FINAL SITE INSPECTION REPORT

179011.0 Recommendations1791179217931794179517961797179817991800180118021803180418051806180718081809181018111812181318141815181618171818181918201821182218231824Results of the SI provide the basis for conclusions and/or recommendations for further actions ateach of the AOCs.11.1 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. In addition, iron is not aCERCLA hazardous substance, and therefore a recommendation based on iron alone cannot beused to recommend RI/FS. Perchlorate was not detected in the groundwater sample from withinthe AOC. Based on the potential for MEC, a recommendation for a 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 MRS were either below backgroundconcentrations or screening values, Target No. 1 is recommended for NDAI relative to MC andno additional investigations of any potential MC, chemical contamination, or perchlorate arerecommended.11.2 Target No. 2Based on historical evidence and recent MEC finds, there is potential for MEC at Target No. 2.Analytical results indicate that all soil metals results are below Boardman AFR backgroundvalues and no explosives were detected. While PA/SI (Weston, 2004) surface water analyticalresults indicate that perchlorate is present, the upstream sampling locations with the highestperchlorate concentrations indicate that the perchlorate is not from Target No. 2 or any otherknown FUDS AOC. Based on the potential for MEC, a recommendation for a RI/FS limited tofurther evaluation of the MEC hazard is made for Target No. 2. Additionally, because allanalytical results from samples collected in and around this MRS were either below backgroundconcentrations or screening values, Target No. 2 is recommended for NDAI relative to MC andno additional investigations of any potential MC, chemical contamination, or perchlorate arerecommended.11.3 Carty Reservoir Bomb TargetBased on historical evidence, there is potential for MEC at Carty Reservoir Bombing Target.Analytical results indicate that all soil metals results are below Boardman AFR backgroundvalues and no explosives were detected. Surface water and sediment sample analytical resultsindicate that there are no observed adverse impacts. Based on the potential for MEC, arecommendation for a RI/FS limited to further evaluation of the MEC hazard is made for CartyBoardman AFR Final SI Report.doc 11-1 Contract No. W912DY-04-D-0010 Delivery Order No. 003September 2007