FINAL SITE INSPECTION REPORT

35363738394041424344454647484950515253545556575859606162636465666768697071Technical Project PlanningThe approach for the SI was developed by Shaw in consultation with site stakeholders. ATechnical Project Planning (TPP) meeting conducted in July 2006 was attended byrepresentatives from the USACE Omaha Design Center, USACE Seattle District, OregonDepartment of Environmental Quality (ODEQ), Oregon State Police, Portland General Electric,Boardman Agri-Industrial Complex, Inc. (BAIC, Inc.), Threemile Canyon Farms, Inland LandCompany, The Nature Conservancy, the Boeing Company, and Shaw. The EPA Region 10 wasinvited to attend but did not respond. The stakeholders agreed to the approach and identified sixareas of concern (AOCs) for further evaluation in the SI as follows: Target No. 1, Target No. 2,Carty Reservoir Bomb Target, Range Complex No. 1, Demolition Area No. 2, and Impact Area.Note that Demolition Area No. 2 and the Impact Area were identified during the TPP. The otherfour AOCs were previously identified in the Archive Search Report (ASR), ASR Supplement,and the DoD Annual Report to Congress.It was also agreed to utilize existing analytical data collected during the Boardman AFR FUDSPreliminary Assessment/Site Inspection Report (PA/SI) (Weston, 2004) in the evaluation ofBoardman AFR.SI Field ActivitiesSI field activities, conducted in February 2007, included a visual reconnaissance at Target No. 1and the Impact Area to look for evidence of MEC. At the other AOCs, fieldwork was limited tosampling for MC because evidence of MEC was available from previous investigations. Prior tosampling, a limited visual reconnaissance, aided by an all-metal detector, was completed foranomaly avoidance during sampling. The objective of the visual reconnaissance was to observegeneral conditions and to select sampling locations. Samples were collected from surface soiland sediment.SI RecommendationsResults of the SI provide the basis for conclusions and recommendations for further actions ateach of the AOCs.Target No. 1Based on historical evidence and results from the SI field activities, there is potential for MEC atTarget No. 1. Analytical results indicate that all soil metals results are below Boardman AFRbackground values and no explosives were detected. Groundwater analytical results indicate thatmetals concentrations are similar to background, with the exception of iron, which was above thebackground value but below the human health screening value. Perchlorate was not detected inthe groundwater sample collected from within the AOC. Based on the potential for MEC, arecommendation for a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) limited to furtherevaluation of the MEC hazard is made for Target No. 1. Additionally, because all analyticalresults from samples collected in and around this munitions response site (MRS) were eitherBoardman AFR Final SI Report.doc ES-2Contract No. W912DY-04-D-0010, Delivery Order No. 003September 2007