Superfund Document

Fourth Five-Year Review Report
for the Soldier Creek/Building 3001 NPL Site

Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma
Final
Prepared By:
Department of the Air Force

Environmental Restoration Branch
72nd Air Base Wing, CEPR
September 2012
Five-Year Review Report

Soldier Creek/Building 3001 NPL Site
Signature Page
FOURTH FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT

USEPA ID No. OK1571724391
This memorandum documents the performance, determinations and U.S. Environmental
Protection Agencys (EPA) approval of the Soldier Creek/ Building 3001 National Priorities
List (NPL) Sites Fourth Five-year Review (FYR) under Section 121(c) of the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, Title 42 United
States Code, Section 9621(c), as provided in the attached Fourth FYR Report prepared by the
Environmental Restoration Branch, Civil Engineering Directorate (72 ABW/CEPR) at Tinker
Air Force Base.
Background
The Fourth FYR for the Soldier Creek/Building 3001 NPL Site was performed through a
review of site documents and site-specific requirements as well as a site inspection performed
on 13 April 2012. Interviews with stakeholders, and a review of data collected at the Site
during the Fourth FYR period were accomplished during the month of April 2012. Previous
FYRs were completed in separate volumes for Operable Unit 1 (Building 3001 GW) and
Operable Unit 3 Soldier Creek Off-Base Groundwater in September 2007.
The Soldier Creek/Building 3001 NPL Site is comprised of four Operable Units
(OUs): Building 3001 groundwater (OU-1), Soldier Creek Sediment and Surface Water
(OU-2), Soldier Creek Off-Base Groundwater (OU-3), and the Industrial Wastewater
Treatment Plant (IWTP) Groundwater (OU-4). Building 3001 includes the building
complex itself, the North Tank Area (NTA), Pit-Q51, and the surrounding areas
encompassed by the lateral extent of the groundwater solvent contaminant plume.
Contamination with volatile organic compounds (VOCs) was first documented at the site in
1984, including in Water Supply Well 18 located inside Building 3001. Subsequent
investigations further identified the presence of VOCs in soil and ground water at the other
OUs. In addition, hexavalent chromium was found in several pits inside Building 3001 and
fuel was noted at the NTA. The site was placed on the National Priorities List in July 1987.
The focus of the current FYR will be on OU-1. In 2006, the USEPA accepted a
Remedial Action Report that documented that Tinker Air Force Base had completed all
required remedial activities for OU-2. The 2007 ROD for OU-3 declared that the
completed supplemental assessment identified no contaminants attributable to Tinker
AFB (activities) at OU-3 therefore the selected remedy is the No Further Action
alternative. In addition, no five-year review information is included in this document for
OU-4 because no remedies have been selected for OU-4 as of this report and OU-4 is
planned to be incorporated with OU-1. A combined OU-1 and OU-4 Phase II Focused
Remedial Investigation (RI), planned for completion in 2012, is currently underway. The
RI will be followed by a Focused Feasibility Study proposed to be completed in 2013.
Either an amended or new ROD combining OU-1 and OU-4 is anticipated for 2013.
S-1
Final
September 2012

Signature Page
Summary of Fourth Five-Year Review Findings

Since 2004, the RA at OU-1 has consisted of a ground water pump and treatment
system that was approved to be shut down since contaminant recovery had reached
asymptotic conditions and VOC removal rates were minimal. The system shut down
also allowed for the aquifer to rebound, for the contamination plume to be re-evaluated
and for a Focused Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study be initiated. The
Focused Remedial Investigation discovered an additional hot spot of TCE
contamination towards the southern portion of Building 3001. This discovery triggered a
second investigation phase to collect additional data to properly delineate the extent of
the contamination plume in the area.
The remedy at OU-2 is complete and OU-3 selected remedy is no further action.
Groundwater monitoring within the NPL site is conducted as part of the base-wide
groundwater monitoring program.
Actions Recommended
The following actions are recommended for the Soldier Creek/Building 3001 NPL Site:
OU-1:
- At Building 3001, conduct and complete Focused RI/FS. Complete amended
Record of Decision.
- At NTA, update mobility and need to remove product. Determine best method to
achieve site cleanup objectives.
- At Building 3001, continue monitoring at the sampling frequency and parameters.
Update sentinel well list upon completion of amended ROD.
OU-2: Remedy is complete unless there are changes to the status of the OU.
OU-3: Continue No Further Action unless there are changes to the status of the OU.
OU-4: Combine RI/FS efforts with Building 3001 OU-1 since groundwater
contamination has co-mingled. Include selected remedy in OU-1 amended ROD.
Determinations
Based on the information available during the Fourth FYR, the following determinations
were made for the selected remedies for the OUs at the Soldier Creek/Building 3001 NPL
site:
Operable Unit Protectiveness Statements

OU-1: The remedy is protective of human health and the environment in the short
term.
Building 3001 Site: The primary chemicals of concern (COCs) for Building 3001
are trichloroethene (TCE) and hexavalent chromium. The remedy is considered
S-2
Final
September 2012

Signature Page
protective in the short-term because the TCE and hexavalent chromium plumes are
not migrating and there is no evidence of current exposure. However, additional
information/data is needed to evaluate long-term protectiveness of the remedy; an
updated Focused RI is underway to obtain this information. The Focused FS that
follows the RI will review optimization of the current remedy, and will evaluate
additional technologies that might either complement the remedy or replace it. A
long-term protectiveness determination will be made when this study is complete,
currently scheduled for 2013. The proposed goal is an amended or new ROD for the
site.
NTA Site: The remedy in place is protective of human health and the environment in
the short term.
Pit Q-51: The remedy is complete and is protective of human health and the
environment.
OU-2: Remedy is complete and is protective of human health and the environment.
The site has completed the remedial actions in accordance with RAOs set forth in
the 1993 ROD. The site is closed upon Remedial Action Report being accepted in
January 2006. The remedy is protective of human health and the environment.
OU-3: The selected No Further Action (NFA) remedy is protective of human health
and the environment.

OU-4:
No remedy has been determined to date but OU-4 being combined with
OU-1.
The ground water associated with OU-4 is commingled with OU-1 and is currently
not migrating and there is no evidence of current exposure. A long-term
protectiveness determination will be made when the OU-1 study, which includes
OU-4, is complete. The proposed goal is a ROD for OU-4, scheduled for 2013.
Site-Wide Protectiveness Statement

The remedies completed or currently on-going at the site are protective of human health and
the environment in the short term. In order for all the remedies to be protective in the long
term the action items identified in the review need to be implemented.
S-3
Final
September 2012
Signature Page
SIGNATURE PAGE
Pamela Phillips,
it-
Acting Division Director
Superfund Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6
S-4
Final
September 2012
Date
Routing and Concurrence Slip-
Begin Routing Date:09/12/2012
Routing Status:
To: (Name, office symbol, route number, building, Agency/Post
High
Initials
Date
Michael Hebert
MH
09/12/2012
Cathy Gilmore
CG
09/12/2012
Stephanie Delgado
SD
09/13/2012
Charles Faultry
CF
09/17/2012
Dyiann Twine
DT
09/19/2012
George Malone
GM
09/18/2012
Mark Peycke
MP
09/19/2012
Dyiann Twine
DT
09/19/2012
Deborah Greenwell
DG
09/20/2012
...
Office:
Tracking Category:
Remedial Branch - Louisana/New Mexico/Oklahoma Section
Five-Year Review
Enforcement Confidential: O Yes No

Email Subject: Tinker AFB - Fourth Five Year Review - DUE 9/27/12
Due Date:1 09/27/2012

DD/DDD Assigned:]
DD/DDD Status: Pending
DD/DDD Remarks:
Front Office Assigned:
Kl
K!
IE1
Action
Approval
As Requested
Circulate
Comment
[X] Concurrence
Coordination
File
For Clearance
For Correction
Justify
Note and Return
Per Conversation
Prepare Reply
For Your Information M Review

D Investigation
D See Me
Remarks:
PDF version of document has all figures and maps - Word version does not
Signature
AD Signature
DD/DDD Signature
RA Signature
From: (Name, org, symbol, Agency/Post)
Room No./Bldg: 6SF-RL
Michael Hebert
Phone Number: 214.665 8315
Choose EDIT document and turn on Track changes in WORD.

Remember to SAVE the Word Document before exiting Word.
Then Click on Save & Exit or Save and Route Next.
Otherwise your changes will not be saved.
For Signature:
Choose EDIT document
- TAFB_Final_5YReport_2012_asof_12Sep_am.doc
Inquiry/Supporting:!
Documentsu
b
-TAFB_Final_5YReport_2012_asof_12Sep_am.pdf
- Tinker Fourth Five Year Review - Exec Summary 9-12-12.doc
Final Document(s):
DO NOT ATTACH DOCUMENTS BELOW HERE!

USE THE ATTACH DOCUMENT BUTTON!

Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SIGNATURE PAGE ...................................................................................................... S-1

CONCURRENCES ........................................................................................................ S-3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................ ES-1
FIVE-YEAR REVIEW SUMMARY FORM ........................................................... ES-4
TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................................. I
LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................ III
LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................................... IV
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS .........................................................................V
SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION.................................................................................... 1-1
SECTION 2 SITE CHRONOLOGY............................................................................ 2-1
SECTION 3 BACKGROUND ...................................................................................... 3-1
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
Physical Characteristics ................................................................................. 3-1

Land and Resource Use ................................................................................. 3-1
3.2.1
Building 3001 Site ....................................................................... 3-1
3.2.2
Surrounding Community ............................................................. 3-2
3.2.3
Human and Ecological Use of Resources .................................... 3-3
History of Contamination .............................................................................. 3-4
Initial Response.............................................................................................. 3-5
Basis for Taking Action ................................................................................. 3-5
SECTION 4 REMEDIAL ACTIONS .......................................................................... 4-1

4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
Remedy Selection .......................................................................................... 4-1

4.1.1
Building 3001 ROD ..................................................................... 4-1
4.1.2
Explanation of Significant Difference ......................................... 4-2
Remedial Action Objectives .......................................................................... 4-3
4.2.1
Building 3001............................................................................... 4-3
4.2.2
NTA ............................................................................................. 4-4
4.2.3
Pit Q-51 ........................................................................................ 4-4
Remedy Implementation ................................................................................ 4-4
System O&M ................................................................................................. 4-7
4.4.1
O&M Requirements ..................................................................... 4-7
4.4.2
O&M Activities ......................................................................... 4-11
4.4.3
O&M Costs ................................................................................ 4-13
SECTION 5 PROGRESS SINCE LAST FIVE-YEAR REVIEW ............................ 5-1

5.1
5.2
Protectiveness Statement from ROD ............................................................. 5-1

Protectiveness Statements (previous review - 2007) ..................................... 5-2
i
Final
September 2012

5.3
5.4
5.5
Table of Contents
Status of Recommendations and Follow-up Actions from second Review ... 5-2
5.3.1
Building 3001 Groundwater ........................................................ 5-2
5.3.2
NTA ............................................................................................. 5-3
5.3.3
Pit Q-51 ........................................................................................ 5-3
Results of Implemented Actions and Achievement of Intended Effect(s) .... 5-3
5.4.1
Building 3001 Groundwater ........................................................ 5-3
5.4.2
NTA ............................................................................................. 5-4
5.4.3
Pit Q-51 ........................................................................................ 5-4
Status of Any Other Prior Issues .................................................................... 5-4
SECTION 6 FIVE-YEAR REVIEW PROCESS ........................................................ 6-1

6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.5
Community Involvement ............................................................................... 6-1

Document Review .......................................................................................... 6-1
Data Review ................................................................................................... 6-1
6.3.1
Building 3001 Groundwater Treatment System
Performance ................................................................................. 6-1
6.3.2
Aquifer Response and Groundwater Contaminant
Monitoring ................................................................................... 6-1
6.3.3
NTA ............................................................................................. 6-8
Site Inspections .............................................................................................. 6-8
Interviews ....................................................................................................... 6-9
SECTION 7 TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT ................................................................ 7-1

7.1
7.2
7.3
Building 3001 Site ......................................................................................... 7-1

7.1.1
Question A ................................................................................... 7-1
7.1.2
Question B ................................................................................... 7-5
7.1.3
Question C ................................................................................... 7-6
NTA ............................................................................................................... 7-6
7.2.1
Question A ................................................................................... 7-6
7.2.2
Question B ................................................................................... 7-9
7.2.3
Question C ................................................................................. 7-10
Pit Q-51 ........................................................................................................ 7-10
SECTION 8 ISSUES ...................................................................................................... 8-1

SECTION 9 CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND FOLLOW-UP
ACTIONS ........................................................................................... 9-1
SECTION 10 PROTECTIVENESS STATEMENT(S) ............................................ 10-1
SECTION 11 NEXT REVIEW ................................................................................... 11-1
SECTION 12 REFERENCES..................................................................................... 12-1
ATTACHMENTS (INTERVIEWS AND SITE INSPECTION CHECKLIST) .... A-1
ii
Final
September 2012

Table of Contents
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 3.1
Figure 6.1
Figure 6.2
Figure 6.3
Figure 6.4
Figure 6.5
Figure 6.6
Figure 6.7
Figure 6.8
Figure 6.9
Figure 6.10
Figure 6.11
Figure 6.12
Figure 6.13
Figure 6.14
Figure 6.15
Figure 6.16
Figure 6.17
Figure 6.18
Figure 6.19
Figure 6.20
Figure 6.21
Figure 6.22
Figure 6.23
Figure 6.24
Figure 6.25
Figure 6.26
Figure 6.27
Figure 6.28
Figure 6.29
Figure 6.30
Figure 6.31
Figure 6.32
Figure 6.33
Figure 6.34
Building 3001 OU Location Map ............................................................. 3-7

Cross Sectional View/Nomenclature ..................................................... 6-10
USZ Potentiometric Surface Map, May 2010........................................ 6-11
LSZ Potentiometric Surface Map, May 2010 ........................................ 6-12
LLSZ Potentiometric Surface Map, May 2010...................................... 6-13
USZ TCE Concentration Map, 2009/2010 ............................................ 6-14
LSZ TCE Concentration Map, 2009/2010 ............................................. 6-15
LLSZ TCE Concentration Map, 2009/20104 ........................................ 6-16
TCE Time-Concentration Plot, Well M-1BR ........................................ 6-17
TCE Time-Concentration Plot , Well M-3BR ....................................... 6-18
TCE Time-Concentration Plot, Well M-4B ........................................... 6-19
TCE Time-Concentration Plot , Well 1-2B ........................................... 6-20
TCE Time-Concentration Plot, Well 1-4B ............................................ 6-21
TCE,Time-Concentration Plot Well 1-9BR ........................................... 6-22
TCE Time-Concentration Plot , Well 1-14B ......................................... 6-23
TCE Time-Concentration Plot , Well 1-45B ......................................... 6-24
TCE Time-Concentration Plot, Well 2-277B ........................................ 6-25
TCE Time-Concentration Plot, Well 2-360B ........................................ 6-26
TCE Time-Concentration Plot , Well 2-427B ....................................... 6-27
TCE Time-Concentration Plot , Well M-4AR ....................................... 6-28
TCE Time-Concentration Plot , Well 1-3AR ........................................ 6-29
TCE Time-Concentration Plot, Well 1-6AR ......................................... 6-30
TCE Time-Concentration Plot, Well 1-9AR ......................................... 6-31
TCE Time-Concentration Plot, Well 1-45AR ....................................... 6-32
TCE Time-Concentration Plot, Well M-4CR ........................................ 6-33
TCE Time-Concentration Plot, Well 1-6CR .......................................... 6-34
TCE Time-Concentration Plot , Well 1-12CR ....................................... 6-35
TCE Time-Concentration Plot , Well 1-45CR ....................................... 6-36
USZ Hexavalent Chromium Concentration Map, 2009/2010 ............... 6-37
Hex. Chromium Time-Concentration Plot, Well P-14R ........................ 6.38
Hex. Chromium Time-Concentration Plot, Well 19BR......................... 6.39
Hex. Chromium Time-Concentration Plot, Well 34A ........................... 6.40
Hex. Chromium Time-Concentration Plot , Well 1-70B ....................... 6.41
Hex. Chromium Time-Concentration Plot , Well P-17 ......................... 6.42
Hex. Chromium Time-Concentration Plot , Well 34B .......................... 6.43
iii
Final
September 2012

Table of Contents
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1
Table 3.1
Table 4.1
Table 4.2
Table 6.1
Table 7.1
Table 8.1
Chronology of Activities for NPL Site ....................................................... 2-1

Chronology of Activities for Building 3001 OU ........................................ 3-5
Summary of Remedy Development and Implementation Activities
at OU-1........................................................................................................ 4-4
Groundwater Extraction Wells by Hydrogeologic Zone ............................ 4-8
Sentry Wells ................................................................................................ 4-8
Chromium Cleanup Standard ...................................................................... 7-5
Issues Affecting Protectiveness .................................................................. 8-1
iv
Final
September 2012

Acronyms and Abbreviations
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

72nd ABW /
CEPR
AFB
aka
API
ARAR
ASTM
B&V
72nd Air Base Wing / Civil Engineering Directorate,
Environmental Restoration Branch

Air Force Base
Also known as
American Petroleum Institute
Applicable, Relevant, and Appropriate Requirements
American Society of Testing and Materials
Black and Veatch Waste Science and Technology
Corporation
B3001
BWGW
CDM
CERCLA
COC
DNAPL
ESD
FFA
gpm
G-W
GWTP
IC
ICM
IRP
ITWP
LSZ
LTM
MCL
Mg/L
NPL
NTA
OC-ALC
O&M
OCC
ODEQ
OSHA
OU
Parsons
Parsons ES
PCE
PZ
RA
RAB
RAO
RCRA
RI
ROD
RPO
SAIC
Building 3001
Base-wide Groundwater
Camp Dresser & McKee, Incorporated

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act of 1980
Contaminant of concern
Dense non-aqueous phase liquid
Explanation of Significant Differences
Federal Facilities Agreement
gallons per minute
Garber-Wellington
Groundwater treatment plant
Institutional control
Interim corrective measure
Installation Restoration Program
Industrial Wastewater Treatment Plant
Lower saturated zone
Long term monitoring
Maximum contaminant level
Milligrams per liter
National Priorities List
North Tank Area
Oklahoma City-Air Logistics Center
Operation and Maintenance
Oklahoma Corporation Commission
Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Operable unit
Parsons Corporation
Parsons Engineering Science
Tetrachloroethylene
Producing zone
Remedial action
Restoration Advisory Board
Remedial Action Objective
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
Remedial Investigation
Record of Decision
Remedial process optimization
Science Applications International Corporation
v
Final
September 2012

SDWA
SWTA
TAFB
TBC
TCE
TI
TOR
TTNUS
USACE
USAF
USEPA
UST
USZ
VEP
VI
WS
Acronyms and Abbreviations
Safe Drinking Water Act

Southwest Tank Area
Tinker Air Force Base
To be considered
Trichloroethylene
Technical Impracticability
Top of Regional (Aquifer)
TetraTech Nuclear Utility Services, Inc.
United States Army Corps of Engineers
United State Air Force
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Underground storage tank
Upper saturated zone
Vacuum enhanced pumping
Vapor intrusion
Water Supply (well)
vi
Final
September 2012

Executive Summary
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This is the fourth Five-Year Review for the Soldier Creek/Building 3001 National
Priorities List (NPL) site at Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma. Five-year reviews must
be conducted for NPL sites where hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants
remain at the site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure.
This requirement is defined in Section 121(c) of the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as amended by the
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986, and Section 300.430 (1) (4)
(ii) of the National Oil and Hazardous Substance Contingency Plan. In December 1988 a
Federal Facility Agreement (FFA) was signed which integrates the requirements of
CERCLA and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA) and
provides legal framework for remediation activities at Tinker AFB. Region 6 of the U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) is the regulatory agency for CERCLA and
the NPL site at Tinker Air Force Base (TAFB).
The NPL site is comprised of
four Operable Units (OUs). These are
Building 3001 groundwater (OU-1),
Soldier Creek Sediment and Surface
Water (OU-2), Soldier Creek OffBase Groundwater (OU-3), and the
Industrial Wastewater Treatment
Plant (IWTP) Groundwater (OU-4).
The focus of the current five-year
Co
mp
os
ite
review however, is OU-1; there is no
Flo
w
Div
ide
longer a five-year trigger for OU-2
and OU-3 as the Air Force and
USEPA concur that there are no
further action(s) required for these
operable units. In addition, no fiveyear review is included in this
document for OU-4 because OU-4 is
planned to be incorporated with OU1 and no remedies have been selected
for OU-4 as of the date of this report.
A combined OU-1 and OU-4 Phase
II Focused Remedial Investigation
(RI), planned for completion in 2012,
is currently underway. The RI will be followed by a Focused Feasibility Study (FS)
proposed to be completed in 2013. An amended or new ROD combining OU-1 and OU-4
is anticipated for 2013.
Projected Coordinate System: NAD 1983 (feet)
State Plane Oklahoma North FIPS 3501
0
500
1,000
2,000
Feet
ES-1
Final
September 2012

Executive Summary
Because OU-2 is complete and OU-3 is designated as NFA, and OU-4 is slated to be
incorporated into OU-1, the focus of the current review is OU-1, which encompasses
Building 3001 groundwater, Pit Q-51, and the North Tank Area (NTA). This review
addresses activities taken since the last five-year update in 2007 to satisfy remedial
actions selected in the 1990 Record of Decision (ROD) for the OU-1 site, as well as any
evolution or changes in strategy or regulatory requirements since the 1990 ROD.
Remedies for OU-1 specified in the 1990 ROD include:
Building 3001 Groundwater: 1) Extraction of contaminated groundwater from the
perched zone, top of regional aquifer zone, and regional aquifer zone (now known as the
Upper Saturated Zone, the Lower Saturated Zone, and the Lower-Lower Saturated Zone)
via extraction wells; 2) Treatment of the contaminated groundwater in a treatment facility
constructed specifically for the Building 3001 remedial action; and 3) Reuse of the
treated water in industrial operations.
Pit Q-51: Removal of approximately 45 gallons of liquid, steam clean the pit,
analyze the liquid and wash water, and dispose in a facility that is approved to receive
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA)
waste. Backfill the pit with sand and cover it with an 8-inch concrete cap to prevent
future use.
North Tank Area (NTA): Install a floating fuel product removal system to recover
fuel product floating above the groundwater table. Dispose of recovered fuel at a
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) approved facility. Treat the recovered
groundwater at the Building 3001 treatment plant. Install a vapor extraction system to
remove fuel vapors from the subsurface soils, which will then be destroyed in a thermal
combustor. Finally, implement removal and disposal of a 750-gallon waste tank, and
proper closure of a 235,000 gallon fuel oil tank.
Part of the selected remedial method for NTA was installation of a vapor extraction
system to remove fuel vapors from subsurface soils. Vapor extraction is accomplished
through extraction of soil vapors along with free product and groundwater using
enhanced vacuum pumping with multi-phase extraction. This method includes both the
soil fuel vapor extraction required by the ROD and additional extraction and treatment
capabilities that are over and above the requirements of the ROD. Removed liquids are
disposed at an approved RCRA facility. Removed vapor exhausts are below de minimis
treatment requirements, and are therefore vented to the atmosphere.
Five-Year Review Trigger For OU-1: Because the remedial action selected
resulted in hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants remaining at the site above
levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure, the U.S. Air Force is
required to review the action no less often than every five years after initiation of the
selected remedial action. USEPA's database contains only one date field for the initiation
of remedial action, and the date in that field is September 30, 1992; thus, five year
reviews were required beginning in September 1997. The assessments from previous
five year reviews conducted for the NPL site concluded that the remedies were
constructed and operated in accordance with the requirements of the 1990 ROD. In 2003,
ES-2
Final
September 2012

Executive Summary
prior to the last five year review, Tinker submitted an Explanation of Significant
Differences (ESD) to USEPA for OU-1 requesting a temporary shutdown of the
extraction wells around Building 3001 in order to obtain 'pre-system operation' ambient
and hydrogeologic conditions as well as to monitor plume stability. This additional data
is intended for use in optimizing the remediation of the groundwater contaminant plume
under the building. In 2003, USEPA concurred with the Tinker AFB submitted ESD
application and its activities began being implemented in March 2004. The temporary
shutdown is currently slated to continue at least through March 2013.
ES-3
Final
September 2012

Executive Summary
FIVE-YEAR REVIEW SUMMARY FORM
SITE IDENTIFICATION
Site name (from WasteLAN): Tinker AFB (Soldier Creek / Building 3001)
USEPA ID (from WasteLAN): OK1571724391
Region: VI
State: OK
City/County: Tinker AFB/Oklahoma
SITE STATUS
NPL status:
XFinal
Deleted Other (specify)
Remediation status (choose all that apply): Under Construction

Multiple OUs?*
XYES
NO
XOperating
Complete
Construction completion date:
Has site been put into reuse? YES
XNO
REVIEW STATUS
Lead agency: EPA State Tribe X Other Federal Agency _USAF_____________________
Author name: Albert T. Aguilar
Author title: Environmental Engineer
Author affiliation: Tinker AFB
Review period:** January 2012 to June 2012

Date(s) of site inspection: 04/11/2012
Type of review:
Pre-SARA
NPL-Removal only
Non-NPL Remedial Action Site NPL State/Tribe-lead
Regional Discretion
XPost-SARA
Review number: 1 (first) 2 (second) 3 (third) X Other (specify) __Fourth________

Triggering action:
Actual RA Onsite Construction at OU #____ Actual RA Start at OU#____
Construction Completion
X Previous Five-Year Review Report
Other (specify)
Triggering action date (from WasteLAN): 09/27/2007
Due date (five years after triggering action date): 09/27/2012
* [OU refers to operable unit.]
** [Review period should correspond to the actual start and end dates of the Five-Year Review in wasteLAN]
ES-4
Final
September 2012

Executive Summary
Issues/Recommendations
OU(s) without Issues/Recommendations Identified in the Five-Year Review:
OU-2 and OU-3

Issues and Recommendations Identified in the Five-Year Review:
Issue Category: Remedy Performance
OU(s): OU-1
Building 3001
Issue: Current groundwater pump and treatment system

has become asymptotic and ineffective. Vapor Intrusion
issue may be an issue.
Recommendation: Conduct and complete updated
Focused Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study.
Potentially amending the ROD with selected new
remedial action(s).
Affect Current
Protectiveness
Affect Future
Protectiveness
Implementing
Party
Oversight
Party
Milestone
Date
No
Yes
VERSAR Inc.
AF/EPA
June 2013
Issue Category: Remedy Performance
OU(s): OU-1
NTA
Issue: Removal of remaining product is slower than

anticipated.
Recommendation: Update mobility and the need to
remove the remaining product. Determine the best method
to achieve site cleanup objectives.
Affect Current
Protectiveness
Affect Future
Protectiveness
Implementing
Party
Oversight
Party
Milestone
Date
No
Yes
VERSAR Inc.
AF/EPA
June 2013
OU(s): OU-1
Building 3001
Issue Category: Monitoring

Issue: Monitor groundwater plume stability and/or
movement and re-evaluate sentry well list.
Recommendation: Continue monitoring, at the
sampling frequency and parameters. Update sentry
well list upon completion of amended ROD.
Affect Current
Protectiveness
Affect Future
Protectiveness
Implementing
Party
Oversight
Party
Milestone
Date
No
Possibly
VERSAR Inc.
AF/EPA
June 2013
ES-5
Final
September 2012

OU(s): OU-4
ITWP GW
Executive Summary
Issue Category: Record of Decision

Issue: site needs a ROD
Recommendation: Combine RI/FS efforts with OU-1
since groundwater contamination has co-mingled.
Include selected remedy in OU-1 amended ROD.
Affect Current
Protectiveness
Affect Future
Protectiveness
Implementing
Party
Oversight
Party
Milestone
Date
No
Possibly
VERSAR Inc.
AF/EPA
June 2013
ES-6
Final
September 2012

Executive Summary
Sitewide Protectiveness Statement

Protectiveness Determination:
Protective
Addendum Due Date (if applicable):

Not Applicable
Based on the information available during the Fourth FYR, the following determinations were
made for the selected remedies for the OUs at the Soldier Creek/Building 3001 NPL site:

OU-1: The remedy is protective of human health and the environment in the short term.
Building 3001 Site: The primary chemicals of concern (COCs) for Building 3001 are
trichloroethene (TCE) and hexavalent chromium. The remedy is considered protective in
the short-term because the TCE and hexavalent chromium plumes are not migrating and
there is no evidence of current exposure. However, additional information/data is needed
to evaluate long-term protectiveness of the remedy; an updated Focused RI is underway
to obtain this information. The Focused FS that follows the RI will review optimization
of the current remedy, and will evaluate additional technologies that might either
complement the remedy or replace it. A long-term protectiveness determination will be
made when this study is complete, currently scheduled for 2013. The proposed goal is an
amended or new ROD for the site.
NTA Site: The remedy in place is protective of human health and the environment in the
short term.
environment.
The site has completed the remedial actions in accordance with RAOs set forth in the
1993 ROD. The site is closed upon Remedial Action Report being accepted in
January 2006. The remedy is protective of human health and the environment.
OU-3: The selected No Further Action (NFA) remedy is protective of human health

OU-4: No remedy has been determined to date but OU-4 being combined with OU-1.
The ground water associated with OU-4 is commingled with OU-1 and is currently not
migrating and there is no evidence of current exposure. A long-term protectiveness
determination will be made when the OU-1 study, which includes OU-4, is
complete (currently scheduled for 2013). The proposed goal is a ROD for OU-4.

