

)

0.00804 J 0.0294 J ND

(0.00839

)

0.00105 J 0.0238 J 0.0

29

1011KWAJ009

SB02003-10 SB02 0 - 3

ND

(0.0085)

ND

(0.0085)

ND

(0.0085)

ND

(0.0085)

0.0031

9 J

ND

(0.0085) 0.0046 J

ND

(0.0178) 0.00212 J 0.00283 J

ND

(0.0085) 0.00496 J

ND

(0.0085)

ND

(0.0085)

ND

(0.0085) 0.0014

2 J

0.0

038

9

J

1011KWAJ009

SB03003-10 SB03 0 - 3

ND

(0.00813) 0.00102 J

ND

(0.00813)

0.001

69 J 0.0234

0.0363

0.0759

0.0166 J 0.0291

0.0441

ND

(0.00813)

0.0827

ND

(0.00813)

0.0152

ND

(0.00813)

0.0207

0.0

478

1011KWAJ009

SB04003-10 SB04 0 - 3

ND

(0.00884)

ND (0.00884

)

ND (0.00884

)

ND (0.008

84)

ND (0.0088

4)

ND (0.00884

)

ND (0.00884

)

ND

(0.0186)

ND (0.00884

)

ND (0.00884

)

ND (0.00884

)

ND (0.00884

)

ND (0.008

84)

ND (0.00884

)

ND (0.00884

)

ND (0.008

84)

ND

(0.0

0884)

1011KWAJ009

SB05003-10 SB05 0 - 3

ND

(0.00897)

ND

(0.00897)

ND

(0.00897)

ND

(0.00897)

0.0041

1 J 0.00336 J 0.00598 J

ND

(0.0188) 0.00224 J 0.00374 J

ND

(0.00897)

0.00561 J

ND

(0.00897)

ND

(0.00897)

ND

(0.00897)

ND

(0.00897)

0.0

044

9

J

1011KWAJ009SB06003-10

SB06 0 - 3 ND

(0.00835)

ND

(0.00835

)

ND

(0.00835

)

ND

(0.008

35)

ND

(0.0083

5)

ND

(0.00835

)

ND

(0.00835

)

ND (0.0175)

ND

(0.00835

)

0.00174 J

ND

(0.00835

)

0.00209 J

ND

(0.008

35)

ND

(0.00835

)

ND

(0.00835

)

ND

(0.008

35)

0.0

017

4

J

1011KWAJ009

SB07003-10 SB07 0 - 3

ND

(0.00914)

ND (0.00914

)

ND (0.00914

)

ND (0.009

14)

ND (0.0091

4)

ND (0.00914

)

ND (0.00914

)

ND

(0.0192)

ND (0.00914

)

ND (0.00914

)

ND (0.00914

)

ND (0.00914

)

ND (0.009

14)

ND (0.00914

)

ND (0.00914

)

ND (0.009

14)

ND

(0.0

0914)

1011KWAJ009SB09003-10

SB09 0 - 3 ND

(0.0087) 0.00145 J

ND (0.0087)

ND

(0.0087)

0.0065

3 J 0.00435 J 0.0102

ND

(0.0183) 0.00399 J 0.00725 J

ND (0.0087)

0.0102

ND

(0.0087)

ND

(0.0087) ND

(0.0087)

ND

(0.0087)

0.0

083

4

J

1011KWAJ009

SB10003-10 SB10 0 - 3

ND

(0.00884)

ND (0.00884

)

ND (0.00884

)

ND (0.008

84)

ND (0.0088

4)

ND (0.00884

)

ND (0.00884

)

ND

(0.0186)

ND (0.00884

)

ND (0.00884

)

ND (0.00884

)

ND (0.00884

)

ND (0.008

84)

ND (0.00884

)

ND (0.00884

)

ND (0.008

84)

ND

(0.0

0884)

1011KWAJ009SB11003-10

SB11 0 - 3 ND

(0.00965)

ND

(0.00965

)

ND

(0.00965

)

ND

(0.009

65)

ND

(0.0096

5)

ND

(0.00965

)

ND

(0.00965

)

ND (0.0203)

ND

(0.00965

)

ND

(0.00965

)

ND

(0.00965

)

ND

(0.00965

)

