10.07.2015 Views

SBCT Final EIS - Govsupport.us

SBCT Final EIS - Govsupport.us

SBCT Final EIS - Govsupport.us

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS
  • No tags were found...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

Chapter 5 – Environmental Consequencescontaminants in the ocean. Contaminants associated with military activities include residues ofexplosives or other constituents of munitions such as metals, constituents of plastics, or comb<strong>us</strong>tionproducts. Other chemical pollutants, such as petroleum hydrocarbon fuels or lubricants, may beinadvertently spilled or released as an indirect result of military activities.Alternative A may result in an increase in sediment transported to streams draining the ranges, andultimately to surface waters beyond the installation boundary. In the absence of mitigation, anincrease in sediment erosion could result in greater impacts, possibly in exceedance of health-basedstandards or antidegradation policy goals.The Army has started an assessment of offsite potential for contaminants at Schofield Barracks underthe Operational Range Assessment Program (ORAP). Samples of surface soils from selected areas onthe training ranges were collected and analyzed, and these data provide an indication of theconcentrations of metals, semi-volatile organic compounds, and explosives in surface soils that couldbe transported to surface water. While still in the early stages of the assessment, preliminary resultsshow no contamination of surface water by explosive residues.The principal explosive chemicals of concern identified in soil samples, listed in order of their watersolubilities, were nitroglycerin, 2,4,6-TNT, RDX, and HMX. These are also the most prevalentorganic constituents of the explosive munitions <strong>us</strong>ed on the ranges. The rate of migration of these fourchemicals through soil and their fate and transport are further described in Transformation F<strong>EIS</strong>(USAG-HI 2004). The ultimate degradation products of these compounds are inorganic nitrogencompounds, carbon dioxide, and water.It is possible, though unlikely, that the contaminant concentrations observed in soils from ranges atSBMR could adversely affect stream water quality. The chemicals of concern are likely to bind to soilparticles and to migrate in this bound state. The amount of water needed to mobilize the contaminatedsediments would likely result in very low concentrations in water. Without direct surface watersample data, it is necessary to make some assumptions in order to estimate the concentration ofcontaminants that might enter stream waters beyond the boundary of SBMR.Assuming a s<strong>us</strong>pended sediment concentration of 1 g/L in water, which is typical for turbid runoffwater, and assuming that the sediment carried by the streams that drain SBMR contains the averageRDX concentration (estimated at 5.9 micrograms per gram [μg/g] [USACE 2002a]), the resultingconcentration of RDX in the water containing the sediment would be 5.9 micrograms per liter (5.9μg/L). Using the same logic, the average concentrations of TNT, HMX, and nitroglycerin in thesurface water would be 0.21, 0.72, and 16.6 μg/L, respectively, based on their average concentrationsin the surface soils (USACE 2002a).Given these assumptions, the projected concentration of RDX in the stream water discharged at theinstallation boundary would be j<strong>us</strong>t slightly above the USEPA lifetime health advisory level (3.7 μg/Lvers<strong>us</strong> 2 μg/L), the concentration of nitroglycerin would be about three times the lifetime healthadvisory level (15.5 μg/L vers<strong>us</strong> 5 μg/L), and the concentrations of the TNT and HMX would bemuch lower than the lifetime health advisory levels.The concentrations of contaminants that would actually be transported by runoff to the installationboundary are very difficult to predict, and the predicted concentration is highly dependent on theassumptions on which the prediction is based. Therefore, the estimate described above is intendedonly to ill<strong>us</strong>trate a simple approach to the problem and to provide an idea of the approximate order ofmagnitude of the concentrations under these assumptions. Note that the average concentration <strong>us</strong>ed inthis estimate likely greatly overestimates the average concentration in soils over the larger area of theFebruary 2008 5-19 2/25th <strong>SBCT</strong> <strong>Final</strong> <strong>EIS</strong>

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!