EPA/ROD/R10-95/111
June 1995
EPA Superfund
Record of Decision:
Adak Naval Air Station
(OU 1), Adak, AK
-------
DECLARATION OF THE RECORD OF DECISION
SITE NAME AND WCATION
Naval Air Facility Adak
Site 11 (palisades Landfill) and Site 13 (Metals Landfill) ,
Adak Island, Alaska
STATEMENT OF PURPOSE
This decision document presents the selected interim. remedial actioDS (IRAs) for Sites 11 and 13 (palisades
,Landfill and Metals Landfill), which are part of Operable Unit A at the Naval Air Facility (NAF) Adak, ,
Adak Island, Alaska. The remedies selected in this decision document were developed in accordance with
the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, as amended by the Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act, and the National Oil and }lazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan. The'documents supporting the decision are in NAF Adak's Administrative Record.
The United States Navy (Navy) is the lead agency for this decision. The interim remedial actions proposed
in this plan were reached as part ,of the Federal Facilities Agreement (FFA) for NAP Adak, which is a legal
agreement between the Navy, the United States Environment3l Protection Agency (EPA), and the Alaska
Dep3rtm.ent of Environmental Conservation (AJ:)EC). EP A approves of this decision, and along with
ADEC, has participated in the evaluation of remedial action alternatives. The state of Alaska concurs with
the selected remedy. ' ' ' .
These FFA parties ~tered into ajoint agreement to evaluate and clean up hazardous substances on Adak
Island. The agreement follows both state and federal regulations. This agreement went into effect on
November 24, 1993.
For the two landfills diswssed in this Record of Decision (ROD), a complete as5e$.c:ment of potential human .
and ecOlogical risk was not performed prior to a decision to take remedial action. The remedial investigation
(RI) for NAP Adak, scheduled to begin in October 1996, will include a basewide comprehensive risk
assessment that will include Palisades and Metals Landfills. Following that assessment, the FFA parties may
propose additional rem~ actions, at the landfill sites as part of a final basewide remedial action.
ASSESSMENT OF THE SITE
Releases of hazardous substances from Palisades and Metals Landfills, if not addressed by implementing the
response actions selected in this ROD, may potentially present an imminent and substantial endangerment to
public health, welfare, and/or the environmenL .
~
DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECl'ED AND CONTINGENJ REMEDIES
The selected IRAs at Palisades ~d Metals Landfills, at NAP Adak, Adak Island, Alaska, address the
potential chemical exposures and associated risks to human health and the environment by minimi-nng the
potential for exposures to site cont:lmin:lnts and off-site CODt:lmin~mt migration. The following lists provide
the major components of the IRA for each landfill.
Ii
"
..
31S4O\9S01.034\TEXT
-------
Palisades Landfill-Selected Alternative
Reroute Palisades Creek to reduce surface water contact with laD.d.611 waste.
.
.
CODStruct small interceptor ditches along the uphill side of the land.611 to collect water
flowing off the hillside. .the water will be routed around the perimeter of the land.611 and
into Palisades Creek.
.
Add landfill cover over approximately 6 acres.
.
Establish vegetation over the newly constructed landfill surface by seeding and take
measures to. prevent erosion. Erosion control measures may include jute matting, filter
fabric feyes, and bay/straw bales.' .
.
Implement institutional controls such as residential use restrictioDS and controls and
installation of signs around the perimeter of the landfill to warn' the public of its contents,
and conduct a boundary survey of the landfill. .
Conduct a mODitoring program that will involve sampling and analyzing water and sediments
co11ected from the mouth of Palisades Creek, and inspectiDg the overall physical condition of
the land6ll and landfill cover to determine whether erosion or settlement has occurred that
could be detrimental to the landfill cover or could lead to. potential danger to human health
and/or the envkonment. .
.
Me8aIs Landfill-Se1eded Alternative
-L~
31S40\9.S01.034\TEXT
.
Conduct a site removal evaluation on the shoreline debris located in the northem section of
the landfill. The shorc1iDe debris will be inspected and material that could adversely affect
the marine environment will be removed &om the shoreline and properly disposed.
Sediment samples will be taken and the results will be screened against risk-based screening
concentrations (RBsCs). If exceedances of RBSC can be liDked to the debris present, that .
debris will be removed from the shoreline and placed in the landfill. The debris will be
evaluated for stability and, if necessaxy, measures will be taken to prevent further debris
from contacting the marine environnient.
.
Construct sIna1I interceptor ditches on ~ uphill side of the landfill at the base of
Monument Hill to collect surface water flowing off the hill abOve the landfiD. The ditches
will divert the water into Ku1uk Bay. .
Add a landfill cover over appromnate1y 17 acres. .
.
.
Install five additional groUndwater monitoring wellS near the east and north perimeter of the
landfill, toward Kuluk Bay to provide adequate coverage near the shoreline. .
.
Establish vegetation over the newly coDStructed landfill covet and take measures to prevent'
erosi~ .'
..
.
Implement institutional controls such as residential use restrictions and controls and
installation of signs around the perimeter of the landfill to warn the public of its contents,
and conduct a boundary survey of the landfiD.
-------
.
Conduct a monitoring program that will involve sampling and analyzing groundwater, and
inspecting the overall physical condition of the landfill and landfill cover to determine
whether erosion or settlement has oCCUITed that could be detrimental to the landfill cover or
could lead to potential danger to human health and/or the environment.
Metals Landfill-Contingent Alternative
Include all elements listed under Selected Alternative with the exception of the landfill
cover.
.
.
Construct an engineered landfill cap over approximately 17 acres.
SfATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
The selected and contingent IRAs for Palisades and Metals Landfills comply with federal and state.
requirements that are legally applicable or relevant and appropriate to the remedial actionS, and are cost-
effective. These remedies utilize permanent solutions and alternative treatment technologies to the
maximum extent practicable. However, because treatment of the -principal threat- at each site was not found
to be practicable, the remedies do not satisfy the statutory preference for treatment as a principal element of
a CERClA remedy. As shown in the evaluation of a1tematives, the size of the sites, volumes of wastes and
debris, and remote location preclude a practicable remedy that includes excavation and effective treatment.
Since the selected ~terim remedies will result in po5SI"bJe hazardous substances remaining on site, a review
must be conducted within 5 years after commencement of the remedial actions to ensure that the remedies
continue to provide adequate protection of human heahh and the environment Because the selected
.remedies are IRAs, a review of the remedies' protedivcn.ess and a thorough evaluation of the statutory
elements will be conducted as part of the basewide RI. .
..
.
31S4O\9S01.034\TEXT
-------
Signature sheet for the Naval Air Facility Adak, Interim Remedial Action, Record of Decision, Sites 11
and 13, betWeen the United States Navy, the United States Environmental Protection Agency, and the Alaska
Department of Environmental Conservation.
~
--'
(7~
Date
96
Captain L. W. Crane
Commanding Officer, Naval Air Facility Adak
United States Navy
..
31SC0\9501.0'34\TEX.T
-------
Signature sheet for the Naval Air Facility Adak, Interim Remedial Action, Record of Decision, Sites 11
and 13, between the United States Navy, the United States Environmental Protection Agency, and the Alaska
Department of Environmental Conservation.
~~
3(31/9 :5'
Chuck Clarke
Regional Administrator, Region 10
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Date
3154O\9S01.034\TEXT
-------
Signature sheet for the Naval Air Facility Adak, Interim Remedial Action, Record of Decision, Sites 11
and 13, betWeen the United Stales Navy. the United Stales Environmental Protection Agency, and the Alaska
Department of Environmental Conservation. ..
'--'Y\A~ ~
\ .
Marianne G. See
Regional Administrator. Southcentral Region
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation
~i'3
Date
31S40\9S01.034\1CXT
-------
NAF ADAK, SITES 11 AND 13
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
era 0154
Record of Decision
Date: 02/713/95
Page xi
CONTENTS
Sectlon
~
DECLARATION OF TRE RECORD OF DECISION. . . . . . . . . " . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. xvii
UNffS OF:MEASURE . . ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :. . Xix
1.0 IN'IRODUCTION .............................................. 1
2.0 SITE NAMES, LOCATIONS, AND DESCRIPTIONS. . . . . . . . .'. . . . . .'. . . .. 2
2.1 PALISADES IANDFIIL,(SITE 11) .......................... 2
22 METALS LANDFIlL (SITE 13) . . . .,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6
3.0 SITE lDSTORY ................................................ 9
3.1 PALISADES IANDFll.L .................................. 9
32 ME"fALS LANDFIlL' . . . . . . . . '. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9
4.0 COMMUNITY RElATIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ . . . . .'. . .. 10
4.1 INFORMATION REPOSITORIES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
42 GOALS AND OBJECITVES OF TIlE COMMUNTIY ' ,
RELA.TIONS PIAN' ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.0 OPERABLE UNIT DESIGNATION. . . . . . . : . .'. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. '12
6.0 SITE CIIARACIERISTICS ...................................... 13
,6.1 TOPOGRAPHY. . . . . '. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 13,
6.1.1 PaliSades I..andfill ..............................;... 13
6.1.2 Meta1s I..andfill .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 13
62 SURFACE W A1ER. ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .'. 16
62.1 Palisades I..andfill .................................. 16
622 Meta1s I..andfill .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ . . . . . . .. 16
6.3 GEOLOGY AND SOILS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . '. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 18
6.3.1 Palisades Landfill .... ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
6.32 Meta1s w.dfill .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 18
6.4 GROUNDWA1ER .,.... ~....... .,.'........'........... ... 20
-------
NAF ADAK, SITES 11 AND 13
U.s. Navy CLEAN Contract
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
Contract No. N6247~9-D-9295
era 0154
Record of Deqsion
. Date: 02/'lB/95
Page xii
CONTENTS (Continued)
Section No.
6.5
Page No.
6.4.1 Palisades Landfill. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 20
6.42 Metals Landfill ..... . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 20
ECOLoGICAL PROFll..E ......................,......... 21
6.5.1 Palisades Landfill .......:........ - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 21
652 Metals Landfill .. 0 ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 22
7.0 WASlE CHARAcrERlZATION AND PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS. . .. 24
7.1 POIENTIALWASIE SOURCES .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. 24
7.1.1 General Classification of Waste Sources at Palisades Landfill . 25
7.12 General Oassification of Waste Sources at Metals Landfill ... 26
7.2 SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
72.1 Palisades Landfill '.... . . . . . . . . . . ~ . . . . . ~ . . . . . . . . . . . .. 26
72.2 Metals Landfill ~ . . . . . . . . . . . ~ . . ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 28
8.0 SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS ............. . . . .. . ; . .. . .. .. . . .. . . ... 31
8.1 PAIlSADES IANDFIIi .......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ . . . . '. . . 0 33
8.2 ME'!'.AI1) LANDFIT.L . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 34
9.0 DESCRIPTION OF AL1ERNATIVES .............................. 34
9.1 . PAIlSADES LAND~ .......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3S
9.1.1 Alternative 1: No Action. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0. . . . . .. . . . . . " 3S
9.1.2 Alternative 2: Stream Rerouting and Landfill Cap ......... 36
9.1.3 Alternative 3: Waste Removal From Creek Bed and 0
Installation of Landfill Cap ...............,........... 44
9.2 METAlS I..ANDFnL . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .0 '0' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 49
. 92.1 0 Alternative 1: No Action. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 49
. 922 Alternative 2: Excavation, Segregation, ReconsoIidation, and 0
Capping the Entire Landfill .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " 50
923 Alternative 3: Debris Removal From Shoreline Areas and
Landfill Cap .........................:........~. o. .. 056
10.0 EVALUATION OF ALmRNATIVES ............. ... . . . .. . . . . . . . .. 60
10.1 PALISADES LANDFnL ................................. 61
10.1.1 Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment. " 61
10.1.2 Compliance With Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate
Federal and State Requirements. . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . .. 62
-------
NAP ADAK, SITES 11 AND 13
U.S. Navy ~LEAN Contract
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
era 0154
Record of Decision
Date: 02j2i3j95
P~e xiii
CONTENTS (Continued)
Section No.
Page No.
10.13 Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 63
10.1.4 Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume Through
o Treatment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 63
10.15 Short-Term Effectiveness. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .' 63
10.1.6 Implementability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 64
10.1.7 Cost.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 64
10.1.8 State Acceptance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 67
o 10.1.9 Community Acceptance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 67
102 METALS LANDFilL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .: 67
10.2.1 Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment. .. 67
10.2.2 Compliance With Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate
Federal and State Requirements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 68
10.23 Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence. .. . ; . . . o. . ~ . . . .. 69
10.2.4 Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume Through
o Treatment. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 69
10.25 Short-Term Effectiveness. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., 69 0
10.2.6 Implementability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 70
10.2.7 Cost.. . . . . . . . . . ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 70
10.2.8 State Acceptance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 70
10.2.9 Community Acceptance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .' 73
11.0 SUMMARY OF SEIECIED AL'IERNATIVE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 73
11.1 PALISADES lANDFIlL ................................. 73
11.1.1 Rationale for the Selected Alternative. .0. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. 73
11.12 Description of Selected Alternative. . ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 76
112 METALS LANDFilL . . . . . . . o. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 81
112.1 Rationale for the Selected Alternative. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 81
1122 Description of the Selected Alternative ~................. 84
1123 Rationale for the Contingent Alternative. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 87
112.4 Description of the Contingent Alternative. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 87
11.3 EVALUATION BY TIlE NCP'S NINE CRITERIA ............. 89
113.1 Palisades I..an.dfill .................................. 91
1132 Metals Landfill-Selected Alternative. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. 93
1133 Metals Landfill-Contingent Alternative. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 96
12.0 STATIJTORY DETERMINATIONS, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .; 98
-------
NAP ADAK, SITES 11 AND 13
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
ero 0154 .
Record of Decision
Date: fJ2j18j95
Page xiv
CONTENTS (Continued)
Section No.
Page No.
12.1 PROJECTION OF HUMAN HEALIH AND TIlE
ENVmONMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 99
122 COMPliANCE WITH ARARS . ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. 99
122.1 PaIisades Landfill Action-Specific ARARs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 99
1222 Palisades Landfill Location-Specific ARARs .............. 102
1223 Palisades Landfill Chemical-Specific ARARs .. . . . . . . . . . . .. 102
122.4 Metals Landfill Action-Specific ARARs (Selected
Alternative) ........................................ 102
12.25 Metals Landfill Location-Specific ARARs (Selected
Alternative) ........................ ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . '. 104
12.2.6 Metals Landfill Chemical-Specific ARARs (Selected .
Alternative) .... ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 105
12.2.7 Metals Landfill Action-Specific ARARs (Contingent
.. . . Alternative) ................. .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . .. 105
12.2.8 Metals Landfill Location-Specific ARARs (Contingent
Alternative) . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 106
122.9 Metals LandfiiI Chemical-Specific ARARs (Contingent
. . Alternative). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. 106
123 COST...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 106
12.4 UTILIZATION OF PERMANENT SOLUTIONS AND
ALTERNATIVE 'IREATMENT 1ECHNOLOGIES OR
RESOURCE RECOVERY 1ECHNOLOGIES TO TIm .
MAXIMUM EXTENT PRACTICABLE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . .. 107
125 PREFERENCE FOR 1REATMENT AS PRINCIPAL ElEMENT ... 107
13.0 DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 107
14.0 REFERENCES................................................ 110
APPENDIX A
APPENDiX B
APPENDIX C
ADMINIS'IRATIVE RECORD INDEX
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY.
ANALYTICAL RESULTS FROM PREVIOUS
INVESTIGATIONS
-------
NAF ADAK, SITES 11 AND 13
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295 .
era 0154
Record of Decision
Date: 02/'lJ3/95
Page xv
FIGURES
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17 .
18
19
TABLES
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Page
The Aleutian Island Chain 0 0 0 0 . 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . . ~ 0 0 . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 .. 3.
Location of Palisades and Metals Landfills 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . . . . . . . . . 0 . . . . . .. 4
Palisades I...3.ndfill . . . . . 0 . . 0 . . . 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . . 0 0 0 0 0 . . . . 0 . 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 . .. 5
Metals I..an.dfill. 0'" 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . . . 0 0 . . . . . 0 . . . . 0 . . . 0 . . . . 7
Metals I..an.dfill, Typical Sections 0 0 o. 0 0 0 . 0 0 . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0" 0 0 0 0 . . 0 0 0 . . 0 .. 8
Palisades Landfilllbree-Dimensional Model 0 0 0 . 0 . . . 0 0 . 0 0 . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 o. 14
Metals Landfill Three-Dimensional Model. 0 0 . 0 . . 0 . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . . 0 0 0 0 0 o. 15
Metals Landfill Characteristics. . . 0 . 0 0 . . . 0 0 . 0 . . 0 0 0 0 0 . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 17
Metals I..an.dfill, Geologic Cross Section A-A' . 0 . . 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . . 0 0 . . . 19
Palisades Landfill, 1990 Investigation Zones 0 0 0 . . . . 0 0 0 . . . 0 0 0 . . . 0 0 . 0 o. 29
Palisades Landfill, Alternative 2 .0 0 0 0"' 0 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 o. 37
Leachate Collector, Alternative 2-Palisades Landfill . 0 0 - . . 0 0 0 0 . . . . 0 0 o. 39
Palisades Creek Profile and Typical Sections 0'" 0 ~ 0 0 0 :. 0 0 0 . o' 0 . 0 . 0 00 0 0 - 41 "
Typical Section-Landfill Cap 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 . . . . . 0 . . 0"0 . 0 .0 0 0 0 0'0 0 0 . . . . 0 0 .. 43
Palisades Landfill, Altepmtive 3 . 0 0 0 0 . . . . . 0 . 0 . . 0 0 0 0 . 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o' 47
Metals I..an.dfill, Alternative 2 . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 . . 0 0 0 . . 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 51
Metals I..an.dfill, Typical Sections 0 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 . . . 0 . 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 53
Metals Landfill, Alternative 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 57
Pipe Bedding, Selected Alternative, Palisades Landfill o. 0 0 0 0 0 . . 0 . 0 0 . 0 .. 0 78
. .-
~
Proposed Plan Alternatives and Costs, Palisades Landfill o. 0 . 0 . 0 0 . . 0 . . .. 65
Proposed Plan Alternatives and Costs, Metals Landfill 0..... 000 0 . 0 . . . . 0 71
Selected Alternative Costs Palisades Landfill. . 0 . 0 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 0 00 . . . . . 0 0 . .' ~ 80
Selected Alternative Costs Metals Landfill .. . . . 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 0 . . . 0 . 0 . . . . . .. 88
Contingent Alternative Costs Metals Landfill 0 0 0 0 . . 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 90
Scope of Work Modifications Palisades Landfill . 0 0 0 0 0 0 ; 0 0 0 0 0 0 . . 0 0 . . .. 108
Scope of Work Modifications Metals Landfill . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 .. 109
-------
NAF ADAK, SITES 11 AND 13
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
era 0154
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
Record of Decision
Date: 02j'lJ!,j95
Page xvii
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation
applicable or relevant and appropriate requirement
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
liability Act of 1980 .
Comprehensive Long-Term Environmental Action Navy
community relations plan .
contract task order
Engineering Field Activity
United States Environmental Protection Agency
expanded site investigation
Federal Facilities Agreement
Federal Facilities. Compliance Agreement
feasibility study
high-density polyethylene
initial assessme~t study
interim remedial action
jet petroleum #4
jet petroleum #5
maximum. conViminant level
motor vehicle gasoline
monitoring well
Naval Air Facility
Naval Air Station
National Priorities List
operation and maintenance
operable unit
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon.
polychlorinated biphenyl.
petroleum, oil, and lubricants .
remedial action objective
risk-based screening concentrations
Reso\;IIce Conservation and Recovery Act
remedial investigation
Record of Decision
ADEC
ARAR
CERCLA
CLEAN
CRP
ero
BFA
EPA
ESI
FFA
FFCA
FS
HDPE
!AS
IRA
JP-4
JP-5
MCL
mogas
MW
NAP
NAS
NPL
O&M
au.
PAll
PCB
POL
RAO
RBSC
RCRA
RI
ROD
-------
NAF ADAK, SITES 11 AND 13
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
era 0154
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS (Continued)
SA.
SARA
SI
SVOC
SWMU
TPH
URS
USFWS
VOC
Record of Decision
Date: 02/'li3/95
Page xviii
source area
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986
site investigation
semivolatile organic compound
. solid waste management unit
total petroleum hydrocarbons
URS Consultants, Inc.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service
volatile organic compound
-------
NAF ADAK, SITES 11 AND 13
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295 .
era 0154
Record of Decision
Date: 02j2Ej95
Page xix
UNITS OF MEASURE
cfs
ft
mg/kg
mgfL
ppm
p.g/L .
cubic feet per second
feet
milligrams per kilogram
milligrams 'per liter
parts per million
micrograms per liter
-------
. .
NAF ADAK, SITES 11 AND 13
U .$. Navy CI.EAN Contract
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
era 0154
Record of Decisioll
Date: 02/11!,/95
Pagel
DECISION SUMMARY
1.0 INTRODUcrION
The United States Navy (Navy) is required to address contaminated sites or potential
releases of cont~minants to the environment at the Naval .Air Facility (NAF) on Adak
Island in aO manner consistent with the requirements of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCIA), as
. amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA). The'
selected interim remedial actions (IRAs) for two inactive landfills, Palisades Landfill
(Site 11) and Metals Landfill (Site 13), at NAF Adak will comply with applicable or
relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs), as determined by the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Alaska Department of Environmental
Conservation (ADEC). The IRAs are intended to reduce possible chemical exposures
and' associated risks to human health and the environment by minimi7.1ng the potential
for exposure to site cont~min9nts and off-site contaminant migration.