ND

(0.009

65)

ND

(0.00965

)

ND

(0.00965

)

ND

(0.009

65)

ND

(0.0096

5)

1011KWAJ009

SB12003-10 SB12 0 - 3

ND

(0.00888)

ND

(0.00888)

ND

(0.00888)

ND

(0.00888)

0.0096

2 0.0118

0.0189

0.00851 J 0.00703 J 0.0107

ND

(0.00888)

0.0196

ND

(0.00888)

0.00666 J

ND

(0.00888)

0.0051

8 J

0.0

159

1011KWAJ009SB14003-10

SB14 0 - 3 ND

(0.00921)

ND

(0.00921

)

ND

(0.00921

)

ND

(0.009

21)

ND

(0.0092

1)

ND

(0.00921

)

ND

(0.00921

)

ND (0.0193)

ND

(0.00921

)

ND

(0.00921

)

ND

(0.00921

)

ND

(0.00921

)

ND

(0.009

21)

ND

(0.00921

)

ND

(0.00921

)

ND

(0.009

21)

ND

(0.0092

1)

1011KWAJ009SB16003-10

SB16 0 - 3 ND

(0.00849)

ND

(0.00849

)

ND

(0.00849

)

ND

(0.008

49)

ND

(0.0084

9)

ND

(0.00849

)

ND

(0.00849

)

ND (0.0178)

ND

(0.00849

)

ND

(0.00849

)

ND

(0.00849

)

ND

(0.00849

)

ND

(0.008

49)

ND

(0.00849

)

ND

(0.00849

)

ND

(0.008

49)

ND

(0.0084

9)

1011KWAJ009

SB17003-10 SB17 0 - 3

ND

(0.00888)

ND (0.00888

)

ND (0.00888

)

ND (0.008

88)

0.024 J 0.0203 J 0.0285 J 0.0166 J 0.0122 J 0.02 J ND

(0.00888

)

0.0363 J ND

(0.008

88)

0.0137 J ND

(0.00888

)

0.0018

5 J

0.0

285 J

1011KWAJ009

SB17003-11 SB17 0 - 3

ND

(0.00923)

ND

(0.00923)

ND

(0.00923)

ND

(0.00923)

0.0019

6

U

J 0.00323

U

J 0.00392

U

J 0.00819

U

J 0.00158

U

J 0.00173

U

J

ND

(0.00923)

0.00162 UJ

ND

(0.00923)

0.00669

U

J

ND

(0.00923)

0.0015 UJ

0.0

0162

UJ

1011KWAJ009

SB18003-10 SB18 0 - 3

ND

(0.00896)

ND

(0.00896

)

ND

(0.00896

)

ND

(0.008

96)

ND

(0.0089

6)

ND

(0.00896

)

ND

(0.00896

)

ND

(0.0188)

ND

(0.00896

)

ND

(0.00896

)

ND

(0.00896

)

ND

(0.00896

)

ND

(0.008

96)

ND

(0.00896

)

ND

(0.00896

)

ND

(0.008

96)

ND

(0.0

089

6)

1011KWAJ009

SB19003-10 SB19 0 - 3

ND

(0.00906)

ND

(0.00906)

ND

(0.00906)

ND

(0.00906)

ND

(0.00906)

ND

(0.00906)

ND

(0.00906)

ND

(0.019)

ND

(0.00906)

ND

(0.00906)

ND

(0.00906)

ND

(0.00906)

ND

(0.00906)

ND

(0.00906)

ND

(0.00906)

ND

(0.00906)

ND (0.0

090

6)

1011KWAJ009

SB20003-10 SB20 0 - 3

ND

(0.0088) 0.00183 J

ND

(0.0088) 0.001

47 J

0.0080

7 J 0.0055 J 0.0099

ND

(0.0185) 0.00367 J 0.00843 J

ND

(0.0088) 0.0249

0.0018

3 J

ND

(0.0088) 0.0011 J 0.0282

0.0

165

1011KWAJ009SB21003-10

SB21 0 - 3 ND

(0.0092) 0.00115 J 0.00115 J

0.016

9 0.318

0.38

0.866

0.18

0.22

0.391

0.0445

0.529

0.0015

3 J 0.162

ND

(0.0092) 0.0778

0.4

02

Draft Gagan Power Plant Site Investigation Report Sivuniq, Inc.