The remedies completed or currently on-going at the site are protective of human health and the
environment in the short term. In order for all the remedies to be protective in the long term the
action items identified in the review need to be implemented.
ES-7
Final
September 2012

Introduction
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
The U.S. Air Force (USAF) has conducted a Five-Year Review of the remedial
action implemented at the Soldier Creek/Building 3001 Federal Facilities NPL Site at
Tinker Air Force Base (TAFB) in Oklahoma. The United States Environmental
Protection Agency (USEPA) has the authority to make the final determination concerning
the protectiveness of selected remedies at NPL sites pursuant to the FFA, 120 (e) and
CERCLA 121 (c). This Five-Year Review was prepared by the Environmental
Restoration Branch within the Tinker AFB Base Civil Engineering Directorate. The
primary purpose of these five-year reviews is to determine whether the remedies for the
NPL site remain protective of human health and the environment. The methods, findings,
and conclusions of reviews are documented in Five-Year Review reports. These reports
evaluate the status, implementation, operation and maintenance (O&M) and continued
protectiveness of remedies, as well as the continued appropriateness of the remedial
action objectives (RAOs), including cleanup levels, at a site. In addition, Five-Year
Review reports identify deficiencies and other issues, if any, found during the
assessment, and recommendations to address them.
This review is required by statute as defined in Section 121(c) of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as
amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986, and Section
300.430 (1) (4) (ii) of the National Oil and Hazardous Substance Contingency Plan.
Periodic (no less often than every five years) reviews must be conducted for sites where
hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remain at the site above levels that
allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure. The initial review period was
stipulated in the ROD signed in 1990 as five years after commencement of remedial
action...
Executive Order 12580 delegates the authority to conduct five-year reviews to the
Departments of Defense and Energy, where either the release is on or is from any facility
under the jurisdiction of those departments. In the Federal Facilities Agreement signed
on December 9, 1988 between the USAF, USEPA, and the Oklahoma State Department
of Health (succeeded by the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) in
1993), the USAF was established as the lead agency for remediation of the Soldier
Creek/Building 3001 NPL Site. This review is being conducted following USEPA
guidance (USEPA, 2001). This document constitutes the fourth Five-Year Review for
the Soldier Creek/Building 3001 NPL Site; the previous review was completed in
September 2007 (72 ABW/CEVPE, 2007).
The NPL site consists of four operable units. These are Building 3001 groundwater
(OU-1), Soldier Creek Sediment and Surface Water (OU-2), Soldier Creek Off-Base
Groundwater (OU-3), and the Industrial Wastewater Treatment Plant (IWTP)
Groundwater (OU-4). The focus of the current Five-Year Review however, is on OU-1
because the USAF has completed the remedial action (RA) associated with OU-2.
1-1
Final
September 2012

Introduction
USEPA Region 6 approved the Remedial Action Report for OU-2 in 2006 and the 2007
ROD for OU-3 identifies no further action as the selected remedy for that site. OU-4 is
not specifically addressed in this review since it is planned to be combined with OU-1;
the two OUs have been combined in an ongoing Phase II Focused Remedial
Investigation, due for completion in 2012, although no remedies have been selected for
OU-4 as of this date. Combining OU-1 and OU-4 will result in a comprehensive cleanup
decision for groundwater in the northeast quadrant of the Base. It should be noted that a
2007 addendum (SAIC, 2007) to a 2000 feasibility study at Building 3001 (Parsons ES,
2000a) also included OU-4. The addendum report was submitted to USEPA. Elements of
the report include: evaluation of site specific hydrogeologic and geochemical
characteristics, modeling of groundwater flow and solute transport, assessment of natural
attenuation capacity, and evaluation of remedial action alternatives for the OU-4 site.
The remedial actions selected in the 1993 ROD for the Soldier Creek Sediment and
Surface Water OU-2 have been completed; the initial five-year review was completed in
1998 and gained regulatory acceptance in October 2002. A Remedial Action Report
(RAR) was submitted, indicating completion of all construction activities for the remedial
action at OU-2 in accordance with the Close-Out Procedures for National Priorities List
Sites (USEPA OSWER Directive 9320.2-09A-P, January 2000). A letter dated
September 14th, 2004 was received from USEPA which confirmed that the remedial
action conducted at the site complied with the 1993 ROD. All site response actions,
including remedial actions were accomplished pursuant to, and in accordance with, the
requirements of the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability
Act (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq., and consistent with the National Contingency
Plan (NCP), 40 CFR Part 300. The RAR was accepted by the USEPA (USEPA Region 6
approved the Remedial Action Report for OU-2 on January 12, 2006) and a certificate of
completion was received in January 2006. Because no hazardous substances, pollutants
or contaminants remain at OU-2 above levels that allow for unlimited use and
unrestricted exposure, sampling has been discontinued and OU-2 is considered closed in
accordance with the RAR and ROD requirements. The USAF submitted the final FiveYear Review for OU-2 in 2007 as a separate document.
The 2007 ROD for the Soldier Creek Groundwater OU-3 notes that no active
remediation is required for this OU. The selected remedy was no further action (NFA)
because no contaminants of concern attributable to Tinker AFB were identified, although
the Air Force continues to verify that conditions preventing the migration of impacted
groundwater from Tinker AFB to OU-3 remain in place. The selected remedy for OU-3
was chosen in accordance with the CERCLA, as amended by the Superfund
Amendments, and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA) (42 U.S.C 9601 et. seq.), and,
to the extent practicable, the NCP (40 C.F.R. Part 300 et. Seq.).
Five-year reviews continue to be required for Building 3001 (OU-1) because
hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants remain at the site above levels that
allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure. Although the remedy at Pit Q-51 has
been completed, this location as well as the North Tank Area (NTA) is included in this
Five-Year Review since they are associated with OU-1. The five-year review period for
Tinker Air Force Base started in 1992; USEPA's database contains only one date field for
1-2
Final
September 2012

Introduction
the initiation of remedial action, and even though the ROD was signed in 1990,
September 30, 1992 is the review process start date. Thus, the first review was required in
September 1997.
Assessments from the three five-year reviews conducted to date concluded that the
remedies were constructed and operated in accordance with the requirements of the 1990
ROD. The NTA remedy continues to operate. However, data analysis concluded that the
extraction system implemented for remediation of the Building 3001 groundwater would
not attain the goal of reaching contaminant levels that allow for unlimited use and
unrestricted exposure in a reasonable time frame since mass reduction had become
asymptotic. In 2003, prior to the last five year review, Tinker submitted an Explanation of
Significant Differences (ESD) to the USEPA requesting a temporary shutdown of the
extraction wells around Building 3001 in order to obtain 'pre-system operation' ambient
and hydrogeologic conditions, to monitor plume stability, and to evaluate the efficacy of
the extraction and treatment system at OU-1. This additional data is intended for use in
optimizing the remediation of the groundwater contaminant plume under Building 3001.
In May 2003, USEPA concurred with the submitted ESD and its activities began to be
implemented in March 2004. The temporary shutdown is currently slated to continue at
least through March 2013. Monitoring of the plumes and data collection has continued
throughout the shutdown period.
During the past five year period, discussion with the USEPA regarding OU-1
resulted in a decision to have TAFB perform a Focused RI which includes both OU-1 and
OU-4 and addresses remaining groundwater issues at the NPL site, and then complete a
focused feasibility study. Phase I of the focused RI was completed November 2010. The
purpose of the RI was to (1) develop a groundwater flow and transport model to evaluate
groundwater contaminant migration from the Building 3001 OU and IWTP OU and (2)
develop a multi-phase model to assess TCE vapor migration in the vadose zone beneath
Building 3001 which permits evaluation of soil vapor extraction (SVE) as a potential
alternative to address the vapor intrusion pathway. In addition, a primary objective of the
RI was to evaluate the potential for impact to the underlying Producing Zone (PZ) from
vertical leakage of contaminated groundwater through the PZ aquitard.
A Remedial Alternatives Evaluation Report for Building 3001 and Industrial
Wastewater Treatment Plant Groundwater Operable Units (OU-1 and OU-4) based on
early findings from the ongoing RI was completed in August 2011. The report evaluates
potential remedial alternatives for addressing groundwater contamination associated with
OU-1 and OU-4.
The Phase I RI report concluded that additional work was necessary at OU-1 since
wells installed in the south portion of Building 3001 as part of the RI identified an area of
high TCE concentrations in groundwater in an area not previously investigated. The
result is that a Phase II RI is underway. Once complete, a focused feasibility study will
incorporate all information gathered at the site. The feasibility study will review
additional technologies to either supplement or replace the existing extraction system at
OU-1 and to evaluate technologies with regard to vapor intrusion mitigation. Information
gathered under the focused remedial investigation in conjunction with the remedial
1-3
Final
September 2012

Introduction
alternatives report and the feasibility study is anticipated to culminate in an amended or

new ROD for the combined OU-1 and OU-4 site.
1-4
Final
September 2012

Site Chronology
SECTION 2
SITE CHRONOLOGY
Tinker AFB began industrial processes in 1942 and disposed of industrial wastes onbase until 1979. Following enactment of RCRA in 1976 and CERCLA in 1980,
environmental restoration activities were initiated at the Building 3001 OU-1 and other
contaminated areas of the Base. In 1981, the Secretary of Defense established the
Defense Installation Restoration Program (IRP) to investigate and remediate Department
of Defense sites, and to comply with the requirements of RCRA and CERCLA. A
chronology of the environmental restoration process at the Soldier Creek/Building 3001
NPL Site is provided in Table 2.1.
Table 2.1
Investigation/Activity
Chronology of Activities for the NPL Site

Description
Event Date (Source)
IRP Phase I records search

conducted
Records search conducted to identify past

waste disposal activities that may have
caused environmental contamination.
1981 (Engineering
Science, 1982)
Underground Storage Tanks

removed at the NTA
Two tanks (800-gallon waste oil tank and

13,000-gallon gasoline tank) removed at the
NTA.
1983-1985 (Battelle,
1993)
IRP Phase II
Confirmation/Quantification
investigation conducted
TCE detected in groundwater in the vicinity

of Building 3001.
1983 (Radian, 1985a

and 1985b)
Supply wells in Building

3001 taken out of service
Water supply wells (WS-18 and WS-19)

located inside Building 3001 taken out of
service.
1984 (Engineering
Enterprises, 1984)

3001 plugged
WS-18 and WS-19 located inside Building

3001 plugged.
1986 (Dansby &

Associates, 1986)
Remedial investigation (RI)

and risk assessment
conducted
Pit Q-51 identified as containing hazardous

contaminants. Investigation conducted to
determine nature and extent of
contamination.
1986-1987 (United
States Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE),
1988a and 1988b)
NPL listing
Soldier Creek/Building 3001 added to the

NPL.
July 22, 1987
Building 3001 ROD
Remedies defined for Building 3001

Groundwater, Pit Q-51, and the NTA.
August 16,1990
(USACE, 1990b)
Pit Q-51 RA
Pit Q-51 removed and capped. Decision and

Closeout Documents issued.
June 12, 1991 (Oklahoma

City/Air Logistics Center
(OC-ALC), 1991a and
1991b)
2-1
Final
September 2012

Table 2.1
Site Chronology
Chronology of Activities (continued)

Description
Event Date (Source)
RI of Surface and
Subsurface Contamination
of Soldier Creek OU
Investigation conducted to determine nature

and extent of surface (sediment and surface
water) and groundwater contamination.
1991 (B&V Waste

Science & Technology
for USACE)
NTA RA
Waste tank removed, gasoline tanks

removed/upgraded, fuel oil tank demolished
and closed in place. Free product removal and
vapor extraction initiated.
1992-1994 (Parsons
Engineering Science,
Incorporated (Parsons
ES) and Battelle, 1994)
Building 3001 Groundwater Building 3001 Groundwater Treatment Plant

RA
and recovery well system startup
1993 (Parsons, 1998b)
RI of IWTP/Soldier Creek
Off-Base Groundwater
OU-3
Updated focused investigation conducted to

determine nature and extent of groundwater
contamination.
1993-1998 (Parsons
ES)
Soldier Creek/IWTP
Baseline Risk Assessment
Baseline Risk Assessment for Soldier Creek
1998 (Parsons ES)
First Five-Year Review
Documented efficacy and protectiveness of

remedies-in-place for Building 3001 site, Pit
Q-51, and the NTA.
1998 (Parsons, 1998b)
FS IWTP/Soldier Creek
Off-Base Groundwater
OU-3
Feasibility Study conducted for the

IWTP/Soldier Creek Off-Base Groundwater
OUs addressing the areas north and south of
the hydro-geologic (flow) divide with
separate actions for each side.
2000 (Parsons ES)
Second Five Year Review

remedies-in-place, and provided an ESD for
optimizing the Building 3001 remedy-inplace.
2003 (OC-ALC/EMPE,
2003)
Final Report IWTP/Soldier

Creek Off-Base GW OUs
GW Treatment System
Expansion (OU-3)
IRA implementation report for additional GW

recovery wells (added to B3001 system) for
the cleanup of south-side of the hydrogeologic (flow) divide.
2002 - 2004 (Parsons

ES)
Implement
Recommendations of ESD
Shut down Building 3001 GWTP and well

field. Monitor groundwater and contaminant
concentration rebound associated with
Building 3001 site.
April 2004, (OCALC/EM, 2007 and

USEPA, 2007b)
Third Five Year Review

remedies-in-place and initiated Phase I
Focused Remedial Investigation
2007 (72 ABW/

CEVPE, 2007)
2-2
Final
September 2012

Table 2.1
Site Chronology
Chronology of Activities (continued)
Description
Supplemental Assessment
(and Addendum) for
Soldier Creek Groundwater
OU-3
Focused Feasibility Study and updated Risk

Assessment conducted for the IWTP /SC OffBase GW, north of the Hydro-geologic flow
divide.
2007 (SAIC)
Soldier Creek Off-Base

Groundwater OU-3 ROD
Remedies defined and selected for OU-3, No

Further Action
2007 (SAIC)
Phase I RI
Initiated Phase II Focused Remedial

Investigation/Feasibility Study
2010 (72 ABW/CEPR,

2010)
2-3
Event Date (Source)
Final
September 2012

Background
SECTION 3
BACKGROUND
3.1
PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS
The Soldier Creek/Building 3001 NPL Site is located within the northeast quadrant
of Tinker AFB, OK. Included in the NPL site are the main branch of Soldier Creek and
all tributaries of Soldier Creek originating on Tinker AFB. The Soldier Creek/Building
3001 NPL Site is divided into four distinct areas for remediation. Each of these areas is
designated as an operable unit (OU). OU-2, covered in a separate review completed in
2007, encompasses the Soldier Creek Sediment and Surface Water. OU-3, which deals
with the Soldier Creek Off-Base Groundwater (SCOBGW), is handled through the 2007
site ROD, which specifies no further action and therefore no five-year review is required.
OU-4, which does not have a final ROD in place at this time and is planned on being
combined with OU-1, covers the Industrial Wastewater Treatment Plant (IWTP)
groundwater. OU-1, the focus of this five-year review, is discussed in more detail in this
report.
OU-1 encompasses the groundwater contamination from sources associated with
Building 3001. OU-1 includes the Building 3001 building complex (covering 50 acres),
Pit Q-51, the NTA, and the surrounding areas encompassed by the lateral extent of the
groundwater solvent contaminant plume emanating from Building 3001. OU-1 covers
approximately 220 acres. Though encompassed by OU-1, Pit Q-51 and the NTA are
separate RAs within its boundaries.
Building 3001 is the largest active industrial facility at Tinker AFB. Tinker AFB
borders the Oklahoma City metropolitan area, which had a population of 506,132 in 2000
(United States Department of Commerce, 2000). The base employs approximately
24,000 personnel (72nd ABW and Parsons, 2005e).
Since Tinker AFB is within the recharge zone of the Garber-Wellington aquifer, a
potable water supply for the base and the surrounding communities, OU-1 is considered
to be in an environmentally sensitive area. In addition, OU-1 borders OUs-2, -3, and -4,
which also encompass surface waters and groundwater associated with the Soldier Creek
watershed.
3.2
LAND AND RESOURCE USE
3.2.1 Building 3001 Site

Prior to 1941, the property on which Tinker AFB is located was undeveloped pasture
and prairie lands; there was some agricultural activity and ranching but no known
industrial uses before that date. In 1941, 960 acres of land to the west of the B3001
location were donated to the Army Air Corps by the City of Oklahoma City for the
construction of the Midwest Air Depot. The depot site was renamed Tinker Field in 1942.
Around the same time, Douglas Aircraft began construction of the building known today
3-1
Final
September 2012

Background
as Building 3001, the location of OU-1. In 1945, the aircraft plant was turned over to the
Army Air Corps and became a government facility, being incorporated into Tinker Field.
In 1948, Tinker Field was renamed Tinker Air Force Base. Today, the base covers 5,033
acres (72nd ABW and Parsons, 2005e).
OU-1 lies in the most industrialized area of the base. The Building 3001 complex
has been involved in reconditioning, modifying, and modernizing aircraft, including jet
engine overhaul and missile repair. The industrial processes used or generated solutions
containing organic chemicals including trichloroethylene (TCE), tetrachloroethylene
(PCE) and metals such as hexavalent chromium. Fuels for the boiler system included No.
2 fuel oil stored at the NTA. Diesel, gasoline, and waste oil were also stored at the NTA.
Currently, Building 3001 is under a ten phase renovation program scheduled for
completion in 2020 (72nd ABW and Parsons, 2005e).
3.2.2 Soldier Creek Site

The Soldier Creek OU includes creek tributaries, as well as any area underlying or
adjacent to the waterway that may have been contaminated by the migration of hazardous
substances, pollutants or contaminations from Tinker AFB. The main portion of Soldier
Creek is to the east of Tinker AFB; however, two unnamed tributaries (East Soldier
Creek and West Soldier Creek) originate on-base. The main branch of Soldier Creek
flows to the north from its headwaters near Southwest 59th Street to its confluence with
Crutcho Creek, approximately 6 miles downstream. OU-2 incorporates sediment and
surface water of East Soldier Creek from its origination on Tinker AFB southeast of
Building 3001 to its intersection with Interstate 40 (I-40) northeast of the Base, as well as
sediment and surface water of West Soldier Creek, which originates west of Building
3001, to where it passes under I-40 north of the Base. OU-3 roughly includes
groundwater northeast of Building 3001 between the Soldier Creek segments of OU-2 to
the east and west and a hydro-geologic (flow) divide and I-40 to the south and north. OU4 includes the groundwater under the Industrial Wastewater Treatment Plant (IWTP),
groundwater north of Building 3001 but south of the hydro-geologic (flow) divide, and
groundwater east of Building 3001 between the building and East Soldier Creek.
3.2.3 Surrounding Community

The Soldier Creek/Building 3001 NPL Site lies within an area representing transition
from residential and industrial/commercial land use on the north and west to agricultural
land use to the east and south. Soldier Creek and its tributaries, which flow northwest
through the area, are bordered mainly by recreational and residential areas with some
areas supporting commercial and industrial land use. Some off-base industries, such as a
metal plating facility and a dry cleaning facility, and other commercial facilities such as
gas stations and auto repair facilities are located within the drainage basin. In addition,
three schools, Soldier Creek Elementary, Steed Elementary, and Monroney Junior High
are located within the drainage basin. Ten public parks are within the general vicinity of
Tinker AFB, including the Joe B. Barnes, Fred F. Meyers, Kiwanis, and Lions Parks. A
public golf course is also located north of the base. Five mobile home parks are located
north and northeast of Tinker AFB.
3-2
Final
September 2012

Background
The land use plan for the area immediately north of Tinker AFB, between Sooner
Road and Douglas Boulevard includes all levels of land use. The areas between Sooner
Road and Midwest Boulevard are zoned primarily for housing (single and multifamily
units) and low to medium commercial use. The area between Midwest Boulevard and
Douglas Boulevard is zoned primarily for heavy commercial and moderate to heavy
industrial use.
Soldier Creek, which includes tributaries originating on Tinker AFB and flows
through adjacent neighborhoods, is reportedly used for wading and playing by area
children and is large enough to support edible fish. No hunting or fishing has been
reported to occur in the immediate area outside of Tinker AFB, and hunting and fishing
are not permitted on Base. Beneficial uses of Soldier Creek include agriculture,
secondary recreation, process and cooling water, and aesthetics. Soldier Creek also
supports a warm-water aquatic community.
The off-base properties within the Soldier Creek/Building 3001 NPL Site include the
former Kimsey Addition to the north (now undeveloped acreage), along with
commercial/retail establishments and mobile homes to the northeast. The Kimsey
Addition was a residential area consisting of approximately 100 homes adjacent to Tinker
AFB. Oklahoma County purchased all of the properties in the Kimsey Addition, and
demolished or removed all structures within the addition by the end of 2003. Oklahoma
County converted the former addition to an entry gate and security buffer zone for Tinker
AFB, and is operating the area in a manner to protect the airfield and associated clear
zone and/or accident potential zone. Commercial/retail facilities to the northeast between
Tinker AFB and East Soldier Creek include convenience stores and self-storage units.
The remainder of the site east of Douglas Boulevard and northwest of East Soldier Creek
is undeveloped between the Evergreen Mobile Home Park and Interstate 40.
3.2.3 Human and Ecological Use of Resources

The most important source of potable groundwater in the Oklahoma City
metropolitan area is the Central Oklahoma aquifer, which is commonly referred to as the
Garber-Wellington (G-W) aquifer. Tinker AFB presently obtains most of its water
supply from wells that are screened in the G-W aquifer, although some additional water
is purchased from the City of Oklahoma City and used in Building 9001, a former
General Motors assembly plant now leased to the Air Force. Base wells range from 600
to 800 feet in total depth, with yields ranging from 205 to 250 gallons per minute (gpm).
These wells draw water from deeper portions of the Garber-Wellington (in general below
200 feet). Tinker AFB, along with nearby municipalities that operate water supply wells,
obtains groundwater from this uncontaminated portion of the aquifer. Private domestic
wells near the Base are generally completed in the upper levels of the Garber-Wellington.
However, Tinker AFB is unaware of any domestic water use in the immediate vicinity of
the northeast corner of the Base, the area closest to OU-1. All of the water supply wells
on Tinker AFB are routinely sampled for contaminants.
At Tinker AFB, the Garber-Wellington aquifer has been classified as a Class IIA
aquifer by the State of Oklahoma, indicating that it provides groundwater from a major,
unconfined basin that is capable of being used as a drinking water supply with little or no
3-3
Final
September 2012

Background
treatment (OAC 785:45-7-3). The western portion of the G-W aquifer basin, which
extends from the west side of the base to just west of Oklahoma County, is classified as a
Class IIC aquifer, a major confined groundwater basin. The nearby communities of
Midwest City and Del City also derive a portion of their water supply from this aquifer.
3.3
HISTORY OF CONTAMINATION
Early site evaluation via the USAF Installation Restoration Program (IRP) Phase I
study identified potential sources of contamination through records searches and reviews
of waste management practices (Engineering Science, 1982). The first report of a release
to the environment occurred in 1983 during routine wellhead sampling and testing. TCE
and PCE were detected in two of the base water supply wells (WS-18 and WS-19) at
Building 3001. A Phase II IRP investigation was conducted in 1983 to confirm and
quantify contamination resulting from past waste storage practices at Building
3001(Radian, 1985a and 1985b). Sampling was also initiated at East and West Soldier
Creek in 1984. Sample results indicated the presence of chromium and solvent
contamination in the sediment and surface water. In 1985, fuel and free product
contamination were found at the NTA. In September 1987, the Soldier Creek/Building
3001 Site was rated under the hazard ranking system with a score of 42.24 and was
placed on the NPL (scores of 28.5 or higher are generally eligible for the NPL). A
chronology leading to the NPL listing is provided in Table 3.1.
RIs were conducted at the Building 3001 OU between 1986 and 1987 to determine
the nature and extent of contamination associated with Building 3001, the NTA, and Pit
Q-51. For OU-1, the areas with highest concentrations of groundwater contamination
were located beneath Building 3001 and the NTA, (shown on Figure 3.1). TCE is the
primary organic groundwater contaminant of concern (COC). Originally, the highest TCE
concentration at the site was 330 mg/L in the north portion of the building. During the
recent Phase I Focused RI, a concentration of 770 mg/L was noted in a new well at the
south end. TCE is also widespread, extending greater than 1000 feet beyond the Building
3001 perimeter. For metals, hexavalent chromium is recognized as the primary COC due
to high concentrations, although the plume extent is limited to a small area within the
building footprint. Other significant contaminants include dichloroethylene, PCE,
acetone, toluene, benzene, xylenes, lead, and nickel. Barium was identified in the original
investigations, but has since been determined to be naturally occurring, as has the
trivalent species of chromium. Samples collected from sludge in Pit Q-51 in 1986
indicated TCE, cadmium, total chromium, and lead contamination. Leakage from this pit
and other similar structures is considered a primary source of soil and groundwater
contamination beneath B3001. Fuel product in the form of No. 2 fuel oil was discovered
beneath a leaking 235,000 gallon underground storage tank (UST) at the NTA. As a
result, the soils and groundwater beneath the NTA and the north end of Building 3001
were heavily contaminated with fuel and other organic compounds.
Groundwater used by residents and the work force of Tinker AFB was identified as
an exposure pathway. Potential points of exposure included water supply wells and
discharge to surface water bodies. Exposure with long-term health effects was deemed a
possibility in the 1988 baseline risk assessment (USACE, 1988b).
3-4
Final
September 2012

Table 3.1
Background
Chronology of Activities for Building 3001 OU
Description
Event Date (Source)
IRP Phase I records search

conducted
Records search conducted to identify past waste

disposal activities that may have caused
environmental contamination.
1981 (Engineering
Science, 1982)
USTs removed at NTA
Two tanks (800-gallon waste oil tank and

13,000-gallon gasoline tank) removed at NTA.
1983-1985 (Battelle,
1993)
IRP Phase II
Confirmation/Quantification
TCE detected in groundwater in the vicinity of

Building 3001.
1983 (Radian, 1985a

and 1985b)

3001 taken out of service
Water supply wells (WS-18 and WS-19) located

inside Building 3001 taken out of service.
1984 (Engineering
Enterprises, 1984)

3001 plugged
Water supply wells (WS-18 and WS-19) located

inside Building 3001 plugged.
1986 (Dansby &

Associates, 1986)
Remedial investigation and

risk assessment conducted
Pit Q-51 identified as containing hazardous

contaminants. Investigation conducted to
determine nature and extent of contamination.
1986-1987 (USACE,
1988a and 1988b)
NPL listing
Soldier Creek/Building 3001 added to the NPL
July 22, 1987
3.4
INITIAL RESPONSE
The USEPA, USAF, and Oklahoma State Department of Health (succeeded by the
ODEQ in 1994) signed a Federal Facilities Agreement (FFA) in December 1988
designating the USAF as the only Potentially Responsible Party. Response actions
initiated prior to the August 1990 ROD are discussed below.
Between 1983 and 1985, two USTs, Tank 3403 (800 gallon waste oil tank) and Tank
3405 (13,000 gallon leaking gasoline tank), were removed from the NTA. Inside of
Building 3001, the contents of three pits containing solvent and metals contamination
were removed in 1985. The pits were backfilled and capped with concrete. Water supply
wells WS-18 and WS-19, also located inside Building 3001, were plugged and
abandoned in 1986. Water supply well 17, located just southeast of the south end of
Building 3001 at the northeast corner of Building 3105, was plugged in 1988.
3.5
BASIS FOR TAKING ACTION AT BUILDING 3001 OU-1
A Risk Assessment of the Building 3001 site was conducted in August 1988
(USACE, 1988b). The assessment was based on identification of thirty-two chemicals
during an early remedial investigation (USACE, 1987), twenty-four of which were
organic and eight inorganic. From these, seven indicator chemicals were selected based
on toxicity, mobility, frequency of detection, and concentration. TCE and hexavalent
chromium were eventually designated as the two primary COCs in the 1990 ROD based
on the 1988 risk assessment (USACE 1988). TCE was the most frequently detected
chemical in the three aquifer zones identified at the site, was the most aerially
widespread, and occurred at the highest concentration (330 mg/L). Hexavalent
3-5
Final
September 2012