The particular IRAs selected in this Record of Decision (ROD) were reached as part of
a deliberative pr-ocess set out in the Federal Facilities Agreement (FF A) for NAF Adak,
a legal agreement between the Navy, EP A, and ADEC. The FF A went into effect on.
November 24, 1993. The FF A parties entered into a joint agreement to evaluate and
clean up sites contaminated with hazardous substances on Adak Island in accordance
. with established state and federal regulations. NAP Adak was placed on the National
Priorities List (NFL) on May 31, 1994. . ".
For the two inactive landfills discussed in this ROD, actions were deemed necessary to
protect human .health. and the environment prior to a complete assessment of potential
human and ecological risk. The action being proposed, therefore, is called an IRA The
remedial investigation (RI) for NAF Adak, scheduled to begin in October 1996, will
include a basewide comprehensive risk assessment that will include Palisades and Metals
Landfills. Following that assessment, the FFA parties may propose additional remedial
actioDS at the landfill sites as part of a final basewide remedial action.
-------
NAF ADAK, SITES 11 AND 13
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89~D-9295
era 0154
Record of Decision
Date: 02/'li!,/95
Page 2
2.0 SITE NAMES, WCATIONS, AND DESCRIPTIONS
Adak. Island is located off the southwest coast of Alaska, near the western end of the
Aleutian Islands (Figure 1). Adak Island is included in the AlaSka Maritime National
Wildlife Refuge and has been so designated since 1913. The wildlife refuge is managed
by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). The Navy has a formal
withdrawal from the refuge and has the right to manage Navy-occupied land until the
withdrawal is revoked. NAF Adak is located on the northern half of the island
(Figure 2).
. In 1942, Adak Island was commissioned as an Army base for.attacking the nearby
Japanese-occupied islands (Attu and Kiska) during World War ll. In 1951, it became a
Navy facility designated Naval Air Station (NAS) Adak. The NAS A~ principal
missions have been air operations, co~unications functions, and oceanographic
research. The facility was redesignated Naval Air Facility (NAF) Adak, effective July 1,
1994, to reflect its revised active status and reduction in military personnel. Palisades
and Metals Landfills are located near the main activity center for NAF Adak (Figure 2).
2.1
PALISADES LANDFILL (SI'IE 11)
Palisades Landfill is located several miles north of the central community of Adak and
was used as the primary disposal area for all operations on Adak Island from the 19405
to approximately 1970... Th~ 1~~nfil1 area, which is approximately 6 acres, covers portions
of the coastal uplands immediately adjacent to Kuluk Bay and part of a canyon or
ravine. Figure 3 shows the primary area of the landfill. Aerial photographS suggest that
the original landfill boundary extended beyond the present western boundary.. It is
assumed that the landfill waste formerly located in this western. area was placed in the
present landfill area. The ravine is approximately 1,200 feet long, 5 to 300 feet wide,
and 5 to 150 feet deep, with a small stream (palisades Creek) rnnninf through it. The
mouth of the ravine opens immediately to Kuluk Bay. Wastes within the landfill include,
but are not limited to, petroleum products, solvents, paint waste, batteries, sanitary trash,
construction waste, scrap vehicles, and mercwy. Approximately 80,000 to 100,000 cubic
yards of solid waste are located in the landfill. Soil covers most of the landfill materials,
although a portion of the disposed material within the ravine has no cover and is on a
slope. The exposed waste in the ravine consists primarily of barrels and construction
-------
Russia
)
/\.
)
)
o
50
I
Scale In Miles
CLEAN
COMPREHENSIVE LONG-
TERM ENVIRONMENTAL
ACTION NAVY
. Figure 1
The Aleutian Island Chain
CTO 0154
Adak Island. AK
Sites 11 and 13
ROD
533ISo1002.1-05394
".'-.--.
.. ..;.. n" '. ~-:
-------
~
f"'\
/r--........,.... -""""'--""
./ ---- -'. ',----.150
r. {" . ----" . .
'- . .450 --'J /' "'---- 300
.. \. /' ;
'...-/' :.-.:'
;::::.:..,
""
-------
)
)
)
...""............"......
""""""""""""""'""''''''''''''0,''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''',
"""'''''''''''''' ..................../[[[
....m..........."""""""""""'"
{'\
] ~...........................
.."".."""""""",,/""''''''''''
/...........,..,............ '10''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
./
:................. " ...
.....n......................"""""""'"
[[[""""" ."""",,, ..
."..""""...........,,"......,,.............. ....".."""""" "....""".. ,," ..""".." ,," ",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
\
.....",..."......
.. i
!
('''''''''''''''''''l
\
\'.." //- -
'\ ,,,/ /--....,.../~/ A,r..:.':I" - - "'"
) I ......... /'" ,..." "",/""".. ..,,"''', \ I
("......) /~' ....""". ....."../ . ,,""" "'" '-. '
,,," .......... "..""" ".. / ..
.. /;;;:;;;::':::,i;: .~---, "... . l' "'", '"' CUlVEAI
.. ../,'" / ,.."" ..." ,,<'" """ ..""'." '",,' ..
.. ~..:~l~.":.'~.';.:\.f.',,;'.:'.:.~.:.~.:~~:::;:~;~~~~:;~:.......:;:.;.;;;.;,~;.;;.":~::::~::::..) j.:~~ ,::':::""''''''''''''......................,.......' ',\, ''?--~, \ '; \
. . ':":':':"'b"'/~"'IO''''''''''''''''>''}'' ;- ./~,~..=,-,;;; -",', ..L I ~ """,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,""---'" " f / P,;... J \ 1>
.-..:::::::"",':a;c"."""-"""-- /, /1/,,";'" .........." ,,.- ---- ,! .... ---~' ': ~'.'''''' \. \
"" "."..,,":""" . ...."....~ .."..-;'" /. ///f ''',,,''',,/ {;-.."....-e,', ) ......./ , '. ~ -- ".. "'.. c<*. ..
, -:::::::::::~'" " (' "/1;;:/;/ J;(f)%;-j;j~?'f33/!i';:;~~'::(,;::::::""""'" ""'::::: ::,,:,,--- ,.".,. ,,, ,j \ ..
....'" 20 I .. I{ f .,../0"...." /', ..""..,,.... .. ,,,' / .. --" ..-- "" ..... ,... "" "
"". ,/ f ; i ,..~";",, I//i>,/.::::::<':k"" ..-...,', ' ", ' ' , . .,
/."........ ., 1 / I I' ' : ,"" /., , /'./ "...' r" " .. ' " .. .
r:'~!!it::::::~"':''''''..1 " /' 1/' / I (7;~'" /.. /""._", '''' " .. \/.. .... .
!(\'\'''-'''//-'''''-'' , ! ,I, ~I/"'- ........".. ' ' ' ,;", .
,I ~::.:.:..:.:~:::.:~..::..:::::.../ i)!t f',ill I \) ,,\ " , '
....."..' ! 11,/ i ,,--./ / / \ \
C'~:;:~'h'~~' ,. i ~". + 0 ,00
¥~RMM-EN5IVElONO' NORTH Sca~ in Fee'
ENVIRONMENTAL
-------
NAF ADAK, SITES 11 AND 13
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
era 0154
Record of Decision
Date: 02/28/95
Page 6
.
waste. The waste in the ravine covers a portion of Palisades Creek, which runs through
the landfill before emptying into Kuluk Bay. The landfill does not extend into Kuluk
Bay. Groundwater occurs locally under the site and discharges into the rilarine
environment at the downgradient boundary. Groundwater is not a source of drinking
water for Adak residents.
2.2
METALS LANDFILL (SITE 13)
Metals Landfill is located immediately southeast of the central community of Adak and
is boUnded by Monument Hill to the west and Kuluk Bay to the east. The landfill
received wastes s1m;l~T to those in Palisades Landfill from the 1940s to 1989. Metals
Landfill is subdivided into three distinct sections-north, east, and main (Figures 4 and
5). The total volume of landfill waste and soil in Metals Landfill is approximately
400,000 cubic yards, not including the ~erial that is scattered on the surface and
adjacent to the shoreline. The total site area is approximately 28 acres; approximately
'19 acres (the main and north sections) were used as a landfill. Groundwater occurs
locally under the site and discharges into the ~e environment at the downgradient
'boundary. Groundwater is not a source of drinking water for Adak residents.
The main section, covering about U acres, has apparently been filled to an elevation'
that varies from approximately 20 to 40 feet. Also, a significant amount of waste was
scattered over the main section without any cover. An estimated 275,000 cubic yards of
landfill waste and soil cover were placed on this main section. It is estimated that the
majority of landfill waste is composed of metal scrap and debris.
The north section, covering about 7 acres, was. filled above the original elevation, and the
waste was covered with soil. A significant volume of waste was apparently pushed over
the side of the original bank and is exposed on the steep bank. Some of this waste now
extends to the shoreline of Kuluk Bay. An estimated 50,000 cubic yards of material are
in the main area of the north section, and'about 75,000 cubic yards of material are on
the bank that encroaches on the bay. .
The 9-acre east section was not used as a primary landfill, although some wastes (mostly
metal scraps) have been deposited on the surface and on the shore side of the east
section. A few other areas in the east section have small quantities of scattered waste.
A sludge lagoon in the south end of the east section contains approximately 5,000 cupic
yards of dewatered sludge. .
-------
Kuluk Bey
Kuluk Bey
'-
Kuluk Say.
B
+
NORTH
o
100
200
Scale in Feel
Elevations In Feel
Contoure Based on 1093 Survey
. CLEAN
COMPREHENSIVE LONG.
TERM ENVIRONMENTAL
ACTION NAVY
Figure 4
Metals Landfill
633154002".0\ 1695
.- ..--. ..... -.. ....,.._.._-_.-...~....-..,.~......" us' --...'.
"~""'_.''''..rj_.''''''-''_.
----- r" . ~
CTO 0154
Adak Island, AK
Siles 11 and 13
ROD
-------
120 ......,....................................
120"""'''''''''-\-''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''[[[
\
""''''''''''''''r'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''"".........................................
:::=\-~~~~=~ ~~;;;::~~~.;
........................... ................'[[[
. , .
80 """"""""""""'''''''......................... ..... ........ ........ ...................
~ ::::::':.:::::::::::::::::::.:::::::::::::::::..:::::::~~~~.s;:).=.~.;"<.'....."""
[[[\............
\
20[[[
\
[[[\'... .......
o ~.~~~.~.~~.~~~.~~[[[~. .......
C - TYPICAL SECTION THRU NORTH SECTION
.n"""""""""""""""""""'"''''''''''''''''''"""'''''''U''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
[[[
100 .\[[[
\
.... \................................. Main Secllon................................ .................. Easl'Sectlon"""""""'"
\~ . 4 .
80 . \. .................. ...:. .... .... . .'" .. ........ ........ ...... ""'.. . ...
........\[[[
80 ..........\[[[ [[[
..""'''''' [[[- ...,..,........""",...",..."".,,.....,.......,...........
~ ................ [[[ '"''''''1993'Survey'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
: ~:A;=~~.~~~~~~o.i~;;1_=:-:::=::"-----
B - TYPICAL SECTION THRU NORTH END MAIN AND EAST SECTIONS
-------
NAP ADAK, SITES 11 AND 13
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
era 0154
Record of Decision
Date: 02/28/95
Page 9
3.0 SITE HISTORY
On August 15, 1942, Adak Island was selected to become a military base by order of the
Western Defense Command. Currently, there are approximately 1,000 residents on
Adak Island and the majority are associated with the Navy, either as active duty Navy
personnel, civil servants, or government contracto~. Also, the USFWS conducts
acti~ti~onthelliand. .
Bevnnine in the 1940s, Palisad~ and Metals Landfills were among the properties on
which Navy personnel disposed of solid waste. No accurate records were kept of the
volume and nature of the materials disposed of at these nonpermitted landfills.
3.1
PALISADES LANDFILL
Pa1isad~ Landfill was used as the primary disposal area for all operations on Adak
. Island from the 19405 to appr~tely 1970. A wide variety of materials were
reportedly disposed of at Palisades Landfill, including waste petroleum, oils, and
lubricants (POL); chlorinated and nonchlorinated solvents; paint waste; sanitary trash;
scrap vehicles; lead and mercury batteries; construction waste; and mercury (ESE 1986).
The landfill was covered with local soils in the early 19705 after disposal practices were
. . stopped Palisad~ Landfill bas not been d~ign~ted as a Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) hazardous waste landfill.
3.2
METALS LANDFILL
Metals Landfill began operations in the 19405 and received a variety of waste materials
including sanitary trash; construction waste; POL; paints; chlorinated and nonchlorinated
solvents; lead, lithium, and mercury batteri~; scrap vehicles; medical waste; sewage
sludge; pesticides; transformers; and possibly unexploded ordnance (ESE 1986). In 1970,
restrictions were placed on the types of materials that could be disposed of at the
landfill. Beginning m 1988, when a sludge press was installed at the sewage treatment
plant, dewatered sewage sludge was disposed of on the southern end of the eastern .
section of the landfill (Tetra Tech 1989). The landfill stopped receiving wastes in 1989,
but some disposal and retrieval practices continued until 1991.
-------
NAF ADAK, SITES 11 AND 13
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract
Engineering Field Activity, Northwes~
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
era 01.54
Record of Decision
Date: 02/2l3/95
Page 10
A site inspection of Metals Landfill was conducted in 1989 by regulatory agencies. The
investigation discovered four drums with liquid, one cracked vehicular battery, and one
acetylene cylinder sca~ered i,n one small area of the landfill. As a result of the
inspection, the regulatory agencies determined that the battery area contains hazardous
waste and, therefore, is considered a hazardous.waste pile under RCRA This is the only
area of the landfill to have a RCRA violation; the remaining landfill has been designated
as a solid waste management unit under RCRA The presence of the batteries resulted.
in a Federal Facilities Compliance Agreement (FFCA) being signed and issued by the
EP A in November 1990 (Document Number 1090-0205-6001). A RCRA Oosure Plan is
being developed for the hazardous waste pile located in the limits of Metals Landfill. .
This hazardous waste pile will be closed under RCRA guidelines and is not included as
part of this IRA
. 4.0 COMMPNI1Y RELATIONS
4.1
INFORMATION REPOSITORIES
The community relations plan (CRP) for the cont;lmin~ted sites at NAF Adak, including
PaliSades and Metals Landfills, is available for review in the information repositories.
The specific requirements for public participation pursuant to CERCLA, as amended by
SARA, include releasing the proposed plan to the public. The proposed plan was
released to the public in April 1994 and has been placed in the Arlmini~trative Record
and information repositories. A copy of the Arlmini~trative Record for the IRA is
located at the following information repository:
NAF Adak
Admini~tration BUilding (30004)
Environmental Safety Department, 2nd Floor
Adak, Alaska '.
(907) 592-8152 .
Point of Contact: NAF Adak Environmental Officer
-------
NAF ADAK, SITES 11 AND 13
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contrad
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
era 0154
Record of Decision
Date: 02/12>/95
Page 11
The Anmini~trative Record is on file at the following locations:
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
1040 Hostmark Road
Po~bo, VV~tnn~on 98370
(206) 396-5984
Point of Contact: Alaska Operations Manager
United States Bureau 'of Land Management
'l22 W. 7th, #36
Anchorage, Alaska
(907) 271-5025 .
Point of Contact: librarian
The documents included in the Anmini$'3,tive Recor~ which were used in the decision-
making process for this ROD; are listed in Appendix A
Notices regarding the availability of the proposed plan, public meetings on the proposed
plan, and the public comment period have been published in the Anchorage Daily News
and the NAF Adak Eagle's Call. A public comment period was held from April 29 to
May 29, 1994. Two public meetings on the proposed plan were held. One meeting w~
held in Anchorage, Alaska, on May 9, 1994, and the other meeting was held in Adak,
Alaska, on May 11, 1994. The public meetings were conducted by the Navy, EPA, and
ADEC. A total of 8 people attended the Anchorage meeting and 11 people attended
. the Adak meeting. . . ..
During. the public comment period for the proposed plaD, a total of 23 comments were
received by the Navy. Seventeen comments were oi"ally submitted and discussed at the
public meetings, arid six comments were submitted. through the mail. The Public
comments are summarized and the responses presented in the Responsiveness Summary
in Appendix B of this ROD.
Because of the changes from the proposed plan's preferred alternative to the ROD's
selected alternative, a second comment period was conducted from January 16, 1995, to
February 7, 1995. The comment period was initiated through a fact sheet, with no public
meetings being conducted during the second comment period. No public comments were
received during the second comment period.
-------
NAF ADAK, SITES 11 AND 13
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
era 0154
Record of Decision
Date: 02/'1l3/95
Page U
.4.2
GOALS AND OBJECl'lVES OF TIlE COMMUNITY RELATIONS PLAN
The goals of the basewide CRP arise directly from responses to the community
. interviews, from requirements stated in the community relations section of the Navy's
Installation Restoration Program, and from federal and state regulations. The goats are
written to address the primary concerns of the public through a community relations
. program designed for the Adak Naval Complex. Each goal has several objectives
devised to achieve that goal through specifically designed activities.
The interviews conducted during preparation of the CRP show that the community has a
strong interest in specific aspects of the. Adak Naval Complex's environmental situation.
The CRP, which contains the goals and objectives reflecting the community's concerns, is.
available at the information repositories and in the Ac1mini~trative Record file, as .
described in Section 4.1. .
5.0 OPERABLE UNIT DESIGNATION
As of May 1993, 84 sites either known or suspected to be cOntaminated have been
identified in the Adak FF A, including Palisades and Metals'.Landfills. Sites have. been
labeled as either RCRA solid waste management Units (SWMUs) or source areas (SAs).
For the pmposes of implementing the FFA, the two labels have similar meanings;
however, EP A de~E1'ated SWMUs during, or pursuant to, a RCRA facility assessment in
1991. The Navy subsequently designaied a number of the sites as SAs as a result of
additional visual inspections and a review of historical records. Currently, there are 63
SWMUs and 21 SAse .
Palisades and Metals Landfills have been designated as SWMU No. 11 and SWMU
No. 13, respectively, and are included under Operable Unit A (OU A). OU A includes
6 no further action sites, 45 SWMUs and 7 SAs, as listed in the FF A
The 50 remaining sites (not included in this IRA or designated as no further action in
the FF A) will be addressed through the preliminary source evaluation (PSE) process.
-------
!'
NAF ADAK, SITES 11 AND 13
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
era 0154
R~rd of Decision
Date: 02/2i3/95
Page 13
.
6.0 SITE CHARACTERISTICS
This section discusses the physical and biological characteristics of the landfill areas,
including topography, surface water, geology and soils, groundwater, and .ecological
profile.
6.1
TOPOGRAPHY
6.1.1 Palisades Landfill
Most of Palisades Landfill lies in relatively level terrain above a steep vertical drop of
approximately 150 feet to Kuluk Bay; A portion of the landfill is located in an adjacent
ravine. West and East Upper Palisades:Creeks combine along the northeastern portion
of the site and flow through the steep ravine, providing a physical and hydraulic
boundary along the eastern portions of the landfill. The landfill is further bo:undedby
Bayshore Highway to the north and a series of relatively smaIl hills to the west. Figure 6
presents a three-dimensional ~odel of the surfaCe featur~ affecting Palisades Landfill.
6.1.2 Metals Landfill
Metals Landfill is located over an ;nfilling of Kuluk Bay that is believed to be the result
of quarrying activities on the eastern slope of Monument Hill. The eastern section of
the landfill is fairly level, with a 8- to 1S-foot rise in elevation above sea level at its
eastern boundary. A waste scarp runs the length of the. main section of the landfil at an
elevation of 15 to 25 feet higher than that of the eastern section, forming a boundary
with the eastern section. The main section is fairly level, with a large amount of waste
covering its surface. Its western edge is bounded by the toe of the slope left by the
quarrying activities at Monument Hill. The northern section of the landfill is 10 to 15
feet higher than the main section, and the main section is 15 to 25 feet higher than the
eastern section. Despite several small depressions in this section of the landfill, its
. surface is fairly level. Figure 7 presents a three-dimensional. model of the surface-
features affecting Metals Landfill. .
.
-------
CLEAN
COMPREHENSIVE LONG.
TERM ENVIRONMENTAL
. ACTION NAVY
Figure 6
Palisades Landfill Three-Dimensional Model
533154002.fi.{)5394
)
)
...
A = Wesl Upper Palisades Creek
8 = Easl Upper Palisades Creek
[!J
CTO 0154
Adak Island, AK
Sires 11 and 13
ROD
-------
)
)
Volcanic Ash
I
Lagoon Deposits.
CLEAN
COMPREHENSIVE LONG-
TERM ENVIRONMENTAL
ACTION NAVY
6331S4002.7.()5394
Glacial Till
Bedrock
Groundwater Flow
.
.
. . .
. Figure 7 : . .
