Atlanta, Georgia 30329 - DTIC

INSTALLATION RESTORATION PROGRAMPHASE I -RECORDS SEARCH

O'HARE AIR RESERVE FORCES FACILITY,ILLINOIS

Prepared For

UNITED STATES AIR FORCEHEADQUARTERS

AIR FORCE RESERVERobins Air Force Base, Georgia

December 1983

P_' k: it

LAJ Prepared By

L-

ENGINEER ING-SCIENCEC 57 Executive Park South, Suite 590

Atlanta, Georgia 30329 0 1 5

NOTICE

This report has been prepared for the United States AirForce by Engineering-Science for the purpose of aiding inthe Air Force Installation Restoration Program. It is notan endorsement of any product. The views expressedherein are those of the contractor and do not necessarilyreflect the official views of the publishing agency, the UnitedStates Air Force, nor the Department of Defense.

Copies of the report may be purchased from:

National Technical Information Service5285 Port Royal RoadSpringfield, Virginia 22161

Federal Government agencies and their contractorsregistered with Defense Technical Information Centershould direct requests for copies of this report to:

Defense Technical Information CenterCameron StationAlexandria, Virginia 22314

!'

I

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF FIGURES iii

LIST OF TABLES iv

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1

SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION 1-1

Background 1-1

Purpose and Scope of the Assessment 1-2

Methodology 1-3

SECTION 2 INSTALLATION DESCRIPTION 2-1

Location, Size and Boundaries 2-1

Installation History 2-1

Organization and Mission 2-5

SECTION 3 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 3-1

eteorology 3-1

Geography 3-3

Topography and Drainage 3-3

Geology 3-6

Stra tigraphy 3-6

Structure 3-11

Hydrology 3-11

Subsurface Hydrology 3-11

Surface Hydrology 3-12

Water Use 3-14

Water Quality 3-14

Biotic Environment 3-17

Summary of Environmental Setting 3-17

SUCTION 4 FINDINGS 4-1

Past Shop and Installation Activity Review 4-1

industrial Operations (Shops) 4-2

Fire Protection Training 4-7

Pesticide Utilization 4-7

Waste Storage Areas 4-9

Fuels Management 4-9Spills and Leaks 4-11

£

TABLE OF CONTENTS(Continued)

SECTION 4 Description of Past On-Installation Disposal 4-1 3(Continued) Methods

Landfills 4-13

Hardfi 11 4-16Storm Drainage System 4-16Sanitary Sewer System 4-17Low-level Radiation Disposal Site 4-17

Evaluation of Past Disposal Activities and 4-17

SECTION 5 CONCLUSIONS 5-1

SECTION 6 RECOMMENDATIONS 6-1

APPENDIX A BIOGRAPHICAL DATA

APPENDIX B LIST OF INTERVIEWEES

APPENDIX C ORGANIZATIONS AND MISSIONS

APPENDIX D POL TANK INFORNATION

APPIDIX B MASTER LIST OF INDUSTRIAL SHOPS

APPENDIX F PHOTOGRAPHS

APPUIDIX G HAZARD ASSESSNRlT RATING METHODOLOGY

APPENDIX H HAZARD ASSESSMENT RATING FORMS

APPENDIX I REFERENCES

APPIDIX J GLOSSARY OF TERMINOLOGY AND ABBREVIATIONS

APPUIDIX K INDEX

I

LIST OF FIGURES

NUMBER TITLE PAGE NO.

1 Sites of Potential Environmental Contamination 4

I.I Phase I Installation Restoration Program Deision Tree 1-5

2.1 Regional Location Map 2-2

2.2 Area Location Map 2-3

2.3 Installation Site Plan 2-4

3.1 Generalized Drainage 3-4

3.2 Storm Drainage and Water Quality Monitoring Sites 3-5

3.3 Locations for Geologic Data 3-8

3.4 Generalized Geologic Cross-Sections 3-9

3.5 Area Inundated by the 100-Year Flood Plain 3-13

3.6 Well Locations 3-15

4.1 Fire Protection Training Areas 4-8

4.2 Hazardous Waste Drum Accumulation and Storage Sites 4-10

4.3 POL Spills and Leaks 4-12

4.4 Spills 4-14

4.5 Landfills and ardfills 4-15

4.6 Low-Level Radioactive Tube Disposal Area 4-18

/1

lii

LIST OF TABLES


1 Priority Ranking of Potential Contamination Sources 5

2 Recommended Monitoring Program for Phase II 7

3.1 Summary of Meteorological Data 3-2

3.2 Generalized Stratigraphy 3-7

3.3 Summary of Selected Soil Borings 3-10

3.4 Summary of Selected Chemical Analyses for Surface Waters 3-16

3.5 Summary of Selected Chemical Analyses for Water from the 3-18Shallow Dolomite Aquifer

4.1 Industrial Operations (Shops) 4-3

4.2 Summary of Decision Tree Logic for Areas of Initial 4-19Environmental Concern at O'Hare ARFF

4.3 Summary of HARM Scores for Potential Contamination 4-21Sources

5.1 Priority Ranking of Potential Contamination Sources 5-2

6.1 General Guidelines for Use of Geophysical Techniques 6-3

6.2 Recommended Monitoring Program for Phase II 6-4

iy

EXECUTIVE SUH1ARY

The Department of Defense (DOD) has developed a program to identify

and evaluate past hazardous material disposal sites on DOD property, to

control the migration of hazardous contaminants, and to control hazards

to health or welfare that may result from these past disposal opera-

tions. This program is called the Installation Restoration Program

(IRP). The IRP has four phases consisting of Phase 1, Initial Assess-

ment/Records Search; Phase II, Confirmation and Quantification; Phase

III, Technology Base Develoymentl and Phase IV, OFerations/Remedial

Actions. Engineering-Science (ES) was retained by --!e United States Air

Fore1 to conduct the Phase 1, Initial Arsessment/Records Search for

O'are Air Reserve Forces Facility (hAFF) under Contract No. F08637-80-

R0009.

INSTALLATION DESCRIPTIOE

7The O'Hare Air Reserve Forces Facility complex at O'Hare Inter-

national Airport is located in the Chicago metropolitan area in north-

eastern Illinois. The airport is located northwest of downtown Chicago

at the boundary of Cook County and DuPage County. All of the property

around the airport and Air Force installation is urbanized and used for

residential, comercial and/or industrial purposes .The military 7

portion of O'Hare Airport is composed of approximately 400 acres of land

in the northwest corner of the airport.

Initially called Orchard Place Airport, the site was activated in

October of 1942, when the government acquired a number of tracts of farm

land. The War Assets Corporation erected buildings on this land and

leased it in June, 1943, to Douglas Aircraft Company as an assembly

plant for the C-54 cargo aircraft. The plant was closed in the fall of

1945.

In 1946, the site was reactivated as a military installation when

the 803rd Army Air Force Reserve Specialized Depot assumed control of

the site. In 1949, the military portion was redesignated USAF O'Hare

Field, Chicago International Airport. In 1970 the Lockheed C-130A

"Hercules" arrived. The 928th Tactical Airlift Group is still the

installation's host unit.

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

The environmental setting data reviewed for this investLgation

identified the following major points that are relevant to O'Hare ARFF.

o Net precipitation at the installation is 4.2 inches which in-

dicates that there is some potential for leachate generation at

hazardous waste sites and movement of contaminants in ground

water. Rainfall intensity at the installation indicates that

there is only a slight potential for erosion and transport of

surface contamination from hazardous waste sites. The one-year,

24 hour rainfall event used to gauge erosion and runoff po-

tential was 2.4 inches.

o The permeability of the surficial unconsolidated deposits at the

installation is on the order of 10- 7 cm/sec which does not allow

for rapid infiltration of water.

o Four aquifer systems exist at the installation. These aquifer

systems are in descending order, the glacial drift aquifer, the

shallow dolomits aquifer, the Cabrian-Ordovician aquifer system

and the Mt. Simon aquifer.

o The upper glacial drift and shallow dolomite aquifers at the

installation are hydraulically connected and are separated from

the underlying Cambrian-Ordovician and Mt. Simon aquifers by the

relatively impermeable Makoqueta Shale.

o Numerous wells are located in the vicinity of the installation.

Industrial and municipal wells near the installation generally

withdraw water from the Cambrian-Ordovician aquifer system. One

residential well and one test well identified from the available

data withdraw water from the shallow dolomite aquifer. This

water is high in dissolved solids and iron.

o Contamination of ground water may potentially occur at subsur-

face waste disposal sites on the installation. The glacial

-2-

LA

deposits are at least periodically saturated at depths as

shallow as 5 feet below land surface.

o Surface runoff from the installation generally does not meet

IEPA stream water quality standards, but is comparable to the

water quality upstream in Willow Creek. This poor water quality

is typical of highly urbanized areas.

o Portions of the north end of the installation are within the

100-year flood plan.

o No threatened or endangered plant or animal species inhabit the

installation property.

METHODOLOGY

During the course of this project, interviews were conducted with

installation personnel (past and present) familiar with past waste

disposal practices; file searches were performed for past hazardous

waste activities, interviews were held with local, state and federal

agencies; and field and aerial surveys were conducted at suspected pasthazardous waste activity sites. Eleven sites located within O'Hare ARFF

boundaries were identified as potentially containing hazardous contami-

nants and having the potential for migration resulting from past acti-

vities (Figure I). These sites have been assessed using a Hazard

Assessment Rating Methodology (HARM) which takes into account factors

such as site characteristics, waste characteristics, potential for

contaminant migration and waste management practices. The details of

the rating procedure are presented in Appendix G and the results of the

assessment are given in Table 1. The rating system is designed to

indicate the relative need for follow-on investigation.

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

The following conclusions have been developed installationd on the

results of the project team's field inspection, review of installationrecords and files, and interviews with installation personnel.

L Nine areas were determined to have a sufficient potential for

environmental contamination to warrant further investigaton. They are

as follows:

-3-

FIGUJRE I

O'HARE ARF

SITES OF POTENTIALENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINATION

LANDFILLNO. 1 5 EEV E

Crome Rd. MAINTENANCE

C,--

(290 TANK SPILL Qemko

V 2 0

:r, DEFUELING

00 z100001M ~ ~ ~ 0 ARP ISL0AIO OUET CAE FE

4 cESNEm-cic

-321

TABLE I

PRIORITY RANKING OF POTENTIAL CONTAMINATION SOURCES

Rank Site Name Dates of Operation OverallOr Occurrence HARM Score

1- Landfill No. I 1953-1960's 68

2 JP-4 Tank, West POL Area January 1972 65

3 Fuel-Contaminated Soil, 1977 64

4 -befueling Pit Leak Site-, Late 1960's 63

5 Fire Protection Training Facility) 1955-early 1960's 60

6 Hazardous Waste Storage Area- 1981-Present 58

7 Landfill No. 2", 1965-early 1970's 55

8 Storm Drainage System,, 1942-Present 53

9 South Edge of Concrete Apron ) Prior to 1970 52

10 Vehicle Maintenance Facility, Rear- ior to 1977 49

11 Low Level Radioactive Disposal Site Prior to 1970 44

o Landfill No. 1

o JP-4 Spill Site

o Defueling Pit Leak

o Fuel-Contaminated Soil

o Fire Protection Training Area

o Hazardous Waste Storage Area

o Landfill No. 2

o Storm Drainage System

o South Edge of Main Apron

The areas determined to have an insufficient potential for environ-

mental contamination to warrant further investigation are as follows:

o Vehicle Maintenance Facility

o Low Level Radioactive Disposal Site

RECOMMENDATIONS

The recommendations developed for further assessment of environ-

mental concern areas at O'Hare ARFF are presented below.

Landfill No. 1

Conduct geophysical survey to define the landfill boundaries and

depth and identify any leachate plume. Based on the results of the

geophysical survey, install one upgradient and 3 down gradient mon-

toring wells. Wells should be constructed using 3" Schedule 40 PVC,

screened into the first sand and gravel lens (20' to 30' deep). Sample

these wells and analyze for pH, total dissolved solids, total organic

halogens, total organic carbon and phenol.

JP-4 Tank Dike Spill

Conduct geophysical survey around the tank farm to identify any

JP-4 plume. Conduct a continuous core sampling in the dike area ex-

tended to the first sand and gravel lens. Observe if any JP-4 is

present. Perform a water extract on 3 soil samples and analyze for oil

and grease and total organic halogen.

Fuel-Contaminated Soil

Conduct geophysical survey around the site to identify any JP-4

plume. Conduct a continuous core sampling near the site extended to the

-6-

first sand and gravel lens (20'-30' deep). Observe if any JP-4 is pre-

sent. Perform a water extract on 3 soils samples and analyze for oil

and grease, and total organic carbon.

Defueling Pit Leak Site



first sand and gravel lens (20'-301 deep). Observe if any JP-4 is



Fire Protection Training Area

Conduct geophysical survey around the site to identify any leachate

plume.

Hazardous Waste Storage Area

Conduct a continuous core sampling in the center of the site ex-

tended to the first sand and gravel lens (20'-30' deep). Observe if

contamination present. Perform a water extract of 3 selected soil

samples (in contaminated zones if present) and perform analyses for pH,

total organic halogen and total organic carbon.

Landfill No. 2


depth and identify any leachate plume. Based on the results of the geo-

physical survey, install one upgradient and two downgradient monitoring

wells. Wells should be constructed of 3" Schedule 40 PVC, screened into

the first sand and gravel lens (20'-30' deep). Sample these wells and

analyze for pH, total organic carbon, total organic halogen, total

dissolved solids and phenols.

Storm Drainage System Near Hangars

Conduct continuous core sample at the nearest wooden pipe section

and at the nearest outfall extended to the first sand and gravel lens.

Observe if contamination is present. Perform a water extraction of 3

samples and analyze for total organic halogen, total organic carbon and

pR.

Svills along South Edge of Main Apron

Conduct a continuous core sampling at the edge of the apron ex-

tended to the first sand and gravel lens (20'-30' deep). Observe if any

contamination present. Perform a water extract on 3 selected soil

t -7-

samples (in contaminated zones if present) and perform analyses for p1,


-8-

SECTION 1

INTRODUCTION

BACKGROUND

The United States Air Force, due to its primary mission, has long

been engaged in a wide variety of operations dealing with toxic and

hazardous materials. Federal, state, and local governments have devel-

oped strict regulations to require that disposers identify the locations

and contents of past disposal sites and take action to eliminate hazards

in an environmentally responsible manner. The primary Federal legisla-

tion governing"disposal of hazardous waste is the Resource Conservation

and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976, as amended. Under Section 6003 of the

Act, Federal agencies are directed to assist the Environmental Protec-

tion Agency (EPA) and under Section 3012, state agencies are required to

inventory past disposal sites and make the information available to the

requesting agencies. To assure compliance with these hazardous waste

regulations, the Department of Defense (DOD) developed the Installation

Restoration Trogram (IRP). The current DOD IRP policy is contained in

Defense Environmental Quality Program Policy Memorandum (DEQPPM) 81-5,

dated 11 December 1981 and implemented by Air Force message dated 21

January 1982. DEQPPM 81-5 reissued and amplified all previous direc-

tives and memoranda on the Installation Restoration Program. DOD policy

is to identify and fully evaluate suspected problems associated with

past hazardous contamination, and to control hazards to health and wel-

fare that resulted from these past operations. The IRP will be the

basis for response actions on Air Force installations under the provi-

sions of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and

Liabilty Act (C3RCLA) of 1980, and clarified by Executive Order 12316.

1-1

PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THE ASSESSMNT

The installation Restoration Program has been developed as a four-

phased program as follows:

Phase I - Initial Assessment/Records Search

Phase II - Confirmation and Quantification

Phase III - Technology installation Development

Phase IV - Operations/Remedial Actions

Engineering-Science (ES) was retained by the United States Air

Force to conduct the Phase I Records Search at O'Hare Air Reserve Forces

Facility (kPRFF), Contract No. F08637-80-R0009. This report contains a

summary and an evaluation of the information collected during Phase I of

the IRP and recommendations for follow on actions.

The goal of the first phase of the program was to identify the

potential for environmental conLamination from past waste lisposal

practices at O'Hare ARFF, and to assess the potential for contaminant

migration. The activities that were performed in the Phase I study

included the following:

- Review of knstallation records

- Interview of personnel familiar with past generation and dis-

posal activities

- Survey of wastes

- Determination of estimated quantities and locations of current

and past hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal

- Definition of the environmental setting at the installation

- Review of past disposal practices and methods

- Field inspection of installation facilities

- Collection of pertinent information from Federal, state and

local agencies

- Assessment of potential for contaminant migration

- Development of follow-on recommendations.

1-2

ES performed the on-site portion of the records search durAg

August 1983. The following team of professionals were involved:

- D. L. Gregory, Environmental Engineer and Project Manager, NSCE,

5 years of professional experience

- H. D. Harmon, Hydrogeologist, 9 years of professional experience

- R. 3. Reimer, Chemical Engineer, 4 years of professional experi-

ence

more detailed information on these three individuals is presented in

Appendix A.

METHODOLOGY

The methodology utilized in the O'Hare ARFF Records Search began

with a review of past and present industrial operations conducted at the

installation. Information was obtained from available records and

files, as well as interviews with past and present installation

employees from the various operating areas. Those interviewed included

- current and past personnel associated with Civil Engineering,

Consolidated Aircraft Maintenance, Base Supply, and the Base Clinic. A

listing of the installation interviewees by position and approximate

years of service is presented in Appendix B.

Concurrent with the installation interviews, the applicable

Federal, state and local agencies were contacted for pertinent instal-

lation-related environmental data. The agencies contacted and inter-

viewed are listed below and additional information is included in

Appendix B.

o U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region V

o U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Water Resources Division

o Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

o Illinois Department of Conservation

o Illinois Department of Energy and Natural Resources, State Water

Survey Division

o City of Chicago, Department of Aviation

1-3 fa]

The next step in the activity review was to determine the past

management practices regarding the use, storage, treatment, and disposal

of hazardous materials from the Air Force oixrations at the installa-

tion. Included in this part of the activities review was the identifi-

cation of all known past disposal sites and other possible sources of

contamination such as spill areas.

A general ground tour of the identified sites was then made by the

ES Project Team to gather site-specific information including: (1)

visual evidence of environmental s-ress; (2) the presence of nearby

drainage ditches or surface water bodies; and (3) visual inspection of

these water bodies for any obvious signs of contamination or leachate

migration.

A decision was then made, installationd on all of the above

information, whether a potential exists for hazardous material

contamination at any of the identified sites using the Decision Tree

shown in Figure 1.1. If no potential existed, the site was deleted from

further consideration. For those sites where a potential for

contamination was identified, a determination of the potential for

migration of the contamination was made by considering site-3pecific

conditions. If there were no further environmental concerns, then the

site was deleted. if the potential for contaminant migration was

considered significant, then the site was evaluated and prioritized

using the Hazard Assessment Rating Methodology

(HARM). A discussion of the HARM system is presented in Appendix G.

The sites that were evaluated using the HARM procedures were also re-

viewed with regard to future land use restrictions.

1-4

... ... ... .' i * .. . . ..

FIGURE 1. 1

PHASE I INSTALLATION RESTORATION PROGRAM

DECISION TREEComplete List of Locations/Sites

Evaluation of Past Operationsat Listed Sites

RCotmmenations

USAoenia Reieofrepr

1-5l Site uwesme-casc i

SECTION 2

INSTALLATION DESCRIPTION

LOCAT.ION, SIZE AND BOUNDARIES

O'Hare Air Reserve Forces Facility at O'Hare International Airport

is located in the Chicago metropolitan area in northeastern Illinois

(Figures 2.1 and 2.2). The airport is located northwest of downtown

Chicago at the boundary of Cook County and DuPage County. All of the

property around the airport and Air Force installation is urbanized and

used for residential, commercial and/or industrial purposes. The

military portion of O'Hare Airport is composed of approximately 400

acres of land in the northeast corner of the airport. The Air Forcealso leases a portion of the southeast taxiway. The Air Force has

retained the priority use of all runways. Figure 2.3 depicts the

configuration of the installation property.

INSTALLATION HISTORY



land. The War Assets Corporation erected buildings on this land to be

used for an aircraft assembly plant.

In June of 1943, the installation was leased to Douglas Aircraft

Company as an assembly plant for the C-54 cargo aircraft. The site wasknown as the mChicago Aircraft Assembly Plant Number 8.0 During the

years of 1943 to 1945, approximately 665 aircraft were assembled and

delivered to the Army Air Corps. The plant was then closed in the fall

of 1945.



the site. During this time, the 141st Air Force installation unit for

reserve training was activated at the renamed Douglas-Orchard Airport.

In 1948, the 141st was replaced by the 2471st AF Reserve Combat

Training Center. In 1949, both the 437th and the 441st Troop Carrier

2-1

-- = .... -- - .

FIGURE 2.1

O'HARE ARFF

REGIONALLOCATION

WISCONSIN

........MICHIGAN

MILWAUKEE

S4GRAND

. RAPIDS

O'HareARFF\, "

CHICAGO

GARY

ILLINOIININ

I0ISOUCE:COMERCIL HGHWY MA SCLE ILE

2-

FIGURE 2.2

0 N HARE ARF.......

*AREA LOAIN

Lake CounL_Cook County

CHICAGON'

IN90AIOA

AIRPaRT

DuP~t.ARFF

SORC: OMUOILIHW90A

FIGURE 2.3

OHARE ARFF

INSTALLATION SITE PLANh's MAIN GATE

00 ARM~

Johnson kd0 ESR C

.5 d

.50GATE133L

2 0 - 5 Ct

17311 Dixon Blvd. C 2 13

32fl5

I, -

19 30

to 160',

*11 out 321Ho -c d. 0 1709 0

1701 - 3Valenta Rd. 2

Harper L 7* 2900KDr.

291000

OURC. UNRE RFF NSTLLATON DCUMNTS CAL I29FEE

290 7*/ UNINURNSUCf0

Wings Reserve were activated. In 1949, the military portion was re-

designated USAF O'Hare Field, Chicago International Airport.

From October 1950 until December 1957, the 2471st AFRCTC remained

the supervisory unit. In 1955, the airfields were opened to commercial

traffic.

From May 1957 until October 1970, the 928th Tactical Airlift Group

was equipped with the Fairchild C-119 wFlying Boxcar*, and in 1970 the

Lockheed C-130A "Hercules" arrived. The 928th TAG is still the in-

stallation's host unit.

ORGANIZATION AND MISSION

O'Hare ARFF at O'Hare International Airport has a fulltime staff of

1,544 employees. For one weekend per month and two full weeks per year,

the installation serves as a training facility for approximately 2400

Air Force Reservists and Air National Guardsmen.

The host organization at O'Hare ARFF is the 928th Tactical Airlift

Group (TAG). The primary mission of the 928th TAG is to provide

individual and unit training in the C-130A, tactical airlift support for

airborne forces, equipment, supplies and aeromedical evacuation within a

theater of operations. Additionally, the Group operates and maintains

the Air Force complex at O'Hare, represents the Air Force in the Chicago

metropolitan area, and provides logistical support to various on/off

installation tenants.

The on-installation tenants at the O'Hare ARFF are listed below.

Descriptions of the major tenant and other installation organizations

and their missions are presented in Appendix C.

o Defense Contract Administration Services Region

o Defense Logistics Agency

o Headquarters, Illinois Air National Guard (Ill ANG)

o 126th Air Refueling Wing, Ill AUG

o 126th Combat Support Group, Ill ANG

o 108th Air Refueling Squadron, Ill ANG

o 126th Consolidated Aircraft Maintenance Squadron, Ill ANG

o 126th USAF Clinic, Ill AUG

o 126th Civil Engineering Flight, Ill AUG

2-5

(A• . -,, ,L' • .. . -

o 126th Communications Flight, Ill AUG

o 217th Electronics Installation squadron, Ill AUG

o 264th Comunications; Squadron, Ill ANG

o 566th USAF Band, Ill PG

o USAF Liaison Office/National Scouting Organization

o 36th Medical Service Evacuation Squadron

o Aeronautical Systems Division, Reserve Detachment (AFLC)

o Corps of Engineers Field Office

2-6

SECTION 3


The environmental setting of O'Hare Air Reserve Forces Facility

(ARFF) is described in this section with an emphasis on the identifi-

cation of natural features that may promote the movement of hazardous

waste contaminants. Environmental conditions pertinent to this study

are summarized at the conclusion of this section.

METEOROLOGY

Two climatic features of interest in determining the potential for

movement of contaminants are net precipitation and rainfall intensity.

Net precipitation is an indicator for the potential of leachate genera-

tion and is equal to the difference between annual precipitation and

annual evaporation. Rainfall intensity is an indicator for the poten-

tial of excessive runoff and erosion. The one-year, 24-hour rainfall

evient is used to gauge the potential for runoff and erosion.

Net precipitation at Chicago O'Hare ARFF is 4.2 inches as deter-

mined from meteorological records. Normal annual precipitation at

O'Hare International Airport for the period 1958 to 1981 is 34.17 inches

(National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 1981) and

annual evaporation for the area is 30 inches (NOAA, 1977). This value

of net precipitation indicates that there is some potential for leachate

generation at hazardous waste sites on the installation as a result of

rainfall. Selected meteorological data are summarized in Table 3.1.

The one-year, 24-hour rainfall event for the installation is 2.4

inches (NOAA, 1968). This value indicates that there is a moderate

potential for erosion and transport of surface contamination from

hazardous waste sites on the installation.

3-1

F. fm I

ft ina-

In WA44t

in C! biA

in m~ 0

- IAIA C!

in on. f t

POO.9

Id. * I

a ft-a

3-2t.9 -

GEOGRAPHY

The installation is located northwest of Chicago, Illinois in the

Glaciated Central Region ground-water basin. The landscape of the region

ranges from a low, flat plain east of the installation to a poorly

drained hilly belt west of the installation. The area around the in-

stallation is highly urbanized.

The installation is in the Des Plaines River drainage basin which

is the major drainage basin in the area. The Des Plaines River

originates near the Illinois-Wisconsin border approximately 30 miles

north of the installation. The river empties into the Illinois River

approximately 50 miles south of the installation. The river flows

generally south in the vicinity of the installation (Figure 3.1).

Topography and Drainage

The topography at O'Hare ARFF slopes very gently to the northeast.

The highest point on the installation is about 650 feet mean sea level

(MSL). This point occurs along the western border of the installation

near runway 22R. The lowest point is approximately 635 feet MSL and

occurs along a drainage ditch near the installation's northern boundary.

Open drainage ditches traverse the northwest and north ends of the

installation (Figure 3.2). One drainage ditch flows east near the

northern boundary of the installation. This drainage ditch enters the

installation near the end of runway 22R. The drainage ditch exits the

installation under Higgins Road near the installation main gate and

flows into Willow Creek. A second drainage ditch flows north along the

northwest boundary of the installation and discharges into the eastward

flowing drainage ditch. Overland runoff from the northwest corner of

the installation discharges to these drainage ditches. Storm drainage

from the northern end of O'Hare International Airport drains into the

eastward flowing drainage ditch which traverses the northwest corner of

the installation.

Storm drainage from the installation discharges to Willow Creek, a

tributary of the Des Plaines River. Storm drains on the installation

direct storm runoff to an open ditch that begins at Mannheim Road east

of the installation. The open ditch drains east about 1,300 feet to

Willow Creek. The relationship between Willow Creek and installation

drainage structures is shown on Figure 3.2.