Background
chromium, although not as widespread as TCE, was detected at concentrations as high as

80 mg/L.
The 1988 risk assessment determined that the only potentially complete exposure
pathways at the Soldier Creek/Building 3001NPL Site are groundwater beneath the site
and surface water in Soldier Creek. Groundwater is used as a drinking water supply on
the base and workers might contact groundwater directly during construction activities.
The latter is however controlled today by an established institutional control policy and
required dig permits in accordance with the Tinker Air Force Base General Plan (in
compliance with Air Force Instruction 32-7062), Routes of exposure via a potential
contaminated drinking water supply include ingestion, dermal contact, and inhalation
(from showers and industrial processes). Much of the risk related to water supply wells
has been removed however as wells inside and near the building have been plugged. In
addition, work under the recent Phase I Focused RI suggests that the intervening aquitard
between contaminated groundwater in the LSZ and uncontaminated water in the
Producing Zone (which supplies potable water to Base water supply wells), permits only
limited flux of groundwater across it. Because the closest existing water supply well,
WS-13, is located roughly 1000 feet southeast of contaminant plumes in the LSZ, and is
completed below the aquitard, the potential for a completed drinking water pathway is
low.
The risk originally attributed to Soldier Creek surface water has also been mitigated.
The potential for the upper aquifer contamination (Upper Saturated Zone) to migrate
towards Soldier Creek is no longer considered valid as current hydro-geologic models
document that no hydraulic connection allowing migration from the aquifer to this creek
exists on Base. In addition, creek sediment along segments on base have been
remediated as part of OU-2 activities and outfalls from Building 3001 are regulated.
Recently however, vapor intrusion, potentially sourced in part by dissolved phase
solvents under Building 3001, has been recognized as a potential exposure pathway. This
is being addressed under the ongoing Phase II Focused RI.
Hexavalent chromium is a human health threat and a human carcinogen. TCE is a
probable human carcinogen. Both compounds are extremely mobile in groundwater. The
Building 3001 RA was designed to prevent a further increase in risk due to continuing
migration toward off-base receptors and the deeper portion of the aquifer in which water
supply wells are completed. The RA at Pit Q-51 was designed to mitigate direct
exposure to TCE by on base workers. The NTA RA was designed to remove the threat of
free product and vapor exposure to on-base workers (USACE, 1990b). Risk due to Pit Q51 has been removed. However concentrations of various chemicals remain in soils and
groundwater at OU-1.
3-6
Final
September 2012
NTA
IWTP
WS-19
GWTP
<
&
Building
3001
WS-18
<
&
Pit
Q-51
<
&
WS-13
<
&
<
&
Water Supply Well
Water Supply Well - Plugged

Building 3001
TAFB Boundary
Figure 3.1
Building 3001 OU Location Map
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma

Remedial Actions
SECTION 4
REMEDIAL ACTIONS
The selected remedy for OU-1 addressed three components: the groundwater
associated with Building 3001 activities, Pit Q-51 contaminants, and the NTA impacts.
This section discusses the components and operation and maintenance (O&M) aspects of
the OU-1 remedial actions. This section will focus on the remedial actions relating to
the OU-1 sites as the remedy has been completed for OU-2 and there is no further action
required for OU-3. OU-4 has no remedy determined to date and is being combined with
OU-1.
Between startup of the Building 3001 groundwater remedy (pump and treat) in 1994
and temporary shutdown of the system in 2004, significant quantities of solvents and
hexavalent chromium were removed. However, groundwater concentrations remain
above maximum contaminant levels (MCLs).
4.1
REMEDY SELECTION
4.1.1 Building 3001 ROD (OU-1)

The Building 3001 ROD, signed in August 1990, prescribed remedies for
groundwater contamination and contaminant sources at Building 3001. The RAs selected
in the 1990 ROD incorporated the following components:
Building 3001 Groundwater
Installation of monitoring wells to monitor groundwater contaminant plumes.
Extraction of contaminated groundwater from the perched water zone, top of
regional water zone, and regional water zone by exterior and interior extraction
wells.
Treatment of the contaminated groundwater in a treatment facility constructed
specifically for the Building 3001 RA.
Treatment of volatile contaminants by air stripping and carbon adsorption.
Treatment of metals by chemical reduction and precipitation.
Reuse of the treated water in Tinker AFBs industrial operations.
Disposal of the sludge from groundwater treatment operations at an offsite
RCRA-permitted facility approved to receive CERCLA waste.
Pit Q-51
Removal of approximately 45 gallons of liquid.
Steam cleaning of the pit, analysis of the liquid and wash water, and disposal of
wastes in a facility that is approved to receive CERCLA waste.
Backfilling of the pit with sand and covering with an 8-inch thick concrete cap.
4-1
Final
September 2012

NTA
Remedial Actions
Installation of a floating fuel product removal system to recover fuel floating

above the groundwater table.
Disposal of the recovered fuel at a RCRA-approved facility.
Installation of a vapor extraction system to remove fuel vapors from the
subsurface soils.
Removal and disposal of a 750-gallon waste tank and proper closure of a
235,000-gallon fuel oil UST.
4.1.1.1 Explanation of Significant Differences

In May 2003, USEPA concurred with a Tinker AFB submitted ESD application with
the purpose of conducting an optimization study of the Building 3001 RA. The
optimization study would include the temporary shut-down of the Groundwater
Treatment Plant (GWTP) and extraction well field. The GWTP shut-down would reestablish a baseline condition for comparability to future actions and to assess rebound of
contaminant concentrations and groundwater elevations. The optimization study has been
collecting past and current data associated with this shutdown which is used in support of
the ongoing Phase II Focused RI. Long term monitoring (LTM) information is evaluated
during the shutdown to determine whether the plume is in equilibrium or migrating, and
whether the current remedial action is protective of human health and the environment.
The actions proposed in the ESD were implemented on March 29, 2004. A tracer
test, which focused on the OU-1/OU-4 area, was completed with the results provided
under the November 2009 report Use of Environmental Forensics For TCE Plume
Delineation. The evaluation of potential vertical migration from the Lower Saturated
Zone to the Producing Zone (PZ) and to nearby water supply wells was evaluated at OU1 as part of the 2010 Phase I Focused RI. Results of the focused RI (Phase 1) indicate that
the aquitard between these hydrostratigraphic units is competent and that it is unlikely
that contaminants will spread to the deeper zone. The GWTP and extraction well field
were shut down, and the aquifer was allowed to begin recovery. LTM of the sentry wells
continues, and based on results of groundwater sampling, the groundwater plume is not
migrating at an unacceptable rate. Annual technical reports are submitted to the USEPA
which document changes to the groundwater plumes and which have included requests
for continued approval for system shut down as the evaluation continues.
Analytical data from wells within the solvent and hexavalent chromium plumes also
indicate that the plumes are relatively stable and do not pose any immediate threat to
human health or safety on-base or off-base. Although bioremediation possibilities and
center of mass calculations have not been completed, the data was incorporated into the
current Focused RI/FS activities. Data is still being collected for evaluation of the system
and optimization of future remedial activities. Collected data is being summarized and
evaluated as part of optimization determination of the Phase II Focused RI/FS report.
4-2
Final
September 2012

Remedial Actions
4.1.2 Soldier Creek Sediment and Surface Water ROD (OU-2)

The 1993 ROD for OU-2 identified a limited action remedy to include: 1) a fiveyear monitoring program of the Soldier Creek sediment and surface water at (approved)
on-base and off-base locations, 2) an ecological investigation of OU-2 to further define
potential environmental risk, 3) annual monitoring reports to present and evaluate
monitoring results for levels exceeding health-based cleanup goals and finally, 4) a fiveyear ROD review.
4.1.3 Soldier Creek Off-Base Groundwater ROD (OU-3)

The remedy selected in the 2006 ROD for OU-3 is No Further Action unless there are
changes to the status of OU-3.
4.1.4 IWTP Groundwater (OU-4)

The selected remedy for OU-4 has not been identified as there is no ROD for this specific
OU. OU-4 is being combined with OU-1.
4.2 REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES
The remedial action objectives (RAOs) identified in the Building 3001 OU-1 Site
ROD for TCE and hexavalent chromium, the primary COCs, are 0.005 mg/L and 50
mg/L, respectively. The ROD was signed by representatives of the USAF and USEPA
Region 6 and filed in August 1990. In addition, the ESD and the responses to USEPA
comments to the ESD were recorded in 2002. In May 2003, USEPA concurred with the
Tinker AFB submitted ESD application.
ARARs reviewed included MCLs established under the Safe Drinking Water Act
(SDWA), Clean Air Act requirements related to the emission standards for ambient air
quality, and RCRA requirements for the management of hazardous waste.
The 1993 ROD for OU-2 identified the remedial action objectives for the five year
monitoring program to be the EPA acceptable carcinogenic risk range of 1.0 X 10-4 to
1.0 X 10-6. These objectives have been satisfied as reflected in the 2006 Remedial Action
Report and the site is considered closed.
There are no applicable remedial action objectives for the Soldier Creek Off-Base
Groundwater OU-3 site as the 2006 ROD selected remedy is No Further Action, unless
there are future changes to the status of the OU-3.
4.2.1 Building 3001

The RAOs for Building 3001 groundwater are SDWA MCLs, where established.
There have been no changes in MCLs or RAOs since the 2007 Five-Year Review.
4-3
Final
September 2012

Remedial Actions
4.2.1.1 NTA
At this time, groundwater ARARs at the NTA are the federal MCLs as promulgated
under the SDWA.
Because the NTA is a CERCLA site, MCLs are the primary ARARs for the site.
Since the previous five-year review, MCLs for the COCs have not changed.
4.2.1.2 Pit Q-51

Since the contents of Pit Q-51 were permanently removed from the Building 3001
site and disposed at a facility approved to receive the waste material, all ARARs have
been met.
4.2.2 Soldier Creek Sediment and Surface Water ROD (OU-2)

OU-2 has achieved the Remedial Action Objectives as reported in the January 2006
Remedial Action Report. US EPA issued a certificate of completion the same month.
4.2.3 Soldier Creek Off-Base Groundwater ROD (OU-3)

The remedy selected in the 2006 ROD is No Further Action unless there are changes to
the status of OU-3. Thus Remedial Action Objectives are not necessary.
4.3 REMEDY IMPLEMENTATION FOR OU-1
A chronology of the remedy development and implementation activities for OU-1 is
provided in Table 4.1.
Table 4.1 Summary of Remedy Development and Implementation Activities at OU-1
Investigation /Activity
Description
Date (and Source)
RI.
Determine extent of groundwater

contamination from Building 3001.
1988
(USACE, 1988a)
Feasibility study
conducted.
Feasibility study for Building 3001 site

evaluated alternatives for remediating
groundwater plume.
1988
(USACE, 1989b)
FFA signed.
Federal Facilities Agreement signed by

Tinker AFB, USEPA, and Oklahoma State
Department of Health.
December 1988 (USEPA,

1988)
Quarterly RI conducted.
Supplemental remedial investigation

conducted.
1988-1989 (USACE,
1989a)
ROD signed.
ROD for Building 3001 site, including Pit Q51 and NTA, signed. Identified selected
alternatives.
August 1990 (USACE,

1990b)
4-4
Final
September 2012

Table 4.1
Remedial Actions
Summary of Remedy Development and Implementation

Activities at OU-1 (continued)
Groundwater collection
pilot test conducted at
B3001.
Tested proposed groundwater collection and

treatment system on a small-scale.
September 1990
(USACE, 1990b)
Product recovery
initiated at NTA.
Product recovered from seven monitoring

wells installed at the NTA.
May 1991 (Battelle,

1993)
Additional recovery
wells installed at NTA.
Two product recovery wells (RC-1 and RC2) installed at NTA.
December 1991 (Camp

Dresser & McKee,
Incorporated (CDM)
Pit Q-51 remediated.
Pit Q-51 contents were removed and

disposed of off-site. Decision document
prepared. Site closed.
1991 (OC-ALC, 1991b)
Modeling and system

design conducted.
Modeled groundwater flow and designed

full-scale groundwater collection and
treatment system.
1991 (Black and Veatch

Waste Science and
Technology Corporation)
In-situ respiration and air

permeability tests in
NTA soils.
Two vapor extraction wells, five tri-level

vapor pressure monitoring points, and two
blower units were installed for in-situ
respiration and air permeability tests.
March 1992 (Battelle,

1993)
One UST removed, one

abandoned at NTA.
1,200 gallon sump pump tank removed in

April, and 235,000 gallon fuel oil tank
abandoned in place in May.
April and May 1992

(Parsons ES and Battelle,
1994)
Additional recovery
wells installed at NTA.
Four additional recovery wells (RC-3,RC-4,

RC-5, and RC-6) installed to enhance
product removal at the NTA.
September 1992 (Roy F.

Weston, 1992)
GWTP construction
initiated at Building
3001.
GWTP construction initiated and 33

groundwater extraction wells installed.
1992 (B&V, 1992a and

1992b)
GWTP construction
completed and
intermittent pumping
initiated.
GWTP construction completed and

intermittent pumping of Building 3001
groundwater plume initiated.
February 1993 (Tinker

AFB)
Fracturing demonstration
project conducted at
NTA.
Fracturing demonstration project was

conducted to determine if fracturing could
enhance product recovery at the NTA.
Summer 1993 (Parsons

ES & Battelle, 1994)
Focused remedial
at NTA.
Supplemental field investigation conducted

at the NTA to further delineate the extent of
product contamination.
October-December 1993
(Parsons ES & Battelle,
1994)
4-5
Final
September 2012

Table 4.1
Remedial Actions
Summary of Remedy Development and Implementation

Activities at OU-1 (continued)
Description
Date (and Source)
Building 3001 remediation

system evaluated.
Results from one full year of operation were

evaluated to evaluate progress and to determine
what ways the system could be optimized.
1996 (Parsons ES)
Building 3001 extraction

system evaluated.
Results from 2 years of groundwater extraction at

Building 3001 site were evaluated. Volume of
contamination removed and remaining in
groundwater estimated. Estimates of the time to
recover remaining contaminants were made.
September 1997
(Parsons ES)
First Five-Year Review for

the Soldier Creek/Building
3001 NPL Site.
Baseline documentation of the remedy

protectiveness for OU-1 and OU-2, and remedial
progress at OU-3 and OU-4.
September 1998
(Parsons ES, 1998a)
NTA Recovery System

upgrade.
Removed pneumatic free product recovery pumps

and installed vacuum enhanced pumping (VEP)
system for free product recovery.
January 1999 (Tetra

Tech)
Building 3001 Remedial

Process Optimization Study
AFCEE conducts pilot test on horizontal well

HW-2 to determine efficacy of soil vapor
extraction for this site.
December 2000
(Parsons)
Technical Assessment of the

Building 3001 GWTP
Assessed Building 3001 plume capture and

containment
February 2001,
(Parsons, 2001b)
Second Five-Year Review

for the Soldier
Creek/Building 3001 Site.
ESD for GWTP Temporary
Shutdown

remedies at OU-1and OU-2.
April 2003, (OCALC/EMPE)
ESD submitted to perform rebound testing of

groundwater and contaminant plumes
May 2003
(OC-ALC/EM)
Dual Phase Extraction and

Extended Soil Gas Vapor
Pilot Test
Conducted 9-month soil gas vapor test at HW-2 to

and 4-month dual phase extraction pilot test at
monitoring well 1-70B to compare viability and
efficacy of both removal technologies.
May 2003 through

April 2004 (Parsons)
GWTP Temporary
Shutdown
Groundwater treatment system shut down for

rebound testing in support of technical
impracticability data collection
April 2004 (Parsons,

2004b)
Remediation at NTA and

GWTP shutdown continued
at Building 3001 site.
Focused Remedial
Investigation & Feasibility
Study Report
Product recovery at NTA and rebound testing at

Building 3001 continued.
2004 ongoing
Focused RI report draft submitted and accepted by

USEPA with recommendations for phase II
November 2010
4-6
Final
September 2012

4.4
Remedial Actions
System Operation & Maintenance for OU-1
4.4.1 O&M Requirements

Elements of OU-1 that require potential O&M include: 1) the rebound test for the
ESD optimization study; 2) the extraction well field and groundwater transport system
associated with Building 3001 groundwater; 3) the GWTP for Building 3001
groundwater; and 4) the product recovery system at the NTA. The removal of the
contents from Pit Q-51 with off-base waste disposal is a permanent remedy and requires
no O&M.
4.4.1.1 REBOUND TEST FOR OPTIMIZATION STUDY
In May 2003, USEPA concurred with the Tinker AFB submitted ESD application.
The purpose of the 2003 ESD was to conduct an optimization study of the Building 3001
RA. The most conspicuous component of the optimization study is the shut-down the
GWTP and extraction well field. The principal objective of the shut-down is to reestablish a baseline condition for comparability to future actions and to assess rebound of
contaminant concentrations and groundwater elevations. Long term monitoring (LTM)
information is evaluated during the shutdown to determine whether the plume is stable or
migrating, and whether the current remedial action is protective of human health and the
environment.
The actions proposed in the 2003 ESD were implemented on March 29, 2004. The
GWTP and extraction well field were shut down, and the aquifer was allowed to begin
recovery. LTM of the sentry wells continues, and based on results of groundwater
sampling and modeling, the groundwater plume is not migrating at an unacceptable rate
(additional information supporting this is provided in section 6.3.2.2). The GWTP has
remained shut-down since 2004 while the B3001 Site is being re-evaluated.
Annual assessments of the Building 3001 OU groundwater contaminant plumes were
initiated in 2006 and are performed to insure that the GWTP shutdown does not create
additional risk to human health or the environment. The initial assessment (2006)
developed estimates of the contaminants removed during the operational life of the
GWTP, as well as an estimate of the remaining contamination in the aquifer under/around
Building 3001. The assessment clearly shows that the GWTP contaminant removal rate
became asymptotic after the first few years of groundwater pumping and that the current
extraction system will not accomplish the removal goals for the Building 3001 OU
groundwater established in the August 1990 ROD. Subsequent annual assessments have
found the B3001 contaminant plume is stable and no enhanced risk to human health or
the environment has been detected as further studies are being put in place to develop a
new remedial approach to the site.
In 2007, a Phase I Focused Remedial Investigation of OU-1 was initiated to collect
additional subsurface data and evaluate the potential to amend the August 1990 ROD
with an enhanced remedial system. Under the Phase I investigation, new monitoring
wells were installed in the southern half of B3001 and additional substantial VOC
groundwater contamination was identified. EPA concurred with the draft final version of
4-7
Final
September 2012

Remedial Actions
the Phase I report on April 26, 2011, and noted that additional investigation activities
were needed for Building 3001 to adequately define the nature and extent of the new
contamination. Additional resources are now being applied by the Air Force to a Phase II
Remedial Investigation of OU-1 designed to delineate contaminant sources and plume
extent in the southern half of B3001in order to obtain information to complete the
planned Focused Feasibility Study.
However, new contracting directives were
established by the Air Force that required all remedial activities on Tinker AFB to be
addressed through a performance based contract (PBC) with private industry. The PBC
initiative temporarily delayed further investigation; however, in July of 2011,
VERSAR/CH2M Hill was awarded the new contract and investigation of OU-1 was reinitiated.
4.4.1.2 EXTRACTION WELL FIELD & GROUNDWATER TRANSPORT SYSTEM
The Building 3001 extraction well network consists of 33 extraction wells installed
in three aquifer zones, as shown in the following Table 4.2. Current aquifer zone
nomenclature and original terminology used in the 1990 ROD are both listed. It should be
noted that the Top of Regional Aquifer (TOR)-series wells are completed primarily in the
upper portion of the Lower Saturated Zone (LSZ), but two of the wells also penetrate the
lower portion of the LSZ, also known as the Lower-Lower Saturated Zone (LLSZ).
Table 4.2
Groundwater Extraction Wells by Hydrogeologic Zone
Tinker AFB Groundwater

Conceptual Model (Tinker
AFB, 2012)
Upper Saturation Zone
(USZ)
LSZ
(upper )
LSZ
(lower)
U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers Designation
(USACE, 1988a)
P-1 through P-19
(Perched Aquifer)
TOR-1 through TOR-7
(Top of Regional
Aquifer)
R-1 through R-7
(Regional Aquifer)
Number of
horizontal wells
Number of
vertical wells
16
Each wellhead is contained in a below ground well vault containing the well head,
piping from the well into the pipe manifold which transports the water to the GWTP,
electrical equipment, and instrumentation. When operating, the pump in each well
pumps with sufficient head to carry the extracted water to the influent holding tank
located at the GWTP.
This system is operated and maintained by the same staff responsible for operating
the GWTP. Some requirements for the extraction and transport system overlap with the
GWTP requirements. See Section 4.4.1.3 for the delineation of the requirements
associated with staffing, reporting, emergency procedures, etc.
Specific O&M
requirements for this system are as follows:
4-8
Final
September 2012

1.
2.
3.
4.
Remedial Actions
Perform Daily Inspections and Operations Tasks - see that wells pump
according to schedule; observe equipment, instruments, and unit processes for
proper operation; maintain daily operating log in current condition; check
instruments, controls, and alarms for proper operation; check for visible sign of
leaks; collect samples; check sampling results and provide proper feedback to
well field operation and control.
Perform Periodic Inspections and Routine Maintenance of Equipment - perform
periodic inspections of pumps, valves, and piping to identify wear, needs for
special maintenance, and insure proper operation; perform lubrication at
specified intervals; perform cleaning at specified intervals or as required; repair
as necessary.
Perform Instrument Inspections and Calibration - periodically, at specified
intervals, inspect all instruments including meters, controllers, and electrical
equipment for proper working, needs for maintenance; clean; calibrate; repair as
necessary.
Perform Well Field Maintenance - perform periodic inspections of extraction
and monitoring wells; perform maintenance and well redevelopment tasks as
needed.
4.4.1.3 GWTP
The GWTP is contained in a pre-engineered metal building. This building also
contains chemical storage facilities, a maintenance area, and a control room, which
includes office space. The GWTP is located east of Building 3001 and lies within the
secured area of the base. An alarm on the door to the building alerts the on-duty operator
to the arrival of anyone into or out of the building.
The GWTP was designed with the following components:
An influent holding tank to which the extracted water is pumped.

An air stripper coupled with a vapor phase activated carbon system for the
removal of volatile organics.
A chemical reduction system for the reduction of hexavalent chromium.
A chemical precipitation system for the precipitation and removal of trivalent
chromium and other metals. This system consists of chemical addition systems,
flocculation, and sedimentation in an inclined plate settler.
Granular media filtration for the removal of additional suspended solids. This
filter is a "moving bed" type (Dynasand brand).
Sludge handling using a sludge holding tank, recessed plate filter press, and
thermal sludge dryer. Dried sludge is disposed in a RCRA landfill certified to
receive CERCLA wastes.
An effluent holding tank from which the treated water is pumped for reuse.
O&M requirements for the GWTP when operational are presented in several
categories as follows:
4-9
Final
September 2012

Remedial Actions
1.
Develop and Maintain Adequate Operations and Supervisory Staff - hire, train,
and supervise O&M staff.
2. Meet Performance Requirements - keep system running; keep down time to a
minimum; meet performance specifications including required effluent quality,
air quality, and sludge quality; and advise management of any major problems
or potential major problems.
3. Meet Reporting Requirements - perform system monitoring; collect required
data; perform laboratory audits, if required; develop and maintain system for
data management; submit reports as required; make notifications of abnormal
operating conditions; maintain daily operations logs, maintenance logs, spare
parts inventory, and other logs required; and perform all waste manifesting in a
timely manner.
4. Perform Daily Inspections and Operations Tasks- manage water flow through
system including associated air flows, sludge flows, and chemical feeds; observe
equipment, instruments, and unit processes for proper operation; maintain daily
operating log in current condition; check instruments, controls, and alarms for
proper operation; check for visible sign of leaks; collect samples; check
sampling results; and provide proper feedback to GWTP operation and control.
5. Perform Periodic Inspections and Routine Maintenance of Small Equipment perform periodic inspections to identify wear, needs for special maintenance,
and ensure proper operation; perform lubrication at specified intervals; perform
cleaning at specified intervals or as required; and repair as necessary.
6. Perform Instrument Inspections and Calibration - periodically, at specified
intervals, inspect all instruments for proper working and needs for maintenance;
clean; calibrate; and repair as necessary.
7. Perform Inspections and Maintenance of Major Equipment - inspect major
equipment (major rotating equipment, other equipment with moving parts, and
large and/or complicated pieces of equipment) at specified intervals; perform
routine maintenance including cleaning, lubrication, performance checks, etc.;
perform preventive maintenance tasks; repair, recoat, and replace as necessary;
and schedule next inspection.
8. Keep and Update Maintenance Records - using the prescribed system, keep
records up to date, regarding maintenance history, equipment replacement,
maintenance advisories, etc.
9. Perform Periodic Leak Inspections - in addition to daily observations for leaks,
make more thorough inspections on a periodic basis and report findings.
10. Perform Periodic Infrastructure Inspections - periodically inspect building,
loading/unloading areas, on-site maintenance area, and utilities supply points for
repair and maintenance needs and be aware of and correct any hazards to
operators, visitors, delivery personnel, etc.
11. Employ Proper Emergency Procedures - keep staff properly trained in
emergency operating procedures, response procedures, and safety practices and
update requirements as necessary.
4-10
Final
September 2012

Remedial Actions
12. Maintain Spare Parts Inventory - update inventory as parts are used and
periodically review and update required inventory based on maintenance history.
13. Review and Update O&M Manual and Operating Procedures - perform
periodically as required.
Because the system is currently not operational however, duties/tasks noted above
have been temporarily reduced or eliminated during shutdown.
4.4.1.4 PRODUCT RECOVERY SYSTEM AT NTA
The original design of the product recovery system specified a dual phase recovery
system consisting of a hydrocarbon recovery pump and a groundwater pump. The
groundwater pump was installed to create a groundwater cone of depression around the
wellbore so that the hydrocarbon pump could collect the floating phase-separated
hydrocarbon (free product). This system was installed in 1991. It was intended that the
water pumped from below the product would be discharged to the Building 3001
groundwater treatment system; however, this design approach was never realized based
on concerns that fuel could foul the filters of the organic treatment train at the treatment
plant. The pneumatic hydrocarbon pumps are still run intermittently to skim free product
from the surface of the water table in two of the recovery wells. An O&M manual was
developed for the system, which was expanded to a total of six extraction wells, including
submersible electric pumps and the pneumatic pumps. The original pumping schedule
and protocols are no longer used except for routine maintenance of the compressor and
repairs (Battelle, 1993).
Three additional dual pump pneumatic recovery wells were added in 1995 for a total
of nine recovery wells (Parsons ES, 1995). Two recovery wells were installed on the
west side of Building 3001 and one monitoring well was converted to a recovery well
north of the abandoned 235,000 gallon fuel tank. All pump controls are maintained
inside of a locked metal building within the fenced and secured compound.
4.4.2 O&M Activities for OU-1

O&M activities are conducted by experienced environmental contractors. The
contractor personnel are trained in operational and health and safety procedures relevant
to the job performed.
4.4.2.1
Rebound Test for Optimization Study
Groundwater sampling along with water level measurement activities have been
conducted by contractors to Tinker AFB. The basewide groundwater (BWGW) sampling
contractor during the last five-year review period has been Science Applications
International Corporation (SAIC). Baseline sampling was conducted by Parsons
Corporation in 2004, prior to system shutdown. The last BWGW report was completed
by SAIC in February 2011. Base-wide water levels were collected each 6 months by
SAIC at over 1,000 base monitoring points over a five-day period to provide a snap shot
of groundwater on a semi-annual basis. In addition, water levels are taken when each
monitoring well is sampled. Roughly 250 of these are located in and around OU-1.
4-11
Final
September 2012