Analyte

2-Methyl-

naphthalene Acenaphthene Acenaphthylene Anthracene

Benzo (a)

anthracene

Benzo (a)

pyrene

Benzo (b)

fluoranthene

Benzo (g,h,i)

perylene

Benzo (k)

fluoranthene Chrysene

Dibenzo

(a,h)

anthracene

Fluoranthene Fluorene Indeno (1,2,3-

cd) pyrene Naphthalene Phenanthrene Pyrene

Sample ID SB

Depth

(feet

bgs)

Analytical Results

1011KWAJ009

SB22003-10 SB22 0 - 3

ND

(0.00904)

ND (0.00904

)

ND (0.00904

)

ND (0.009

04)

ND (0.0090

4)

ND (0.00904

)

ND (0.00904

)

ND

(0.019) 0.00904 U

ND (0.00904

)

ND (0.00904

)

ND (0.00904

)

ND (0.009

04)

ND (0.00904

)

ND (0.00904

)

ND (0.009

04)

ND (0.0

0904)

1011KWAJ009SB23003-10

SB23 0 - 3 ND

(0.009) ND

(0.009) 0.00112 J

0.023

6 J 0.37 J 0.358 J 0.825 J 0.184 J 0.273 J 0.406 J 0.0495 J 0.686 J

ND (0.009)

0.171 J ND

(0.009) 0.128 J

0.5

47 J

1011KWAJ009

SB23003-11 SB23 0 - 3

ND

(0.00862)

ND (0.00862

)

0.000724 UJ 0.006

82 J 0.104 J 0.11 J 0.223 J 0.0585 J 0.0707 J 0.128 J 0.0154 J 0.29 J

ND (0.008

62)

0.0531 J ND

(0.00862

)

0.0442 J 0.1

82 J

1011KWAJ009

SB24003-10 SB24 0 - 3

ND

(0.00911)

ND (0.00911

)

ND (0.00911

)

ND (0.009

11)

0.0125

0.0106

0.0178

0.00873 J 0.00911 U 0.0106

ND (0.00911

)

0.0224

ND (0.009

11)

0.00873 J ND

(0.00911

)

0.0041

8 J

0.0

167

1011KWAJ009SB25003-10

SB25 0 - 3 ND

(0.00903)

ND

(0.00903

)

ND

(0.00903

)

ND

(0.009

03)

ND

(0.0090

3)

ND

(0.00903

)

ND

(0.00903

)

ND (0.019)

0.00903 U

ND

(0.00903

)

ND

(0.00903

)

ND

(0.00903

)

ND

(0.009

03)

ND

(0.00903

)

ND

(0.00903

)

ND

(0.009

03)

ND

(0.0090

3)

1011KWAJ009

SB26003-10 SB26 0 - 3

ND

(0.00854) 0.000985

U

J

ND (0.00854

)

0.016 J 0.268 J 0.248 J 0.524 J 0.122 J 0.144 J 0.313 J 0.0338 J 0.551 J 0.0010

7 J 0.115 J

ND (0.00854

)

0.0861

0.4

25 J

1011KWAJ009

SB26003-11 SB26 0 - 3

ND

(0.00902) 0.0015 J

ND (0.00902

)

0.008

27 J 0.111 J 0.12 J 0.188 J 0.0624 J 0.0703 J 0.136 J 0.0173 J 0.265 J

0.0011

3 J 0.0575 J

ND (0.00902

)

0.0538

0.1

96 J

1011KWAJ009SB27003-10

SB27 0 - 3 ND

(0.00895)

ND

(0.00895

)

ND

(0.00895

)

ND

(0.008

95)

ND

(0.0089

5)

ND

(0.00895

)

ND

(0.00895

)

ND (0.0188)

0.00895 U

ND

(0.00895

)

ND

(0.00895

)

ND

(0.00895

)

ND

(0.008

95)

ND

(0.00895

)

ND

(0.00895

)

ND

(0.008

95)

ND

(0.0089

5)

1011KWAJ009

SB28003-10 SB28 0 - 3

ND

(0.00895)

ND (0.00895

)

ND (0.00895

)

ND (0.008

95)