. . Metals Landfill Three.Dlmenslonal Model
)
[!J
CTO 0154
Adak Island, AK
Sites 11 and 13
-------
NAF ADAK, SITES 11 AND 13
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
era 0154
Record of Decision
Date: 02/113/95
Page 16
6.2
SURFACE WA1ER
6.2.1 Palisades Landfill
Two drainage areas converge northeast and upgradient of the.landfill to form Palisades
Creek (Figure 6). Once ~e creek reaches the landfill, it flows through the land£in debris
and re-emerges deep in the canyon before discharging to Kuluk Bay. As a result of
precipitation and groundwater infiltrating through the landfill debris, the flow volume of
Palisades Creek within the landfill increases.
In-stream flow measurements were conducted on Palisades Creek above and below the
landfill. The. measurements were conducted on four separate days in.1ate July and early
August 1990. During this period, the flow rates of Palisades Creek ranged from 0.47 to
152 cubic feet per second (cis) upstream of the landfill and 052 to 2.2 cis downstream
of the landfill (URS 1993). The stream flow increased consistently from the .upstream
station to the downstream station by 10 to 20 percent dwing this period. This suggests
that little to no surface water flow is lost to infiltration between these stations and that
groundwater may recharge surface water flow as it passes through the landfill.
6.2.2 Metals Landfill
There is minima 1 evidence of established sUrface drainage features. Three ponds are
located on the eastern .section of the landfill. Two are m~nmade depressions and the
third is a natural low area at the northern end of the eastern section. Along the access
road trailsversing the main section of the landfill, a pond accumulates. surface water and
flows down from the sand cap covering the main body of the 1anClfil1 In the. northern
section, a smaIl depression holds water at certain times of the year (Figure 8).
There is no surface water flow from the landfill except during storm surges that break
over the sea waIl forming the eastern boundary of the landfill. According to evidence of
surface erosion in the northeastern area of the eastern section, a significant amount of
. cover material has been eroded and transported to Kuluk Bay. .
31S4O\~UB4\TEXT'
-------
~
NAF ADAK, SITES 11 AND 13
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
era 0154
Record of Decision
'Date: 02/12,/95
Page 18
6.3
GEOWGY AND SOILS
6.3.1 Palisades Landfill
The Palisades Landfill area is underlain by basalts and tuffs of the Finger Bay Volcanics
below a thin mantle of unconsolidated deposits. The 1988 site investigation (51)
identified four stratigraphic units: manufactured fill materials, volcanic ash deposits,
glacial drift, and igneous bedrock (Tetra Tech 1989). '
Aerial photographs (1973) and the 1988 geophysical survey show the delineation of ,
landfilled materials across the area. These materials consist predominantly of sand and
rock fill, metal debris, and municipal waste. The sand and rock fill was found in the '
upper 5 feet across the site and was likely placed to cap the landfill. Municipal waste,
composed of paper, wood, and other materials, was encountered during drilling in the
western and northwestern portions of th~ site.
Interbedded organic peat, sand, silt, clay, and gravels were encountered in undisturbed
areas outside the landfill. These materials represent ash and pyroclastic deposits from
volcanic eruptions and the tundra soiJ.$. These materials may extend beneath the landfill
waste in portions of the site. Glacial till was encountered at depths r-m~nf from 10 to .
22 feet below groUnd surface. The till consists of a dense, gray-green, clayey matrix
containing coarse gravels. Bedrock, composed primarily of basalt, is exposed in the
eastern wall of the Palisades Creek ravine and in the wave-cut cliffs south of the site.
,: !
j
The results of the 1988 51 geophysical survey and observations mad~ during the 1990
investigation indicate that approximately half of the landfill area contains large quantities
of metallic waste. The landfill area also contains a shallow surface water pond, portions
of 'an active and an abandoned access road, and the buried reaches of Palisades Creek.
6.3.2 Metals Landfill
Boring logs from the 51 (Tetra Tech 1989) were used to cOnstruct a geologic cross
section extending from monitoring well MW13-1 to well MW134 (Figure 8). The cross
section shows that the soils in the eastern section of the landfill are highly varied
(Figure 9). The surface soils are generally sands and gravels, with variable amounts of
silts. A layer of coarse cobbles and boulders underlies the surface soils. This
consolidated layer is believed to be remriants of the quarrying activities on Monument
-------
CLEAN
COMPREHENSIVE LONG-
TERM ENVIRONMENTAL
ACTION NAVY
533154002.9-1011295
o
m
Ii.
.5
Q)
~ 10
~
i
>
20
)
A
MW13-4
MW13-2
AI
MW 13-1
MW13-3
. . . .
',', II I. .
. '-",-,'-.
I..:..,., .
. . '. ,I,' ..: '. .
.. . .,
",,""',
. . .
.1"',' .
. .
.
.
',". .,'
I. .'
. '
,-,',' '.-,' .
. . " . . .' ....'.' .'.
1,. . - . . ... . . ',:..'.' .
.1 . '1.1 '.'. "
. .".1 ..:'...' .', . . : '. - .1, . . . . .
. '. .' '. . ,I' . . ,I' '.' .
.' ,:.," .,"",." .
o
100
200
LEGEND
Horizontal Scale in Feet
[t{),
.. ,
, ,
Gravelly and Silty SAND
Sandy GRAVEL
Coarse Cobbles and Rock
[J
,..
...1.
Groundwater Surface
(Tetra Tech 1989.)
Figure 9
Metals Landfill
Geologic Cross Section A-A'.
cra 0154~
Adak Island, AK
Siles 11 and 13
ROD
):
-------
NAF ADAK, SITES 11 AND 13
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract
Engineering Field Activit-f, Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
era 0154
Record of Decision
Date: 02/'li3/95
Page 20
Hill and provides the foundation upon which the landfill was built. Figure 9 shows soils
underlying the main section .of the landfill.
Monument Hill is an andesite porphyry dome with a well-developed columnar structure
that dips to the northwest. The overburden that covers major portions of the landfill is
developed from this rock and comes from the use of Monument Hill as a quarry.
6.4
GROUNDWATER
6.4.1 PalisadeS Landfill
Two monitoring wells :were installed at Palisades Landfill in 1990 to provide information
on the characteristics of the local groundwater zones. An upgradient monitoring well
was installed, and a second well was insj:alled along the western border of the landfill,
downgradient from a surface water pond Each well has a 5-foot screen interval in the
uppermost groundwater zone. Water surface elevation, temperature,' pH, conductivity,
and turbidity measurements were collected from the groundwater at these locations
during groundwater sampling in July, August, and October 1990. The results of these
field measurements show a difference of approximately 2 feet in water surface elevation
between the wells. On average, pH, conductivity, and .turbidity were lower at the landfill
than at the upgradient sampling location. .
I
.
I
I
I
i
i
i
I
I
i
6.4.2 Metals Landfill
During the S1, four monitoring wells were installed on the eastern edge of the eastern .
section of the landfill (Tetra Tech 1989). During the expanded site investigation (ESI),
it was determined that two of these wells needed to be replaced and a fifth well installed
at the southeastern corner of the. eastern section of the landfill (URS 1992); (see
Figure 8).
The wells were placed at the eastern boundaxy to determine whether contaminants were
migrating out of the landfill and into Kuluk Bay.' The soils overlying the groundwater
surface at the site are highly permeable. The groundwater flow and elevation are
provided in Figures 7 and 9. Saturated hydraulic conductivities are estimated to range
from .10 to 1,000' ft/day (Tetra Tech 1989). .
-------
NAP ADAK, SITES 11 AND 13
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
era 0154 .
Record of Decision
. Date: 02/22>/95
. Page 21
6.5
ECOLOGICAL PROFILE
6.5.1 Palisades Landfill
The Palisades Landfill is located on a coastal upland area and comprises five habitats:
.
.
Freshwater stream (palisades Creek) .
Freshwater wetlaD.ds associated with Palisades Creek
Perennial ponded water on the landfill
Deep-loam terrestrial
Marine (Kuluk Bay)
.
.
.
The landfill was created within a large ravine. Palisades Creek enters the ravine from
the north near Bayshore Highway, flows through the landfill, drops approximately 80 feet
in elevation, and discharges to Kuluk B~. The creek is a perennial freshwater channel
that drains a small watershed extending approximately 1.5 riilles inland. Water flow in
Palisades Creek varies with precipitation. The creek flows through the landfill for
approximately 300 feet and then emerges to descend into Kuluk Bay. The steep, shallow
outlet traverses a cobble substrate. These factorS would preclude the use of Palisades
Creek by anadromous fish (e.g., Dolly Varden. and salmon). However, non-anadromous
varieties of Dolly Varden may inhabit reaches upstream of the landfill. Small forage fish
were casually. observed in the lower Palisades Creek by URS during unrelated site visits
in 1990. The most likely sp~es of small fish observed in the lower creek may be the
threespine stickleback. The creek is presumed to sustain populations of insects and
other aquatic invertebrates that are typical of temperate sub-boreal aquatic ecosystems.
The riparian vegetation bordering Palisades Creek is dominated by sedges.
A perennial water area of approximately 0.25 acre is present in the southwest quarter of
the site. Other small perennial water areas are located in the central portion of the
landfill. .These areas usually have standing water throughout the growing season. These
areas appear to be man-made or created due to lan,dfill settlement. Marsh vegetation is .
dominated by the long-aWn sedge (Carex macrochaeta). Wildlife commonly found in
perennial water habitats includes a variety of wading birds, such as snipes, curlews,
$andpipers, and phalaropes.. .
-------
NAF ADAK, SITES 11 AND 13
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
era 0154
Record of Decision
Date: 02/'l13/95
Page 22
The remainder of the landfill is characterized as a deep-loam habitat. Aoral
communities in the deep-loam habitats are the most diverse and productive of those on
Adak Island and are represented by 22 plant species. The landfill consists of two areas:
.
.
A high bench area west of the ravine
.A steeply sloping ravine
.. ,
The bench area is capped with coarse-grained sand and is fairly level. Vegetative cover
on the bench is relatively sparse, compared to undisturbed sites. Dominant plant species
include horsetail (Equisetwn spp.), sedge (Carex macrochaeta), and rush (Juncus arcticus),
with less abundant buttercup (RarumcuIu.s occidentalis), saxifrage (Pamassia kotzebuei),
wild snapdragon (MimuIus guttatus), bog orchid (Pla1anthera commutatwn), wiltl celery
(CaIamogrostis nutkaensis), and grass (Phleum commutatum). Mosses cover much of the
soil surface. The slopes of the ravine are dominated by a lush cover of grass (Elymus
arenarissubsp. mollis).
Bird species commonly seen on the landfill include the Lapland longspur (Calcarius
lapponicus),.rosy finch (Leucosticte arctoa), savannah sparrow (Passerc:ulus sandwichensis),
and song sparrow (Melospiza melodia). Potential residents .0£ this site are the arctic fox
(Alopex lagopus); rock ptarmigan (Lagopus mutus), which is common in lowland and
alpine tundra habitats; and the Norway rat (Rattus norvegicus).
Palisades Creek empties into the Kuluk Bay marine habitat. The substrate at the steep
outlet of the creek consists of cobbles and large rocks. Macroalgae and invertebrates
(e.g., bivalves, limpets, and barnacles) typical of rocky habitats in the north Pacific Ocean
are expected to be present in Kuluk Bay. Adak Island hosts a wide variety of seabirds
(i.e., puffin, gulls, seoter, tubenoses, and cormorants) that may use the Kuluk Bay
shoreline.. Sea otters (Enhydra lutris) ~ve been obserVed along the shoreline, and other
marine \J1~mm;;Us may also visit the area.
6.5.2 Metals Landfill
The Metals Landfill is located on a eoastallowland. area and is composed of terrestrial
and marine (Kuluk Bay) habitats.
-------
NAF ADAK, SITES 11 AND 13
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
era 0154
Record of Decision
Date: 02/28/95
Page 23
The landfill was created by the infilling of Kuluk Bay with quarry material from the
eastern slope of Monument Hill and the disposal of wastes from naval base operations.
It was active between the 19405 and 1989. The terrestrial habitat is highly disturbed and
is divided into three sections: main, northern, and eastern.
The northern section of the landfill occupies about 7 acres and is 10 to 15 feet higher in
elevation than the main section. This section is covered by a soil cap" and the soil
surface is strewn with small waste and is sparsely vegetated by grasses, and sedges. The
northern section currently provides little habitat for terrestrial wildlife.
The main section of the landfill occupies about 12 acres due east of Monument Hill.
Although some portions of the main section are capped with soil, most of the surface is
covered by landfill waste. The section is sparsely vegetated and currently provides little
or no habitat for terreStrial wildlife.
The eastern section of ~elandfill occupies about 9 acres east of.the main.section and is
about 5 to 10 feet lower than the main section. Several small perennial water bodies
exist in the, eastern section, :including a O.25-acre area in the northern end. One small
dewatered sewage sludge pond is located along' the southern boundaxy of the landfill.
Waste is scattered throughout the section, which is densely vegetated with sedge (Carex
macrochaeta), rush (Juncus arcticus), bog orchid (Platantheraco11J1lUltatum), grass
(PhIeum ,commuta1Um), and cow parsnip (Heracleum 1anDtum). Wildlife commonly
observed in the eastern section include the mallard (Anar platyrhyndws), green-winged
teal (Anas aecca), blue-winged teal (Anas' disCOTS), Lapland longspur (Calcarius
Uipponicus), rosy finch (Leucosticte arctoa), and Norway rat (Rattus Mrvegicus).
Kuluk Bay forms the eastern and northern boundaries of this site. The ,eastern limit of
the site is stabilized with a seawall of large boulders. Exposed waste is scattered on the
shore. At low tide, portions of sandy beach are exposed. The north face of the landfill,
which ends at Kuluk Bay,' also has much exposed waste. Macroalgae and invertebrates
(e.g., bivalves, limpets, and barnacles) exist along the rocky shorel:ine, but kelp beds are
absent in the near-shore areas, except for a small,bed about 100 meters offshore where
the eastern and northern landfill sections meet. A rock outcrop is present :in the landfill
at this point and ,apparently extends into Kuluk Bay. The presence of beaches and lack
of kelp along much of the landfill shore suggest that the near-shore substrate is '
composed predorninautly of unconsolidated sand. Adak Island hosts a wide variety of
seabirds that use the Kuluk Bay shorel:ine for nesting, perching, and foraging. Tufted
puffins (Fratercula cirrhata) nest just south. of the sewage treatment plant along the
-------
NAP ADAK. SITES 11 AND 13
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
era 0154
Record of Decision
Date: 02/1i3/95
Page 24
breakwater, which is contiguous with the Metals Landfill seawall. Marine m::lmmals such
as the sea otter (Enhydra lutris), harbor seal (Phoca vitualina), and Steller's sea lion
(Eumetropias juhaJa) are commonly 'observed along the landfill shoreline.
7.0 WASTE CHARACTERIZATION AND PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS
Information related to waste sources and chemicals associated with these sources are
presented in this section.
7.1
POTENTIAL WASTE SOURCES
During World War n, Navy and Army ~ units stationed at Adak Island were engaged
primarily in aircraft support, maintenance, and repair. Because the island could be
supplied with troops and material only by way of ship and aircraft, the island also had
ship /boat support and maintenance and repair facilities. The types of waste reportedly
associated with the aircraft facilities included refuse, . sanitary wastes, photographic and
lithographic wastes, POL, solvents (chlorinated and nonchlorinated), lead-based paints,
and pesticides. The ship/boat facilities reportedly produced lubricating-oil waste,
batteries, lead-based paints, thinners (chlorinated and nonchlorlnated), sanitary waste,
and bilge water containinf residual fuels. The waste streams from both activities were
disposed of at the island's landfills (ESE 1986).
After the war, the following naval comm::lnds and support departments were identified as
possible generators of waste streams: Public Works Department,. which encompassed the
carpenter/paint shop, mar.hine shop, power plant utilitY, steam plant utility, and
transportation maintenance; Navy Exchange, which encompassed the dry cleaning
detachment and the commi~ary; Operations Department, which encompassed the ships
division, photo laboratory, and paint shop; and the RecreatioIial Services Department,
which encompassed the auto hobby shop and photographic hobby shop (ESE 1986).
Naval Support Group Activity operational departments identified as probable generators
of waste streams were the Public Works Department, which encompassed the sewage.
treatment plant, potable water treatment plant, and the transportation maintenance shop;
and the Recreational Services Department, which consisted of the auto hobby shop (ESE
1986). The Mount Moffett Detachment consisted of the sanitary treatment system and
the antenna maintenance shop (ESE 1986). The Zeto Point Detachment consisted of
,
-------
NAP ADAK, SITES 11 AND 13
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract .
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
ero 0154
Record of Decision
Date: 02/28/95
Page 25
the maintenance shop (ESE 1986). Tenant operations identified as probable waste
generators were the Naval Facility; the branch hospital, which was composed of the
dental clinic, medical clinic, and pharmacy; the Naval Mobile Construction Battalion; the
Naval Oceanographic Command Detachment; the Fixed Wing Patrol Squadron; the
Aircraft Intermediate Maintenance Department, which encompassed the airframe shop,
non-destruct inspection laboratory, tire shop, hydraulic shop, engine shop, paint shop,
ground support equipment shop, and electronics shop (ESE 1986). Other support and .
. mili~ operations identified as probably contributing to waste-stream generation were
the USFWS, the calibration laboratory, pesticide operations, firefighting tralning, and
ordnance training and disposal activities (ESE 1986). ..
The waste types associated with these naval comm('mds, detachments, and tenant,
. commands were lacquers, thinners, waste/residual paints, solvents (chlorinated and
nonchlorinated), lubricating oils, hydraulic oils, fuel sludges, mineral spirits, POL, battery
acids, battery cases, antifreeze, sanitarysiudge, sanitary sewage, sanitary refuse, bilge
wastes, waste fuels, photographic develo~r and fixatives, inks, diesel fuel, mercury,
Freon, detergents, medical wastes, x-ray films and solutions~ discarded drugs, jet fuels,
pesticides, and Stoddard solvent. These miscellaneous items were reportedly disposed of
at one of the NAP landfills (ESE 1986). Palisades and Metals Landfills are only two of ..
a number of landfills located at NAP Adak.
'.LI General Classification of Waste Sources at Palisades Landfill
The report of the initial assessment study (IAS) conducted in 1985 details the World
War n and postwar history of Adak Island (ESE 1986). The report also explains the
operations, processes, and probable waste streams generated by the combined services
and tenant commands from about 1940 to 1986. The !AS report estimates that more
than 5,000 gallons of POL wastes per year were disposed of at Palisades. Landfill from
the 19405 to 1970 (ESE 1986). These POL wastes included motor vehicle gasoline
(mogas), jet petroleum #4 (JP-4), jet petroleum #5 (JP-5), and lubricating oil. The
estimated volumes of some of the other wastes diSposed of at Palisades Landfill include
approximately 62,000 gallons of chlorinated solvents (including carbon tetrachloride,
trichloroethane, trichloroethcme, and tetrachloroethene), 47,000 gallons of nonchlorinated
solvents (including Stoddard solvent, toluene, and benzene), 8,400 batteries, and 50
pounds of mercury (ESE 1986). During its operational period, the site was occasionally
burned, reducing the total amount of flammable wastes that were present. The waste
estimates developed in the !AS were based primarily on a search of available records.
However, the specific somces that were used to develop these estiIrnltes were ~ot cited
-------
NAP ADAK, S~ 11 AND 13
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract
Engineering Field Activity. Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
era 0154
Record of Decision
Date: 02/'}$/95
Page 26
in the IAS, and the accuracy of these estimates is uncertain. A large amount of the
visible waste. disposed o'f at Palisades Landfill consists of scrap metal, construction debris,
building materials, and sanitary trash.
j j
7.1.2 General Classification of Waste Sources at Metals Landfill
. !
The !AS details the World War n and postwar history of Adak Island (ESE 1986). The
report also explains the operations, processes, and probable waste streams gen~rated by
the combined services and tenant commands from about 1940 to 1986. The IAS report
(ESE 1986) estimates that the following materials were disposed of at Metals Landfill:
10,000 gallons of waste POL (e.g., mogas, JP-4, JP-5, and lubricating oils); 5,000 gallons'
of polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) fluids; 500 'gallons of chlorinated solvents (e.g., carbon
tetrachloride, trichloroethane, trichloroethene, and tet.rachloroethene); 500 gallons. of
nonchlorinated solvents (e.g., Stoddard solvent, lacquer thinner, benzene, and toluene);
500 pounds of pesticides; 2,500 lead ba~eries; 50 mercwy batteries; 800 lithium .
batteries; and undisclosed quantities of scrap metal, sanitary trash, construction waste,
sewage sludge, and possibly unexploded ordnanCe. These volume estimates are based
upon a records search of historical operations, which are limited and are, therefore,
highly uncertain. A large amount of the wastes disposed of at Metals Landfill consists of
scrap metal, construction debris, and building materials. .
7.2
SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS
. .
Several previous limited investigations were conducted at both Palisades and Metals
Landfills. An !AS of NAP Adak was conducted in 1985 (ESE 1986). Additional
investigations were conducted on the island after the lAS.
. .
7.2.1 Palisades Landfill
Previous investigations at Palisades Landfill include an SI (Tetra Tech 1989) and
additional SI activities (URS 1993). Analytical results from these studies are provided in
Appendix C. .
1988 Site lnvemglllion
The Palisades Landfill site was. part of an SI conducted on Adak Island in 1988 (Tetra
Tech 1989). This investigation included a geophysical survey to define the portion of the
-------
NAF ADAK, SITES 11 AND 13
U.S. Navy a.EAN Contract
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest.