3-3

FIGURE 3. 1

O'HARE ARFF

'~ GENERALIZED DRAINAGE

li ti~~-

~~~a INTLLTO

SCAL 'IL L

4 ~~

FIGURE 3.2

O'HARE ARFF

STORM DRAINAGE ANDWATER QUALITY MONITORING SITES

F

OPEN DRAINAGE DITCH -

JohlaEERVE CENTS

.................................................. .. ....

3OPE DITCHn

340

0 1000

5 *OPE DRIAENNERNGSIC

GEOLOGY

S tratigraphy

O'Hare ARFF is underlain by rocks of Precambrian acye and younger

and unconsolidated glacial depcsits. A stratigraphic column represent-

ing the sequence of rocks in the area is given in Table 3.2.

Dense crystalline rock of Precambrian age forms the installation-

ment upon which younger geologic units were deposited. The depth below

land surface to these rocks is probably greater than 4,000 feet at the

installation. The only well in the Chicago area known to penetrate the

Precambrian was drilled approximately 6 riles west of Joliet, Illinois.

(Bradbury and Atherton, 1965).

A layered sequence of gently eastward dipping sedimentary rocks of

Cambrian and Ordovician age overlie the Precambrian rocks. These rocks

are mainly sandstone and dolomite and are probably greater than 3,000

feet thick at the installation. (Hughes and others, 1966). The

Ordovician age rocks have a combined thickness of about 800 feet in the

vicinity of the installation.

Silurian age dolomite overlies the Ordovician rocks and is the

upper bedrock unit at the installation. This unit is mostly dense

dolomite with many joints and solution channels. It's thickness is

about 135 feet in the vicinity of the irstallation.

The thickness of the Ordovician and Silurian rocks were derived

from a drilling log for a well that was drilled for the Twin Orchacd

Country Club prior to the existence of the airport. This well was

drilled in 1925 to a total depth of 1,410 feet. The approximate well

location is shown on Figure 1.3.

Unconsolidated glacial deposits of Quaternary age overlie the

bedrock to a thickness of 70 to 85 feet at the installation (Figure

3.4). These deposits consist of stratified clay, sand and gravel. The

deposits appear to thicken toward the north end of the installation.

The surficial deposits at the installation are mostly artificial

fill underlain by clay. The composition of unconsolidated deposits near

the surface is described in Table 3.3.

3-6

TABLE 3.2

GEVlERALIZED STRATIGRAPHY

System Group or Formation Thickness Lithology

quaternary 70-85 Clay, sand andgravel, till

Niagara DolomiteSilhurian 135 Dolomite

Alexandrian Series

Maquoketa Shale 230 Shale

Galena DolomiteDolomite

Decorah Formation 320

Ordovician Platteville Formation

Glenwood Formation145 Sandstone, fine

to coarse grainedSt. Peter Sandstone

Prairie dui Chien Group 95 Dolomite

Trempealeau Formation 125 DolomiteCambrian ___________________ ________

Franconia Formation 90 Dolomite andsandstone

Ironton Sandstone 200+ Sandstone, fineto medium grained

Galesville Sandstone

Eau Claire Formation 235-450 Shale andsiltstone

Mt. Simon Sandstone 2000± Sandstone, coarsegrained

Precambrian crystalline rocks

3-7

FIGURE 3.3

O'HARE ARFF

LOCATIONS FOR GEOLOGIC DATA

MAIN GATE

jL [ESERVEGENTEJohnlson~td. LES

Cr 9n Rd.

G D B=vAT 3 3

2902 A enk 7023 10 5Ci. .

.. E U .

0 o 173W Dixon Blvd.0

* 32f

19 30

c 1r 6010 PI321 4

_ A A' OnI O8-SCTONSEWa ij

*0 A

A#8 IN 709NI~m 4c

17011 322ZValera& IRd.o

B 2900 Dr.7

2 0

Rd.- - ALATI BOUNDARY- - - S

LEGEND1 S ORING LOCATION AND NUMMER 1

A-Af GELOI CROSS-SECTION SHOWN

*WELL USED FOR GEOLOGIC DESCRIPTION400 1000

SOURCM: OIIAfh ARFF INSTALLATION DOCUMENTSI SCALE' 'FEET

3-8 * ~SN~0

FIGURE 3.4

1"01 we Me" 1"A 4 UOBAeI i e'1 IBu I~e Iruwe

I I I I I I I I I

CO)z w

0

CO)

CO1) _3 si

CO)o

LL..

Xi j0 -Jw

)t ,t ISO

I, I I IN

i ! It i !I I ;iz-

LLI It

gSAVJ S IwM 1"14 UOPA013

3-9 IIII ENUGU-*UcE

TABLE 3.3SUMMARY OF SELECTED SOIL BORINGS

Other Boring DepthBoring No. Boring I.D. (Feet) Lithology

DH77-1 0 - 1.5 Top soil1.5 - 7.0 Clay, brown

7.0 - 11.0 Clay, brown and gray11.0 - 18.0 Clay, gray, trace sand and

gravel18.0 - 20.0 Sandy silt

2 DH77-18 0 - 3.0 Fill, concrete and sand3.0 - 9.0 Clay, brown and gray

9.0 - 14.5 Clay, gray14.5 - 22.0 Sandy clay, gray

3 DHa0-B 0 - 1.0 Fill, concrete10 - 2.5 Sandy clay, brown2.5 - 4.0 Clay, dark gray

4.0 - 18.0 Clay, gray18.0 - 22.0 Silty sand22.0 - 29.0 Clay, gray, with sand and

gravel

40 - 6.0 Fill6.0 - 6.5 Silty clay, brown and gray

8.5 - 18.5 Silty clay, trace of gravel18.5 - 23.5 Silt, some sand layers23.5 - 25.0 Silty clay, trace sand and

gravel

5 DH75-1 0-0.5 Fill0.5 - 8.0 Clay, brown

8.0 - 15.0 Clay, grades from brown to gray15.0 - 24.0 Clay, with silt and sand layers24.0 - 25.0 Sand clay

6 DM75-7 0-1.0 Fill1.0 - 15.0 Clay, tan to brown, slightly

sandy15.0 - 18.0 Clay, gray18.0 - 29.0 Sandy clay29.0 - 31.0 Silty sand

Modified from O'Hare AMr? drawingsBoring locations shown on Figure 3.3

3-10

Structure

The Chicago area is located near the crest of a broad, gently

sloping arch composed mostly of Cambrian, Ordovician and Silurian rocks.

The longitudinal axis of this arch runs generally in a northwest-south-

east direction. The rocks have a general eastward dip that results from

the eastward plunge of the arch.

The major structural feature near the installation is the Des

Plaines Disturbance. Rocks in the area of the Disturbance are intensely

faulted. The origin of the faulting is unknown but has been speculated

to have been caused by a meteorite impact (Willman, 1971). The area of

the Des Plaines Disturbance is approximately five-miles square. The

southern end of the Disturbance is located approximately one-mile north

of the installation.

HYDROLOGY

Subsurface Hydrology

There are four major aquifer systems in the vicinity of O'Hare

ARFF. These aquifer systems are sand and gravel deposits of the glacial

drift, shallow dolomites composed mostly of Silurian age rocks, the Cam-

brian-Ordovician aquifer system and the Mt. Simon aquifer. The glacial

drift and shallow dolomite aquifers are separated from the underlying

deeper aquifers by the Maquoketa Shale.

The glacial drift and shallow dolomite are of greatest interest for

this study. These are the uppermost geologic units at the installation.

The glacial drift and shallow dolomite are both recharged locally

from precipitation and are hydrologically connected in the Chicago area

(Suter, 1959). The hydrologic connection is generally good whenever

sand and gravel directly overlies the dolomite. This situation exists

at O'Hare ARFF (Figure 3.4).

The glacial drift in the vicinity of the installation has an

average vertical hydraulic conductivity, or permeability, on the order

of 0.005 gallons per day per square foot (2.4 x 10- 7 centimeters per

second). This estimate assumes that recharge through the drift averages

140,000 gallons per day per square mile and that recharge is occurring

3-11

under a unit hydraulic gradient. These assumptions appear reasonable

based on work done by Walton (1965) in DuPage county that is immediately

west of the installation. This permeability estimate indicates that

percolation to the water table of the installation is low.

Ground-water elevations and ground-water flow directions in the

shallow dolomrite are not known at the installation. weter levels in

borings completed in the shallow dolomite on the installation stood at

an elevation of 625 to 630 feet mean sea level in 1942. This water

level was 15 to 20 feet below land surface. Water levels in the shallow

dolomite were generally greater than 50 feet below land surface in

DuPage County west of the installation in 1965 (walton, 1965).

The unconsolidated deposits are saturated in part at the instal-

lation (Figure 3.4). Water levels have been observed 5 to 15 feet

below land surface in shallow soil borings drilled on the installation

between 1975 and 1980 for foundation investigations.

There is a potential for contamination of ground water to occur at

subsurface waste disposal sites on the installation. The glacial de-

posits are at least periodically saturated at depths of 5 feet and more

below land surface. Waste material buried to depths of 5 feet or more

would be periodically saturated and could create leachate. Also, there

would be a tendency for the leachate to move downward to the shallow

dolomite aquifer.

Surface Hydrolo

O'Hare ARFF is in the Willow Creek drainage basin. The installa-

tion is drained by a combination of open channels and drainage struc-

tures that discharge to the creek (Figure 3.2). The main stem of Willow

Creek does not traverse the installation.

Periodic flooding can be expected at the north end of the installa-

tion. These floodwaters originate mostly as runoff from O'Hare Inter-

national Airport and from the urbanized area west and north of the

airport. The approximate limits of flooding for the 100-year flood

event are shown on Figure 3.5.

3-12

FIGURE 3.5

O'HARE ARFF

AREA INUNDATED BY THE.100-YEAR

"I W111...............

5,be c

"Ell iix

60 51

2902 3: am23 10 Cir.

055 -jDixon Blvd.

32 k*,:iiiij

2

335"

19 303

01m

3214 0

Hoff ick-17'00 E

322

Valenta Rd-.-

Maro rDr.

2900MP67

so 2903 322902 1,9 hiltz 0

7Q 173 Rd.

INSYALLAY16-N " BOUNDARY

LEGEN

FLOODED AREA

406

.0 1000SOURCM WHAM ARFF NGTALLATION DOMMANT8 WALE FEET

3-13 ENGINEERING -setemet

WATER USE

The installation receives its water supply from the City of

Chicago. Surface and ground waters are not used for installation

supply.

Numerous industrial and municipal supply wells are located in the

vicinity of the installation. Most wells are 1,000 to 2,000 feet deep

and withdraw water from the Cambrian-Ordovician aquifer system. A few

wells withdraw water from the shallow d~lomite aquifer system. The

approximate location of the wells that could be identifiel from the

available data are shown on Figure 3.6. (Six water supply wells are not

plotted on the figure; insufficient data were available to determine the

location of the wells within the section.)

Some residential wells exist in the vicinity of the installation

(R. T. Sasman, Illinois State Water Survey, oral communication, 1983).

The closest well completed in the shallow dolomite is located approxi-

mately one and one-half miles east of the installation.

WATER QUALITY

Surface water quality is monitored in the Willow Creek watershed by

personnel employed by the airport facility. (Landrum and Brown, 1483).

The parameters monitored include biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), pH,

suspended solids, total dissolved solids, fats, oil and grease, dis-

solved oxygen and hexane solubles. The locations of the monitoring

sites (F, K and R) in the vicinity of the installation are shown on

Figure 3.2 and the monLtoring results for the period November 1981 to

October 1982 are summarized in Table 3.4. Runoff from the installation

is monitored at site K.

The results of water quality monitoring indicates that water dis-

charging to the creek from the installation does not meet all NPDES/-

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) standards. (Landrum and

Brown, 1983). Suspended solids in the water generally exceeded stan-

dards and fats, oil and grease in the water have exceeded standards.

Water quality parameters in other surface waters nearby also exceed

IEPA standards (Table 3.4). Discharge standards are generally exceeded

in Willow Creek at site F above the confluence with the installation

drainage ditch and at site R in a drainage ditch that discharges to

3-14

t-A

- ~ ~ ~O'HAREf ARFF F~R .

77 WELL LOCATIONS /

IN S ..

-1.~~--- .. ...ASINO D CA AQUIFr-'~~~~~ ' ~ ~ AIN JTR LWELCML EDI

IL$ SHALO DOOIEAIE~~kL -~ -U A. LOCA T NDNm EROWA

o ULIYSMLEST N HLOSCL ML OLMT

SORC:BAERM .S EOOGCL4 SUVE L:400QUDAGE3-1 ~*5 EGINER IW - ST11C

TABLE 3.4SUMMKiRY OF SELECTED CHUIICAL ANALYSES FOR SURFACE WATERS(Analyses in Milligrams Per Liter Unless O-.herwise Noted)

TotalPH (std. Suspended Dissolved Fats, Oil Dissolved

I4onito~ing BOD Units) Solids Solids and Grease Oxygen

sie Tm eid (30)1 (6.0-9.0)1 (15)1 (11000)2 (15)1 (5.0)2

F Nov.1981-Dec.1981 A - X A --

Jan.1982-Feb.1982 X - X---Mar.1982-May 1982 X - X X X-June 1981-Aug.1982 X - X X X -

Sept.1982-Oct.1982 - - X X K

K lov.1981-Dec.1981 - - X ---

Jan.1982-Feb.1982 - - x ---

Mar.1982-May1982 - - X - X

June 1982-Aug.1982 - - X - X-Sept.1982-Oct.1982 - - X - - -

R Nov. 1981 -Dec .. 1981 - - X X - -

Jan. 1982-Feb., 1962 B - X X - -

Mar. 1982-Hay 1981 K - K K - -

June 1982-Aug.1982 - - x X - -

Sept.19S2-Oct.1982 K - K X X -

X Exceeded NPDES/IEPA Standards during period

- Did not exceed NPDES/IEPA Standards during period

A Exceeded NPDES/IEPA Standards on one test date

B Exceeded NPDES/IZP& Standards on two test dates

1 Minimum effluent standard (IZPA, 1982)

2 General use stream water quality standard (IEPA, 1982)

3 See Figure 3.2

Source: Landrum and Brown, 1983

3-16

Willow Creek downstream from the installation drainage ditch. Poor

water quality is typical of highly urbanized areas.

Water quality data for the shallow dolomite aquifer (Table 3.5) are

available at two locations near the installation (Figure 3.6). One

location is a

residential supply well located approximately 1.5 miles east of the in-

stallation. The other location is a test well located approximately 1.5

miles south of the installation.

Water from the shallow dolomite is high in dissolved minerals

(Table 3.5). The total dissolved solids content in the water is above

recommended limits for public water supplies (USEPA, 1975). The iron

content of the water is near the recommended upper limit.

The shallow dolomite well east of the installation (Figure 3.6,Well No. 1) shows signs of contamination. The chloride and sulfate

contents in the water appear high and surfactants were detected in the

water. Surfactants do not occur naturally in water. The contamination

could result from any number of sources.

BIOTIC DWVIRONGINT

O'Hare ARFF has limited habitat available for wildlife. The in-

stallation consists mainly of cultivated lawns, building sites, and

paved areas which offer negligible shelter for animals. Small tracts of

unmowed brush and grass provide forage and cover for small mamals and

birds. There are no threatened or endangered plant or animal species

inhabiting the installation property. Four endangered animal species

are known to inhabit the region (within 50 miles) and may occasionally

visit the installation or airport. These are the Indiana bat, peregrine

falcon, upland sandpiper, and marsh hawk. There is no indication that

past installation activities have disrupted the patterns of these

species.

SUMARY Or DWIRON3ML SZTTING

The enviromental setting data reviewed for this investigation

identified the following major points that are relevant to O'Hare ARM.



3-17

TABLE 3.5SUMMARY 0' SELECTED VATER QUALITY ANALYSES

FOR WATER FROM THE SHALLOW DOLOMITE AQUIFER(Analyses in milligrams per liter)

TotalDissolved

2 Sulfdtv Chlorife Solids Iron 1Well No. (250) (250) (500)1 (0.3) Surfactan's

1 160 220 1060 0.3 0.16

2 - 8 750 0.1 -

1Recommended drinking water standard (USEPA, 1975).2Refer to Figure 3.6 for well locations.

3-18












shallow dolomite aquifer, the Cambrian-Ordovician aquifer system



installation are hydraulically connected and are separated fromthe underlying Cambrian-Ordovician and Mt. Simon aquifers by the


o Numerous wells are located in the vincinity of the installation.


withdraw water from the Cambrian-Ordovician aquifer system. The

one residential well and one test well identified from the

available data withdraw water from the shallow dolomite aquifer.

This water is high in dissolved solids and iron.


face waste disposal sites on the installation. The glacial de-

posits are at least periodically saturated at depths as shallow

as 5 feet below land surface.


IEPA stream water quality standards, but is comparable to thewater quality upstream in Willow Creek. This poor water quality






3-19

SECTION 4

FINDINGS

To assess hazardous waste management at O'Hare Air Reserve Forces

Facility (ARFF) at O'Hare International Airport, past activities of

waste generation and disposal methods were reviewed. This section

summarizes the hazardous waste generated by activity; describes waste

disposal methods; identifies the disposal sites located on the base; and

evaluates the potential for environmental contamination.

PAST SHOP AND INSTALLATION ACTIVITY REVIEW

A review was conducted of current and past Air Force activities at

O'Hare ARFF with the objective of identifying those installation acti-

vities that generated hazardous waste. This review consisted of a

search of files and records, interviews with installation employees, and

site inspection.

The sources of hazardous wastes at O'Hare ARFF can be associated

with any one of the activities listed below:

o Industrial Shops

o Fire Protection Training

o Pesticide Utilization

o Waste Storage Areas

o Fuels Management

The following discussion addresses only those wastes generated on

the installation which are either hazardous or potentially hazardous.

Hazardous wastes are those wastes referenced by the Comprehensive

Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CURCLA,

Public Law 96-510). A potentially hazardous waste is one which is

suspected of being hazardous although insufficient data are available to

fully characterize the waste material.

4-1

I 1

INDUSTRIAL OPERATIONS (SHOPS)

Since the O'Hare ARFF opened in 1946, the main function of the

industrial operations (shops) on the installation has been to provide

maintenance support activities to aircraft flying missions. Activit:.es

have included aircraft equipment maintenar.ce, ground equirvent main-

tenance, and installation facilities maintenance. A list of present

industrial shops was obtained from the installation clinic files,

Information contained in the files indicates if the shops handle

hazardous materials and generate hazardous waste. A summary of the

pertinent information from the shop files is presented in Appendix E,

Master List of Industrial Shops.

For the shops known to generate hazardous wastes, interviews with

personnel familiar with shop activities were conducted. The information

obtained from interviews and installation records has been summarized in

Table 4.1. For each generator of hazardous wastes, this table presents

the shop location, waste materials generated, quantities of wastes gene-

rated, and a disposal method timeline. Many of the disposal methods

were identified from information obtained from past and present person-

nel of O'Hare ARFF. The waste quantities shown in Table 4.1 are based

on verbal estimates given by present shop personnel at the time of the

interviews. The shops that have generated insignificant quantities or

no hazarious waste are not listed in Table 4.1.

From 1943 to 1945 the area that is now O'Hare ARFF was a govern-

ment-owned, contractor-operated plant (Douglas Aircraft Assembly Plant

No. 8). Assembly operations typically do not generate significant

amounts of hazardous solid waste. Most of the hazardous waste generated

resulted from the painting operations. Several underground tanks stored

paint thinners and fuels. All but one of these tanks (a fuel tank) have

since been excavated and removed. Paper and other office materials were

burned in an incinerator. Other wastes generated by this operation were

disposed of in a manner that is not well defined. There are no records

of any landfilling or other disposal operations during this period of

time.

In the early years of installation operations, (1946 to 1955), an

off-sits contractor collected combustible liquid wastes (primarily mote

oil) and removed them from the installation. From approximately 1955 to

4-2

-- x I , Z& k z z i Z , z , z z

.. L.U

i t I i ti

1 I 0I I II I 0 8" -.

- I I I .- I- "1 -' l I I I'l , ° I I Ioo <1 I de I Il I I iiii II

I I I I I I Ii I II

E--"

0 .-

Mo

U. IA d.c

W- 0

w#k ow z

0 o v P I3C Sz -C < w

e. ( i .2'

w 24-1

#A .. : =! ..aB CI) j ,.. -a 0

666

z IIv ,- I I-

ZI in I w.Z<l < ). I'

30-

z , I Z, ZNX Z a

Suuu u u 8 S- 1

II I Iii lLL I. I6 L I I. u I I -I .I I. I. I I 6

-A

I -

60 U. W

.~IAIA * U~ A IA

CoI.,*>( -

w. j -A 0j j -

1W U

.0I

tm~~ Z LL u g -

LU 2A j j

ILI z

-jL

w us 0I- a I.U< ou L

- 9 )' zgL L Z IL4-4

ai A i A z z A A z Z Z zoI o 000 00 0 00 0 0

"I U U U U Ul U) goU

as g 1 U UU gld'' UU~

111111 )-I )I . I IIOf i I IIL I I Q . 6 61L1 LL

I III

11 11 I I II aa ~ ~I 1 1 I c I I olI Iu ozI Z uel UWWK

It IIi5

111111I II I L i

II.

0.

co9J -1Z ~ ' 4 C -4 44 4z

0

0 'U W

0. a ll.J~~~~~ Z4Ca4iuswwU.

.J .J -I--c I ' w

at

< 4

II.m

31 Ii )wI

4-

I 1l010

ULUI z

* I r -

P: 0 A 1 1Ifati&6(i tu

0

0 cc

-

a 0U3

U)MI

atp~iA

~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __4_ _

1979, combustible wastes were burned at the Fire Protection Training

Areas (see following discussion). Presently these wastes are drummed

and stored for outside contract disposal.

Cleaning solvents and related wastes were sometimes removed by the

off-site contractor in the early years. At other times, the solvent-

type wastes were drummed and disposed of in one of the two installation

landfills.

Solids waste generated by shop operations, along with the rest of

the installation's general rubbish, was disposed of in the installation

landfills through 1970, when landfilling operations ceased. Since then

it has been removed from the installation by a contract-disposal com-

pany.

Fire Protection Training

Since 1955, fire protection training exercises have been conducted

by the Air Force at three locations. Only one of these was located on

what is now installation property (Figure 4.1). Prior to 1955, it is

uncertain what, if any, fire protection training was done.


From approximately 1955 to the early 1960's, the Air Force fire

department conducted fire training exercises in an area on the southeast

side of the installation. The burn pit was constructed with an earth

berm and a natural soil bottom. AVGAS, MOGAS, waste oil and combustible

liquids were burned here. It is unknown whether there was any water

presoaking, or how frequently training was practiced or what extinguish-

ing agents were used. No visual evidence of the site was present during

the site visit since the area is now covered by a hardfill area.

Other Fire Protection Training Areas

From the early 1960's through the present day, fire training exer-

cises have taken place at two sites on O'Hare International Airport

property under a joint training agreement. One Fire Protection Training

Facility was located just north of Old Higgins Road. The current Fire

Protection Training Facility is located approximately one mile south of

the second site.

Pesticide Utilization

Pesticide applications have been conducted by the Roads and Grounds

Shop and O'Hare ARFF throughout the history of the installation. Cur-

rently, shop personnel apply 2-Prometon (an amine herbicide) annually

4-7

. . . .. ... - -- II . A. . ,

FIUR 4.O'HARE ARFF

FIRE PROTECTION TRAINING AREAS

TO OTHER M A.1 -3AT EFIRE PROTECTION/TRAINING AREAS

(OFF-SITE)150 usiJJohnwn d. ~ USVE CENTE

Johnsoin ___Rd.0 LS

.55

4b, Crm d

z 21 5321

Heric 23 110 Ci

'55,17310 Dixn Bvd3270 ~ 3

:01AOI~~~0U.~' 2'~f AfF TLLTO OUMT F

4-8 rM3 -dINE INuSI

throughout the installation for general weed control. All of the pesti-

cide material prepared is used up in the application process. No other

pesticides or herbicides were reported as being used. Containers are

rinsed and dispo3ed of as general refuse.

Waste Storage Areas

Presently, waste chemicals and used oils at O'Hare ARFF are accumu-

lated at the site of generation until removed to a central storage area.

This storage area is located in a depressed area at the south end of the

Old Assembly Plant foundation, a former truck loading area (Figure 4.2).

The area is open to the weather and access is not controlled. The soil

in this storage area was darker than normal, indicating that past spills

had occurred.

Drums of waste from the hangers are accumulated on an outside con-

crete wash rack area adjacent to the buildings (Figure 4.2). The area

is located over a drain grill that discharges to either the surface

drainage system or the sanitary sewer system. During aircraft washing

operations, the drain is directed to the sanitary sewer via a nearby,

underground oil/water separator. Otherwise, the drain feeds the storm

sewer system. The discharge direction is selected by moving a vane

located underneath the grill. The concrete is stained indicating that

spills and/or leaks have occurred.

Fuels Management

The O'Hare ARFF Fuels Management storage system consists of fifteen

above ground and below ground tanks in two areas (west POL and south POL

areas). A listing of the locations of the fuel storage tanks and their

contents and capacities has been provided in Appendix D. Fuels stored

at O'Hare ARFF include: JP-4, MOGAS, FS-5 and FS-2 (No. 2 Fuel Oil).

Fuels are currently delivered to the installation by tank truck. In the

past, fuel has been delivered to the west and south POL areas by railcar

as well.

JP-4 is stored in the west POL storage area in one above ground

210,000 gallon tank and two under ground 50,000 gallon tanks. The

aboveground tank is equipped with secondary containment in the form of

an earth dike over an asphaltic material. The diked areas are checked

daily, with water accumulations discharged to the surface drainage

system. A hydrant network was previously used to fuel aircraft on the

4-9

O'HARE ARFFGUREF.

HAZARDOUS WASTE DRUMACCUMULATION AND STORAGE SITES

MAIN GATE

U.S. A M-

5: L ESERVE CENIE

Crome d.

tB-

2902 ! '. GATE 133

731Dixon Blvd.0

32E. DRUM

3F CCUMULATI N 1j7ASSEMLY161 Ix3

1-i1K TRAE 6 20O

SOUNCE.~~ ~Heric Rd.AR A0-INTLL-O1DC7ET 05

SOUT END OF t-IEEISSCU

west aircraft apron. This network was shut down in the early 1970's for

replacement. Currently fuel leaves the area through the new hydrant

system and in tank trucks. The South POL area has nine 25,000 gallon

and two 11,500 gallon above ground JP-4 tanks. It also has has one

25,000 gallon above ground tank which has been partitioned in two, with

one half holding 12,500 gallons of FS-2 and the other half nearly empty.

At one time, this other half held engine oil. Fuel is removed from this

area for use by tank truck only.

Spills and Leaks

Small fuel spills have occurred in several areas throughout the

installation. The spills are generally attributed to fuel transfer and

aircraft refueling operations. They typically occur on paved areas and

evaporate or are cleaned up. No significant environmental contamination

is attributed to these spills.

A major spill occurred in January 1972 at the aboveground JP-4 tank

in the West POL area (Figure 4.3). The dike accumulated water from ex-

ceptionally heavy rains. A rapid change of weather then froze the water

causing it to crush the external piping to the tank. This resulted in

82,000 gallons of fuel being released within the dike. About 40,000

gallons of fuel were recovered and the remaining fuel either infiltrated

into the ground or evaporated.

Another spill occurred when a 12,000 gallon defueling pit along the

old hydrant network (Figure 4.3) cracked due to external pressure exer-

ted on it during a winter freeze in the late 1960's. The leak was

discovered later when water began to appear in the fuel passing through

this tank. The amount of JP-4 lost is not known. The tank has been

removed and replaced.

During an Airfield Pavement Evaluation in 1977, fuel-contaminated

soil was discovered beneath the main apron at two points (Figure 4.3).

The soil was described as *saturated with jet fuel." No source for this

contamination was immediately identifiable, although the underground hy-

drant system has had leaks before, and a preliminary evaluation suggests

that it is upgradient of the contamination.

There is an abandoned underground 4OGAS tank located on the south

edge of the installation. This tank dates from the 1940's and was used

at least through the early 1960's. No records could be found to

4-11

• ___________

FIGURE 4.3

O'HARE ARFF

POL SPILLS AND LEAKS9 1) MAIN Gt TE

rnzo US RMLE!RECENTEii

JP-4 BULK 4TANK SPILL~ 50 51E 3

290 emke* 231 10 Cur.1 )7311 DixUon Blvd.

-rHYDRANT 32

* SYSTEMI

DEFUELIAN -

19 1601 0

32 Il1.r~ick 0 1709

FUETELIO 0 1700 E 32c- 1701 32

CONTAMINATED Valenita Rd.

POINTS Hrp

29000000

SOUCE OHREARF ISTAAINCMENTSI BOUNDET

4-12 -* NSRN-CEc

d6scribe the tank, and no information regarding tank closure could be

established.

A ground disposal site at the Vehicle Maintenance Facility (Bldg.

5) (Figure 4.4) was reported to be the location for regular dumping of

motor oil until the mid 1970's. No evidence of this action was observed

during the site visit since the area behind the building has been cover-

ed over by a concrete vehicle parking lot. The contaminated soil may

have been removed during construction of the parking lot.

During the 1950's and 1960's the area south of the south apron was

used as an occasional dumping area for small quantities of liquid wastes

from the shops (Figure 4.4). The material would flow into a storm water

drainage ditch which ran parallel t3 the edge about ten feet away and be

washed away from the site. Due to the irregular frequency and small

quantity of dumpings, this area was not listed as a "disposal method" in

Table 4.1, Industrial Operations. No evidence of environmental stress

could be found here during the site visit.

DESCRIPTION OF PAST ON-INSTALLATION DISPOSAL METhODS

The facilities at O'Hare ARFF which have been used for the manage-

ment and disposal of waste can be categorized as follow:

o Landfills

o Hardfills


o Sanitary Sewer System

o Low Level Radioactive Disposal Area

Landfills

Two landfill operations were identified at O'Hare ARFF. These two

landfills are discussed below.

Landfill No. 1 (1953-1965)

Landfill No. I was operated from 1953-1965. It was located on the

northwest side of the installation, along Newhall/Lee Street and Higgins

(Figure 4.5). During the early operation, trash was filled in a slight-

ly depressed area. Trench and fill operations became the standard

operating procedure after a few years. The trenches were excavated

4-13

FIGURE 4.

WHARE ARFF

SPILLS'07 MAIN GATE

-S.-- -AI;RV CE-5---,

, * Rd q VEHICL

2902 ek

173111Dixon Blvd.

* 32f

x 2.A19 30

j 35 z

HerrfcI~ a. -1709 iic" I a 1;00 El

322S0I0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Vlet Adf.RP NTLATO OUMNS10

29006 PEE4-14 5 INIWEEIND#

1 V7

FIGURE 4.5

O'HARE ARFF -

LANDFILLS AND HARDFILLS

;na M.AIN GATEHARDFILL

NO.1I

5 d.

Valenta1in 02I ,NO

SOR~.~UN~mARP TALA~N DCMNSSAE PSc1c*ESNESamc

CLr

about 10 feet deep. The landfill received at least some portion of all

wastes generated on the installation, including general refuse and

office trash, old aircraft part, old kitchen-type appliances and both

new and old tools. It was also reported that some drummed waste from

the shop operations went into this landfill. There was occasional

burning at this landfill. The operation ceased in 1965 when the a..rport

runways were expanded. The site is closed and has an earth cover.

Holes dug by burrowing animals indicate that the landfill is close to

the present surface of the ground in the area.

Landfill No. 2 (1965-1972)

When Landfill No. 1 was closed, the landfill operation was moved to

southeast portion of the installation (Figure 4.5). Landfill No. 2 was

operated from 1965 through 1972. This landfill was operated in two

adjacent areas and was almost exclusively a trench and fill operation.

Part of Landfill No. 2 is located outside the O'Hare ARFF. The trenches

were about 10 feet deep. It continued to receive the same type of

wastes as disposed of at Landfill No. 1. Drums of shop wastes were

crushed and buried with earth-moving equipment. There was no burning of

waste at this site. The landfill is closed and has an earth cover.

Hardfills

Three hardfill sites were identified on O'Hare ARFF (Figure 4.5).

Hardfill No. I was operated during the early period of installation

operations. It received only construction materials. Hardfill No. 2

was operated during 1965 and received miscellaneous non-hazardous rubble

from the demolition at the old Assembly Plant Building. The site is

closed and is covered with soil. ardfill No. 3, located by Landfill

No. 2 has received concrete rubble since 1965 and is still open.

Hardfill No. 3 is located over the old Fire Protection Training Area.

Storm Drainage System

The installation storm drainage system collects water runoff from

the civilian airport and the Air Force installation at O'Hare and con-

veys it through both wooden and concrete pipes to an open drainage ditch

off of the installation property. This ditch in turn discharges to

Willow Creek. Although no shop wastes or other hazardous materials were

regularly disposed of to this system, intermittant spills have occasion-

ally entered the pipes. A number of the wooden pipe sections have

4-16

At1

collapsed, indicating that any materials which have entered the system

have probably been in direct contact with the ground around it.

Sanitary Sewer System

There is no treatment of sanitary wastewater on the base. Since

the beginning of the operation of the Douglas Aircraft Assembly Plant

through to the present day the network of sanitary sewer piping has been

connected to the City of Chicago Sanitary District System. Typically

shop wastes and other hazardous materials do not enter the sanitary

sewer, with the exception of neutralized battery acid and photochemi-

cals.

Low-level Radiation Disposal Site

The low-level radiation disposal sites is located northeast of the

south POL tank farm (Figure 4.6). The site was used for disposal of

low-level radioactive vacuum tubes. The site was operated during the1950's and 1960's and closed in the late 1960's. The waste material was

placed in a pit about eight feet deep and then covered with earth.

There is no marking or fence at this site.

EVALUATION OF PAST DISPOSAL ACTIVITIES AND FACILITIES

The review of past operation and maintenance functions and past

waste management practices at O'Hare ARF has resulted in the identi-

fication of 16 sites which were initially considered as areas of concern

with regard to the potential for contamination, as well as the potential

for the migration of contaminants. These sites were evaluated using theDecision Tree Methodology shown in Figure 1 o.1 Those sites which wereconsidered as not having a potential for contamination were deleted fromfurther consideration. Those sites which were considered as having a

potential for the occurrence of contamination and migration of contami-

nants were further evaluated using the Hazard Assessment ating Method-

ology (HARM) (Appendix H). Table 4.2 identifies the decision tree logic

used for each of the areas of intitial concern.

Based on the decision tree logic, five of the 16 sites originallyreviewed did not warrant evaluation using the Hazard Assessment Rating

Methodology. The rationale for omitting these five sites from HARK

evaluation is discussed below.

4-17 4

O'HARE ARFF FGR .

70 .6ALOW-LEVELRADIOACTIVE TUBE DISPOSAL AREA

hip. MA;N GATE

00 LU.b A RMjRESERVE CEN4T

4/"sor Cr d ka 00

f 211 50 5 GATE 1.13

290 z eomk3~ ______

.6- Dix on Blvd.

* 32fw .0

19 30*z - d

a0 1601

321*40Horc 0 1709

valenta

29000 67 D.

lNTLLA 60DARY

LOW-LEVEIRADIOACTIVE TUBE

DISPOSAL AREA

a 1000souRCE OH"Afh ARFF R4STALLATION DOCUMENTS SCALE _____F EET

TABLE 4.2SUMMARY OF DECISION TREE LOGIC FOR AREAS OF INITIAL

ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN AT O'HARE ARFF

Potential ForSite Potential for Contaminant Other Environ- HARM

Description Contamination Migration mental Concern Rating

Landfill No. I YES YES N/A YES

Landfill No. 2 YES YES N/A YES

JP-4 Tank Spill Site YES YES N/A YES

Defueling Pit Leak Site YES YES N/A YES

Fire Protection Training Area YES YES N/A YES

Storm Drainage System in the YES YES N/A YESHangar Area

Hazardous Waste Drum

Accumulation Point YES NO YES NO

Hazardous Waste Storage Area YES YES N/A YES

South Edge of Apron YES YES N/A YES

Vehicle Maintenance Facility YES YES N/A YES

Low Level RadioactiveDisposal Site YES YES N/A YES

Hardfill No.1 NO NO NO NO

Hardfill No. 2 NO NO NO NO

Hmardfill No. 3 NO NO NO NO

Buried Tanks from the NO NO YES NODouglas Operation (1942-1945)

Fuel-Contaninated Soil Under YES YES N/A YESMain Apron

4-19

!k

Hardfill No. I was used for the disposal of construction rubble

only. This material is nonhazardous and would not cause any environ-

mental contamination.

Hardfill No. 2 was used for the disposal of building debris dur.ng

the demolition of the old Assembly Plant Building and received only

wood, concrete, glass and some plumbing piping. This material is non-

hazardous and hence would not cause any environmental contamination.

Hardfill No. 3 is used for the disposal of concrete and stone

rubble and as such, would not cause any environmental contamination.

Several underground tanks stored paint thinners and fuels for the

Douglas Aircraft Co. during the 1940's. All but one of these tanks have

since been excavated and removed. No reports were found of any leaks or

spills from these tanks and hence, the site poses no potential for con-

tamination of the environment.

The Hazardous Waste Drum Accumulation Point is located over a large

concrete pad. In the event of a spill, the wastes would not run off

onto the earth. Instead they would either stay where they were spilled

or they would enter the installation's storm sewer system. (The storm

sewer system is rated using tk.e HARM method.) Hence, no potential for

environmental contamination exists at this site itself.

The remaining 11 sites identified on Table 4.2 were evaluated using

the Hazard Assessment Rating Methodology. The HARM process takes into

account characteristics of potential receptors, waste characteristics,

pathways for migration, and specific characeristics of the site related

to waste management practices. The details of the rating results are

suamarized in Table 4.3. The HARM system is designed to be one of the

many indicators of the relative need for follow-on action. The infor-

mation presented in Table 4.3 is intended for assigning priorities for

further evaluation of the O'Hare ARFF disposal areas (Section 5,

Conclusions and Section 6, Recommendations). The rating forms for the

individual waste disposal sites at O'Hare ARFF are presented in Appendix

H. Photographs of some of the disposal sites are included in Appendix

F.

IJ~~i' 4-20,

TABLE 4.3SUMMARY OF HARM SCORES FOR POTENTIAL CONTAMINATION SOURCES

O'HARE ARFF

Waste Waste OverallReceptor Characteristics Pathways Management Total

Rank Site Name Subscore Subscore Subscore Factor Score

1 Landfill No. 1 57 90 67 0.95 68

2 JP-4 Tank, West 57 80 67 0.95 65POL Area

3 Fuel-Contaminated Soil 57 54 80 1.00 .64

4 Defueling Pit Leak 57 64 67 1.00 63site

5 Fire Protection 57 64 67 0.95 60Training Area

6 Hazardous Waste 57 60 67 0.95 58Storage Area

7 Landfill No. 2 57 50 67 0.95 55

8 Storm Drainage System 57 36 67 1 .00 53

9 South Edge of Apron 57 32 67 1 .00 52

10 Vehicle Maintenance 57 24 67 1.00 49Facility

11 Low Level Radioactive 57 15 67 0.95 44Disposal Sit.e

4-21

SECTION 5

CONCLUSIONS

The goal of the IRP Phase I Study is to identify sites where there

is the potential for environmental contamination resulting from past

waste disposal practices and to assess the probability of contaminant

migration from these sites. The conclusions given below are based on

the assessment of the information collected from the project team's

field inspection, review of records and files, review of the environ-

mental setting, and interviews with installation personnel, past em-

ployees, and state and local government employees. Table 5.1 contains a

list of the potential contamination sources identified at O'Hare ARFF

and a summary of the HARM scores for those sites. The sites themselves

are discussed below.

LANDFILL eO. 1

Landfill No. 1 has a sufficient potential to create environmental

contamination and follow-on investigation is warranted. The landfill

was operated between 1953 and the mid 1960's and received various wastes

generated on the installation, including general refuse and office

trash, old aircraft parts, and drums containing shop wastes. The shop