Remedial Actions
4.4.2.2 EXTRACTION WELL FIELD & GROUNDWATER TRANSPORT SYSTEM

Since the last Five-Year Review, three different contractors have been responsible for
O&M of the extraction well and groundwater transport system, namely: December 2005,
Parsons Corporation from January 2006 through September 2008, EQM/AMEC October
2008 through March 2010, Bhate/CH2MHill from May 2010 through October 2011 and
VERSAR/CH2MHill November 2011 through the present. These contractors have been
responsible for the O&M of this system under contract to the Air Force. Additional
details of the operating arrangement appear in Section 4.4.2.2 below. O&M activities
related to the extraction and transport system include the necessary tasks to carry out the
responsibilities enumerated in Section 4.4.1.3
4.4.2.3 GWTP
Contractors have been, and continue to be under the PBC, responsible for operator
staffing, operator training, engineering support, system maintenance, monitoring, and
reporting results to the on-site Tinker AFB personnel. Some maintenance is performed
by the operations staff; other tasks are subcontracted to outside vendors. The contractor
has also been responsible for containerizing dewatered and dried sludge from the sludge
handling operation and recovered organics from the air stripping operation for shipment
offsite. This waste is transported and disposed under another Tinker AFB contract. The
contractors responsibilities at the GWTP begin at the influent holding tank (Tank T-1)
and continue to the pumping of treated effluent into the reuse system downstream of the
effluent holding tank (Tank T-2). Along with the treatment plant, the contractor has been
responsible for operating the extraction well field and transport system and monitoring
these components from the GWTP control room (see Section 4.4.1.3 above).
The GWTP was staffed with an operator 24 hours per day, 7 days per week when in
operation. Although the treatment plant is not currently operating, the on-site laboratory
is used periodically and the building is generally occupied on a regular eight-hour day
basis during weekdays to perform routine maintenance of the building and extraction well
system. Process engineering support has been available from a contractor staff person
located at the base, with oversight by government personnel. The O&M requirements are
enumerated in Section 4.4.1.2 above. Based on the inspections associated with this
project, all of the required activities are being effectively and regularly performed.
4.4.2.4 NTA PRODUCT RECOVERY SYSTEM
Since the last Five-Year Review in 2007, O&M of the product recovery system has
been operated by same contractor operating and maintaining the Building 3001 GWTP.
A VEP system was installed in 1999 and has been operating continuously since that time.
The treatment system consists of nine extraction wells for free product recovery. A high
vacuum liquid ring pump is used for vapor phase and liquid phase extraction. The
treatment system removes vapor, water, and free product from all of the extraction wells.
The O&M contractor maintains and monitors the system on a daily basis; however,
cycling of the system (two weeks on, one to six weeks off) was initiated in 2005. The
O&M contractor also performs weekly gauging of the tanks and monthly collection of
groundwater levels from site monitoring wells.
4-12
Final
September 2012

Remedial Actions
4.4.3 O&M COSTS FOR OU-1

Since the last five-year review the average annual operations and maintenance costs
for the Building 3001 treatment system have remained consistent at approximately
$150,000. For the NTA, average annual operating costs have remained stable around
$130,000. The remedy for Pit Q-51 requires no O&M expenditures.
4-13
Final
September 2012

Building 3001 NPL Site
Five-Year ReviewProgress
SECTION 5
PROGRESS SINCE LAST FIVE-YEAR REVIEW
5.1
PROTECTIVENESS STATEMENT FROM ROD
5.1.1 Building 3001 OU-1 1990 ROD

The 1990 ROD specifies remedial actions for OU-1 at Tinker. The 1990 ROD states:
The functions of these remedial actions are to remove, treat, and dispose of the
contaminated groundwater from beneath Building 3001; remove and dispose of the
contaminated pit contents from Pit Q-51; and remove and dispose of the fuel products in
the subsurface soils at the North Tank Area. These remedies are deemed protective of
human health and the environment.
The EPA reported that acceptable carcinogenic risks fall within the range of 1.0 X
10-4 to 1.0 X 10-6. The overall carcinogenic risk for the site if no action were taken is 1.2
X 10-5.
Risk characterization of the Building 3001 OU-1 site indicated potential for both
carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic health effects if no remedial action is taken. The
USEPA carcinogenic risks fall within the range of 1.0 X 10-4 to 1.0 X 10-6. For OU-1 the
Air Force determined the carcinogenic risk for long-term groundwater consumption was
1.2 X 10-5. For what would become OU-2 it was was calculated to be 6.9 x 10-6 for
consumption of fish from Soldier Creek. It is noted in the 1990 ROD that these numbers
would be reduced when the proposed remedial action is implemented. Section 12.1 of the
1990 ROD states: By removing and treating the contaminated groundwater, destruction
of the mobile contaminants including most of the known and suspected carcinogens will
be achieved. Thus, the selected RA would prevent the contaminants from migrating
further horizontally and vertically within the aquifer, reducing the risk of exposure to the
drinking water zones in the lower aquifer.
5.1.2 Soldier Creek Sediment and Surface Water OU-2 1993 ROD
The 1993 ROD for OU-2 identified a limited action remedy to include: 1) a five-year
monitoring program of the Soldier Creek sediment and surface water at (approved) onbase and off-base locations, 2) an ecological investigation of OU-2 to further define
potential environmental risk, 3) annual monitoring reports to present and evaluate
monitoring results for levels exceeding health-based cleanup goals and finally, 4) a fiveyear ROD review. In January of 2006, OU-2 obtained a certificate of completion from
US EPA thus the site RA completion is currently protective of human health and the
environment.
5.1.2 Soldier Creek off-base Groundwater OU-3 2007 ROD
The OU-3 2007 ROD declared that the completed 2007 supplemental assessment
identified no contaminants attributable to Tinker AFB (activities) in OU-3, therefore the
5-1
Final
September 2012

No Further Action alternative is appropriate for the site. The NFA status is currently
protective of human health and the environment.
5.2
PROTECTIVENESS STATEMENTS (PREVIOUS REVIEW 2007)
Building 3001
The previous five-year review states that The remedy in place is currently
protective of human health and the environment, during this period of system
optimization. Long-term protectiveness of the RA will be verified by continued
groundwater monitoring and characterization to fully evaluate potential migration and
impacts of the contaminant plume under Building 3001. (72 ABW/CEPR & Parsons,
2007).
NTA
The remedy in place is protective of human health and the environment (72
ABW/CEPR & Parsons, 2007). Institutional controls are discussed further in section
7.1.1.5.
Pit Q-51
The remedy in place is protective of human health and the environment (72
ABW/CEPR & Parsons, 2007).
5.3
STATUS OF RECOMMENDATIONS AND FOLLOW-UP ACTIONS FROM

PREVIOUS FIVE-YEAR REVIEW
5.3.1 Building 3001 Groundwater

Recommendation: Data gathered during the rebound shut down through 2007 was
incorporated into the Phase I Focused RI, and subsequently this information along with
post 2007 monitoring data will be included in the Phase II RI that is underway. The
focused RI effort will be followed by a feasibility study that will evaluate treatment
methods to initiate the next phase of treatment optimization.
Current Status: In addition to the continuing rebound study, the USAF and USEPA
agreed in 2007 to initiate a focused remedial investigation effort in order to update the
nature and extent of the contaminant plume and evaluate groundwater and analytical data
generated during the system shut down initiated by the 2003 ESD. Primary objectives
of the Focused RI consisted of field investigations to fill data gaps or supplement existing
information to the Building 3001 and IWTP GW OUs and to assess both OUs through
baseline predictive modeling and human health risk assessment (HHRA). USEPA
concurred with the draft final Phase I Focused RI report on April 26, 2011. This report
recommended a phase II of the focused RI effort be performed in order to collect
additional data in the vicinity of the newly discovered high chlorinated solvents
concentrations located at the southern end of Building 3001. Field work for the phase II
study was initiated in the spring of 2012. Results of the Phase II Focused RI are being
used to develop an alternatives evaluation for both OU-1 and OU-4 and will be compiled
5-2
Final
September 2012

in a Focused Feasibility Study Report due in early 2013. This includes an updated Risk
Assessment.
5.3.2 NTA
Recommendation: It was recommended that free product removal continue until
such time as the effectiveness and efficiency of the VEP system could be weighed against
the benefits of other remedial alternatives.
Current Status: The VEP system was evaluated under a remedial process
optimization (RPO) study in 2005 (Parsons, 2005d). Results of the RPO study indicated
that various components of the system needed repair and refurbishment. Also the study
indicated that the system was still approaching, but had not yet reached asymptotic levels
at that time. Refurbishments and repairs have been made, and various operating
sequences (e.g. cycling) have been employed in attempts to enhance free product
recovery. The VEP system continues to operate at the optimum level of efficiency for
this particular technology. The system, with groundwater extraction, is fulfilling all of the
protectiveness requirements outlined in the 1990 ROD.
5.3.3 Pit Q-51

Recommendation: Annual inspection of the concrete cap was recommended to
ensure that the cap integrity is maintained.
Current Status: Periodic inspections are conducted and there is no evidence that the
remedy is impaired.
5.4
RESULTS OF IMPLEMENTED ACTIONS AND ACHIEVEMENT OF

INTENDED EFFECT(S)
5.4.1 Building 3001 Groundwater

In May 2003, USEPA concurred with the Tinker AFB submitted ESD application.
The purpose of the ESD was to conduct an optimization study of the Building 3001 RA.
The most conspicuous component of the optimization study is the shutdown the GWTP
and extraction well field. The principal objective of the shutdown was to re-establish a
baseline condition for comparability to future actions and to assess rebound of
contaminant concentrations and groundwater elevations. Data associated with this
shutdown will support the ongoing focused RI/FS investigation and optimization efforts.
LTM information is evaluated during the shutdown to determine whether the plume is
stable or migrating, and whether the current remedial action is protective of human health
The actions proposed in the ESD were implemented on March 29, 2004. The GWTP
and extraction well field were shut down, and the aquifer was allowed to begin recovery.
LTM of the sentry wells continues, and based on results of groundwater sampling, the
groundwater plume is not migrating at an unacceptable rate (additional information
supporting this is provided in section 6.3.2.2). Therefore, the GWTP system has
remained shut down, with annual concurrence from the EPA, while the optimization
study continues.
5-3
Final
September 2012

Optimization of remedial plans was the original basis for the treatment system
shutdown. Evaluations that were proposed in the 2003 ESD and associated work plans
included are discussed in Section 7.1.1.1 and are the focus of ongoing remedial
investigations.
5.4.2 NTA
Free product removal continues using VEP. Other remedial alternatives are still
under consideration.
5.4.3 Pit Q-51

Periodic inspection of the concrete cap continues and ensures that the cap integrity is
maintained. There is no evidence that the remedy is impaired.
5.5
STATUS OF ANY OTHER PRIOR ISSUES
Previous Five-Year Review Memorandum - Actions Needed

For OU-1 there are no specific issues and/or action items brought forward from the
third Five-Year Review Report. Since then, Tinker AFB and USEPA agreed that a
Focused Remedial Investigation and Focused Feasibility Study would best describe the
current nature and extent of the contaminant plumes and the most efficient way to
proceed to remedying the site with regard to established clean up objectives set forth in
the 1990 ROD. The current effort is scheduled to be completed with a ROD amendment
or a new ROD in FY2013.
The OU-2 remedy was completed and closed in 2006 there are no issues or action
items brought forward from the previous Five-Year Review Report.
The OU-3 selected remedy of No Further Action was finalized in the 2007 ROD
there are no issues and/or action items brought forward from the previous Five-Year
Review Report.
5-4
Final
September 2012

Five-Year Review Process
SECTION 6
FIVE-YEAR REVIEW PROCESS
Site visits and interviews were conducted by Albert T. Aguilar, 72 ABW/CEPR from
April 13, 2012 through April 30, 2012 via email questionnaires. Site inspection
checklists for NTA and Building 3001 can be found in Appendix B. The current O&M
contractor for OU-1 is CH2M Hill (under subcontract to Versar). The prior O&M
contractors for the site were TTNUS (2003) and Dick Corporation (2004 through 2005).
Management responsibility for the Soldier Creek/Building 3001 Site is under the 72nd Air
Base Wing, Civil Engineering Directorate, Environmental Restoration Branch (72nd
ABW/CEPR). Both the environmental restoration branch and CH2M Hill maintain a
constant presence at the sites.
6.1
COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT
Community involvement was initiated at the April 10, 2012 restoration advisory
board (RAB) meeting by announcing that a Five-Year Review process was underway. In
addition, questions, comments, and concerns were solicited from the public during the
RAB meeting. Comments that have been received from the public can be in found in
Appendix B.
6.2
DOCUMENT REVIEW
Documents from the administrative record were reviewed in order to assess the
progress of actions taken at OU-1. The documents are listed in Table 4.1. In addition,
monitoring reports required under the ODEQ regulated RCRA program are referenced in
this section.
6.3
DATA REVIEW
6.3.1 Building 3001 Groundwater Treatment Plant (GWTP) System Performance

No GWTP performance data has been collected since the USEPA authorized
shutdown of the GWTP in March 2004, which occurred prior to publishing the last FiveYear Review report. An assessment of the Building 3001 contaminant plume has been
conducted annually since 2006 and submitted to the USEPA for concurrence to insure
that the GWTP shutdown does not present any additional risk to human health and the
environment. OU-1 is currently being investigated under a Focused Remedial
Investigation to evaluate more advanced approaches for addressing and remediating the
groundwater contamination at the site; a feasibility study is planned to follow completion
of the RI.
6.3.2 Aquifer Response and Groundwater Contaminant Monitoring

The 2003 ESD initiated a shut-down of the GWTP. The purpose was to perform an
aquifer rebound test to evaluate the existing GWTP groundwater extraction system, and
6-1
Final
September 2012

to optimize the remedial plans for the OU-1. Tinker AFB continues to perform an annual
assessment of the Building 3001 contaminant plumes. These assessments have shown
that no additional risk is posed to human health or the environment because of the GWTP
shut down. The original one-year shut down has thus been extended on an annual basis
and is still in effect as additional studies are being conducted to re-evaluate the most
appropriate remedial alternative to address contamination at the OU.
Data collected under ongoing studies (primarily the Focused Remedial
Investigation), optimization of the GWTP extractions system, and installation of new
monitoring wells in Building 3001 have identified a significant groundwater chlorinated
hot spot in the southern third of the building. This new information has required the
USAF to consider alternative remedy technologies in addition to and/or different from the
current remedy selected in the August 1990 Record of Decision. This evaluation will be
formally compiled and evaluated as a focused Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
(RI/FS) scheduled to be completed in 2012.
6.3.2.1 Groundwater
The subsurface underlying OU-1 has been locally divided into three
hydrostratigraphic units. Figure 6.1 illustrates a cross-sectional view of typical
hydrostratigraphic units at the site with associated nomenclature. These units include: 1)
the Upper Saturated Zone (USZ), which is defined to include an underlying mudstone
aquifer unit, 2) the Lower Saturated Zone (LSZ), which is usually divided into two subsections because of the presence of a significant component of downward vertical
groundwater flow and to help model local groundwater plume behavior, and also includes
an underlying mudstone aquitard unit, and 3) the Producing Zone (PZ), which is
considered to represent the section from around 200 feet below ground surface (bgs) to
the base of fresh water (about 750 feet bgs) at Tinker AFB. Only the USZ (formerly
known as the Perched aquifer) and the LSZ inclusive of the upper and lower portions
(formerly divided and referred to individually as the Top of Regional and Regional
aquifers) are evaluated in this five-year review. The deeper Producing Zone is not part of
the cleanup requirement described in the ROD for OU-1 and therefore is not evaluated.
Both the USZ and LSZ are water bearing zones of the Garber Sandstone and are part of
the Garber-Wellington aquifer.
As a result of implementing the proposed ESD in 2004, an updated technical
approach was developed, and a rebound test work plan was prepared at the time of 2003
ESD concurrance (Parsons, 2004b). Well measurements obtained in November 2003
were used to evaluate the influence recovery wells exert in controlling plume migration.
The hydraulic zones of influence are visible on the November 2003 pre-shutdown
potentiometric maps included in the 2007 Five-Year Review report. Aquifer recovery,
following the April 2004 GWTP shutdown, was indicated in the previous Five-Year
Review using November 2006 post-shut down potentiometric data. The most recent set
of water level data (2010) for the USZ, LSZ, and LLSZ are shown on Figures 6.2 through
6.4. Although water levels in some wells within each aquifer zone have changed slightly
since 2006, particularly in the USZ, changes are attributed either to some minor
additional rebound or seasonal differences. However, the overall pattern/direction of
flow has not changed since that time.
6-2
Final
September 2012

The 2010 potentiometric interpretations and water level data compared to 1994 prepumping water data continue to show that water levels have generally stabilized and flow
patterns have returned to pre-pumping hydro-geologic conditions. This is demonstrated
by examples from three USZ wells completed in different locations around Building
3001. Comparison of depth to groundwater in feet below ground surface between 1994
and 2010 for the three wells is as follows: Well 35A 22.63 versus 22.53; Well 1-69B
17.99 versus 16.40; and Well 1-6BR 19.56 versus 19.92 respectively.
6.3.2.2 Plume Status
Because of its widespread use within and around Building 3001, as well as
documented high concentrations in groundwater, TCE likely resides beneath the site as
free-phase dense non-aqueous phase liquid (DNAPL) in small areas in the upper zone of
groundwater saturation. Although DNAPL has not been identified at the site, it is likely
that TCE is present as a persistent and continuous source at Building 3001 as
demonstrated by concentrations above its solubility limit in certain monitoring wells. The
USEPA's Dense Nonaqueous Phase Liquids Workshop Summary (USEPA, 1992) reports
that groundwater concentrations of 1% or less of effective solubility can be found even
in the immediate proximity of the DNAPL. The effective solubility of TCE is
1,000 milligrams per liter (mg/L), and concentrations greater than 10 mg/L might indicate
the presence of DNAPL. Concentrations of TCE in the USZ have been recently
measured as high as 40 mg/L (1-70B) just outside the north part of Building 3001 and at
770 mg/L in well 2-564B inside at the south end of the building; therefore, DNAPL may
be present. In addition, historical concentrations of TCE in excess of 3 mg/L in the LSZ
monitoring wells suggest that the DNAPL may have migrated vertically into deeper
hydro-stratigraphic units.
As discussed in Section 4.4.1.1, sampling is performed to monitor plume migration under
the ESD and the basewide sampling program. TCE concentration data and interpreted
plume extent in the 2009/2010 Basewide Sampling Report are shown on Figures 6.5
through 6.7 for the USZ, LSZ, and LLSZ. For completeness, the figures cover adjacent
areas dealt with under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), and
plumes in those areas are retained on the figures. However, the Building 3001 plume,
which is the central and most aerially extensive one on all three figures, is the only plume
considered in this review.
The contingency if sampling were to indicate that the plume in any of the three aquifer
zones at the Building 3001 site is migrating at an unacceptable rate, is to resume
operation of the pump-and-treat system.
Definition of unacceptable rate of
contaminant migration is addressed in the response to USEPA comments to the 2003
ESD, and further elaborated in the 2003 ESD work plan; an unacceptable rate of
contaminant migration is evaluated based on a comparison of historic and current well
data. Trend analysis or time-concentration plots are prescribed for key solvent wells, and
a maximum allowable increase in concentrations is specified for each well. Key wells
include sentry (a.k.a. Sentinel) wells, located on the down gradient, or leading edge, of
the current TCE plume, which define the maximum chlorinated plume extent. The TCE
plume was selected to evaluate migration since it is a primary COC and the areal extent
6-3
Final
September 2012

of other chlorinated solvent compounds at this site fall within the boundary of the TCE
plume.
Table 6.1 identifies the chlorinated solvent sentry wells and the aquifer zones they
are intended to monitor. The location of each of the sentry wells is identified on Figures
6.5 through 6.7. The twenty sentry wells are listed in the 2003 ESD work plan (Parsons,
2004b). Unacceptable plume migration is defined as a concentration increase to 50%
greater than the maximum historical high of TCE in plume sentry wells over a specified
period of sampling. If concentrations exceed that criterion, the system would be turned
back on. However, the remedy is considered protective as long as the sentry wells do not
exceed the unacceptable migration criterion defined in the 2003 ESD response to
comments.
Table 6.1 Sentry Wells
USZ
M-1BR
M-3BR
M-4B
1-14B
1-45B
2-360B
1-9BR
1-2B
2-277B
1-4B
2-427B
LSZ
M-4AR
1-3AR
1-6AR
1-9AR
1-45AR
LLSZ
M-4CR
1-12CR
1-45CR
1-6CR
Time-series plots of contaminant concentrations were studied for TCE for each of the
sentry wells in order to evaluate the remedy under the five-year review requirements.
Time-concentration (trend) charts for TCE in each of the sentry wells are presented as
Figures 6.8 through 6.27.
Sentry wells were selected to chart the contaminant concentration trends between
1999 and 2010, which incorporates the last five years of the Building 3001 extraction and
treatment system operation as well as the first six years that the remedial action was shut
down. As seen on Figures 6.5 through 6.7, the 20 sentry wells are at strategic locations
for determining whether significant changes in TCE concentrations are occurring in the
USZ, LSZ or LLSZ.
Although hexavalent chromium is also a COC, the maximum extent contamination in
any aquifer zone does not extend beyond the leading edge of the TCE plume in that zone.
The footprint of the hexavalent chromium plume is limited to a relatively small area.
Primarily restricted to the Building 3001 footprint in the USZ, there are only two outlier
areas. These include adjacent wells P-14R and 19BR to the east and well 1-70B and 26-4
Final
September 2012

562B to the west. The areal extent of this metal has increased over that shown in the 2007
review due to discovery of hexavalent chromium in a new well (2-563B) in the south part
of Building 3001 installed during field work for the Focused RI. In addition, a new well
installed in the north part of the building documents higher concentrations of this metal
than previously recognized and another new well (2-562B) has slightly increased the areal
extent of hexavalent chromium just west of the building. The 2009 extent of the USZ
hexavalent contamination is shown on Figure 6.28. Figures 6.29 through 6.33 are time
concentration plots showing concentrations since 2004 for older monitoring well
locations. New wells have not been sampled often enough for illustration of any trends.
Changes in the distribution of chromium will be addressed in the ongoing remedial
investigation.
Hexavalent chromium is found in only one well (34B) inside the building in the LSZ,
which matches information in the previous five-year review, and none has been detected
in wells in the LLSZ. The concentration in 34B is currently 3850 ug/L. A time
concentration plot (Figure 6.34) indicates that the concentration originally declined
between 2000 and 2006, and has remained relatively stable since the system shut down.
Designated TCE sentry wells are not evaluated for hexavalent chromium, but the few
wells with this metal are tracked under the Base-wide monitoring program.
Based on the current location of hexavalent chromium in groundwater at Building 3001
(within the boundary of the TCE plume extent), there is presently no completed exposure
pathway. Therefore, protectiveness is maintained. It is anticipated that the remedy chosen
during the alternatives evaluation under the Focused Feasibility Study for the Building
3001 groundwater will incorporate reduction of hexavalent chromium as well.
6.3.2.2.1 EVALUATION OF USZ
The USZ consists primarily of layered fine grained sandstone and siltstone beds with
interbedded mudstone layers. By definition, the USZ includes the underlying aquitard, a
shallow mudstone unit consisting of interlayered fine (clayey) beds with some coarser
(sandy) beds. The USZ is roughly 50 feet thick. In the vicinity of Building 3001, the
saturated interval of the USZ is a shallow, unconfined, perched water-table aquifer. The
lower boundary of saturation is the top of the basal mudstone unit. The saturated
thickness of the USZ ranges from zero (0) feet on the east side of OU-1 where the
mudstone unit outcrops along Soldier Creek, to 33.9 feet on the west side of the site
where the depth of the top of the mudstone confining unit reaches 50 feet. The east edge
of the USZ acts as a barrier to further eastward (lateral) migration) of shallow
contaminated groundwater, although downward vertical leakage to the LSZ through the
aquitard is known to occur locally. The mean thickness of the USZ is 15.1 feet.
Groundwater flow is semi-radial from Building 3001.
Figure 6.2 is a USZ potentiometric map that shows the 2010 post-shutdown water
levels. Comparison with pre-pumping water surface maps as well as the 2006 maps
contained in the previous five-year review, demonstrates that USZ water levels have
recovered dramatically since the extraction well system was shut down and are virtually
back to pre-pumping levels. There has been no significant change in USZ water levels or
flow direction since the last review. Figure 6.5 shows the 2009/2010 distribution and
6-5
Final
September 2012

concentrations of TCE in the USZ along with the sentry wells selected for monitoring
solvent plumes during the rebound test. Comparison with data and maps published in the
last five-year review demonstrates that the plume is relatively stable. Concentration trend
charts for the eleven USZ sentry wells shown on Figures 6.8 through 6.18 document that
there is an apparent increasing trend at only one of the USZ sentry wells, 1-45B.
Concentration data are posted from 1999 (or earlier) through 2010. Although the increase
in this well over the past sampling rounds exceeds the rate specified in the 2003 ESD, the
increase at this well may in part be the result of eliminating remedial activities at the
Southwest Tank Area, which had originally created a localized area of capture of
groundwater contamination. Although the concentration of TCE has increased at this
location, the remedy as a whole remains protective as determined by modeling results
presented in the 2010 Draft Final Focused RI for the NPL Site generated by SAIC. This
is reinforced by Versar in their draft 2012 assessment report for the site. Results indicate
that the plume has not migrated to any points of exposure. In fact, baseline groundwater
flow and transport modeling predicts no off-base impacts are expected within the 500
year model time frame. The model also predicts that TCE concentrations anticipated to
eventually reach the nearest on-base receptor point, WS-13, would be no greater than
20% of the respective MCL for TCE. Since a new remedy approach at Building 3001 is
scheduled to be identified in 2013 under the newly instituted long term Performance
Based Contract with VERSAR/CH2MHILL, there is no benefit to turning on the current
pump and treatment system at this time.
6.3.2.2.2 EVALUATION OF LSZ
The LSZ comprises a roughly 150 foot thick section of interbedded fine grained
sandstones, siltstones and mudstones starting at the base of the overlying mudstone unit
that acts to confine the USZ. The LSZ extends to a lower confining unit that separates
the LSZ from the underlying PZ. Although pump test indicate that the LSZ is
hydraulically interconnected throughout, the presence of a significant vertical flow
component needs specifically to be addressed in order to properly understand
contaminant migration pathways and plume migration. For purposes of this document,
groundwater modeling efforts, and most other Tinker Restoration reports, the LSZ has
been defined as the upper 1/3 of the 150 foot thick section, while the lower 2/3 is called
the LLSZ. The LLSZ is considered separately below.
The upper part of the LSZ is unconfined under Building 3001 since the section is
not fully saturated at this site; an approximately 20 foot thick vadose zone exists at the
top of this unit, although some 1,500 feet west of Building 3001 the vadose zone pinches
out as the potentiometric surface intersects the overlying aquitard due to westerly dip of
geologic strata. The vadose zone also thins north and northwest of Building 3001. An
east-west trending groundwater mound, which acts as a barrier to northward
contamination migration in the LSZ, is located north of Building 3001 and is generally
coincident with the up dip edge of the USZ and a depression in the USZ potentiometric
surface, suggesting the USZ recharges the LSZ at this location. This is an important
concept as it imposes hydraulic constraints on northward and northeastward migration of
contaminants. Groundwater flow directions in the LSZ are generally to the westsouthwest across the NPL site. Figure 6.3 shows the 2010 potentiometric surface for the
6-6
Final
September 2012