Contract No. N6247~9-D-9295
era 0154
Record of Decision
Date: 02/'}J!,j95
Page 27
landfill used for the disposal of metals. Sediment and surface water samples were
collected from the streams flowing into the landfill. Surface soil, sediment, and surface
water samples were also collected in the. drainage down gradient of the landfill that
eventually discharges to Kuluk Bay. The number of samples collected in this
investigation was limited (i.e., only a single composite soil sample was collected from the
downstream slope of the ravine, and surface water and. sediment sampling in Palisades
Creek.was limited to one upstream and one downstream sample). All samples were
analyzed for volatile organic Compounds (VOCS), ~emivolatile organic compounds
(SVOCs), organochlorine pesticides, PCBs, and metals. Surface water samples were also
analyzed for total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH). Results of the SI sampling are
described below and summarized in Appendix C, Table C-1. .
Surface Water. The analytical results for the surface water samples iridicated that lead
was the only metal detected at concenirations above the contract-required detection
limit. VOCs, SVOCs, organochlorine pesticides, PCBs, and petroleum hydrocarbons
were not detected. .,
Surface Soil. The analytical results for the single composite surface soil sample
indicated the presence of SVOCs, PCBs, and metals. Detected metals, were arsenic,
cadmium, chromium., copper, lead, nickel, silver, and zinc. The detected concentrations
were not compared With reference station concentrations, because background sampling
was only recently done and values were not available.
Sediment. The analytical results for the upstream sediment sample indicated the
, presence of trace hydrocarbons 'and the following metals: arsenic, cadmium., chromium.,
copper, lead, nickel, silver, and zinc. VOCs, SVOCs, organochlorine pesticides, and
PCBs were not detected. ' ,
The analytical results for the downstream sediment samples (including field composite
duplicates) indicated the presence of SVOCs, PCBs, and metals. The detected metals
were arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, nickel, silver, and zinc. VOCs and
organochlorine pesticides were not detected. '
1990 Site InveStigation
Additional SI activities were conducted at Palisades Landfill in 1990 (URS 1993).
Samples were taken from groundwater, surface water, soil, and stream sediments. These
samples were analyzed for VOCs, SVOCs, organochlorine pesticides, PCBs, and- total
-------
,to
NAF ADAK. SITES 11 AND 13
U.S. Na")' CLEAN Contract
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
era 0154
Record of Decision
Date: 02/1l3/95
Page1l3
metals. The samples were collected from three areas, or zones (Figure 10). Zone 1 was
located upgradient or north of Palisades Landfill; Zone 2 included Palisades Landfill; .
and Zone 3 was downgradient or south of the landfill, within the bottom of the ravine
near Kuluk Bay. The analytical results are summarized in Appendix C, Tables C-2, C-3,
and C-4.
Upgradient Area-Zone 1. Surface water, sediment, subsurface soil,. and groundwater
samples were collected from Zone 1. Chemicals detected in surface water and
groundwater were limited to metals. In addition to metals, sediments contained
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAIls) at one location and benzoic acid at all
locations. Subsurface soils contained metals and seven organic compounds (2-butanone,
.acetone, benzoic acid, carbon disulfide, ethylbenzene, methylene chloride, and xylenes).
Landfill Area-Zone 2. Surface water,. sediment, subsurface soil, and groundwater
samples were cOllected from Zone 2. Metals were. detected in all matrices. Surface
water samples contained no detectable organic compounds. Sediments co~tained
benzoic acid, PAIls". methylene chloride, and acetone. Subsurface soils contained six
VOCS and six SVOCs. Groundwater in the landfill area contained xylenes in both
rounds of sampling: 2-butanone, ethylbenzene, toluene, and vinyl chloride in the first
sampling round and .4-methylphenol, naphthalene, and bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate in the
second sampling round. .
Downgradient Area-Zone 3. Surface water and sediment samples were coJIected from
Zone 3 to evaluate contaminant migration from the site into Kuluk Bay. . Metals were
detected in both the surface water and sediment matrices. Zone 3 metal concentrations
in surface water were comparable with Zone 1 concentrations. Surface water consained
no detectable levels of organic compounds. Sediments contained detectable levels of
eight PAIls, benzoic acid, and bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate. .
7.2.2 Metals Landfill
Previous inves~ations at the Metals Landfill included an SI (Tetra Tech 1989), an
expanded site investigation (ESI) (URS 1992), and a I-year groundwater monitoring
study (URS 1994a). The analytical results from the SI are summarized as maximum
detected chemical concentrations in Appendix C, Table C-5.
-------
[[["0''''''''''''''''''''
i\
I ",~.~..
I
....................."........
.....,"""""
..
CLEAN
~~~~~~HENSIVE LONG.
L ACTY6~O~~~NTAL
53J1~002'1(H)506~' )
Figure 10
199:r"saaes Landfill
-------
NAF ADAK, SITES 11 AND 13
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract.
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
era 0154
. Record of Decision.
Date: 02/28/95
Page 30
I
. I
!
I
1989 Site Investigation
The SI included a geophysical survey of the landfill, surface and subsurface soil sample
collection, and the installation of monitoring wells (Tetra Tech 1989). Samples were
. analyzed for VOCs, SVOCs, pesticides, PCBs, and total metals. SI sampling was limited
to two surface soil stations, one subsurface soil station, and four well locations that were
all situated in the eastern and main sections of the landfill.
1992 Exparukd Site Investigation
During the ESI, surface soil, groundwater, surface water, and freshwater sediment
samples were collected (URS 1992). All samples were analyzed for VOCs, SVOCs,
pesticides, PCBs, and metals. Two surface soil and two sediment samples were analyzed
for dioxins and furans. Surface soil samples were collected from 30 stations distributed
. on a grid across the entire landfill. In ~h grid block, soil samples were. collected from
sjx locations and composited Two surface water and ~ediment samples were collected
from each of two ponds located on the eastern section of the landfill. Groundwater
samples were collected from each of the five monitoring wells. Analytical results are
summarized as maximum detected concentrations in Appendix C, Table C-6.
!.
,"
Congener-specific dioxins/furans analysis showed that many congeners were detected in
soil and sediment samples. No 2,3,7,8-tetrach1orodibenzo-p-dioxin was detected
QuaTterly GroundwllteT Sampling Program
A quarterly groundwater program was established for a l-yeax period beginning in the
second quarter of 1992. The scope of the groundwater sampling program was to. collect
quarterly groundwater samples from selected w~lls at various sites Within NAF Adak and
to perform chemical analyses to evaluate the presence of cont~mination in the
groundwater. The five monitoring wells located on the Metals Landfill (MW-1 through
MW-5) were included in this program. The four sampling quarters were May-June 1992,
August 1992, October-November 1992, and Febmary-March 1993. During the initial
saIilpling rounds,. all well samples were analyzed for VOCs, SVOCs, metals,
pesticides/PCBs, and TPH. During the later sampling rounds, analyses were eliminated
for those compounds not detected in the earlier rounds. Analytical results are
summarized in Appendix C, Table C-7, and are eValuated below.
3~\9S01.II34\TEXT
-------
NAP ADAK, SITES 11 AND 13
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest.
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
era 0154
Record of Decision
Date: 02/28/95
Page 31
Metals. Several of the naturally occurring elements in soil and groundwater (i.e.,
aluminum, calcium, iron, magnesium, potassium, sodium, and zinc) were detected in all
five monitoring wells during at least one sampling round. Manganese was detected in
each monitoring well at least once during the four rounds of sampling; concentrations
ranged from 1,110 to 34,100 p.g/L Chromium was detected in four of the five
monitoring wells at least once during the four rounds of sampling. Chromium
concentrations ranged from 12.1 to 75.8 p.g/L Metal concentrations were not detected
above regulatory maximum contaminant levels (MCLs).
VOCs. VOCs were not detected during the first two quarterly sampling rounds. VOCS
were not analyzed for in samples from wells MW134 and 13-5 during the second round
of sampling or in samples from any of the wells during the final two rounds of sampling.
SVOCs. SVOCs were not detected above MCLs at Site 13. during the first sampling
round and were, therefore, not evaluate~ in Subsequent rounds.
Pesticides/pCBs. PesticidesjPCBs were not detected above.MCI..s at Site 13 during the
first sampling round and were, therefore, not evaluated in subsequent rounds.
TPH. TPH was detected in well MW13-3 above State of Alaska regulatory limits (at a
concentration of 2,600 mg/L) during .~e June 1992 sampling event. TPH was not found
in samples from the other site wells duriDg the first sampling round and was, therefore,
not evaluated in subsequent rounds. .
8.0 SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
The usual Superfund remedial process proceeds from a remedial investigation/feasibility
study (RIfFS) to a decision regarding the need for remedial action. As part of the RI, a
risk assessment is Completed to determine whether contaminants associated with the site
pose an unacceptable health risk to humans or impact to the environment (i.e., to
ecological receptors such as plants and animals). The risk assessment focuses on
possible risks and impacts resulting from conditions associated with the site, now and in
the future. The ecological portion of the risk assessment focuses particularly on the
range of nonhuman habitats (including terrestrial, marine, and freshwater, as
appropriate).
-------
NAP ADAK, SITES 11 AND 13
U.5. Navy CLEAN Contract
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
era 0154
Record of Decision
Date: 02/22,/95
Page 32
The type of IRA selected for Palisades ~d Metals Landfill have been influenced by two
important risk factors. These factors are:
.
Based on previous investigation data, the groundwater beneath the landfills
appears to be localized (basically, limited to the sites themselves). Since
the landfills. are located along Kuluk Bay, it is impossible to access the
groundwater for drinking water purposes at any downgradient, off-site
location. .
.
Analytical data on soil, sediment, surface water, and groundwater at the
landfills and as presented in Section 7.2 and Appendix C of this ROD
indicate that the concentration and migration of chemicals from the
landfills are limited. The majority of chemical concentrations detected did
not exceed regulatory MCLs. Although no risk assessment has been
performed on these landfil,1s, unacceptable risks to the . marine environment
are not known to exist and do not appear .to be ;mm;nent.
The FF A parties concluded that conducting an IRA prior to the RIfFS is the best option
for the two landfills because of the following: . .
31S4O\9S01J134\1EXT
.
The potential for exposure to CODt~min~nts in the environment in
concentrations high enough to pose unacceptable human health risks or
ecological impacts based on the estimated nature and volume of. wastes
disposed of, as outlined in Sections 7.1.1 and 7.1.2
.
The toxic nature of the materials disposed of (e.g., chlorinated solvents
were reportedly disposed of at both sites) . .
.
The proximity of the two sites to sensitive marine environments
.
~e limited number of cost-effective remedial alternatives available for.
landfills
.
The perception that the benefit gained by performing a detailed RIfFS.
prior to choosing an appropriate remedy would be offset by the cost of that
investigation and the delay in implementing an action
.
-------
NAP ADAK, SITES 11 AND 13
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
era 0154
Record of Decision
. Date: 02/28/95
Page 33
.
Inter-program and state-federal issues, as described below:
Palis.ades LandfilL Prior to signing the FFA, the Navy agreed to
comply with a state solid waste regulation that in effect led to the
rerouting of Palisades Creek (or conversely, the removal of the
landfill from the creek). The proposed interim action will
incorporate the stream revision activity within the overall action.
Metals Landfill. In November 1990, the Navy and the EPA signed
. an FFCA to. begin closure actions. on several RCRA hazardous
waste units at Adak. As part of the FFCA, the Navy was obligated
to close Metals Landfill as an interim status hazardous waste
Imdfil1. Since the signing of the FFCA, all but approximately 1 acre
of Metals Landfill is expected to be redesif"ated as a solid waste
management unit (SWMU). The rem~1n1ng 1 acre, which is known
to have received .hazardous Waste, is expected to be treated as a
hazardous waste pile. Currently, RCRA Qosure Plans are being
developed for the hazardous waste pile.
During FFA negotiations, the Navy, ADEC, and the EPA agreed to
remediate Metals Landfill in an interim action as part of the
Superfund process. The action. described in this ROD will address
.the portion of the landfill designated as a SWMU. .
8.1
PALISADES lANDFILL
At Palisades Landfill,. hnmans could be exposed to site contaminants through several
pathways. Humans may potentially be exposed to soils at the sites (through inadvertent.
ingestion or dermal contact). They may also be exposed to contaminants by eating fish
or shellfish that have been affected by the site. Similarly, ecological receptors may be
exposed to site contaminants at Palisades Landfill in several habitats and by a variety of
. exposure pathways. The habitats present at Palisades Landfill include terrestrial, ma.rlD.e,
.and freshwater. A Comprehensive definition of ecological receptors awaits completion of
the basewide RIfFS. Marine m~mmals are known to inhabit Kuluk Bay, however, and
are expected to be one of the primary classes of ecological concern. IT not addressed by
implementing the action selected in this ROD, potential exposure to landfill waste.
-------
,.
NAF ADAK, SITES 11 AND 13
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
era 0154
Record of Decision
Date: 02/28/95
Page 34
presents an imminent and substantial endangerment to human health aIld/ or the
environment
8.2
METALS LANDFILL
Hum~n~ may potentially be exposed to contamination at Metals Landfill through the.
same exposure pathways identified for Palisades Landfill. Ecological receptors could
also be exposed to site contaminants at ~eta1s Landfill in several habitats and by a
variety of exposure pathways. The habitats present at Metals Landfill include terrestrial
and marine. As at Palisades Landfill, a comprehensive definition of ecological receptors
awaits completion of the base wide RI/FS. Marine m~mm~ 1~ are known to inhabjt Knluk
Bay and are expected to be one of the primary classes of ecological concern. If not
addressed by implementing the action selected in this ROD, potential exPosure 10'..
landfill waste presents an imminent and. substantial endangerment to human health .
and/or the environment In addition to the no-action alternative, two IRA ~ternatives
wer<~ evaluated for each site. .
9.0 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES
The followmg is a discussion of the alternatives presented in the April 1994 proposed
plan. The interim remedial alternatives presented in this ROD were developed from
site-specific remedial action objectives (RAOs). RAOs are statements of remedial
purpose designed to focus remedial actions to meet acceptable cleanup standards.
Because this ROD has been issued prior to the completion of a risk assessment, RAOs
are based primarily on limited analytical data from previous site investigations and
pre1iminary fate and transport modeling. By meeting RADs in the design and
implementation of the IRAs, it is .the intent of the FF A parties to reduce the .-ential
risk to humans and the environment to acceptable levels.. .
Under CERCLA, the no-action alternative must be considered at every site to establish a
baseline for comparison. In addition to the no-action alternative, two IRA alternatives
were evaluated for each site. These alternatives are based on the RAOs listed for each
site.
-------
NAP ADAK, SITES 11 AND 13
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
ero 0154
Record of Decision
Date: 02/~/95
Page 35
The primary RAOs for both landfills include:
.
Ensuring that the nearshore marine environment is not adversely impacted
by landfill releases
.
Preventing harmful exposures to landfill contaminants by rninirni7.ing the
potential terrestrial receptors - to contact, or intrude into, wastes
9.1
PALISADES LANDFILL
The three alternatives evaluated for Palisades Landfill were Alternative I-no action -
- ~th plonitoring; Alternative 2-stream rerouting, slope stabilization, and installation of a
landfill cap; and Alternative 3-waste -removal from the creek bed and installation of a
landfill cap. -
9.1.1 Alternative 1: No Action
Under the no-action alternative, the Navy would- take no additional action other than
annual monitoring. Annual monitoring would include sampling the surface water and
sediments from Palisades Creek downstream of Palisades Landfill and testing for
contaminants, monitoring at the perimeter of the landfill for the presence _of landfill gas
by using a combustible gas meter, and visually inspecting the entire landfill to determine
whether any detrimental erosion or settlements have occurred.
The no-action alternative monitoring- program would be conducted annually over a
period of time, as required by regulations. The monitoring would begin immediately and
would continue until fin~1i7.ation of the base-wide ROD. At that time, long-term
- monitoring concerns would be addressed. -
For the purpose of estimating costs, it has-been-assumed that monitoring would be
conducted annually for 30 years. The no-action monitoring program would establish
specific methods; intervals, and action leve1s for- monitoring the landfill before the OU A
basewide ROD is released (scheduled for 1998). The basewide ROD, or its post;.ROD -
documents, will then establish the long-term monitoring requirements for the site.
-------
NAP ADAK, SITES 11 AND 13
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
era 0154
Record of Decision
Date: 02/'l13/95
Page 36
9.1.2 Alternative 2: Stream Rerouting and Landfill Cap
Alternative 2 would involve diverting surface water; installing a leachate collection
system; rerouting Palisades Creek; implementing institutional controls; stabilizing the
slope; constructing a landfill cap and installing gas vents, as required; establishing
vegetation; and conducting an annual monitoring program over a period of time, as
required by regulations.
Surface Water Control
Controlling surface water would reduce potential erosion to the landfill surface and steep
ravine embankment. Also, the potential of water infiltrating. the landfill wastes. would be
reduced. A small interceptor swale would be constructed on the west (uphill) side of the
laridfill to collect water floWing off the hillside above the landfill and to route the water
into Palisades Creek (Figure 11). This Qiversion would consist of a V-shaped channel
approxima~~h' 1 foot deep. Additional interceptor swales (and berms) would be .
constructed on the south, north, and east sides of the upland portion of the lancUill. The
interceptor swales would route the water from those areas into the channel near the
upstream end of the pipeline that is part of the proposed Palisades Creek diversion
(Figure 11). A swale across the top of the slope stabilization pn would collect runoff
from the east bill. .
Leachate CoUection
The installation of a leachate collection system would provide a method for collecting
and transporting the leachate to a central loCation and allow for the monitoring or
sampling of the leachate. The collector would be designed so that a treatment system
coUld be added later if needed. Details of the proposed leachate collector design are . .
shown in Figure 12. It is assumed that no leachate ~eatment system would be required
at this time.
It is estimated that any leachate flowing out froIIithe landfill would be Confined by the
top of the underlying rock-like formation, which has low porosity. A perforated pipe
(approximately 75 feet long), laid in a bed of select gravel material, would be installed in
the bottom of the Palisades Creek ravine to intercept the leachate. Fill material would
be placed along the bottom of Palisades Creek prior to placement of the perforated pipe.
A manhole would be placed near the downstream end of the leachate collector to
-------
. - .. -- --. ~ .-.... .._---_.~.....__...._.. .....--_w_----..:.....-........ - ~-~- . .
. .. - ..~..._....._... . ......--. - . .....
.. .
.~t.
------""11O-----~~.
-----~-------~...
f\
I'.
1\.
1"--
I
I
,..170--~
.."
.../~.~~
....----/'
....../~
..... . ,
./'~ '
_/'./' . "
,--,-"""""--'-'" //,"--/
. ~~._.--_II;o----- '.....- _/'.---~--------
/~. -- '.'
/
/
.'
,
...--
..,.....,......."''''
(
I
\
\
"-
"
-.----..
"
~
.
..
NORTH
o ro 100
-.:==J
Scale 10 Feet
Elevations In Feet
Figure 11
Palisades Landml
Allematlve 2
CLEAN
00II'IIEH9ISIVE
lONG-TERM ENVIAONMEHTAl
ACTION NAVY
CTO 0154 .
"""IsIand,AK
Sit.. \I and 13
-------
%
.~
~1?
Q',.
~. .
@<9-
~.f
rTOPOfFiIi
---------------------
r 42" HDPE Pipe
~
-------
NAP ADAK, SITES 11 AND 13
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
era 0154
Record of Decision
Date: fJ).j1J3j95
Page 40
provide an access point for measuring the leachate flow and for sampling. The leachate
would then discharge into Palisades Creek. .
Palisades Creek Rerouting.
Alaska state regulations prohibit the location of landfills in areas that contact surface
waters. As a consequence, Palisades Creek would be rerouted as part of the actions
included in Alternative 2. The rerouting operation would be designed to reduce the
potential for leaching of landfill wastes located in the streambed. Palisades Creek
currently flows through or under the portion of the landfill that is in the ravine. The.
drainage area for this creek, at the upper end of the landfill, is approximately 330 acres.
The proposed diversion is based on handling runoff resulting from a once-in-lOO-years
recurrent storin event. Estimated runoff was calculated by using the Rational Method
with a runoff coefficient of 02. The peak runoff from the lOO-year storm event is
estimated at 95 cfs (URS 1994b).. .
. An open channel would be constructed on the east side of the ravine in native soil
and/or rock from near where the two streams merge to a point approximately 550 feet
. downstream. To provide surface drainage, it would be necessary to place approximately
2,000 cubic yards of fill in the low area where the current stream flows under the landfill.
Approximately 550 lineal feet of drainage pipe would be placed in the ravine. For.
discussion and cost estimating purposes, it is assumed 42-inch, high-density polyethylene
(HDPE) will be used as the drainage pipe. The exact size and type of drainage pipe to
be used will be determined during the remedial design stage. The fill material to be.
used for the slope stab~tion work, as described under "slope stabilization," would also
be used as bedding and cover material for the 42-inch HDPE pipe. Rock riprap would
be placed around the entrance and exit of the pipe to mh1imi7.e erosion. Figure 11
shows the overall drainage plan, and Figure 13 shows a profile of the proposed diversion.
, .
Other options for Palisades Creek rerouting were iiwestigated but were not considered
. for various reasons. Use of a ditch around the western side of the landfill was not
considered further because excavation to. a depth. of about 25 feet would be required,
making maintenance access to the lannfill difficult. Placement of a lined ditch through
the existing landfill was not examined further. Because of potential differential
settlement of landfill debris below a lined ditch, maint~inine; the integrity of the ditch
. would require considerable maintenance.