wastes were probably spent solvents, waste oils and sludges. There was

occasional burning at this landfill and the waste is buried to a depth

of about 10 feet. The water table is high and ground-water is very

likely in contact with the wastes. The site received a HARM score of

68.

JP-4 SPILL SITE

The JP-4 Tank spill site has a sufficient potential to create en-

vironmental contamination and follow-on investigation is warranted. In

1972, an 82,000 gallon spill of JP-4 occurred at the West POL area. The

spill was contained inside the dike area and 40,000 gallons of JP-4 was

5-1

TABLE 5.1



1 Landfill No. 1 1953-1960's 68


3 Fuel-Contaminated Soil 1977 64

4 Defueling Pit Leak Site Late 1960's 63

5 Fire Protection Training Facility 1955-early 1960's 60

6 Hazardous Waste Storage Area 1981-Present 58

7 Landfill No. 2 1965-early 1970's 55

8 Storm Drainage System 1942-Present 53

9 South Edge of Concrete Apron Prior to 1970 52

10 Vehicle Maintenance Facility, Rear Prior to 1977 49


5-2

recovered. The remaining estimated 42,000 gallons of JP-4 either

evaporated or infiltrated into the ground. The water table is high in

this area and the fuel likely contacted the water table in the upper

glacial drift. The site received a HARM score of 65.

FUEL-CONTAMINATED SOIL

The fuel-contaminated soil under the main apron indicates that

there is a sufficient potential created for environmental contamination

and follow-on investigation is warrarted. When discovered in 1977, the

soil was described as "saturated with jet fuel." The site received a

HARM4 score of 64.

DEFUELING PIT LEAK

The defueling pit leak site has a sufficient potential to create

environmental contamination and follow-on investigation is warranted.

This 12,000 gallon underground tank developed a leak which was present

for an undetermined period of time prior to its discovery In the late

1960's, when water appeared in the fuel passing through this tank. The

amount of JP-4 lost is not known. The site received a HARM score of 63.

FIRE PROTECTION TRAINING AREA

Fire Protection Training Area has a sufficient potential to create


From approximately 1955 to the early 1960's, the installation fire


side of the installation. The burn pit was constructed with a soil

bottom and an earth berm around it. CQntaminated fuels (AVGAS, MOGAS)

and combustible liquid wastes were burned during fire protection train-

ing exercises. The site is now covered by a hardfill. This site

received a HARM score of 60.

HAZARDOUS WASTE STORAGE ARE

The Hazardous Waste Storage Area has a sufficient potential to

create environmental contamination and follow-on investigation is

warranted. This storage area is located in a depressed area at the

south end of the Old Assembly Plant foundation (a former truck loading

5-3


O'HARE ARFF



I Landfill No. 1 57 90 67 0.95 68

2 JP-4 Tank, West 57 80 67 0.95 65

POL Area

3 Fuel-Contaminated Soil 57 54 80 1.00 64

4 Defueling Pit Leak 57 64 67 1.00 63Site



7 Landfill No. 2 57 50 67 0.95 55

8 Storm Drainage System 57 36 67 1.00 53

9 South Edge of Apron 57 32 67 1.00 52


11 Low Level Radioactive 57 15 67 0.95 44Disposal Site

___4-21

12

SECTION 5

CONCLUS IONS










and a summary of the EARM scores for those sites. The sites themselves


LANDFILL NO. 1

Landfill No. I has a sufficient potential to create environmental







of about 10 feet. The water table is high and ground-water is very


68.

JP-4 SPILL SITE

The JP-4 Tank spill site has a sufficient potential to create en-


1972, an 82,000 gallon spill of JP-4 occurred at the west POL area. The


: 5-1

's L__

_ _ _ _ k

.........

TABLE 5.1



I Landfill No. 1 1953-1960's 68







a Storm Drainage System 1942-Present 53




5-2








and follow-on investigation is warranted. When discovered in 1977, the


HARM score of 64.

DEFUELING PIT LEAK




for an undetermined period of time prior to its discovery in the late






From approximately 1955 to the early 1960's, the installation fire



bottom and an earth berm around it. Contaminated fuels (AVGAS, MOGAS)




HAZARDOUS WASTE STORAGE AREA





5S-3 i a

area). The soil in this storage area was darker than normal, indicating

that past spills have occurred. This site received a HARM score of 58.

LANDFILL NO. 2

Landfill No. 2 has a sufficent potential to create environmental

contamination and follow-on investigation is warranted. This landfill

was in operation from the mid 1960's through 1972 and was operated in

two adjacent areas in a trench and fill manner. A portion of this

landfill is located outside of O'Hare ARFF property. Trenches were

about 10 feet deep. It received general refuse, office trash and some

shop wastes. Some drums of shop wastes were crushed with earth moving

equipment. There was no burning of waste at this site. The landfill is

closed and covered. The water table is high and ground water is very


55.

STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM NEAR HANGARS

The Storm Drainage System in the Aircraft hangar area has a suf-

ficient potential to create environmental contamination and follow-on

investigation is warranted. The system in this area has probably

received shop wastes from the hangars. Also, liquid hazardous wastes

are accumulated in an area which drains directly into this wood- and

concrete-pipe system. The system received a HARM score of 53.

SOUTH EDGE OF APRON

The south edge of the main concrete apron has a sufficient poten-

tial to create environmental contamination and follow-on investigation

is warranted. This area was occasionally used as a dumping area for

small quantities of liquid wastes from the shop* in the 1950's and

1960's. A stormwater drainage ditch runs parallel to the edge, about

ten feet away. During the site visit, no environmental stress was

observed in this area. The site received a HARM score of 52.

VEHICLE MAINTENANCE FACILITY

The rear of the vehicle maintenance facility has an insufficient

potential to create environmental contamination and no follow-on

5-4

investigation is warranted. Motor oil was dumped on the ground north of

Building No. 5 from the early 1950's until about 1975. The area behind

the building has been covered over by a concrete vehicle parking lot.

The contaminated soil may have been removed when the parking lot was

built. The site received a HAPM score of 49.

LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE DISPOSAL SITE

The low-level radioactive disposal site has an insufficient po-

tential to create environmental contamination and no follow-on investi-

gation is warranted. This area was used for the disposal of vacuum

tubes during the 1950's and the 19601s. The site received a HARM score

of 44.

5-5

p

SECTION 6

RECOMMENDATIONS

Eleven sites were identified at O'Hare ARFF as having the potential

for environmental contamination and have been evaluated using the HARM

system. This evaluation assessed their relative potential for environ-

mental contamination and along with relevarnt site specific information

identified those sites where further study and monitoring may be neces-

sary. Nine of the sites were determined to have sufficient evidence to

indicate the potential for environmental contamination. Additional data

concerning these sites will be required in order to clearly ascertain

whether or not these sites have contributed environmental contamination.

Therefore, the following recommendations have been developed for each of

the nine sites. There was insufficient evidence on the other two sites

to warrant further investigation.

PHASE II MONITORING RECOMMENDATIONS

The following recommendations are made to further assess the

potential for environmental contamination from waste disposal areas at

O'Hare ARFF. The recommended actions are generally one-time sampling

programs to determine if contamination does exist at the site. If con-

tamination is identified, the sampling program may need to be expanded

to further define the extent of contamination.

Geophysical surveys, consisting of electrical resistivity, electro-

magnetic and/or magnetometer techniques, are recommended prior to any

well installations to attempt to delineate the horizontal and vertical

extent of the site, subsurface leachate plumes migrating from the site,

and subsurface stratigraphy including the hardpan formation. The alter-

native approach to geophysical testing would be the conventional tech-

nique to test well drilling and ground-water sampling. The cost benefit

6-1

......... _A

of geophysical surveys over test drilling can be understood by compari-

sons of time, cost and data availability. Table 6.1 presents genera]

guidelines for the use of certain geophysical techniques.

The recommended monitoring program for Phase II is summarized ir

Table 6.2.

1) Landfill No. 1 has a sufficient potential to create environmental

contamination and monitoring of this site is recommended. A geo-

physical survey should be conducted to define the landfill

boundaries and depth, and identify any leachate plume. Based on

the results of the geophysical survey, one upgradient and 3 down-

gradient monitoring wells should be installed. Wells should be

constructed using 3" Schedule 40 PVC, screened into the first sand

and gravel lens (20' to 30' deep). Sample these wells and analyze

for pH, total dissolved solids, total organic halogen, total

organic carbon, oil and grease, and phenol.

2) The JP-4 Tank Dike Spill Site has a sufficient potential to create

environmental contamination and further monitoring of this site is

recommended. A geophysical survey should be conducted around the

tank farm to identify any JP-4 plume. Conduct a continuous core

sampling in the dike area extended to the first sand and gravel

lens and observe if any JP-4 is present. Then perform a water

extract on 3 soil samples and analyze for oil and grease, and total

organic carbon.

3) The Fuel-contaminated Soil area indicates that there is a suf-

ficient potential to create environmental contamination and further

monitoring of this site is recommended. A geophysical survey

should be conducted around the area to define the extent of the

fuel plume and to locate its source, if possible. Conduct a

continuous core sampling as near to the sites as possible, extended

to the first sand and gravel lens (20' to 30' deep) and observe if

any JP-4 is present. Then perform a water extract on 3 soil samp-

les and analyze for oil and grease and total organic carbon. If a

6-2 I * 4

6

'"

-So

I.E..46

=ibu- led '6!-

.' i1 3 +4 04'I

I is: i I :

to3

taa

BE -P il I 1

U) - ~ 44

b~hU 6.4

MUPo 9.

* ~ '~ ~ ii

464

shh40 a0[

6-3m;

11.51 6.23SCOEiN Nna?!XM O M lAC Ma 101. 11E

RankingRatingmembr site meO score Recomended monitoring Comments

I Landfill No. i Go Conduct geophysical survey to define Continue monitoring if amplingthe landfill bounawieg and depth end indicates contaminatior. * Adi-iceidentify any loechate plume. based a wells ay be needed.the results of the geophysical survey,install ems upgradient and 3 dn-gradient monitorinlg Vella. wellsshould be conatructed uaing 31Schedule 40 PVC, screeneid into thefirst sand and gravel less (201 to 301deep). Samle these well. ad analyse

.1 for Pa, Mo. M~. iCC, and phmol.

2 4P-4 lank Dike Spill 6a conduct geophysical survey aoud the Conduct comied geophysical surveytank farm to identify any .11-4 plane. With Landfill Wo. 1.conduct a continuums comtsampling inthe dike area extended to the firstsand and gravel leam. Observe Lf any33-4 is Present. Perform a waterextract em 3 mail smples and analysefor oil and growne sAd 2VC.

3 Tual-Coataminatad Soil 64 Conduct geophysical survey around the Coordinate geophysical muolvay withsite to identify any 31" plume. C- other sits work. if plume is ideaad-duct a continuous ewre ampling ason the tied locate baring in pluns near tank.site extended to the first sd and Isonitoring wells way be reuited itgravel lame (201-N0 deep). Observe plae identified.if any .11-4 is present. Perf orm awater etract on 3 mails samplas andanalyse Por oil and greas, and 10C.

4 Datueling Pit Leak Site 63 Cocet 4eophysical survey aroud ase Coordnate gaphi cel McrVey with@its to identify say a1-4 plume. cam- other sits work. If plums ia Idumti-duct a cutimems ouws sampling near the fied loeat* boring in plum near tank.sift extended to the first send and mitoring well. my he required ifgrovel. les (201-30 deep). plam Identified.Obsmv if any 31-4 is pIet Per-to" a eer, oetrat as 3 , Salsap

5 Pirs Protection 2raining 60 Conduct geophysical survey arun the The site is covered by a hardfla,ATea site to identify any isathats plane. therefore, mite moitoring Is

restricted.

6 asardome Waste Storage so conduct a continua"s comu smpling If contamination fomund, ins tallArea imi the caster of the cI to extended monitoring vell to better charac-

to the firet sand and gravel lam terie cotminants in the ground(20'-301 deep). Obhasm If contami- eter.matios preset. Pertos= a waeretrust of 3 selected soil sam3ae(in ontaminated soewe if presnt)and poerrm alyste for PE,IOend 10M.

7 Landfill 30. 2 55 Comt geughysical srvey to dsfine Conduct combined geophysical surveythe landfill bedrme and depth with the Fire protection trainingand Identify asy leachete plum. Area. ontinue msctoering itBox"d me the vomsut of the quo- sampling indicesa onteaiation.physical. survey, install oeupgradiant ad to dowagradieftamornterig wl"s. Wll. should heconstructed of 3* Schedule 40 PV,areemed into the first mand andgravel lees (201-NO deep). isauthese well. and analyse for pg.IcO, 2M, IN and phenol.

9 Stara Drainage System S3 Conduct estieme core eswe at the if oemtasndatieft in too"m."Me ane" smaet woodes pipe section sSd at the ollect and analyse samples f rom

neareet outtall extended to the first any meter Steeding is the system.sand emS gravel loes. Observe If camn- Asothr sofien of owes Samplingtsastiob in present. Perform a water my be assumeary to define theextraction of N Magles and analyze for extent of es .ties.2MU, M0 sS p6.

9 Spill. along South Udge of SN Conduct a estinse core sampling at it loeuts"Ntiom found in the comeNais Apre the edge of tMo apron extended to the saaplee * collect and &only%* surface

first cged amd graowl lss (2O'-2, water and Sedimnst seoplee In theSeep). Observe if eany ocasaiatiom drainage dita during high flowprecas. performs mewter extract as period.N Slected MAmes.aplas (is mUf--

ated seems if preset) A peefermenels for Pm, Ift end WO.

6-4

plume was identified during the survey, the boring should be lo-

cated to intercept the plume. Monitoring wells may be required if

a plume is identified.

4) The Defueling Pit Leak Site has a sufficient potential to create

environmental contamination and further monitoring of the site is


site to identify any JP-4 plume. Conduct a continuous core samp-

ling by the site extended to the first sand and gravel lens (20' to

30' deep) and observe if any JP-4 is present. Then perform a water

extract on 3 selected soil samples (in the contaminated zone, if

present) and analyze for oil and grease, and total organic carbon.

If a plume was identified during the survey, the boring should be

located to intercept the plume. Monitoring wells may be required

if a plume is identified.

5) The Fire Protection Training Area has a sufficient potential to

create environmental contamination and further monitoring of the

site is recommended. A geophysical survey should be conducted to

identify any leachate plume. Further investigation of the site is

to be coordinated with that of Landfill No. 2, discussed below.

6) The Hazardous Waste Storage Area has a sufficient potential to

create environmental contamination and further monitoring of the

site is recommended. Any old drums in the area should be located

and examined. Conduct a continuous core sampling in the center of

the site extended to the first sand and gravel lens (20' to 30'

deep) and observe if contamination present. Perform a water ex-

tract of 3 selected soil samples (in contaminated zones if present)

and analyze for pH, total organic halogen and total organic carbon.


contamination and further monitoring of the site is recommended.

First conduct a geophysical survey (simultaneous with the Fire

Protection Training Area, above) to define the landfill boundaries

and depth, and identify any leachate plume. Based on the results

6-5 4-moo.

of the geophysical survey, install one upgradient and two down-

gradient monitoring wells. Wells should be constructed of 3"

Schedule 40 PVC, screened into the first sand and gravel lens (20'

to 30' deep). Sample these wells and analyze for pH, total organic

carbon, total organic halogen, total dissolved solids and phenols.

8) The Storm Drainage System in the aircraft hangar area has a suf-


monitoring of the system is recommended. First, the sections which

are wooden pipe nearest the hangars should be identified. The

nearest outfall should also be identified. Then conduct a con-

tinuous core sampling at each point extended to the first sand and

gravel lens (20' to 30' deep) and observe if any contamination is

present. Perform a water extract on 3 selected soil samples from

each point and perform analyses for total organic halogen, total

organic carbon, and pH. If contamination is found in either core

sample, collect and analyze water samples from any water found

standing in the system. Another series of core samples nay be

necessary to define the extent of any contamination.

9) The Spill Area along the South Edge of the Main Apron has a suf-


monitoring of the site is recommended. First, conduct a continuous

core sampling at the edge of the apron extended to the first sand

and gravel lens (20' to 30' deep) and observe if any contamination

is present. Perform a water extract on 3 selected soil samples in

contamination zones if present) and perform analyses for pH, total

organic halogen and total organic carbon. If contamination is

found in the core samples, collect and analyze surface water and

sediment samples in the drainage ditch during a high flow period.

OTHER RECOMEMNDATIONS

The following items did not warrant HARM ratings but are signi-

ficant to the protection of the environmental at O'Hare ARFF. It is

recommended that the installation environmental program incorporate

these recommendations into its overall plan.

6-6

1) The oil/water separator located near Building No. 19 (both the

main tank and its overflow tank) should be emptied and it should

be verified that the water overflows into the sanitary sewer.

Regular monitoring and periodic emptying of this separator is

recommended.

2) The location of Hazardous Waste Accumulation Point near the

aircraft hangars should be reevaluated in light of the pos-

sibility of a spill entering the storm sewer.

3) The abandoned MOGAS tank(s) at the south edge of the Main Apron

should be checked for any contents and either removed or filled

with sand.

4) A sign should be permanently posted at the low-level radioactive

disposal site identifying it as such.

6-7

TABLE OF CONTENTS

APPENDICES

PAGE

APPENDIX A BIOGRAPHICAL DATA A-ID. L. Gregory A-iH. D. Harman, Jr. A-4R. J. Reimer A-6

APPENDIX B LIST OF INTERVIEWEES B-iOutside Agencies B-3

APPENDIX C ORGANIZATIONS AND MISSIONS C-iPrimary Organization and Mission C-1Tenant Organizations and Missions C-i

APPENDIX D POL TANK INFORMATION D-1

APPENDIX E MASTER LIST OF INDUSTRIAL SHOPS E-i

APPENDIX F PHOTOGRAPHS F-i

APPENDIX G USAF INSTALLATION RESTORATION PROGRAM G-iHAZARD ASSESSMENT RATING METHODOLOGYBackground G-1Purpose G-2Description of Model G-2Hazard Assessment Rating Methodology G-4

Rating ChartHazard Assessment Rating Methodology G-5

FormHazard Assessment Rating Methodology G-7

Guidelines

APPENDIX H HAZARD ASSESSMENT RATING FORMS H-1

APPENDIX I REFERENCES I-I

APPENDIX J GLOSSARY OF TERMINOLOGY AND ABBREVIATIONS J-1

APPENDIX K INDEX K-1

A

APPENDIX A

BIOGRAPHICAL DATA

D. L. Gregory, Project Manager A-iH. D. Harmaan, Jr. A-4R. J. Reimer A-6

E s - SCIENCE

Biographical Data

DAVID L. GREGORY

Environmental Engineer

Education

B.S. in Civil Engineering, 1976, University of Cincinnati, OhioM.E. in Environmental Syste Engineering, 1978, Clemson Univer-

sity, South Carolina

Professional Affiliations

Engineer-in-Training (Ohio)Georgia Water Pollution Control AssociationWater Pollution Control Federation

Honorary Affiliations

Chi Epsilon

Zzperience Record

1974-1975 State of Ohio, Departmnt of Transportation, Lebanon,

Ohio. Construction Inspector. Responsibilitiesincluded inspection of soil work and concrete struc-tures for interstate highway 1-471.

1976-1978 Clemson University, Clemon, South Carolina. Graduate

Research Assistant (1976-1977). Conducted bench-scaletreatability studies on an organic dye manufacturer'swastewater to determine the effects of ozone pretreat-sent on the kinetics of activated sludge.

Graduate Research Associate (1978). Served as re-search coordinator and treatment technologist forbench-scale treatability studies of organic dyemanufacturing wastawater by ozonation, hyperfiltra-tion, carbon absorption, activated sludge, and pow-dered activated carbon (PAC) processes . Performedanalyses for toxic compounds using atomic absorptionand gas chromatography.

1979-1981 GNP Associates, Inc., Honolulu, Hawaii. ProJectEngineer. Responsible for sampling, data evaluation,review of operating procedures, and developent ofdesign and operating modifications for a study onpollution potential of the naval drydock facilities at

02830A-1

David L. Gregory (Continued)

Pearl Harbor. Involved in a series of troubleshootingstudies at municipal wastewater treatment plants whichincluded collection and evaluation of performance dataon pump stations, clarifiers, activated sludge units,trickling filters, aerobic and anaerobic digesters,and various dowatering devices and recommendations forimproving plant performance through design and opera-tional modifications.

Project Nanager. Supervised a study on the source andcontrol of hydrogen sulfide odors at a municipaltreatment plant, involving investigation of thewastewater collection system and the treatment plant,an extensive wastewater characterization program,evaluation of ozonation, carbon absorption, andcatalytic reduction treatment processes, and recom-mendation for alternative processes and operatingstrategies.

1981 -Date Engineering-Science. Project Engineer. Developedstormater control strategies, wastewater treatmentdesign criteria, and a computer model for predictingthe hydraulic impact of stormater flows on thetreatment system for an oil refinery WPDES permittingproject. Conducted batch and continuous bench scalebiological treatability studies on a wastewater streamcontaining 2,4-D, organic arsenic, and other herbi-cides, which included extensive wastewater character-ization, jar testing of metal salt for arsenic precip-itation, ammonia stripping testing, primary settlingcolumn testing, and development of a computer model todetermine the alkalinity and distribution of carbonateand ammonia species in the vastestream under variousconditions of p8 and carbonate concentration. In-volved in a waste copatability study, design of spillprevention and control features, and determination ofhealth and safety requir mnts for a photographic labchemical storage area and a hazardous waste collectionsystem.

Project Manager. In charge of developing a comprehen-sive Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure(SPCC) guidance manual and pollution contingency plansfor U.S. Air Force bases which involved compliancewith hazardous waste regulations and development ofprocedures for evaluating existing spill preventionand response capabilities* Directed a bioreactortreatability study to evaluate loading rates, PKCaddition, and organics removal for the design of thewastewater treatment facilities at a plastics plant tobe constructed by General El.ctric in The Netherlands.

A-2

'David L. Gregory (Continued)

Pjarg. And -Presentations

w3ioloqica1 T'retaility of an Osonated Dye NAnutacture WatewMaster of ftqinewinq Special Problem Report, Clemson University,mivironmental System bqginering Department, Clemson, South Caro-lina, 1979,

A-3

Biographical Data

H. DAN HARMAN, JR.

Hydrogeologist

Education

B.S., Geology, 1970, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN


Registered Professional Geologist (Georgia NO.569)National Water Well Association (Certified Water Well DrillerNo. 2664)Georgia Ground-Water Association

Experience Record

1975-1977 Northwest Florida Water Management District, Havana,Florida. Hydrogeologist. Responsible for boreholegeophysical logger operation and log interpretation.Also reviewed permit applications for new water wells.

1977-1978 Dixie Well Boring Company, Inc., LaGrange, Georgia.Hydroqeologist/Well Driller. Responsible for boreholegeophysical logger operation and log interpretation.Also conducted earth resistivity surveys in Georgia andAlabama Piedmont Provinces for locations of water-bearing fractures. Additional responsibilities includeddrilling with mud and air rotary drilling rigs as wellas bucket auger rigs.

1978-1980 Law Engineering Testing Company, Inc., Marietta,Georgia. Hydrogeologist. Responsible for ground-waterresource evaluations and hydroeological fieldoperations for government and industrial clients. Amajor responsibility was as the Mississippi FieldHydrologist during the installation of both fresh andsaline water wells for a regional aquifer evaluationrelated to the possible storage of high level radio-active waste in the Gulf Coast Salt Domes.

1980-1982 Ecology and Environment, Inc., Decatur, Georgia.ydrogeoloist. Responsible for project management of

hydrogeoiLogical and geophysical investigations atuncontrolled hazardous waste sites. Also preparedEmergency Action Plans and Remedial Approach Plans for

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Additional

6/83

A-4 i

H. Dan Harman, Jr. (Continued)

responsibilities included use of the MITRE hazardousranking system to rank sites on the National SuperfundList.

1982-1983 NUS Corporation, Tucker, Georgia. Rydrogeoloqist.Responsible for project management of hydrogeologicaland geophysical investigations at uncontrolled hazardouswaste sites.

1983-Date Engineering-Science, Inc., Atlanta, Georgia.Hydrogeologist. Responsible for hydrogeologicalevaluations during Phase I Installation RestorationProgram projects for the Department of Defense.

Publications and Presentations

"Geophysical Well Logging: An Aid in Georgia Ground-Water Projects,"1977, coauthor: D. Watson, The Georgia Operator, Georgia Water andPollution Control Association.

"Use of Surface Geophysical Methods Prior to Monitor Well Drilling,*1981. Presented to Fifth Southeastern Ground-Water Conference,Americus, Georgia.

"Cost-Effective Preliminary Leachate Monitoring at an UncontrolledHazardous Waste Site," 1982, coauthor: S. Hitchcock. Presented to ThirdNational Conference on Management of Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites,Washington, D.C.

"Application of Geophysical Techniques as a Site Screening Procedure atHazardous Waste Sites," 1983, coauthor: S. Hitchcock. Proceedings ofthe Third National Symposion and Exposition on Aquifer Restoration andGround-Water Monitoring, Columbus, Ohio.

A-5 .

..... ... 4

#67Biographical Data

ROBERT J. REINER

Chemical Engineer

Education

B.S. in Chemical Engineering, 1979, University of Notre DameB.A. in Art, 1979, University of Notre DameM.S. in Chemical Engineering, 1980, University of Notre Dame

Honors

Amoco Company Fellowship for Graduate Studies in ChemicalEngineering, University of Notre Dame (1979-1980)


American Institute of Chemical Engineers

Experience Record

1978-1979 PEDCo Environmental, Cincinnati. Engineer's Assistant.Responsible for compilation of data base report review-ing solid waste disposal in the nonferrous smeltingindustry. Participated in So2 scrubber emissions test-ing program, Columbus, Ohio. Worked on team establish-ing a computerized reference file on the overall smelt-ing industry. Performed technical editing and reportreview.

1979-1980 Camargo Associates, Ltd., Cincinnati. Design Engineerand Draftsman. Responsible for RVAC design on numerousprojects. Designed fire protection system for an in-dustrial plastics press. Designer on various generalplumbing jobs. Prepared EPA air pollution permit ap-plications.

1980-Date Engineering-Science. Chemical Engineer. Responsiblefor the preparation of environmental reports and permitdocuments as well as providing general environmentalassistance to clients to assure compliance with stateand federal regulations.

3/83

A-6

r-

ES mminwmscinN

Robert J. Reimer (Continued)

1980-Date Developed cost estimates for several hazardous wastemanagement facility closures. Prepared several InterimStatus Standards Manuals, including Manifest Plans,Waste Analysis Plans, Closure Plans and Contingency/Emergency Plans. Provided technical assistance in thedesign of a one-million gallon per year fuel alcoholproduction facility.

Provided assistance for a water reuse/reduction plan ata major petroleum refinery. Conducted an extensivereview of emerging energy technologies for the Depart-ment of Energy. Participated in several InstallationRestoration Proqrams for the U. S. Air Force. Assistedin the design of a contaminated ground water air strip-ping column based on a lab model to be developed. Pre-pared several delisting petitions for the removal ofindustrial wastestreams from IA's hazardous waste list.Assisted in a study of waste oil reuse for the U.S. Army

A-7

APPENDIX B

LIST OF INTERVIEWEES

APPENDIX B


O'Hare ARFF

Position Years of Service

1 . Environmental Coordinator,Civil Engineering Squadron 3

2. Civilian Supervisor,Consolidated Aircraft Maintenance Squadron 38

3. Fire Chief, Fire Department 9

4. Supervisor Fuels Management 22

5. Vehicle Maintenance 24

6. TAG Clinic 5

7. Civil Engineering Squadron 37

S. Supervisor, Fuel Maintenance 13

9. Supervisor, Vehicle Maintenance 37



12. ILANG 6

13. Heavy Equipment Operator, Civil Engineering Squadron 14

14. Fuels Maintenance 4

15. Base Supply 32

16. Aircraft Maintenance Squadron 28

17. Chief Engineer, Civil Engineering Squadron 3

18. Supervisor, Aircraft Maintenance Squadron 33

19. Supervisor, Material and Equipment Inspector 27

2-1


20. Fire Chief (Ret.), Fire Department 24

21. Supervisor, Ground Safety 34

22. Supervisor, Aircraft Maintenance 34

23. Supervisor, Electric Shop, Civil Engineering Squadron 33

24. Aircraft Maintenance 30

25. Command Post 23

26. Base Civil Engineer, Civil Engineering Squadron 21

B-2

I

OUTSIDE AGENCIES

Illinois EPA

Jack Barnetts Emergency ResponseEva Howard Envir. Services Division 312/886-6233Don Clopke Water Pollution Sec. 312/345-9780

USEPA

John Oaks Superfund Office 312/886-6156Gale Hrufka Waste Management Sec. 312/886-6138

City of Chicago

Bob Valiquet Department of Aviation 31 2/686-2268

Illinois Dept. of Energy and Natural ResourcesState Water Survey Division

Robert Sasman Hydrologist 312/879-6466

Illinois Dept. of Conservation

Mike Sweet Geologist 217/782-6424

3-3

APPENDIX C

ORGANIZATIONS AND MISSIONS

4 LL

APPENDIX C


PRIMARY ORGANIZATION AND MISSION

The primary mission of the 928th Tactical Air Group is to provide


airborne forces, equipment, supplies and aeromedical evacuation within

the theater of operations. The Group also operates and maintains the Air

Force complex at O'Hare International Airport, represents the Air Force

in the Chicago metropolitan area, and provides support to various tenant

units.

TENANT ORGANIZATIONS AND MISSIONS

The O'Hare Air Reserve Forces Facility is host to several tenant

organizations and provides facilities, services and other support to

these organizations. The following list identifies the major tenant

organizations and briefly describes their missions.

126th Air Refueling Wing, Illinois Air National Guard (IlI ANG)

The primary mission is to provide ground and aerial refueling, using

Boeing KC-135, and to maintain maximum combat readiness at minimum cost.

Other missions include fly-in ground servicing, personnel transport,

emergency air evacuation, and cargo transport. The Wing advises and

assists State authorities in the administration, logistics, traininq and

operation of the military air forces. The Wing also participates in

joint exercises and maneuvers, and provides disaster relief in domestic

emergencies.

264th Mobile Communicatons Squadron, Ill ANG

The primary mission of the Squadron is the installation, operation

and maintenance of radio relays and mobile radio relay terminals at

unprepared sites, including VHF or UHF/F? microwave and topospheric

scatter equipment. The Squadron is also responsible for the installa-

tion, operation, and maintenance of radio communications tributary

teams, including telephone, teletype and communications center functions.

C-I

217th Electronics Installation Squadron, Ill AUG

The Squadron is responsible for installation and maintenance of

ground communication-electronics equipment. The squadron consists of

four ground radio communications equipment teams, two telephone switching

teams, eight outside wire and antenna systems teams and sixteen cable

splicing teams.

36th Medical Service Evacuation Squadron

This Squadron trains to fulfill its wartime mission of providing

aeromedical staging at fixed medical facilities or other designated

locations.

USAF Liaison Office/National Scouting Organization

This office administers the USAF program of cooperation with the Boy

Scouts of America. The office acts as liaison between Air Force instal-

lations and scouts within Boy Scout Region VII (Illinois, Indiana,

Michigan, Wisconsin and eastern Iowa).

Additional Tenants

Defense Contract Administration Services Region

Defense Logistics Agency

Headquarters, Ill ANG

126th Combat Support Group, Ill ANG

126th Consolidated Aircraft Maintenance Squadron, Ill ANG

126th USAF Clinic, Ill ANG

126th Civil Engineering Flight, Ill ANG

566th USAF Band, Ill ANG

Aeronautical Systems Division, Reserve Detachment (AFLC)

Corps of Engineers Field Office

C-2

" " ' I,,- < -

APPEIDIX D

POL TANK INFORMATION

APPENDIX D


Location Product Volume Comment(Facility No) (Gal)

2900 Diesel 60,0002900 MOGAS (unleaded) 10,000

2900 MOGAS (regular) 10,000

2902 (170) JP-4 210,000

2902 (171) JP-4 50,000 Underground

2902 (172) JP-4 50,000 Underground

2903 JP-4 25,000 Diked

2903 JP-4 25,000 Diked

2903 JP-4 25,000 Diked

2903 JP-4 25,000 Diked

2903 JP-4 25,000 Diked

2903 JP-4 25,000 Diked

2903 JP-4 25,000 Diked

2903 JP-4 25,000 Diked

2903 JP-4 25,000 Diked

2903 31-4 11,500 Diked

2903 31-4 11,500 Diked

2903 FS-2 25,000* Diked

2903 FS-5 12,000 Tank car

*Split compartment tank (12,500-gallons each compartment); 12,500

gallons of Fs-2 in one compartmentl other comrtuent is nearly

empty.

D-1

APPENDIX E

MASTER LIST OF INDUSTRIAL. SHOPS

APPODIX ZMASTER LIST OF INDUSTRIAL SHOPS

0O"HARE ARF?

Present Handles GeneratesLocation Hazardous Hazardous Current TSD

Nam (Bldg. No.) Materials Waste Method

AGE Shop 33 yes yes Contractor/SanitarySever

AGE Shop* 24 yes Yes Contractor/SanitarySewer

Vehicle Maintenance* 5 Yes yes Contractor

Avionics 30 no No

Avionics* 27 No No

Battery/Electrical 31 yes yes Contractor/Sanitary

Shop Sewer

Carpenter Shop 10 yes No--

Corrosion Control 30 yes yes Contractor/GeneralRefuse

Exterior/Interior 10 No NO--

Electric

Engine Shop 34 yes yes Contractor

Engine Shop' 70 Yes yes Contractor

Fire Department 63 Yes Yes Contractor

Fuel cell 35 yes Yes Contractor/internal

Recycle

Fuel (POL) Storage 66 yes Yes Contractor/InternalRecycle

Hangar Facility' 19 yes so--

Life Support Shop 3 yes no--

machine shop 30 Yes Yes Contractor

2-1 I


Name (Bldg. No.) Materials Waste Method

Non-Destructive 59 Yes Yes Sanitary Sewer

Inspection Shop

Packing and Crating 32 Yes No ---

Painting Shop 10 Yes No

Plumbing Shop 10 Yes No ---

Pneudraulics Shop 30 Yes Yes Contractor

Prop. Shop 34 Yes Yes Contractor

Repair and 30 Yes Yes ContractorReclamation

Refrigeration Shop 58 Yes No ---

Roads and Grounds 55 Yes Yes Contractor

Shop

Rocket Storage 411 Yes NoFacility* *

Sheet Metal 10 No No ---

Fabrication

Stock Room/ 21,22,23 Yes No ---Supply*

Survival Equipment 61 Yes No ---Shop

Vehicle Maintenance 50 Yes Yes Contractor/Sanitary

Facility Sewer

Vehicle Maintenance 12 Yes Yes Contractor/SanitaryFacility* Sewer

Welding Shop 30 No No ---

* Air National Guard Facility" Former Air National Guard Facility, no longer in use.

2-2

- 1]

APPENDIX F

PHOTOGRAPHS

00

U-

F-1 a ENGNEERNG -sca)

mm IULNEREg

O'HARE ARFF

LANDFILL NO. 2

FIRE TRAINING AREA(APPROXIMATE LOCATION)

F-3 ES ENGINEERING -SCIENCE

O'HARE ARFF

Hazardous Waste Drum Storage Area

4A.owuu~o-clc

APPENDIX G

USAF INSTALLATION RESTORATION PROGRAM

HAZARD ASSESSMENT RATING METHODOLOGY

i -

APPENDIX C



BACKGROUND

The Department of Defense (DOD) has established a comprehensiveprogram to identify, evaluate, and control problems associated with past

disposal practices at DOD facilities. One of the actions required under

this program is to:

ndevelop and maintain a priority listing of con-taminated installations and facilities for remedialaction based on potential hazard to public health,welfare, and environmental impacts.0 (Reference:•DEQPPM 81-5, 11 December 1981).

Accordingly, the United States Air Force (USAF) has sought to establish

a system to set priorities for taking further actions at sites basedupon information gathered during the Records Search phase of its In-

stallation Restoration Program (IRP).The first site rating model was developed in June 1981 at a meeting

with represenatives from USAF Occupational and Environmental Health

Laboratory (OEHL), Air Force Engineering and Services Center (AFESC),Engineering-Science (ES) and CH2M Hill. The basis for this model was a

system developed for EPA by JEB Associates of McLean, Virginia. The JRB

model was modified to meet Air Force needs.

After using this model for 6 months at over 20 Air Force installa-

tions, certain inadequacies became apparent. Therefore, on January 26and 27, 1982, representatives of USAF OEHL, AFESC, various major com-

mands, Engineering-Science, and CH2M Hill met to address the inade-

quacies. The result of the meeting was a new site rating model designed

to present a better picture of the hazards posed by sites at Air Forceinstallations. The new rating model described in this presentation is

referred to as the Hazard Assessment Rating Methodology.

G-1

PURPOSE

The purpose of the site rating model is to provide a relative

ranking of sites of suspected contamination from hazardous substances.

This model will assist the Air Force in setting priorities for follow-on

site investigations and confirmation work under Phase II of the IRP.

This rating system is used only after it has been determined that

(1) potential for contamination exists (hazardous wastes present in

sufficient quantity), and (2) potential for migration exists. A site

can be deleted from consideration for rating on either basis.

DESCRIPTION OF MODEL

Like the other hazardous waste site ranking models, the U.S. Air

Force's site rating model uses a scoring system to rank sites for

priority attention. However, in developing this model, the designers

incorporated some special features to meet specific DOD program needs.

The model uses data readily obtained during the Records Search

portion (Phase I) of the IRP. Scoring judgments and computations are

easily made. In assessing the hazards at a given site, the model

develops a score based on the most likely routes of contamination and

the worst hazards at the site. Sites are given low scores only if there

are clearly no hazards at the site. This approach meshes well with the

policy for evaluating and setting restrictions on excess DOD properties.

As with the previous model, this model considers four aspects ofthe hazard posed by a specific site: the possible receptors of the

contamination, the waste and its characteristics, potential pathways for

waste contaminant migration, and any efforts to contain the contami-

nants. Each of these categories contains a number of rating factors

that are used in the overall hazard rating.

The receptors category rating is calculated by scoring each factor,

multiplying by a factor weighting constant and adding the weighted

scores to obtain a total category score.

G-2- 2

The pathways category rating is based on evidence of contaminant

migration or an evaluation of the highest potential (worst case) for