ND (0.0089

5)

ND (0.00895

)

ND (0.00895

)

ND

(0.0188)

ND (0.00895

)

ND (0.00895

)

ND (0.00895

)

0.00186 J ND

(0.008

95)

ND (0.00895

)

ND (0.00895

)

ND (0.008

95)

0.0

018

6

J

Notes, Acronyms and Abbreviations:

Bolded values are positive detections

Non-detects are reported at the limit in the parenthesis

J Reported concentration is an estimated value

U Reported as a nondetect at the indicated limit due to qualification

UJ Reported as a nondetect, and the indicated limit is an estimated value

Q qualifier

SB soil boring (i.e., “SB06” = soil boring 06)



5.3 NATURE AND EXTENT OF CONTAMINATION

Table 5-4 presents the frequency and range of positive detections, average of positive results, the

95% upper confidence limit on the mean of all data (UCL95), and screening criteria for the

detected contaminants at the Gagan Power Plant Fuel Spill site. Figure 3-2 shows the locations

of the soil confirmation sample collected across the site.

Table 5-4 Frequency and Range of Detected Contaminants

Compound Frequency Range of positive

detections (mg/kg)

Average of

positive

detections

(mg/kg)

UCL95

(mg/kg)

Screening

Criteria

(mg/kg)

2-Methylnaphthalene 1 / 25 0.0028 0.003 NC 4,1001

Acenaphthene 6 / 25 0.00102 - 0.00734 0.002 0.004 3,7001

Acenaphthylene 3 / 25 0.00105 - 0.00115 0.0017 0.001 132

Anthracene 6 / 25 0.00147 - 0.0236 0.013 0.007 100,0001

Benzo (a) anthracene 12 / 25 0.00319 - 0.37 0.088 0.082 2.11

Benzo (a) pyrene 11 / 25 0.00315 - 0.38 0.098 0.084 0.211

Benzo (b) fluoranthene 12 / 25 0.0046 - 0.866 0.199 0.185 2.11

Benzo (g,h,i) perylene 7 / 25 0.00851 - 0.184 0.077 0.049 272

Benzo (k) fluoranthene 11 / 25 0.00212 - 0.273 0.064 0.055 211

Chrysene 13 / 25 0.00174 - 0.406 0.094 0.094 2101

Dibenzo (a,h) anthracene 3 / 25 0.0338 - 0.0495 0.043 0.036 0.211

Fluoranthene 14 / 25 0.00186 - 0.686 0.142 0.149 22,0001

Fluorene 4 / 25 0.00107 - 0.0294 0.008 0.005 26,0001

Indeno (1,2,3-cd) pyrene 7 / 25 0.00666 - 0.171 0.070 0.042 2.11

Naphthalene 2 / 25 0.00105 - 0.0011 0.001 0.001 1901

Phenanthrene 10 / 25 0.00142 - 0.128 0.038 0.028 113

Pyrene 14 / 25 0.00174 - 0.547 0.111 0.116 562

DRO 25 / 25 0.91 - 407 38.8 68.2 5002

Notes: 1 Screening levels obtained from EPA Regional Screening Levels Table (EPA, 2009)

2 Screening levels obtained from Guam EPA ESL Guidance, with nondrinking water source and shallow contamination (GEPA, 2009)

Bold analytes are contaminants of potential concern Compounds in shaded cells retained as chemicals of potential concern for future risk assessment and data evaluation

Diesel fuel was identified as the primary site contaminant from the 2006 release and was

detected at all sampling locations as diesel-range organics (DRO), but no results exceed the

residential and industrial screening thresholds established by the Guam EPA. The highest DRO

concentration was detected at soil borings SB-01 (immediately southeast of Facility Number

7510).



PAH compounds were detected in approximately half of the soil sampling locations and have

general association with the DRO detections. GRO and BTEX constituents were not detected in

any samples.

Benzo(a)pyrene results from soil borings on the southwest side of the former landfarm treatment

area (SB21, SB23, and SB26) comprise the only detections that exceed the EPA Regional

Screening Levels. A relatively high DRO detection at SB-23 (on the southwest side of the

former landfarm) at a concentration of 119 mg/kg, but does not exceed screening levels. The

lateral extent of this contamination area is completely bounded by compliant borings within 25

feet of these locations on all sides. The vertical extent of this contamination is not defined, as

each of these samples only characterize the 3’ bgs soil horizon.