-------
t~"q...._........~[[[-............-........-.-..........-...........-.....---.-.................-...--:-....................-........................-...................................."[[["""''''''''''''''''''''''
. .
140
Finish Grade.
. . ""-"--"'-------
--
--
-
0.7%
---------O:~---=--
~--_.~-..,,- .-'''..''''''
/ ..............
-/ .,,,;
"",',....,'
120
100
80
Existing
Ground Une .
,..
,
,..
""""
TYPICAL CHANNEL SECTION
LOOKING UPSTREAM
I
I
~/7 . ..,,/' . .
Jr/. . , (
~.9[[[ . .............,'....... ~'7.(,.~..~..~.~..~.......~.~V~r:~:~~~.~!.................... [[[
illL.
,
,,"
,,'
,,'
..,'
..
20
TYPICAL FILL SECTION
LOOKING UPSTREAM
-------
NAF ADAK, SITES 11 AND 13
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest.
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
era 0154
R~rd of Decision
Date: 02/28/95
Page 42
InstitutWntd Controls
Institutional controls would involve land use restrictions and controls established under
the authority of the NAF Adak Commanding Officer. Because of the iDstability of the
landfill and potential physical hazards posed by the landfill debris, institutional controls
would restrict future land use at the landfill and warn the public of the landfill contents.
Property transfer for Palisades Landfill would require that a deed restriction be attached.
The boundaries of the landfill would be referenced. to the survey system and existing
monuments on Adak Island. Signs would be installed at equally spaced intervals around
the perimeter of the landfill to warn the public of its contents. Signs would also be
installed at the bottom of the ravine. Long-term institutional controls would be
addressed as part of the basewide ROD. .
Slope Stobili-umon
The. primary reason for slope stabilization is to prevent further sliding of exposed wastes
into Palisades Creek. Landfill waste has been placed on approximately 05 acre of a
steep, exposed slope that shows evidence of sli~ as a result of its steepness. Placing
approximately 33,000 cubic yards of rock or soil over the top of the waste is proposed to
stabilize Ule slope. This activity would be performed in conjunction with the creek
. relo~tion described previously. Any low places would be filled to provide a uniformly
graded surface. A geotextile with filled concrete cells would be placed on the graded,
steep slopes to permanently control erosion. . Figure 11 shows the location of the
propo~ed improvements. Figure 13 shows two typical sections illustrating slope
stabilization and creek diversion.
Landfill ClIp
The' purpose of the landfill cap is to minimi7.e human. exposure, direct or control run-on
. or runoff, and reduce infiltration from precipitation and thereby minimi7.e leachate'
generation. A cap would be installed over. the top of the landfill after slope.stabilization
and stream relocation are complete. The exact design for a cap would be completed
after predesign studies and geotechnical testing on the landfill area are complete. The
cap design would meet federal and state regulations. A cross section of two caps being
Considered is shown in Figure 14. To ventilate any gas that might accumulate under the
cap, gas vents would be installed if a geomembrane cap is used.
-------
o
TYPICAL SECTION - GEOMEMBRANE CAP
. ,jf
o
';,.~
,-Jute Mat and Seed
f:'"
>~
TYPICAL SECTION - SOIL CAP
I""'
CLEAN Figure 14 ~O 0154
COMPREHENSIVE LONG- Adak Island, AK
TER.A ENVIRONMENTAL Typical Section - Landfill Cap Sites 11 and 13
ACTION NAVY ROD
-------
NAP ADAK, SITES 11 AND 13
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
era 0154
Record of Decision
Date: 02/'18/95
Page 44
It is anticipated that some areas may settle when large objects possibly buried in the
landfill collapse. The landfill'would be inspected annually as part of the monitoring
program, and repairs would be made to settlements that may mpture the cap. Some
erosion may occur until vegetation is established. Repair efforts would be conducted if
erosion degraded the performance of the cap. .
Vegetiltion
After the cap and soil cover have been installed and graded, the disturbed areas would.
be seeded and measures would be taken to prevent erosion. Erosion control measures.
may include jute matting, filter fabric fences, and hay/straw bales. .
. Monitoring Program
It will be n,ecessaiy to monitor the landfill in order to evaluate the effectiveness of the
IRA. Under Alternative 2, the upstream and doWnstream flow rate would be measured
to determine the contribution from the leachate (if any).. Stream samples would be
collected close to the Kuluk Bay discharge point to determine water quality. Also,
sampling of streaJ:]l sediments would be required. A combustible gas meter would be
used to monitor the presence of landfill gas at the perimeter of the landfill. The overall
physical condition of the 1~lldfil1 would be inspected to. determine whether erosion or
settlement has occurred that would be detrimental to the landfill or would pose a
potential danger to the environment. Repair efforts would be conducted if erosion
degraded the performance of the cap..
To estimate costs, it has been assumed that monitoring would be conducted ~11nnallyfor
30 years. Interim remedial design ar;ul/ or action documents would e$tablish sPecific
methods, intervals, and action levels for monitoring the Jandfill before the OU A
basewide ROD is released (scheduled for 1998). The basewide ROD, or its post-ROD
documents, will then establish the long-term monitoring requirements for the site.
. .
9.1.3 Alternative 3: Waste Removal From Creek Bed and Installation of Landfill Cap
. '.
Alternative 3 would involve diverting surface water, removing waste from within the
ravine and reconsolidating the waste on the upland area of the landfill, installing a
leachate collection system, remoVing and appropriately m~n~gjng any hazardous waste
encountered, constructing a landfill cap and installing gas vents as required; providing
institutional controls, estab1isbinf vegetation, and conducting a monitoring program.
-------
NAP ADAK, SITES 11 AND 13
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
ere 0154
Record of Decision
Date: f1l/2I3 /95.
Page 45
Figure 15 provides an overall plan view of the work that would be performed under
Alternative 3.
Suiface Water Control
Controlling surface water would reduce potential erosion to the landfill surface and steep
ravine embankment. Also, .the potential of water infiltrating the landfill wastes would be
reduced. The control of surface water under Alternative 3 would be identical to that
described under Alternative 2, with the exception that the ditches and swales would
discharge to Palisades Creek at the north and south ends of the relocated waste and the
re-established Palisades Creek would collect runoff from. the east.
Renwval of Wczste Within R4vine and Reeonsolidtztion of waste on Ujilarul AmI 01 LIIIuljill
The reason for removing waste within ~e ravine is to elinrinate contact between
Palisades Creek and the waste and to prevent further sliding of wastes into Palisades
Creek. This activity would include removing ~roxiinately 50,000 .cubic yards of the
landfill contents from within the limits of the original ravine. The contents would be
deposited on approximately 4 acres of the remaining upland area .immediately west of
the ravine. A layer of soil would be placed over the top of the waste as a base for a cap.
The surface would be graded so ~ it drains into the ravine. The location and depth of
reconsolidated waste would need further evaluation during design phases. Expansion
. onto land that is not former 131ldfi11 must be avoided to preclude the invocation of new
regulatory requirements. Feasibility and cost-effectiveness would be maintained by
. placing reconsolidated fill to depths of approximately 15 feet near the edge of the ravine.
The locations of the proposed improvements are shown on Figure 15..
LeIldu1te CoUection
The installation of a leachate collection system would provide a method for collecting
and transporting the leachate to a central location and allow for the monitoring or
sampling of the leachate. The leachate collection. system under Alternative 3 would be
identical to that desCribed under Alternative 2, with the exception that the perforated
pipe would be installed in a trench on top of the underlying rock. .
-------
NAF ADAK, SITES 11 AND 13
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract .
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
era 0154
Record of Decision
Date: 02/18/95
Page 46
Ha:omJous Waste Handling
The handling of hazardous waste is necess3.IY to properly categorize and dispose of or
treat the waste. & waste is removed from the ravine, it would be inspected to .
dete.rmine whether any material could be classified as hazardous waste. If hazardous
waste is suspected, then field tests would be conducted or samples would be taken and
shipped off the island for laboratory analysis to classify the material. After the material
is (:lassified, a .range of disposal or treatment options would be available. .
Because there is no accurate basis for determini1\f whether hazardous waste is in the
landfill and the types and quantities involved, an allowance of 025 percent of the total
excavation has been made for esrimatinf It is assumed that 150 cUbic yards of
hazardoUs waste would be removed from the ravine.. It is. also assumed that ha]f of this
material would be bulky and contamin~ted in such a manner that it could be cleaned on
site by wiping or wa.c:hing and the other .haIf of the material would be disposed of or
treated as hazardous waste. .
Handling of the hazardous waste would entail packaging the waste in suitable containers
and shipping the material off the island to a hazardous waste disposal. site. The waste
would then be treated or disposed of at a disposal site in accordance with applicable
regulations. . .
Landfill Cop
The purpose of the landfill cap is to minimi'7.e human exposure, direct. or control run-on
or runoff, and reduce infiltration from precipitation, thereby minimi7.ing leachate.
generation. After the waste is reconsolidated and covered, a cap would be placed over
the top of the entire landfill, including the reconsolidated waste. The 1aD.dfill cap
description and requirements would be identical to those described under Alternative 2.
. Repair efforts would be conducted if erosion degraded the performance of the cap.
Institutio1Ull Controls
. institUtional controls would involve land use restriCtions. and controls established und~r
the authority of the NAF Adak Commanding Officer. Because of the instability of the
landfill and potential physical hazards posed by the landfill debris, institutiQnal controls
would restrict future land use at the landfili and warn the public of the landfill contents.
Long-term institutional cont:r:ols would be addressed as part of the basewide ~OD.
-------
... . ---~ .~- ....... .
..t
-
:\
- -.
~.
-----------_...---.':---'------110- (\\ --'-
'-'-.-
~,,"11O-J
/-/.//
/~
---~
/
---
i
...-.-./
Contours Based on 1993 Survey
USI""'---
GIOInI SI8face
BaddiI
Select Gravel
PerforaIed "'"
---'..
"'",-
,
Figure 15
Palisades landfill
Alternative 3
/--.'-',
i
IS!
~
..
..
NORTH
o a\ 100
~::::::J
Scale In feet
EIevauor.s 1/1 feet
.50
-,
Area lor Debris ~vation
Area lor Reconsolidation 01 Debris
ManHole
)
CLEAN
COIIPIEHENSM
l()N()-TERM ENVIAONMEHTAl
ACTION HAVY
CTOOI54
AdaII bI3nd, AI<
SiI.. 1I1IId 13
ROD
170
o
-------
NAP ADAK. SITES 11 AND 13
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
era 0154
Record of Decision
Date: 02/28/95.
Page 49
Institutional controls for Alternative 3 would be identical to those outlined for
Alternative 2.
VegetDtion
Under Alternative 3, vegetation would be established as described for Alternative ~.
MoniUJring Program
It will be necessary to monitor the landfill in order to evaluate the effectiveness of the
IRA The monitoring program for Alternative 3 would be identical to that described
under Alternative 2.
9.2
METALS LANDFILL
The three alternatives evaluated for Metals Landfill were Alternative 1 ~no action with
monitoring; Alternative 2-excavation, segregation, reconsolidation of the landfill, and
installation of a cap on the entire landfill; and Alternative 3-waste removal from
. shoreline areas and installation of a Imidfill cap. .
9.2.1 Alternative 1: No Action
Under the no-action alternative, the NaVy would take no additional action other than
annual monitoring. .A11T111al monitoring would include sampling the groundwater and
testing the samples for contam;n
-------
NAP ADAK, SITES 11 AND 13
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
ero 0154
Record of Decision
Date: 02/28/95
Page SO
(scheduled for 1998). The basewide ROD, or its post-ROD documents, will then
establish the long-term monitoring requirements for the site.
9.2.2 Alternative 2: Excavation, Segregation, Reconsolidation, and Capping the Entire
Landfill
., ,
Alternative 2 would involve diverting surface water; excavating, segregating into
hazardous and solid wastes, and reconsolidating the entire contents of the landfin
(approximately 400,000 cubic yards); removing and appropriately manaBin~any
hazardous wastes encountered; cleanin~ up the east section of the landfill; monitoring
groundwater; insta11in~ a soil landfill cap; establisnin~ vegetation; implementing
institutional.controls; and conducting a monitoring program (Figures 16 and 17).
SUrfllU WDter Control
Small interceptor swales would be constructed on the uphill side of the landfill at the
base of Monument Hill to collect water flowing off the hill above the landfill and to
route the water into K.uluk Bay (Figure 16). A V-shaped channel approximately 1 foot
deep would collect and transpoq the water. .
Excavotion, Segregotion, and Reconsolidation 01 LandfiU Waste
An estimated 400,000 cubic yards of landfill waste have been p~d on approximately 19
acres (north and main sections). All waste would be removed, and hazardous wastes
would be segregated from non-hazardous 'waste. After sorting and reconsolidating, the
waste would be redeposited in the main section of the landfill, and a layer of soil would
be placed over the top of the waste as' a base for the cap. Any tanks encountered would
be cleaned and cut up or filled'with sand. Large objects may need to be cut up in order
to consolidate the material without leaving large voids. . .
Ha:r.ardous Waste Handling
As waste is removed from the landfill, it would be inspected to determine whether any
material may be classified as hazardous waste. IT hazardous waste is suspected, field
tests would be conducted or samples would be taken and shipped off the island for
. laboratory analysis to classify the material. .
-------
Monument HDI
J -----~-~ --~-
--
Man sea U¥II
: IMe SUnor
ISSJ
-
Area lor Reconsolidation 01 Debris
'\" IEASTl
'\ ~ "
~-~ ./---
~~ /)
'~'" '--..
"--~ ~~~-----
~ '------- ~/
, ~
"- ---",........-"
Kuluk Bay
Area lor Debris Excav!ltlon
Kuluk Bay
B
o
100 200
:=J
Scale In Feel
FIgure 16
Metals landfill
Altemallve 2
CLEAN
COIIPREHENSIVE
lONG-TERM EHVIROHMEKTAl
ACTION NAVY
CTO 0154
Adaklsmd, AI(
Sit.. 11 and 13
ROD
..
NORTH
Contours Based on 1993 Sunrey
-------
..
NAF ADAK, SITES 11 AND 13
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
era 0154
Record of Decision
Date: 02/113/95
Page 54
Because there is no accurate basis for determining whether hazardous waste material is
in the landfill and the types and quantities involved, an allowance of 0.25 percent of the
total excavation has been made for estimating. It is assumed that 1,000 cubic yards of
hazardous waste will be removed from the landfill. It is also assumed that half of this
material would be bulky and CODtamin
-------
NAF ADAK., SITES 11 AND 13
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
era 0154 .
Record of Decision
Date: 02/1i3/95
Page 55
landfill (main section) . after the waste is reconsolidated. The exact design for a cap
conforming to federal and state regulations would not be determined until after extensive
geotechnical testing has been completed. A cross section of two. caps being considered is
shown in Figure.14. If a geomembrane cap is used, it would be necessary to install gas
vents to ventilate any gas that might accumulate under the cap.
It is anticipated that soine areas may settle when large objects possibly buried in the
landfill collapse. The landfill would be inspected annually as part of the monitoring
program, and repairs would be made to settlements that may rupture the cap. Some
erosion may OCCllI' until vegetation is established. Repair efforts would be conducted if
erosion degraded the performance of the cap, .
Vegetlltion
A mil1imllID. of 2 feet of soil would be pJ.aced over the top of the landfill as part of the
installation of the cap that.was discUssed previously. After the cap and soil cover have
been graded, the area would be seeded and measures taken .to prevent erosion. Erosion
control measures may include jute matting, filter fabric fences, and hay/straw bales.
1nstitutiolUll Controls
Institutional controls would involve land use restrictions and controls established under
the authority of the NAF Adak Commanding Officer. Property transfer for Metals
Landfill would require that a. deed restriction be attached. The boundaries of the
landfill would be referenced to the survey system and existing monuments on Adak
Island. Warning signs would be installed at equally spaced intervals around the
perimeter of the landfill to warn the public of jts contents. Long-term institutional
controls would be addressed as part of the basewide ROD.
Monitoring Program
It will be necessary to monitor the landfill. The groundwater would be sampled for
water quality. The presence of gas in the lmidfill would be monitored for at the
perimeter of the landfill With the use of a combustible gas meter. The overall physical
condition of the landfill would be inspected annually to ensure that systems are still
performing adequately and to determine whether erosion or settlement has occurred that
would be detrimental to the landfill or would pose a potential danger to the
-------
r'
NAF ADAK, SITES 11 AND 13
U.s. Navy CLEAN Contract
Engineering FieId ActMty, Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
era 0154
Record of Decision
Date: 02/28/95
Page 56
environment. Repair efforts would be conducted if erosion degraded the performance of
the cap.
To estimate costs, it has been assumed that monitoring would be conducted annually for
.30 years. Interim remedial action designand/ or action docu:inents would establish .
specific m~thods, intervals, and action levels for monitoring the landfill before the OU A
basewide ROD is released (scheduled for 1998). The basewide ROD, or its post-ROD
documents, will then establish the long-term monitoring requirements for the site.
9.2.3 Alternative 3: Debris Removal From Shoreline Areas and Landfill Cap
Alternative 3 would involve diverting surface water, removing waste from surface water,
. removing and appropriately managjnf any hazardous wastes encountered, cleaning up the
east section of the landfill, monitoring groun4water, installing a landfill cap, estab1i~hine;
vegetation, implementing institutional controls, and conducting a monitoring program
over approximately a 30-year period (Figures 17 and 18).
Surface Water Control
The connol of surface water under Alternative 3 would be identical to that described for
Alternative 2.
Waste Renunal From Surface Water
Approximately 75,000 ~bic yards of material have been pushed over the bank of the
north section of the landfill and are in contact with Kuluk Bay. This material would be
excavated, deposited, and reconsolidated in the north end of the main section of the
landfill (Figures 17 and 18). The limits of removal would be based on the amount of
material that is in contact with Knluk Bay and the area necessary for a stable. slope along
the bay. A layer of soil would be placed over the top of the waste as a base for the cap.
Any tanks encountered would be cleaned and cut up or filled with sand. Large objects
would need to be cut up to make consolidation possible.
Hamnlous Waste Handling
Any hazardous waste encountered would be handled in the same manner as described.
under Alternative 2. .At 0.25 percent of the total. excavation, the quantity allowance for
-------
120 [[[
120'"''''''''''''-\'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''[[[
\
"'"'''''''''''''r'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''[[[
1111""""''''''''''''\''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''""""""""""""""",,""""""""""""""
\ (Drainage Swala
......."""""'"'' ....................................... .. ....... ........ '.,,-"'''' h-'" ......
... ., 1993 Survey
: ==-==_:\=~,-:_::- ..-......_-::~:.:~~~~~~"
40 [[[':.:.........:::J:::~'~.. ..
1848 Survey .
[[["[[[n.."
""""''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''.............................................
20 ...................... .................""""" ..........--.................................. .......
..--.. "--"'~I;r; ~n;n;J.::.:.:..:j..:... ........ ..." .... no --. .... .
o M.~~~..~~~..~~.v.~~............................~.~~.8..~~~~.y[[[
B - TYPICAL SECTION THRU NORTH END MAIN AND EAST SECTIONS
20 [[[----,--",,,,,,,,,,'"''''''''''''''''''''''
[[['"''''''''''''''''''''''
o ~.~~~..~.~~.~~.~.~~[[[
C - TYPICAL SECTION THRU NORTH SECTION
120 .:......
[[[
tOO .................................--[[[--...------........--.............:..--....--......................
-------
. .-..---..--. ',------,,----_w_"w"'" "'._.~.......,-.-....__. ----- --.. - - .
1-
..11
-~t
-\:~
""--"---""".------"'"''
-
'.
~
----~--. --
1.----
"..LMI
. I"'''''''
Area lor Reconsolidation 01 Debris .
\\ I S~N I .
\,~~,. ~
~, ~
~~ ~
',~ -- "
. '- ~ .- --......... .......---
'-~~~~
, ,-
'....- .",..",."'"
---"'
Kuluk Bay
lSS1
-
Area for Debris Excavation
Kuluk Bay
B
o
100 200
I
Figure 18
Metals LandliD
Alternative 3
Contours Based on 1993 Survey
..
NORTH
Scale In Fell
EIIMIIIons kI Feel
CLEAN'
COIFRatEHsIv£
I.ON(J. T£IN EII'IIIONIIENT AI.
ACTION NAVY
crOOI54
AdaIsland,AK
Sites II ... I J
Ann
-------
NAF ADAK, SITES 11 AND 13
U.S..Navy CLEAN Contract
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
era 0154
Record of Decision
Date: f11.j1I3j95
Page 59
this alternative is 200 cubic yards because of the smaller quantity of material to be
handled.
Cleanup of &st Section of Lcaidfill
Cleanup of the east section of Meta1s Landfill would be identical to that described for
Alternative 2.. -- .
Groundwater Monitoring
Groundwater mQnitoring would be identical to that described fOf Alternative 2.
. .
Landfill Cop
The purpose of the landfill cap is to mi~imi7.e human exposure, direct or control run-on
or runoff, and reduce infiltration from precipitation, thereby m;nim;7.i'r\f leachate
~~~~ .
A tandfill cap would be placed over the top of a: landfill after the waste is reconsolidated.