contaminant migration along one of three pathways. If evidence of

contaminant migration exists, the category is given a subscore of 80 to

100 points. For indirect evidence, 80 points are assigned and for

direct evidence, 100 points are assigned. If no evidence is found, the

highest score among three possible routes is used. These routes are

surface water migration, flooding, and ground-water migration. Evalua-

tion of each route involves factors associated with the particular mi-

gration route. The three pathways are evaluated and the highest score

among all four of the potential scores is used.

The waste characteristics category is scored in three steps.

First, a point rating is assigned based on an assessment of the waste

quantity and the hazard (worst case) associated with the site. The

level of confidence in the information is also factored into the

assessment. Next, the score is multiplied by a waste persistence

factor, which acts to reduce the score if the waste is not very

persistent. Finally, the score is further modified by the physical

state of the waste. Liquid wastes receive the maximum score, while

scores for sludges and solids are reduced.

The scores for each of the three categories are then added together

and normalized to a maximum possible score of 100. Then the waste man-

agement practice category is scored. Sites at which there is no con-

tainment are not reduced in score. Scores for sites with limited con-

tainment can be reduced by 5 percent. If a site is contained and well

managed, its score can be reduced by 90 percent. The final site score

is calculated by applying the waste management practices category factor

to the sum of the scores for the other three categories.

G-3

,7

FIGURE I

ow-At-j

I C

cr 0

ziWI 0

CO I-tA

w I9

COOjc m )II I-<0 _ 1

IIca

1C1 I IA.

o 40

CLI

G-4

FIGUR 2

HAZARD ASSESSMENT RATING METHODOLOOV, FORMPairs o f 2

oma w m

L fhCEPTORS8

htlasFactor PassbLenatins peasto (0-3) "aftyi sowes somre

A.Imaalswthn1.000 fae @ le - 4 _____

C.L~iasaelswithin I Stue COAium 3-

7- CiticaL eim est within I mlem uadius at site 10______

P. Natm quaLity at saes~et astfass water be" __________

3. Gupalatin sora by sactat Nmus - 9 1I. PaJesU srved by gleamtm UULY

l~a~au ib~we(106 1 tustar .m.~saahasew@sr aueawa)

L WASTE CHARACTENhSTICSA. fLoeo Me fator woe, beas" an Se atiatei quatity, On degre. at bsmir, an the osfidease leveL of

the inismatift.

1. waste qoamity (8 0 Mai x a aedivin 1. 6 .ge

2. Conf idence leow" (C a csmilassi. I a maSPNPsAil

3. nasard rating (UB hgh# K aedIm.Lueawto-

taccts uborn.e A (gem 20 to Ice baede an tate Sm ase el)-

a. 4pLY Pesi stece factorFactor Sub"sse A x PegeIAaeeu Pastne a lubSsee a

C. Apply pbymia" Mato msitplier

Stabeece a I Phy"Sies tate ~Iftpus Sa Wase ractocims al*seoe

FIGURE 2 (Continued)ww. 2 ofl 2

IL PA7hWAYS

Rating ractor Postble.atli rator (0-3) mgeiouste Scoe .:ote

. 19 maore is evidence of atiratoi Of bgudou5 OOtaaiaamt, assign mim ftor bre of 100 points !a,direct evidegam cc so points ftog tdiream wodm. If direct evi e x ists than proMd to C. If noevideme cc tdirect evidemfe ialta *ocied to S.

I-gear.

S. At. te migratiom iotent al Tot 3 potential ptbueys, ianse. wer aIgation, floo ingiad Im terIlgratice. Salem the biet rati0.au n t d to C.

1. I-fae wM aIgrata

Mstaac to sergest surt ap. water_______ S ______

N* et civitatio. _____ 6 ___________

Surface iersion _r_ 8

suemif emU amity ______ 6 _____ _____

iI ot is I

1user (100 1 factor eae "Mtoa.n mre MbtotaL.) -

2. flodins - I t ISubsume (100 x factor scoe/Il

3. 0 to-runtd aert.

S96-M eiiat . .

Subrf m flow .,_ _ _ __l.tneet~r,_ _ _I _

Direct access to @rowod "ater____________ ____

Subtotals

Subacore (00: factor ams ab/t ou score subtotal)

C. floghat- pathway OWNMbc.

Set the highest sabscore value fr A. 3-1, 1-2 a, -3 ove.

Pathways Sukecore

IV. WASTE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

A. Average the three abemes tor eclor.. vaste characteristics. sd patway.

anceptoteNam CCartbistics-

Pathwan. -

Tctal_ _ dividd by 3

3. Awy factor fag Wase conta~uent from Waste mamagement practices

Groa Total Saeoe I waste MNanernmt Practices Pe r Ifinal Sore

G-6

a to

a a ,aa

0

~c

1 4, 20

3 ~~ 41a.o .- Va.-

4~04

0 - I 4-4 -Iw 1 .4

at diiS ~ 9 9O0

4,4 41 4 4G-7

"d Cd L -

aa 06 A~

r ......

al do

ad 21,g 1.

*SMS -

* "£." I, 6

, I ,*

1 0t. Ice,

04

IVI

4456 j.1

:1: 1

0! +, 9a++ + d10

ad- Ii U i |

44d a. caA40 + -INA to

t Iad

0 04

aa

G-8

o f 2!eAseU em ad

3s~Ar zA

~ ~ U .~JA rIM --

~ rUadI~i8* -- £ !~-. U adS ~-- u

U... '5

0@s* S

* ad3 ~M~3M

- guu~ seep...Ca2 44443

-- --- S U5.6a.. '5IMh.4

a. a~adb ~ad*

4. ~

.IIJ11I1~.;~!.Iy -U

_ *~I1'ad - ad

aa.A0 0 0 1. ~ 11 .a i~I.iii urn - * **

* 2.1

C ji~ Mg

jo u uu m uu *umu mourn use m 1Ma

t~IIs.ad ad L2.~

ha flad - -z .~ ha

ha S 00 b3 -* ad 4. a 3 0.

- --p.: 0. U ad IS I

.3 dUaloU ~iim *U~d SEam ~ jI1~j~1;.~- ~ I

ad

Ii~I1 ,3 I ~1: ;.~* ii~* 2ad

G-9

*a 1

4- 1d If 0 0

40-

pm if, j~d.44

40 q

Cal a ma1-4 In V

NO 14 + 0 @ U

0 20 2 MS2

MIsM

2 40

a 0a ~ -

S~o 30 b.IM E** 0

00 4

41.

a. 96 I 4 t

4 Mw s 4 4(

G-10

OM

h.* -gsa'

06.

a a

ma' -U. -is .6

.6 .6a'.g.eM I

2

SSM 6

2 .6

a' 55I" 0I A .6

'-4 * 1 a'.6'

'Iia; : :- ~1I! SE

a' MU .1 a'

* jyiRI! i ~m.Z 5;4.J

a .6 - g02 * ~qM

56.6 16 -*~' 3ME4 -: -~ I ~ SM

II" ~ aa' A.

S 0 0 0 b 0 0 0- S

Si - .6

N ~ M~3* Ei. 2

1z1 II~ 5 .6

~ ~ - - 3 1II~ I a~ aI ~ -'A

E 0 ~3.60a 3~. .

g ~* a I3

lull I I *~~ .6

4 a I

iG-11

I

APPENDIX H

HAZARD ASSESSMENT RATING FORMS

I , "

TABLE OF CONTENTS-

HAZARD ASSESSMENT RATING FORMSO'HARE ARFF

Score Page

1. Landfill No. 1 68 H-2

2. JP-4 Tank Dike 65 H-4

3. Fuel-contaminated Soil 64 H-6

4. Defueling Pit Leak Site 63 H-8

5. Fire Protection Training Area 60 H-10

6. Hazardous Waste Storage Area 58 H-12


8. Storm Drainage System in Aircraft Hangar Area 53 H-16

9. South Edge of Apron 52 H-18

10. Vehicle Maintenance Facility 49 H-20

11. Low Level Radioactive Disposal Site 44 H-22

H-i

Page I of 2

HAZARD ASSESSMENT RATIN6 METHODLOGY FORM

Name of Site: LANDFILL NO. ILocaton: NORTHWEST NEA OF BASEDate of Operation or Occurrence: 1953 TO 1960'SOwner/Operator: O(ARE AFFCOments/Description: TRENCH AND FILL TYPE

Site Rated by: 6REGORY.NLEOD t REINER

I. RECEPTORSFactor Multi- Factor MaximumRating plier Score Possible

Rating Factor (0-3) Score

A. Population within 1,000 feet of site 3 4 12 12B, Distance to nearest well 1 10 10 30C. Land use/zoning within I mile radius 3 3 9 9D. Distance to reservation boundry 3 6 18 18E. Critical environments within I tile radius of site 3 10 30 30F. Water quality of nearest surface water body 1 6 6 186, Ground water use of uppermost aquifer 0 9 0 27H. Population served by surface water supply 0 6 0 18

within 3 miles downstream of siteIt Population served by ground-water supply 3 6 18 18

within 3 miles of site

Subtotals 103 180

Receptors subscore (100 x factor score subtotal/oaximu score subtotal) 57

II. WASTE CHMPATERISTICS

As. Select the factor score based on the estimated quantity, the degree of hazard, and the confideace level ofthe informetion.

1, Waste quantity (l-small, 2eediv, 3=lIre) 32. Confidence level (lconfirmed, 2=suspected) 13. HNazard rating (l1lw, 2-sediu, 3ahiqh) 3

Factor Subscore A (from 20 to 100 based on factor score matrix) 100

, Apply persistence factorFactor Subscore A x Persistence Factor = Subscore I

100 x 0.90 : 90

C. Apply physical state multiplierSubscoe I x Physical State Multiplier 2 Waste Characteristics Subscore

90 x 1.00 90

H-2

°rI

Page 2 of 2

III. PATHWAYSA. If there is evidence of migration of hazardous contaminants, assign maximm factor subscore of 100 points for

direct evidence or 80 points for indirect evidence, If direct evidence exists then proceed to C. If no evidenceor indirect evidence exists, proceed to B.

Subscore 0

9. Rate the migration potential for 3 potential pothways' surface water migration, flooding, and ground-vatermigration. Select the highest rating and proceed to C.

Factor ulti- Factor MaximaRating Factor Rating plier Score Possible

(0-3) Score

1. Surface Voter igrationDistance to nearest surface woter 3 8 24 24Net precipitation 1 6 6 18Surface erosion 1 8 8 24Surface permeability 3 6 18 18

infall intensity 2 8 16 24

Subtotals 72 108

Subscore (100 x factor score subtotal/mximm score subtotal) 67

2. Flooding 1 1 1 3

Subscore (100 x factor score/3) 33

3. Ground-vater migrationDepth to ground water 3 9 24 24Net precipitation 1 6 6 19Soil permeability 0 8 0 24Subsurface flows 1 8 8 24Direct access to grond voter 1 9 8 24

Subtotals 46 114

SUbscore (100 x factor score subtotl/aximm score subtotal) 40

C. Highest pathway subscore.Enter the highest subscore value from A, 3-1, 3-2 or B-3 above.

PathWays SUcore 67

IV, WSTE WMAENT PRCICESA. Averge the three subcores for receptors, wasto cbhrcteristics, and pethwayst

Receptors 57Vaste OaracteristicsPathways 67Total 214 divided by 3 u 71 Gross total score

3. APIY factor for Waste containment from waste Maagm t practices.GrMs total score x Vaste mnm t practices factor final scoe

71 x 0.95 a 68

H-3

Pqe I of 2

HAZARD ASSESSMENT RATIN6 HEIHODOLOSY FORM

Nme of Site: JP-4 TANK DIKELocation: WEST POL AREADate of Oieration or Occurrence: JNUARY 1972OIer/Ipertor: OWN ARFFCommntsDescription: SPILL IN DIKE; 42,000 6&LLONS NOT RECOVERED

Site Rated by: 6RE6ORY.NcLEOD I REINER

I, RECEPTORSFactor Multi- Factor MaximusRating plier Scare Possible


A. Populetion within 1,000 feet of site 3 4 12 123. Distance to nearest well I 1o 10 30C. Lend use/zoning within 1 mile radius 3 3 9 90. Distance to reservation boundry 3 6 18 18E. Critical envirmments within I mile radius of site 3 10 30 30F, Water quality of nearest surface water body 1 6 6 186. 6round water use of uppermost aquifer 0 9 0 27H. Population served by surface water supply 0 6 0 18

within 3 miles domstream of siteI. Population served by pound-water supply 3 6 18 18


Subtotals 103 180

Receptors subscore (100 x factor score subtotl/maximum score subtotal) 57

II. WASTE CmARACEISriCS

A. Select the factor score based on the estimated quantity, the degree of hazard, and the confidence level ofthe information.

1. Waste quantity (U=smll, 2=medium, 3=large) 32, Confidence level (=cmnfirmed, 2usvspected) 13. Hazard rating (1:1ow, 2-medium, 3-high) 3

Factor Subscore A (from 20 to 100 based on factor score mtrix) 100

a. Apply persistence factorFactor Subscore A x Persistence Factor = Subscore I

100 x 0.80 = 80'

C. Apply physical state multiplierSubscore B x Physical State Multiplier • Waste Characteristics Subscore

90 x 1.00 80

H-4

Page 2 of 2

IlI. PATHWAYSA. If there is evidence of migration of hazardous contaminants, assign maximum factor subscore of 100 points for

direct evidence or 80 points for indirect evidence, If direct evidence exists then proceed to C. If no evidenceor indirect evidence exists, proceed to 1.

Subscore 0

R:. Rate the migration potential for 3 potential pathways: surface wter migration, flooding, end ground-watermigration. Select the highest rating and proceed to C.

Factor Multi- Factor NaximusRating Factor Rating plier Score Possible

(0-3) Score

1. Surface Meter higrationDistance to nearest surfece water 3 8 24 24Net precipitation 1 6 6 18Surface erosion 1 a 8 24Surface permeability 3 6 18 18Rainfall intensity 2 8 16 24

Subtotals 72 1O

Subscore (100 x factor score subtotal/aximm score subtotal) 67

2, Flooding 0 1 0 3


3. 6round-water migrationDepth to ground water 3 9 24 24Net precipitation 1 6 6 18Soil permeability 0 9 0 24Subsurface flows 0 8 0 24Direct access to ground water 1 8 8 24

Subtotals 38 114

Subscore (100 x factor score subtotal/maximm score subtotal) 33

C. Highest pathway subscore.Enter the highest subscore value from A, 3-1, B-2 or B-3 above.

Pathways Subscore 67

IV, ViSTE NAINGEMT PRACTICESA. Average the three subscores for receptors, waste chrcteristics, and pathways.

Receptors 57kste Characteristics 80Pathways 67Total 204 divided by 3 u 68 Gross total score

N, Apply factor for waste containment f rm waste managemut practices.Gross total score x waste maagement practices factor final score

68 x 0.95 N 65

H-S

.. . . . . . .-- " . . . . .. . . ": + -+ J ,,,+ :* ' ,LeIA '

• .1

--- . - -. --. -- -

BRE.. RY, WcLEM & REINER

4 ooi.- h '' ~ fT st

-Z C 0

:.I - : ac" - t r p" -

:f L' A I i

-k sp3 erve c rc"Cw te (-1 U

",CE:.or SSCo -e .r , "5C z0 to, :-oto- .rtl; score,'Y

A. Sc te at: ;sir based o er te actIrwt~e qurtitv, :t eare: 0. hc;71zd- :rt tle ccSr.,

N * ..iuatit- :. 2=eed~ii, 3-lora.

c -b" -e" 20 tC -00 bcsed or :actr scjre

n.3% 00V ;jisWt- facto.;

6C -. 90 5

A. AD&Y OhysicA state Sui-1plip

Subscore f6>: Physical State lulti;lier --Waste ChWacteistacs Suococtr

H-6

Am-

C- :yr ri::c P, C

*~ 3'-~--x- -----

Nrcrcpic i o 6c" cr ubCl-j

3uibscere (100 x factor score/3' 33

3, Oroinc-water 1:cflltior

:-evtW to nrcsno watt'3 2Net preciatior 6 18

Subsurtoce flows 8 -2 411I-rect QcC,2s5 to qrouin.' i.cter 2 8 16 2t4

Suascore 1100 . ;actor ;core sub t~taiaxrnum score subtotafil):

Ent.er the nu')est sujicore vreu-e from A ,-2or 'e-3 above.

Pcthwovs Siibscore 80

:N. WAVE 9VN.AGE MEW7 PRC TICESA. Averone the three sigiscorns for receptcrs, woste@ choroteristics, -and Dotnlwqvs.

Kece~tors 5740:;,e Cnarcte':stics 54

i.thIwoys 30Toteal 191 divided by 3 =t-4 Gross tattl score

f. Al> factor for wa:tC tontainmer: >o7at wGE4e oniagevient arocicers.Gross toc score xwaste monoqement p'scItices factor finoj- score-

64 x 1.00 -4

11-7

Page I of 2

HAZARD ASSESSIENT RATIN6 METHODOLOGY FORM

Name of Site: DEFUELIN6 PIT LEAK SITELocation: WEST PERIMETER OF SASEDate of Operation or Occurrence: LATE 1960'SOwner/Operator' OA ARFFComents/lescription:

Site Rated by: GR6ORV,N-LEOD & REINER

1. RECEPISFactor Multi- Factor MaximumRating plier Score Possible

Rating Factor (0-3) Scope

A. Population within 1,000 feet of site 3 4 12 12B. Distance to nearest well 1 10 10 30C. Land use/zoning within 1 mile radius 3 3 9 9D. Distance to reservation boundry 3 6 18 18E. Critical environments within 1 mile radius of site 3 10 30 30F, Water quality of nearest surface water body 1 6 6 186. Ground water use of uppermost aquifer 0 9 0 27H. Population served by surface water supply 0 6 18

within 3 miles dmmstream of siteI. Population served by ground-water supply 3 6 18 IS


Subtotals 103 190

Receptors subscore (100 x factor score subtotl/txiu score subtotal) 57

II, WASTE CHAACTERISTICS


1, Waste quantity (lzsmall, 2umedium, 3-large) 22. Confidence level (lconfirmed, 2-suspected) I3. Hzard rating (il-low, 2amediu, 3=high) 3


B. Apply persistence factorFactor Subscore A x Persistence Factor z Subscore B

80 x 0.80 = 64

C, Apply physical state multiplierSakscore I x Physical State Multiplier a Vste Characteristics Subscore

64 x 1,00 • 64

H-B

Page 2 of 2

Ill, PATI"YSAs If there is evidence of migration of hazardus contaminants, assign mxim factor subscore of 100 points for

direct evidence or 80 points for indirect evidence# If direct evidence exists than proceed to C. If no evidenceor indirect evidence exists, proceed to B.

Subscore 0

3. late the migration potential for 3 potential pathways: surface water migration, flooding, and ground-votermigration. Select the highest rating and proceed to C,

Factor Multi- Factor MaximumRating Factor Rating plier Scort Possible

(0-3) Score

1. Surface ter NigrationDistance to nearest surface voter 3 B 24 24Net precipitation 1 6 6 1Sur ace erosion 1 B 8 24Surface pereobility 3 6 18 18WOinfll intensity 2 B 16 24

Subtotals 72 108

Subscore (100 x factor score subtotalmnxim score subtotal) 67

2. Flooding 0 1 0 3


3 6romud-voter migrationDepth to grund uater 3 8 24 24Net precipitation 1 6 6 18Sail permeability 0 8 0 24Sburftce floWs 0 8 0 24Direct access to growd vater 1 8 B 24

Subtotals 38 114

Biscore (100 x factor score subtotalO/mximm score subtotal) 33

C. Highest pathay subcore.Eter the highest subscore value from A, 3-1, 3-2 or 3-3 aow.


IV, MR'T IWIMENT PM ACICSA. Average the three subscores for receptors, vaste characteristics, ad pathways.

Receptors, 57Veate Characteristics 64PaUhwys 67Tota141 I divided by 3 a 63 6ross total score

t. fPglY #actor ur ste conaOinment from veste maagm t practices.Gross total KM x waste MMfe t practicI fator * final score

63 x 1.00 \ 63

H-9

• :,7 ..II

J J,I : : i -- 'J

' '; d ' I' '3. .',- , Ai

Page I of 2

HAZARD ASSESSIENT RATING AETHOOLSY FON

Nae of Site: FIRE PROTECTION TRAINING ENALocation: SOUTHEAST OF HARPER OR, ND OLD IIN RD.Date of Operation or Occurrence: 1955 TO EARLY 1960'SOwner/Operator: OAE ARFFCmm ts/Description:

Site Rated by: NRE6ORY,NcLEOD 8 REINER

I. RECEPTORSFactor ulti- Factor NaximumRating plier Score Possible


A. Population within 1,000 feet of site 3 4 12 12B. Distance to nearest well 1 10 10 30C. Land use/zoning within I mile radius 3 3 9 9D. Distance to reservation boundry 3 6 18 18E, Critical environments within I mile radius of site 3 10 30 30F. Water quality of nearest surface water body 1 6 6 186. Ground water use of uppermost aquifer 0 9 0 27H. Population served by surface water supply 0 6 0 18

within 3 miles downstream of siteI. Population served bY groud-water supply 3 6 is is


Subtotals 103 190

Receptors subscore (100 x factor score subtotal/aximum score subtotal) 57

II. WASTE CHARACTERISTICS

A, Select the factor score based on the estimated quantity, the degree of hazard, and the confidence level ofthe information.

1. 1aste quantity (lssll, 2=edivm, 3lare) 22. Confidence level (lmconfirmed, 2=suspected) 13. Hazard rating (Ilow, 2amedim, 3:high) 3

Factor SUbscoe A (frm 20 to 100 based on factor score mtrix) DO

B. Apply persistence factorFactor SUbScore A x Persistence Factor = Subscore I

80 x 080 = 64

C, Apply physical state multiplierSubscore I x Physical State Hltiplier a Baste Characteristics Subscore

64 x 1.00 64iumumt

11-10

Page 2 of 2

III, PATIMAYSA. If there is evidence of migration of hazardous contaimmnts, asign maxiM factor SUbicore of 100 points for

direct evidence or 80 points far indirect evidence, If direct evideace exists thee proceed to C, If no evidenceor indirect evidence exists, proceed to 3.

Subscore 0

B. Plate the migration potential for 3 potential pathways: surface water migration, flooding, and ground-votermigration. Select the highest rating and proceed to C.

Factor Multi- Factor MaoximumRating Factor Rating plier Score Possible

(0-3) Score

1. Surface Hater igrationDistance to nearest surface water 3 8 24 24Net precipitation 1 6 6 18Surface erosion 1 9 8 24Surface permeability 3 6 is 18Rainfall intensity 2 8 16 24

Subtotals 72 108

Subscore (100 x factor scare subtotl/aximm score subtotal) 67

2. Flooding 0 1 0 3

Subsore (100 X factor scure/3) 0

3. Ground-water migrationDepth togrund water 3 8 24 24Net precipitation 1 6 6 i8Soil permebility 0 8 0 24Subsurface flows 0 9 0 24Direct access to ground water 1 8 8 24

Subtotals 38 114

Subucore (100 X factor score SUbtotal/mXi~M score subtotal) 33

C. Highest pathway subacoretLater the highest subscore value from At 3-1, D-2 or D-3 above,


IV, HASTE NANBEEN PRACTICESAt Averag the three suores for recptors, NWt charactristics, Ond pathways,

Recepts 57Haste Characteristics U4Pathways 67Total 168 divided by 3 a 63 Bes total score

3. Anly factor for uaste contaiment from waSte amgment practices.BraS total score X waste managMt pracies factor fimal scOre

63 x *JS5 do6

Page I oi

HAZARD ASSESSMENT RATIN6 METHONLOGY FORM

Ne of Site: HAZARDOUS WASTE STORAGE AREALocation: SOUTHERNMOST EDGE OF OLD ASSEMBLY PLANT FOINDATIONDate of Operation or Occurrence: PRESENTOwner/Operttor: OIHRE AIFFCmets/Description: DRIJNS IN DEPRESSED EARTH AA

Site Rated by: 6REW YPCLED I REINER

I. RECEPTORSFactor Multi- Factor Maximum

Rating plier Score PossibleRating Factor (0-3) Score

A. Population within 1,000 feet of site 3 4 12 12B. Distance to nearest well 1 10 10 30C. Land use/zoming within 1 mile radius 3 3 9 9D. Distance to reservation boundry 3 6 18 18E. Critical environments within 1 mile radius of site 3 10 30 30F. Voter quality of nearest surface water body 1 6 6 186. Ground water use of uppermst aquifer 0 9 0 27H. Population served by surface water supply 0 6 0 I8

within 3 miles downstream of siteI. Population served by ground-water supply 3 6 19 18


Subtotals 103 180

Receptors subscore (100 x factor score subtot4l/mximum score subtotal) 57

II. VASTE CHARACTERISTICS

A. Select the factor score based on the estimated quantityr the degree of hazard, and the confidence level ofthe informtion,

to Waste quantity (1:smll, 2=mediam, 3=large) I2. Confidence level (1:confirmed, 2=-uspctW) 13. Hazard rating (lul=Io 2mdiur, 3ahigh) 3

Factor Subscore A (fron 20 to 100 based on factor score matrix) 60

bA Apply persistence factorFactor Subscore A x Persistence Factor = Subscore B

60 x 1.00 60

C. Apply physical state multiplierSubscore 3 x Physical State Multiplier a Waste Characteristics Subiscore

60 x 1.00 60

H-12

vA I• .. L • -.

Pale 2 of 2

III, PATAYTSA. If there is evidence of migration of hazardous contaminants, assign maxim factor subscore of 100 points for

direct evidence or 90 points for indirect evidence. If direct evidence exists then proceed to C. If no evidenceor indirect evidence exists, proceed to I,

Subscore 0

B. Rate the migration potential for 3 potential pthways: surface water migration, floodinq, and ground-wotermigration. Select the highest rating and proceed to C.

Factor tilti- Factor MaximmRating Factor Rating plier Score Possible

(0-3) Score

1. Surface Vater igrationDistance to nearest surface voter 3 9 24 24Net precipitation 1 6 6 isSurface erosion 1 8 8 24Surface permeability 3 6 18 1Rainfall intensity 2 8 16 24

Subtotals 72 toe

Subscore (100 x factor score subtot4l/aximum score subtotal) 67

2, Flooding 0 1 0 3

SuhcOe (100 x factor scoe/3) 0

3. 6mid-water igrationDepth to 111ni Wter 3 9 24 24Net precipitation 1 6 6 16Sil pemaility 0 8 0 24Sburface flaft 0 0 0 24Direct access to rmd uter I a B 24

Subtotals 38 114

micore (100 x factor score subtotal/maximm score subtotal) 33

C, Highest pathway sabucore.Enter the highest subscore value from A, 3-1, 3-2 or 1-3 abow.


IV. MABT IWMIENENT PACTICESAt Average the three subscores for receptors, waste characteristics, ad pathways.

Receptors 57Veste Chracteristics 60Pathwas 67Total 164 divided by 3 a 61 Gross total score

3. Apply facto? for waste containment from waste management practices.Bras total score x waste mNnment prctices factor * fial score

61 x 0.95 \ 5 \

H1-13

Page I of 2

HAZARD ASSESSMENT RATING HETHODOLOUY FORM

Name of Site; LANDFILL NO. 2Location:SOUTI.AST O OF BASEDate of Operation or Occurrence: 1965 TO EARLY 1970'SOmer/Operator: OARE ARFFComets/escription: TRENCH AND FILL TYPE

Site Rated by' GREORY,-LEOD I REINER

1. RECEPTORSFactor Mlti- Factor MaximumRating plier Score Possible


A. Population within 1,000 feet of site 3 4 12 12

B, Distance to nearest well 1 10 10 30C. Land use/zoning within I mile radius 3 3 9 9D. Distance to reservation boundry 3 6 18 18E. Critical environments within 1 mile radius of site 3 10 30 30F. Water quality of nearest surface water body 1 6 6 186. Ground water use of uppermost aquifer 0 9 0 27H, Population served by surface water supply 0 6 0 18

within 3 miles domstream of siteI, Population served by ground-water supply 3 6 18 18


Subtotals 103 180

Receptors subscore (100 x factor score subtotl/maximum score subtotal) 57

II. WASTE CH ARACTERISTICS

A. Select the factor score based om the estimated quantity, the degree of hazard, and the confidence level ofthe information.

1. Waste quantity (l=smll, 2=mediu, 3=large) 22. Confidence level (lcconfired, 2-suspected) 23. Hazard rating (1low, 2=medium, 3=high) 3


Be Apply persistence factorFactor Subscore A x Persistence Factor c Suoscore I

50 x 1,00 50

C, Aply physical state multiplierSubscore I x Physical State Multiplier a Waste Characteristics Subscore

50 x 1.00 - 50

H-14

V - A

Page 2 of 2

III. PATHWAYSAs If there is evidence of migration of hazardous containants, assign maxim factor subscore of 100 points for

direct evidence or 80 points for indirect evidence. If direct evidence exists then proceed to C. If no evidenceor indirect evidence exists, proceed to 3.

Subscore 0

I. Rate the migration potential for 3 potential pathways: surface voter migration, flooding, and ground-votermigration. Select the highest rating and proceed to C.

Factor Mlti- Factor MaximmRating Factor Rating plier Score Possible

(0-3) Score

1. Surface Nater NigrationDistance to nearest surface voter 3 8 24 24Net precipitation 1 6 6 19Surface erosion 1 8 8 24Surface permeability 3 6 18 18Rainfall intensity 2 8 16 24

Subtotals 72 10e

Subscore (100 x factor score subtotl/maximu score subtotal) 67

2. Flooding 0 1 0 3

Suhscore (100 x factor score/3) 0

3. Grond-ater migrationDepth to ground water 3 8 24 24Net precipitation 1 6 6 18Soil permeability 0 8 0 24Subsurface flows 1 8 8 24Direct access to ground water 1 8 8 24

Subtotals 46 114

Subscore (100 x factor score subtotl/mxim score subtotal) 40

C. Highest pathmay subscore.Enter the highest subscore value from A, I-l, B-2 or 3-3 above.


IV. WASTE MAGEHENT PRACTICESA. Average the three subscores for receptors, aste characteristics, and pathways.

Receptors 57Waste Characteristics 50Pathways 67Total 174 divided by 3 - 58 6ross total score

3, Apply factor for waste containment from waste management practices.Oross total score x waste management practices factor a final score

58 x 0.95 55

H-15

:-'~ ~ - --- - - - - - - - - - - - ---

.,pEWQY,MtLEOD & FINR

P 7r -in !1:

-, ',P+ : + '- 4 . " <" -A-

. L "-: . "---- '. -:: " '.; -'"

-, - e C o' . -- F..- -r: 8--.+r:..:, -.- " S t lll/,;;,.l,5 0' !lb.'.]

-o-:" T++.c ;-.-;: :- 7 P

;ceot rs .. . re Cc. s..... . sc sub

WA "E;+ -" A Aorr 7 t

:mCc. I E eSt- iwte C 1oJQ"i Vic &;e &%-o a~z cU c- er,: !eve- :4

: . =.n -'.. i-, : - 1 E, ,_h

- -'Iu,--,---I'

, , tr ,,0 b.EaC-rnn - o s:-- 40

-' Ac: *DE'::S SC 5-.

H-16 '

A .- -- - - - .-..-- - ------

-S c p La t -I.,'-

-et .-. on 6.--e 14 24 -- "p",e :11011e

So , Af

Susn-ce Enaetsr-ee~~e 24

D-ece c , 40 waerS

est p.he, : - -

Sgsere :2D ., l !'soTe vai3,

V c )Subs.$oceor "I 22n-ecWaste eeoraccoi-iswater32

EUbtotijs 67 '

The the dividedt bosor ve2 Gros Ata F-. -2o 83 b

A.~ l Avr ctor t'ee wstnscontae mn- rertrs w onste hrte ratis n ctwarcn rne, z -e); ~st saaecept r m ,cs-atr a cr

WasteCharaterisics 3

H1-17

Page 1 of 2

HAZARD ASSESSMENT RATING METHODOLOGY FORM

Nae of Site: SOUTH EDGE OF APRONLocation: SOUTHERN PERIMETER OF BASEDate of Operation or ccurrence: PRIOR TO 1970Owner/Operator: OHNARE ARFFCe ts/escription: DISPOSAL OF SMALL QUANTITIES OF SHOPASTES ONTO EARTH

Site Ratea by: 6E6OW .,n.E3D I REINER

I, RECEPTORSFactor Multi- Factor MaximumRating plier Score Possible


A. Population within 1,000 feet of site 3 4 12 12B, Distance to nearest well 1 10 10 30C, Land use/zoning within I mile radius 3 3 9 9

D. Distance to reservation boundry 3 6 18 18E. Critical environments within 1 mile radius of site 3 10 30 30F, Hater quality of nearest surface water body 1 6 6 186. Ground water use of uppermost aquifer 0 9 0 27H. Population served by surface woter supply 0 6 0 18

within 3 miles domstream of siteI. Population served by ground-water supply 3 6 16 18


Subtotals 103 180

Receptors subscore (100 x factor score subtotal/maxime score subtotal) 57

II. MASTE CHARACTERISTICS


1, Nste quantity (lsmall, 2-medium, 3=latqe) 12. Confidence level (luconfirmed, 2=sespected) 23, Hazard rating (llow, 2xmdim, 3zhiqh) 3

Factor Subscore A (Ifm 20 to 100 based on factor score matrix) 40

3. Apply persistence factorFator Subcore A x Persistence Factor = Subscore B

40 x 0080 32

C, Apply physical state multiplierSubscore I x Physical State ltiplier a Waste Characteristics Subscore

32 x 1.00 * 32asamlm.

H-18

A1

Page 2 of 2

IN, PATMA S

A. If there is evidence of migration of hazardous contaminants, assign maxim factor subscore of 100 points fordirect evidence or 60 points for indirect evidence. If direct evidence exists then proceed to C. If no evidenceor indirect evidence exists, proceed to I.

Subscore 0

B. Rate the migration potential for 3 potential pathways: surface water milration, flooding, ad grond-iatermigration. Select the highest rating and proceed to C.

Factor Nulti- Factor MaxiumRating Factor Rating plier Score Possible

(0-3) Score

1. Surface Nater higrationDistance to nearest surface uater 3 8 24 24Net precipitation 1 6 6 i8Surface erosion 1 8 8 24Surface permeability 3 6 18 toRainfall intensity 2 8 16 24

Subtotals 72 to

Subscore (100 x factor score subtotal/maximum score subtotal) 67

2. Flooding 0 1 0 3

Subscora (100 x factor score/3) 0

3. Groud-ater migrationDepth tog round water 3 8 24 24Net precipitation 1 6 6 18Soil permability 0 8 0 24Sobserfece flows 0 8 0 24Direct access to grWudw ater 1 8 8 24

Subtotals 38 114

SubScore (100 x factor score subtotal/mxim score subtotal) 33

C. Highest pathway subscore.Eter the highest subscore value frm t I-1, 3-2 or B-3 above,

Pathways Subecore 67

IV, WMSTE MANABEHENT PRTISAs Average the three subscores for receptors, waste characteristics, and pathways.

Receptors 57iksto Chracteristics 32Pathways 67Total 156 divided by 3 * 52 Gress total score

I. Apply factOr for waste containment from waste 0ngmt practices.Bross total score x Waste nnagm9 t practices factor • final score

52 x 1,00 52

B-19

HA ASSESSNENT RATING METHOURLOSY FORM

Name of site: VEHICLE MAINTENANCE FACILITYLocation: 1D. 5,1EARDate of Operation or Occurrence: PRIOR TO 1977Omer/Operttor: ONARE WFCoomts/Dscription MASTE OIL DISPOSED OF ONTO GROWND

Site Rated by: 6E60PY,wLEOD I REIER--------------------------------------------------------

I. RECEPTORSFactor Mlti- Factor MaximumRating plier Score Possible


A. Population within 1,000 feet of site 3 4 12 12B, Distance to nearest well 1 10 10 30C. Lend use/zoning within I mile radius 3 3 9 9D. Distance to reservation boundry 3 6 18 18E, Criticol environments within 1 tile radius of site 3 10 30 30F. Water quality of nearest surface water body 1 6 6 186. Ground water use of uppermost aquifer 0 9 0 27H. Population served by surface water supply 0 6 0 18

within 3 iles downstream of siteI. Population served by gpond-water supply 3 6 18 18


Subtotals 103 160

Receptors subscore (100 x factor score subtotal/maximm score subtotal) 57

II. SE CHARACTERISTICS

A. Select the factor score based on the estimated quantity, the degree of hazardt and the confidence level ofthe information,

1o ikste quantity (1:smll, 2=medim, 3-ltrqe) I2. Confidence level (Isconfirmed, 2zSMpetd) 13, Hazard rating (l=low 2nmedium, 3=hiqh) I

Factor Subscore A (from 20 to 100 based on factor score mtrix) 30

3. Apply persistence factorFactor Subscore A x Persistence Factor = Subscore I

30 x 0.80 24

C. Apply physical state multiplierSubscore I x Physical State Multiplier • Waste Characteristics SUbcoe

24 x 1.00 • 24

H-20

Page 2 of 2

Il. PATIMAYSA. If there is evidence of migration of hazardous contamients, assign mexism factor ugbcore of 100 points for

direct evidence or 80 points for indirect evidence. If direct evidence exists then proceed to C. If no evidenceor indirect evidence exists, proceed to 3,

Subscore 0

B. Rate the sigration potential for 3 potential pathways: surface water miqration, flooding, and ground-watermigration. Select the highest rating end proceed to C.

Factor Multi- Factor MaximumRating Factor Rating plier Score Possible

(0-3) Score

1t Surface Nater NigrationDistance to nearest surface water 3 8 24 24Net precipitation 1 6 6 18Surface erosion 1 8 8 24Surface permeability 3 6 18 18Rainfell intensity 2 8 16 24

Subtotals 72 108

Subscore (100 x factor scorte subtoal/mxiM scoe subtotal) 67

2. Flooding 0 1 0 3


3. Ground-water migrationDepth to ground water 3 8 24 24Net precipitation 1 6 6 18Soil permeability 0 8 0 24Subsurface flows 0 8 0 24Direct access to ground water 1 8 a 24

Subtotals 36 114

Sobicore (100 x factor score SUbtotAl/eximm score subtotal) 33

C. Highest pathway bSCore,Enter the highest subcore value from A 3-1, 3-2 or 3-3 abov,


IV, HaSTE HANABENM PRACTICESA. Average the three subscores for receptors, Waste cbarctristics, d pathways.

Receptors 571aste Characteristics 24Pathways 67Total 148 divided by 3 * 49 Gross total score

3, Apply factor for wate containment frm waste ama mest practices,Gross total score x Vaste "q1100t practices fc tor •final score

49 x 1.00 \ 49

H-21

• .. - -.

Page I of 2

HAMZAR ASSESSMENT RATING NETHODOLOY FORM

Name of Site: LOW LEVEL RADI ACTIVE DISPOSAL SITELocation: IMMEDIATELY EAST OF SOUTH P0L AREADate of Operation or Occurrence: PRIOR TO 1970Owner/Operator: NARE ARFFComests/escription: VACUUM TUBE DISPOSED OF INTO EARTH

Site Rated by: GNE6ORYMcLEOD I REINER----------------------------------- ----------------- --- ------ ------ --------- -

It RECEPTORSFactor Multi- Factor MaximumRating plier Score Possible


A. Population within 1,000 feet of site 3 4 12 12B. Distance to nearest well 1 10 10 30C. Land use/zoning within 1 mile radius 3 3 9 90. Distance to reservation boundry 3 6 18 18E. Critical environments within I tile radius of site 3 10 30 30F, Water quality of nearest surface water body 1 6 6 18G, Ground water use of uppermos't, aquifer 0 9 0 27H. Population served by surface water supply 0 6 0 18

within 3 miles downstream of siteI, Population served by ground-voter supply 3 6 18 18


Subtotals 103 180

Receptors subscore 1100 x factor score subtotal/maxiasu score subtotal) 57

I. WASTE CHARACTERISTICS

A. Select the factor score based on the estimated quantity, the degree of hazerd, and the confidence level ofthe information.

I. Waste quantity (lcsmll, 2:mediua, 3zlerge) 12. Confidence level (lnconfirsed, 2-sUspKted) 13. Hazard rating (1=low, 2=medium, 3=high) 1

Factor Subscore A (frm 20 to 100 based on factor score matrix) 30

S. Apply persistence factorFector Subcore A x Persistence Factor = Subscore B

30 x 1.00 * 30

C. Apply physical state multiplierSMscore I x Physical State Multiplier a Waste Characteristics Subscore

30. x 0.50 * 15

H-22

. , .. ...... .... . . . ;,, ,. ,,: ,yv.,, , .. . . ..t.

Page 2 of 2

Il. PATHWAYSA. If there is evidence of migration of hazardous contaminants, assign mxism factor subscore of 100 points for

direct evidence or 80 points for indirect evidence. If direct evidence exists then proceed to C, If no evidenceor indirect evidence exists, proceed to B,

Subscore 0

8, Rote the migration potential for 3 potential pathways: surface voter migration, flooding, and groud-vatermigrtion. Select the highest rating and proceed to C.

Factor Mlti- Factor MximRating Factor Rating plier Score Possible

(0-3) Score

I. Surface Mater igrationDistance to nearest surface water 3 8 24 24Net precipitation 1 6 6 18Surface ersion 1 9 8 24Surface permeability 3 6 18 18Rainfall intensity 2 8 16 24

Subtot4ls 72 109

Sobscore (100 x factor score suhbtotol/maximm score subtotal) 67

2. Flooding 0 1 0 3

Slscore (100 x factor score/3) 0

3, 6round-voter migrationDepth to ground ater 3 8 24 24Not precipitation 1 6 6 18Soil permeuility 0 8 0 24Suburface flows 0 8 0 24Direct access to ground voter 1 8 8 24

Subtotals 38 114

Subicore (100 x factor score subtotolmxium score subtotGl) 33

C. Highest pathway subscore.Enter the highest subscore value from A, 1-1, B-2 or 3-3 above

Pathwys Sbscore 67

IV. UAS MUIAGIEENT PRACTICESA. Averag the three subKcores for receptors, waste cracteristics, and pathwOys,

Receptors 57Waste Charcteristics 15Pathways 67Total 139 divided by 3 a 46 6ress total score

s. Apply fector for waste contalnamnt from vaste moatement practices.Uts tot4l scOre x waste man t prctices factor • final score

46 x 0,95 44

H-23

00* Ir

APPENDIX I

REFERENCES

APPENDIX I

REFERENCES

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1977, Climate

Atlas of the United States: National Climatic Center, Ashville, NC.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1981, LocalClimatological Data for Chicago, Illinois, O'Hare International Airport.

Bradbury, J. C. and Atherton, E., 1965, The Precambrian Basement ofIllinois: Illinois Geological Survey Circ. 382.

Hughes, G. M., Kraatz, P.and Landon, R. A., 1966, Bedrock Aquifersof Northeastern Illinois: Illinois State Geological Survey Circ. 406, 15p.

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, 1982, Title 35:Environmental Protection, Subtitle C: Water Pollution, Chapter 1:Pollution Control Board.

Landrum and Brown, Inc., 1983, Draft Environmental Impact Statementfor the Chicago O'Hare International Airport, 1984-1985 Master PlanDevelopment: Prepared for City of Chicago, Department of Aviation andDepartment of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration.

National Oceanic and Admospheric Administration, 1968, RainfallFrequency Atlas of the United States: Weather Bureau Technical PaperNo. 40.

Suter, M., and others, 1959, Preliminary Report on Ground-WaterResources of the Chicago Region, Illinois: Illinois Geological Surveyand Illinois Water Survey Coop. Ground-Water Report. 1, 89 p.

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1975, Federal Register, V.40, No. 248, pp. 59566-59588, December 24, 1975.

Walton, W. C., 1965, Ground-water Recharge in Illinois: IllinoisState Water Survey Report of Investigation 48, 55 p.

Willman, H. B., 1971, Summary of the Geology of the Chicago Area:Illinois State Geological Survey Circ. 460, 77 p.

APPIE)DIX JGLOSSARY OF TERMINOLOGY AND ABBREVIATIONS

APPENDIX J

GLOSSARY OF TERMINOLOGY AND ABBREVIATIONS

AF: Air Force

AFFF: Aqueous Film Forming Foam

AFB: Air Force Base

AFCS: Air Force Communications Service

AFESC: Air Force Engineering and Services Center

AFR: Air Force Regulation

AFSC: Air Force Systems Command

Ag: Chemical symbol for silver

AGE: Aerospace Ground Equipment

Al: Chemical symbol for aluminum

ALLUVIUM: Unconsolidated sediments deposited in relatively recent geologictime by the action of water

ARTESIAN: Ground water contained under hydrostatic pressure

AQUICLUDE: Poorly permeable formation that impedes ground-water movement anddoes not yield water to a well or spring

AQUIFER: A geologic formation, group of formations, or part of a formationthat is capable of yielding water to a well or spring

AQUITARD: A soils formation which impedes ground-water flow

ARFF: Air Reserve Force Facility

AVGAS: Aviation Gasoline

Ba: Chemical symbol for barium

Bedrock: Any solid rock exposed at the surface of the earth or overlain byunconsolidated material.

BIOACCUHULATE: Tendency of elements or compounds to accumulate or build up inthe tissues of living organisms when they are exposed to these elements intheir environments, e.g., heavy metals

J-1

CAP: Civilian Air Patrol

Cd: Chemical symbol for cadmium

CE: Civil Engineering

CERCLA: Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act

CES: Civil Engineering Squadron

CLOSURE: The completion of a set of rigidly defined functions for a hazardouswaste facility no longer in operation

COD: Chemical Oxygen Demand, a measure of the amount of oxygen required tooxidize organic and oxidizable inorganic compounds in water

COE: Corps of Engineers

COMD: Command

CONFINED AQUIFER: An aquifer bounded above and below by impermeable beds orby beds of distinctly lower permeability than that of the aquifer itself

CONTA4INATION: The degradation of natural water quality to the extent thatits usefulness is impaired; there is no implication of any specific limitssince the degree of permissible contamination depends upon the intended enduse or uses of the water

Cr: Chemical symbol for chromium

Cu: Chemical symbol for copper

DET: Detachment

DIP: The angle at which a stratum is inclined from the horizontal

DISPOSAL FACILITY: 'A facility or part of a facility at which hazardous wasteis intentionally placed into or on land or water, and at which waste will re-main after closure

DISPOSAL OF HAZARDOUS WASTE: The discharge, deposit, injection, dumping,spilling, or placing of any hazardous waste into or on land or water so thatsuch waste or any constituent thereof may enter the environment or be emittedinto the air or discharged into any waters, including ground water

DOD: Department of Defense

DOWNGRADIENT: In the direction of decreasing hydraulic static head; the direc-tion in which ground water flows

DPDO: Defense Property Disposal Office, previously included Redistributionand Marketing (R&M) and Salvage.

J-2

.. . ... A

DUMP. An uncovered land disposal site where solid and/or liquid wastes are