LSZ. As with the USZ, comparison of pre- and post-pumping water level data included in
the 2007 Five-Year Review demonstrate that the aquifer has rebounded to roughly preextraction levels. When compared with the 2006 map provided in the previous review,
water levels depicted for 2010 indicate that there has been little change in elevation of the
potentiometric surface. Steady-state or near steady-state conditions have likely been
achieved.
Figure 6.6 shows the 2009 aerial distribution of TCE in the LSZ. Trend charts
generated for LSZ wells and shown in Figures 6.19 through 6-23, document that there is
a single excursion above the rate of increase specified in the 2003 ESD, which states
unacceptable plume migration is defined as a concentration increase to 50% greater than
the maximum historical high. However, as with the USZ, although the concentration of
TCE has increased at this location, the remedy as a whole remains protective as
determined by modeling results presented in the 2010 Draft Final Focused RI for the NPL
Site generated by SAIC. Concentration data are posted from 1999 through 2010.
6.3.2.2.3 EVALUATION OF LLSZ
The LLSZ consists of similar lithologic units below the upper part of the LSZ and is
hydraulically connected to it. Although hydraulically part of the LSZ, the LLSZ
designation helps model the complex flow pathways and vertical flow component within
this aquifer zone, particularly as relates to migration in the lower part of the TCE solvent
plume, which is spatially connected to the LSZ. This portion of the aquifer acts as a
confined system.
Groundwater flow in this layer is primarily to the southwest across the NPL site. As
with the LSZ, a local groundwater divide located north of Building 3001 serves to limit
contaminant migration in that direction. Figure 6.4 shows the distribution of TCE in the
LLSZ along with the sentry wells selected for monitoring during the rebound test. Figure
6.4 shows 2010 LLSZ water levels as well as the contoured potentiometric surface. The
data shows that water levels have recovered dramatically since the extraction well system
was shut down.
Concentration trend charts for the LLSZ sentry wells are shown on Figures 6.24
through 6.27. Concentration data is posted from 1999 through 2010 for the sentry wells.
None of the four wells have exceeded 150% of their respective historical highs for TCE
during four consecutive sampling events.
Monitoring well M-1CR, originally included on the list of sentry wells for the LLSZ
in the ESD, has never been proven to be associated with the Building 3001. Groundwater
flow direction is to the southwest at this location, whereas Building 3001 is due east of
the well (see Figure 6.4), which suggests that concentrations of TCE in this well likely
stem from a separate source in the airfield (at one time, TCE was commonly used to
clean engine parts at aircraft parked on the airfield). The well is therefore not considered
a sentry well for the Building 3001 plume. No previously published base-wide LLSZ
TCE isopleth maps show a connection between the Building 3001plume and well M-1CR
and concentrations at this well have been contoured as a separate plume. In addition,
LLSZ monitoring well 1-12CR is located between the edge of the Building 3001 plume
6-7
Final
September 2012

and M-1CR; TCE concentrations in well 1-12CR have consistently been below 2 ug/L
since 1999 except for one anomalous value around 9 ug/L in 2008 (Figure 6.26). The
latest sample (2010) shows this well is currently non-detect for TCE. M-1CR will be reevaluated and may be proposed to be dropped from the sentry well list originally
approved in the 2003 ESD. The 1-12CR is already included and defines the correct
northwest TCE plume extent in the LLSZ. It is anticipated that this will be addressed
under the 2013 proposed amended ROD.
6.3.3 NTA
Site data, including remediation system contaminant removal (free product,
dissolved phase, vapor phase), product thickness in monitoring wells and associated
LNAPL plume maps are documented in annual technical reports provided by the O&M
contractor. These reports are located in the Restoration Library at Tinker AFB.
6.3.3.1 Free Product Removal
Overall, the total volume of free product removed from NTA between July 1991
and October 2011 is estimated at 38,687 gallons. Beginning in October 2005, the VEP
system was switched to a pulsed mode of operation, operating intermittently (1-2 week
periods) separated by 2- to 6-week shutdowns. In 2010, the system operated for 58 days
and removed 395 gallons of free product (EQ, 2010). From April 2011 to October 2011,
the system operated for 22 days and removed 121 gallons of free product (Bhate, 2011).
These results show that the system is still effective at removing free product from the site.
6.3.3.2 Vapor Extraction
Based on the 2003 and 2007 Five-Year Reviews, soil vapor extraction has been
conducted by various means since 1990. VEP is the current technology used for soil
vapor removal and has been operated in a pulse mode since 2005. Mass loading from
vapor recovery is well below de minimis levels and total vapor recoveries are negligible
on a daily and annualized basis (Parsons, 2007b), with a 2010 estimate of 2 lbs of vapor
removed.
6.3.3.4 Pit Q-51
Other than ARARs, and since this action is complete, no data were evaluated for Pit
Q-51.
6.4
SITE INSPECTIONS
Building 3001 Groundwater

A site visit to the Building 3001 groundwater treatment plant and extraction well
field was conducted on April 11, 2012. The site visit was attended by Michael Hebert
(USEPA Region VI), Dr. David Lawson (ODEQ), Albert T. Aguilar (72 ABW/CEPR),
and Vinton King (72 ABW/CEPR). Since the plant was shut down due to
implementation of the ESD, plant operations have diminished to utility maintenance
activities. Daily and monthly operation logs for the GWTP, quarterly reports, and
chemical use inventories indicated little activity had taken place since 2004 when the
6-8
Final
September 2012

plant was shut down. The O&M Plan and associated design and as-built drawings are
maintained on-site in the plant office, and some upgrades are underway at the plant while
the system is down. Discussions were held at the GWTP with plant operating and
supervisory personnel to further assess operating condition of equipment, level of
maintenance, housekeeping practices, performance history, and operator knowledge.
NTA
A site visit was completed on the afternoon of April 11, 2012. The site visit was
attended by Michael Hebert (USEPA Region VI), Dr. David Lawson (ODEQ), Albert T.
Aguilar (72 ABW/CEPR), and Vinton King (72 ABW/CEPR). This visit was conducted
to establish the current conditions of the site and monitoring systems.
In the previous review, it was noted that a multi-phase or VEP extraction system is
now in use at the site. All of the flow lines from the nine existing extraction wells are
below ground and double contained. Treatment of vapor exhausts was discontinued,
because emissions do not exceed de minimis levels. Treated water obtained in association
with the free product removal is discharged to the IWTP. All other equipment on site
appears to be secure and compliant with all codes and regulations.
Pit Q-51
The location of former Pit Q-51 was visited to observe the condition of the concrete
cap on April 11, 2012. Equipment and materials were staged on top of the patch, but the
surface was sufficiently visible to determine the condition of the concrete. The concrete
patch was intact and all the seals around the joints were in good condition. No separation
or deterioration was evident.
6.5
INTERVIEWS
Building 3001 Groundwater: Interviews were conducted with Vinton King (72nd
ABW/CEPR), current Building 3001 site manager, during the site visit on April 11, 2012.
In addition, an informal interview was conducted with Eric Houston, Building 3001
GWTP plant manager (CH2M Hill) during the April 11, 2012 site visit.
NTA: Interviews were conducted with Vinton King (72nd ABW/CEPR), while on
the site visit on April 11, 2012.
Pit Q-51: Because Pit Q-51 is closed according to the ROD, no interviews were
conducted as part of this five-year review.
6-9
Final
September 2012
Figure 6.1
Aquifer Zone Terminology and
Northeast Quadrant Model Layers
51BR
1238.84
1-73B
1242.81
#
*
#
*
1241
1242
#
* TOB-9BR
1255
12
TOB-1B
1246.09
1231
1236
1234
1238
59
12
37
1257
12
52
1-28B
1244.73
#
*
DRY
1258
1244
2-277B
*
1246.49#
1254
#
*
1247
#
*
2-330B
1240.46
1250
#
*
M-1BR
1244.08
33
1254.21
1-91B
TOB-4BR
#
*
TOB-6B
1255.47
2-73BU
1239.20
2-73BL
2-78
1255.09
#
*
(1255.78) (1251.74) 1259.55
#
*
1-90B
2-75BL
* 1256.42
#
*#
TOB-10BR
TOB-5B
1-27
1-75B #
(1254.41)
#
*
*
#
1256.39
1259.93 1-10BR * 1260.09
1241.06
2-76
2-75BU
(DRY)
1259
NM
1-60B
2-74BU 1259.81
2-77BU
#
*
#
#
* 1258.12
* 1-59B
#
*
1258.98
1258.83
1257.71
2-79BL # ##
2-77BL
* ** #
*
(1254.84)
#
* 1-11BR
#
#
*
(1258.49)
*#
P-1
2-82BL
*
2-79BU
58
1254.16
#
#
*
*
2
#
* 1257.16 2-83BL 1 57
1246.53
1259.43 #
* 2-80 #
*
12
1-1BR
1258.40
NM #
#
*
*
*#
#
2-85B
* 1255.75
_ 1-9BR
^
1-12BR
#
1253.80 2-84BL
1256.10
*
56
12
1247.78
(1255.43) 2-84BU
P-2
1258.28 105-MW14
_
^
*#
1254.24
1251.82 105-MW13 #
*
* 105-MW11
1254.70
#
* #
1253.89
P-3
1-70B
#
*
_
^
105-MW12
1247.55
1252.84
P-13 ^
_
1253.66
NM
35A
P-14R
#
* 1253.11
_#
1247.86 ^
P-4
* 19BR
_ 1251.72
^
1247.79
1-29
1244.22
#
*
1249
1-97B
1237.20
#
*
1240.15
1246.34
12
#
*
1235 1
23
#
* TOB-8B
1236
1241
9
122
1-76B
1230.69
2-276B
1243.02
12
*
#
* #
2-162B
44
#
* 2-38B
#
* 1234.84
* 2-42B 1239.33
#
* #
#
* 2-161B
#
*1239.79
1244
#
*
1246.00
#
*
#
* 2-180
#
#
1247.09
*
*
*
#
*1246#
2-178
#
* 2-154B
2-179
1246.88
1230
#
*
1-74B
1243.24
124
#
*
1246
1235
2-49B
NM
2-48B
NM
1232
#
*#
*
#
*
2-37B 2-39B
NM 1230.31
#
*
MF-16BR
1243.04
#
*
#
*
#
*
#
*
#
*
#
*
123
#
*
#
*
MF-12
NM
#
*
2-46B
1242.68
1240.24
1254
1240
#
*
#
*
#
* 2-426B
MF-15C
1236.50
#
*
1237
39
2-431B
#
* 1237.39
MF-4
2-44B 1243.37
1235.65
#
*
2-275B
#
* 1244.03
12
2-153B
1237.20
#
*
1-6BR
1254.99
#
*
2-510B
1254 1255.65
#
*
k
j
#
*
#
*
(1210)
Figure 6.2
#
*
#
*
#
*
#
*
Measured Groundwater Elevation Not Used in Contouring

#
*
#
*
#
*#
*
Potentiometric Surface 5 foot Contour

#
*
Potentiometric Surface 1#*foot Contour

#
*
#
*
#
*
1254
51
50
12
2-109B
1249.92
#
*
#
*
#
*
#
*
#
*
#
*
Projected Coordinate System: Oklahoma State Plane North NAD83 ft (FIPS 3501)
#
*
USZ Line
Measured Groundwater Elevation
1201
2-320B
DRY
#
*
Piezometer
#
*
2-322B
DRY
52
Monitoring Well
45
53
#
*
12
125
#
*
#
*
1205
#
*
2-548B
1246.20
#
*
12
Extraction Well
125
2-363B
1245.64
44
2,000
2-362B
Feet
1243.38
1245
12
_
^
#
*1210
#
*
1,500
#
*
j
k
#
*
1,000
124
1239
#
*
500
45
2-167B
1236.87
#
*
#
*
250
2-545B
1246.04
42
#
* 2-323B
DRY
2-108BT
1252.06
#
*
#
*
12
2-65B
1235.03
#
*
12
48
2-108B
(1251.65)
2-543B
1244.50
#
*
12
12
2-368B
1249.76
#
*
1-63B
1254.23
2-56B
DRY
1256
2-107B
#
*1238.22
8
#
*
2-57B
1256.07
2-10BR
1252.64
2-511B
1254.10
123
1-67B
#
* 1241.66
#
*
# NM
#
* *
#
*
#
* #
#
**
2-9
#
*
1251.09
#
*
#
*
* #
1241
1-61BR
1246.29
2-501B
1255.74
2-54B
NM 2-55B
2-53B
1253.72
2-8
1253.56
2-360B
1246.41
12
1244
2-197
1261.00
#
*
49
1243
51
#
*
#
*
##
*
*
2-198
1254.98
24B
DRY
2-361B
1253.15
6 12
4
12 7
4
39 3
1-4B
#
1255.58 *
2-199
1254.55
12
#
*
2-428B
1245.88
#
*
#
*
23BR
1247.72
1249
61
12
P-12
1252.90
2-502B
*
1255.53 #
2-271B
1235.08
APPROXIMATE EXTENT OF
UPPER SATURATED ZONE
1250
1-3B
1256.93
1-72B
#
*
1255.52
#
*
#
*
#
*
1252
1236
21BR
1253.21
#
*
12
#
*
_
^
1250
1-16
#
* 1252.43
_
^
2-390B
1242.24
P-19
1256.82
M-2R
1256.09
#
*
2-437B
1241.84
#
*
1257
#
*
1-2B
1256.97
M-3
1256.42
^
_
#
*
*
20BR #
1241
1239.66
1243
#
*
P-18
^ 1255.08
_
12
1235
#
*
#
*
#
*
I-56
1257.99
1-18
1257.23
#
*
P-11
1255.23
1-45B
1249.64
#
*
1-64B
1255.10
I-57
1255.97
P-10
_ 1257.42
^
#
*
1-17
1256.87
M-4B
1240.43
#
*
1-69B *
258 1258.17 #
#
*
41
40
12
12
123
2-427B
1254.19
#
*
#
*
_1
^
1260.13
3100-MW03
1259.54
P-17
NM
P-16R ^
_
1248.17
7
124
5
4
12
4
124 42
12
40
12
124
P-9
1257.71
#
* 3100-MW02
_
^
_
^
I-55
#
*1260.97
8
24
124
M-3BR
1242.83
P-8
1254.43
3100-MW04
(1256.14)
57
1255
#
*
1-7BR
1254.01
#
*
#
*
12
1259
#
* 1253.25
34A
1252.58
1249
123
1-14B
1252.14
#
*
1251
1248
P-7 ^
_
1251.73
_
^
1-15BR
_
^
1251
#
*
P-15
NM
1-8BR
1253.51
1253
P-6
1254.00
#
*
1253
_ 1251.16
#
*^
124
#
*
P-5
1-13B
1251.10
1-65B
1237.92
46
M-2BR
#
* 1246.43
12
#
*
#
*
#
*
#
*
#
*
Upper Saturated Zone

Potentiometric Surface Map, May 2010
#
*
Northeast Quadrant
#
*
#
*
#
*
#
*
*
#
* #
#
*
#
*
#
*
#
*
#
*
#
*
#
*
#
*
#
* *
#
#
*
#
*
#
*
#
*
#
*
#
*
#
*
#
#
*
*
#
*
#
*
1-83B #
*
1218.06
1-73A
1207.70
#
*
1-82B
1216.32
1-71B
1220.60
12
#
*
12 2
1204.99
#
*
MF-17AR
#
* 1204.48
#
*
#
*
#
*
2-426A
1206.51
1 228
1-74A #
*
1208.95
#
*
MF-16CR
1204.91
#
*
#
*
1-76A
1213.52
1224
2-39A
1203.70
2-42A
1201.65
TOB-1AR
1216.68
1-62A
1203.45
#
*
#
#*
*
1-75A
1210.85
#
*
1207.16
#
*
#
*
1-28AR
1206.50
2-277A
1204.24
2-330A
1203.37
2-81
(1220.88)
#
* M-1AR
2-154A
1205.00
1-12AR
1208.60
#
*
TOB-6A
1218.62
#
*
1-60A
1217.13
1213.57
1-70A
1207.82
1-1A #
*
1213.22
_
^
#
*
1-7AR
1207.81
_
^
TOR-4
1206.72
M-3A
#
* 1204.19
TOR-5
1205.98
#
#
*
*
#
*
#
*
1-50AR
(1215.67)
1-40
1227.60
#
*
j
k
1-38
1221.24
2-456A
1221
#
*1226.41
12
1-52B
#
*1225.85
#
* TOB-11B
NM
1223
1-51AR
(1220.01)
22B
1227.26
22A
(1226.03)
#
#
*
*
#
j k
k
j k
j *
22DR
(1223.23)
1-42
1226.68
1-41
1227.01
12
24
#
*
12
28
#
*
TOB-19B
1223.96
21AR
1215.20
#
*
12
07
1-5AR
1206.84
#
*
1-3AR
1208.84
#
*
9
122
#
*
TOR-6
1205.95
18
12
_
^
1-68B
#
* 1220.00
20A
1216.08
#
*
_
^
25AR
1205.10
#
*
19
12
1-45AR
1203.80
_
^
j
k
1-51B
1226.06
MW-118
1225.93
#
*
1-52A
(1221.95)
1-49B
1223.28
#
*
#
*
1220
TOB-20B
1219.83
17
12
#
*
1-2A
1209.92
1-69A
M-4AR
#
*
1202.62
#
#
**
_
^
1-36
1221.59
1-53B
1227.36
1-53A
(1219.69)
1-50BR
1224.74
1-64A
1209.89
#
*
#
* 1207.27
2-444A
1202.11
#
*
1222.50
#
*
12 12
#
*
1-15AR
1212.24
TOR-3
1207.56
#
*
#
*
#
*
*
34B #
1210.97
1-14AR
1206.62
2-429A #
*
1202.76
19AR
1218.46
_
^
12
06
1-65A
1202.72
1-59AR #
*
1219.48
# 1-85B
#
*
*
#
*
TOB-10AR
1219.12
1214
1213
#
*
#
*
#
*
#
*
#
*
PR3-7
(1221.54)
12 11
_
^
1210
M-2AR #
*
1204.90
TOR-7
NM
1-85A
(1219.59)
2-457A
#
* 1219.77
1-49AR
(1216.74)
35BR
1211.43
TOR-2
(1205.40)
#
*
PR2-7
(1214.59)
#
*
1-13AR
1205.46
MW-119
DRY 1-90A
1219.10
_
^
#
*
1-11A
1214.61
#
*
#
*
PR1-7
(1215.41)
TOR-1
_ (1206.99)
^
#
*
TOB-9A
1217.62
#
#
*
*
1-91A
1219.01
TOB-4A
1216.09
#
*1-10AR
TOB-12B
1218.67 #
*
1-116B
1227.41
1226 12 25
12 21
#
*
1-9AR
#
* 1210.49
#
*
#
* 1218.78
1-116A
(1218.87)
1231.33
TOB-5A
*
1214.77 #
#
*
1-62C
(1202.79)
*
12 2 7 #
1 22 9
30 TOB-3BR
12
#
* MF-15AR
1-81B
#
* 1218.07
TOB-8A
1-86B
1226.95
#
*
2 27
2-153A
1205.13
TOB-13BR #
*
1216.12
22
#
*
14
12
15
12
1-84B #
*
1217.14
1-87B
#
*1218.87
12 09
120
8
TOB-2B
#
* 1219.30
12 13
#
*
26
51AR
#
* 1204.42
02
12
1-6AR
1206.77
#
*
#
*
2-107A
1213.86
#
*
12 26
24A
1215.91
2-317A
#
* 1213.00
12 05
1-61C
1201.56
#
*
04
12
11
97
#
*
1,500
#
*
_
^
Extraction Well
#
*
Monitoring Well
j
k
Piezometer
1210
#
*
(1210)
#
*
2,000
Feet
#
*
2-363A
1210.02
2-332A
1217.65
2-430A
1205.08
#
*
2-320A
(1228.08)
#
*
2-320C
1209.66
2-452A
#
*
1221.21
#
*
2-451A
#
*
1225.18
16
12
#
*
1,000
#
*
15
12
1 19
94
0 1193250 500
95
11
#
*
2-319A
1200.33
2-108A
1212.16
03
12
96
11
11
2-65A
1192.92
2-318A
1206.58
1227
1-63A
#
1-63C #
*
*(1218.47)
1208.97
#
#
*
*
#
*
2-57A
1210.52
1225
1-61A
(1201.22)
1-67A
1198.40
#
*
2-501A
1209.69
#
*
2-10AR
1212.79
12 22
2-502A
#
*
1208.62
1-67C
(1198.59)
#
*
2-58A #
*
1211.82
#
*
01
12
11
98
1-72C
1-72A
(1209.33) 1208.00
00
12
11
99
2-109A
1210.61
#
*Projected Coordinate System: Oklahoma State Plane North NAD83 ft (FIPS 3501)
Figure 6.3
#
*
1205

#
* #
*
1201
#
*
#
*
#
*
Lower Saturated Zone

Northeast Quadrant
#
#
*
*
#
*
#
*
#
*
#
*
#
*
#
*
#
*
#
*
#
*
#
*
#
*
#
#
*
1-83A
(1207.75)
#
#
*
*
1-82AT
(1212.51)
1-83C
(1205.52)
# 1-82A
1-82C * 1212.43
(1206.09)
121
1-73C
#
*1203.50
1-84C
(1206.34)
TOB-2A
TOB-2CR
(1206.54)
# 1208.06
#*
*
#
*
1-87C
(1208.02)
#
*
1-84A
1213.45
TOB-13C
(1206.77)
1-87A
1209.82
1-71A
1209.40
1-71C
#
*
*
(1203.41) #
1-74C
1203.09
#
#
*
*
1-76C
1204.97
#
*
1-75C
1201
#
*
M-1CR
1202.30
1-10CR
#
*
1208.96
1-9D
(1196.08)
1202
1-12CR
1203.91
1-116C
TOR-1
(1206.99)
TOR-2
(1205.40)
TOB-5CR
1210.85 1-60CR
1212.54
_
^
#
*
PR1-7
(1215.41)
1213.83
1-59CR
1213.99
1-11C #
*
1213.55
1-70C
1204.62
PR3-7
(1221.54)
35C
1210.96
#
*
#
*
2-429C
1200.20
M-3CR
1201.87
R-7
NM
^
_
#
*
19CR
1211.39
TOB-11A
1222.02
#
#
*
*
1222
#
*
34CR
1209.55
1-15CR
1208.39
122
1-50CR
#
* 1213.47
_
^
#
*
22ER
#
*1216.45
1212
1-7C
1205.16
1-64C
1-64D
1207.70 (1207.50)
_
^
#
*
1-69D
(1184.71)
*
1-69C #
1204.46
#
*
1-51C
1214.91
1218
#
*
R-4
1204.36
TOB-11CR
(1212.70)
1-52C
*
1211.56 #
1223
1-8A
1205.42
R-3
#
*
1 2 11
#
*
_1205.11
^
1-14CR
1203.55
PR2-7
_ (1214.59)
^
1-49C
#
* 1210.71
^ R-2
_
1204.90
1-7D
(1186.57)#
*
#
*
1-53C
#
* 1212.39
#
*
R-1
#
*
TOB-20CR
(1214.41)
TOB-20AR
1216.57
#
*#
* 1-90C
* 1213.71
TOB-10CR #
^ 1204.37
_
#
*
1-65C #
*
1199.95
#
* 1213.18
1219
1-13CR
1202.14
#
* 1212.35
1211
#
*
TOB-9C
#
*
#
#
*
*
TOB-12A
1215.12
1-91C
1213.65
TOB-6C
#
*
1213.51
TOB-4C
1207.23
1-9C
#
*
M-2C
1202.13
TOB-12CR
(1210.90)
1-85C
*1206.20
#
#
*
1-81C
(1207.01)
2-458C
1214.19
#
* 1213.19
#
*
#
* 1204.72
#
*
TOB-1C
1206.13
#
*
2-154C
#
* 1201.46
TOB-8CR
1214.07
1-86C
(1204.53)
TOB-3C #
*
1205.82
#
*
1215
#
*
1216
#
#
*
*
TOB-13A
#
*#
* 1214.62
1-81A
1215.10
1-86A
1211.49
1-74D
(1198.24)
1213
1221
51C
#
*1201.63
1209
R-5 ^
_
1203.89
20C
1212.02
1-68C
(1201.72)
#
*
21D
(1182.83)
1-68A
#
*1214.95
23A
#
* 1218.67
21C
#
*1212.52
TOB-19C
(1217.13)
TOB-19A
#
* 1222.55
25CR
M-4CR
1199.90
#
*
R-6
1203.18
#
*
1203.66
#
*
1-5C
#
* 1206.02
_
^
1-45CR
*
1201.90 #
1-6C
1203.55
24CR
#
*1211.49
#
*
25
1-4AR
1205.21
12
9
11
11
9
#
*
119
9
2-58C
1208.88
12
2-10CR
#
*1210.46
#
*
20
1200
1-61D
#
*1201.25
1203
12
14
#
* 1-63D
1206.26
12
7
119
2-318C
1204.62
07
12
#
*
08
2-108C
#
*1209.81
121
9
11
9
11
12
500
250
9
11
9
11
1,000
1,500
2,000
Extraction Well
#
*
Monitoring Well
j
k
Piezometer
#
*
06
04
Figure 6.4
1210
12
12
_
^
(1210)

1205
1201

#
*
#
*
Feet
05
Lower Lower Saturated Zone

Northeast Quadrant
#
*
#
*
2-148B
#
*7.1 J
#
V 51BR
ND
2-153B
ND
#
V
2-43B
ND
2-44B
ND
MF-1BR
ND
MF-1C
ND
2-174B
ND
2-157BR
*
ND #
MF-4
9.9 J
#
V
MF-15C
ND
MF-15B
ND
MF-12
NS
#
V
#
*
2-46B
ND MF-17B
#
V #
*ND
2-35B
ND
#
V2-275B
ND
2-431B
ND
#
*
#
*
#
*
2-34B
1.5 J
2-33B
ND
3.7
#
V
#
V
#
V 1-73B
ND
#
*
#
V TOB-8B
ND
2-426B
ND
#
*
MF-16BR
ND
2-47B
ND
2-49B
ND
#
V
MF-16AR
ND
2-48B
NS
2-39B
2-36B
#
*
2-162B
#
V
78
2-40B
ND
#
V
#
300 J
V 2-38B
#
0.66 J
*
2.5
V
#
V #
2-37B
#
V
#
V
2-41B #
ND
*
2-161B
1-62B
34
#
V
#
*
ND
2.7
2-158B #
#
#
V
* 2-42B
*
ND
2-160B
99
*
#
* #
ND
2-180
#
* 2-154B
2-179
ND
ND
2-159B ND
2-401B
2-178
51 J
50 #
*
ND
#
V
2-28B
#
* ND
#
V
#
V
#
*#
*
1-74B
ND
#
V
2-330B
4.9
1-29
#
* ND
#
V
M-1BR
ND
1-28B
23
2-277B
*
ND #
2-421B
#
*9.2
M-2BR
*
2.1 #
#
*
2-425B
#
*150
1-65B
18
2-454B
#
*19
TOB-1B
ND
TOB-4BR
#
V
1-91B
2-74BU
2-73BU
ND
NS
8.8
(0.74 J)
#
V
TOB-6B #
1-90B
2-75BU
ND V
2-73BL
1-75B
V ND
(ND)
TOB-5B
#
*#
1.5
1-10BR #
#
* 290 J
ND
#
TOB-10BR
V
V
2-75BL
ND
ND
11
2-79BL
2-77BU
1-59B
* 2-78 (0.69 J)
#
#
*1-60B
* ND
#
* 2-76 #
2.1
ND
2-77BL
ND
ND
1.6
#
#
#
*
V
*
#
V
1-27
2-79BU
#
V 1-11BR
#
*
V#
V
ND
V #
(1.2)
ND
*
2-82BL
#
V
#
V
2-83BL
ND
#
*1-9BR
P-1
#
V
1-1BR
1.5
3.8
#
V
*#
*
#
_ 240
^
*
2-85B
ND
1-12BR #
*
2-84BU 2.5
105-MW13
4300 J
2-84BL
NS
P-2
_ 2100 J
^
ND
#
31
*#
2-561B
**
105-MW12
#
6400
P-13
#
33000 J #
*
* *#
130
105-MW14
P-3 ^
1-70B
35A
#
* #
2900
*
20000 _
91000
110
[
105-MW11
P-14R
2-562B
1.6 J
#
*
18000
_#
^
48000 J
P-4
2-560B
* 19BR
_
^
54
87000
7.5
P-15
1500
1-13B
1-15BR
1-8BR
[
_
^
18 #
* P-5
#
* 17 J
#
2-565B#
* 250
35700 *
2
#
* 34A
P-16R
7600
P-6
_ 2.4 J
^
140
_
^
P-7
1-7BR
_ND
^
2-391B
ND
#
*1400
M-3BR
ND
#
V
#
V
1-66B
ND
1-18
110 E #
V
#
*
P-11
3.4
1-45B
6700
M-2R
*
ND #
#
*
#
* 0.69 J
2-390B
7.2 #
*
2-564B
2-428B
570
#
*
P-12
160
ND
ND
21BR
#
VND
_ P-19
^
2.5
23BR
*
2 #
1-5BR
NS
1-3B
#
* 3.1
1-16
#
* 820
#
*
#
V2
#
*1-2B
#
*
NS
20BR
1-64B
#
*17
^ P-18
_
#
*770000 J
^
_
#
* M-3
_
^
2-437B
#
*15
#
*
1-17
98
M-4B
#
* ND
P-17
2600
I-55
P-8
3100-MW02
110
* ND
I-57
_ #
^
#
V62 J
3100-MW04
3100-MW03
NS
NS
#
*
I-56
P-9
2-563B
_
0.57 J ^
#
*0.74 J
1-69B #
*
#
*67000
ND
2-427B
#
* 250
P-10
_ 230
^
1-14B
ND
#
*
TOB-9BR
V
ND #
1-97B
*
2.8 #
#
V 2-276B
ND
#
*
#
*
1-76B
#
V ND
1-6BR
13
24B
#
*
1-4B
14
2-198
ND
2-360B
ND
#
V ND
#
V#
V 2-197
7.4
2-53B
23
1-72B
#
*ND
2-502B
20 #
*
#
* NS
2-361B
2-199
#
* 0.88 J
#
*
2-501B
#
* 2.4 J
2-510B
0.62 J
2-57B #
V
0.92 J
2-54B
11
2-55B
0.99 J
V
#
V #
2-8
#
* 2-511B
#
* #
8.4
*#
* 59
2-9 #
* 2-10BR
ND
1.7
#
V 2-56B
#
*
83
2-107B
158
#
V
2-323B
#
*NS
1-63B
2-393B
0.92 J
2-356B
#
* ND 0
2-355B
#
*5.8
250
#
V
500
2-271B
ND
1,000
1,500
#
*
#
*
!
(
#
*3.2
Feet
#
*ND
2-368B
#
*70
2-543B
2-274B
^
_
k
_
^
[
[
#
*
#
V
#
*
k
k
k
1-61BR
#
V
1-67B
2,000
3.1
Extraction Well - 2009 Analytical Data