It is estimated that the landfill cap would cover all of the main section and about 5 acres
of the north section. All but about 8 acres of this area have an exis~g soil cover that.
would serve as a minimum cap. The exact design for a cap confoImmg to federal and
state regulations will not be determined until after extensive geotechnical testing is
complete. A cross section of the two caps being considered is shown in Figure 14.
It is. anticipated that some areas may settle when large empty objects possibly buried in
the landfill collapse. The landfill would be inspected annually as a part of the
coordinated monitoring program, and repairs would be made where settlements may
have created depressions or exposed landfill contents. . Some erosion may occur until
vegetation is established. Repair efforts would be conducted if erosion degraded the
performance of the cap. . .
Vegetation
Under Alternative 3, vegetation would be established as described for Alternative 2.
-------
,
NAF ADAK, SITES 11 AND 13
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
ero 0154
Record of Decision
Date: 02/'lJ!./95
Page 60
InmtutiolUll Controls
Implementing the institutional controls under Alternative 3 would follow the procedures
outlined for Alternative 2. .
Monitoring Program
The monitoring program for Alteniative 3 would be identical to the program outlined
under Alternative 2. Long-~rm institutional controls would be addressed as part of the
basewide ROD. .
10.0 EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
Three cleanup alternatives were evaluated for each landfill by using the nine evaluation
criteria established by the NCP:
31S4O\~JB4\'IEXT
.
Ovem1l protection 01 hunum heIIlth tmd enrironmmt-whether a remedy
provides adequate protection and how risks posed through each pathway
are e1iminated, r$ced, or controlled through treatment, engineering
. controls, or institutional controls . -
.
Compliilnce with ARARs-whether a remedy will meet all of the ARARs
(or other federal and state environmental statutes) and/or provide grounds
for invoking a waiver .
.
. lmIg-tem effectiveMss tIIUl pemuinmce-the magnitude of residual risk
and the ability of a remedy to maintain reliable protection of human health --
and the environment over time onCe cleanup goals have been met
.
lWluction ~f toxicity, mobility, or volume through tmitment-the anticipated
performance of the treatment technologies that may be employed in a
remedy -
.
. Shoit-term effectiveness-the speed with wbich the remedy achieves .
-------
NAF ADAK., SITES 11 AND 13
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract .
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
era 0154
Record of Decision
Date: 02/2S/95
Page 61
human health and the environment during the construction and
llnplemen~tionperiod
.
ImplementDbility-the technical and administrative feasibility of a remedy,
mcluding the availability of materials and services. needed to implement the
chosen solution .
.
Cost-capital and operation and maintenance costs
..
StIlU acceptance-whether the state concurs with, opposes, or has .no
comment on the preferred alternative
..
Community acceptance-assessed in the ROD following review of the public
comments received on the proposed plan and its supporting documentation
m the Administrative Record .
Overall protection of human health ~d the environment and compliance with ARARs
are threshold criteria. These two criteria relate ~ectly to statutory findings. The
primary balancing criteria are the primary criteria on which the analysis. is based. The
. five primary balancing criteria are long-term effectiveness and permanence; reduction of
toxicity, mobility, .and volume through tteatment; short-term effectiveness;
implementability; and cost. The final two criteria, state acceptance and community
acceptance, are modifying criteria. . . . .
10.1
PALISADES LANDFILL
. .
The following sections evaluate the three April 1994 alternatives according to the nine
EP A evaluation criteria. The no-action alternative was mcluded as a baseline
.comparison. .
10.1.1 Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
The FF A parties believe that Alternative 1 may not adequately protect human health
and the ~nvironment. Although this alternative includes long-term monitoring, it is
possible that receptors could become exposed to harmful levels of contammants. This
could occur by contacting wastes at or near the landfill surface. It could also occur in
the nearshore marme environment if future releases fro~ the landfill carry contaminants
-------
,
NAP ADAK, SITES 11 AND 13
U.S. Navy CL.E.AJ'Ii Contract
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
era 0154
Record of Decision
Date: Cflj28j95
Page 62
into Kuluk Bay. The probability of such a release is difficult 10 estimate. Alternatives 2
and 3 would meet all the RAOs identified for this site. Alternatives 2 and 3 would . .
reduce possible contaminant exposure and migration by implementing effective
containment measures and would include monitoring and annual inspection. Alternative
. 2 would minimi7.e contact between wastes and surface waters by rerouting the creek that
currently flows through the.1andfill. The creek would run through an engineered channel
in the upper reaches of the landfill and then be routed through a pipe as it travels .
through the ravine. Alternative 3 would remove all. waste in the ravine, making the pipe
unnecessary. .
Alternatives 2 and 3 would be designed to minimi7e releases of. hazardous substances
into the air or surface water. Monitoiing would ensure that. the alternatives meet this
goal Based on the results of sampling conducted to date and the goals of the remedial
design, it is anticipated that neither a 1andfi11 gas system nor a leachate treatment system
would be required to meet RAOs. If ~onitoring shows that harmful levels of landfill
gases are being released to the atmosphere, then a gas collection and treatment system
would need to be inStalled. Similarly, if harmfulleveIs of cont:ITT~inaniS are detected in
water emanating downgradient of the 1andfi11, then those waters would need to be
treated prior to discharge to Kulnk Bay.. InteriDi remedial design and/or action.
documents would establish. specific methods, intervals, and action levels for monitoring
the landfill before the OU A basewide ROD is released (scheduled for 1998). The
basewide ROD, or its post-ROD docUments, will then establish the long-term monitoring
requirements for th~ site.'. .
10.1.2 Compliance With Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Federal and State
Requirements .
. . .
Unless waived, .ARARs must be met when a remedial action becomes necessary.
Because Alternative 1 does not entail taking action, .ARARs would not be triggered (and
no requirements would therefore be identified). Both Alternatives 2 and 3 would be
designed and implemented to attain ARARs, including the substantive requirementS of
RCRA Subtitle C, Part 261 and state solid waste-closure requirements (18 AAC 60).
At the time of the proposed plan, the two action alternatives presented for Palisades.
Landfill were conceived specifically to meet the rele~t and .appropriate .portions .of
RCRA's 40CFR 264 landfill closure requirements. Since issuance of the proposed plan,
however, the FF A parties have modified the remedial action objectives for the site. As a
consequence, the RCRA cap is not required. Therefore, the RCRA capping
-------
NAF ADAK, SITES 11 AND 13
U.s. Navy CLEAN Conttact
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
era 0154
Record of Decision
Date: 02/1i3/95
, Page 63
requirements pertaining to minimi7.ing infiltration are no longer considered relevant and
appropriate. See Section 122 for a discussion of those requirements now considered
applicable or relevant and appropriate for the site.
10.1.3 Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence
Alternative 1 would take no action and, therefore, would not have long-term
'effectiveness or permanence. Alternatives 2 and 3 would be designed for long-term
effectiveness and permanence. Alternative 3, which would remove all the waste from 'the
ravine, may be more permanent than Alternative 2, which would reroute the existing
creek to an engineered channel and pipe. Rerouting of the creek would, however, be
designed to maximize long-term effectiveness.
The magnitude of residual risk and the ability of the selected remedy to' maintain
reliable protection of human health and the environment Over time would be reevaluated
as part of the findings and conclusions of the baseWide'RIfFS. Long-term monitoring, '
for all three alternatives may be used to confirm the effectiveness of the action. Long-
term monitoring requirements for Palisades Landfill would be established under the
, basewide ROD or its associated post-ROD documents.
10.L4 Reduction of Toxicity~ Mobility, or Volume Through Treatment
None of the alternatives assumes that the contaminants will require treatment.
Alterative 1 would not reduce the toxicity, mobility, or volume of contaminants.
Alternatives 2 and, 3 use "containment" measures, that is, measures tominimi7.e
contaminant mobility by placing a landfill cap or cover over the site and effective
drainage controls to reduce infiltration and minimi7.e leachate generation. None of the
three alternatives would actively reduce the toxicity or volume of contaminants; however,
Alternative 3 might reduce the volume of hazardous substances in the excavated portion
of the landfill.
10.LS Short-Term Effectiveness
Alternative 1 would not provide protection but would not' create adverse impacts either.
Alternatives 2 and 3 would be designed to safely contain alliandfilled waste, reduce
human exposure to wastes and leached contamin~nts, and reduce the generation and
migration of leachate. Because Alternative 3 would involve excavation of portions of the
existing landfill, the potential for releases to the environment and exposure of on-site
-------
NAF ADAK, SITES 11 AND 13
U.s. Navy CLEAN Contract
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
era 0154
Record of Decision
Date: fJ2/'}J!,/95
Page 64
personnel to hazardous substances would be much greater than that for Alternative 2.
Alternative 3 would require appropriate construction. techniques to minimi7.e short-term
. contaminant releases that may affect on-site personnel and the environment during
remedial operations.
10.1.6 Implementability
The Navy would be able to jm.plement any of the three alternatives. In Alternative 3,
excavation of the waste from the ravine would be technically more difficult to execute
than rerouting the creek Construction activities for Alternative 2 or 3 would mcur
similar costs for mobilizing equipment and personnel to a remote location. .
Alternatives 2.and 3 would.reqwre approximately 18 months to implement. variations
within these projected timeframes depend on the availability of supplies and equipment,
completion and acceptance of work plans, and on-island environmental conditions.
10.L7 Cost
The projected cost of Alternative 1 is $229,000 for a11m1al inspection and monitoring.
The projected capital cost of Altemative 2 is $4,681,000, wit1;J. projected operation and
maintenance (O&M) costs of $568,000. The esrim~ted total cost for Alternative 2 is .
$5,249,000. The projected capital cost for Alte~ve 3 is $8,287,000, with O&M costs
projected at $506,000. The estimated total cost for Alternative 3 is $8,793,000. To
estimate costs, it is assumed that the annual inspection and monitoring under Alternative
1 and the O&M under Alternatives 2 and 3 will be conducted over a 30-year period~
Also, the landfill cap in Alternatives 2 and 3 is assumed to be a geomembrane cap, as
shown in Figure 14. The initial cost of Alternative 3 is.greatet than that of Alternative 2
bec3.use of the expense of removing waste from the ravine and consolidating it in . .
another part of the landfill; however, Alternative 2 will require slightly higher annual
operation costs over 30 years than Alternative 3. The higher O&M cost for Alternative
2 is due .to the additional slope stabilization and Palisades Creek rerouting activities.
The capital and O&M cost estimates for the Palisades Landfill alternatives are presented
in Table 1. The 30-year O&M costs are the present worth of the annual costs at an
interest rate of 5 percent. The cost estimates provide an accuracy of + 50 percent to -30
percent in accordance with EP A guidelines. . .
-------
NAF ADAK,.SITES 11 AND 13
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
era 0154
Record of Decision
Date: 02/1B/95
Page 65
Table 1
Proposed Plan Alternatives and Costs
Palisades Landfill
Monitoring
o
229,000
!lnS:~~eE~IiS~!s~~~~!iI!=~J£g£~iliImti@l\itt&tiJ{~~li$~i~itlt%~
Mobilization 750,000 0
Slope stabw"lmtiOD 985,000 36,000
Palisades .Creek
rerouting 140,000 16,000
Landfill cap 1,294,000 219,000 .
Leachate collcction 12,000 0
Leachate treatment 0 0
Surface water dMIsion 10,000 16,000
Institutional controls 5,000 5,000
Establishing vegetation 32.000 61,000
Monitoring 0 215,500
Subtotal 3,228,000 568,000
Weather conditions- 484,000 0
MisC'~l1l1n..-ous unlisted
items'> 323,000 0
'R1'\gin~.eriDg and
managemcn~ 646,000 0
Total 4,681,000 568,000
Mobilization 750,000 0
Removal of debris from
ravine; reconsolidation
of debris upland 3,404,000 0
Hazardous waste
haildliDg 86,000 0
Landfill cap 1,286,000 219,000
Leachate collection 147,000 0
Leachate treatment 0 0
750,000
1,021,000
156,000
1,513,000
12,000
o
26,000
10,000
93,000
215,500
3,796,000
484,000
323,000
646,000
5,249,000
3,404,000
86,000
1,505,000
147,000
o
-------
NAF ADAK, SITES 11 AND 13
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
era 0154
Record of Decision
Date: 02/28/95
Page 66
Table 1 (Continued)
Proposed Plan Alternatives and Costs
Palisades Landfill
Surface water diversion 10,000 16,000 26,000
Institutional controls 5,000 5,000 10,000
EstablisbiDg vegetation Zl,OOO 51,000 78,000
Monitoring 0 . 215,000 215,000
Subtotal 5,715,000 506,000 6,221.000
Weather conditions- 857,000 0 857,000
~l1mtt'.()us UDlisted
items" 572,000 .0 572,000
Rng;neering and
managemcn~ 1,143,000 0 1,143,000
Total 8,287,000 506,000 8,793,000
Note:
.All costs are 1994 dollars.:
-Weather conditions - A cost for downtime or reduction in productivity during CODStruction due to inclement
weather conditions has been added. The cost is based on 15 percent of the- CODStruction :iubtotal cost.
"Miscellaneous unlisted items - The level of detail available for this estimare. does not permit establishing
costs for every detail in the plan. An additional. 10 percent of the construction subtotal cost has been added
to cover this item.
~eering and management - An allowance totaling 20 percent of the construction subtotal cost has been
added to include project ~g;n~ and management. This allowance is broken down into 5 percent for
engineering and geotechnical investigations, 3 percent for administrative and legal costs, 6 per~t for
engineering design cost, and 6 percent for coDStruction oversight and management.
-------
NAF ADAK, SITES 11 AND 13
U.s. Navy CLEAN Contract
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295 .
era 0154
Record of Decision
Date:. 02/113/95
Page 67
10.1.8 State Acceptance
The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) was involved in the
preparation of this plan and supports the selected remedial alternative pursu~t to the
.state cleanup requirements set forth in 18 AAC 75 and AS 40.09.020.
10.1.9 Community Acceptance
Community acceptance was evaluated as part of the public comment period. . The FF A
parties have reviewed and considered public comments on this ROD and have
incorporated comments to the decisionma1cing process. The Responsiveness Summcuy .
(Appendix B) provides responses to public comments. .In general, the public comments
supported the preferred alternative presented in the proposed plan.
10.2
METALS LANDFILL
The following sections evaluate the three April ~994 alternatives according to the nine
EP A evaluation criteria. The no-action alternative was included as a baseline
comparison.
10.2.1 Overall Protection of Human. Health and the Environment
. The FF A parties believe. that Alternative 1 may not adequately protect hUman health
and the environment. Although this alternative includes long-term mo:irltoring, it is
possible that receptors could become exposed to harmfUIlevels of Contaminants. This
could occur by contacting wastes at or near the landfill surface. It could also occur in
the nearshore marine environment if future releases from the landfill carry contaminants
into Kuluk Bay. The probability of such a release is difficult to estimate. Alternatives 2
and 3 would meet all the RAOs identified for this site. . Both Alternative 2 and .
Alternative 3 would reduce possible contaminant exposure and migration by .
implementing effective containment measures and would mclude monitoring and annual
inspections. Alternative 2 would segregate arid remove all recoverable hazardous waste
within the landfill and treat and/or dispose of it, thus greatly reducing potential threats
to human and ecological receptors. All remaining solid wastes would be consolidated,
and an effective cap would be instaIle~ to minimii.e infiltration and the generation of
leachate. Alternative 3 would effectively remove all waste from contact with the Kuluk
Bay shoreline and segregate any hazardous wastes from solid wastes excavated during .the
-------
NAP .WAK, SITES 11 AND 13
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract
Engineering FreId Activity, Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
era 0154
Record of Decision
Date: 02/1l!,/95
Page 68
action. The solid waste would be reconsolidated onto the main area of the landfill, and
the hazardous wastes would be treated and/or properly disposed of. . A cap would then
be installed over the remaining landfill areas to control infiltration and reduce leachate
generation and migration.
Alternatives 2 and 3 would be designed to significantly minimi7.e releases of hazardous
substances into the air or surface water. Monitoring would ensure that the alternatives
. meet this goal. Based on the results of sampling conducted to date and the goals of the
remedial design, it is anticipated that neither a landfill gas system nor a leachate
treatment system would be required to meet RAOs. H monitoring shows that harmful
. levels of landfill gases are. being released to the atmosphere, a gas collection and
treatment system would need to be installed. Similarly, if harmful levels of contMriin~nts
are detected in water em~n~ring downgradient of the landfill,. then those waters would
need to be treated prior to discharge to Kuluk Bay. Interim remedial design and/or
action documents would establish specific methods,. intervals, and action leve1,s for
monitoring the landfill bef~re the OU A base wide ROD is released (scheduled for 1998).
The basewide ROD, or its post-ROD documents, Will then establish the long-term
monitoring requirements for the site. .
10.2.2 Compliance WIth Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Federal and State.
Req~ents .
Unless waived, ARARs must be met when a remedial action becomes necessary.
Because Alternative 1 does not entail taking action, ARARs would not be triggered (and
no requirements would therefore be required). Both Alternative 2 and Alternative 3
would be designed and implemented to attain the ARARs, including the substantive
requirements of both RCRA Subtitle C, Parts 261 and ~, and state solid waste closure.
requirements (18 AAC 60)~. . .
At the time of the proposed plan, Metals Landfill was designated as a RCRA hazardous
waste landfill. The two action alternatives.presented in the plan, therefore, were
conceived specifically to meet RCRA.'s 40 CFR 264 landfill closure requirements. At
this time, it is likely that only a. portion of the site will require closure as a RCRA .
hazardous waste unit. For. the remainder of the site, certain RCRA closure requirements
will be relevant and appropriate. See Section 12.2 for a discussion of these
requirements.
-------
NAF ADAK, SITES 11 AND 13
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
era 0154
Record of Decision
Date: W./~/95
Page 69
10.2.3 Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence
Alternative 1 would take no action and, therefore, would not have long-term
effectiveness or permanence. Both Alternatives 2 and 3 would be designed for long-term
effectiveness and peinianence. The long-term effectiveness and permanence of ,
Alternative 2 may be greater than Alternative 3. Under Alternative 2, the entire landfill
contents-approximately 400,000 cubic yards-would be excavated and inspected for
hazardous wastes. Any hazardous waste discovered would be removed prior to
reconsolidation of the landfill materials. Under Alternative 3, only t)le landfill material
, in contact with Kuluk Bay-appr~m~tely 75,000 cubic yatds-would be removed Any
hazardous waste detected during the removal would be segregated.
The magnitude of residual risk and the, 'ability of the selected remedy to maintain
reliable protection of human health and the environment over time would be reevaluated
as part of the findings and conclusions ~f the basewide RIfFS. Long-term monitoring
for all three alternatives would be used to confirm .theeffectiveness of the action.
10..2.4 Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Vol~e Through Treatment
None of the alternatives assumes that the cont~mi11~11ts Will. be treated. Alternative 1
would not reduce the toxicity, mobility, or volume of CODt~Tnin~11ts. Both Alternatives 2
and 3 use "cont~inment" measures, that is, measures to m;nim;7.e CODt~m;11~nt mobility
by placing a landfill cap over a portion of the site and effective drainage controls to
reduce infiltration and m;11;m;7,e l~t"h~te generation. None of the three alternatives
would actively reduce the toxicity of the CODtam;nants; however, Alternatives 2 and 3
may reduce the volume of hazardo~ substances in the excavated portion of the landfill.
'10.2.5 Short-Term Effectiveness
Alternative 1 would not provide protection but would not'create adverse impacts either.
Alternatives 2 and 3 would be designed t(},safely contain alliandfilled waste and remove
any detected hazardous wastes during excavation .activiti~ reduce human exposure to
wastes and leached cont~m;naDts, and reduce the generation and migration of leachate.
Because Alternative 2 would involve excavating the entire landfill, the potential for
releases to the environment and exposure of on-site personnel to hazardous substances'
would be much greater than that for Alternative 3. Alternatives 2 and 3 would require
appropriate consttu.ction techniques to m;n;m;7.e short-term cont~m;nat1t releases that
may affect on-site personnel and the environment during remedial operations.
-------
,
NAF ADAK, SITES 11 AND 13
U.5. Navy CLEAN Contract
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
era 0154 .
, Record of Decision
Date: f11./12./95
Page 70
10.2.6 Implementability
The Navy would be able to implement any of the three alternatives. Alternative 2 would.
require large-scale construction activities as well as major hazardous waste rnan~gement
, operations~ Because of the proposed reduction of naval operations on Adak, support
. activities and facilities may not be available to support the scale of operations required
for Alternative 2. Alternative 2 would require approximately 30 months to implement; .
Alternative 3 would require approximately 18 months. Variations within these projected
tiineframes depend on the availability of supplies and equipment, complet;ion and
acceptance of work plans, and on-island environmental conditions. .
1().2.7 Cost
The projected cost of Alternative 1 is $270,000 for annual inspection and monitoring.
. The projected capital cost of Alternativ~ 2 is $38,251,000, with a projected O&M cost of
$785,000. The total esrim8ted cost for Alternative 2 is $39,~6,OOO. The' projected
Capital cost of Alternative 3 is $14,184,000, with O&M costs projected at $927,000. The
total estimated coSt for Alternative 3 is $15, 111,qo<). To estimate costs, it is assumed
that the annual inspection and monitoring under Alternative 1 and the O&M under
Alternatives 2 and 3 will be conducted over a 30-year period. Also, the landfill cap in
Alternatives 2 and 3 is assumed to be a geomembrane cap, as shown in Figure 14. The
initial cost. of Alternative 2 is greater than that of Alternative 3 because of the difference
in scale ~ the expense of segregation and treating and/or disposing of all recoverable
hazardous wastes within the landfill; however, Alternatives 2 and 3 will require the same
operational costs over 30 years. .