deposited with little or no regard for pollution control or aesthetics; dumps

are susceptible to open burning and are exposed to the elements, disease vec-

tors and scavengers

EOD: Explosive Ordnance Disposal

EFFLUENT: A liquid waste discharge from a manufacturing or treatment process,in its natural state, or partially or completely treated, that discharges intothe environment

EP: Extraction Procedure, the EPA's standard laboratory procedure forleachate generation

EPA: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

EROSION: The wearing away of land surface by wind or water

FAA: Federal Aviation Administration

FACILITY: Any land and appurtenances used for the treatment, storage and/ordisposal of hazardous wastes

Fe: Chemical symbol for iron

FLOOD PLAIN: The lowland and relatively flat areas adjoining inland and coast-al areas of the mainland and off-shore islands, including, at a minimum, areassubject to a one percent or greater chance of flooding in any given year

FLOW PATH: The direction or movement of ground water and any contaminantsthat may be contained therein, as governed principally by the hydraulicgradient

GC/MS: Gas chromatograph/mass spectrophotometer, a laboratory procedure foridentifying unknown compounds

GROUND WATER: Water beneath the land surface that is under atmospheric orartesian pressure

GROUND WATER RESERVOIR: The earth materials and the intervening open spacesthat contain ground water

HALF-LIFE: The time required for half the atoms present in radioactive sub-stance to decay

HARDFILLs Disposal sites receiving construction debris, wood, miscellaneousspoil material

HARM: Hazard Assessment Rating Methodology

HAZARDOUS WASTE: A solid waste, or combination of solid wastes, which because

of its quantity, concentration, or physical, chemical or infectious character-

istics may cause or significantly contribute to an increase in mortality or anincrease in serious, irreversible, or incapacitating reversible illness; or

J-3

pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or the environ-ment when improperly treated, stored, transported, or disposed of, or other-wise managed (RCRA)

HAZARDOUS WASTE GENERATION: The act or process of producing a hazardous waste

HEAVY METALS: Metallic elements, including the transition series, which in-clude many elements required for plant and animal nutrition in trace concen-trations but which become toxic at higher concentrations

Hg: Chemical symbol for mercury

HQ: Headquarters

HWMF: Hazardous Waste Management Facility

INCOMPATIBLE WASTE: A waste unsuitable for commingling with another waste ormaterial because the commingling might result in generation of extreme heat orpressure, explosion or violent reaction, fire, formation of substances whichare shock sensitive, friction sensitive, or otherwise have the potential forreacting violently, formation of toxic dusts, mists, fumes, and gases, volatil-ization of ignitable or toxic chemicals due to heat generation in such a man-ner that the likelihood of contamination of ground water or escape of the sub-stance into the environment is increased, any other reaction which might re-sult in not meeting the air, human health, and environmental standard

INFILTRATION: The gradual passing of liquid through matter.

IRP: Installation Restoration Program

JP-4: Jet Fuel

LEACHATE: A solution resulting from the separation or dissolving of solubleor particulate constituents from solid waste or other man-placed medium bypercolation of water

LEACHING: The process by which soluble materials in the soil, such as nu-trients, pesticide chemicals or contaminants, are washed into a lower layer ofsoil or are dissolved and carried away by water

LINER: A continuous layer of natural or man-made materials beneath or on thesides of a surface impoundment, landfill, or landfill cell which restricts thedownward or lateral escape of hazardous waste, hazardous waste constituents orleachate

LOESS: A sediment composed dominantly of silt-size particles that has beendeposited primarily by the wind

LOX: Liquid Oxygen

LYSIMETERS: A vacuum operated sampling device used for extracting pore watersamples at various depths within the unsaturated zone

MIK: Methyl Ethyl Ketone

J-4

.. . , -- -

MGD: million gallons per day

MOA: Military Operating Area

MOGAS: Motor gasoline

Mn: Chemical symbol for manganese

MONITORING WELL: A well used to measure ground-water levels and to obtainsamples

MSL: Mean Sea Level

MUNITION ITEMS: Munitions or portions of munitions having an explosivepotential

MUNITIONS RESIDUE: Non-explosive segments of waste munitions (i.e., bomb

casings)

NCO: Non-commissioned Officer

NCOIC: Non-commissioned Officer In-Charge

NDI: Non-destructive Inspection

NET PRECIPITATION: The amount of annual precipitation minus annual evaporation

NGVD: National Geodetic Vertical Datum

Ni: Chemical symbol for nickel

NPDES: National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

OEHL: Occupational and Environmental Health Laboratory

ORGANIC: Being, containing or relating to carbon compounds, especially inwhich hydrogen is attached to carbon

O&G: Symbols for oil and grease

OSI: Office of Special Investigations

OVA: Organic Vapor Analyzer

Pbs Chemical symbol for lead

PCB: Polychlorinated Biphenyls; highly toxic to aquatic lifel they persist inthe environment for long period and are biologically accumulative

PERCOLATION: Movement of moisture by gravity or hydrostatic pressure throughinterstices of unsaturated rock or soil

PEREABILITY: The rate at which fluids may move through a solid, porous medium

J-5

PD-680: Cleaning solvent, safety solvent, Stoddard solvent, petroleumdistillate

pH: Negative logarithm of hydrogen ion concentration; measurement of acids andbases

PL: Public Law

POL: Petroleum, Oils and Lubricants

POLLUTANT: Any introduced gas, liquid or solid that makes a resource unfitfor a specific purpose

POTENTIALLY ACTIVE FAULT: A fault along which movement has occurred withinthe last 25-million years

PPM: Parts per million by weight

PRECIPITATION: Rainfall

RCRA: Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

RECHARGE AREA: An area in which water is absorbed that eventually reaches thezone of saturation in one or more aquifers

RECHARGE: The addition of water to the ground-water system by natural or arti-ficial processes

RECON: Reconnaissance

SANITARY LANDFILL: A land disposal site using an engineered method of dispos-ing solid wastes on land in a way that minimizes environmental hazards

SATURATED ZONE: That part of the earth's crust in which all voids are filledwith water

SEISMICITY: Pertaining to earthquakes or earth vibrations

SLUDGE: The solid residue resulting from a manufacturing or wastewater treat-ment process which also produces a liquid stream

SOLID WASTE: Any garbage, refuse, or sludge from a waste treatment plant,water supply treatment, or air pollution control facility and other discardedmaterial, including solid, liquid, semi-solid, or contained gaseous materialresulting from industrial, commercial, mining, or agricultural operations andfrom community activities, but does not include solid or dissolved materialsin domestic sewage; solid or dissolved materials in irrigation return flows;industrial discharges which are point source subject to permits under Section402 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended (86 USC 880); orsource, special nuclear, or by-product material as defined by the AtomicEnergy Act of 1954 (68 USC 923)

SPILL: Any unplanned release or discharge of a hazardous waste onto or intothe air, land, or water

J-6

STORAGE OF HAZARDOUS WASTF: Containment, either on a temporary basis or for alonger period, in such a manner as not to constitute disposal of such hazard-ous waste

TAC: Tactical Air Command

TAG: Tactical Airlift Group

TCE: Tetrachloroethylene

TCA: 1,1,1-Tetrachloroethane

TOC: Total Organic Carbon

TOXICITY: The ability of a material to produce injury or disease upon expo-sure, ingestion, inhalation, or assimilation by a living organism

TRANSMISSIVITY: The rate at which water is transmitted through a unit widthunder a unit hydraulic gradient

TREATMENT OF HAZARDOUS WASTE: Any method, technique, or process includingneutralization designed to change the physical, chemical, or biological char-acter or composition of any hazardous waste so as to neutralize the waste orso as to render the waste nonhazardous

UPGRADIENT: In the direction of increasing hydraulic static head; the direc-

tion opposite to the prevailing flow of ground-water

USAF: United States Air Force

USGS: United States Geological Survey

WATER TABLE: Surface of a body of unconfined ground water at which the pres-sure is equal to that of the atmosphere

Zn: Chemical symbol for zinc

J-7

APPENDIX K

INDEX

APPENDIX K

INDEX

Rank Site Name Page Numbers

1 Landfill No. 1 5, 6, 4-3, 4-4, 4-5, 4-7, 4-13, 4-16,4-19, 4-21, 5-1, 5-2, 6-2, 6-4, F-2,H-2, H-3

2 JP-4 Tank, West POL Area 5, 6, 4-9, 4-11, 4-12, 4-19, 4-21,5-1, 5-2, 5-3, 6-2, 6-4, D-1, H-4,H-5

3 Fuel-Contaminated Soil 5, 6, 4-11, 4-12, 4-19, 4-21, 5-2,5-3, 6-2, 6-4, 6-5, H-6, H-7

4 Defueling Pit Leak Site 5, 6, 7, 4-11, 4-12, 4-19, 4-21, 5-2,5-3, 6-4, 6-5, H-8, H-9

5 Fire Protection Training 5, 6, 7, 4-3, 4-4, 4-5, 4-6, 4-7,Facility 4-8, 4-19, 4-21, 5-2, 5-3, 6-4, 6-5,

F-3, H-10, H-11

6 Hazardous Waste Storage Area 5, 6, 7, 4-9, 4-10, 4-19, 4-21, 5-2,5-3, 5-4, 6-4, 6-5, F-4, H-12, H-13

7 Landfill No. 2 5, 6, 7, 4-3, 4-4, 4-5, 4-7, 4-16,4-19, 4-21, 5-2, 5-4, 6-4, 6-5, 6-6,F-3, H-14, H-15

8 Storm Drainage System 5, 6, 7, 4-9, 4-16, 4-19, 4-21, 5-2,5-4, 6-4, 6-6, H-16, H-17

9 South Edge of Concrete Apron 5, 6, 7, 4-13, 4-14, 4-19, 4-21, 5-2,5-4, 6-4, 6-6, H-18, H-19

10 Vehicle Kaintenance 5, 6, 4-13, 4-14, 4-19, 4-21, 5-2,Facility, Rear 5-4, 5-5, H-20, H-21

11 Low Level Radioactive 5, 6, 4-17, 4-18, 4-19, 4-21, 5-2,Disposal Site 5-5, F-2, H-22, H-23

K-1

INSTALLATION RESTORATION PROGRAM

PHASE 1 - RECORDS SEARCH

O'HARE AIR RESERVE FORCES FACILITY,

ILLINOIS

Prepared For

UNITED STATES AIR FORCE

HEADQUARTERS

AIR FORCE RESERVE

Robins Air Force Base, Georgia

December 1983

Prepared By

ENGINEERING-SCIENCE57 Executive Park South, Suite S90

Atlanta, Georgia 30329

NOTICE

This report has been prepared for the United States AirForce by Engineering-Science for the purpose of aiding inthe Air Force Installation Restoration Program. It is notan endorsement of any product. The views expressedherein are those of the contractor and do not necessarilyreflect the official views of the publishing agency, the UnitedStates Air Force, nor the Department of Defense.

Copies of the report may be purchased from:

National Technical Information Service5285 Port Royal RoadSpringfield, Virginia 22161

Federal Government agencies and their contractorsregistered with Defense Technical Information Centershould direct requests for copies of this report to:

Defense Technical Information CenterCameron StationAlexandria, Virginia 22314

r

4 , A,

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page No.

LIST OF FIGURES iii

LIST OF TABLES iv

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

SECTION I INTRODUCTION 1-1Background 1-1Purpose and Scope of the Assessment 1-2Methodology 1-3

SECTION 2 INSTALLATION DESCRIPTION 2-1Location' Size and Boundaries 2-1Installation History 2-1Organization and Mission 2-5

SECTION 3 ENVIRONMENTAL SEMING 3-1Meteorology 3-1Geography 3-3

Topography and Drainage 3-3Geology 3-6

Stratigraphy 3-6Structure 3-11

Hydrology 3-11Subsurface Hydrology 3-11Surface Hydrology 3-12

Water Use 3-14Water Quality 3-14Biotic Environment 3-17Summary of Environmental Setting 3-17

SECTION 4 FINDINGS 4-1Past Shop and Installation Activity Review 4-1Industrial Operations (Shops) 4-2

Fire Protection Training 4-7Pesticide Utilization 4-7Waste Storage Areas 4-9Fuels Management 4-9Spills and Leaks 4-11

Li

TABLE OF CONTENTS(Continued)

SECTION 4 Description of Past On-Installation Disposal 4-13(Continued) Methods

Landfills 4-13Hardfi 11 4-16Storm Drainage System 4-16Sanitary Sewer System 4-17Low-level Radiation Disposal Site 4-17

Evaluation of Past Disposal Activities and 4-17

SECTION 5 CONCLUSIONS 5-1

SECTION 6 RECOMMENDATIONS 6-1

APPENDIX A BIOGRAPHICAL DATA

APPENDIX B LIST OF INTERVIEWEES

APPENDIX C ORGANIZATIONS AND MISSIONS

APPENDIX D POL TANK INFORMATION

APPENDIX E MASTER LIST OF INDUSTRIAL SHOPS

APPENDIX F PHOIGRAPHS

APPENDIX G HAZARD ASSESSMENT RATING METHODOLOGY

APPENDIX H HAZARD ASSESSMENT RATING FORMS

APPENDIX I REFERENCES

APPENDIX J GLOSSARY OF TERMINOLOGY AND ABBREVIATIONS

APPENDIX K INDEX

Now

LIST OF FIGURES


1 Sites of Potential Environmental Contamination 4

1.1 Phase I Installation Restoration Program Decision Tree 1-5

2.1 Regional Location Map 2-2

2.2 Area Location Map 2-3

2.3 Installation Site Plan 2-4

3.1 Generalized Drainage 3-4

3.2 Storm Drainage and Water Quality Monitoring Sites 3-5

3.3 Locations for Geologic Data 3-8

3.4 Generalized Geologic Cross-Sections 3-9

3.5 Area Inundated by the 100-Year Flood Plain 3-13

3.6 Well Locations 3-15

4.1 Fire Protection Training Areas 4-8

4.2 Hazardous Waste Drum Accumulation and Storage Sites 4-10

4.3 POL Spills and Leaks 4-12

4.4 Spills 4-14

4.5 Landfills and ardfills 4-15

4.6 Low-Level Radioactive Tube Disposal Area 4-18

IMRS

LIST OF TABLES


1 Priority Ranking of Potential Contamination Sources 5

2 Recommended Monitoring Program for Phase I 7

3.1 Summary of Meteorological Data 3-2

3.2 Generalized Stratigraphy 3-7

3.3 Summary of Selected Soil Borings 3-10

3.4 Summary of Selected Chemical Analyses for Surface Waters 3-16

3.5 Summary of Selected Chemical Analyses for Water from the 3-18Shallow Dolomite Aquifer

4.1 Industrial Operations (Shops) 4-3

4.2 Summary of Decision Tree Logic for Areas of Initial 4-19Environmental Cor.,ern at O'Hare ARFF

4.3 Summary of HARM Scores for Potential Contamination 4-21Sources

5.1 Priority Ranking of Potential Contamination Sources 5-2

6.1 General Guidelines for Use of Geophysical 'Pechniques 6-3

6.2 Recommended Monitoring Program for Phase II 6-4

iv

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Department of Defense (DOD) has developed a program to identify

and evaluate past hazardous material disposal sites on DOD property, to

control the migration of hazardous contaminants, and to control hazards

to health or welfare that may result from these past disposal opera-

tions. This program is called the Installation Restoration Program

(IRP). The IRP has four phases consisting of Phase I, Initial Assess-

ment/Records Search; Phase II, Confirmation and Quantification; Phase

III, Technology Base Development; and Phase IV, Operations/Remedial

Actions. Engineering-Science (ES) was retained by the United States Air

Forces to conduct the Phase I, Initial Assessment/Records Search for

O'Hare Air Reserve Forces Facility (ARFF) under Contract No. F08637-80-

R0009.


The O'Hare Air Reserve Forces Facility complex at O'Hare Inter-

national Airport is located in the Chicago metropolitan area in north-

eastern Illinois. The airport is located northwest of downtown Chicago

at the boundary of Cook County and DuPage County. All of the property

around the airport and Air Force installation is urbanized and used for

residential, commercial and/or industrial purposes. The military

portion of O'Hare Airport is composed of approximately 400 acres of land

in the northwest corner of the airport.



land. The War Assets Corporation erected buildings on this land and

leased it in June, 1943, to Douglas Aircraft Company as an assembly

plant for the C-54 cargo aircraft. The plant was closed in the fall of

1945.



, - , . .... .. . . . .. ...- 1 -

the site. In 1949, the military portion was redesignated USAF O'Hare

Field. Chicago International Airport. In 1910 the Lockheed C-130A

"Hercules" arrived. The 928th Tactical Airlift Group is still the

installation's host unit.


The environmental setting data reviewed for this investigation

identified the following major points that are relevant to O'Hare ARFF.










installation is or. the order of 10- 7 cm/sec which does not allow


-D Four aquifer systems exist at the installation. These aquifer





installation are hydraulically connected and are separated from

the underlying Cambrian-Ordovician and Mt. Simon aquifers by the


o Numerous wells are located in the vicinity of the installation.


withdraw water from the Cambrian-Ordovician aquifer system. One

residential well and one test well identified from the available

data withdraw water from the shallow dolomite aquifer. This

water is high in dissolved solids and iron.


face waste disposal sites on the installation. The glacial

-2-

deposits are at least periodically saturated at depths as

shallow as 5 feet below land surface.









METHODOLOGY

During the course of this project, interviews were conducted with

installation personnel (past and present) familiar with past waste

disposal practices; file searches were performed for past hazardous

waste activities; interviews were held with local, state and federal

agencies; and field and aerial surveys were conducted at suspected past

hazardous waste activity sites. Eleven sites located within O'Hare ARFF

boundaries were identified as potentially containing hazardous contami-

nants and having the potential for migration resulting from past acti-

vities (Figure 1). These sites have been assessed using a Hazard

Assessment Rating Methodology (HARM) which takes into account factors

such as site characteristics, waste characteristics, potential for

contaminant migration and waste management practices. The details of

the rating procedure are presented in Appendix G and the results of the

assessment are given in Table 1. The rating system is designed to

indicate the relative need for follow-on investigation.

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

The following conclusions have been developed installationd on the

results of the project team's field inspection, review of installation

records and files, and interviews with installation personnel.

Nine areas were determined to have a sufficient potential for

environmental contamination to warrant further investigaton. They are

as follows:

-3-

O'HARE ARFF FGR

SITES OF POTENTIALENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINATION

19 ;."a MAlt. GATE

LANDFILLNO. 1 8- 1:0

ome Rd. MAINTENANCE -

4 cc

CO. K GATE 133

9CTANK SPILL Cmi. d-

17311 Dixon Blvd.>

32180

nI DEFUELINO 0PIT LEAK 19 30 o

1601r or

170 aFIREIL- -INSALLTIO B OAR TRININO. ARE

STRAEACEVDISoSAR

290 600

SOURC.~ O'ARE APF IN TALLATION 8ET WAL'E4 EuETRANGIENG ARCEA~

TABLE 1



1 Landfill No. 1 1953-1960's 68











,i -5-

o Landfill No. 1

o JP-4 Spill Site

O Defueling Pit Leak

o Fuel-Contaminated Soil

o Fire Protection Training Area

o Hazardous Waste Storage Area

o Landfill No. 2


o South Edge of Main Apron

The areas determined to have an insufficient potential for environ-

mental contarination to warrant further investigation are as follows:

o Vehicle Maintenance Facility

o Low Level Radioactive Disposal Site

RECOMMENDATIONS

The recommendations developed for further assessment of environ-

mental concern areas at O'Hare ARFF are presented below.

Landfill No. I


depth and identify any leachate plume. Based on the results of the

geophysical survey, install one upgradient and 3 down gradient moni-

toring wells. Wells should be constructed using 3" Schedule 40 PVC,

screened into the first sand and gravel lens (20' to 30' deep). Sample

these wells and analyze for pH, total dissolved solids, total organic

halogens, total organic carbon and phenol.

JP-4 Tank Dike Spill

Conduct geophysical survey around the tank farm to identify any

JP-4 plume. Conduct a continuous core sampling in the dike area ex-

tended to the first sand and gravel lens. Observe if any JP-4 is


and grease and total organic halogen.

Fuel-Contaminated Soil



-6-

first sand and gravel lens (20'-30' deep). Observe if any JP-4 is pre-

sent. Perform a water extract on 3 soils samples and analyze for oil


Defueling Pit Leak Site



first sand and gravel lens (20'-30' deep). Observe if any JP-4 is




Conduct geophysical survey around the site to identify any leachate

plume.

Hazardous Waste Storage Area

Conduct a continuous core sampling in the center of the site ex-

tended to the first sand and gravel lens (201-30' deep). Observe if

contamination present. Perform a water extract of 3 selected soil

samples (in contaminated zones if present) and perform analyses for pH,


Landfill No. 2

Conduct geophysical survey to define the landfill boundaries anddepth and identify any leachate plume. Based on the results of the geo-

physical survey, install one upgradient and two downgradient monitoring

wells. Wells should be constructed of 30 Schedule 40 PVC, screened intothe first sand and gravel lens (20'-301 deep). Sample these wells and

analyze for pH, total organic carbon, total organic halogen, total

dissolved solids and phenols.

Storm Drainage System Near Hangars

Conduct continuous core sample at the nearest wooden pipe section

and at the nearest outfall extended to the first sand and gravel lens.

Observe if contamination is present. Perform a water extraction of 3

samples and analyze for total organic halogen, total organic carbon and

PR.

Spills along South Zdge of Main ApronConduct a continuous core sampling at the edge of the apron ex-

tended to the first sand and gravel lens (20'-30' deep). Observe if any

contamination present. Perform a water extract on 3 selected soil

-7-i

samples (ina contaminated zones if present) and perform analyses for PH1,


SECTION I

INTRODUCTION

BACKGROUND

The United States Air Force, due to its primary mission, has long

been engaged in a wide variety of operations dealing with toxic and

hazardous materials. Federal, state, and local governments have devel-

oped strict regulations to require that disposers identify the locations

and contents of past disposal sites and take action to eliminate hazards

in an environmentally responsible manner. The primary Federal legisla-

tion governing disposal of hazardous waste is the Resource Conservation

and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976, as amended. Under Section 6003 of the

Act, Federal agencies are directed to assist the Environmental Protec-

tion Agency (EPA) and under Section 3012, state agencies are required to

inventory past disposal sites and make the information available to the

requesting agencies. To assure compliance with these hazardous waste

regulations, the Department of Defense (DOD) developed the Installation

Restoration Program (IRP). The current DOD IRP policy is contained in

Defense Environmental Quality Program Policy Memorandum (DEQPPM) 81-5,

dated 11 December 1981 and implemented by Air Force message dated 21

January 1982. DEQPPM 81-5 reissued and amplified all previous direc-

tives and memoranda on the Installation Restoration Program. DOD policy

is to identify and fully evaluate suspected problems associated with

past hazardous contamination, and to control hazards to health and wel-

fare that resulted from these past operations. The IRP will be the

basis for response actions on Air Force installations under the provi-

sions of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and

Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, and clarified by Executive Order 12316.

1-1 t

PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THE ASSESS14ENT

The Installation Restoration Program has been developed as a four-

phased program as follows:

Phase I - Initial Assessment/Records Search

Phase II - Confirmation and Quantification

Phase III - Technology installation Development

Phase IV - Operations/Remedial Actions

Engineering-Science (ES) was retained by the United States Air

Force to conduct the Phase I Records Search at O'Hare Air Reserve Forces

Facility (ARFF), Contract No. F08637-80-R0009. This report contains a

summary and an evaluation of the information collected during Phase I of

the IRP and recommendations for follow on actions.

The goal of the first phase of the program was to identify the

potential for environmental contamination from past waste disposal

practices at O'Hare ARFF, and to assess the potential for contaminant

migration. The activities that were performed in the Phase I study

included the following:

- Review of installation records

- Interview of personnel familiar with past generation and dis-

posal activities

- Survey of wastes

- Determination of estimated quantities and locations of current

and past hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal

- Definition of the environmental setting at the installation

- Review of past disposal practices and methods

- Field inspection of installation facilities

- Collection of pertinent information from Federal, state and

local agencies

- Assessment of potential for contaminant migration

- Development of follow-on recomendations.

1-2

j ..

ES performed the on-site portion of the records search during

August 1983. The following team of professionals were involved:

- D. L. Gregory, Environmental Engineer and Project Manager, !4SCE,

5 years of professional experience

- H. D. Harmon, Hydrogeologist, 9 years of professional experience

- R. J. Reimer, Chemical Engineer, 4 years of professional experi-

ence

More detailed information on these three individuals is presented in

Appendix A.

METHODOLOGY

The methodology utilized in the O'Hare ARFF Records Search began

with a review of past and present industrial operations conducted at the

installation. Information was obtained from available records and

files, as well as interviews with past and present installation

employees from the various operating areas. Those interviewed included

- current and past personnel associated with Civil Engineering,

Consolidated Aircraft Maintenance, Base Supply, and the Base Clinic. A

listing of the installation interviewees by position and approximate

years of service is presented in Appendix B.

Concurrent with the installation interviews, the applicable

Federal, state and local agencies were contacted for pertinent instal-

lation-related environmental data. The agencies contacted and inter-viewed are listed below and additional information is included in

Appendix B.

o U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region V

o U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Water Resources Division

o Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

o Illinois Department of Conservation

o Illinois Department of Energy and Natural Resources, State Water

Survey Division

o City of Chicago, Department of Aviation

1-3 1

... . . . . I] Il I I~ ~ l I I J i l l l I

The next step in the activity review was to determine the past

management practices regarding the use, storage, treatment, and disposal

of hazardous materials from the Air Force operations at the installa-

tion. Included in this part of the activities review was the identifi-

cation of all known past disposal sites and other possible sources of

contamination such as spill areas.

A general ground tour of the identified sites was then made by the

ES Project Team to gather site-specific information including: (1)

visual evidence of environmental stress; (2) the presence of nearby

drainage ditches or surface water bodies; and (3) visual inspection of

these water bodies for any obvious signs of contamination or leachate

migration.

A decision was then made, installationd on all of the above

information, whether a potential exists for hazardous material

contamination at any of the identified sites using the Decision Tree

shown in Figure 1 .1. if no potential existed, the site was deleted from

further consideration. For those sites where a potential for

contamination was identified, a determination of the potential for

migration of the contamination was made by considering site-specific

conditions. If there were no further environmental concerns, then the

site was deleted. If the potential for contaminant migration was

considered significant, then the site was evaluated and prioritized

using the Hazard Assessment Rating Methodology

(HARM). A discussion of the HARM system is presented in Appendix G.

The sites that were evaluated using the HARM procedures were also re-

viewed with regard to future land use restrictions.

1-4

.

FIGURE 1. 1

PHASE I INSTALLATION RESTORATION PROGRAM

DECISION TREELComplete List of Locations/Sites

Evaluation of Past Operationsat Listed Sites

Delete Sites Refr o as

C~vionetlsioncrs]

Recomendtion

UAEvinenta of Reer

r -

SECTION 2


LOCATION, SIZE AND BOUNDARIES

O'Hare Air Reserve Forces Facility at O'Hare International Airport

is located in the Chicago metropolitan area in northeastern Illinois

(Figures 2.1 and 2.2). The airport is located northwest of downtown

Chicago at the boundary of Cook County and DuPage County. All of the

property around the airport and Air Force installation is urbanized and

used for residential, commercial and/or industrial purposes. The

military portion of O'Hare Airport is composed of approximately 400

acres of land in the northeast corner of the airport. The Air Force

also leases a portion of the southeast taxiway. The Air Force has

retained the priority use of all runways. Figure 2.3 depicts the

configuration of the installation property.

INSTALLATION HISTORY



land. The War Assets Corporation erected buildings on this land to be

used for an aircraft assembly plant.

In June of 1943, the installation was leased to Douglas Aircraft

Company as an assembly plant for the C-54 cargo aircraft. The site was

known as the "Chicago Aircraft Assembly Plant Number 8." During the

years of 1943 to 1945, approximately 665 aircraft were assembled and

delivered to the Army Air Corps. The plant was then closed in the fall

of 1945.



the site. During this time, the 141st Air Force installation unit for

reserve training was activated at the renamed Douglas-Orchard Airport.

In 1948, the 141st was replaced by the 2471st AF Reserve Combat

Training Center. In 1949, both the 437th and the 441st Troop Carrier

2-1

i--'7

F FIGURE 2.1

O'HARE ARFF

REGIONALLOCATION

WISCONSIN

MICHIGAN

MILWAUKEE

GqRANDRAPIDS

O'HareARFF\.L,

CHICAGO

GARY

ILLINOIININ

I3-SOUCE:COMERCIL HGHWY MA SCLE ILE

2-ISEGNERN CEC

LI

FIGURE 2.2

.......... ..

Lake County ~..'~Cook County- Ni.~ . .

. . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. ..

0... ..... ...

INTERNATIONAL ~

AIRPORT

SOUCE: COMMERCIAL HIGHWAY MAP

2-3 * NI~RW~~c

FIGURE 2.3

OlIARE ARFF

INSTALLATION SITE PLANOf& MAIN GATE

I:0 J.AR

RESERVE CENTEV

50

0)0

so15

013232

itI 1Ha or35r -]9

z170000

OUNCE ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0r-7 OMi 322F zNTLAINDCMNSSAEFE

Va- nt Rd. INIECnSUc

Wings Reserve were activated. In 1949, the military portion was re-

designated USAF O'Hare Field, Chicago International Airport.

From October 1950 until December 1957, the 2471st AFRCTC remained

the supervisory unit. In 1955, the airfields were opened to commercial

traffic.

From May 1957 until October 1970, the 928th Tactical Airlift Group

was equipped with the Fairchild C-119 "Flying Boxcar", and in 1970 the

Lockheed C-130A "Herculesm arrived. The 928th TAG is still the in-

stallation's host unit.

ORGANIZATION AND MISSION

O'Hare ARFF at O'Hare International Airport has a fulltime staff of

1,544 employees. For one weekend per month and two full weeks per year,

the installation serves as a training facility for approximately 2400

Air Force Reservists and Air National Guardsmen.

The host organization at O'Hare ARFF is the 928th Tactical Airlift

Group (TAG). The primary mission of the 928th TAG is to provide


airborne forces, equipment, supplies and aeromedical evacuation within a

theater of operations. Additionally, the Group operates and maintains

the Air Force complex at O'Hare, represents the Air Force in the Chicago

metropolitan area, and provides logistical support to various on/off

installation tenants.

The on-installation tenants at the O'Hare ARFF are listed below.

Descriptions of the major tenant and other installation organizations

and their missions are presented in Appendix C.

o Defense Contract Administration Services Region

o Defense Logistics Agency

o Headquarters, Illinois Air National Guard (Ill ANG)

o 126th Air Refueling Wing, Ill ANG

o 126th Combat Support Group, Ill ANG

o 108th Air Refueling Squadron, Ill ANG

o 126th Consolidated Aircraft Maintenance Squadron, Ill ANG

o .126th USAF Clinic, Ill ANG

o !26th Civil Engineering Flight, Ill ANG

2-5

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _2~5 I

o 126th Communications Flight, Ill AUG

o 217th Electronics installation Squadron, Ill ANG

o 264th Communications Squadron, Ill AUG

o 566th USAF Band, Ill ANG

o UISAF Liaison office/National Scouting Organization

o 36th Medical Service Evacuation Squadron

o Aeronautical Systems Divi:.ion, Reserve Detachment (AFLC)

o Corps of Engineers Field Office

2-6

SECTION 3


The environmental setting of O'Hare Air Reserve Forces Facility

(ARFF) is described in this section with an emphasis on the identifi-

cation of natural features that may promote the movement of hazardous

waste contaminants. Environmental conditions pertinent to this study

are summarized at the conclusion of this section.

METEOROLOGY

Two climatic features of interest in determining the potential for

movement of contaminants are net precipitation and rainfall intensity.

Net precipitation is an indicator for the potential of leachate genera-

tion and is equal to the difference between annual precipitation and

annual evaporation. Rainfall intensity is an indicator for the poten-

tial of excessive runoff and erosion. The one-year, 24-hour rainfall

event is used to gauge the potential for runoff and erosion.

Net precipitation at Chicago O'Hare ARFF is 4.2 inches as deter-

mined from meteorological records. Normal annual precipitation at

O'Hare International Airport for the period 1958 to 1981 is 34.17 inches

(National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 1981) and

annual evaporation for the area is 30 inches (NOAA, 1977). This value

of net precipitation indicates that there is some potential for leachate

generation at hazardous waste sites on the installation as a result of

rainfall. Selected meteorological data are summarized in Table 3.1.

The one-year, 24-hour rainfall event for the installation is 2.4

inches (NOAA, 1968). This value indicates that there is a moderate

potential for erosion and transport of surface contamination from

hazardous waste sites on the installation.

3-1

q -, C

C ,l . f1.a in f1 kno

VD - CdlN 0 0S

c ono

EZ Al 00l

an 50 -4

U,;

14P J.

3-2

GEOGRAPHY

The installation is located northwest of Chicago, Illinois in the

Glaciated Central Region ground-water basin. The landscape of the region

ranges from a low, flat plain east of the installation to a poorly

drained hilly belt west of the installation. The area around the in-

stallation is highly urbanized.

The installation is in the Des Plaines River drainage basin which

is the major drainage basin in the area. The Des Plaines River

originates near the Illinois-Wisconsin border approximately 30 miles

north of the installation. The river empties into the Illinois River

approximately 50 miles south of the installation. The river flows

generally south in the vicinity of the installation (Figure 3.1).

Topography and Drainage

The topography at O'Hare ARFF slopes very gently to the northeast.

The highest point on the installation is about 650 feet mean sea level

(D4SL). This point occurs along the western border of the installation

near runway 22R. The lowest point is approximately 635 feet ISL and

occurs along a drainage ditch near the installation's northern boundary.

Open drainage ditches traverse the northwest and north ends of the

installation (Figure 3.2). One drainage ditch flows east near the

northern boundary of the installation. This drainage ditch enters the

installation near the end of runway 22R. The drainage ditch exits the

installation under Higgins Road near the installation main gate and

flows into Willow Creek. A second drainage ditch flows north along the

northwest boundary of the installation and discharges into the eastward

flowing drainage ditch. Overland runoff from the northwest corner of

the installation discharges to these drainage ditches. Storm drainage

from the northern end of O'Hare International Airport drains into the

eastward flowing drainage ditch which traverses the northwest corner of

the installation.

Storm drainage from the installation discharges to Willow Creek, a

tributary of the Des Plaines River. Storm drains on the installation

direct storm runoff to an open ditch that begins at Mannheim Road east

of the installation. The open ditch drains east about 1,300 feet to

Willow Creek. The relationship between Willow Creek and installation

drainage structures is shown on Figure 3,2.

3-3

FIGURE 3. 1

O'HARE ARFF.

SGENERALIZED DRAINAGE',',

'44

A' G

BOUNDARY-

3-4 m

FIGURE 3.2

O'HARE ARFF

STORM DRAINAGE ANDWATER QUALITY MONITORING SITES

OPEN DRAINAGE DITC

Soo.... .... .:..

REEV ENTE

400

10 0 .... ... .

3232I

35 ~ ~ 10 -.

- 701 OPEN DRAIN0AGE ,.,.va a 1141.DITCH

290 7*.

OURCI O'HRE APPOISTALATO 111DCMNT CLEFE

35* NIEEIGU"c

GEOLOGY

Stratigraphy

O'Hare ARFF is underlain by rocks of Precambrian age and younger

and unconsolidated glacial deposits. A stratigraphic column represent-

ing the sequence of rocks in the area is given in Table 3.2.

Dense crystalline rock of Precambrian age forms the installation-

ment upon which younger geologic units were deposited. The depth below

land surface to these rocks is probably greater than 4,000 feet at the

installation. The only well in the Chicago area known to penetrate the

Precambrian was drilled approximately 6 miles west of Joliet, Illinois.

(Bradbury and Atherton, 1965).

A l.yered sequence of gently eastward dipping sedinentary rocks of

Cambrian and Ordovician age overlie the Precambrian rocks. These rocks

are mainly sandstone and dolomite and are probably greater than 3,000

feet thick at the installation. (Hughes and others, 1966). The

Ordovician age rocks have a combined thickness of about 800 feet in the

vicinity of the installation.

Silurian age dolomite overlies the Ordovician rocks and is the

upper bedrock unit at the installation. This unit is mostly dense

dolomite with many joints and solution channels. It's thickness is

about 135 feet in the vicinity of the installation.

The thickness of the Ordovician and Silurian rocks were derived

from a drilling log for a well that was drilled for the Twin Orchard

Country Club prior to the existence of the airport. This well was

drilled in 1925 to a total depth of 1,410 feet. The approximate well

location is shown on Figure 3.3.

Unconsolidated glacial deposits of Quaternary age overlie the

bedrock to a thickness of 70 to 85 feet at the installation (Figure

3.4). These deposits consist of stratified clay, sand and gravel. The

deposits appear to thicken toward the north end of the installation.

The surficial deposits at the installation are mostly artificial

fill underlain by clay. The composition of unconsolidated deposits near

the surface is described in Table 3.3.

3-6

A...a- , a.J L .fm

TABLE 3.2

GENERALIZED STRATIGRAPHY

System Group or Formation Thickness Lithology

Quaternary 70-85 Clay, sand andgravel, till

Niagara DolomiteSilurian 135 Dolomite

Alexandrian Series

Maquoketa Shale 230 Shale

Galena DolomiteDolomite

Decorah Formation 320

Ordovician Platteville Formation

Glenwood Formation145 Sandstone, fine

to coarse grainedSt. Peter Sandstone

Prairie du Chien Group 95 Dolomite

Trempealeau Formation 125 DolomiteCambrian

Franconia Formation 90 Dolomite andsandstone

Ironton Sandstone 200+ Sandstone, fineto medium grained

Galesville Sandstone

Eau Claire Formation 235-450 Shale andsiltstone

Mt. Simon Sandstone 2000+ Sandstone, coarsegrained

Precambrian crystalline rocks

307

FIGURE 3.3

O'HARE ARFF

LOCATIONS FOR GEOLOGIC DATA

MAIN GATE

50 LUS ARM

'~Rd. jERVE CENTE

Ui -so 51____50 GA TE 133

2902 sink23 1 Cir. -d

* 32* m 2

* 4*

.9"19 30

*~36E 2 *

:m 321J1

* C0-1700

q-01701

ValentaRd

U Rd.INTA-LLATION -A-ON

LEGEND10BORINO LOCATION AND NUMBER111

Am=AD ::,0L,,0 C,0ROSS*-SECTION "mowN"N WELL U9SE1 FOR GEOLOGIC DESCRIPTION 0lop00

S0S0IC WHARM AP ISTALLATION DOCUNINT SCALE 11 FEET