The DRO result for SB-01 (407 mg/kg) is highest diesel detection at this site, and happens to be

located on the edge of the 2006 spill excavation at Facility Number 7510. The remaining sample

locations in this immediate area lie generally to the southwest of SB01 and confirm the extent of

the surface release and demonstrate no screening level exceedence.

The nature of the detected contamination is primarily diesel, with trace amounts of associated

PAH compounds. The PAHs, though not uncommon constituents in diesel fuel, are more closely

associated with tars, asphalts, and higher molecular weight petroleum products. They are also

common combustion by-products, as soot emissions from large diesel engines like those

providing electricity generation at Facility Number 7510. The association of DRO detections

with PAH compounds at the spill site and landfarm areas suggests PAHs were deposited on the

ground around Facility Number 7510 as soot from the generator engines and contained within

the excavated soils during the 2006 response action.

Results sufficiently delineate horizontal extent of impacts on all sides, with the possible

exception of the area immediately northeast at SB-01. All soil samples come from the 3’ bgs soil

horizon and cannot verify the vertical extent of contamination for the selected contaminants of

potential concern.



The vertical extent of contamination requires definition in the area of the PAH contamination

(SB21, SB23, and SB26). Additional confirmation of the vertical extent of contamination is

warranted.

5.4 DATA EVALUATION

5.4.1 Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs)

The UES provides a regulatory framework for restoration activities at this site. Section 3-6.5.8 of

the UES classifies the SI as a Phase III activity and prescribes results screening against the US

EPA Regional Screening Levels (RSLs). The Guam EPA (GEPA) Environmental Screening

Levels (ESLs) for TPH fractions are used since no RSLs are published for petroleum products.

Results exceeding the screening criteria identify contaminants of potential concern in the site

soils. Since benzo(a)pyrene results exceed the screening threshold, it is identified as a

contaminant of potential concern and retained for additional data evaluation, including risk

assessment for receptors identified in the conceptual site model.

Other detected contaminants may act as secondary contributors to overall risk, so other

contaminants with maximum detections that exceed 10% of respective screening levels are also

identified as contaminants of potential concern in the Gagan Power Plant Spill Site soils.

5.4.2 Summary of Findings

Based on soil analytical results from 25 sample locations across the Gagan Power Plant Spill

Site, the following contaminants of potential concern are identified for further data evaluation

and risk assessment:

DRO

Benzo(a)pyrene

Benzo(a)anthracene

Benzo(b)fluoranthene

Dibenzo (a,h) anthracene



6.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

6.1 SUMMARY

An estimated five thousand gallons of No. 2 diesel fuel was released directly from the generator

building (Facility Number 7510) to the ground, following rupture of pressure gauge piping.

Contaminated soil was visually identified and removed. A 2007 report prepared by KRS

describes these excavation activities, which supposedly removed the bulk of diesel-impacted soil

in the proximity of the generator building. The soil was placed in berms lined with plastic

sheeting to facilitate natural degradation of the petroleum products. Post-excavation sampling

revealed residual contaminants in the soils surrounding the building.

Sivuniq performed a SI to evaluate the nature and extent of contamination in the vicinity of the

generator building and the former landfarm. The investigation, which included a soil gas survey

and soil sampling, confirmed low levels of residual POL in the proximity of the generator

building. Although it is evident from soil sampling that residual POL remains in the soil,

contaminant levels generally fall below published screening criteria. Screening and confirmation

soil sampling in the investigation area effectively delineate the extent of impact. DRO, benzo (a)

pyrene, benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, and dibenzo (a,h) anthracene were identified

as COPCs. Localized detections of benzo (a) pyrene exceeded screening criteria in three

samples.

The conceptual site model identified current transient site workers and future residents as a

potentially affected receptor groups.

6.2 CONCLUSIONS

Site investigation activities in the vicinity of the generator building on Gagan revealed residual

POL in soils. Exceedances for benzo(a)pyrene were identified to exceed screening levels in

multiple samples; but only one depth interval was sampled in soil and the vertical extent of

contamination has not been completely defined. Other low-level detections indicate that the

removal action and subsequent landfarming activity was generally successful, and that the

horizontal extent of contamination has been reasonably defined.