The capital and O&M cost estimates for Alternatives 2 and 3 for Metals Landfill are
presented in Table 2. The 30-year O&M costs are the present worth of the annual costs
at an interest rate of 5 percenl The cost estimates provide an accuracy of + 50 percent
to -30 percent in accordance with.EPA guideHnes.
10.2.8 State Acceptance
ADEC was involved in the preparation of this plan and supports the selected remedial
. alternative pursuant to the State. cleanup requirements set forth in 18 AAC 75 and
AS 40.09.020.
-------
NAF ADAK, SITES 11 AND 13
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
ero 0154
Record of Decision
Date: 02j2i3j95
Page 71
Table 2
Proposed Plan Alternatives and Costs
Metals Landfill
\t;~--~.t~~f4..B!!lf.£it!~~~tfi%W*]HmWm%t1Mlt%Wh%.\%Wl~H~*~
Monitoring
E~;~~l1i~!mI~fi!ij:ft.!!'jR~;M!J9.ii_:\~!!!~~~I.!~!f1~lill[%tfm%1Hw
Mobi1mhOJI 750,000 0 750,000 .
~vation,
segregation, and
recousolidation of
landfill debris
Hazardous waste
h:ntd1ing
Landfill cap
Groundwater
monitoring
Surface water
diversion
Institutional controls
Establishing yegetation
. Cleanup east
section
Monitoring program
Subtotal
Weather conditions-
Miscellaneous 1m1i«ed
items"
Engineering and
managememc
Total
o
270,000
270,000
22,220,000
o
22,220,000
495,000
2,586,000
o
227,000
495,000
2,813,000
100,000
o
100,000
20,000
6,000
138,000
16,000
5,000
122,000
36,000
11,000
2tiO,000
65,000
o
26,380,000
3,957,000
o
415,000
785,000 .
o
65,000
415,000
27,165,000
3,957,000
2,638,000
o
2,638,000
5;n6,000
38,251,000
o
785,000
S;n6,CXXJ
39,036,000
~fAlt$i;ii.1m~f~~_~1,.!~t!f!!_$W~l~~~ttft\1tlit1\w!t.rRlm*i~lW~iI~::'
Mobilization 750,000
Debris removal from
sUrface water
o
750,000
4,985,000
o
4,985,CXXJ
-------
NAP ADAK. SITES 11 AND 13
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
era 0154
Record of Decision
Date: 02/'lJ!,j95
Page 72
Table 2 (Continued)
Proposed Plan Alternatives and Costs
Metals Landfill
Hazardous waste
handling 102,000 0 102,000 .
U!J'I.UiII cap 3,fJ17,000 1Il,000 3,834,000
Groundwater
mODitoriDg 109,000 0 109,000
Surface water
diversion 20,000 16,000 36,000
Institutional controls 6,000 5,000 11,000
Establishing vegetation 138,000 172,000 310,000
Cleanup of east
sedi.on 65,000 (j 65,000
MODitoriDg program 0 5fJ7,000 507,000
Subtotal 9,782,000 m,ooo 10,709,000
Weather c:onditi~ 1,467,000 0 1,467,000
Miscellaneous unlisted
items" 978,000 O. 978,000
1,957,000 0 1,957,000
14,184,000 .9Z7,000 15,111,000
Note:
All costs are 1994 dollars.
-Weather c:OnditiODS - A cost for downtime or reduction in productivity during constn1dion due to inclement
weather cpnditiODS has been added. The cost is based on 15 percent of the construction subtotal cost.
~eous unlisted items - The level of detail available f~ this estimate does not permit establishing
costs for every detail in the plan. An additional 10 percent of the CODStrUdion subtotal cost has been added
to cover this item. . ..
-------
NAF ADAK, SITES 11 AND 13
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
ero 0154
Record of Decbion
Date: cn./2i3/95
Page 73
. 10.2~9Community Acceptance
. .
Community acceptance was evaluated as part of the public comment period. The FF A
parties have reviewed and considered public comments on this ROD and have
incorporated comments to the decisionmaking process. The Responsiveness Summary
(Appendix B) provides responses to public comments. In general, the public comments
supported the preferred alternative presented in the proposed plan.
. lLO SUMMARY OF SELECTED ALTERNATIVE
Following consideration of public comnient, the Navy, EP A, and ADEC selected a .
modified version of the proposed plan's preferred alternative for each site. Compared to
. . other alternatives, the FF A parties belieye the two selected remedies best achieve the
goals of the NCP's ~e evaluation criteria. .
11.1
PALISADES LANDFILL
11.1.1 Rationale for the Selected .Alternative
Alternative 2 was the preferred alternative. identified in the April 1994 proposed plan. A
modified version of Alternative 2, stream rerouting and site cover, is the selected interim
action. This alternative has been selected because it achieves RAOs, and among the
options evaluated, achieves them most cost-effectiv~ly. . .
The selected alternative will:
.
Reduce potential erosion to the landfill surface and reduce the potential of
water infiltrating the landfill-debris by constructing small interceptor swales
around the perimeter of the lanrlfiU. .
.
. Reroute, via a pipe, a portion of Palisades Creek to separate non-
contaminated stream water from contacting the landfill debris. This will .
provide an opportunity in the future to collect and treat leachate if
contaminant levels become nnacceptably high.
-------
r
NAF ADAK, SITES 11 AND 13
u.s. Navy ClEAN Contract
EngiJieering FieId Activity, Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
era 0154
Record of Decision
Date: 02/28/95
Page 74
.
Provide a landfill cover to minimi7.e human exposure, direct or control IUn-
on or runoff, and protect terrestrial receptors from contact with wastes and
debris
.
Provide institutional controls to restrict future land use at the landfill, warn
the public of the landfill contents, and minimi7.e the potential for activities
at or near the surface of the site that could disturb the integrity of the
cover
.
. Perform stream and sediment monitoring at the month of Palisades Creek
to detect any releases to the nearshore marine environment
Very few public comments were received on the interim remedial action proposed pIan.
Although the C()mments did not voice unan;mous approval for the preferred alternative
at the landfill, there appeared to be Ii~e opposition to these actions. Commonly this
would lead directly t9 s~lection and implementation of the preferred alternative. In this
case, however, the FF A parties have concluded that Certain modifications to the
preferred alternative will improve the cost-effectiveness of the actual implemented
. actions. The reasons for these modifications at Palisades Landfill are as follows:
. .
31.SCO\9.501.lXJ4\1mCf
.
Levels. of hazardous substances do not currently appear to be releasing
from the site at concentrations that would adversely affect the marine
environment.. .' . .
.
While Palisades Landfill.wasthe site of disposal of hazardous substances,
the disposal date back in many cases to the late 19408 and 19505. It is,
therefore, likely that much of the hazardous disposal dUiing those early
years has subsequently released, vola.ti1i7.ed, or biodegraded in the
intervening period. .
.
Although Alternative 2 in the proposed pl~ (the preferred alternative) was
designed to be as cost-effective as possible, overall costs were still
considerable (potentially as high as $5 million plus). Much of the cost,
especially the portion of the cost that went beyond $2 million, would be
incurred by preparing the slopes of the Palisades ravine, and then installing
a sitewide cap that would act as an infiltIation barrier. As dis~ed below,
-------
".
NAP ADAK, SITES 11 AND 13
. U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
. Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
era 0154
Record of Decision
Date: C1l./12,/95
Page 75
the history of disposal, it is unlikely that a cap acting as an infiltration
barrier may be needed at Palisades Landfill..
In scrutinizing the proposed plan's preferred alternative (April 1994) for Palisades
Landfill, the FF A parties looked carefully at the nature of the site today, what its
potential might be for environmental damage in the future, and what costs would be
incurred by implementing different elements of the alternative. It appeared that
significant cost savings could be realized if, because of the age of the site and the nature
of the materials disposed of, a site-wide infiltration barrier would not be required to
protect the marine environment from releases within. the landfill.
There is the possibility that harmful levels of oont:lminants continue to exist in Palisades
Landfill; however, a presumption that the current contents of the landfill will not pose .a
future risk to receptors is inSufficiently conservative by itseif.. For example, there may be
a number of petroleum or solvent .~ that are present at the site and .have yet to
release. Because of this concern, the.FF A parties evaluated a hypothetical dnun release
scenario that used worst case, but reasonable, assumptions about what materials could be
in a drum at Adak arid how that material might .travel after being released at the site.
The results of the evaluation showed that even with no cover or cap on the site, it was
very unlikely that such' a release would lead to exceedances of regulatory criteria in
Palisades Creek or the nearshore Kuluk Bay environment. This finding also supports the
assumption made in the proposed p~ that a leacb~te .treatment system is not required.
A .consequence of not implementing slope stabilization and a site-wide cap that would
serve as an infiltration barrier in the selected altel1lative is .that a portion of the landfiU
will not be covered. This is the. part of the landfill that lies on steep slopes in the ravine
leading 'to the ocean. It is the opinion of the FF A parties that the ravine itself provides
considerable physical deterrence to exposures to human receptors. The slopes are very
steep, potentially unstable, . and would present difficult passage for anyone trespassing
onto the site. .
. The natural access obstacles combined with institutional cOntrols may be sufficient to
adequately protect human health; however, they are not viewed' by themselves as a
significant protection against nn~cceptable non-human terrestrial eXposures. These
exposures are possible, but there are no indications that animals inhabiting or
frequenting the ravine are imminently at risk. The FF A parties believe that the risk to
. ecological receptors, based on the current knowledge of the types of animals that inhabit
the area and the appearance of the exposed and weathered debris in the ravine, sho~d
-------
NAF ADAK, SITES 11 AND 13
U.S. Navy ClEAN Contract
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
era 0154
Record of Decision
Date: 02/28/95
Page 76
be minimal from exposure to chemicals. A more rigorous evaluation of the risks posed
by the ravine area will, however, be included within the scope of. the basewide RIfFS.
The action at Palisades Landfill has not been preceded by a remedial investigation or
feasibility study, and as such, is termed an interim remedial action. A comprehensive
risk assessment will be performed during the NAF Adak basewide lUfFS, scheduled to
begin in October 1996. As part of that RIfFS, the nearshore marine environment near
Palisades Landfill will be investigated, and the effects of implementing these actions will
be evaluated. At the conclusion of that process, the FF A parties may propose additional
activities for the site as part of a final remedial action.
11;.1.2 Description of Selected Alternative
The activities to be conducted under the selected alternative (surface water diversion,
Palisades .Creek rerouting, mstitutional ~ntro~ lannfi11 cover, vegetation, and .
monitoring) and associated costs are described in the following paragraphS.
Suiface Water Control
Conttolling surface water will reduce potential erosion to the landfill surface and steep
ravine embankment Also, the potential of water infiltrating the landfill waste will be
reduced. Surface water will be conttolled as outlined for Alternative 2 and as shown on
Figure 11. . .
Pa/imMs Cred: Rerouting
As discussed previously, the rerouting of Palisades Creek will be designed to reduce
leaching of wastes and debris located in the creek bed. .
In the upland area of the landfill, Palisades Creek presently flows through or under the
landfill north of the ravine and along the eastern boundary of the landfill. In order to
reroute Palisades Creek in the upland area of the.landfill, an open channel will be
constructed east of the present Palisades Creek location and outside of the landfill area
(Figure 11). The open channel will be constrUcted in native soil and or rock from near
where two stteams merge to a point approximately 550 feet downstream. A depression
area in the landfill surface has developed where the present Palisades Creek flows
through the upland landfill area. After Palisades Creek has been rerouted, the
depressed area. will be filled with approximately 2,000 cubic yards of £ill mate~al to
-------
"
NAF ADAK., SITES 11 AND 13
U.S. Navy CLEAN Conttact
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
Conttact No. N62474-89-D-9295
era 0154
Record of Decision
Date: CJ2/~/95
PageTT
provide surface drainage and prevent the ponding of surface water. Approximately 550
lineal feet of 42-inch, HDPE pipe will be placed in the ravine, beginning at the end of
the channel, and discharging into the existing creek bed at the bottom of the ravine.
Rock riprap will be placed around the entrance and exit of the pipe to minimize erosion.
The pipe will be placed on select gravel material and covered with fill material (Figure
19). The purpose of the fill material around the 42-inch HDPE pipe will be to stabilize
the pipe and protect it from-becoming crushed or punctured by the surrounding ravine
debris. All fill, select gravel, and riprap materials will be processed on or collected from
Adak Island.
InstitutioJUJI C6ntTOls
Institutional controls will involve land use restrictions and controls established under the
authori1)1 of the NAP Adak COmmanding Officer. Prope~ transfer for Palisades
Landfill will require that a deed restriction be attached The boundaries of the landfill
will be referenced to the survey system and existing monuments on Adak Island
Warning signs will be installed at equally spaced intervals around the perimeter of the
landfill to warn the public of its contents. Long-~erm institutional controls will be
addressed as part of the basewide ROD or its post-ROD documents.
LandfiU C6l'eT
The landfill cover will m;n;mi7'.e human exposure, direct or. control run-on or runoff, and
protect terrestrial receptors from contact with landfill wastes and debris. Based on a
. preliminary. analysis, an estimated 3-foot-thick landfill cover will protect terrestrial
receptors from burrowing and contacting landfill wastes and debris. The landfill cover
.material will be secured from the nearest acceptable borrow pIts somewhere near the
landfill or accessible to existing roads. The selection of specific borrow pits and quarries
will be part of the engineering and geotechnical evaluation during the design stage. The
landfill cover will be constructed on the top, flat section of the landfill and will be
limited to depressed areas within the existing landfill cover, areas with exposed " landfill
debris, and areas where the existing landcover is inadequate to protect terrestrial
. receptors. The exact design for a cover will be completed after predesign studies and
geotechnical testing on the landfill area is complete. Repair efforts will be .conducted if
erosion degraded the performance of the cap.
-------
..
~.
~
~
~~.
~
i.O~
~.f
"-[~~:Fm
. I . \
I 2,u. \
I mln. \
I \
I
I
~
r6~
~~
~:~
~~
~
42" HOPE 'Pipe
Select Gravel.
CLEAN
COMPREHENSIVE
lONG-1ERM ENVIRONMENTAl
ACTION NAVY
. Figure 19
Pipe Bedding, Selected Alternative
Palisades Landfill
CTO0154
Adak Island. AI<
Sites 11 and 13 .
-------
NAF ADAK, SITES 11 AND 13
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract.
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
era 0154
Record of Decision
Date: (1}./113/95
Page 79
VegetDtion
After the soil cover has been Installed and graded, the disturbed areas will be seeded
and measures will be taken to prevent erosion. Erosion control measures may include
jute mattiI)g, filter fabric fences, and hay/straw bales.
Monitoring Program
It will be necessary to monitor the landfill in order to evaluate the effectiveness of the
. IRA.. Samples will be collected from the mouth of Palisades Creek to provide an
indication of water and sediment quality in the nearshore marine environment. The
samples Will be Collected downstream of the 42-inch HDPE pipe and before discharge to
Kuluk Bay. The presence of landfill gas will be monitored for at the perimeter of the . .
tandfill with the use of a combust11>le gas meter. The overall physical conditio~ of the
landfill will be inspected to determine whether erosion or settlement has occurred that
would be detrimental to the landfill or would pose a potential danger to the
environment. Repair. efforts will be conducted jf erosion has degraded the performance
of the cap. .
For the purpose of estimating costs, it has been assumed that monitoring will be
.conducted ~nnl1aJ]y for 30 Years. Interim remedial action design and/or action
documents will estab1is1i specific methods, intervals, and action levels for monitoring the
landfill before the au A baseWide ROD is issued (scheduled for 1998). The basewide
ROD, or its post-ROD documents, will then establish the long-term monitoring
requirements for the site.
Cost
The projected capital cost of the selected alternative is $1,987,000, with. O&M costs
projected at $288,000. .The capital and O&M cost estimates for the selected Palisades
Landfill interim remedial. action are presented in Table 3.. The 30-year O&M costs are
the present worth of the annual costs at an interest rate of 5 percent. The cost estimates
provide. an accuracy of + 50 percent t.o ~30 percent in accordance with EP A guidelines.
The selected alternative will require approximately 18 months to implement. Variations
within the projected timeframe depend on the availability of supplies and equipment,
completion and approval of work plans, and on-island environmental conditions.
-------
NAF ADAK, SITES 11 AND 13
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D~9295
ero 0154
Record of Decision
Date: fJ2/28/95
Page SO
. Table 3 .
Selected Alternative Costs
Palisades Landfill
172,000 16,000 . 188,000
401,000 . Zl,OOO 428,000
10,QOO 16,000 26,000
5,000 5,000 10,000
32,000 8,000 40,000
o 216,000 216,000
1,370,000 288,000 1,658,000
.206,000 0 206,000
137,000 0 137,000
Zl4,000 0 Zl4,000 .
l$ifl,000 288,000 2;1:15,000
Note:
All costs are 1994 dollars.
.-Weather conditions - A Cost for downtimc or .reduction in productivity during COJJStnJctiOD due to
inclCment weather conditions has been added. The cost is based on 15 perCent of the CODStrUdion
subtotal cost.. . .
"Misce11S1fteous uulistcd items - The leve1 of detail available for this ~mSlt~ does not permit
estab1ishing costs for every detail in the plan. ~ additional 10 percent of the ~OD subtotal
cost has been added to cover this itcm. . . .
"Engineering and management - An allowance totaliDg 20 percent of the c:onstruction subtotal cost has
been added to include project cngineering and management. This alloWance is broken down into 5
percent for ~giftPP.ting and geoteclmical investigations, 3 perCent for aduUnistra1ive and legal costs, 6
percent for eng;ftP-eriDg design cost, and 6 percent for construction oversight and management.
-------
Record of Decision
Date: 02j2Bj95
. Page 81
NAF ADAK., SITES 11 AND 13
U.S. Navy ClEAN Contract
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
ere 0154
11.2 .METALS LANDFILL
11.2.1 Rationale for the Selected Alternative
Alternative 3 was the. preferred alternative identified in the April 1994 proposed plan. A
modified version of Alternative 3, site cover, shoreline site removal evaluation, and
monitoring, is the selected interim action.' This alternative was selected because it
achieves RAOs and, among the options evaluated, achieves them most cost-effectively.
After soliciting public comment'last spring on actions designed to remediate Palisades
and Metals Landfills, the FF A parties reconsidered the scope and scale of the April 1994
proposed plan's preferred alternatives. As a result, the parties have determined that the
actual selected remedies should b~ modifications of those previously proposed to the
. public. .
The selected alternative will:
31S1O\9SUUI34\ 'I1!XT
.
Perform a site removal evaluation on the shoreline debris in contact with
.Kuluk Bay, located along the northern section of Metals Landfill. The
shoreline debris will be inspected and material that could adversely affect
the marine enVironment will be removed from the shoreline and placed in
the landfill. Sediment samples will be taken and the results will be
screened agamst RBSC. If exceedances of RBSC can be linked to the
debris present, that debris will be removed from the shoreline and properly
disposed. The debris will be evaluated for stability and, if necessary,
measures will be taken to prevent further debris from contacting the
marine environment.
.
Reduce potential erosion to the landfill surface and reduce the potential of
. water infiltrating the landfill debriS by constructing smaIl interceptor swales
on the uphill side of the landfill.
.
Provide a 1aD.dfill cov~r to minimi7.e. human exposure, direct or control run-
on or runoff,' and protect tenestrial receptors from contact with wastes and
debris.
.
Provide institutional contro1s to restrict future land use at the landfill, warn
the public of the landfill contents, and minimi7.e the potential for activities
-------
..
Record of Decision
Date: 02/'lR,/95
Page 82
NAF ADAK, SITES 11 AND 13
u.s. Navy CLEAN Contract
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
era 0154
cover. Institutional controls would involve land use restrictions and
controls established under the authority of the NAF Adak Commauding
Officer.' .
Perform groundwater monitoring to detect any releases to the groundwater
and Kuluk Bay to avoid impacts to the marine environment.
Very few public comments were received on the interim action proposed plan. Although
the comments did not voice l1n~n;mous approval for the preferred alternative at the
landfill, . there aJ>J?eared to be little opposition to these actions. Commonly this would
lead directly to selection and implementation of the preferred alternative. In this case,
however, the FF A parties have concluded that certain modifications to the preferred
alternative will improve the actual implemented actions. The reasons for these
modifications at Metals Landfill are as follows:
31S4o\9501.1134\ TEXr
.
.
Levels of hazardous substances do not currently appear to be releasing
from the site at high concentrations.' . '
Although Altemative,3 in the prop'osed plan (the preferred alternative) was
designed to be as cost-effective as possible, overall costs were still
considerable (potentially as high as $15 plus million). Much of the cost
would be incurred by removing debris from the shoreline and in contact
with Kuluk Bay and installing a landfill cap that would act as an infiltration
banier. As discussed below,tbeFF A parties now believe that, based on
past sampling at the site and the history of disposal, it is unlikely that an
infiltration banier and complete debris remOval from the shoreline of
K.u1uk Bay may be needed at Metals Landfill. .
.
.