3-S U

1602 L4UDOR013FIGURE 3.4

0

LU ?co)UI

Cl)CO)0

m0

-ml

zi 9

03-9

TABLE 3.3SUMMARY OF SELECTED SOIL BORINGS

Other Boring Depth

Boring No. Boring I.D. (Feet) Lithology

DH77-1 0 - 1.5 Top soil1.5 - 7.0 Clay, brown

7.0 - 11.0 Clay, brown tnd gray11.0 - 18.0 Clay, gray, trace sand and

gravel18.0 - 20.0 Sandy silt

2 DH77-18 0 - 3.0 Fill, concrete and sand3.0 - 9.0 Clay, br-wn and gray

9.0 - 14.5 Clay, gray14.5 - 22.0 Sandy clay, gray

3 DH80-8 0 - 1.0 Fill, concrete1.0 - 2.5 Sandy clay, brown2.5 - 4.0 Clay, dark gray

4.0 - 18.0 Clay, gray18.0 - 22.0 Silty sand22.0 - 29.0 Clay, gray, with sand and

gravel

40 - 6.0 Fill6.0 - 8.5 Silty clay, brown and gray8.5 - 18.5 Silty clay, trace of gravel18.5 - 23.5 Silt, some sand layers23.5 - 25.0 Silty clay, trace sand and

gravel

5 DH75-I 0-0.5 Fill0.5 - 8.0 Clay, brown

8.0 - 15.0 Clay, grades from brown to gray15.0 - 24.0 Clay, with silt and sand layers24.0 - 25.0 Sand clay

6 DH75-7 0-1.0 Fill1.0 - 15.0 Clay, tan to brown, slightly

sandy15.0 - 18.0 Clay, gray

18.0 - 29.0 Sandy clay29.0 - 31.0 Silty sand

Modified from O'Hare ARFF drawingsBoring locations shown on Figure 3.3L 3-10

Structure

The Chicago area is located near the crest of a broad, gently

sloping arch composed mostly of Cambrian, Ordovician and Silurian rocks.

The longitudinal axis of this arch runs generally in a northwest-south-

east direction. The rocks have a general eastward dip that results from

the eastward plunge of the arch.

The major structural feature near the installation is the Des

Plaines Disturbance. Rocks in the area of the Disturbance are intensely

faulted. The origin of the faulting is unknown but has been speculated

to have been caused by a meteorite impact (Willman, 1971). The area ofthe Des Plaines Disturbance is approximately five-miles square. The

southern end of the Disturbance is located approximately one-mile north

of. the installation.

HYDROLOGY

Subsurface Hydrology

There are four major aquifer systems in the vicinity of O'Hare

ARFF. These aquifer systems are sand and gravel deposits of the glacial

drift, shallow dolomites composed mostly of Silurian age rocks, the Cam-

brian-Ordovician aquifer system and the Mt. Simon aquifer. The glacial

drift and shallow dolomite aquifers are separated from the underlying

deeper aquifers by the Maquoketa Shale.

The glacial drift and shallow dolomite are of greatest interest for

this study. These are the uppermost geologic units at the installation.

The glacial drift and shallow dolomite are both recharged locally

from precipitation and are hydrologically connected in the Chicago area

(Suter, 1959). The hydrologic connection is generally good whenever

sand and gravel directly overlies the dolomite. This situation exists

at O'Hare ARFF (Figure 3.4).

The glacial drift in the vicinity of the installation has an

average vertical hydraulic conductivity, or permeability, on the ord-r

of 0.005 gallons per day per square f ct (2.4 x 10 centimeters persecond). This estimate assumes that recharge through the drift averages

140,000 gallons per day per square mile and that recharge is occurring

3-11

under a unit hydraulic gradient. These assumptioib appear reasonable

based on work done by Walton (1965) in DuPage county that is immediately

west of the installation. This permeability estimate indicates that

percolation to the water table of the installation is low.

Ground-water elevations and ground-water flow directions in the

shallow dolomite are not known at the ins-alla'ion. Water levels in

borings completed in the shallow dolomite on the installation stood at

an elevation of 625 to 630 feet mean sea level in 1942. This water

level was 15 to 20 feet below land surface. Water levels in the shallow

dolomite were generally greater than 50 feet below land surface in

DuPage County west of the installation in 1965 (Walton, 1965).

The unconsolidated deposits are saturated in part at the instal-

lation (Figure 3.4). Water levels nave been observed 5 to 15 feet

below land surface in shallow soil borings drilled on the installation

between 1975 and 1980 for foundation investigations.

There is a potential for contamination of ground water to occur at

subsurface waste disposal sites on the installation. The glacial de-

posits are at least periodically saturated at depths of 5 feet and more

below land surface. Waste material buried to depths of 5 feet or more

would be periodically saturated and could create leachate. Also, there

would be a tendency for the leachate to move downward to the shallow,

dolomite aquifer.

Surface Hydroly

O'Hare ARFF is in the Willow Creek drainage basin. The installa-

tion is drained by a combination of open channels and drainage struc-

tures that discharge to the creek (Figure 3.2). The main stem of Willow

Creek does not traverse the installation.

Periodic flooding can be expected at the north end of the installa-

tion. These floodwaters originate mostly as runoff from O'Hare Inter-

national Airport and from the urbanized area west and north of the

airport. The approximate limits of flooding for the 100-year flood

event are shown on Figure 3.5.

3-12

FIGURE 3.5

O'HARE ARFFAREA INUNDATED BY THE100-YEAR FLOOD~

50 51 ' .. ~

-.PLOOEDARE

0 U R200 C a A h A P S T L A I W O O U E T F E

2-3 10 if

055.1~

WATE USE

The installation receives its water supply from the City of

Chicago. Surface and ground waters are not used for installation

supply.

Numerous industrial and municipal supply wells are located in the

vicinity of the installation. Most wells are 1,000 to 2,000 feet deep

and withdraw water from the Cambrian-Ordovician aquifer system. A few

wells withdraw water from the shallow dolomite aquifer system. The

approximate location of the wells that could be identified from theavailable data are shown on Figure 3.6. (Six water supply wells are not

plotted on the figure; insufficient data were available to determine the

location of the wells within the section.)

Some residential wells exist in the vicinity of the installation

(R. T. Sasnan, Illinois State Water Survey, oral communication, 1983).

The closest well completed in the shallow dolomite is located approxi-

mately one and one-half miles east of the installation.

WAE WUALITYSurface water quality is monitored in the Willow Creek watershed by

personnel employed by the airport facility. (Landrum and Brown, 1983).

The parameters monitored include biochemical oxygen demand (DOD), pH,suspended solids, total dissolved solids, fats, oil and grease, dis-

solved oxygen and hexane solubles. The locations of the monitoring

sites (F, K and R) in the vicinity of the instailation are shown on

Figure 3.2 and the monitoring results for the period November 1981 to

October 1982 are summarized in Table 3.4. Runoff from the installation

is monitored at site K.

The results of water quality monitoring indicates that water dis-

charging to the creek from the installation does not meet all WPDES/-Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (12PA) standards. (Lendrum andBrown, 1983). Suspended solids in the water generally exceeded stan-

dards and fats, oil and grease in the water have exceeded standards.

Water quality parameters in other surface waters nearby also exceed

IZPA standards (Table 3.4). Discharge standards are generally exceeded

in Willow Creek at site F above the confluence with the installation

drainage ditch and at site R in a drainage ditch that discharges to

3-14

FIGURE 3.6

"00 k 1,J 1A

WHARE ARFFA-1

ova,

WELL LOCATI NsPI-ilk

I-~ jj: m I7 7f s

V- 1IA 2-

OL

-A,-am-

.- :7 IN.

low;M

Glle" A

,004

crit

TVTV

30 34i A

"A

ICE-7 1A

'O'k G Cr 01 E'

I h 7 E 104 A T I 0)fkt- vv

OPHARE::-XK ARFF

00 CMCA

*41;tL -17

.2

........ MUNICIPAL WELL COMPLETED IN-(two Well*) CAMMIAN-ORDOVICIAN AQUIFER4LI IT-*1MUNICIPAL WELL COMPLETED IN

(two wells)- SNALLOW DOLOMITE AQUIFERi, INDUSTRIAL WELL COMPLETED IN

CAMBRIAN-ORDOVICIAN AQUIFERINDUSTRIAL WELL COMPLETED INSNALLOW DOLOMITE AQUIFER

Hilt LOCATION AND NUMBER OF WATER0 A Alf QUALITY SAMPLE SITE IN SNALLOW

SCALE -j m a DOLOMITESOURCE: BASE FROM U.S. 41109 041CA1 VRT 1:24,000 imel as

3 11 5

TABLE 3.4SUMMARY OF SELECTED CHUSICAL ANALYSES FOR SURFACE WATERS(Analyses in Milligrams Per Liter Unlearn Otherwise Noted)

Totalpal (Std. Suspended Dissolved Fats, Oil Dissolved

Monitosing BOD Units) Solids Solids and Grease Oxygen

sie Tm eid (30) 1 (6.0-9.0)1 (15) 1 (11000) 2 (15) (5.0)2

F Uov.1981-Dec.19831 A - X A --

Jan.1982-Feb.1982 x - X---M4ar.1982-M4ay 1982 X - X X X-June 1981-Aug.1982 X - X X X-Sept.1982-Oct.1982 - - X X X-

K Mov.1981-Dec.1981 - - X ---

Jan.1982-Feb.1982 - - X ---

Har. I982-14ayl 982 - - X - XJune 1982-Aug.1982 - - X - X

Sept.1982-Oct.1982 - - X - - -

R Uov.1981-Dec.1981 - - X X - -

Jan.1982-Peb.1982 B - X X - -

M~ar.1982-Nay 1981 X - X X - -

June 1982-Aug.1982 - - X X - -

Sept.1982-Oct.1982 X - X X X -

X Exceeded VPD3S/IEPA Standards during period

- Did not exceed 6PDES/IBPA. Standards during period

A Exceeded VPDES/IhPA Standards on one test date

B Exceeded UPDES/IEPA Standards on two test dates

1 Minimum effluent standard (IEPA, 1982)

2 General use stream water quality standard (IEPA, 1982)

3 See Figure 3.2

Sourcet Landrum and Brown, 1983

3-16

Willow Creek downstream from the installation drainage ditch. Poor

water quality is typical of highly urbanized areas.

Water quality data for the shallow dolomite aquifer (Table 3.5) are

available at two locations near the installation (Figure 3.6). One

location is a

residential supply well located approximately 1.5 miles east of the in-

stallation. The other location is a test well located approximately 1.5

miles south of the installation.

Water from the shallow dolomite is high in dissolved minerals

(Table 3.5). The total dissolved solids content in the water is above

recommended limits for public water supplies (USEPA, 1975). The iron

content of the water is near the recommended upper limit.

The shallow dolomite well east of the installation (Figure 3.6,Well No. 1) shows signs of contamination. The chloride and sulfate

contents in the water appear high and surfactants were detected in the

water. Surfactants do not occur naturally in water. The contamination

could result from any number of sources.

BIOTIC DIVIRONMDRT

O'Hare ARFF has limited habitat available for wildlife. The in-

stallation consists mainly of cultivated lawns, building sites, and

paved areas which offer negligible shelter for animals. Small tracts of

unmowed brush and grass provide forage and cover for small mamals and

birds. There are no threatened or endangered plant or animal species

inhabiting the installation property. Four endangered animal speciesare known to inhabit the region (within 50 miles) and may occasionally

visit the installation or airport. These are the Indiana bat, peregrine

falcon, upland sandpiper, and marsh hawk. There is no indication that

past installation activities have disrupted the patterns of these

species.

SUMMY O MVIRMNIK TAL STING

The environmental setting data reviewed for this investigation

identified the following major points that are relevant to O'Hare AR.



3-17 All AM

TABLE 3.5SUMMARf OF SELECTED WATER QUALITY ANALYSESFOR WATER FROM4 THE SHALLOW DOLOMITE AQUIFER

(Analyses in milligrams per liter)

TotalDissolved

2 Sulfat? Chlorife Solids1 IronWell No. (250) (250) (500) (0.3) Surfactants

1 160 220 1060 0.3 0.16

2 -8 750 0.1

Recommended drinking water standard (USEPA, 1975).2 Refer to Figure 3.6 for well locations.

3-18

L Mkj. Ibi."




surface contamination from hazardcus waste sites. The one-year,











installation are hydraulically connected and are separated fromthe underlying Cambrian-Ordovician and Mt. Simon aquifers by the


o Numerous wells are located in the vincinity of the installation.


withdraw water from the Cambrian-Ordovician aquifer system. The

one residential well and one test well identified from the

available data withdraw water from the shallow dolomite aquifer.

This water is high in dissolved solids and iron.


face waste disposal sites on the installation. The glacial de-

posits are at least periodically saturated at depths as shallow

as 5 feet below land surface.








installation property. '4

3-19

SECTION 4

FINDINGS

To assess hazardous waste management at O'Hare Air Reserve Forces

Facility (ARFF) at O'Hare International Airport, past activities of

waste generation and disposal methods were reviewed. This section

summarizes the hazardous waste generated by activity; describes waste

disposal methods; identifies the disposal sites located on the base; and

evaluates the potential for environmental contamination.

PAST SHOP AND INSTALLATION ACTIVITY REVIEW

A review was conducted of current and past Air Force activities at

O'Hare ARFF with the objective of identifying those installation acti-vities that generated hazardous waste. This review consisted of a

search of files and records, interviews with installation employees, and

site inspection.

The sources of hazardous wastes at O'Hare ARFF can be associated

with any one of the activities listed below:

o Industrial Shops

o Fire Protection Training

o Pesticide Utilization

o Waste Storage Areas

o Fuels Management

The following discussion addresses only those wastes generated on

the installation which are either hazardous or potentially hazardous.

Hazardous wastes are those wastes referenced by the Comprehensive

Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CUCLA,

Public Law 96-510), A potentially hazardous waste is one which is

suspected of being hazardous although insufficient data are available to

fully characterize the waste material.

4-1

I

INDUSTRIhL OPERATIONS (SHOPS)

Since the O'Hare ARFF opened in 1946, the main function of the

industrial operations (shops) or the installation has been to provide

maintenance support activities to aircraft flying missions. Activities

have included aircraft equipment maintenance, ground equipment main-

tenance, and installation facilities maintenance. A list of present

industrial shops was obtained from the installation clinic files.

Information contained in the files indicates if the shops handle

hazardous materials and generate hazardous waste. A summary of the

pertinent information from the shop files is presented in Appendix E,

Master List of Industrial Shops.

For the shops known to generate hazardous wastes, interviews with

personnel familiar with shop activities were conducted. The information

obtained from interviews and installation records has been summarized in

Table 4.1. For each generator of hazardous wastes, this table presents

the shop location, waste materials generated, quantities of wastes gene-

rated, and a disposal method timeline. Many of the disposal methods

were identified from information obtained from past and present person-

nel of O'Hare ARFF. The waste quantities shown in Table 4.1 are based

on verbal estimates given by present shop personnel at the time of the

interviews. The shops that have generated insignificant quantities or

no hazardous waste are not listed in Table 4.1.

From 1943 to 1945 the area that is now O'Hare ARFF was a govern-

ment-owned, contractor-operated plant (Douglas Aircraft Assembly Plant

No. 8). Assembly operations typically do not generate significant

amounts of hazardous solid waste. Most of the hazardous waste generated

resulted from the painting operations. Several underground tanks stored

paint thinners and fuels. All but one of these tanks (a fuel tank) have

since been excavated and removed. Paper and other office materials were

burned in an incinerator. Other wastes generated by this operation were

disposed of in a manner that is not well defined. There are no records

of any landfilling or other disposal operations during this period of

time.

In the early years of installation operations, (1946 to 1955), an

off-aite cantractor collected cacstible liquid wastes (primarily mate

oil) and removed them from the installation. From approximately 1955 to

4-2

04 4it JddU0 Wj ITIi II I

pq ILI

on zI I~

-i I . z go, I I I I I 1 1 1ii Ii r

81 t 1t , I I I I I 1$ 0 1UIIIII I I I lII I II iL

z

-C a

Go 0

me in-a 4 j ~ --i

0 UU A 15 "

0; 2S in~ .

I-r U. U.

W 0i_ _ _ _ 3zI

__ __ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ w

.--.----.------.------ j .- -- -

-Iz zA zzh z z z a IZOT T I I I I ILITI 1 0

W 6 . L6 L

0101 331 ~ 40I0I0ii ululu

wU

I -C

00zz zz I I I I

U. 0 l cc

CL - 40

Lu V0 t 3 < -

1. 0

W W 00 ul 4A 40LI .

LI IL U1 L

g~ OA '00 v A m

z zw

3 00

U3 za. 0

a-UU

i A9L -UIL II z u

3! £0 1Wa x ml

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

- 4-4

40* 1A A azi Z ' z Z

(I lululu u ulul ulul uu ui i

0 L-oi Z- -IZz z i

I- uI fi £010

0 1

Colz 0

<l IA Il I A A U S VI U J UI r r it R

c Uw0 Z 0.

z-J

U. 4A

WW u

as u0 CL

CL ww Z ZI-

o. JC 01 0 0-

#A. 0. 31 -. U30-bLA uj LU22

I-I- I-j____A__'A__________usmz a 04 -C -Z* o 0 mL -Ca t IL 9

'aLin

vi Z-

IL 4

-4-

A z z 4

uus

z IIImIl z

I~~ 155LUl lulu

IHII09

I-c

co Ko o

uja -

In30

wA Z w

U j

.( 0 an

C4-

1979, combustible wastes were burned at the Fire Protection Training

Areas (see following discussion). Presently these wastes are drummed

and stored for outside contract disposal.

Cleaning solvents and related wastes were sometimes removed by the

off-site contractor in the early years. At other times, the solvent-

type wastes were drummed and disposed of in one of the two installation

landfills.

Solids waste generated by shop operations, along with the rest of

the installation's general rubbish, was disposed of in the installation

landfills through 1970, when landfilling operations ceased. Since then

it has been removed from the installation by a contract-disposal com-

pany.

Fire Protection Training

Since 1955, fire protection training exercises have been conducted

by the Air Force at three locations. Only one of these was located on

what is now installation property (Figure 4.1). Prior to 1955, it is

uncertain what, if any, fire protection training was done.


From approximately 1955 to the early 1960's, the Air Force fire


side of the installation. The burn pit was constructed with an earth

berm and a natural soil bottom. AVGAS, IOGAS, waste oil and combustible

liquids were burned here. It is unknown whether there was any water

presoaking, or how frequently training was practiced or what extinguish-

ing agents were used. No visual evidence of the site was present during

the site visit since the area is now covered by a hardfill area.

Other Fire Protection Training Areas

From the early 1960's through the present day, fire training exer-

cises have taken place at two sites on O'Hare International Airport

property under a joint training agreement. One Fire Protection Training

Facility was located just north of Old Higgins Road. The current Fire

Protection Training Facility is located approximately one mile south of

the second site.

Pesticide Utilization

Pesticide applications have been conducted by the Roads and Grounds

Shop and O'Hare ARFF throughout the history of the installation. Cur-

rently, shop personnel apply 2-Prometon (an amine herbicide) annually

4-7

FIGURE 4i.1

O'HARE ARFF

FIRE PROTECTION TRAINING AREAS

TO OTHER MAIN GATE

FIRE PROTECTIONTRAINING AREAS

(OFF-SITE) 1300 .8 R

RES ~.ERVE CENTE

A.0onsn d

4/V.

GAT 11330

23 0 i. -

22

m

350

0 100

'OUN0U.~~velnt Rd.AR FIRE PROTECTIONCUENS CAE''P

48 US TRANING AEA3

throughout the installation for general weed control. ll of the pesti-

cide material prepared is used up in the application process. No other

pesticides or herbicides were reported as being used. Containers are

rinsed and disposed of as general refuse.

Waste Storage Areas

Presently, waste chemicals and used oils at O'Hare ARFF are accumu-

lated at the site of generation until removed to a central storage area.

This storage area is located in a depressed area at the south end of the

Old Assembly Plant foundation, a former truck loading area (Figure 4.2).

The area is open to the weather and access is not controlled. The soil

in this storage area was darker than normal, indicating that past spills

had occurred.

Drums of waste from the hangers are accumulated on an outside con-

crete wash rack area adjacent to the buildings (Figure 4.2). The area

is located over a drain grill that discharges to either the surface

drainage system or the sanitary sewer system. During aircraft washing

operations, the drain is directed to the sanitary sewer via a nearby,

underground oil/water separator. Otherwise, the drain feeds the storm

sewer system. The discharge direction is selected by moving a vane

located underneath the grill. The concrete is stained indicating that

spills and/or leaks have occurred.

Fuels Management

The O'Hare ARFF Fuels Management storage system consists of fifteen

above ground and below ground tanks in two areas (west POL and south POL

areas). A listing of the locations of the fuel storage tanks and their

contents and capacities has been provided in Appendix D. Fuels stored

at O'Hare ARFF include: JP-4, MOGAS, FS-5 and FS-2 (No. 2 Fuel Oil).

Fuels are currently delivered to the installation by tank truck. In the

past, fuel has been delivered to the west and south POL areas by railcar

as well.

JP-4 is stored in the west POL storage area in one above ground

210,000 gallon tank and two under ground 50,000 gallon tanks. The

aboveground tank is equipped with secondary containment in the form of

an earth dike over an asphaltic material. The diked areas are checked

daily, with water acomulations discharged to the surface drainage

system. A hydrant network was previously used to fuel aircraft on the

.,-9-1v

I-- !

)k .A

FIGURE 4.2

O'HARE ARFFHAZARDOUS WASTE DRUM

ACCUMULATION AND STORAGE SITESMAIN GATE

151

STOGATE o3

0 230000OURCL~~ ~ w aRA P W T L A~O O U Ns P

173'US Dia"DOM

west aircraft apron. This network was shut down in the early 1970's for

replacement. Currently fuel leaves the area through the new hydrant

system and in tank trucks. The South POL area has nine 25,000 gallon

and two 11,500 gallon above ground JP-4 tanks. It also has has one

25,000 gallon above ground tank which has been partitioned in two, with

one half holding 12,500 gallons of FS-2 and the other half nearly empty.

At one time, this other half held engine oil. Fuel is removed from this

area for use by tank truck only.

Spills and Leaks

Small fuel spills have occurred in several areas throughout the

installation. The spills are generally attributed to fuel transfer and

aircraft refueling operations. They typically occur on paved areas and

evaporate or are cleaned up. No significant environmental contamination

is attributed to these spills.

A major spill occurred in January 1972 at the aboveground JP-4 tank

in the West POL area (Figure 4.3). The dike accumulated water from ex-

ceptionally heavy rains. A rapid change of weather then froze the water

causing it to crush the external piping to the tank. This resulted in

82,000 gallons of fuel being released within the dike. About 40,000

gallons of fuel were recovered and the remaining fuel either infiltrated

into the ground or evaporated.

Another spill occurred when a 12,000 gallon defueling pit along the

old hydrant network (Figure 4.3) cracked due to external pressure exer-

ted on it during a winter freeze in the late 1960's. The leak was

discovered later when water began to appear in the fuel passing through

this tank. The amount of JP-4 lost is not known. The tank has been

removed and replaced.

During an Airfield Pavement Evaluation in 1977, fuel-contaminatedsoil was discovered beneath the main apron at two points (Figure 4.3).

The soil was described as "saturated with jet fuel." No source for this

nimmnation was immediately identifiable, although the underground hy-

drant system has had leaks before, and a preliminary evaluation suggests

that it is upgradient of the contamination.

There is an abandoned underground NOGAS tank located on the south

edge of the installation. This tank dates from the 1940's and was used

at least through the early 1960's. No records could be found to

4-11

FIGURE 4. 3

ODHARE ARFF

POL SPILLS AND LEAKS.~ 91. MAIN GATE

0 SARM

TANK~5 LEUSELL C 0 GTE13

160

gDr

231000

SOURCE, OIAR A S A L ON DO UM NT SC LEr' EE

173 2io Blvd ENIfrX03I~

describe the tank, and no information regarding tank closure could be

established.

A ground disposal site at the Vehicle Maintenance Facility (Bldg.

5) (Figure 4.4) was reported to be the location for regular dumping of

motor oil until the mid 1970's. No evidence of this action was observed

during the site visit since the area behind the building has been cover-

ed over by a concrete vehicle parking lot. The contaminated soil may

have been removed during construction of the parking lot.

During the 1950's and 1960's the area south of the south apron was

used as an occasional dumping area for small quantities of liquid wastes

from the shops (Figure 4.4). The material would flow into a storm water

drainage ditch which ran parallel to the edge about ten feet away and be

washed away from the site. Due to the irregular frequency and small

quantity of dupings, this area was not listed as a "disposal method" in

Table 4.1, Industrial Operations. No evidence of environmental stress

could be found here during the site visit.

DESCRIPTION OF PAST ON-INSTALLATION DISPOSAL METHODS

The facilities at O'Hare ARFF which have been used for the manage-

ment and disposal of waste can be categorized as follows:

o Landfills

o Hardfills


o Sanitary Sewer System

o Low Level Radioactive Disposal Area

Landfills

Two landfill operations were identified at O'Hare ARFF. These two

landfills are discussed below.

Landfill go. 1 (1953-1965)

Landfill No. 1 was operated from 1953-1965. It was located on the

northwest side of the installation, along Newhall/Lee Street and Higgins

(Figure 4.5). During the early operation, trash was filled in a slight-

ly depressed area. Trench and fill operations became the standard

operating procedure after a few years. The trenches were excavated

4-13

FIGURE .

O'HARE ARF

SPILLS

REAR OF '

Coe EHCL

BOUTNA

2S 101000

3213Id 2

FIGURE 4. 5

O'HARE ARFF

LANDFILLS AND HARDFILLS

19 MAIN GATE

HARDFILL-NO. 1

ANDFI ~d.

00 5

170 Dixon ON&.

32K

gm 19 30

aLen 16 . cADcL O

.1 321"4 r40L

0erc Rd0000SOU~ N~hARPINTLLTONDCUETSSALE P4-15 ~~70 *EEGNE~N-CUc

73- .,2~

about 10 feet deep. The landfill received at least some portion of all

wastes generated on the installation, including general refuse and

office trash, old aircraft part, old kitchen-type appliances and both

new and old tools. It was also reported that some drummed waste from

the shop operations went into this landfill. There was occasional

burning at this landfill. The operation ceased in 1965 when the airport

runways were expanded. The site is closed and has an earth cover.

Holes dug by burrowing animals indicate that the landfill is close to

the present surface of the ground in the area.

Landfill No. 2 (1965-1972)

When Landfill No. 1 was closed, the landfill operation was moved to

southeast portion of the installation (Figure 4.5). Landfill No. 2 was

operated from 1965 through 1972. This landfill was operated in two

adjacent areas and was almost exclusively a trench and fill operation.

Part of Landfill No. 2 is located outside the O'Hare ARFF. The trenches

were about 10 feet deep. It continued to receive the same type of

wastes as disposed of at Landfill No. 1. Drums of shop wastes were

crushed and buried with earth-moving equipment. There was no burning of

waste at this site. The landfill is closed and has an earth cover.

Hardfills

Three hardfill sites were identified on O'Hare ARFF (Figure 4.5).

Hardfill No. 1 was operated during the early period of installation

operations. It received only construction materials. Hardfill No. 2

was operated during 1965 and received miscellaneous non-hazardous rubble

from the demolition at the old Assembly Plant Building. The site is

closed and is covered with soil. Hardfill No. 3, located by Landfill

No. 2 has received concrete rubble since 1965 and is still open.

Hardfill No. 3 is located over the old Fire Protection Training Area.

Storm Drainage System

The installation storm drainage system collects water runoff from

the civilian airport and the Air Force, installation at O'Hare and con-

veys it through both wooden and concrete pipes to an open drainage ditch

off of the installation property. This ditch in turn discharges to

Willow Creek. Although no shop wastes or other hazardous materials were

regularly disposed of to this system, intermittant spills have occasion-

ally entered the pipes. A number of the wooden pipe sections have

4-16

-~J

collapsed, indicating that any materials which have entered the system

have probably been in direct contact with the ground around it.

Sanitary Sever System

There is no treatment of sanitary wastewater on the base. Since

the beginning of the operation of the Douglas Aircraft Assembly Plant

through to the present day the network of sanitary sever piping has been

connected to the City of Chicago Sanitary District System. Typically

shop wastes and other hazardous materials do not enter the sanitary

sewer, with the exception of neutralized battery acid and photochemi-

cals.

Low-level Radiation Disposal Site

The low-level radiation disposal sites is located northeast of the

south POL tank farm (Figure 4.6). The site was used for disposal of

low-level radioactive vacuum tubes. The site was operated during the

1950's and 1960's and closed in the late 1960'.. The waste material was

placed in a pit about eight feet deep and then covered with earth.

There is no marking or fence at this site.

EVALUATION OF PAST DISPOSAL A CTI VITIES AND FACILITIES

The review of past operation and maintenance functions and past

waste management practices at O'Hare ARF? has resulted in the identi-

fication of 16 sites which were initially considered as areas of concern

with regard to the potential for contamination, as well as the potential

for the migration of contaminants. These sites were evaluated using the

Decision Tree Methodology shown in Figure 1.1. Those sites which were

considered as not having a potential for contamination were deleted from

further consideration. Those sites which were considered as having a

potential for the occurrence of contamination and migration of contami-

nants were further evaluated using the Hazard Assessment Rating Method-

ology (BRN) (Appendix H). Table 4.2 identifies the decision tree logic

used for each of the areas of intitial concern.

Based an the decision tree logic, five of the 16 sites originally

reviewed did not warrant evaluation using the Hazard Assessment Rating

Methodology. The rationale for omitting these five sites from HARM

evaluation is discussed below.

4-17

_ |

FIGURE 4.6

O'HARE ARFF

LOW-LEVELRADIOACTIVE TUBE DISPOSAL AREA

I MAIN GATE

jERVE C LTJonon d0 L9,...

'6 4

23ric 170 ir .

'd 2

OWE NAE RP IUALATO~DOUMNT CAE'_________

431 EUEGNmN-CSc

TABLE 4.2SUMMARY OF DECISION TREE LOGIC FOR AREAS OF INITIAL

ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN AT O'HARE ARFF

Potential ForSite Potential for Contaminant Other Environ- HARM

Description Contamination Migration mental Concern Rating



JP-4 Tank Spill Site YES YES N/A YES

Defueling Pit Leak Site YES YES N/A YES

Fire Protection Training Area YES YES N/A YES

Storm Drainage System in the YES YES N/A YESHangar Area

Hazardous Waste DrumAccumulation Point YES NO YES NO

Hazardous Waste Storage Area YES YES N/A YES

South Edge of Apron YES YES N/A YES

Vehicle Maintenance Facility YES YES N/A YES

Low Level RadioactiveDisposal Site YES YES N/A YES

Hardfill No.1 NO NO NO NO



Buried Tanks from the NO NO YES NODouglas Operation (1942-1945)

Fuel-Contaminated Soil Under YES YES N/A YESMain Apron

4-19

U

Hardfill No. I was used for the disposal of construction rubble

only. This material is nonhazardous and would not cause any environ-

mental contamination.

Hardfill No. 2 was used for the disposal of building debris during

the demolition of the old Assembly Plant Building and received only

wood, concrete, glass and some plumbing piping. This material is non-

hazardous and hence would not cause any environmental contamination.

Hardfill No. 3 is used for the disposal of concrete and stone

rubble and as such, would not cause any environmental contamination.

Several underground tanks stored paint thinners and fuels for the

Douglas Aircraft Co. during the 1940's. All but one of these tanks have

since been excavated and removed. No reports were found of any leaks or

spills from these tanks and hence, the site poses no potential for con-

tamination of the environment.

The Hazardous Waste Drum Accumulation Point is loca-ted over a large

concrete pad. In the event of a spill, the wastes wo.ild not run off

onto the earth. Instead they would either stay where they were spilled

or they would enter the installation's storm sewer system. (The storm

sewer system is rated using the HARM method.) Hence, no potential for

environmental contamination exists at this site itself.

The remaining 11 sites identified on Table 4.2 were evaluated using

the Hazard Assessment Rating Methodology. The HARM process takes into

account characteristics of potential receptors, waste characteristics,

pathways for migration, and specific characeristics of the site related

to waste management practices. The details of the rating results are

summarized in Table 4.3. The HARM system is designed to be one of the

many indicators of the relative need for follow-on action. The infor-

nation presented in Table 4.3 is intended for assigning priorities for

further evaluation of the O'Hare ARFF disposal areas (Section 5,

Conclusions and Section 6, Recommendations). The rating forms for the

individual waste disposal sites at O'Hare ARFF are presented in Appendix

H. Photographs of some of the disposal sites are included in Appendix

F.

4-20


O'HARE ARFF



1 Landfill No. 1 57 90 67 0.95 68

2 JP-4 Tank, West 57 80 67 0.95 65

POL Area

3 Fuel-Contaminated Soil 57 54 80 1.00 64

4 Defueling Pit Leak 57 64 67 1.00 63Site



7 Landfill No. 2 57 50 67 0.95 55

8 Storm Drainage System 57 36 67 1 .00 53

9 South Edge of Apron 57 32 67 1 .00 52


11 Low Level Radioactive 57 15 67 0.95 44Disposal Site

4-21

SECTION 5

CONCLUSIONS










and a summary of the HARN scores for those sites. The sites themselves


LANDFILL NO. 1

Landfill No. I has a sufficient potential to create environmental







of about 10 feet. The water table ts high and ground-water is very

likely in contact with the wastes. The site received a HARK score of

68.

JP-4 SPILL SITE

The JP-4 Tank spill. site has a sufficient potential to create en-


1972, an 82,000 gallon spill of JP-4 occurred at the west POL area. The


5-1

TABLE 5.1



1 Landfill No. 1 1953-1960's 68









10 Vehicle Maintenance Facility. Rear Prior to 1977 49


5-2








and follow-on investigation is warranted. When discovered in 1977, the


HARM score of 64.

DEFUELING PIT LEAK




for an undetermined period of time prior to its discovery in the late






From approximately 1955 to the early 1960es, the installation fire



bottom and an earth berm around it. Contaminated fuels (AVGAS, MOGAS)




HAZARDOUS WASTE STORAGE AREA





5-3 $

area). The soil in this storage area was darker than normal, indicating

that past spills have occurred. This site received a HARM score of 58.

LANDFILL NO. 2

Landfill No. 2 has a sufficent potential to create environmental

contamination and follow-on investigation is warranted. This landfill

was in operation from the mid 1960's through 1972 and was operated in

two adjacent areas in a trench and fill manner. A portion of this

landfill is located outside of O'Hare ARFF property. Trenches were

about 10 feet deep. it received general refuse, office trash and some

shop wastes. Some drums of shop wastes were crushed with earth moving

equipment. There was no burning of waste at this site. The landfill is

closed and covered. The water table is high and ground water is very

likely in contact with the wastes. The site received a HAR14 score of

55.

STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM NEAR HANGARS

The Storm Drainage System in the Aircraft hangar area has a suf-

ficient potential to create environmental contamination and follow-on

investigation is warranted. The system in this area has probably

received shop wastes from the hangars. Also, liquid hazardous wastes

are accumulated in an area which drains directly into this wood- and

concrete-pipe system. The system received a HARM score of 53.

SOUTH EDGE OF APRON

The south edge of the main concrete apron has a sufficient poten-

tial to create environmental contamination and follow-on investigation

is warranted. This area was occasionally used as a dumping area for

small quantities of liquid wastes from the shops in the 1950's and

1960's. A stormwater drainage ditch runs parallel to the edge, about

ten feet away. During the site visit, no environmental stress was

observed in this area. The site received a HARM score of 52.

VEHICLE MAINTENANCE FACILITY

The rear of the vehicle maintenance factlity has an insufficient

potential to create environmental contamination and no follow-on

5-4

investigation is warranted. Motor oil was dumped on the ground north of

Building No. 5 from the early 1950's until about 1975. The area behind

the building has been covered over by a concrete vehicle parking lot.

The contaminated soil may have been removed when the parking lot was

built. The site received a HARM score of 49.

LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE DISPOSAL SITE

The low-level radioactive disposal site has an insufficient po-

tential to create environmental contamination and no follow-on investi-

gation is warranted. This area was used for the disposal of vacuum

tubes during the 1950's and the 1960's. The site received a HARM score

of 44.

5-5 U

SECTION 6

RECOMMENDATIONS

Eleven sites were identified at O'Hare ARFF as having the potential

f or environmental contamination and have been evaluated using the HARM

system. This evaluati3n assessed their relative potential for environ-

mental contamination and along with relevant site specific information

identified those sites where further study and monitoring may be neces-

sary. Nine of the sites were determined to have sufficient evidence to

indicate the potential for environmental contamination. Additional data

concerning these sites will be required in order to clearly ascertain

whether or not these sites have contributed environmental contamination.

Therefore, the following recommendations have been developed for each of

the nine sites. There was insufficient evidence on the other two sites

to warrant further investigation.

PHASE II MONITORING RECOMMENDATIONS

The following recommendations are made to further assess the

potential for environmental contamination from waste disposal areas at

O'Hare ARFF. The recommended actions are generally one-time sampling

programs to determine if contamination does exist at the site. If con-

tamination is identified, the sampling program may need to be expanded

to further define the extent of contamination.

Geophysical surveys, consisting of electrical resistivity, electro-

magnetic and/or magnetometer techniques, are recommended prior to any

well installations to attempt to delineate the horizontal and vertical

extent of the site, subsurface leachate plumes migrating from the site,

and subsurface stratigraphy including the hardpan formation. The alter-

native approach to geophysical testing would be the conventional tech-

nique to test well drilling and ground-water sampling. The cost benefit

6-1

of geophysical surveys over test drilling can be understood by compari-

sons of time, cost and data availability. Table 6.1 presents general

guidelines for the use of certain geophysical techniques.

The recommended monitoring program for Phase II is summarized in

Table 6.2.


contamination and monitoring of this site is recommended. A geo-

physical survey should be conducted to define the landfill

boundaries and depth, and identify any leachate plume. Based on

the results of the geophysical survey, one upgradient and 3 down-

gradient monitoring wells should be installed. Wells should be