6.3 FUTURE WORK

Data gaps were identified during the SI, which included deficiencies in determining the extent of

contamination in soil. Since 3-6.5.8(k) of the UES indicates that an SI may be performed in

phases, supplemental data will be collected to fill these data gaps.

Future work should include additional soil sampling, and potentially groundwater sampling, on

Gagan Island. Soil samples were collected at a maximum depth of 3 feet bgs at this site; field

screening indicated that samples were clean, however laboratory analysis showed detections of

DRO and a number of PAHs associated with diesel fuel.

Approximately 10 borings will be advanced in the known area of impact; confirmation samples

shall be collected to confirm maximum depth of impact. Soil borings shall be advanced to a

depth of 8 feet bgs, or refusal.

To delineate the extent of impacts to the southeast of FN7510 (generator building) additional soil

borings shall be advanced, and soil samples collected every foot, beginning at 3 feet bgs.

Samples will be field screened, and appropriate intervals shall be selected for laboratory analysis

for DRO and PAHs.

Additionally, a total of 10 surface soil samples will be collected and analyzed for DRO and

PAHs, to support evaluation of the residential exposure scenario. If groundwater is encountered

at borings inside the SB01 and/or SB21/SB23/SB26 areas of concern, piezometers will be

installed and sampled for DRO and PAHs to assess potential groundwater impacts for the

identified contaminants of potential concern.

After this supplemental data is collected, data evaluation and a risk assessment will be performed

in accordance with Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund (and supplemental guidance) for

the identified complete/significant exposure scenarios outlined in the CSM. Results will be

delivered as a separate document from this SI pursuant to UES 3-6.5.8(l). The Data Evaluation

Report will include the data presented in this SI in addition to the supplemental data.

Decisions regarding potential removal and remedial actions will utilize current data to perform a

partial risk assessment, along with knowledge of the source of contamination and effected



receptors based on the CSM. Once supplemental data is collected and analyzed in the formal

data evaluation and risk assessment, assumptions used as part of the decision-making process

will be refined to conform to the actual exposure scenarios and hazard analysis. A separate

Removal Action Memorandum/Feasibility Study will be developed as necessary to discuss and

evaluate these potential removal and remedial strategies upon completion of the data evaluation,

pursuant to 3-6.5.8(g) and (n).



7.0 REFERENCES

Global Associates (Global, 1980). Groundwater Resources of Kwajalein Island, Marshall

Islands; Technical Report No. 126; University of Hawaii at Manoa. January 1980.

Guam Environmental Protection Agency (GEPA, 2008). Evaluation of Environmental Hazards

at Sites with Contaminated Soil and Groundwater. Title 22, Division 2 (Water Control),

Chapter 5. October 2008.

Kwajalein Range Services (KRS, 2007). Gagan Remediation Progress. 2007.

Sivuniq, Inc. (Sivuniq, 2010). Final 2010 Work Plan, Investigation of Nine Sites at the U.S.

Army Kwajalein Atoll/Reagan Test Site (USAKA/RTS), Republic of Marshall Islands.

October 2010.

U.S. Army Environmental Center (USAEC, 2002). Federal Remediation Technologies

Roundtable Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide. Version

4.0. http://www.frtr.gov/matrix2/. January 2002.

U.S. Army Environmental Hygiene Agency (USAEHA, 1991). Soil and Groundwater

Contamination Study No. 38-26-K144-91 Kwajalein Atoll. October 1990 – August 1991.

U.S. Army Kwajalein Atoll (USAKA, 2009). Environmental Standards and Procedures for

United States Army Kwajalein Atoll (USAKA) Activities in the Republic of the Marshall

Islands. Eleventh Edition, September 2009.

U.S. EPA (U.S. EPA, 1997), Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables (HEAST). U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., 1997.

U.S. EPA Regions 3, 6, and 9 (U.S. EPA, 2010). Regional Screening Levels for Chemical

Contaminants at Superfund Sites. http://www.epa.gov/reg3hwmd/risk/human/rb-

concentration_table/index.htm. May 23, 2011.

draft gagan power plant site investigation...

Documents