Extraction Well - Surrogate* Value
Horizontal Well - 2009 Analytical Data

Horizontal Well - Surrogate* Value
Monitoring Well - Analytical Data
Monitoring Well - Surrogate* Value
1-3AR
68
(68)
ND
NS
#
*0.5 J
Sentry Well
Analytical Result (ug/L)
2-108B (230)
#
* 360
2-108BT
#
*
#
*
Non-Detect
Not Sampled (Prior Year Surrogate Not Available)
*Surrogate values include analytical data

from 1999 - 2007 Basewide Sampling Events.
Piezometer - 2009 Analytical Data

Piezometer - Surrogate* Value
Piezometer - Not Sampled
Residental Well - 2009 Analytical Data

USZ - Approximate Extent
Line of Equal Concentration (ug/L) - Dashed Where Inferred
#
*79
Analytical Result Not Used for Contouring
Monitoring Well - Not Sampled
1K
2-363B
Figure 6.5
2009/2010 Upper Saturated Zone
Trichloroethene Concentration
Northeast Quadrant
#
V
#
V
2-148A
ND
#
*
#
V
5.5 J
1-82B
#
VND
V
5#
#
V
TOB-2B
1-84B
#
VND
#
VND
1-87B
#
VND
2-153A
V
1J #
1-71B
#
* NS
MF-15AR
4.7 J
MF-1AR
7.3 J
#
V
MF-17AR
2.6 J
2-40A
0.26 J
#
V
#
V
2-41A
ND
1-76A
#
* ND
MF-16CR
2.6 J
#
*
2-42A
#
V ND
#
*
#
*ND
#
VND
1-86B
#
V ND
1-74A
1.5
#
*
2-157AR
ND
#
*
1-81B
TOB-8A
2-426A
2.5
#
*
#
*
TOB-13BR
#
VND
TOB-12B
#
VND
TOB-9A
1-116A 1-116B
#
V
VND
ND #
#
VND
#
V
#
V 2-39A
0.93 J
TOB-1AR
ND #
*
1-62A
1-62C #
*0.86 J
*#
(ND)
#
V
TOB-5A
ND
1-75A
#
V ND
1-60A
47 J
#
V
1-10AR
#
* ND
M-1AR
#
* 370 J
2-154A
#
* 150
50
1-28AR
2000
2-330A
#
* 530
#
*
1K
#
*
#
*
#
*1-70A
320
#
* 1-15AR
1-52B
#
* ND
22A
(ND)
#
#*
*
*
j k
k
j k
j #
1-40
NS
TOB-11B
#
VND
1-51AR
34 J
MW-118
25 J
1-50BR
(ND)
22B
1-50AR
(ND)
61
#
V1-38
83
1-36
j
k
100 NS
90 J
*
34B #
2800 J
TOR-3
#
*
#
#
*
*
2-456A
#
* ND
1
5
TOR-7
2500 [
#
* 1-13AR
2300 J
1-65A
#
*
2.2
19AR
1200
1-51B
(ND)
#
V
PR3-7
_
(1.1) ^
1K
35BR
#
1100 J *
_ (800)
^
M-2AR
#
* 5.2
1 00
#
V
#
*
TOR-1
(1900)
TOR-2
10
50 0
1-11A #
55 *
1-1A
#
* 210
MW-119
ND
TOB-10AR
1-53A 1-53B
NS
ND#
#
*#
* ND
*1-59AR
1.1
1-49B
(2.9)
1-49AR
_PR2-7
^
1-52A
46
(150)
ND
_
^
2-277A
#
* 4800 J
1K
_
^
TOB-20B
#
VND
#
*
#
V
#
V
#
*
#
*
PR1-7
(29)
#
*
#
* 2-81
590
1-9AR
ND #
*
1-12AR
ND #
*
1-85A 1-85B
#
VND
ND #
V
TOB-6A
1-90A
7.1
2-457A
1-91A 3
ND
#
* 1.8
TOB-4A
ND
22DR
17
1-41 1-42
NS
NS
_ 2300
^
1-7AR
#
* 20
#
*2-429A
2-391A
ND
1700
#
*
1-14AR
*
33 #
500
1K
#
*
M-3A
870
1-69A
560
1-68B
20A
#
* 23
1-64A #
V
797
#
* ND
1-2A
#
*
#
* 7.4
TOR-5
720
50
2-444A
TOB-19B
#
*21AR
2.1
_
^
10
#
* 17 J
TOR-4
140
_
^
#
VND
25AR
160
TOR-6 ^
_
35
#
*
1-66A
ND
M-4AR
2.2
#
V
#
*
1-5AR #
*
3.8
1-3AR
ND
#
*
1-45AR
2.4
#
*
24A
#
V 1-6AR
#
V ND
ND
#
*
10
2-317A
20
#
*
5
1-67A
ND
275
550
1,100
1-67C
ND
1-61C
6.3 J
#
V
1,650
#
V
2-502A
290
100
2-318A
#
V 399
2-274A
^
_
_
^
[
#
*
#
V
#
*
j
k
(
!
Extraction Well - 2009 Analytical Datal
1-3AR
Horizontal Extraction Well - Surrogate* Value
68
(68)
#
V
Sentry
Well
ND
*Surrogate values include

analytical data from 1999 - 2007
Basewide Sampling Events.
Residential Well - 2009 Analytical Data
1K
NS
Extraction wells PR1-7, PR2-7, PR3-7, TOR-1, TOR-2 and GTR-EX

are screened within both the LSZ and LLSZ aquifers. Therefore,
the six extraction wells are plotted on both LSZ and LLSZ maps
each with their analytical result posted. However, the posted results
were not used in contouring. The postings are for reference only.
2-10AR
38
#
*
2-107A
ND
#
*
2-57A
#
*160
0
2-108A #
*
12
2-363A
22
#
*
#
V
#
V

Non-Detect
Monitoring Well - 2009 Analytical Data

#
*2-501A
61
1-63C #
#
*
*1-63A
NS
92 J
1-61A
#
# (1)
*
*
2,200
Feet
#
*
10 0
1 00
2-58A
#
200 *
1-72C
(19 J)
1-72A
29
Figure 6.6
2009/2010 Lower Saturated Zone
Northeast Quadrant
#
V
#
V
#
#
V
V
51CND
#
V
#
V
#
*(1.1)
1-82A
#
V
#
V
0.53 J (ND)
#
VTOB-2A
V#
TOB-2CR
1-75C
V
ND #
1-10CR
18 #
*
M-1CR
30
1-12CR
*
ND #
#
*
5 1
0
19CR
100
R-7
42 [
#
* 34CR
7.9
_
^
1-52C
#
* 1.9
*
1-49C #
120
TOB-11CR TOB-11A
(ND) #
#
V
V 4.1
#
*1-51C
1.6
(1.1)
22ER
V
ND #
#
*
#
* 1-15CR
39 J
42
R-3
_ 980
^
#
*1-53C
ND
#
* 1-59CR
1-50CR
_ #
* ND
^
PR3-7
35C
630 J
1-8A
1-7C
(5)
1-11C
*
140 #
1K
#
* 4800 J
#
V
TOB-20CR
ND
_ (29)
^
#
*
PR2-7
(150)
TOR-1
R-1 ^
_ (1900)
910
1-13CR
*
ND #
1-60CR
67 J
TOB-20AR
ND
#
*TOB-10CR
PR1-7
50
TOB-9C
V
0.8 J #
#
*
#
*
1-7D
13
1-14CR
*
5.7 #
R-4
_
37 ^
M-3CR
170
1-69C
4.1
10
1-64C
16
#
*
#
*1-69D
(ND)
1-68A
#
V1-68C
1.7
(ND)
#
* 20C
ND
1-64D
(10)
100
#
*
#
*
TOB-12A
ND #
#
V
V
TOB-12CR
ND
1-91C
TOB-6C #
* ND 1-90C
1.5
#
V#
V 1
TOB-5CR
ND #
*
TOR-2
R-2 _ (800)
^
340 J
M-2C
270 J
2-429C
1-81A
(2.8)
1-85C
ND #
V
TOB-4C
ND #
*
1-70C
* 35
2-556WB:P7 #
*#
NS
#
V ND
*
#
#
*
2-458C
*
ND #
1-116C
V
ND #
1-9D
(ND)
1-9C #
*
3.2
#
*
1-65C
#
V ND
4.4
TOB-3C
V
ND #
1-76C
V
ND #
TOB-1C
V
ND #
10 0
1-81C
8.1 #
TOB-8CR
1-86C
ND
1-86A
ND
0.7 J (ND)
#
#
V
V1-74D
50
#
V#
VTOB-13C
#
#
V
V
1-74C
2-154C
210 #
*
(0.84 J) 3.2
TOB-13A
1-71C
V
ND #
#
V
1-71A
ND
10
NDND
#
V
*1-84C
1-84A
NDND
#
V1-87C
1-87A
_ R-5
^
10
390
#
* 2-554WB:P6
23A
*
ND #
21C 21D
V ND
ND #
TOB-19A
ND
NS
#
*
1-66C
ND #
V
M-4CR
ND
R-6 ^
_
39
25CR
#
* 30
#
V TOB-19C
ND
1-5C
#
* 7.9
1-45CR
*
ND #
1-6C
#
* ND
24CR
ND
1-4AR
V
ND #
2-58C
*
ND #
#
*
5
#
V
_
^
_
^
#
*
#
V
#
*
[
1-45AR
68
(68)
ND
NS
255
510
1,020
1,530
2-10CR
57
1-63D #
V
ND
1-61D
ND
2,040
Feet


1K
#
V
Sentry Well
#
V

Non-Detect
#
V
Not Sampled (Prior Year Surrogate
Not Available)
#
V
*Surrogate values
include analytical data from 1999 - 2007 Basewide Sampling Events.
2-318C
0.54 J
#
V
2-108C
*
3.4 #
Extraction wells PR1-7, PR2-7, PR3-7, TOR-1, TOR-2

and GTR-EX are screened within both the LSZ and
LLSZ aquifers. Therefore, the six extraction wells are
plotted on both LSZ and LLSZ maps each with their
analytical result posted. However, the posted results
were not used in contouring. The postings are for
reference only.
Figure 6.7
2009/2010 Lower Lower Saturated Zone
Northeast Quadrant
#
V
Trichloroethene
150% of TCE Historical High
27-Apr-05
15-Dec-04
14-Dec-04
9-Jul-04
10-Mar-04
8-Jan-04
22-Jul-03
18-Dec-02
12-Jun-02
21-Feb-02
5-Jun-01
4-Jan-01
9-Jun-00
16-Dec-99
8-Jul-99
14-Jan-99
Concentration (ug/L)
Figure 6.8
TCE Concentration, Well M-1BR (USZ)
Tinker AFB, Oklahoma
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
Figure 6.9
TCE Concentration, Well M-3BR (USZ)
30
20
15
10
5
Trichloroethene
21-Sep-11
27-Apr-05
15-Dec-04
10-Mar-04
12-Jul-04
0
10-Jan-01
25
Trichloroethene
28-Sep-11
25-Jun-10
17-Sep-08
10-Apr-07
2-Aug-06
22-Dec-05
25-Aug-05
27-Apr-05
16-Dec-04
15-Dec-04
12-Jul-04
10-Mar-04
14-Jan-04
25-Jul-03
19-Dec-02
21-Jun-02
27-Feb-02
7-Jun-01
10-Jan-01
13-Jun-00
17-Dec-99
13-Jul-99
18-Jan-99
Figure 6.10
TCE Concentration, Well M-4B (USZ)
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
Trichloroethene
18-Oct-11
17-Jun-10
27-Oct-08
28-Mar-07
24-Oct-06
21-Dec-05
4-Aug-05
21-Apr-05
13-Dec-04
8-Dec-04
13-Sep-04
24-Jun-04
8-Mar-04
8-Jan-04
5-Aug-03
27-Dec-02
5-Jun-02
4-Mar-02
20-Jun-01
2-Jan-01
19-Jun-00
10-Dec-99
19-Jul-99
22-Jan-99
Figure 6.11
TCE Concentration, Well 1-2B (USZ)
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
Trichloroethene
18-Oct-11
17-Jun-10
23-Jul-08
10-Aug-07
24-Oct-06
21-Dec-05
25-Aug-05
12-Jan-04
18-Jul-03
25-Oct-02
2-Jul-02
24-Jan-02
19-Jun-01
3-Jan-01
20-Jun-00
13-Dec-99
16-Jul-99
20-Jan-99
Figure 6.12
16
14
12
10
Trichloroethene
21-Sep-11
10-Jun-10
22-Jul-08
3-Apr-07
29-Sep-06
30-Dec-05
11-Aug-05
21-Apr-05
14-Dec-04
10-Dec-04
25-Jun-04
9-Mar-04
9-Jan-04
29-Jul-03
23-Jul-03
27-Dec-02
18-Jun-02
18-Feb-02
17-Jul-01
18-Jun-01
8-Jan-01
27-Jun-00
15-May-00
27-Dec-99
15-Jul-99
19-Jan-99
Figure 6.13
TCE Concentration, Well 1-9BR (USZ)
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
Trichloroethene
29-Sep-11
24-Jun-10
27-Aug-08
22-Mar-07
20-Nov-06
30-Dec-05
21-Jul-05
26-Apr-05
14-Dec-04
10-Dec-04
15-Sep-04
25-Jun-04
9-Mar-04
12-Jan-04
24-Jul-03
17-Dec-02
24-Jun-02
28-Feb-02
25-May-01
9-Jan-01
10-Jul-00
8-Dec-99
13-Jul-99
18-Jan-99
Figure 6.14
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
Trichloroethene
Trichloroethene
11-Aug-05
22-Dec-05
29-Sep-11
25-Jun-10
1-Oct-08
22-Mar-07
21-Sep-11
10-Jun-10
22-Jul-08
3-Apr-07
29-Sep-06
30-Dec-05
21-Apr-05
21-Jul-05
20-Nov-06
14-Dec-04
10-Dec-04
25-Jun-04
9-Mar-04
9-Jan-04
29-Jul-03
23-Jul-03
22-Apr-05
14-Dec-04
13-Dec-04
14-Sep-04
15-Jul-04
9-Mar-04
27-Dec-02
18-Jun-02
24-Jul-03
12-Jan-04
18-Feb-02
17-Jul-01
18-Jun-01
8-Jan-01
27-Jun-00
15-May-00
27-Dec-99
15-Jul-99
17-Dec-02
21-Jun-02
27-Feb-02
11-Jan-01
15-Jun-00
8-Dec-99
0
14-Jul-99
500
19-Jan-99
1500
0
1000
20-Jan-99
Figure 6.15
7000
70
6500
6000
60
5500
50
5000
4500
40
4000
30
3500
3000
20
2500
2000
10
Trichloroethene
1-Jul-10
22-Jul-08
26-Apr-05
15-Dec-04
15-Dec-04
19-Jul-04
10-Mar-04
14-Jan-04
15-Aug-03
18-Dec-02
20-Jun-02
21-Feb-02
6-Jun-01
25-Jan-01
9-Jun-00
16-Dec-99
13-Jul-99
15-Jan-99
10-Aug-98
31-Oct-97
25-Jun-97
3-Sep-96
Figure 6.16
25
20
15
10
Trichloroethene
29-Sep-11
25-Jun-10
21-Jul-08
10-Aug-07
26-Oct-06
22-Dec-05
10-Aug-05
26-Apr-05
16-Dec-04
15-Jul-04
9-Mar-04
5-Jan-04
1-Aug-03
31-Dec-02
25-Jul-02
1-Mar-02
20-Jun-01
25-Jan-01
22-Jun-00
16-Jul-99
Figure 6.17
1.2
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
Trichloroethene
29-Sep-11
24-Jun-10
2-Dec-08
2-Dec-08
22-Mar-07
20-Nov-06
30-Dec-05
21-Jul-05
22-Apr-05
14-Dec-04
14-Dec-04
13-Dec-04
15-Sep-04
15-Sep-04
15-Jul-04
15-Jun-04
15-Jun-04
11-Mar-04
12-Jan-04
12-Jan-04
1-Aug-03
1-Aug-03
8-Jan-03
18-Jun-02
7-Mar-02
19-Jun-01
9-Jan-01
11-Jul-00
28-Oct-99
Figure 6.18
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
Trichloroethene
25-Jun-10
25-Nov-08
25-Nov-08
10-Apr-07
29-Dec-06
22-Dec-05
25-Aug-05
27-Apr-05
16-Dec-04
15-Dec-04
14-Sep-04
12-Jul-04
10-Mar-04
14-Jan-04
25-Jul-03
19-Dec-02
21-Jun-02
27-Feb-02
7-Jun-01
10-Jan-01
13-Jun-00
17-Dec-99
13-Jul-99
18-Jan-99
Figure 6.19
TCE Concentration, Well M-4AR (LSZ)
400
375
350
325
300
275
250
225
200
175
150
125
100
75
50
25
Trichloroethene
17-Jun-10
27-Oct-08
22-Apr-05
16-Dec-04
8-Dec-04
13-Sep-04
22-Jun-04
8-Mar-04
8-Jan-04
5-Aug-03
31-Dec-02
5-Jun-02
4-Mar-02
20-Jun-01
20-Dec-00
22-Jun-00
10-Dec-99
16-Jul-99
22-Jan-99
Figure 6.20
TCE Concentration, Well 1-3AR (LSZ)
Trichloroethene
19-Apr-05
20-Dec-04
16-Dec-04
22-Jun-04
8-Mar-04
20-Jan-04
1-Aug-03
30-Dec-02
2-Jul-02
24-Jan-02
19-Jun-01
20-Dec-00
22-Jun-00
13-Dec-99
16-Jul-99
20-Jan-99
Figure 6.21
25
20
15
10
Trichloroethene
10-Jun-10
22-Jul-08
3-Apr-07
12-Dec-06
30-Dec-05
11-Aug-05
21-Apr-05
14-Dec-04
10-Dec-04
14-Sep-04
25-Jun-04
9-Mar-04
9-Jan-04
29-Jul-03
27-Dec-02
18-Jun-02
18-Feb-02
18-Jun-01
8-Jan-01
27-Jun-00
27-Dec-99
15-Jul-99
19-Jan-99
Figure 6.22
200
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
Trichloroethene
25-Jun-10
29-Oct-08
12-Apr-07
28-Dec-06
22-Dec-05
21-Jul-05
22-Apr-05
15-Dec-04
13-Dec-04
14-Sep-04
15-Jul-04
9-Mar-04
12-Jan-04
24-Jul-03
17-Dec-02
21-Jun-02
27-Feb-02
11-Jun-01
11-Jan-01
15-Jun-00
8-Dec-99
14-Jul-99
20-Jan-99
Figure 6.23
200
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
Trichloroethene
25-Jun-10
17-Sep-08
10-Apr-07
29-Dec-06
22-Dec-05
25-Aug-05
27-Apr-05
16-Dec-04
15-Dec-04
14-Sep-04
12-Jul-04
10-Mar-04
14-Jan-04
25-Jul-03
19-Dec-02
21-Jun-02
27-Feb-02
7-Jun-01
10-Jan-01
13-Jun-00
17-Dec-99
13-Jul-99
18-Jan-99
Figure 6.24
TCE Concentration, Well M-4CR (LLSZ)
14
12
10
Trichloroethene
17-Jun-10
2-Apr-07
7-Dec-06
4-Jan-06
5-Aug-05
19-Apr-05
16-Dec-04
8-Dec-04
14-Sep-04
22-Jun-04
8-Mar-04
20-Jan-04
1-Aug-03
30-Dec-02
2-Jul-02
24-Jan-02
19-Jun-01
20-Dec-00
22-Jun-00
13-Dec-99
16-Jul-99
20-Jan-99
Figure 6.25
TCE Concentration, Well 1-6C (LLSZ)
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
Trichloroethene
24-Jun-10
26-Aug-08
11-Apr-07
28-Dec-06
28-Apr-05
16-Dec-04
10-Mar-04
19-Jan-04
6-Aug-03
16-Dec-02
24-Jun-02
20-Feb-02
24-May-01
9-Jan-01
15-Jun-00
14-Dec-99
9-Jul-99
14-Jan-99
Figure 6.26
TCE Concentration, Well1-12CR (LLSZ)
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
Trichloroethene
25-Jun-10
29-Oct-08
12-Apr-07
28-Dec-06
22-Dec-05
21-Jul-05
26-Apr-05
15-Dec-04
13-Dec-04
14-Sep-04
15-Jul-04
9-Mar-04
12-Jan-04
24-Jul-03
17-Dec-02
21-Jun-02
27-Feb-02
11-Jun-01
11-Jan-01
15-Jun-00
8-Dec-99
14-Jul-99
20-Jan-99
Figure 6.27
TCE Concentration, Well 1-45CR (LLSZ)
30
25
20
15
10
51BR
ND
#
V2-148B
270
ND
2-153B
ND
#
V
#
V
1-73B
8.57
#
V
#
V
#
V
2-275B
2-431B
25.8
#
V 43.6
2-44B 2-43B
7.9
11.1 MF-15B
2-426B
9
MF-1BR MF-1C
#
MF-15C
V ND
51.4
(ND)
(ND)
MF-4
MF-16BR
#
V 13.6
2-174B
#
V
(34.1)
#
V
ND
2-157BR
MF-12
MF-16AR
#
#
V
V
#
V #
ND
* NS
564
#
V
#
V
2-35B
2-47B
2-46B
MF-17B
67.9
78.4 2-49B
* #
V ND
NS #
#
V
2-34B
ND
##
2-33B 20.4
#
V V
#
V
*
2-48B
88.1
NS
2-39B
V
2-40B #
ND
V 2-36B 2-38B
#
V #
1470 #
ND
V
# 2-162B
V
9.2
* 2-37B 6.8 B
#
V #
2-41B
#
V
#
V
2-161B
1290 V
NS
# 2-42B
1-62B
ND
ND
#
V
#
V
1170
5.2
#
#
#
V
V
V
2-158B
9.6
2-159B
26.7
2-179
ND
#
V
2-401B
134
#
V
#
V
2-160B
ND
2-180
ND
2-178
ND
2-330B #
V
16.6
1-74B #
V
ND
1-76B
ND
#
V
1-97B
ND
#
V 2-276B
ND
1-75B
34.6
ND
2-75BL
(ND)
#
V 1-29
ND
#
V
ND
M-1BR
272
ND
1-28B #
V
ND
2-79BU
1600
2-79BL
NS
P-1
19.2
P-2
15.1
_
^
#
V
1-13B
ND
ND
1-65B
76.7
#
V ND
#
V
2-391B
6.6
M-3BR
59.8
#
V
_
^
#
*
_
^
P-7
19.6
1-7BR
38.6
ND
#
V
P-8
_
358 ^
#
V
2-82BL
NS
2-83BL
ND
2-85B
NS
105-MW14
ND
2-560B
5.88
ND
2-565B
373000
44000
1-69B
I-55
#
V 4.7 J
#
V
#
* I-56
NS
I-57
1920
#
*
_
^
#
* 2-563B
2880
#
V
10500
ND
#
V M-4B
ND
1-66B
ND
#
V
1-45B
3.35 J
P-11
942
M-2R
10.2
#
V
#
* 1-18
NS
#
V
ND
#
V
2-428B
22.9
#
*
NS
1-64B
1.68 J
10 J
1-2B
ND
2-271B
38.4
2-356B
ND
#
V
#
V 2180
ND
250
500
1,000
1,500
2-274B
56.4 J
#
V
#
V
j
k
k
j
#
V
#
V
2,000
Feet
CG39B9743D
(1.5 J)
ND
^
_
_
^
[
[
#
*
#
V
#
*
j
k
Horizontal Well - 2009 Analytical Data OK

j
k
j
k
(
!
1-4B
ND
#
V
2-199
9.14
2-543B
NS
2-8
ND
2-501B
40.1
#
V
#
V
2-53B
ND
2-9
ND
2-57B
8.1
#
V
#
*
Piezometer - Surrogate* Value

Residental Well - Not Sampled
68
(68)
ND
NS
2-55B
10.8
2-10BR
NS
#
#
V V
#2-107B
V
69.3 #2-323B
#
V#
#
* NS
V *
#
V 2-511B
19.3
#
V
2-56B
#
V
#
V
2-363B
#
V 29.5
ND
68
2-54B
ND
2-510B
9.8
#
V 1-63B
366
Piezometer - 2009 Analytical Data
#
*
#
V
2-368B
#
V 22.8
ND
11400
#
V
2-108B
135
ND
2-108BT
(15.7)
2-545B
V
#
V
Analytical
Result - Total Chromium
40
Analytical Result - Hexavalent Chromium**
Non-Detect
# 40.1
Figure 6.28

USZ Line
RCRA Boundary
*Surrogate values include

analytical data from 1999-2007
Basewide Sampling Events.
2-361B
ND
2-197
12.8
#
V
#
V#
V
1K
#
V
#
V 21BR
22.7
1-72B
ND
1-61BR
5.56
#
V
23BR
27.5
2-502B
28.9
#
V
#
V 20BR
283
P-18
13.6
#
V
1-67B
1080
ND
_
^
P-16R
ND
ND
1-5BR
NS
2-360B
#
V 7.3
#
V
^
_
#
*
_
^
2-198
6.19
2-390B
43.9
#
V 1-11BR
ND
1-6BR
P-12
41.7
ND
#
V
TOB-10BR
ND
1-59B
#
V 15.1
1-3B #
V
ND
1-16
#
V
ND
_
^
2-437B
6.2
2-564B
P-19
21.8
V
##
*
#
V
#
* 4.47J
^
_
#
* M-3
#
V
1-15BR
20
30
#
V
3290
P-17
[ 293
220
3100-MW02
ND
#
V ND
34A
#
* 3510
#
*
19BR
319
300
ND
P-15
2120
1-90B
18.9
ND
P-14R
840
780
35A
#
* 1.68 J
105-MW12
53.6
#
V
1-1BR
#
V ND
ND
P-13
34.1
105-MW11
NS
1-91B
NS
1-60B
#
V ND
ND
2-77BU
ND
1-27
NS
2-561B
4.71J
ND
P-10
#
V 2-427B _
90.4 ^ 164
1-17
39.3
ND
#
V
2-77BL
ND
ND
#
V
#
*
_
^
P-9
63.9
2-562B
220
220
1-8BR
14.8
10 J
P-6
6.1
3100-MW04
NS
#
V
P-4
_
95.6 ^
_
#
V^
1-14B
3.8 J
ND
3100-MW03
NS
1-70B
116
130
P-5
25.3
2-84BU
NS
#
V#
V#
*
*#
*
#
V#
#
* *
#
105-MW13
ND
P-3
_
^
24.4
#
V
2-84BL
NS
TOB-6B
93.8
ND
#
V
TOB-5B
ND
ND
ND
V
#
#
V
V 2-78 #
NS
##
#
V#
V V
*
#
#
V
*#
*
#
V
*
#
*
#
V
#
V
#
#
*
*
*#
1-9BR
7.4
ND
_
^
#
V
1-12BR
16.7
ND
2-73BU
ND
1-10BR
2-76
NS
2-75BU
210
2-74BU
14.1
TOB-4BR
21.9
ND
TOB-1B
9.3 #
V
2-73BL
ND
#
V
#
V
#
V 2-154B
2-277B
ND
TOB-9BR
40.8
#
V
M-2BR
2.47 J
2-454B
12.4
#
V
TOB-8B
136
#
V
2-421B
ND
#
V
2-425B
42.5
#
V
**Only wells with a blue label indicating ND or a numeric

result were sampled for Hexavalent Chromium. If the well
has a blue label indicating NS, or not sampled, it is part
of the Hexavalent Chromium sampling plan but was not
sampled in the current sampling round.
2009/2010 Upper Saturated Zone

Hexavalent Chromium Concentration
Northeast Quadrant
Figure 6.29
CR6 Concentration, Well P-14R (USZ)
900
800
600
500
400
300
200
100
Hexavalent Chromium
12-Oct-06
18-Aug-05
0
18-Aug-04
700
Figure 6.30
CR6 Concentration, Well 19BR (USZ)
700
500
400
300
200
100
Hexavalent Chromium
22-Nov-11
18-Aug-10
18-Dec-08
13-Dec-04
31-May-01
0
23-Jun-00
600
Figure 6.31
CR6 Concentration, Well 34A (USZ)
7000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
Hexavalent Chromium
10-Oct-11
28-Jun-10
20-Aug-08
11-Oct-06
19-Dec-05
15-Aug-05
0
25-Aug-04
6000
Figure 6.32
CR6 Concentration, Well 1-70B (USZ)
350
250
200
150
100
50
Hexavalent Chromium
17-Oct-11
15-Nov-10
2-Sep-08
2-Oct-06
11-Aug-05
8-Jul-04
0
25-Jun-02
300
Figure 6.33
CR6 Concentration, Well P-17 (USZ)
10000
9000
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
Hexavalent Chromium
29-Dec-11
20-May-10
7-Nov-08
18-Aug-05
18-Aug-04
0
23-May-01
8000
Figure 6.34
CR6 Concentration, Well 34B (LSZ)
9000
8000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
Hexavalent Chromium
28-Jun-10
20-Aug-08
11-Oct-06
19-Dec-05
15-Aug-05
25-Aug-04
0
28-Jun-00
7000