constructed using 3" Schedule 40 PVC, screened intc the first sand

and gravel lens (20' to 30' deep). Sample these wells and analyze

for pH, total dissolved solids, total organic halogen, total

organic carbon, oil and grease, and phenol.

2) The JP-4 Tank Dike Spill Site has a sufficient potential to create

environmental contamination and further monitoring of this site is


tank farm to identify any JP-4 plume. Conduct a continuous core

sampling in the dike area extended to the first sand and gravel

lens and observe if any JP-4 is present. Then perform a water

extract on 3 soil samples and analyze for oil and grease, and total

organic carbon.

3) The Fuel-contaminated Soil area indicates that there is a suf-


monitoring of this site is recommended. A geophysical survey

should be conducted around the area to define the extent of the

fuel plume and to locate its source, if possible. Conduct a

continuous core sampling as near to the sites as possible, extended

to the first sand and gravel lens (20' to 30' deep) and observe if

any JP-4 is present. Then perform a water extract on 3 soil samp-

les and analyze for oil and grease and total organic carbon. If a

6-2

41 60

*~3 iiI~

d .

-0

U) -.I. 6

-4 H-

U) ~'; 3 3 IBM * 48

2 a La A 6 1

L~~ LA~e

-A .40 IN'

U) i~-~liftU)~~~~ 61I~I .~13 .

-4~" .:g.

6-3

Raking RatingNumber Site gem scare aecmende mnaitoring; Comments

I Landfill NO. 1 68 Coaduceopimia survey to define. Continue smitoring if samplingthe landfill boundaris and depth and indicates ,ntawirtetion. Addition

identitty anY Ieachete Pluame. Based OR weells may us needed.the results of the geophysical survey,inetel: e upgredleat end 3 dowa-gradient *Mitoring wells. Wall@should be cnstructed using 5'Schedule 40 PVC. ree into thefirst sand wit grovel mum (201 to 30'do")~. sample thee. ue'll and enelysofor pp. M3. TOM, IOC. sod phenol.

2 J"- Tank Dike Spill 65 conuct geophysical survey around the Conduct comined jeoghyiiol survey

teak fern to identify ay V1-4 Plum. With .adfill 30. 1.Conduct a cntinuous care smpling inth, dike area exteaded to the firstnend A"d graVOI IOTA. Obeerve if any31-4 is Present. Perform a mterextract on 3 sail Itaxl~m and en&lymefor oil and greame aPd ICC.

3 Fuel-Contaminated Soil 64 Conduct geophysical survey around the coordinate geopysical sorvey with

mite to Identify ay 31-4 PLUM. Coo- other site work. If plume is identi-

duct a continuous care "emling naer the find Leat* boring in plum ear tank.

mite extended to the first mend enE hamtoring ells my be required if

gravel leow (201*-30 * deep). observe plumw identified.it may S1-4 iu present. Purform awater extract an 3 SmilaSameples endanelyse tow oil en* green. mmd IOC.

4 Deneling Pit Lea Site 63 Cadect veophyniomi murvey around the Coordinete aphysiaml surve withsite to idienity ay 31-4 pam. Con- other mite wook. If plume to ideuti-

mite offtended to the first "ead end monitoring wells my be required if

irmeel- les W0-301 deep), Plume identified.Observe it anf 31-4 is rmet Par-to= & a ter extract om 3 emil w"meend &=IT" for a"l end greame. end IOC.

5 Fire Protection Training 60 Conduct geophysical morvey arond the The site incoavered by a berdt IP,

Area mite to Identify any leechate plum. therefore, it montoering inrestricted.

6 Nsemedous Wmts storage so Conduct a cootinuft cage emping It contanimtiie toand, install

Atea in the center ot the site extended monitoring wal~l to batter cheres-to the first mend and grave low toring cantmnir~ets in the ground

(201-30 deep). observe It contet- wamter.ntice present. Perform a moterextrat of 3 soleated eoil samles(in contaminated %oen if Preeent)ad Peorm anelysee fog Do. 202

end ICC.

7 Ladill IDo. 2 SI Conduct -eogFmiLatl movey to define Conduct caondgeophysicel surveythe landf ill boundaris end deyth with the lire Protection ?raininq

end identify eny leechate plume. Arma. Continee moanitoring If

Seine on the reeults of the geo- memling Indicatee coateminetiat'.Yhysical ozuVey, Install aesupgredlent &nd tw dowagradisetmonitoring wells. walle eboold betonstmucted of 31 Schedule 46 79C.

moreene iato the firet sand andgravel lAne (201-30 dee). Sampletheme wells ad anelyue for VS,

OM. 1sm. as6 and phefeolm.

S storm Drainage system 93 Conduct omtifaum cors *oes at te If onmtanmetiat Is toond,

Dear Nn"mm neareet wosd.. pipe section and at the collect eod em.llue samples f ruenaset outfall extended to the first ay water stendiaq in the system'.

send and grave leaw. Observ It coa- atier "eri" of moe empU~ngtemetim to present. Parseas a aster may be mensmeen to define the

streatim of 3 samples snd analyms fmr cxtent of coet~netIon.M,1 Ice ad vs.

9 Spilim along South sage Of 52 Conduct a ontieeantowee wemliag at if samination f sed in the coc

van Agree the edo" a1 the Wpoo extended to the @seplee. collect and ealym murt ce

tirst e"ad snd groel lenow 0 0 eter oe sediment smplee An the

deep). Obserer if any aMMStaILeionU drainege *itch duringr high flowpresent. Performn a meter entrat as peried.2 Seleted soil easples (in ositeti-mated smoe If I Sm -- tU aod pert mnselye for VE, IN3 Sad Ice.

6-4

plume was identified during the survey, the boring should be lo-

cated to intercept the plume. Monitoring wells may be required if

a plume is identified.

4) The Defueling Pit Leak Site has a sufficient potential to create

environmental contamination and further monitoring of the site is


site to identify any JP-4 plume. Conduct a continuous core samp-ling by the site extended to the first sand and gravel lens (20' to

30' deep) and observe if any JP-4 is present. Then perform r water

extract on 3 selected soil samples (in the contaminated zone, if

present) and analyze for oil and grease, and total organic carbon.

If a plume was identified during the survey, the boring should be

located to intercept the plume. Monitoring wells may be required

if a plume is identified.

5) The Fire Protection Training Area has a sufficient potential tocreate environmental contamination and further monitoring of thesite is recommended. A geophysical survey should be conducted toidentify any leachate plume. Further investigation of the site isto be coordinated with that of Landfill No. 2, discussed below.

6) The Hazardous Waste Storage Area has a sufficient potential to

create environmental contamination and further monitoring of thesite is recommended. Any old drums in the area should be locatedand examined. Conduct a continuous core sampling in the center of

the site extended to the first sand and gravel lens (20' to 30'

deep) and observe if contamination present. Perform a water ex-

tract of 3 selected soil samples (in contaminated zones if present)

and analyze for pH, total organic halogen and total organic carbon.


contamination and further monitoring of the site is recommended.

First conduct a geophysical survey (simultaneous with the Fire

Protection Training Area, above) to define the landfill boundaries

and depth, and identify any leachate plume. Based on the results

6-5 4

of the geophysical survey, install one upgradient and two down-

gradient monitoring wells. Wells should be constructed of 3"

Schedule 40 PVC, screened into the first sand and gravel lens (20'

to 30' deep). Sample these wells and analyze for pH, total organic

carbon, total organic halogen, total dissolved solids and phenols.

8) The Storm Drainage System in the aircraft hangar area has a suf-


monitoring of the system is recommended. First, the sections which

are wooden pipe nearest the hangars should be identified. The

nearest outfall should also be identified. Then conduct a con-

tinuous core samplang at each point extended to the first sand and

gravel lens (20' to 30' deep) and observe if any contamination is

present. Perform a water extract on 3 selected soil samples from

each point and perform analyses for total organic halogen, total

organic carbon, and pH. If contamination is found in either core

sample, collect and analyze water samples from any water found

standing in the system. Another series of core samples ray be

necessary to define the extent of any contamination.

9) The Spill Area along the South Edge of the Main Apron has a suf-


monitoring of the site is recommended. First, conduct a continuous

core sampling at the edge of the apron extended to the first sand

and gravel lens (20' to 30' deep) and observe if any contamination

is present. Perform a water extract on 3 selected soil samples in

contamination zones if present) and perform analyses for pH, total

organic halogen and total organic carbon. If contamination is

found in the core samples, collect and analyze surface water and

sediment samples in the drainage ditch during a high flow period.

OTHER RECONEDATIONS

The following items did not warrant HARM ratings but are signi-

ficant to the protection of the environmental at O'Hare ARFF. It is

recommended that the installation environmental program incorporate

these recommendations into its overall plan.

6-6

. . . , . .I

I) The oil/water separator located near Building No. 19 (both the

main tank and its overflow tank) should be emptied and it should

be verified that the water overflows into the sanitary sewer.

Regular monitoring and periodic emptying of this separator is

recommended.

2) The location of Hazardous Waste Accumulation Point near the

aircraft hangars should be reevaluated in light of the pos-

sibility of a spill entering the storm sewer.

3) The abandoned MOGAS tank(s) at the south edge of the Main Apron

should be checked for any contents and either removed or filled

with sand.

4) A sign should be permanently posted at the low-level radioactive

disposal site identifying it as such.

6-7

TABLE OF CONTENTS

APPENDICES

PAGE

APPENDIX A BIOGRAPHICAL DATA A-iD. L. Gregory A-iH. D. Harman, Jr. A-4

R. J. Reimer A-6

APPENDIX B LIST OF INTERVIEWEES B-iOutside Agencies B-3

APPENDIX C ORGANIZATIONS AND MISSIONS C-iPrimary Organization and Mission C-ITenant Organizations and Missions C-1

APPENDIX D POL TANK INFORMATION D-i

APPENDIX E MASTER LIST OF INDUSTRIAL SHOPS E-1

APPENDIX F PHOTOGRAPHS F-I

APPENDIX G USAF INSTALLATION RESTORATION PROGRAM G-iHAZARD ASSESSMENT RATING METHODOLOGYBackground G- 1Purpose G-2Description of Model G-2Hazard Assessment Rating Methodology G-4Rating Chart

Hazard Assessment Rating Methodology G-5Form

Hazard Assessment Rating Methodology G-7Guidelines

APPENDIX H HAZARD ASSESSMENT RATING FORMS H-i

APPENDIX I REFERENCES I-I

APPENDIX J GLOSSARY OF TPMMINOLOGY AND ABBREVIATIONS J-1

APPENDIX K INDEX K-1

A

APPENDIX A

BIOGR~APHICAL DATA

D. L. Gregory, Project Manager A-1H. D. Harmani, Jr. A-4R. J. Reimner A-6

Biographical Data

DAVID L. GREGORY

Environmental Engineer

Personal information

Date of Birth: 1 April 1953

Education

B.S. in Civil Engineering, 1976, University of Cincinnati, OhioX.U. in Environmental Systems Engineering, 1978, Clemson Univer-

sity, South Carolina


Engineer-in-Traininq (Ohio)Georgia Water Pollution Control AssociationWater Pollution Control Federation

Bonorary Affiliations

Chi psilon

Experience Record

1974-1975 State of Ohio, Department of Transportation, Lebanon,Ohio* Constuction Inspector. Responsibilitiesincluded inspection of soil work and concrete struc-tures for interstate highway 1-471.

1976-1978 Clemson University, Clemson, South Carolina. GraduateResearch Assistant (1976-1977). Conducted bench-scaletreatability studies on an organic dye manufacturer'swastewater to determine the effects of ozone pretreat-ment on the kinetics of activated sludge.

Graduate Research Associate (1978). Served as re-search coordinator and treatment technologist forbench-scale treatability studies of organic dyemanufacturing vastewater by ozonation, hyperfiltra-tion, carbon absorption, activated sludge, and pow-dered activated carbon (PAC) processes. Perforuedanalyses for toxic compounds using atomic absorptionand gas chromatography.

1979-1961 GNP Associates, Inc., Nonolulu, awaii. ProjectEngineer. Responsible for sampling, data evaluation,review of operating procedures, and development ofdesign and operating modifications for a study onpollution potential of the naval drydock facilities at

02830

A-1

En ENGINEERNG - OCIENCE


Pearl Harbor. Involved in a series of troubleshootingstudies at municipal wastewater treatment plants whichincluded collection and evaluation of performance dataon pump stations, clarifiers, activated sludge units,trickling filters, aerobic and anaerobic digesters,and various dewatering devices and recommendations forimproving plant performance through design and opera-tional modifications.

Project Manaqer. Supervised a study on the source andcontrol of hydrogen sulfide odors at a municipaltreatment plant, involving investigation of thewastewater collection system and the treatment plant,an extensive wastewater characterization program,evaluation of ozonation, carbon absorption, andcatalytic reduction treatment processes, and recem-mendation for alternative processes and operatingstrategies.

1981-Date Engineering-Science. Project Zngineer. Developedstoruwater control strategies, wastewater treatmentdesign criteria, and a computer model for predictingthe hydraulic impact of storuawter flows on thetreatment system for an oil refinery NPDRS permittinqproject. Conducted batch and continuous bench scalebiological treatability studies on a wastewater streamcontaining 2,4-4, organic arsenic, and other herbi-cides, which included extensive wastewater character-ization, jar testing of metal salt for arsenic precip-itation, ammonia stripping testing, primary settlingcolumn testing, and development of a computer model todetermine the alkalinity and distribution of carbonateand ammonia species in the wastestream under variousconditions of pH and carbonate concentration. In-volved in a waste compatability study, design of spillprevention and control features, and determination ofhealth and safety requirements for a photographic labchemical storage area and a hazardous waste collectionsystem.

Project Manager. In charge of developing a comprehen-sive Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure(SPCC) guidance manual and pollution contingency plansfor U.S. hir Force bases which involved compliancewith hazardous waste regulations and development ofprocedures for evaluating existing spill preventionand response capabilities. Directed a bioreactortreatability study to evaluate loading rates, PACaddition, and organics removal for the design of thewastewater treatment facilities at a plastics plant tobe constructed by General lectric in The Netherlands.

A-2

EU ENGNuEUfanG - SCIENCE


Papers and Presentation*

"Bioloqical Treatability of an Ozonated Dye Manufacture Waste,"Master of Engineering Special Problem Report, Clemon University,anviromontal Systems Inqineering Departnent, Clemon, South Caro-lina, 1979.

A-3

Biographical Data

H. DAN HARMAN, JR.Hydrogeologist

Personal Information

Date of Birth: 7 December 1948

Education

B.S., Geology, 1970, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN


Registered Professional Geologist (Georgia NO.569)National Water Well Association (Certified Water Well DrillerNo. 2664)Georgia Ground-Water Association

Experience Record

1975-1977 Northwest Florida Water Management District, Havana,Florida. Hydrogeologist. Responsible for boreholegeophysical logger operation and log interpretation.Also reviewed permit applications for new water wells.

1977-1978 Dixie Well Boring Company, Inc., LaGrange, Georgia.Hydrogeologist/Well Driller. Responsible for boreholegeophysical logger operation and log interpretation.Also conducted earth resistivity surveys in Georgia andAlabama Piedmont Provinces for locations of water-bearing fractures. Additional responsibilities includeddrilling with mud and air rotary drilling rigs as wellas bucket auger rigs.

1978-1980 Law Engineering Testing Company, Inc., Marietta,Georgia. Hydrogeologist. Responsible for ground-waterresource evaluations and hydrogeological fieldoperations for government and industrial clients. Amajor responsibility was as the Mississippi FieldHydrologist during the installation of both fresh andsaline water wells for a regional aquifer evaluationrelated to the possible storage of high level radio-active waste in the Gulf Coast Salt Domes.

1980-1982 Ecology and Environment, Inc., Decatur, Georgia.Hydrogeologist. Responsible for project management ofhydrogeological and geophysical investigations atuncontrolled hazardous waste sites. Also preparedEergency Action Plans and Remedial Approach Plans forU.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Additional

6/83

A-4

Oak

H. Dan Harman, Jr. (Continued)

responsibilities included use of the MITRE hazardousranking system to rank sites on the National SuperfundList.

1982-1983 NUS Corporation, Tucker, Georgia. Hydrogeoloist.Responsible for project management of hydrogeologicaland geophysical investigations at uncontrolled hazardouswaste sites.

1983-Date Engineering-Science, Inc., Atlanta, Georgia.Hydrogeoloqist. Responsible for hydrogeologicalevaluations during Phase I Installation RestorationProgram projects for the Department of Defense.

Publications and Presentations

"Geophysical Well Logging: An Aid in Georgia Ground-Water Projects,*1977, coauthor: D. Watson, The Georgia Operator, Georgia Water andPollution Control Association.

"Use of Surface Geophysical Methods Prior to Monitor Well Drilling,"1981. Presented to Fifth Southeastern Ground-Water Conference,Americus, Georgia.

"Cost-Effective Preliminary Leachate Monitoring at an UncontrolledHazardous Waste Site," 1982, coauthor: S. Hitchcock. Presented to ThirdNational Conference on Management of Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites,Washington, D.C.

"Application of Geophysical Techniques as a Site Screening Procedure atHazardous Waste Sites," 1983, coauthor: S. Hitchcock. Proceedings ofthe Third National Symposion and Exposition on Aquifer Restoration andGround-Water Monitoring, Columbus, Ohio.

A-5 3

#67Biographical Data

ROBERT J R %EIMER

Chemical Engineer

Personal Information

Date of Birth: 12 April 1956

Education

B.S. in Chemical Engineering, 1979, University of Notre DameS.A. in Art, 1979, University of Notre DameM.S. in Chemical Engineering, 1980, University of Notre Dame

Honors

Amoco Company Fellowship for Graduate Studies in ChemicalEngineering, University of Notre Dame (1979-1980)


American Institute of Chemical Engineers

Experience Record

1978-1979 PEDCo Environmental, Cincinnati. Engineer's Assistant.Responsible for compilation of data base report review-ing solid waste disposal in the nonferrous smeltingindustry. Participated in SO2 scrubber emissions test-ing program, Columbus, Ohio. Worked on team establish-ing a computerized reference file on the overall smelt-ing industry. Performed technical editing and reportreview.

1979-1980 Camargo Associates, Ltd., Cincinnati. Design Engineerand Draftsman. Responsible for RVAC design on numerousprojects. Designed fire protection system for an in-dustrial plastics press. Designer on various generalplumbing jobs. Prepared EPA air pollution permit ap-plications.

1980-Date Engineering-Science. Chemical Engineer. Responsiblefor the preparation of environmental reports and permitdocuments as well as providing general environmentalassistance to clients to assure compliance with stateand federal regulations.

3/83

A-6

Robert J. Reiner (Continued)

1980-Date Developed cost estimates for several hazardous wasteanagement facility closures. Prepared several Interim

Status Standards Manuals, including Manifest Plans,Waste Analysis Plans, Closure Plans and Contingency/Emergency Plans. Provided technical assistance in thedesign of a one-million gallon per year fuel alcohol

production facility.

Provided assistance for a water reuse/reduction plan ata major petroleum refinery. Conducted an extensivereview of emerging energy technologies for the Depart-ment of Energy. Participated in several InstallationRestoration Programs for the U. S. Air Force. Assistedin the design of a contaminated ground water air strip-ping column based on a lab model to be developed. Pre-pared several delistinq petitions for the removal ofindustrial wastestreams from EPA's hazardous waste list.Assisted in a study of waste oil reuse for the U.S. ArmyCIL.

A-7-7

APPENDIX B


APPENDIX B

LIST OF INTEVIDEES

O'Hare ARFF


11 Environmental Coordinator,Civil Engineering Squadron 3

2. Civilian Supervisor,Consolidated Aircraft Maintenance Squadron 38

3. Fire Chief, Fire Department 9

4. Supervisor Fuels Management 22

5. Vehicle Maintenance 24

6. TAG Clinic 5


8. Supervisor, Fuel Maintenance 13

9. Supervisor, Vehicle Maintenance 37



12. ILANG 6

13. Heavy Equipment Operator, Civil Engineering Squadron 14

14. Fuels Maintenance 4

15. Base Supply 32

16. Aircraft Maintenance Squadron 28

17. Chief Engineer, Civil Engineering Squadron 3

18. Supervisor, Aircraft maintenance Squadron 33

19. Supervisor, Material and Equipment Inspector 27

51-1


20. Fire Chief (Ret.), Fire Department 24

21. Supervisor, Ground Safety 34

22. Supervisor, Aircraft Maintenance 34

23. Supervisor, Electric Shop, Civil Engineering Squadron 33

24. Aircraft Maintenance 30

25. Command Post 23

26. Base Civil Engineer, Civil Engineering Squadron 21

3-2

OUTSIDE AGENCIES

Illinois EPA

Jack Barnetts Emergency ResponseEva Howard Envir. Services Division 312/886-6233Don Clopke Water Pollution Sec. 312/345-9780

USEPA

John Oaks Superfund Office 312/886-6156Gale Hrufka Waste Management Sec. 312/886-6138

City of Chicago

Bob Valiquet Department of Aviation 312/686-2268

Illinois Dept. of Energy and Natural ResourcesState Water Survey Division

Robert Sasman Hydrologist 312/879-6466

Illinois Dept. of Conservation

Mike Sweet Geologist 217/782-6424

B-3

APPENIDIX C


APPENDIX C


PRIMARY ORGANIZATION AND MISSION

The primary mission of the 928th Tactical Air Group is to provide


airborne forces, equipment, supplies and aeromedical evacuation within

the theater of operations. The Group also operates and maintains the Air

Force complex at O'Hare International Airport, represents the Air Force

in the Chicago metropolitan area, and provides support to various tenant

units.

TENANT ORGANIZATIONS AND MISSIONS

The O'Hare Air Reserve Forces Facility is host to several tenant

organizations and provides facilities, services and other support to

these organizations. The following list identifies the major tenant

organizations and briefly describes their missions.

126th Air Refueling Wing, Illinois Air National Guard (Ill ANG)

The primary mission is to provide ground and aerial refueling, using

Boeing KC-135, and to maintain maximum combat readiness at minimum cost.

Other missions include fly-in ground servicing, personnel transport,

emergency air evacuation, and cargo transport. The Wing advises end

assists State authorities in the administration, logistics, training and

operation of the military air forces. The Wing also participates in

joint exercises and maneuvers, and provides disaster relief in domestic

emergencies.

264th Mobile Communicatons Squadron, Ill ANG

The primary mission of the Squadron is the installation, operation

and maintenance of radio relays and mobile radio relay terminals at

unprepared sites, including VHF or UHF/FM microwave and topospheric

scatter equipment. The Squadron is also responsible for the installa-

tion, operation, and maintenance of radio communications tributary

teams, including telephone, teletype and communications center functions.

c-1

217th Electronics Installation Squadron, III ANG

The Squadron is responsible for installation and maintenance of

ground communication-electronics equipment. The squadron consists of

four ground radio communications equipment teams, two telephone switching

teams, eight outside wire and antenna systems teams and sixteen cable

splicing teams.

36th Medical Service Evacuation Squadron

This Squadron trains to fulfill its wartime mission of providing

aeromedical staging at fixed medical facilities or other designated

locations.

USAF Liaison Office/National Scouting Organization

This office administers the USAF program of cooperation with the Boy

Scouts of America. The office acts as liaison between Air Force instal-

lations and scouts within Boy Scout Region VII (Illinois, Indiana,

Michigan, Wisconsin and eastern Iowa).

Additional Tenants

Defense Contract Administration Services Region

Defense Logistics Agency

Headquarters, Ill ANG

126th Combat Support Group, Ill ANG

126th Consolidated Aircraft Maintenance Squadron, Ill ANG

126th USAF Clinic, Ill ANG

126th Civil Engineering Flight, Ill ANG

566th USAF Band, Ill ANG

Aeronautical Systems Division, Reserve Detachment (AFLC)

Corps of Engineers Field Office

C-2

APPEN~DIX D


Al, A "-- 4

iim

APPENDIX D

POL TANK INFOR14ATION

Location Product Volume Comment(Facility No) (Gal)

2900 Diesel 60,000

2900 MOGAS (unleaded) 10,000

2900 MOGAS (regular) 10,000

2902 (170) jP-4 210,000

2902 (171) 3P-4 50,000 Underground

2902 (172) JP-4 50,000 Underground

2903 JP-4 25,000 Diked

2903 JP-4 25,000 Diked

2903 3P-4 25,000 Diked

2903 JP-4 25,000 Diked

2903 JP-4 25,000 Diked

2903 JP-4 25,000 Diked

2903 3P-4 25,000 Diked

2903 JP-4 25,000 Diked

2903 JP-4 25,000 Diked

2903 JP-4 11,500 Diked

2903 JP-4 11,500 Diked

2903 FS-2 25,000* Diked

2903 FS-5 12,000 Tank car

Split compartment tank (12,500-gallons each compartment); 12,500

gallons of FS-2 in one compartment; other compartment is nearly

empty.

D-1

APPENDIX E

MASTER LIST OF INDUSTRIAL SHOPS

APPENDIX EMASTER LIST OF INDUSTRIAL SHOPS

O'HARE ARFF


Name (Bldg. No.) Materials Waste Method

AGE Shop 33 Yes Yes Contractor/SanitarySewer

AGE Shop* 24 Yes Yes Contractor/SanitarySewer

Vehicle Maintenance* 5 Yes Yes Contractor

Avionics 30 No No ---

Avionics* 27 No No ---

Battery/Electrical 31 Yes Yes Contractor/SanitaryShop Sewer

Carpenter Shop 10 Yes No

Corrosion Control 30 Yes Yes Contractor/GeneralRefuse

Exterior/Interior 10 No No ---

Electric

Engine Shop 34 Yes Yes Contractor

Engine Shop* 70 Yes Yes Contractor

Fire Department 63 Yes Yes Contractor

Fuel Cell 35 Yes Yes Contractor/InternalRecycle

Fuel (POL) Storage 66 Yes Yes Contractor/InternalRecycle

Hangar Facility* 19 Yes No

Life Support Shop 3 Yes o ---

Machine Shop 30 Yes Yes Contractor

2-1

Present Handles Generates

Location Hazardous Hazardous Current TSDName (Bldg. No.) Materials Waste Method

Non-Destructive 59 Yes Yes Sanitary Sewer

Inspection Shop

Packing and Crating 32 Yes No ---

Painting Shop 10 Yes No

Plumbing Shop 10 Yes No ---

Pneudraulics Shop 30 Yes Yes Contractor

Prop. Shop 34 Yes Yes Contractor

Repair and 30 Yes Yes ContractorReclamation

Refrigeration Shop 58 Yes No ---

Roads and Grounds 55 Yes Yes ContractorShop

Rocket Storage 411 Yes NoFacility**

Sheet Metal 10 No NoFabrication

Stock Room/ 21,22,23 Yes NoSupply*

Survival Equipment 61 Yes NoShop

Vehicle Maintenance 50 Yes Yes Contractor/SanitaryFacility Sewer

Vehicle Maintenance 12 Yes Yes Contractor/SanitaryFacility* Sewer

Welding Shop 30 No No ---

* Air National Guard Facility

*' Former Air National Guard Facility, no longer in use.

2-2

kI.

APPENDIX F

PHOTOGRAPHS

L ~LL

Cfu

Co

U)F-1 ENG~IERIGUSOE

WHARE ARF

ND LLIiE~i'P''i,AREA'**I

OUT PL ARE

OWS LEVEL~ RAI ACTIVE

O'HARE ARFF

2 LANDFILL NO. 2

FIRE TRAINING AREA(APPROXIMATE LOCATION)

F-3 ES ENGINEERING -SCIENCE

O'HARE ARFF

Hazardous Waste Drum Storage Area

F-4 EU NIEsIG3Ic

APPENDIX G



APPENDIX G



BACKGROUND

The Department of Defense (DOD) has established a comprehensive

program to identify, evaluate, and control problems associated with past

disposal practices at DOD facilities. One of the actions required under

this program is to:

"develop and maintain a priority listing of con-taminated installations and facilities for remedialaction based on potential hazard to public health,welfare, and environmental impacts." (Reference:

-DEQPPM 81-5, 11 December 1981).

Accordingly, the United States Air Force (USAF) has sought to establish

a system to set priorities for taking further actions at sites based

upon information gathered during the Records Search phase of its In-

stallation Restoration Program (IRP).

The first site rating model was developed in June 1981 at a meeting

with represenatives from USAF Occupational and Environmental Health

Laboratory (OEHL), Air Force Engineering and Services Center (AFESC),

Engineering-Science (ES) and CH2M Hill. The basis for this model was a

system developed for EPA by JRB Associates of McLean, Virginia. The JRB

model was modified to meet Air Force needs.

After using this model for 6 months at over 20 Air Force installa-

tions, certain inadequacies became apparent. Therefore, on January 26and 27, 1982, representatives of USAF OEHL, AFESC, various major com-

mands, Engineering-Science, and CH2M Hill met to address the inade-

quacies. The result of the meeting was a new site rating model designed

to present a better picture of the hazards posed by sites at Air Force

installations. The new rating model described in this presentation is

referred to as the Hazard Assessment Rating Methodology.

G-1

PURPOSE

The purpose of the site rating model is to provide a relative

ranking of sites of suspected contamination from hazardous substances.

This model will assist the Air Force in setting priorities for follow-on

site investigations and confirmation work under Phase II of the IRP.

This rating system is used only after it has been determined that

(1) potential for contamination exists (hazardous wastes present in

sufficient qtntity), and (2) potential for migration exists. A site

can be deleted from consideration for rating on either basis.

DESCRIPTION OF MODEL

Like the other hazardous waste site ranking models, the U.S. Air

Force's site rating model uses a scoring system to rank sites for

priority attention. However, in developing this model, the designers

incorporated some special features to meet specific DOD program needs.

The model uses data readily obtained during the Records Search

portion (Phase I) of the IRP. Scoring judgments and computations are

easily made. In assessing the hazards at a given site, the model

develops a score based on the most likely routes of contamination and

the worst hazards at the site. Sites are given low scores only if there

are clearly no hazards at the site. This approach meshes well with the

policy for evaluating and setting restrictions on excess DOD properties.

As with the previous model, this model considers four aspects of

the hazard posed by a specific site: the possible receptors of the

contamination, the waste and its characteristics, potential pathways for

waste contaminant migration, and any efforts to contain the contami-

nants. Each of these categories contains a number of rating factors

that are used in the overall hazard rating.

The receptors category rating is calculated by scoring each factor,

multiplying by a factor weighting constant and adding the weighted

scores to obtain a total category score.

G-2

The pathways category rating is based on evidence of contaminant

migration or an evaluation of the highest potential (worst case) for

contaminant migration along one of three pathways. If evidence of

contaminant migration exists, the category is given a subscore of 80 to

100 points. For indirect evidence, 80 points are assigned and for

direct evidence, 100 points are assigned. If no evidence is found, the

highest score among three possible routes is used. These routes are

surface water migration, flooding, and ground-water migration. Evalua-

tion of each route involves factors associated with the particular mi-

gration route. The three pathways are evaluated and the highest score

among all four of the potential scores is used.

The waste characteristics category is scored in three steps.

First, a point rating is assigned based on an assessment of the waste

quantity and the hazard (worst case) associated with the site. The

level of confidence in the information is also factored into the

assessment. Next, the score is multiplied by a waste persistence

factor, which acts to reduce the score if the waste is not very

persistent. Finally, the score is further modified by the physical

state of the waste. Liquid wastes receive the maximum score, while

scores for sludges and solids are reduced.

The scores for each of the three categories are then added together

and normalized to a maximum possible score of 100. Then the waste man-

agement practice category is scored. Sites at which there is no con-

tainment are not reduced in score. Scores for sites with limited con-

tainment can be reduced by 5 percent. If a site is contained and well

managed, its score can be reduced by 90 percent. The final site score

is calculated by applying the waste management practices category factor

to the sum of the scores for the other three categories.

G-3

FIGURE I

UfI w -

I 4

I 12 . El

I'-1 Ol

0. 4c w- gg.

z

co0

ciodA

N W .4old

a 4-4

FIGURE 2

HAZARD ASSESSMENT RATING METHODOLOGY FORMPage 1 of 2

-gd O SITE'gacr smI

Un CaZ nnmCKocu

L RECEPTORSFactor maxilmltiag Factor Pouusble

Ratita. factor (0-3) ml00list Scott Score

A. Pomwlatin within 1.000 tfeet of mite 4_ _

S. Distance to neuat well 10 .

C. Lad ame/mfzw , within 1 silo tedium 3 -

U. Ditar nce to ervaian boundan' . 6 . ____ _____

L- Critical onmirnm a within I silo radius at site-10 ____ _____

P. Water quawt'y of nesta surfame water body 6

a. Groumendo utee am of &=s 9

a. lSelato served bre a ane emt

wthn 3atozaticm6

. pulation servd y (cr m-oed. saueyw.ithan Iatmies o it h 6

SubtataLs

F ectr o subaoo e (100 1 f(facm 20 s10 aose nf L 0 b n arm matoal)

IL WASTE CHARACTERU=SC

a. Select th fatr sMe based an the estmated quantit, the dogroo of hazard, and th confidence level oft~he infmton.

1. waste qeimbit y (f a tmalo l : 0 tedi. Z a .AM90)

2. Confidene level (C w cofi~rmed, 3 a suspected) --.-

3. earSd r~at:ling (I a high, K - misdiutm. L, a low?

/'ac-t.c Subscore A (from 20 to0 100 based an factor score umtrix )

aJ. Awply per:sistence fa~o1Pastor Suhmes: A 2 Persmtence factor -" lubsort a

C. Aply pbmical, state maultipue

Sub cot:e X MysiLcal State .altiple W at* Charateristics Subseore

G-5 4-~Al

FIGURE 2 (Continued)Pege 2 of 2

IL PATHWAYStaPl r xftuxiw

Rating Factor PossibleRatiwn Factor (0-3) multiplier Score Score

A. If there is evidence o ugratoe o hasrdous comtaninants. assign aiimm factor mabucore of 100 points fordirect evidence o so points foe indizect evidenas. It direct evidence eists than proceed to C. if noevidence at indirect evideno. minrtse, poceed to a.

3. Vet the aigzatift potential Mag 3 potential p.thways surface water aigation, flooding, and ground-watataigratise. SeLeat the "iheft rating, md prese" to C.

1. Surfae wate Migration

Ditae u Waage" murface water . I

met Dtesioiltan ______ 6 _____ ____

Surfac e erosion 8

SWurae Decamne t

Subsere 0 00 1 lacter smeor .sttl- ~ soer subtotaL) -

2. Floedis I I I I IU*usor e (100 a fst r uae/3 -

3. Ovemt-wete aigratie

Domto Ground vater _

Net pceivtatlon ,6,

Subsurnface flows S

Direct access to around vater _

SubtotaLs

Subescor (100 x fast r s e sbttal/uaiam ustm. subtotal)

C. Nigbeat pathavy maocers.

fts: the highest subseore value rom , 1-1, 9-2 or *-3 aove.

Pathway% Suboore

IV. WASTE MANAEMENT PRACiMCES

)I Average the these sees lo rteswts waste aaseistiss, and pathvas.

maseptors-

Pate waras ite

Total.__ _ divided by 3 o

a. Wgply factor fo vaste ontaiment from vast management practices

aeags Total usce I Wst" Mnaement Practies Pestr a yinal $Mees _______

I li

4 * 0 0t

- IC

A& Ta-li

USE o CImU2 Ai ~::i.~ -

4A 1.h. 6.

* - - -A -I

=~ w - I Od a

- G-7

* U . 0La8

oi

v 31O IL 4 1

.1 1~ . - p I

U. 44

AA g

0 4'4

4

c* I

0 0 0 .

ad4

.31DI~l 4'44

0i 4' 0

I :

: ~ G--

c 0 a.

.2 . '-

4 Aaa

a c Ao

.. 4M 400M_2

~4"

Zia ~ -m ox8.33m t .A 2C l ; 4a2 -- I

484

a. a~*MMoa

88 me epG-9

0 v

-0 so o s

0 A4 3. *0 U

fib za 0i 48 EU m

C4 ii F. M I"

ft * ~-4 48 * U M

hi a a led a j

- 4 sS all95 -mt ft a~

5 ~ A8*~~~~" me ml. I

I I M Sdo -

UPI .i 44S * *1

II II ii !~~ Gi i0

00

0.4

000

U) M4

4101

2 3M da

G-11

APPENDIX H

HAZARD ASSESSMENT RATING FORMS

J6_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I

TABLE OF CONTENTS

HAZARD ASSESSMENT RATING FORMSO'HARE ARFF

Score Page


2. JP-4 Tank Dike 65 H-4

3. Fuel-contaminated Soil 64 H-6

4. Defueling Pit Leak Site 63 H-8

5. Fire Protection Training Area 60 H-10

6. Hazardous Waste Storage Area 58 H-12


S. Storm Drainage System in Aircraft Hangar Area 53 H-16

9. South Edge of Apron 52 H-18

10. Vehicle Maintenance Facility 49 H-20

11. Low Level Radioactive Disposal Site 44 H-22

H-I

S~-..-- C. |

Page I of 2

HAZARD ASSESSMENT RATING NETHODOLOGY F0Rt

Ne of Site: LANDFILL NO. ILocation: NORTHWEST AREA OF BASEDate of Operation or Occurrence: 1953 TO 1960'SDwer/Operatorf OHARE ARFComents/Description: TRENCH AND FILL TYPE

Site Rated by: GR6ORY.NLEOD & REINER

I. RECEPTORSFactor Multi- Factor MaximouRating plier Score Possible


A. Population within 1,000 feet of site 3 4 12 12B. Distance to nearest well 1 10 10 30C. Land use/zoning within 1 mile radius 3 3 9 9D. Distance to reservation bowndry 3 6 18 18E. Critical environments within 1 mile radius of site 3 10 30 30F. 1ater quality of nearest surface water body 1 6 6 186. Ground vter use of uppermost aquifer 0 9 0 27H. Population served by surface water supply 0 6 0 18

within 3 miles downstream of siteI. Population served by ground-vater supply 3 6 18 18

within 3 iles of site

Subtotals 103 180

Receptors subscore (100 x factor score subtotal/maxium scare subtotal) 57

II. WASTE CHARACTERISTICS

At Select the factor score besed on the estimated quantity, the degree of bazerd, and the confidence level ofthe information.

1. Wste quantity (l=ssall, 2ediump, 3larqe) 32. Confidence level (1:cmifirmed, 2zsuspected) 13. Hazard rating (1=1ow, 2=sedivm, 3=hiqh) 3


So Apply persistence factorFactor Subsucce A x Persistence Factor = Subscore B

100 x 0.90 : 90

C. Apply physical state multiplierSubscote I x Physical State Mltiplier W 1aste Characteristics Subscore

90 x 1,00 90

H-2

-IL

Page 2 of 2

III. PATHIMYSA. If there is evidence of migration of hazardous contaminants, 3ssign maximm factor subscore of 100 points for

direct evidence or 80 points for indirect evidence. If direct evidence exists then proceed to C. If no evidenceor indirect evidence exists, proceed to B.

Subscore 0

B. Rate the migration potential for 3 potential path ays: surface water migration, flooding, and ground-watermigration. Select the highest rating and proceed to C.

Factor Multi- Factor MaximumRating Factor Rating plier Score Possible

(0-3) Score

1. Surface Water MiqrationDistance to nearest surface water 3 8 24 24Net precipitation 1 6 6 18Surface erosion 1 8 8 24Surface permeability 3 6 18 18Rainfall intensity 2 8 16 24

Subtotals 72 108

Subscore (100 x factor score subtotal/mximum score subtotal) 67

2. Flooding 1 1 1 3


3. Grawnd-vater igrationDepth to ground water 3 8 24 24Net precipitation 1 6 6 i8Soil permeability 0 8 0 24Subsurface flows 1 8 8 24Direct ccess to ground water 1 8 8 24

Subtotals 46 114

Subscore (100 x factor score subtotal/maximum score subtotal) 40

C. Highest pathway subcore.Enter the highest subcore value from A, B-19 -2 or 9-3 above.


IV. WASTE NIANA6Et PRACTICESA. Averqe the three subscores for receptors, waste characteristics, and pathways,

Receptors 57Waste Characteristics 90Pathways 67Total 214 divided by 3 . 71 Gross total score

3, Aply factor for waste containment from waste management practices.Gross total score x wst menagment practices factor fimal score

71 x 0,95 68 \

H-3

7-)

Page 1 of 2

AZARD ASSESSMENT RATING METHODOLOGY FORM

iM of Site: JP-4 TiNK DIKELocation: WEST POL AREA

Date of Operation or Occurrence: JANUARY 1972Oranr/Operetor: ONARE AAFFCommnts/Description' SPILL IN DIKE; 42#000 GALLONS NOT RECOVERED

Site kted bv: GRE6ORY,k.LEO & REINER

I. RECEPTORSFactor Multi- Factor MaximusRating plier Score Possible

Reting Factor (0-3) Score

A. Populetion within 1,000 feet of site 3 4 12 128. Distance to neareit well 1 10 10 30C. Led ase/zoning within 1 mile radius 3 3 9 9P. Distance to reservation boundry 3 6 18 18E. Critical environments within 1 tile radius of site 3 10 30 30F. later quality of nearest surface water body 1 6 6 186. Ground water use of uppermost aquifer 0 9 0 27P? Population served by surface water supply 0 6 0 18

within 3 miles downstream of siteI. Population served by ground-water supply 3 6 18 18


Subtotals 103 180

Receptors subscore (100 x factor score subtotal/maximum score subtotal) 57

11. iST O"CTERISTICS

A. Select the fKtor score based on the estimated quantity, the degree of hazard, and the confidence level of

the infortatiom.

1. ikste qumtity (Isnll, 2=mediue, 3=large)2. Confidence level (l=confirmed, 2=rsuspected) I3. hazard rating (1zl=w, 2=%edium, 3=high) 3

Factor Subscore A (frm 20 to 100 .based on factor score matrix) 100

B. Apply persistence factorFactor Subscore A x Persistence Factor = Subscore 3

100 x 0.80 80

C. Apply physical state multiplierSubscore I x Physical State Multiplier • Waste Characteristics Subscore

80 x 1.00 = 80

H-4

A

Page 2 of 2

III. PATHIAYSA. If there is evidence of migration of hazardous contaminonts, assign maxima factor subscore of 100 points for


Subscore 0

B. Rate the migration potential for 3 potential pathways: surface water migration, flooding, and ground-watermigration. Select the highest rating and proceed to C.

Factor hulti- Factor NoxiusRating Factor Rating plier Score Possible

(0-3) Ftore

1. Surface Water hiqrtionDistance to nearest surface water 3 8 24 24Net precipitation 1 6 6 18Surface erosion 1 8 8 24Surface permeability 3 6 18 18Rainfall intensity 2 8 16 24

Subtotals 72 108

Subscore (100 x factor score subtotal/maxim score subtotal) 67

2. Flooding 0 1 0 3


3. Ground-water migrationDepth to ground water 3 8 24 24Net precipitation 1 6 6 18Soil permeability 0 8 0 24Subsurface flows 0 8 0 24Direct access to ground water 1 8 8 24

SubtotAls 38 114

Subscore (100 x factor score subtotal/saxim score subtotal) 33

C. Highest pathway subscore.Enter the highest subscore value from A, B-1, B-2 or B-3 above,

Pathways SubscAre 67

IV. WSTE HANABEMENT PRACTICESA. Average the three subscores for receptors, waste cheracteristics, and pathways,

Receptors 57iste Characteristics 80Pathways 67Total 204 divided by 3 • 68 Gross tofl score

f Apply factor for waste cont4inment from waste managemt practices,Brss total score x vste management practices factor • final score

68 x' 0.95 • 65

H-5

f--l -- - -~ - -MA'-

BRESDRYN.E D & REINER

... or

0'3. on. ii - 0 ",-t ofj 4T. ncir, -: 7. - -

1 -- '.. .

j:r-faCe water bcr-4

. n 9 Li on ser e, tv o .: . ' :,. ". - w te skip,"

- I, .v

S'btoto> 3-?_, .ThU

Rerert1ors subscore 1,10 :uctor s -re sut~~~<etscore Subtot-i) ST

A. Seie t the -actor Lao- sed or the estimaited. qurtity, .h. deoree o: bZ,rd, -n the cor %CCE aY. 0

1, a_;tse ,,,ntity ism,.i:, 2=medim, 3:lare;*5ffliCfCEc LiE. =car. -. C, ( U c t. e3, : r, . n .=,,-, 2zmediian%, 7-:h '

,actor ubscore A .>. 20 to 100 t-csed or :actor scoire F Uri;:: 60

L. ol) nersistencs fnct.,

.-, .m-. A. rstsr:e -act*or SubsOore F

6C : .O 54

C. Applyf physical state mul-1lierSubscore D x Physical State luilniier z Waste Chracte-istics Suoscc're

54 x 1.00 :4

..... . . - .. - ' _ ;_ 'T -:ti' 7 " ,,.

J - ,_ _ . ,, .a :, : .. . .,. .i " , ' ,',z . . : . 1.z. ,

or ;rec- P,,, denLE _,ls -- cw t L'

P. ~v~trc ; 2-w~ I thwC5 s-irfoce k Iu.2rtio, fl-oc~np. On3 c

t ~ ~ ~ ; e. C.rEi 1~t: Nl 4CE ,CC

--,Ore

t~~reto reurest su'-oce w_-ter 2Ne,. Drec:_ tetior 13

Subscore '0 - -,Ctor SCo-e Siubtota t/mqXiIIt.p Srore Siubtt V

1 3

-lubscere (100 xfactor score13) 33

1.09t, to n'rt-jnd ,t 3 3 '24 24Net Preci;:tat'Aon £ 6 6 18;o:1 oermeabiiit . 0 8 0 2Subsutoce flows 8 )4

k'rect.~c~ to groud iroter 2 8 16 24

Subscore -:00 ;, ictor score subtotDaisaximum score subtotal, 47

-. ioPs;~ o subscore.Z:nter the hic.-est subsore voiue fro& A, B-It D-2 or Y-3 above.


IV. WAS77 MAN.QEKINT PRlACTICESA, Averoue the three su.,scores for receptors, waste characteris.tics, and Othwl2yF.

ece~ors 57ksle Characteristics 54PFItway5 80Total 191 divided by 3 = 64 Gross totol score

B. Ar-py factor for waste contanmhert rroo woste management practices.Gross total score x waste moqement practices factor =final score

64 x 1.0( 6

- - - ~~H-? _ __ ,

Page 1 of 2

HAZARD ASSESSMENT RATING METHODOLOGY FORM

Nam of Site: DEFUELIN6 PIT LEAK SITELocation: WEST PERIMETER OF BASEDate of Operation or Occurrence: LATE 1960'SOwer/Operator: OHARE ARFFComments/Description:

Site Rated by: GRE6ORY,ti.OD & RINER

I. RECEPTORSFactor Multi- Factor MaximmRating plier Score Possible


A. Population within 1,000 feet of site 3 4 12 12B. Distance to Nearest well 1 10 10 30C. Lend use/zoning within 1 mile radius 3 3 9 90. Distance to reservation boundry 3 6 18 18E. Critical environments within I mile radius of site 3 10 30 30F. Water quality of nearest surface water body 1 6 6 18G. Ground water use of uppermost aquifer 0 9 0 27H. Population served by surface water supply 0 6 0 18

within 3 miles downstream of siteI. Population served by gramd-water supply 3 6 18 18


Subtotals 103 10


I. ASTE CHARACTERISTICS

A. Select the factor score based on the estimated quantity, the degree of hazardt and the confidence level ofthe information,

1. Waste quantity (iimall, 2amedim, 3-large) 22. Confidence level (lconfirmed, 2uS§spKted) I3. Hazard rating Ullou, 2amedim, 3xhigh) 3

Factor Subscore A (froe 20 to 100 based on factor score matrix) 80

B. Apply persistence factorFactor Sbscore A x Persistence Factor z Subscore B

90 x 0.80 - 64

C, Apply physical state multiplierSubcore, I x Physical State Multiplier a aste Characteristics Sobscore

64 x 1.00 64

7 H-S

Page 2 of 2

11I. PATHIMYSA. If there is evidence of migration of hazardous containants, assign mxim faCtor subicore of 100 points for

direct evidence or 80 points for indirect evidence. If direct evidence exists then proceed to C. If no evidenceor indirect evidence exists, proceed to 3.

Subscore 0

3. Rate the migration potential for 3 potential pathwoys: surface water migration, flooding, and ground-watermigration. Select the highest rating and proceed to C.

Factor klti- Factor HaxisumRating Factor Rating plier Score Possible

(0-3) Score

1 Surface kt : ligrationDistant, to nearest surface water 3 8 24 24Net precipitation 1 6 6 18Surface erosion 1 8 8 24Surface permebility 3 6 18 18Rainfall intensity 2 8 16 24

SubtotAls 72 106

Subscore (100 x factor score subtotal/moximum score subtotal) 67

2. Flooding 0 1 0 3


3. 6roud-vater migrationDepth to ground water 3 8 24 24Net precipitation 1 6 6 18Soil permeability 0 8 0 24SuSOrface floes 0 8 0 24Direct cess to grnd woter 1 8 8 24

Subtotals 38 114

hhscore (100 x factor score subtotal/mximm score subtotal) 33

C. Highest pathway sbscore.Enter the highest subscore value from A, I-I, 8-2 or -3 Above.

Pathways Subiore 67

IV. HASTE IWMENENT PRACTICESA. Average the three subscom for receptors, waste charecteristics, ad pathways,

Receptors 57Haste Charcteristics 64Pathways 67Total IN divided by 3 n 63 Bross total score

o. Apply factor for waste containment from wate mnament practices.•rosS total score x waste mn ment practices factor • final scor

63 x 100 63

H-9

Pege I of 2

HAZARD ASSESSMENT RATIN METHODOLOGY FORM

Nome of Site: FIRE PROTECTION TRAININ AREALacation: SOUTEAST OF HPE DR. MD OLD HMNNEIM RD,Date of Operation or Occurrence: 1955 TO EARLY 1960'SOwner/Operator: OWMRE RFFCamments/Descriptia:

Site Rated by: GRE6ORY,NCLEOD i REINER

I. RECEPTORSFector Multi- Factor MaximumRating plier Score Possible


A. Population within 1,000 feet of site 3 4 12 12B, Distance to nearest well 1 10 10 30C. Land use/zoning within I mile radius 3 3 9 9D# Distance to reservation boundry 3 6 18 18E. Critical environments within 1 mile radius of site 3 10 30 30F, Water quality of nearest surface water body 1 6 6 18G. Ground water use of uppermost aquifer 0 9 0 27H. Population served by surface water supply 0 6 0 l8

within 3 miles downstream of siteI. Population served by ground-water supply 3 6 is 19


Subtotals 103 190

Receptors subscore (100 x factor score subtotel/maximae score subtotal) 57

11. WSTE CHRATERISTICS


1. Waste quantity (l-uall, 2-medium, 3-lerge) 22. Confidence level (l=confiwd, 2=-suspected) I3. Hazard rating (1=low, 2xuediv, 3zhigh) 3

Factor Subicore A (fro 20 to 100 based on factor score matrix) 80

3. Apply persistence factorFactor SbKor A x Persistence Factor = Subscore B

80 x 080 * 64

C. Apply physical state multiplierSubscore I x Physical State Multiplier • Waste Characteristics Subscore

64 x 1.00 • 64

H-10

....... .. ,

Pae.? of 2

III, PATHWAYSA. If there is evidence of migration of hazardous contaminatS, assign maxiM factor SUWiONe Of 100 points for

direct evidece of 80 points for indirect evidence. If direct evidence exists then proceed to C. If no evideaceor indirect evidence exists, proceed to B.

Subicore 0

Do Rate the migration potential for 3 potential pathways? surface water migration, flooding, and ground-watermigration. Select the highest rating and proceed to C.

Factor Mlti- Factor RaximumRating Factor Plating plier Score Possible

(0-3) Score

1. Surface Mater Rig rationDistance to nearest surface voter 3 3 24 24Net precipitation 1 6 6 18Surface erosion I a 8 24Surface Permeability 3 6 Is 18Rainfall intensity 2 9 16 24

Subtotals 72 106

Subicore (100 X factor sKore subtotl/aXim scoO subtotal) 67

2, Flooding 0 1 0 3

ubuore (10 X factor sore/3) 0

3. Groud-vater migrationDepth to ground water 3 8 24 24Net precipitation 1 6 6 16Soil pemmebility 0 8 0 24Subsurface, flows 0 6 0 24Direct access to growd voter 1 8 8 24

Subtotals 36 114

SubsCOre (100 X factor score subtoal/aim score sbtotal) 33

C. Highest pathwy subsore.EAtr the highest ubicore value fros A, H -1 -2 or D-3 above,


IV, HAMT IWUSNENT PRACICESAt Average, the thre subicom for receptors, waste characteristics, ad pathways,

Receptors 57Naste Characteristics 64Pathway 67Totai 10 divided by 3 a63 Gross total Score

is ApiV factor for waste centaiDM t fM rem asmnam ent Practices.rass total Score X wast manaemet praiceIs factor *final score

63 x 0 *6

Page of

HAZARD ASSESSMENT MTIN6 NETHUHOOY FORM

MGs of Site: HAZARIOUS VASTE STOMGE NIOALocation SOUTHERIOST EME OF OLD &SEMM.Y PLANT FOUNDATIONDate of (peration or Occurrice: PRESENT0wnr/peotor: ON ARFComients/Description: MRS IN DEPRESSED EARTH AREA

Site Rated by: 6REORycCLEOD j REIER

1. RECEPTORSFactor Multi- Factor Maximu

Rating plier Score PossibleRatiug Factor (0-3) Score

A. populatim within IOO0 feet of site 3 4 12 123. Distance to amrost well 1 10 10 30C. Land use/zouing within 1 mile radius 3 3 9 90. Distance to reservation bowndry 3 6 18 18E. Critical envirumments within I mile radius of site 3 10 30 30F. Water quality of nearest surface water body 1 6 6 186. Ground voter use of uppermost aquifer 0 9 0 27H. Population served by surface water supply 0 6 0 18

within 3 miles downstream of siteI. Population served by ground-vater supply 3 6 19 18


Subtotals 103 190

Receptors subscoe (100 x factor score subtotl/maximum score subtotal) 57

IIo WASTE CIHRACTERISTICS

A. Select the factor score based on the estimated quantity, the degree of hazard, and the confidnce level ofthe information,

1. este quantity (ssmllp 2-medium, 3clorge) 12. Confidence level (lcmfirmed, 2zsuspected) 13. Hazard rating (1=lov, 2"iedim, 3high) 3

Factor Subscore A (fre 20 to 100 based on factor score matrix) 60

B Apply persistence factorFactor Subscore A x Persistence Factor = Subicore 1

60 x 1.00 60

C. Apply physical state multiplierSubacore I x Physical State Mltiplier a Wste Characteristics Sbscore

60 x 1,00 • 60

H-12

Pae 2 of 2

III, PATHWAYSA. If there is evidence of migration of hazardous contaminants, assign maximm factor subscore of 100 points for


Subscore 0

B. Rate the migration potential For 3 potential pathways: surface water igration, flooding, and ground-watermigration. Select the highest rating and proceed to C.

Factor Multi- Factor haximumRating Factor Rating plier Score Possible

(0-3) Score

1. Surface Water igrtionDistance to nearest surface vter 3 8 24 24Net precipitation 1 6 6 18Surface erosion 1 8 8 24Surface permeability 3 6 18 18Rainfall intensity 2 8 16 24

Subtotals 72 108

Subscore (100 x factor score subtotal/axim score subtotal) 67

2. Flooding 0 1 0 3

Suscore (100 x factor score/3) 0

3. 6od-ater migrationDepth to eomnd water 3 8 24 24Net precipitetim 1 6 6 18Soil permeility 0 8 0 24Subsurface floe 0 8 0 24Direct ccess to gromd water 1 8 8 24

Subtotals 38 114

Sobscore (100 x factor score subtotal/maximum score subtotal) 33

C, Highest pathway subscore.Enter the highest subscore value from A, 3-1, 3-2 or 3-3 above.


IV. WASTE MANAICHENT PRACTICESA. Averaqe the three subscores for receptors, waste characteristics, ad pethmys.

Receptors 57Waste Charecteristics 60Pathways 67Total 184 divided by 3 a 61 Gross total score

3. Aply factor for Waste containment from waste mamgmt practices.Gross total score x vaste management practices fator • filS score

61 x *.S • H1

3-13

Page 1 of 2

HAZARD ASSESSMENT RATING METHODOLOGY FORN

Name of Site: LANDFILL NO, 2Location :SOUTHEAT ARE OF DASEDate of Operation or Occurrence: 1965 TO EARLY 1970'SOwner/Operator: OHARE ARFFCoumnts/Description: TRENCH AND FILL TYPE

Site Rated by: GEORY,M&CEOD I REINER

I. RECEPTORSFactor Multi- Factor MaximumRating plier Score Possible


A. Population within 1,000 feet of site 3 4 12 12B. Distance to nearest well 1 10 10 30C, Land use/zoning within I mile radius 3 3 9 9D. Distance to reservation boundry 3 6 18 i8E. Critical environments within I mile radius of site 3 10 30 30F. Wer quality of nearest surface water body 1 6 6 186. Ground water use of uppermost aquifer 0 9 0 27H# Population served by surface water supply 0 6 0 is

within 3 miles dowmitream of siteIt Population served by ground-water supply 3 6 18 1e

within 3 milts of site

Subtaols 103 10

Receptors subscore (100 x factor score subtotl/aximum scare subtotal) 57

11, WAS7E CHARACTERISTICS

A. Select the factor score based on the estimated quantityp the degree of bazard, and the confidence level ofthe information,

1. Wste quantity (isall, 2amediver 3zlarge) 22. Confidence level Uconfirmed, 2--SUsPetod) 23. Hazard rating (Irlow, 2asedim, 3shigh) 3

Factor Subeore A (from 20 to 100 based on factor score matrix) 50

be Apply persistence factorFactor 9ubscore A x Persistence Factor r Subscore B

so x 1.00 50

C. Apply physical state multiplierSubscore B X Physical State Multiplier a W1aste Characteristics Subscore

50 x 1.00 3 50

H-14

Page 2 of 2

Ill. PATHWAYSA. If there is evidence of migration of hazardous contaminants, assign maxim factor subscore of 100 points for

direct evidence or 80 points for indirect evidence. If direct evidence exists then proceed to C. If no evidenceor indirect evidence existst proceed to B.

Subscore 0

S. Rate the migration potential for 3 potential pathways: surface water igrationj flooding, and ground-wotermigration. Select the highest rating and proceed to C.

Factor Multi- Factor MaxiumRating Factor Rating plier Score Possible

(0-3) Score

1. Surface Voter MigrationDistance to nearest surface woter 3 8 24 24Net precipitation 1 6 6 19Surface erosion 1 8 8 24Surface permeability 3 6 18 18Rainfall intensity 2 8 16 24

Subtotals 72 108

Subscore (100 x factor score subtotal/saximm score subtotal) 67

2. Flooding 0 1 0 3

Sucore (100 x factor score/3) 0

3. Groud-voter migrationDepth to ground water 3 8 24 24Net precipitation 1 6 6 18Soil permeability 0 6 0 24Subsurface flows 1 8 8 24Direct access to ground woter 1 9 a 24

Subtotals 46 114

Subscore (100 x factor score subtotal/maxim score subtotal) 40

C. Highest pathway subscore.Enter the highest subscore value from 6, B-1, B-2 or V-3 above.


IV. WASTE MANAGEMENT P8ACTICESA. Average the three subcores for receptors, waste characteristics, ad pathways.

Receptors 57vaste Characteristics 50Pathways 67Total 174 divided by 3 a 58 Gross total score

3, Apply factor for waste containment from waste magemt practices.Gross total score x wate managmeat practices factor • final score

5 x 0.95 • \ 5

H-1S

-- -- - - - - - - - - - -

* RE6ORY,MtLED &FEINER

*--- ----- --- -

A.~~~A. P n6;-,, W

IM -a .rr>t

-0

e Pi' n, D

Eectrs su-score !Z: '2~ cor-e subtotui/tCe.d'.u:4j SCo;re ;ubtotal

- wASTE£HACE'

- .Q4ste c L,:ttvy s Y.fe7 ;3 -: tc

Z CI csceJe'~.. (icor:rced,22susrected'

-ictor 3' 1scre *' 20 to 23b'asec or'co ic-re act::: 40

n1tor ,uotre--i~ A ,rsz ;i: s:*BD:-

Subecore B State Nult::.:e' v'e.te Char'ieteristi: Subsce

6 vv 36

H1-16

------ ~3 -- -- -- -- -

* I c ... e5 .- . . -

Ic er: -.n

2'

Net-hoi 70::ttl~

5~~ , -u l6

-,e h o rev (s -aA FA -2 orBa boe

:,:n-- fl-re-K-- 0$ Ct-- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- ---tr- -- - ---re- - - ------- -- - - - -- - ---- - - -

Depthcepor gmuo i:8 4Netast 3~:ct~~r- 6 6

SUSt ~ divdee - -.z-o,,ti . c,

%£fo ubWST otov.n'is 70r' .in Qie

aUD;::e .0 i~r c, r ;. . totile..et >ur-.-.csmoto scot-:ooti

C. ~rst p*thw~ s~r;cr-enter ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ----- th-~ts.smoe~ie~ ,B~ - r83oee

-- -- -- --- -- --- --- --- -- -- --- -- --- -- -- --- -- -- --- -- --- -- -- --- -- --- -- -- --- -- -

~H-1

Page of 2

(lAS ASSESSENT RATIN6 HEM OY FORM

oe of Site: SOUN EDGE OFAMLocotiom SOUTHERN PERIMETER OF UASDate of Operatimn or Occurrence: PRIOR TO 1970Owmer/Operotor' INE AR FFCommts/Description" DISPOSAL OF SILL WNITIES OF SOPUASTES ONTO EM

Site Rated by: 6REBO6Y,kcLEO0 & EIIER

I, RECEPTORSFactor ulti- Factor MaximmRating plier Score Possible

Noting Factor (0-3) Score

A, Populatim ithin 1,000 feet of site 3 4 12 12, Distance to nearest well 1 10 10 30

C. Led use/zoning within 1 mile radius 3 3 9 9Do Distance to reservatimn bouadry 3 6 1e 18E, Critical environments within 1 mile radius of site 3 10 30 30F, 1ater quality of nearest surface water body 1 6 6 186, Sread mter use of uppermost aquifer 0 9 0 27He Population served by surface water supply 0 6 0 18

within 3 miles doastrea of siteIt Populatiom served by ground-water supply 3 6 19 18


Subtotals 103 160


IIt VASTE 01CRACTERISTICS

A. Select the factor score based on the estimated q atity, the degree of hazard, and the confidence level ofthe information.

1. Haste quantity (lasmll, 2-andim, 3zlege) 12, Confidence level (lconfirmed, 2uspected) 23. lazard rating (slou, 2andim, 3=high) 3

Factor hobscore A (from 20 to 100 based on factor score atrix) 40

3. Apply persistence factorFactor SubaKcoe A X Persistence Factor a Subscore I

40 x 0.0 32

C. Apply physical state mltiplierSobcoe I x Physical State Multiplier a Usto Characteristics Subscore

32 x 1.00 32

77

Paqe 2 of 2

Ill. PAIIMYSft It there is evidence of migration of Mzerdous contuinants, assign maxim factor subscore of 100 points for

direct evidence or 80 points for indirect evidence. If direct evidence exists then proceed to C. If no evidenceor indirect evidence existst proceed to B.

Subscore 0

I. Rlte the migration potential for 3 potential pothwys: surface water migration, flooding, ad ground-weteruiIretin. Select the highest rating and proceed to C.

Factor lklti- Factor kxiuRating Factor Rating plier Score Possible

(0-3) Score

1. Surface hter NigrationDistance to nearest surface enter 3 8 24 24Net precipitation 1 6 6 19Surface erosion 1 8 a 24Surface permebility 3 6 18 L8PRainfall intensity 2 8 16 24

Subtotals 72 106

SubScore (100 x factor score subtot4l/xim score subtotal) 67

2. Flooding 0 1 0 3

Sibscore (100 x factor score/3) 0

3. 6rond-vater migrationDephtogreund water 3 8 24 24Net precipitation 1 6 6 19Soil permeability 0 8 0 24Sburface flas 0 8 0 24Direct access to gromd vater 1 8 8 24

Subtotals 38 114

Sbscore (100 x factor score subtotl/mim score subtotal) 33

C. Highest pathway subscore.Eter the highest subiscore value from At 1-1t 3-2 or 3-3 sbove.


IV, E NANAMMEIENT PRAT SA. Averae the three subcores for receptos, Waste cMract@istics, and pathwys.

Receptors 57Wkste Characteristics 32Pathwas 67

Totl 156 divided by 3 a 52 Gross total score3. Apply factor for vaste containent from ate management practices,

Gross totl score x veste mmmgmt practices factor a final score

52 N 1,00 52

H-'9

HAfiM ASESSIET RATING NENOLBt FOMN

Nam of Site: YOENCLE NMINTENNIC FACILITYLocation: N1.3, 5,REMDate of Operation or Sccurrence: PRIMR TO 1977Sumer/Operatorlo Mmii wvCommtstbescription' WASE OIL DISPOSED OF UNTO WOUND

Site Rated by: 6REG0PY,NckEO & WINER

I, RECEPTORSFactor Huiti- Factor haxiemRating plier Score Possible


A. Population within 1,000 feet of site 3 4 12 123. Disteace to nearest well I 10 10 30C. Land use/zoning within 1 mile radius 3 3 9 9D, Distance to reservation boundry 3 6 19 toE, Critical enviroments within 1 mile radius of sit. 3 10 30 30F. ilater quality of nearest surface water body 1 6 6 186. Groun mater use of uppermost aquifer 0 9 0 27He. Population served by surface water supply 0 6 0 t8

within 3 miles doutstream of siteIt Population served by graud-water supply 3 6 18 is


Subtotals 103 lot

Receptors suahscore (100 x factor score subtotl/aximm score subtotal) 57

II 0A1ECARACTERISTICS

A. Select the factor score based on the estimated quatity, the degree of hazad, and the confidence lee ofthe information.

I. Vast@ quntity (luemall, 2*ui 3slarge)I2. Confidence level (Unconflrmedw Nau"peted) I3, Hezard rating (1.1., 2mmedium, 3uhigh) I

Factor MaKore A (from 20 to 100 based on factor score matrix) 30

so Apply persistence factorFactot Mabcoe A x Persistene Factor x 9ubscore 1

30 x 0.90o 24

C. Apply physical stat. multiplierMacore I X Physical Stat. Rltiplier 'Wate Characteristics MAcore

24 x 1.00o 24

H-20j

Page 2 of 2

As It there is eIec Of MIpTiUOR Of hazadous contaMitNts, ssg M io w M4 ac&tor gecoe Of 10 Points fordirect evidence or 30 poists for indirect evidence If direct evidence exists than proceed to Co If no evidenceOr indiret eVidence @Xists, proceed to Do

Subscore 0

So Rate the ipratiom potential for 3 potential pathways: surface water migration, flooding, end ground-watermigration. Select the highest foting and prOCeed t C.

Factor Nulti- Factor aximmRating Factor Rating plier Scope Possible

(0-3) Scope

1. Surface hater NilgretionDistance to neret sUrface water 3 8 24 24Net precipitation 1 6 6 toSurface erosion 1 8 8 24Serface permeability 3 6 18 19Railfall intensity 2 a 16 24

Subtotals 72 109

S&SCOre (10 X factor scare subtotal/MaxMm sore subtotal) 47

2. Flooding 0 1 0 3

SucoKOe (10 X factor score/3) 0

3. Bromnd-water MigrationDepth toground water 1 8 24 24Net precipitation 1 6 6 18Soil permebility 0 8 0 24Sabsrface flow 0 6 0 24Direct KCcesto grUd water I 1 8 24

Subtotals 36 114

hbscor (100 X factor Kcoe Subtotl/Memnm score 11btota) a3

C. ighest pathway subecore,Liter the highest suhsoPR VGIn ftu. A, I-1, ]-2 or N- aOwe

PathWays Sbore 6

IV, 61E IWMENEN PRACTIESAs Avorag the three siabscores for receptors, waste characteristics, ad pathwmays.

Receptors 57vast@ Cirocteristcs 24Peays 67Total 168 divided by 3 a 49 Brs total scOre

i. Apply factor for waste containment franato maNamnt pratices.raS total scOre X waste n gmt prectices factor *final sCOre

49 x 1.06O$4

B-21

Pqe I of 2

OWzN ScEmW RW IEJI LHO.6Y FORN

Nme of Site: LOU LEWL RIDIACTIW ISPOSA SITELacation: IIEJATELY EAST OF SOUTH PL AADate of Operation or Occurrence' PRIOR TO 1970Ower/Operator' MFFCoamts/cription: VACUJM TE DISPOSED OF INTO EMTH

Site Rated by: 6E6ORYSLOD I REIER

I , RECPTORSFactor Multi- Factor MaximRating plier Score Possible

ting Factor 10-3) Score

A. Populatimn within 1,000 feet of site 3 4 12 12I. Distance to neaest well 1 10 10 30C. Lead use/zouinq within 1 mile radius 3 3 9 9n. Distance to reservation boundry 3 6 18 18E. Critical enviroments within I ile radius of site 3 10 30 30F. Voter qulity of nearest surface water body 1 6 6 19go ground water use of uppermost aquifer 0 9 0 27N. Population served by surface vter supply 0 6 0 18

within 3 tiles domstream of siteI. Population served by groand-vater supply 3 6 1 18

within 3 iles of site

Subtotals 103 188

Receptors uubscore (100 x factor score subtotel/axim score subtotal) 57

II. MSE CHAACTSTICS

A. Select the factor score based m the estimated quMtity, the degree of azerd, and the confidence level ofthe infortation.

1. Vste quantity (lasmll, 2zmediv, 3,1ev,) 12. Confidence Iml (lconfimed, 2-smpected) 13. Hazard rating flalou 2aendiv, 34big) 1

Factor Skscore A (from 20 to 100 baed am factr scoe mtix) 30

D. Apply persistence factorFactor Sobscore A x Persistance Factor Subscore I

30 x 1.00 • 30

C. Apply physical stte multiplierSlbscore I x Physical State Mltiplier a Wste Characteristics Subtcore

30 x 0.50 i 1s

2-22

Page.~ 2-f

IIll PATHIMYSA. If there is evidmmce, of migration of hazardous contaminants, assign maxim factor subucOre Of 100 Points for

* direct evidence or SO points for indirect evidence. If direct evidence exists then proceed to C. If no evidenceor indirect evidence exists, proceed to 3L

Subscoe 0

3. Rote the migration potential for 3 potential pathways: surface water migration, flooding, ad ground-votermigration, Select the highest rating and proceed to C,

Factor Ihlti- Factor NaximamRlating Factor Raing plier Score Possible

(0-3) Score

t. Surface Mater NigratimiDistance to nearet Surface water 3 8 24 24Not precipitation 1 6 6 t8Surface erosion 1 9 9 24Surface permeability 3 6 is isRaInfIl intensity 2 3 16 24

Subtotals 72 108

Msone (100 x factor score subtotal/maximam score subtotal) 67

*2. Flooding 0 1 0 3

Siscmre (100 N factor scon/3) 0

3, Broaed-voter migrationDupthto ground water 3 9 24 24Not precipitation 1 6 6 18Soil PerueailIty 0 9 0 24hbUrface flows 0 9 0 24Direct access to ground water 1 9 9 24

Subtotals 39 114

Mscore (100 X factor scane subtotlmxim sca sUbtotal) 33

C. Highest pathwa suore.Edte the highest subscore value from A, 31, 1-2 or 31-3 above.

PathWaYS SubsOre 67

lye IMSTE HMMM PWCI(SAt Aerae the three seocome for receptoprs ate characteristicst ad pathways.

Raecaps 57Nest@ CheratertleSt 15Pathway6Total 139 divided by 3. 46 raSs total scOre

3. Aply factor for waste costonmemt fra ate management practices.Bras tota KOM X wate mngmen Practices factor final scOre

46 X so"5 44

1-23

~~OL

APPJIThIX I

RMFERENcMS

APPENDIX IREFERENCES

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1977, ClimateAtlas of the United States: National Climatic Center, Ashville, NC.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1981, LocalClimatological Data for Chicago, Illinois, O'Hare International Airport.

Bradbury, J. C. and Atherton, E., 1965, The Precambrian Basement ofIllinois: Illinois Geological Survey Circ. 382.

Hughes, G. K., Kraatz, P.and Landon, R. A., 1966, Bedrock Aquifersof Northeastern Illinois: Illinois State Geological Survey Circ. 406, 15p.

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, 1982, Title 35:Environmental Protection, Subtitle C: Water Pollution, Chapter 1:Pollution Control Board.

Landrum and Brown, Inc., 1983, Draft Environmental Impact Statementfor the Chicago O'Hare International Airport, 1984-1985 Master PlanDevelopment: Prepared for City of Chicago, Department of Aviation andDepartment of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration.

National Oceanic and Admospheric Administration, 1968, RainfallFrequency Atlas of the United States: Weather Bureau Technical PaperNo. 40.

Suter, ., and others, 1959, Preliminary Report on Ground-WaterResources of the Chicago Region, Illinois: Illinois Geological Surveyand Illinois Water Survey Coop. Ground-Water Report. 1, 89 p.

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1975, Federal Register, V.40, no. 248, pp. 59566-59588, December 24, 1975.

Walton, W. C., 1965, Ground-water Recharge in Illinois: IllinoisState Water Survey Report of Investigation 48, 55 p.

Willman, H. B., 1971, Bumary of the Geology of the Chicago Area:Illinois State Geological Survey Circ. 460, 77 p.

_____ ______ I

GLOSSARY 0F TERMINOLOGY AND ABBREVIATIONS

- 7II . -7

APPENDIX J

GLOSSARY OF TERMINOLOGY AND ABBREVIATIONS

AF: Air Force

AFFF: Aqueous Film Forming Foam

AFB: Air Force Base

AFCS: Air Force Communications Service

AFESC: Air Force Engineering and Services Center

AFR: Air Force Regulation

AFSC: Air Force Systems Command

Ag: Chemical symbol for silver

AGE: Aerospace Ground Equipment

Al: Chemical symbol for aluminum

ALLUVIUM: Unconsolidated sediments deposited in relatively recent geologictime by the action of water

ARTESIAN: Ground water contained under hydrostatic pressure

AQuICLUDE: Poorly permeable formation that impedes ground-water movement anddoes not yield water to a well or spring

AQUIFER: A geologic formation, group of formations, or part of a formation

that is capable of yielding water to a well or spring

AQUITARD: A soils formation which impedes ground-water flow

ARMF: Air Reserve Force Facility

AVGAS: Aviation Gasoline

Ba: Chemical symbol for barium

bedrock: Any solid rock exposed at the surface of the earth or overlain byunconsolidated material.

ROC UAs Tendency of elements or coiounds to accumulate or build up inthe tissues of living organism when they are exposed to these elements intheir environments, e.g., heavy metalm

J-1

CAP: Civilian Air Patrol

Cd: Chemical symbol for cadmium

CE: Civil Engineering

CERCLA: Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act

CES: Civil Engineering Squadron

CLOSURE: The completion of a set of rigidly defined functions for a hazardouswaste facility no longer in operation

COD: Chemical Oxygen Demand, a measure of the amount of oxygen required tooxidize organic and oxidizable inorganic compounds in water

COE: Corps of Engineers

COMD: Command

CONFINED AQUIFER: An aquifer bounded above and below by impermeable beds orby beds of distinctly lower permeability than that of the aquifer itself

CONTAMINATION: The degradation of natural water quality to the extent thatits usefulness is impaired; there is no implication of any specific limitssince the degree of permissible contamination depends upon the intended enduse or uses of the water

Cr: Chemical symbol for chromium

Cu: Chemical symbol for copper

DUVT: Detachment

DIP: The angle at which a stratum is inclined from the horizontal

DISPOSAL FACILITY: A facility or part of a facility at which hazardous wasteis intentionally placed into or on land or water, and at which waste will re-main after closure

DISPOSAL OF HAZARDOUS WASTE: The discharge, deposit, injection, dumping,spilling, or placing of any hazardous waste into or on land or water so thatsuch waste or any constituent thereof may enter the environment or be emittedinto the air or discharged into any waters, including ground water

DOD: Department of Defense

DOWNGRADINTs: In the direction of decreasing hydraulic static head; the direc-tion in which ground water flows

DPDO: Defense Property Disposal Office, previously included Redistributionand Marketing (R&M) and Salvage.

J-2

Amiss.'

DUMP: An uncovered land disposal site where solid and/or liquid wastes aredeposited with little or no regard for pollution control or aesthetics; dumpsare susceptible to open burning and are exposed to the elements, disease vec-tors and scavengers

EOD: Explosive Ordnance Disposal

EFFLUENT: A liquid waste discharge from a manufacturing or treatment process,in its natural state, or partially or completely treated, that discharges intothe environment

EP: Extraction Procedure, the EPA's standard laboratory procedure forleachate generation

EPA: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

EROSION: The wearing away of land surface by wind or water

FAA: Federal Aviation Administration

FACILITY: Any land and appurtenances used for the treatment, storage and/ordisposal of hazardous wastes

Fe: Chemical symbol for iron

FLOOD PLAIN: The lowland and relatively flat areas adjoining inland and coast-al areas of the mainland and off-shore islands, including, at a minimum, areassubject to a one percent or greater chance of flooding in any given year

FLOW PATH: The direction or movement of ground water and any contaminantsthat may be contained therein, as governed principally by the hydraulicgradient

GC/4S: Gas chromatograph/mass spectrophotometer, a laboratory procedure foridentifying unknown compounds

GROUND WATER: Water beneath the land surface that is under atmospheric orartesian pressure

GROUND WATER RESERVOIR: The earth materials and the intervening open spacesthat contain ground water

HALF-LIFE: The time required for half the atoms present in radioactive sub-stance to decay

HARDFILL: Disposal sites receiving construction debris, wood, miscellaneous

spoil material

HARM: Hazard Assessment Rating Methodology

HAZARDOUS WASTE: A solid waste, or combination of solid wastes, which becauseof its quantity, concentration, or physical, chemical or infectious character-istics may cause or significantly contribute to an increase in mortality or anincrease in serious, irreversible, or incapacitating reversible illness; or

J-3

. . ..,,

pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or the environ-ment when improperly treated, stored, transported, or disposed of, or other-wise managed (RCRA)

HAZARDOUS WASTE GENERATION: The act or process of producing a hazardous waste

HEAVY METALS: Metallic elements, including the transition series, which in-clude many elements required for plant and animal nutrition in trace concen-trations but which become toxic at higher concentrations

Hg: Chemical symbol for mercury

HQ: Headquarters

HWMF: Hazardous Waste Management Facility

INCOMPATIBLE WASTE: A waste unsuitable for commingling with another waste ormaterial because the commingling might result in generation of extreme heat orpressure, explosion or violent reaction, fire, formation of substances whichare shock sensitive, friction sensitive, or otherwise have the potential forreacting violently, formation of toxic dusts, mists, fumes, and gases, volatil-ization of ignitable or toxic chemicals due to heat generation in such a man-ner that the likelihood of contamination of ground water or escape of the sub-stance into the environment is increased, any other reaction which might re-sult in not meeting the air, human health, and environmental standard

INFILTRATION: The gradual passing of liquid through matter.

IRP: Installation Restoration Program

JP-4: Jet Fuel

LEACHATE: A solution resulting from the separation or dissolving of solubleor particulate constituents from solid waste or other man-placed medium bypercolation of water

LEACHING: The process by which soluble materials in the soil, such as nu-trients, pesticide chemicals or contaminants, are washed into a lover layer ofsoil or are dissolved and carried away by water

LINER: A continuous layer of natural or man-made materials beneath or on thesides of a surface impoundment, landfill, or landfill cell which restricts thedownward or lateral escape of hazardous waste, hazardous waste constituents orleachate

LOESS: A sediment composed dominantly of silt-size particles that has beendeposited primarily by the wind

LOX: Liquid Oxygen

LYSIHZt8: A vacuum operated sampling device used for extracting pore water

samples at various depths within the unsaturated zone

MU: Methyl Ethyl Ketone0-4

J-..

MGD: million gallons per day

MOA: Military Operating Area

MOGAS: Motor gasoline

Mn: Chemical symbol for manganese

MONITORING WELL: A well used to measure ground-water levels and to obtainsamples

MSL: Mean Sea Level

MUNITION ITEM:S Munitions or portions of munitions having an explosivepotential

MUNITIONS RESIDUE: Non-explosive segments of waste munitions (i.e., bombcasings)

NCO: Non-commissioned Officer

NCOIC: Non-commissioned officer In-Charge

NDI Non-destructive Inspection

NET PRECIPITATION: The amount of annual precipitation minus annual evaporation

NGVD: National Geodetic Vertical Datum

Ni: Chemical symbol for nickel

NPDES: National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

03L: Occupational and Environmental Health Laboratory

ORGANIC: Being, containing or relating to carbon compounds, especially inwhich hydrogen is attached to carbon

O&G: Symbols for oil and grease

OSI: Office of Special Investigations

OVA: Organic Vapor Analyzer

Pb: Chemical symbol for lead

PCs$ Polychlorinated iphenylsi highly toxic to aquatic life; they persist in

the environment for long period and are biologically accumulative

PERCOLATION: Movement of moisture by gravity or hydrostatic pressure throughinterstices of unsaturated rock or soil

PERMRILITYs The rate at which fluids may move through a solid, porous medium

J-5

PD-680: Cleaning solvent, safety solvent, Stoddard solvent, petroleumdistillate

pH: Negative logarithm of hydrogen ion concentration; measurement of acids andbases

PL: Public Law

POL: Petroleum, Oils and Lubricants

POLLUTANT: Any introduced gas, liquid or solid that makes a resource unfitfor a specific purpose

POTEITIALLY ACTIVE FAULT: A fault along which movement has occurred within

the last 25-million years

PPM: Parts per million by weight

PRECIPITATION: Rainfall

RCRA: Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

RECHARGE AREA: An area in which water is absorbed that eventually reaches thezone of saturation in one or more aquifers

RECHARGE: The addition of water to the ground-water system by natural or arti-ficial processes

RECON: Reconnaissance

SANITARY LANDFILL: A land disposal site using an engineered method of dispos-ing solid wastes on land in a way that minimizes environmental hazards

SATURATE) ZONE: That part of the earth's crust in which all voids are filledwith water

SEISMICITY: Pertaining to earthquakes or earth vibrations

SLUDGE: The solid residue resulting from a manufacturing or wastewater treat-ment process which also produces a liquid stream

SOLID WASTE: Any garbage, refuse, or sludge from a waste treatment plant,water supply treatment, or air pollution control facility and other discardedmaterial, including solid, liquid, semi-solid, or contained gaseous materialresulting from industrial, commercial, mining, or agricultural operations andfrom community activities, but does not include solid or dissolved materialsin domestic sawage; solid or dissolved materials in irrigation return flows;industrial discharges which are point source subject to permits under Section402 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended (86 USC 880)1 orsource, special nuclear, or by-product material as defined by the AtomicEnergy Act of 1954 (68 USC 923)

SPILL: Any unplanned release or discharge of a hazardous waste onto or intothe air, land, or water

J7-6

STORAGE OF HAZARDOUS WAST: Containment, either on a temporary basis or for a

longer period, in such a banner as not to constitute disposal of such hazard-ous waste

TAC: Tactical Air Comand

TAG: Tactical Airlift Group

TCE: Tetrachloroethylene

TCA: 1,1,1-Tetrachloroethane

ToC: Total Organic Carbon

TOXICITY: The ability of a material to produce injury or disease upon expo-sure, ingestion, inhalation, or assimilation by a living organism

TRANSMISSIVITY: The rate at which water is transmitted through a unit widthunder a unit hydraulic gradient

TREATMENT OF HAZARDOUS WASTE: Any method, technique, or process includingneutralization designed to change the physical, chemical, or biological char-acter or composition of any hazardous waste so as to neutralize the waste orso as to render the waste nonhazardous

UPGRADIENT: In the direction of increasing hydraulic static head; the direc-

tion opposite to the prevailing flow of ground-water

USAF: United States Air Force

USGS: United States Geological Survey

WATER TABLE: Surface of a body of unconfined ground water at which the pres-sure is equal to that of the atmosphere

Zn: Chemical symbol for zinc

J-7

APPW3IX K

IUD3X

APPENDIX K

INDEX

Rank Site Name Page Numbers

1 Landfill No. 1 5, 6, 4-3, 4-4, 4-5, 4-7, 4-13, 4-16,4-19, 4-21, 5-1, 5-2, 6-2, 6-4, F-2,H-2, H-3

2 JP-4 Tank, West POL Area 5, 6, 4-9, 4-11, 4-12, 4-19, 4-21,

5-1, 5-2, 5-3, 6-2, 6-4, D-1, H-4,H-5

3 Fuel-Contaminated Soil 5, 6, 4-11, 4-12, 4-19, 4-21, 5-2,5-3, 6-2, 6-4, 6-5, H-6, H-7

4 Defueling Pit Leak Site 5, 6, 7, 4-11, 4-12, 4-19, 4-21, 5-2,5-3, 6-4, 6-5, H-8, H-9

5 Fire Protection Training 5, 6, 7, 4-3, 4-4, 4-5, 4-6, 4-7,Facility 4-8, 4-19, 4-21, 5-2, 5-3, 6-4, 6-5,

F-3, B-10, H-11

6 Hazardous Waste Storage Area 5, 6, 7, 4-9, 4-10, 4-19, 4-21, 5-2,5-3, 5-4, 6-4, 6-5, F-4, B-12, B-13

7 Landfill No. 2 5, 6, 7, 4-3, 4-4, 4-5, 4-7, 4-16,4-19, 4-21, 5-2, 5-4, 6-4, 6-5, 6-6,F-3, H-14, H-15

8 Storm Drainage System 5, 6, 7, 4-9, 4-16, 4-19, 4-21, 5-2,5-4, 6-4, 6-6, H-16, H-17

9 South Edge of Concrete Apron 5, 6, 7, 4-13, 4-14, 4-19, 4-21, 5-2,5-4, 6-4, 6-6, H-18, H-19

10 Vehicle Maintenance 5, 6, 4-13, 4-14, 4-19, 4-21, 5-2,Facility, Rear 5-4, 5-5, U-20, H-21

11 Low Level Radioactive 5, 6, 4-17, 4-18, 4-19, 4-21, 5-2,Disposal Site 5-5, r-2, U-22, H-23

K-1

Atlanta, Georgia 30329 - DTIC

Documents