Technical Assessment
SECTION 7
TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT
The 1990 ROD provided the original framework for achieving protectiveness of
human health and the environment for OU-1. While the 1990 ROD remains the
governing document for actions associated with the NTA and Pit Q-51, OU-1 is operating
under the provisions identified within the 2003 ESD and is the current governing
document for obtaining protectiveness of human health and the environment at the
Building 3001 site. The opinion expressed in the 2003 ESD is that pump-and-treat
technology would not attain site remediation, and a temporary shutdown of the treatment
system was needed to optimize the remedial plans for the site. Within the last few years,
and after collection of necessary rebound data, the system optimization study was
expanded into a Focused RI/FS with the intent of identifying a new remedial technology
to be implemented. A request for an amended ROD/new ROD incorporating the new
technology is anticipated to be submitted in 2013. However, the current status of the
remedy in place and of protectiveness for this Five-Year Review continues to be based on
implementation of the 2003 ESD, although data collected during the more recent Focused
RI has been incorporated into the technical assessment regarding changes to the site.
This technical assessment sequentially describes the condition of the remedies in
place for the two remaining active remedy sites at OU-1, Building 3001 and the NTA, in
addition to factors influencing the protectiveness of each remedy.
The Pit Q-51, OU-2 and OU-3 remedy actions are complete.
As such, the technical assessment examines the following three key questions for
Building 3001 and NTA:
7.1
Question A: Is each remedy functioning as intended by the respective decision

documents?
Question B: Are the exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels, and
RAOs used at the time of the remedy selection still valid?
Question C: Has any other information come to light that could call into question
the protectiveness of the remedy?
BUILDING 3001 SITE
The 2003 ESD affected the Building 3001 site more than any other component of
OU-1. Monitoring data, changes or updates in standards and assumptions, and any other
relevant information are considered in this technical evaluation.
7.1.1 Question A
Is the remedy functioning as intended by the decision document?
Yes. USEPA concurred to the provisions of the 2003 ESD, and monitoring is
conducted to ensure compliance. Annual assessments which evaluate whether there has
7-1
Final
September 2012

been any significant change to the risk poses to human health and/or the environment are
submitted to the USEPA.
7.1.1.1 Remedial Action Performance
While in operation through April 2004, the remedial action was operating and
functioning as designed. In May 2003, USEPA concurred with a Tinker AFB submitted
ESD application with the purpose of conducting an optimization study of the Building
3001 RA. The optimization study would include the temporary shut-down of the
Groundwater Treatment Plant (GWTP) and extraction well field. The GWTP shut-down
would re-establish a baseline condition for comparability to future actions and to assess
rebound of contaminant concentrations and groundwater elevations.
The actions proposed in the ESD were implemented on March 29, 2004. A tracer
test, which focused on the OU-1/OU-4 area, was completed with the results provided
under the November 2009 report Use of Environmental Forensics For TCE Plume
Delineation. The evaluation of potential vertical migration from the Lower Saturated
Zone to the Producing Zone (PZ) and to nearby water supply wells was evaluated at OU1 as part of the 2010 Phase I Focused RI. Results of the focused RI (Phase 1) indicate that
the aquitard between these hydrostratigraphic units is competent and that it is unlikely
that contaminants will spread to the deeper zone. The GWTP and extraction well field
were shut down, and the aquifer was allowed to begin recovery. LTM of the sentry wells
continues, and based on results of groundwater sampling, the groundwater plume is not
migrating at an unacceptable rate. Annual technical reports are submitted to the USEPA
which document changes to the groundwater plumes and which have included requests
for continued approval for system shut down as the evaluation continues.
Section 6.3.2.1 discusses concentration trends and identifies three sentry wells listed
in the 2003 ESD and the 2007 Five-Year Review that have met the trigger criterion set
out in the 2003 ESD that concentrations of TCE in these wells should not exceed values
50% greater than the maximum historical high concentration over a specified sampling
period. Since only one sentry well from each aquifer zone has not met the 2003 ESD
requirement (one well is in the USZ, one is in the LSZ, and one is in the LLSZ) the latest
groundwater modeling results indicate that the overall plume migration have not
significantly changed to require immediate action. Appropriate strategies to ensure the
plume does not significantly migrate are being identified in the Focused RI/FS and
subsequent Proposed Plan and Record of Decision Amendment.
Although the 1990 ROD-based contaminant cleanup levels have not been reached,
containment (no horizontal migration) of the plume appears to be effective based on
current monitoring data. It should be noted that the specified 2003 ESD semi-annual
monitoring frequency has not been consistently met; however, this data gap does not
create enough uncertainty to conclude that unacceptable migration may have occurred,
specifically since the most recent data does not indicate unacceptable changes to the
plume. In addition, other methods have been employed, such as groundwater flow and
solute transport modeling, to verify that protectiveness is being met and that no adverse
effects to human health or the environment have occurred in the last five years or are
immediately imminent.
7-2
Final
September 2012

7.1.1.2
Systems O&M
The groundwater extraction and treatment system has been maintained, and the
system can be made operational if necessary. Current operating procedures (i.e.
monitoring) as defined in the rebound test work plan will maintain the effectiveness of
the response action with regard to protecting human health and the environment.
7.1.1.3
Opportunities for Optimization
Focused in-situ removal or treatment of contaminant sources could reduce costs of

groundwater remediation. Alternative remedial technologies will be evaluated in a
Focused Feasibility Study planned for completion in 2012.
7.1.1.4
Early Indicators of Potential Issues
Risk to potential receptors is currently evaluated by means of groundwater

monitoring and sampling. Analytical data is periodically plotted on isopleth maps in
order to spatially review contaminant concentrations, and graphs are generated in order to
review data through time (time-concentration plots). During shut down of the extraction
and treatment system, plume migration rates are being monitored to ensure no
unacceptable rate of migration (see Section 7.1.1.1) using sentry wells and sampling
data collected under the Basewide groundwater monitoring program. In addition, other
means, such as groundwater modeling, are used to predict if, or when, potential pathways
might be complete. Although there appear to be some sampling data gaps, the gaps do not
create enough uncertainty to conclude that there has been, or will be, any unacceptable
rate of migration or risk.
7.1.1.5
Implementation of Institutional Controls and Other Measures
Institutional controls are non-engineered means, such as administrative and/or legal

controls, that help minimize the potential for human exposure to contamination and/or
protect the integrity of a remedy. This is accomplished by limiting land or resource use
and/or by providing information to modify or guide human behavior at the site.
Institutional controls may include zoning restrictions, building or excavation permits,
well drilling prohibitions, and easements and covenants. Access controls may be
implemented to regulate access to the site and any contaminated media. The technologies
for access controls consider the potential implementation of active and passive controls.
Active controls can consist of physical barriers such as fences, gates, and security forces,
while passive controls include administrative controls such as ownership, access permits,
and deed restrictions.
Institutional/Engineering Controls Currently in Use at Tinker AFB
Institutional controls are used when contamination is first discovered, when remedies
are ongoing and when residual contamination remains on site at a level that does not
allow unrestricted use and unlimited exposure after cleanup. TAFB is an active military
base; its property boundary is fenced and security allows access only to authorized
persons. TAFB has not been identified as a base for closure. Accordingly, continued use
7-3
Final
September 2012

as an active Air Force Base and associated land-use restrictions are not anticipated to
change during the foreseeable future.
As outlined in the Tinker Air Force Base General Plan (in compliance with Air
Force Instruction 32-7062), a permitting process is in place that requires all locations be
reviewed with respect to buried structures and utilities, as well as potential environmental
hazards prior to initiating any borings or excavations on TAFB. Prior to issuing permits,
all locations are reviewed with respect to the results from environmental site
investigations to identify areas where known or potentially contaminated media are
present. Any work permitted within these areas includes controls to protect workers from
exposure and includes measures to ensure the work does not result in releases or
exposures that would adversely impact human health or the environment.
TAFB has an established construction review process, which includes a

representative from the Tinker Environmental Restoration Branch to attend all
Facility Board Working Panel meetings, EM reviews all digging permits, EM
must approve any AF Form 332 (Base Civil Engineer Work Request), and
EM approves any Request for Environmental Impact Analysis (AF Form
813). These steps ensure that no digging will occur at known contaminated
sites unless adequate health and safety precautions are taken by the contractor.
In addition, project officials at the Base routinely access the Tinker AFB
Geographic Information System prior to approval of projects. This system
includes maps and other data showing areas of the Base that are contaminated
and, therefore, shows areas where activities such as excavation, construction,
etc. might be prohibited or require extra diligence.
Pumping of shallow groundwater is not allowed on base, commercial or

otherwise, except in a site remedial/clean up scenario, or when necessary for
construction purposes.
Partnering with Regulatory Agencies will assume the following format.
The Air Force will implement, monitor, maintain and report on the
implementation of the Land Use Controls (LUCs).
Tinker AFB will supply annual reports containing information such as

specific actions taken to implement and enforce LUCs, including
annotation of the Base General Plan.
Tinker AFB will obtain regulator concurrence for any changes to use and
activity restrictions and LUCs.
Tinker AFB will make prompt notification to regulators in the event that a
LUC is breached along with corrective measures planned or taken.
Tinker will notify regulators prior to transfer of property.
7-4
Final
September 2012

7.1.2 Question B
Are the exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels, and RAOs used at the
time of the remedy selection still valid?
Yes. In accordance with the 2003 ESD, optimization of the remedy re-considers all
exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels, and RAOs. Note: the exposure
assumptions and toxicity data are currently being reviewed and will be updated in the
upcoming RI/FS Risk Assessment section in accordance with EPA Risk Assessment
Guidance for Superfund [http://www.epa.gov/oswer/riskassessment/ragsa/index.htm] due
to be completed in late 2012.
7.1.2.1 Changes in Standards and TBCs
The cleanup standards, as defined in the 1990 ROD, for TCE and hexavalent
chromium remain protective of human health and the environment. In fact, as shown in
Table 7.1, chromium cleanup standards were changed in 1991 (USEPA, 1991), and are
actually less restrictive than stated in the 1990 ROD. Therefore, although the toxicity
data for chromium has changed since the 1990 ROD, the RAO for chromium remains
unchanged at 50.0 ug/L.
Table 7.1
Hexavalent Chromium Cleanup Standard
Contaminant
Media
Cleanup Level
Standard
Citation/Year
Hex-Chromium Groundwater 50.0 ug/L
Previous 50.0 ug/L (USACE, 1990b)
New
100.0 ug/L (USEPA, 1991)
7.1.2.2
Changes in Exposure Pathways
Land use on or near the site has not changed and is not expected to change in the
foreseeable future. Any newly identified COCs or confirmed contaminant sources that
may exist and any newly identified peripheral contaminants that help identify potential
source areas will be reported in the upcoming RI/FS report due in late 2012.
With regard to the exposure pathways identified in the 1990 ROD, no changes
require further investigation or action. Any updates and/or changes to the exposure
pathways will be reported in the upcoming RI/FS document. No toxic by-products of the
remedy are in place. Physical site conditions have not changed in such a way that
protectiveness of the selected remedy or current rebound testing would be adversely
affected. A new contaminant source and associated groundwater plume was discovered
within the south portion of Building 3001 during the recent focused remedial
investigation field activities. However, this has not changed the NPL site boundary or
treatment area presented in the 2003 ESD and therefore does not change, or add to,
discussion of direct groundwater exposure pathways. However, the vapor pathway is
being re-evaluated as part of the Focused RI/FS in light of remaining high concentrations
of solvents, primarily TCE, under the Building 3001 footprint.
7-5
Final
September 2012

7.1.2.3 Changes in Risk Assessment Methods

The current 1990 ROD requirements are based on a conservative risk assessment and
have been formalized for non-restricted land use and non-restricted exposure.
Standardized risk assessment methodologies could bring the site into compliance with a
restricted use and exposure scenario and provide a less conservative but equally
protective remedy. Although the toxicity data for chromium has changed since the 1990
ROD, the RAO for hexavalent chromium as stated in the 1990 ROD remains unchanged
at 50.0 ug/L.
In addition, the current ongoing focused RI/FS Phase I and II activities include an
updated risk assessment being performed in accordance with EPA Risk Assessment
Guidance for Superfund [http://www.epa.gov/oswer/riskassessment/ragsa/index.htm].
The report is due in late 2012.
7.1.2.4 Expected Progress toward Meeting RAOs
The selected remedy for B3001, pump-and-treat, was not progressing as expected;
hence, a rebound test was conducted in an attempt to help identify contaminant source
areas and optimize the existing system. As of the end of 2006, the data has not provided
a predictable pattern of contaminant rebound (OC-ALC/EM, 2007). As stated in Section
11 of the 1990 ROD, it was estimated that the pump and treat system would remove 45%
of the TCE and 49% of the chromium in the upper most aquifer within two years of startup. Concentration levels have remained asymptotic since an initial more rapid reduction
after start-up. The 2008 Assessment for Building 3001 Groundwater Pump and Treat
System Phase 1 Remedial Process Optimization reports an estimated 4,725 Kg of TCE
was removed from OU-1 groundwater by the GWTP.
7.1.3 Question C
Has any other information come to light that could call into question the
protectiveness of the remedy?
Additional data is currently being updated as part of the ongoing focused RI/FS Risk
Assessment section in accordance with EPA Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund
[http://www.epa.gov/oswer/riskassessment/ragsa/index.htm].
7.2
NORTH TANK AREA (NTA)
The 2003 ESD has no direct impact on the remedy at the NTA. However, the
remedy in place was evaluated based on the requirements of the 1990 ROD. Monitoring
data, changes or updates in standards and assumptions, and any other relevant
information were considered in this technical evaluation.
7.2.1 Question A
Is the remedy functioning as intended by the decision document?
Yes. The treatment system at NTA is functioning as intended by the 1990 ROD.
7-6
Final
September 2012

7.2.1.1 Remedial Action Performance

In conformance with the 1990 ROD, a floating fuel product removal system is in
place and is effectively removing fuel product floating above the groundwater table. Free
product is disposed in accordance with the Hazardous Waste Management Plan, and
other fluids are treated in accordance with discharge permits. The product is disposed at
a RCRA approved facility. The treatment system at the site also removes soil vapors, and
dissolved phase groundwater contaminants beneath the NTA site.
7.2.1.2
Systems O&M
Operating procedures have maintained optimal effectiveness of this response action.

There are no remedy problems or issues associated with this activity.
7.2.1.3
Remedy enhancements (pneumatic fracturing, surfactant flushing, VEP, phasedpumping, etc.) have been implemented over the years to meet or exceed design
requirements by removing free product, soil gas vapors, and contaminated groundwater.
Since free product removal began in 1991, it is estimated that over 36,772 gallons of
product have been recovered, which is over three times the 10,000 gallons of product
estimated to be on-site in the 1990 ROD.
Nonetheless, free product recovery is reaching asymptotic levels, and further
optimization is not likely achievable with this technology. The remaining free product at
NTA is extremely viscous, resulting in considerable uncertainty in free product
measurements and estimates of remaining free product and increased removal difficulty
despite numerous remedy enhancements. Although the mobility of the product has
almost certainly been substantially reduced, and the current system ensures that
containment is effective, it is unlikely that complete free product removal can be
accomplished through any technology short of excavation. Free product removal was
prescribed for the NTA in order to prevent migration of product towards the B3001 well
field as fuel would have a negative impact on the B3001 solvent treatment system. As
long as the B3001 pump and treat system is not active and remains inactive, as is
currently proposed through at least 2013, free product at the NTA site cannot impact the
B3001 system. The NTA site has achieved case closure with the OCC.
7.2.1.4
Early Indicators of Potential Issues
There are no equipment breakdowns that indicate any adverse impacts to

protectiveness.
7.2.1.5
Implementation of Institutional Controls and Other Measures
Institutional controls are non-engineered means, such as administrative and/or legal

controls, that help minimize the potential for human exposure to contamination and/or
protect the integrity of a remedy. This is accomplished by limiting land or resource use
and/or by providing information to modify or guide human behavior at the site.
Institutional controls may include zoning restrictions, building or excavation permits,
7-7
Final
September 2012

well drilling prohibitions, and easements and covenants. Access controls may be
implemented to regulate access to the site and any contaminated media. The technologies
for access controls consider the potential implementation of active and passive controls.
Active controls can consist of physical barriers such as fences, gates, and security forces,
while passive controls include administrative controls such as ownership, access permits,
and deed restrictions.
Institutional/Engineering Controls Currently in Use at Tinker AFB
Institutional controls are used when contamination is first discovered, when remedies
are ongoing and when residual contamination remains on site at a level that does not
allow unrestricted use and unlimited exposure after cleanup. TAFB is an active military
base; its property boundary is fenced and security allows access only to authorized
persons. TAFB has not been identified as a base for closure. Accordingly, continued use
as an active Air Force Base and associated land-use restrictions are not anticipated to
change during the foreseeable future.
As outlined in the Tinker Air Force Base General Plan (in compliance with Air
Force Instruction 32-7062), a permitting process is in place that requires all locations be
reviewed with respect to buried structures and utilities, as well as potential environmental
hazards prior to initiating any borings or excavations on TAFB. Prior to issuing permits,
all locations are reviewed with respect to the results from environmental site
investigations to identify areas where known or potentially contaminated media are
present. Any work permitted within these areas includes controls to protect workers from
exposure and includes measures to ensure the work does not result in releases or
exposures that would adversely impact human health or the environment.
The base has an established construction review process, which includes a

representative from Tinker Environmental Management (EM) to attend all
Facility Board Working Panel meetings, EM reviews all digging permits, EM
approval of form AF 332s (Base Civil Engineer Work Request), and EM
approves any Request for Environmental Impact Analysis (Form AF 813).
These steps ensure that no digging will occur at known contaminated sites
unless adequate health and safety precautions are taken by the contractor. In
addition, project officials at the Base routinely access the Tinker AFB
Geographic Information System prior to approval of projects. This system
shows which areas of the Base are contaminated and, therefore shows areas
where activities such as excavation, construction, etc. should be prohibited.
Pumping of shallow groundwater is not allowed on base, commercial or

otherwise, except in a site remedial/clean up scenario, or when necessary for
construction purposes.
Partnering with Regulatory Agencies will assume the following format.
The Air Force will implement, monitor, maintain and report on the
implementation of the Land Use Controls (LUCs).
7-8
Final
September 2012

Tinker AFB will supply annual reports containing information such as

specific actions taken to implement and enforce LUCs, including
annotation of the Base General Plan.
Tinker AFB will obtain regulator concurrence for any changes to use and
activity restrictions and LUCs.
Tinker AFB will make prompt notification to regulators in the event that a
LUC is breached along with corrective measures planned or taken.
Tinker will make notification to regulators prior to transfer of property.
7.2.2 Question B
Are the exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels, and RAOs used at the
time of the remedy selection still valid?
Yes, based on the remedy selected in the 1990 ROD.
7.2.2.1 Changes in Standards and TBCs
The cleanup standards, as defined in the 1990 ROD, for free product remain
protective of human health and the environment.
7.2.2.2
Changes in Exposure Pathways
Land use on this site or near the site has not changed and is not expected to change in
the foreseeable future. No new contaminants of concern or contaminant sources have
been identified.
With regard to the exposure pathways identified in the 1990 ROD, a Risk
Assessment conducted in 1996 indicated that the vapor pathway was not a threat to
human health due to the depth and confinement of the free product layer (Parsons 1996).
No toxic by-products of the remedy are in place. Physical site conditions have not
changed such that protectiveness of the selected remedy would be adversely affected.
7.2.2.3 Changes in Risk Assessment Methods
Standardized risk assessment methodologies (Parsons, 1996) have already brought
the NTA site into compliance with a restricted use scenario and provided a less
conservative but equally protective remedy.
7.2.2.4 Expected Progress toward Meeting RAOs
The selected remedy, free product removal with vapor recovery, has progressed to
the limits of the technologys capability. It is unlikely that the current technology will be
able to completely remove all free product under the site. A recently developed Remedial
Design/Remedial Action (RD/RA) work plan includes an optimized remedial action
strategy that has been submitted to the USEPA for approval.
7-9
Final
September 2012

7.2.3 Question C
Has other information come to light that could call into question the
protectiveness of the selected remedy?
No.
7.3
PIT Q-51
The remedy for Pit Q-51, which involved cleaning, filling and capping of the pit,
meets all of the requirements for questions A, B, and C. The remedy is functioning
properly. The remedy continues to meet all RAOs, and there are no issues that would
indicate that the remedy is potentially not protective.
7-10
Final
September 2012

Issues
SECTION 8
ISSUES
For OU-1, the 2003 ESD and rebound work plan provide a framework to evaluate
the pump and treat systems effectiveness and to evaluate protectiveness of the remedy
relative to remaining contaminants in Building 3001 groundwater. The rebound test has
been on-going since 2004, and the site has been adequately monitored during rebound
testing to satisfy protectiveness requirements. Since the previous five-year review in
2007, the completion of the originally proposed 2003 ESD process for the Building 3001
groundwater is being included in the Focused RI/FS report that intends to optimize the
site remediation and ensure protectiveness in the future. In addition, the monitoring and
data evaluation of existing wells continues. To this end, issues identified in Table 8.1
need to be resolved so that future evaluations can provide relevant feedback for resolving
the cleanup requirements for this site.
Table 8.1 Issues Affecting Protectiveness
Issue
Building 3001 (OU-1): Current
groundwater pump &
treatment system has become
asymptotic and ineffective.
Vapor Intrusion may be an
issue.
NTA (OU-1): Removal of

remaining product is slower
than anticipated.
Building 3001 (OU-1):
Monitor groundwater plume
stability and/or movement and
re-evaluate sentry well list.
IWTP Groundwater (OU-4):

ROD required
Relevance
Conduct and complete
updated Focused RI/FS
and amended ROD
with selected new RA.
Update mobility and
the need to remove the
remaining product.
Determine the best
method to achieve site
cleanup objectives.
Continue monitoring, at
the sampling frequency
and parameters. Update
sentry well list upon
completion of amended
ROD.
Combine RI/FS effort
with OU-1 since
groundwater
contamination has comingled. Include
selected remedy in OU1 amended ROD.
8-1
Affects Current
Protectiveness
Affects Future
Protectiveness
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Possibly
No
Possibly
Final
September 2012

Issues
While the system is shut down and the Focused RI is being completed, monitoring of
groundwater wells needs to continue to ensure the plume is not migrating at an
unacceptable rate. Also, although preliminary screening was performed, vapor intrusion
is another exposure pathway that will likely demand more detailed investigation of
Building 3001; this is being addressed under the ongoing Focused RI.
VEP is reaching the limit of its optimal efficacy for free product removal at the
NTA. The 2007 Five-Year Review suggested that the requirement to remove the
remaining product at NTA, and how best to achieve RAOs, needs to be evaluated. A
technical approach that will be used to optimize the strategy for completing the RA at this
site is presented in a 2012 Draft Remedial Design/Remedial Action Work Plan for NTA
that has been submitted to USEPA for approval.
There are no issues for OU-2. The remedy is complete and the OU closed since
2006.
There are no issues for OU-3 since the selected remedy in the 2007 ROD is No
Further Action.
8-2
Final
September 2012

Building 3001 NPL Sit
Conclusions, Recommendations,
and Follow-up Actions
SECTION 9
CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS,
AND FOLLOW-UP ACTIONS
Specific goals identified in the 1990 ROD for OU-1 include preventing future human
exposure by ingestion, inhalation, or dermal exposure to TCE concentrations exceeding
5.0 ug/L and hexavalent chromium exceeding 50.0 ug/L in groundwater. No change in
this goal has been effected since the last Five-Year Review; however, an ESD was
submitted to the USEPA in 2003, which proposed that pump-and-treat technology may
not meet remediation goals. The 2003 ESD further petitioned the USEPA to allow a
temporary shutdown of the B3001 GWTP and well field. The purpose of this shutdown
was to allow the groundwater plume to stabilize, while Tinker AFB collected
performance monitoring data for use in evaluating the OU-1 RA, as well as to monitor
plume stability. Submittal of an annual evaluation, or assessment, report documenting
plume stability and continued protectiveness has allowed TAFB to continue the shut
down to the present. On April 4, 2012, USEPA approved the latest USAF request to
continue shutdown of the Building 3001 Extraction System for an additional year.
For Building 3001, components comply with the requirements of the 2003 ESD that
supports the temporary shutdown of the Building 3001 (OU-1) groundwater pump-andtreat system. Analytical data from groundwater wells at OU-1 indicate that no
unacceptable rate of migration is occurring due to shut down of this system. Although
the goal of a 5.0 ug/L TCE concentration in the B3001groundwater and removal of fuel
product at the NTA has not been achieved, the currently operating remedy component for
the NTA along with the on-going OU-1 optimization evaluation/monitoring indicate that
remedies are protective with respect to the 1990 ROD and 2003 ESD.
The NTA remedy component remains operational and is functioning as designed,
and no deficiencies were identified that impact the protectiveness of the remedies. Efforts
are also underway to optimize the remedy at this site.
The extent of solvent contamination in groundwater at Building 3001 was reinvestigated under a Phase I Focused RI initiated in 2007. Conclusions outlined in the
2010 RI report indicated that additional work needed to be accomplished to characterize
the extent groundwater contamination based on discovery of an area of high TCE under
the southern end of Building 3001. Consequently, a Phase II Focused RI, anticipated for
completion in 2012, was begun. Suspension of operation of the extraction system is
allowing rebound to be evaluated and new data to be collected under the remedial
investigations. An alternatives evaluation of additional remedial technologies aimed
primarily at source removal and/or optimization of the in-place remedy at the Building
3001 groundwater, is planned for completion in 2013.
The OU-2 RA is complete. OU-3 remedy is No Further Action. There are no
recommendations and or follow-up actions required. OU-4 is being combined with
OU-1.
9-1
Final
September 2012

Protectiveness Statement(s)
SECTION 10
PROTECTIVENESS STATEMENT(S)
Based on the information available during the Fourth FYR, the following
determinations were made for the selected remedies for the OUs at the Soldier
Creek/Building 3001 NPL Site:
OU-1: The remedy is protective of human health and the environment in the short term.
Building 3001 Site: The primary chemicals of concern (COCs) for Building 3001 are
trichloroethene (TCE) and hexavalent chromium. The remedy is considered protective in
the short-term because the TCE and hexavalent chromium plumes are not migrating and
there is no evidence of current exposure. However, additional information/data is needed
to evaluate long-term protectiveness of the remedy; an updated Focused RI is underway
to obtain this information. The Focused FS that follows the RI will review optimization
of the current remedy, and will evaluate additional technologies that might either
complement the remedy or replace it. A long-term protectiveness determination will be
made when this study is complete, currently scheduled for 2013. The proposed goal is an
amended or new ROD for the site.
NTA Site: The remedy in place is protective of human health and the environment in the
short term.
environment.
The site has completed the remedial actions in accordance with RAOs set forth in the
1993 ROD. The site is closed upon Remedial Action Report being accepted in January
2006. The remedy is protective of human health and the environment.
OU-3: The selected No Further Action (NFA) remedy is protective of human health and
the environment.
OU-4: No remedy has been determined to date but OU-4 being combined with OU-1.
The groundwater associated with OU-4 is commingled with OU-1 and is currently not
migrating and there is no evidence of current exposure. A long-term protectiveness
determination will be made when the OU-1 study, which includes OU-4, is complete
(currently scheduled for 2013). The proposed goal is a ROD for OU-4.
10-1
Final
September 2012

Protectiveness Statement(s)

The remedies completed or currently on-going at the site are protective of human health
and the environment in the short term. In order for all the remedies to be protective in the
long term the action items identified in the review need to be implemented.
10-2
Final
September 2012

Next Review
SECTION 11
NEXT REVIEW
The next Five-Year Review will be conducted in 2017, five years from the effective
date of this report.
11-1
Final
September 2012

References
SECTION 12
REFERENCES
72nd ABW and Parsons, 2005e. General Plan, Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma. September
2005.
Battelle, 1993. NTA Data Summary and Soil Remediation Alternatives Report for Tinker AFB,
Oklahoma. February.
Bhate, 2012. Final RCRA Sites 2011 Annual Optimization Report. March
B&V, 1991. Technical Memorandum Groundwater Modeling and Extraction System Design
Considerations. Draft Revised Final. November.
B&V, 1992a. Overall Design Concept Summary for the Building 3001 Groundwater Remedial
Action. Revised Final. February.
B&V, 1992b. Operation and Maintenance Manual, Building 3001 Groundwater Treatment
System. Volumes I and II, Draft Final. December.
CDM Federal Programs Corporation, 1992. Well Installation Summary Report, Recovery Wells
RC-1 and RC-2, North Tanks Area, Tinker Air Force Base. Report date unknown, (an
updated, unbound copy of the report was transmitted with a letter to Dr. Stephen Kowall
[Battelle Environmental management Operations] from Geoffrey M. McKenzie [CDM]
January 29, 1992).
Dansby & Associates, Inc., 1986. Report of the Plugging Procedures Water Wells 18 and 19.
Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma. Contract F34650-85-C-0404.
Engineering Enterprises, Inc., 1984. Investigation of Water Wells 18 and 19. Tinker Air Force
Base, Oklahoma. August.
Engineering Science, 1982. Installation Restoration Program Phase I: Records Search. Prepared
for Tinker Air Force, Oklahoma. April.
EQ., 2010. Technical Project Report, 2009 Operations and Maintenance Report. March
OAC, 785:45-7-3. Oklahoma Administrative Code, Title 785: Oklahoma Water Resources
Board, Chapter 45: Oklahomas Water Quality Standards, Subchapter 7:

Groundwater Quality Standards, Section 3: Groundwater classifications,
beneficial uses and vulnerability levels.
OC-ALC, 1991a. Decision Document for Pit Q-51. June.
OC-ALC, 1991b. Closeout Document for Pit Q-51. June.
OC-ALC/EMPE, 2003. Final Five Year Report Building 3001 Operable Unit 1. March.
Building 3001 Extraction System Shutdown, Operable Unit
1(USEPA ID# OK1571724391) memorandum to USEPA. February 14.
OC-ALC/EM, 2007.
Parsons ES and Battelle, 1994. NTA Focused Remedial Investigation Report. December.
Parsons ES, 1995. NTA Treatability Investigation Special Case Investigation Report. Tinker Air
Force Base, Oklahoma. June.
12-1
Final
September 2012

References
Parsons ES, 1996. Optimization Report for the Groundwater Treatment Plant Extraction System.
September.
Parsons ES, 1998a. Groundwater Treatment Plant Extraction System Assessment. April.
Parsons ES, 1998b. Five-Year Review Report for the Soldier Creek/Building 3001 NPL Site.
Final. September.
Parsons, 2000. Process Optimization Report for Building 3001, Tinker Air Force Base,
Oklahoma. Final. December.
Parsons, 2001a. Work Plan for Evaluating the Technical Impracticability of Groundwater
Restoration, Soldier Creek/Building 3001 NPL Site. Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma.
Final. January.
Parsons, 2001b. Groundwater Treatment Plant Technical Assessment Report. Tinker Air Force
Base, Oklahoma. Final. February.
Parsons, 2004a. First Semiannual Informal Technical Information Report, IRP Sites. Tinker Air
Force Base, Oklahoma. Final. March.
Parsons, 2004b. Final Work Plan for Field Activities in Support of a TI Evaluation/System
Shutdown for the Building 3001 OU 1 Site. Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma. Revision
3. March.
Parsons, 2004c. Final Report for Dual-Phase Extraction and Extended Soil Vapor Extraction
Pilot Testing at Building 3001. Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma. Volumes I and II.
August.
Parsons, 2005a. Annual Technical Report 2003-2004, IRP Sites. Tinker Air Force Base,
Oklahoma. Volumes I and II. Final. January.
Parsons, 2005b. Second Semiannual Technical Report, IRP Sites. Tinker Air Force Base,
Oklahoma. Final. May.
Parsons, 2005c. Second Annual Technical Report, IRP Sites. Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma.
Final. September.
Parsons, 2005d. Remedial Process Optimization Evaluation of IRP Sites Associated with the
SWMU 24 Supplemental Remedial Systems, Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma. March.
Parsons, 2007a. Semiannual Monitoring and Technical Report, IRP Interim Action Sites, Tinker
Air Force Base, Oklahoma. Final. April.
Parsons, 2007b. Annual Monitoring and Technical Report, IRP Interim Action Sites, Tinker Air
Force Base, Oklahoma. Draft. May.
Radian, 1985a. Installation Restoration Program, Phase II Confirmation/Quantification Stage 1,
Final Report. September.
Radian, 1985b. Installation Restoration Program, Phase II Confirmation/Quantification Stage 2,
Final Report. September.
Roy F. Weston, 1992. Final Report for the Installation of Recovery Wells and Recovery
Compound Construction for the NTA. Final. October.
SAIC, 2010. Focused Remedial Investigation Report, Building 3001and Industrial Wastewater
Treatment Plant Groundwater Operable Units (Phase I). Draft Final. November.
12-2
Final
September 2012

References
SAIC, 2011. Remedial Alternatives Evaluation, Building 3001 and Industrial Wastewater
Treatment Plant Groundwater Operable Units. Final. August.
Tetra Tech, 1999. Installation of a Vacuum Recovery System for the North Tank Area, Operable
Unit to the NPL. April.
US Dept. of Commerce, 2000. Census Bureau. 2000 US Census.

USACE, 1988a. Building 3001 Remedial Investigation Report, Installation Restoration Program,
Final. Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma. January.
USACE, 1988b. Building 3001 Risk Assessment, Installation Restoration Program, Project No.
WWYK86-311. Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma. August.
USACE, 1989a. Building 3001 Supplemental Quarterly Remedial Investigations, Draft Report.
August.
USACE, 1989b. Building 3001 Feasibility Study Report. August.
USACE, 1990a. NTA (NPL Site) Operable Unit to the Building 3001, Design Summary Report,
Tinker AFB, Oklahoma. Installation Restoration Program, Project No. WWYK88
0349B. March.
USACE, 1990b. Building 3001 (NPL Site) Record of Decision Tinker Air Force Base,
Oklahoma. Final. Installation Restoration Program Project No. WWYK86-311. August.
USEPA, 1987. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume I: Human Health Evaluation
Manual, Supplemental Guidance Dermal Risk Assessment.
USEPA, 1988. Federal Facilities Agreement under CERLA Section 120, in the Matter of: the
U.S. Department of the Air Force and Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma. Administrative
Document Number: NPL-U3-2-27. December 9.
USEPA, 1991. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations Synthetic Organic Chemicals and
Inorganic Chemicals; Monitoring for Unregulated Contaminants; National Primary
Drinking Water Regulations, Implementation; National Secondary Drinking Water
Regulations; Final Rule. Federal Register. Vol. 56, No. 30, p. 3526. January 30, 1991.
USEPA, 1992. Dense Nonaqueous Phase Liquids Workshop Summary.
USEPA, 2000. Institutional Controls: A Site Managers Guide to Identifying, Evaluating and
Selecting Institutional Controls and Superfund and RCRA Corrective Actions Cleanups.
USEPA 540-F-00-005. OSWER Directive 9355.0-74FS-P. September.
USEPA, 2001. Comprehensive Five-Year Review Guidance. USEPA 540-R-01-007. OSWER
No. 9355.7-03B-P. June.
USEPA, 2002. Draft Guidance For Evaluating The Vapor Intrusion To Indoor Air
Pathway From Ground Water and Soils (Subsurface Vapor Intrusion Guidance)
USEPA530-F-02-052. November.
USEPA, 2005. Five-Year Review Memorandum, Tinker Air Force Base Superfund Site, USEPA
ID# OK1571724391, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma County, Oklahoma. January 26.
USEPA, 2007a. Corrective Action. http://www.epa.gov/correctiveaction/. June 25.
12-3
Final
September 2012

References
USEPA, 2007b. Memorandum from Michael A. Hebert (Superfund Remedial Branch, USEPA
Region 6) to Albert T. Aguilar (72nd ABW/CEVPE) with attached USEPA Comments
concerning Tinker request to extend shutdown of Building 3001 Extraction System.
February 27.
12-4
Final
September 2012

Attachments
ATTACHMENTS
INTERVIEW DOCUMENT FORM

INTERVIEW SHEETS
SITE INSPECTION CHECKLIST
A-1
Final
September 2012
INTERVIEW DOCUMENTATION FORM

The following is a list of individual interviewed for this five-year review. See the attached
contact record(s) for a detailed summary of the interviews.
Micheal Hebert
Name
RPM (Superfund)
Title/Position
USEPA Region 6
Organization
April 16, 2012

Date
John Harrington
Name
Hydrogeologist
Title/Position
ACOG
Organization
April 25, 2012

Date
Kathy Lippert
Name
President
Title/Position
Geystone
Environmental
Services
Organization
April 30,2012
Date
_________________
Name
_________________
Title/Position
_________________
Organization
_________________
Date
_________________
Name
_________________
Title/Position
_________________
Organization
_________________
Date
_________________
Name
_________________
Title/Position
_________________
Organization
_________________
Date
TinkerAFBNPLSite
Building3001/SoldierCreek
FiveyearReviewInterview
StateandLocalConsiderationsMichaelHebert(USEPARegion6)
1.Whatisyouroverallimpressionoftheproject?(generalsentiment)Note:Theselectedremedyfor
Building3001GWispumpandtreatwhichhasbeenshutdownsince2004allowingfortheGWto
reboundandTAFBconductanupdatedremedialinvestigationofthesite.Afeasibilitystudyisalso
beingconductedinordertoseeifthereanothercleanupalternativethatmightperformbetter.
TheNPLsiteactivitiesareproceedingtowardscompletionofthefinalRODforthesite.RODshavebeen
issuedandimplementedforOperableUnits2and3.OperableUnits1and4arebeingconsidered
togetherinanongoingRevisedFeasibilityStudywhichwillresultinaRODinFebruary2013.

2.Havetherebeenroutinecommunicationsoractivities(sitevisits,inspections,reporting
activities,etc.)conductedbyyourofficeregardingthesite?Ifso,pleasegivepurposeand
results.
Thereareatleast2sitevisitsperyearinconjunctionwiththeRestorationAdvisoryBoardmeetings.
Besidesthesesitevisits,theTinkerstaffconductstelephonecallsorsendsemailsadvisingEPAofsite
activities.Inaddition,TinkerisrequiredtosubmitarequesteveryMarchifitintendstocontinueshut
downoftheBuilding3001recoverysystem.

3.Havetherebeenanycomplaints,violations,orotherincidentsrelatedtothesiterequiringa
responsebyyouroffice?Ifso,pleasegivedetailsoftheeventsandresultsoftheresponses.
Therehavebeennocomplaints,violations,orotherincidentswhichrequiredaresponsebytheEPA
Region6office.

4.Doyoufeelwellinformedaboutthesitesactivitiesandprogress?
Yesthecalls,emails,sitevisits,andRABmeetingsprovidesufficientinformationtobewellinformedof
siteactivities.

5.Doyouhaveanycomments,suggestions,orrecommendationsregardingthesites
managementoroperation?
No.
TinkerAFBNPLSite
StateandLocalConsiderationsJohnHarrington(RABBoard)
1.Whatisyouroverallimpressionoftheproject?(generalsentiment)Note:Theselectedremedyfor
Building3001GWispumpandtreatwhichhasbeenshutdownsince2004allowingfortheGWto
reboundandTAFBconductanupdatedremedialinvestigationofthesite.Afeasibilitystudyisalso
beingconductedinordertoseeifthereanothercleanupalternativethatmightperformbetter.
Mygeneralimpressionisthattheprogressoftheprojecthasbeentimelyandthatadecisionpointasto
wheretogofromhereshouldbereachedoncethefeasibilitystudyhasbeenconcluded.
2.Havetherebeenroutinecommunicationsoractivities(sitevisits,inspections,reporting
activities,etc.)conductedbyyourofficeregardingthesite?Ifso,pleasegivepurposeand
results.
WehavehadregularbiannualupdatesthroughtheRABcommittee.
3.Havetherebeenanycomplaints,violations,orotherincidentsrelatedtothesiterequiringa
responsebyyouroffice?Ifso,pleasegivedetailsoftheeventsandresultsoftheresponses.
No
4.Doyoufeelwellinformedaboutthesitesactivitiesandprogress?
Yes
5.Doyouhaveanycomments,suggestions,orrecommendationsregardingthesites
managementoroperation?
Ifeelthesituationhasbeenwellmanaged.
TinkerAFBNPLSite
CommunityRepresentativesKathyLippert(RABBoard)
1. Whatisyouroverallimpressionoftheproject?(generalsentiment)Note:Theselectedremedy
forBuilding3001GWispumpandtreatwhichhasbeenshutdownsince2004allowingforthe
GWtoreboundandTAFBconductanupdatedremedialinvestigationofthesite.Afeasibility
studyisalsobeingconductedinordertoseeifthereanothercleanupalternativethatmight
performbetter.
Goodidea
2. Whateffectshavesiteoperationshadonthesurroundingcommunity?
Unknown,lessodor

3. Areyouawareofanycommunityconcernsregardingthesiteoritsoperationand
administration?Ifso,pleasegivedetails.
Noconcerns

4. Areyouawareofanyevents,incidents,oractivitiesatthesitesuchasvandalism,trespassing,
oremergencyresponsesfromlocalauthorities?Ifso,pleasegivedetails.
NO

5. Doyoufeelwellinformedaboutthesitesactivitiesandprogress?
Moderately

6. Doyouhaveanycomments,suggestions,orrecommendationsregardingthesitesmanagement
oroperation?
NO
Site Inspection Checklist

I. SITE INFORMATION
Site name: Soldier Creek/Building 3001
Date of inspection: April 11, 2012
Location and Region: Oklahoma / Region 6
EPA ID: OK1571724391
Agency, office, or company leading the five-year

review: Tinker Environmental Restoration Branch
Weather/temperature: Cloudy
Remedy Includes: (Check all that apply)

G Landfill cover/containment
G Monitored natural attenuation
X Access controls
G Groundwater containment
X Institutional controls
G Vertical barrier walls
X Groundwater pump and treatment (NOT Active)
G Surface water collection and treatment
X Other__Rebound Test / Monitoring ______________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
Attachments:
G Inspection team roster attached
G Site map attached
II. INTERVIEWS (Check all that apply)

1. O&M site manager _Eric Houston___________________ __Plant Operator_______ April 11, 2012
Name
Title
Date
Interviewed X at site G at office G by phone Phone no. ______________
Problems, suggestions; G Report attached ______none______________________________________
_____________________________Plant temporary shut down for rebound test_________________________
2. O&M staff ____________________________ ______________________ ____________
Name
Title
Date
Interviewed G at site G at office G by phone Phone no. ______________
Problems, suggestions; G Report attached _______________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
Site Inspection Checklist - 1
III. ON-SITE DOCUMENTS & RECORDS VERIFIED (Check all that apply)
1.
O&M Documents
X O&M manual
X Readily available
X Up to date
G N/A
X As-built drawings
X Readily available
X Up to date
G N/A
X Maintenance logs
X Readily available
X Up to date
G N/A
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
2.
Site-Specific Health and Safety Plan

X Readily available X Up to date
G N/A
G Contingency plan/emergency response plan X Readily available X Up to date
G N/A
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
3.
O&M and OSHA Training Records

X Readily available
X Up to date
G N/A
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
4.
Permits and Service Agreements

G Air discharge permit
G Readily available
G Up to date
G N/A
G Effluent discharge
G Readily available
G Up to date
G N/A
G Waste disposal, POTW
G Readily available
G Up to date
G N/A
G Other permits_____________________ G Readily available
G Up to date
G N/A
Remarks___Treatment Plant currently shut down for rebound test_____________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
5.
Gas Generation Records

G Readily available
G Up to date
X N/A
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
6.
Settlement Monument Records

G Readily available
G Up to date
X N/A
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
7.
Groundwater Monitoring Records

X Readily available
X Up to date
G N/A
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
8.
Leachate Extraction Records

G Readily available
G Up to date
X N/A
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
9.
Discharge Compliance Records

G Air
G Readily available
G Up to date
X N/A
G Water (effluent)
G Readily available
G Up to date
X N/A
Remarks____ Treatment Plant currently shut down for rebound test __________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
10.
Daily Access/Security Logs

G Readily available
G Up to date
X N/A
Remarks____site is within AFB boundary / fenced________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
IV. O&M COSTS

1.
O&M Organization
G State in-house
G Contractor for State
G PRP in-house
G Contractor for PRP
G Federal Facility in-house
X Contractor for Federal Facility
G Other__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
2.
O&M Cost Records

G Readily available
G Up to date
G Funding mechanism/agreement in place
Original O&M cost estimate____________________ G Breakdown attached
Total annual cost by year for review period if available
From__________ To__________
Date
Date
From__________ To__________
Date
Date
From__________ To__________
Date
Date
From__________ To__________
Date
Date
From__________ To__________
Date
Date
3.
__________________
Total cost
__________________
Total cost
__________________
Total cost
__________________
Total cost
__________________
Total cost
G Breakdown attached
Unanticipated or Unusually High O&M Costs During Review Period

Describe costs and reasons: __________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
V. ACCESS AND INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS G Applicable G N/A
A. Fencing
1.
Fencing damaged
G Location shown on site map
G Gates secured
X N/A
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
B. Other Access Restrictions

1.
Signs and other security measures

G N/A
Remarks____________Within AFB fenced boundary / security forces_________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
C. Institutional Controls (ICs)

1.
Implementation and enforcement

Site conditions imply ICs not properly implemented
Site conditions imply ICs not being fully enforced
G Yes
G Yes
X No
X No
G N/A
G N/A
Type of monitoring (e.g., self-reporting, drive by) _________________________________________

Frequency ________________________________________________________________________
Responsible party/agency ____________________________________________________________
Contact ____________________________ __________________ ________
____________
Name
Title
Date
Phone no.
Reporting is up-to-date
Reports are verified by the lead agency
G Yes
G Yes
G No
G No
G N/A
G N/A
Specific requirements in deed or decision documents have been met

G Yes G No
G N/A
Violations have been reported
G Yes G No
G N/A
Other problems or suggestions:
G Report attached
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
2.
Adequacy
X ICs are adequate
G ICs are inadequate
G N/A
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
D. General
1.
Vandalism/trespassing G Location shown on site map

X No vandalism evident
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
2.
Land use changes on site X N/A

Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
3.
Land use changes off site X N/A

Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
VI. GENERAL SITE CONDITIONS
A. Roads
1.
G Applicable
G N/A
Roads damaged
X Roads adequate G N/A
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
B. Other Site Conditions

Remarks ______________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
VII. LANDFILL COVERS G Applicable X N/A
A. Landfill Surface
1.
Settlement (Low spots)

G Settlement not evident
Areal extent______________
Depth____________
Remarks____________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
2.
Cracks
G Cracking not evident
Lengths____________
Widths___________ Depths__________
Remarks____________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
3.
Erosion
G Erosion not evident
Depth____________
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
4.
Holes
G Holes not evident
Depth____________
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
5.
Vegetative Cover
G Grass
G Cover properly established
G No signs of stress
G Trees/Shrubs (indicate size and locations on a diagram)
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
6.
Alternative Cover (armored rock, concrete, etc.)

G N/A
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
7.
Bulges
G Bulges not evident
Height____________
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
8.
Wet Areas/Water Damage

G Wet areas/water damage not evident
G Wet areas
G Ponding
G Seeps
G Soft subgrade
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
9.
Slope Instability
G Slides
G Location shown on site map G No evidence of slope instability
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
B. Benches
G Applicable
X N/A
(Horizontally constructed mounds of earth placed across a steep landfill side slope to interrupt the slope
in order to slow down the velocity of surface runoff and intercept and convey the runoff to a lined
channel.)
1.
Flows Bypass Bench

G N/A or okay
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
2.
Bench Breached
G N/A or okay
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
3.
Bench Overtopped
G N/A or okay
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
C. Letdown Channels G Applicable

X N/A
(Channel lined with erosion control mats, riprap, grout bags, or gabions that descend down the steep side
slope of the cover and will allow the runoff water collected by the benches to move off of the landfill
cover without creating erosion gullies.)
1.
Settlement
G No evidence of settlement
Depth____________
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
2.
Material Degradation G Location shown on site map

G No evidence of degradation
Material type_______________
Areal extent_____________
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
3.
Erosion
G No evidence of erosion
Depth____________
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
4.
Undercutting
G No evidence of undercutting
Depth____________
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
5.
Obstructions
Type_____________________
G No obstructions
Size____________
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
6.
Excessive Vegetative Growth

Type____________________
G No evidence of excessive growth
G Vegetation in channels does not obstruct flow
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
D. Cover Penetrations
G Applicable
X N/A
1.
Gas Vents
G Active G Passive
G Properly secured/locked G Functioning
G Routinely sampled
G Good condition
G Evidence of leakage at penetration
G Needs Maintenance
G N/A
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
2.
Gas Monitoring Probes

G Routinely sampled
G Good condition
G Needs Maintenance
G N/A
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
3.
Monitoring Wells (within surface area of landfill)

G Routinely sampled
G Good condition
G Needs Maintenance
G N/A
Remarks___________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
4.
Leachate Extraction Wells

G Routinely sampled
G Good condition
G Needs Maintenance
G N/A
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
5.
Settlement Monuments
G Located
G Routinely surveyed
G N/A
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
E. Gas Collection and Treatment
G Applicable X N/A
1.
Gas Treatment Facilities

G Flaring
G Thermal destruction
G Collection for reuse
G Good condition G Needs Maintenance
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
2.
Gas Collection Wells, Manifolds and Piping

Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
3.
Gas Monitoring Facilities (e.g., gas monitoring of adjacent homes or buildings)

G N/A
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
F. Cover Drainage Layer
G Applicable
X N/A
1.
Outlet Pipes Inspected

G Functioning
G N/A
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
2.
Outlet Rock Inspected

G Functioning
G N/A
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
G. Detention/Sedimentation Ponds
G Applicable
X N/A
1.
Siltation Areal extent______________

Depth____________
G N/A
G Siltation not evident
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
2.
Erosion
Areal extent______________ Depth____________
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
3.
Outlet Works
G Functioning
G N/A
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
4.
Dam
G Functioning
G N/A
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
H. Retaining Walls
G Applicable
X N/A
1.
Deformations
G Deformation not evident
Horizontal displacement____________
Vertical displacement_______________
Rotational displacement____________
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
2.
Degradation
G Degradation not evident
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
I. Perimeter Ditches/Off-Site Discharge
G Applicable
X N/A
1.
Siltation
G Location shown on site map G Siltation not evident
Depth____________
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
2.
Vegetative Growth
G N/A
G Vegetation does not impede flow
Type____________
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
3.
Erosion
Depth____________
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
4.
Discharge Structure
G Functioning
G N/A
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
VIII. VERTICAL BARRIER WALLS
G Applicable X N/A
1.
Settlement
G Settlement not evident
Depth____________
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
2.
Performance Monitoring Type of monitoring__________________________

G Performance not monitored
Frequency_______________________________ G Evidence of breaching
Head differential__________________________
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
C. Treatment System
G Applicable
G N/A
1.
Treatment Train (Check components that apply)

G Metals removal
G Oil/water separation
G Bioremediation
X Air stripping
X Carbon adsorbers
G Filters_________________________________________________________________________
G Additive (e.g., chelation agent, flocculent)_____________________________________________
G Others_________________________________________________________________________
X Good condition
G Needs Maintenance
G Sampling ports properly marked and functional
G Sampling/maintenance log displayed and up to date
X Equipment properly identified
G Quantity of groundwater treated annually________________________
G Quantity of surface water treated annually________________________
Remarks___Treatment currently shutdown for rebound test_________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
2.
Electrical Enclosures and Panels (properly rated and functional)

G N/A
X Good condition G Needs Maintenance
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
3.
Tanks, Vaults, Storage Vessels

G N/A
X Good condition X Proper secondary containment G Needs Maintenance
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
4.
Discharge Structure and Appurtenances

G N/A
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
5.
Treatment Building(s)
G N/A
X Good condition (esp. roof and doorways)
G Needs repair
G Chemicals and equipment properly stored
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
6.
Monitoring Wells (pump and treatment remedy)

X Properly secured/locked X Functioning
X Routinely sampled
X Good condition
X All required wells located
G Needs Maintenance
G N/A
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
D. Monitoring Data
1.
Monitoring Data
X Is routinely submitted on time
2.
Monitoring data suggests:
X Groundwater plume is effectively contained
X Is of acceptable quality
X Contaminant concentrations are declining
D. Monitored Natural Attenuation

1.
Monitoring Wells (natural attenuation remedy)

G Properly secured/locked
G Functioning
G Routinely sampled
G Good condition
G All required wells located
G Needs Maintenance
X N/A
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
X. OTHER REMEDIES
If there are remedies applied at the site which are not covered above, attach an inspection sheet describing
the physical nature and condition of any facility associated with the remedy. An example would be soil
vapor extraction.
XI. OVERALL OBSERVATIONS
A.
Implementation of the Remedy

Describe issues and observations relating to whether the remedy is effective and functioning as designed.
Begin with a brief statement of what the remedy is to accomplish (i.e., to contain contaminant plume,
minimize infiltration and gas emission, etc.).
Original pump and treatment system was shut down through an ESD since 2004 to
allow for a rebound test. In 2007 a Focused RI and FS was initiated in an effort to
optimize the current remedy and/or instill a different technology. An amended
ROD/new ROD is scheduled to be completed by FY2013.
B.
Adequacy of O&M
Describe issues and observations related to the implementation and scope of O&M procedures. In
particular, discuss their relationship to the current and long-term protectiveness of the remedy.
Groundwater extraction and treatment system has been adequately maintained.
C.
Early Indicators of Potential Remedy Problems

Describe issues and observations such as unexpected changes in the cost or scope of O&M or a high
frequency of unscheduled repairs, that suggest that the protectiveness of the remedy may be
compromised in the future.
__________None_____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
D.

Describe possible opportunities for optimization in monitoring tasks or the operation of the remedy.
Future Opportunities will be identified in the Focused RI and FS reports leading up to

an amended ROD/new ROD.

Superfund Document

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Superfund Document

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Fourth Five-Year Review Report

for the Soldier Creek/Building 3001 NPL Site

Department of the Air Force

Five-Year Review Report

FOURTH FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT

Five-Year Review Report

Summary of Fourth Five-Year Review Findings

Operable Unit Protectiveness Statements

Five-Year Review Report

and the environment.

Site-Wide Protectiveness Statement

Five-Year Review Report

Soldier Creek/Building 3001 NPL Site

Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma

Acting Division Director

Routing and Concurrence Slip-

Begin Routing Date:09/12/2012

To: (Name, office symbol, route number, building, Agency/Post

Remedial Branch - Louisana/New Mexico/Oklahoma Section

Enforcement Confidential: O Yes No

Due Date:1 09/27/2012

For Your Information M Review

From: (Name, org, symbol, Agency/Post)

Room No./Bldg: 6SF-RL

Phone Number: 214.665 8315

Choose EDIT document and turn on Track changes in WORD.

DO NOT ATTACH DOCUMENTS BELOW HERE!

Five-Year Review Report

SIGNATURE PAGE ...................................................................................................... S-1

Physical Characteristics ................................................................................. 3-1

SECTION 4 REMEDIAL ACTIONS .......................................................................... 4-1

Remedy Selection .......................................................................................... 4-1

SECTION 5 PROGRESS SINCE LAST FIVE-YEAR REVIEW ............................ 5-1

Protectiveness Statement from ROD ............................................................. 5-1

Five-Year Review Report

SECTION 6 FIVE-YEAR REVIEW PROCESS ........................................................ 6-1

Community Involvement ............................................................................... 6-1

SECTION 7 TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT ................................................................ 7-1

Building 3001 Site ......................................................................................... 7-1

SECTION 8 ISSUES ...................................................................................................... 8-1

Five-Year Review Report

Building 3001 OU Location Map ............................................................. 3-7

Five-Year Review Report

Chronology of Activities for NPL Site ....................................................... 2-1

Five-Year Review Report

Acronyms and Abbreviations

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

72nd Air Base Wing / Civil Engineering Directorate,

Environmental Restoration Branch

Camp Dresser & McKee, Incorporated

Five-Year Review Report

Acronyms and Abbreviations

Safe Drinking Water Act

Five-Year Review Report

Five-Year Review Report

Five-Year Review Report

Five-Year Review Report

FIVE-YEAR REVIEW SUMMARY FORM

City/County: Tinker AFB/Oklahoma

Deleted Other (specify)

Remediation status (choose all that apply): Under Construction

Construction completion date:

Has site been put into reuse? YES

Review number: 1 (first) 2 (second) 3 (third) X Other (specify) Fourth______