Since the signing of the FFCA. in November 1990, all but approximately 1
acre of the Metals Landfill is expected to be redesignated as an RCRA
nonh~'TJlTdous SWMU. The -relJ1a;n;ng 1 acr,e, which is known to have
received hazardous waste, i$ expected to be treated as a hazardous waste
pile. Currently, RCRA Cosure Plans are being developed for the
hazardous waste pile. The anticipated redesignation of over 90 percent of
Metals Landfill allows the FF A parties to focus the IRA. more exclusively
-------
NAP ADAK, SITES 11 AND 13
U.s. Navy CLEAN Contract
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-92.95
era 0154
Record of Decision
. Date: 02/113/95
. Page 83
In scrutinizing the preferred alternative for Metals Landfill, the FF A parties looked
carefully at the nature of the site today, what its potential might be for environmental
damage in the future, and what costsjbenefits would be incurred by implementing
different elements of the alternative. It appeared that significant cost savings could be
. realized if the following would not be required to protect the marine environment from
releases within the landfii1: removing all debris from the shoreline of Kuluk Bay and
installing an infiltration barrier.
The consequences of not pursuing complete shoreline debris removal and not installing
the infiltration barrier are that the marine environment will be exposed to the debris and
any leachate generated within the landfill could possibly migrate into the groundwater
and Kuluk Bay. The FF A parties believe that the risk to marine reCeptors, based on the.
current knowledge of the types of marine ~nim~l!: that inhabit the area and the
appearance of the exposed and weathered debris on the shoreline and in contact with
Kuluk Bay, should be minimal These e?CJ)osures are possible, but there are no .
. indications that ~nim~l!: inhabiting or frequenting the landfill or shoreline debris are
imminently at risk. A more rigorous evaluation of the risks posed by the exposed debris
on the shoreline and in contact with Kuluk Bay will be included within the scope of the
basewide RIfFS. .
Based on recent (1992 to 1993) limited groundwater data from groundwater monitoring
wells located on the seaward side of Metals Landfill, there are no indications that Metals
Landfill is impacting the gro~ter to such an extent that receptors in Kuluk Bay will
be harmed. Debris and sediment sampling and characterization, and a more rigorous
evaluation of the risks posed by groundwater CODt~min~tion will be included within the
scope of the basewide RIfFS. . .
Since there .is the possibility that harmful levels of cont~min~nts continue to exist in
Metals Landfill, a presumption that the current. contents of the landfill will not pose a
. future risk to receptors is insufficiently conservative by itself.. As part of the
implementation of the selected action, a monitoring program and a site removal
evaluation will be initiated to ensure that all RAOs are met. The monitoring program
will include sampling of groundwater and inspection and maintenance prOcedures for the
covered landfill. Also, the site removal evaluation will include sampling of the shoreline
debris and sediments around the shoreline debris and in contact with Kuluk Bay.
Since the preferred alternative was presented in the April 1994 proposed plan, a portion
of the Metals Landfill was proposed to be designated'a hazardous waste pile under.
-------
NAF ADAK, SITES 11 AND 13
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract
. Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
ero 0154
Record of Decision
Date: 02/113/95
Page 84
RCRA The remainder of the landfill would then be designated a solid waste
management unit. Oosure plans have been submitted to EP A and it appears that the
area designated a hazardous waste pile will be closed under RCRA guidelines. . H the
RCRA designation of the s.ite does not proceed as expected, a contingent alternative (see
Section 11.2.4) will be implemented. Elements contained in the selected remedy..
therefore will be designed to be consistent with the contingent alternative. H the RCRA
redesigDation proceeds as expected, community relation efforts will be initiated to update.
the public on remedial action progress at the landfill. A fact sheet will be issued to
confirm .the implementation of the selected alternative. H the decision is made to .
implement the contingent alternative, then the Navy will issue an "Explanation of
Significant Differences" to document the changes from the selected alternative.
The ~on at Metals Landfill has not been preceded by a remedial investigation or
feasibility study and, as such, is termed an interim remedial action.. A comprehensive
risk assessment will be performed during the NAF.Adak basewide RIfFS, scheduled to
begin in October 1996. As part of that RI/FS, the nearshore marine environment near
Metals Landfill will be investigated and the effects of implementing these actions will be
evaluated At the conclusion of that process, the FF A parties may propose additional
activities for the site as part of a final remedial action. . .
11.2.2 Description of the Selected Alternative
The. activities to be conducted under the selected alternative (surface water diversion,
site removal evaluation, groundwater monitoring, landfill cover, vegetation, institutional
controls, and landfill monitoring), and associated costs are. described in the following
paragraphs. .
SuiftU:e Water Control
Small interceptor swales will be constructed on the uphill side of the landfill at the base
of Monument Hill to collect water flowing off the hill above the landfill and to route the
water into Kuluk Bay (Figure 16). A V-shaped channel aPProximately 1 foot deep will
collect and transport the water. .
Site Removal Evalrurti6n
The site removal evaluation will be a limited investigation and assessment on the
shoreline debris area to determine risks posed by the debris iri.contact with Kul~ Bay.
-------
NAP ADAK, SITES 11 AND 13
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
era 0154 '
Record of Decision
Date: 02/213/95
, Page 85
The shoreline debris is located in the northern section of the landfill The evaluation
will include a location survey of the debris and characteristics (ie., erosion patterns, tidal
affects, debris, and sediment analysis). The Shoreline debris will be inspected and
material that could adversely affect the marine enVironment will be removed from the
shoreline and either landfilled or disposed of off site., Sediment samples will be taken
and the results will be screened against appropriate marine RBSCs. H exceedances of
RBSC can be linked to the debris present, that debris will also be evaluated for removal
from the shoreline. The debris will be evaluated for stability and, if necessary to protect
human health and the environment, measures will be taken to prevent further debris
from contacting the marine environment. These measures may' include riprap along the
debris in contact with Kuluk Bay or partial or complete debris removal.
"
Groundwater Mcmitori!Jg
Groundwater monitoring provides a moIJitoring system to enable the FF A parties to
determine whether' future releases of contam;nant~ from the site could pose an
unacceptable impact to the marine environment. Monitoring will ideJ?1ify ttends in
contam;nant levels and provide adequat~ warning for the iInplementation of engineered
groundwater controls if impacts are observed. Five existiIig monitoring wells have been
drilled on site. It is estimated that five additional monitoring wells Will be drilled, at a
spacing of approximately 200 feet on center, as monitoring points near the eastern
, perimeter of the site toward Kuluk Bay. It is believed that Monument Hill is a bamer
to movement of groundwater from the upland area of the island and that any leachate
,will be derived principally from percolation through the landfill., 'rhe surface of the
landfill will be graded to provide drainage to reduce the quantity of water that percolates
through the landfill. '
Landjill Cover'
The landfill cover will m;n;mi.,..e human exposure, direct or control run-on or runoff, and
protect terrestrial receptors from contact with landfill was~es and debris. Based on a
prel;m;n3ry analysis, an estimated 3-foot-thick landfill cover will protect terresttial '
receptors from burrowing and contacting landfill wastes and debris. The landfill cover
material will be secured from the nearest acceptable borrow pits somewhere near the
landfill or accessible by existing roads. The selection of specific borrow pits and quarries
will be part of the engineering and geotechnical, evaluation during the design stage. The
landfill cover will be limited to depressed areas within the existing landfill cover, areas
with exposed landfill debris, and areas where the existing landcover is inadequate to -
-------
NAP ADAK, SITES 11 AND 13
U.s. Navy CLEAN Contract
Engineering Field Activity~ Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
era 0154
Record of Dcc:i.sion
. Date: 02/'l2,/95
Page 86
. .
protect terresnial receptors. The exact design for a cover will be completed after the
site removal evaluation, predesign studies and geotechnical testing on the landfill area is
complete. . .
Vegellltioiz
After the soil cover has been installed and graded, the disturbed areas will be seeded
and measures will be taken to prevent erosion. Erosion control measures may include
jute matting, filter fabric fences, and hay/straw bales.
Institutio1Ull Controls
Institutional controls will involve land use restrictions and controls established under the
authority of the NAF Adak Comm~nding Officer. .Property transfer for Metals Landfill
- will require that a deed restriction be attached and that the requirements of CERCLA. -
Section 12O(h) be met. The boundaries of the landfill will be referenced to the survey
system and existing monnments on Adak Island Warning signs will be installed at
equally spaced intervals around the perimeter of the landfill to warn the public of its
contents. Long-term institutional controls will be addressed as part of the basewide
ROD or its post.;.ROD documents. .
LtDulji1l Monitoring.
It will be necessazy to monitor the landfill. The presence of gas in the landfill will be
primarily monitored for at the perimeter of the landfill's main section with the use of a
combustible gas meter.- The overall physiCal condition of the landfill will be inspected
annually to ensure that systems are still performing adequately and to determine whether
erosion or settlement has occurred that would be detrimental to the landfill or would
pose a potential danger to the environment. Repair efforts will be conducted if erosion
degraAed the performance of the cap. .
To estimate costs, it has been assumed that monitoring will be conducted annually for 30
years. InteriIIi remedial action design and/ot action documents will establish specific
methods, intervals, and action levels for monitoring the landfill before the OU A
basewide ROD is issued (schedUled for 1998)~ The basewide ROD, or its post-ROD
documents, will then establish the long-term monitoring requirements for the site.
-------
NAF ADAK, SITES 11 AND 13
U.S. Navy <:LEAN Contract
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
era 0154
Record of Decision
Date: fJlj')J!,j95
Page 87
4
Cost
Although riprap for the north section shoreline was not included as an activity under the
selected alternative, it has been included as a cost item. It is anticipated that the
shoreline debris will probably not require stabilization, but the IRA site removal
evaluation will evaluate. this option and provide cleanup recommendations prior to the
implementation of any excavation or stabilization actions. Since it is expected that only
'a small amount of the debris will actually require excavation, to be reasonably ,
conservative in the overall cost estimate it has been assumed that riprap stabilization (at
a cost of $360,000) will be required at the northern section of the landfill. Also, it has
been assumed that no debris removal will be req1rlred. '
The projected capital cost of the selected aJtemative is $5,000,000 with O&M costs '
projected at $521,000. The capital and O&M cost estimates for the Metals Landfill
interim remedial action are presented ~ Table 4. The 3D-year O&M costs are the
present worth, of the annual costs at an interest rate of 5 percent. The cost estimates
provide an accuraCy of + 50 percent to -30 percent in accordance With EP A guidelines.
The selected alternative will require approximately 18 to 24 months to implement and
will depend on the site removal evaluation results. Variations within the projected"
timeframe depend on the ayailability of supplies and equipment and comPletion of
remedial design studies.
11.2.3' Rationale for the Contingent Alternative
, .
Since the preferred alternative was presented in the April 1994 proposed plan,
approximately 1 acre of the Metals Landfill is expected to be designated an RCRA
hazardous waste pile. The remainder of the iandfill would then be designated as an
RCRA solid waste m~ri~gement unit. Currently, an RCRA Qosure Plan is being
developed for the hazardous waste site.
The contingent alternative would be implemented in the unlikely event the RCRA
designation does not'proceed as expected. ' '
11.2.4 Description. of the Contingent AlternatiVe
Most activities conducted under the Metals Landfill contingent alternative (surface water
control, site removal evaluation, groundwater monitoring, vegetation, institutional
controls, and landfill monitoring) would remain as described in the, selected alternative.
-------
NAF ADAK, SITES 11 AND 13
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract
Engineering Field ActMty, Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
era 0154
Record of Decision
Date: 02/28/95
Page 88
Table 4
Selected Alternative Costs
Metals Landfill
750,000 0
222,000 0
. 1,890,000 84,000
100,000 0
20,000 . 16,000
6,000 5,000 11,000
100,000 26,000 126,000
360,000 0 . 360,000
o 390,000 390,000
3,448,000 521,000 3,969,000.
517,000 0 517~000
us 345,000 0 345,000
managem 690,000 0 690,000
Total 5,000,000 521,000 5,521,000
Note:
All costs are 1994 dollars.
-Weather conditions - A cost for do'Wlltime or reduction in productivity during construction. due to
inclement wCather conditions has been added. The cost is based on 15 percent of the constnu:tion
subtotal cost. .
"Miscellaneous unlisted items - The level of detail available for this estimate does not permit
establishing costs for every detail in the plan. An additional 10 percent of the construction subtotal
cost has been added to cover this item.
"Engineering and management - An allowance totaling 20 percent of the construction subtotal cost bas
been added to include project engineering and management. This allowance is broken down into 5
percent for engineering and geotechnical investigations, 3 percent for administrative and legal costs, 6
percent for engineering design cost, and 6 percent for construction oversight and management.
-------
NAF ADAK, SITES 11 AND 13
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
ero 0154 .
Record of Decision
Date: 02/28/95
Page 89
.'
Only the landfill cover and cost elements woUld change. These changes to the two
elements are discussed below.
LandjiIl Cop
The purpose of the landfill cap. is to minimi7.e human exposure, direct or control run-on
or runoff, and reduce infiltration from precipitation, thereby minimi7.ing leachate
generation. The landfill cap would be installed over part or all of the 17-acre landfill. It
is assumed that a geomembrane cap similar to the cross section shown in Figure 14 and
as described under Section 9.2.3 will be required to close the l~nitfi11 under RCRA H a
cap is only installed over part of the laridfill, then an estimated 3-foot-thick Jandfill cover
would be placed over the uncapped area( s ) (see Section 11.2.2, "Landfill Cover").
It is anticipated that some 'areas might settle when large objects possibly buried in the
landfill collapse. The landfill would be ~ected anmlally as a part of the monitoring
program, and repairs would be made .to settlements that might rupture the cap. Some
erosion might occur until vegetation is established. Repair efforts would be conducted if
erosion degraded the performance of the cap.
Cost
. For cost estimatiIig purposes, it was assumed that the entire Jandfill would require a cap.
. The projected capital cost of the contingent alternative' is $8,271,000, with O&M costs
projected at $625,000. The capital and O&M cost estimates for the Metals Landfill
contingent interim remedial action are presented in Table 5. The 30-year O&M costs
are the present worth of annual costs. The cost estimates provide an accoracy of + 50 to
-30 percent, in accordance with EP A guidelines.' .
11.3
. .
EVALUATION BY THE NCP'S NINE CRITERIA
The selected and contingent alternatives were evaluated using the nine criteria presented
in the NCP for conducting remedial investigations .and feasibility studies under
CERClA The nine criteria are:
.
.
Overall protection of human health and environment
Compliance with ARARs .
-------
NAF ADAK, SITES 11 AND 13
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
era 0154
Record of Decision
Date: 02/2i3/95
Page 90
"
Table 5
Contingent Alternative Costs
Metals Landfill
o
o
188,000
o
1 ,000
5,000
26,000
Total
360,000
o
5,704,000
856,000
570,000
1,141,000
8,271,000
o
390,000
625,000
o
o
o
625,000
. 360,000
390,000
6,329,000
856,000
570,000
1,141,
8,896,000
Note:
All costs are 1994 dollars.
-Weather conditions - A cost for downbmc .or reduction in productivity during construction due to
inclement weather conditions has been added. The cost is based on 15 percent of the CODStruction
. subtotal cost.
~11V"eous wilisted items - The level of detail available for this estimate does not permit
establishing costs for every detail in the plan. An additional 10 percent of the construction subtotal
cost has been added to cover this item. . .
"Engineering and management - An allowance totaling 20 percent of the construction subtotal cost has
been added to include project engineering and inanagement This allowance is broken down into 5
percent for engineering and geotechnical investigations, 3 percent for administrative and legal costs, 6
percent for engineering design cost, and 6 percent for construction oversight and management
-------
NAF ADAK, SITES 11 AND 13
U.S. NaVy CLEAN Contract
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
era 0154
,Record of Decision
Date: 02/113/95
. Page 91
.
.
Long-term effectiveness and 'permanence
Reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume through treatment
Short-term effectiveness
Implementability
Cost
State acceptance
Commmiity acceptance.
.
.
.
.
.
11.3.1 Palisades Landfill
Ovenill Prouctio" 01 Hunum Health and Environment .
, .
The selected alternative will meet all the RAOs identified for this site. The landfill
cover will m;n;m;'T,e human an~ ecological exposure to the wastes contained in the
landfill. Currently, Palisades Creek fl~ through the landfill By rerouting Palisades
Creek into an engineered pipe, contact between surface water and landfill waste will be
m;nim;'T,ed . . '. . .
Computer modeling has supported the assumption that potential releases from the
landfill will not adversely affect the marine environment Results of the computer
modeling can be found in the Technical Memorandum. Monitoring will ensure harmful
levels of CODt~min~nts will not be present in surface water downgradient of the landfill.
If unacceptable levels of cont~mn~nts are detected emanating downgradient of the
landfill after the IRA is implemented, the FF A parties will evaluate additional actions to
address the problem.
Complitmce With ARARs
At the time of the proposed plan, the preferre~ alternative was conceived specifically to
. meet the relevant and appropriate portions of RCRA. 40 CFR 264, landfill closUre
requirements. Since issuance of the proposed plan, the FF A parties have modified the
remedial action objectives for the site. As a consequence, the RCRA capping
requirements pertaining to minimi7.ing infiltiation are no longer considered relevant and
appropriate. The selected alternative will be designed and implemented to attain the
current ARARs (see Section 122). .
-------
NAF ADAK, SITES 11 AND 13
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
ero 0154
Record of Decision
Date: 02/Zl3/95
Page 92
Long-Tenn Effectiveness and Pemumence
The selected alternative will be designed for long-term effectiveness and permanence.
Rerouting of the creek will be designed to maximize long-term effectiveness of .
separating surface water from landfill debris. The addition of the landfill cover will
effectively and permanently reduce contact with the site surface.
The magnitude of residual risk and the ability of the selected remedy to mamtain
reliable protection of human health and the environment over time will be reevaluated
. as part of the findings and conclusions of the basewide RIfFS. . Monitoring will be used
to confirm the effectiveness of the action. Long-term monitoring requirements for
Palisades Lanr1fil1 will be established under the basewide ROD. .
RethldUm of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume Through Tn!IJtme1It
Treatment is not envisioned to be part of the IRA. The selected alternative will not
reduce the toxicity or volume of the contaminants. It will reduce the mobility of the
contamin~nts by placing a cover over the site and constructing effective drainage controls
to reduce infiltration and minimi7'.e lead1~te generation.
Shott-Term Effectiveness
During implementation of these 1RAs, the .selected alternative will safely contain all
landfilled waste, reduce human exposure to wastes and leached CODtamin~nts, ~ reduce
.the generation and migration of leachate. Appropriate. construction techniques will be
used to miTtimi7'.e short-term cont~minant releases that might affect on-:-site personnel and
the environment during remedial operations. .
lmplementizbility
The Navy will be able to implement the selected alternative. Construction activities will
incur high costs for. mobilizing equipment and per-sonnel to a remote location. It is
estimated that the selected alternative will require approximately 18 months. to
implement. VariatioDS within this projected timeframe will depend on the availability of
supplies and equipment, completion and acceptance of work plans, and on-island
environmental conditions. .
-------
NAP ADAK, SITES 11 AND 13
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
era 0154
" Record of Decision
Date: 02/"]2,/95
Page 93
Cost
The projected capital cost of the selected alternative Is $1,987,000 with O&M costs
projected to be $288,000. This gives a total projected cost for the selected alternative of
" "$2,275,500. "
The O&M costs are the present worth of the a11n11al costs over a 3D-year period The
cost estimates provide an accuracy of + 50 percent to -30 percent in accordance with
EP A guidelines.
StlIte Acceptllnce
ADEC was involved in the preparation of the ROD and 51WP0rts the selected alternative
pursuant to the State cleanup requirements set forth in 18 AAC 75 and AS 40.09.020.
Community AcceptIDu:e
"Community acceptance was evaluated as part of the first public comment period In
general, the public supported the preferred alternative presented in the April 1994
proposed plan. The selected alternative is considered to be a logical outgrowth of the
preferred alternative and information presented in the proposed plan and could have
been reasonably anticipated. Because of the changes from the proposed plan's preferred
alternative to the ROD's selected alternative, a second comment period was conducted
from January 16, 1995, to" February 7, 1995. The comment period was initiated through
a fact sheet, with no public meetings being conducted during the second comment
period No publi~ comments were received during the second comment period.
. "
11.3.2 Metals Landfill-Selected Alternative
Ovemll Protection of HU1IUIiI Heo1th and &mrorUnent
The selected alternative will meet all the RAOs identified for this site. The hronfill
" cover will mi11imi7.e human and ecological exposure to the wastes contained in the
landfill. By characterizing/stabilizing the shoreline debris, potential for adverse impacts
to the environment will be mi11imi7ro.
Monitoring will ensure harmful levels of contami11a11ts will not be present in the near
shore environment. H unacceptable levels of contami11~11ts are detected in water
-------
NAP ADAK, SITES 11 AND 13
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295 .
era 0154 .
Record of Decision
Date: (J2/1i,/95
Page 94
emanating downgradient of the landfill after the IRA is implemented, the FF A parties
will evaluate additional actions to address the problem.
ComplUmce With ARARs
At the time of the proposed plan, the preferred alternative was conceived specifically to
meet the relevant and appropriate portions of RCRA 40 CFR 264, landfill closure
requirements. At this time it is likely that only a portion of the site will require closure
as an RCRA hazardous waste unit. For the remainder of the site, certain RCRA closure
requirements will be relevant and appropriate. The selected alternative will be designed
and impl~inented to meet the current ARARs (see Section 12.2)... .
Long-Tmn Bffectiveness IIIUl Pemumence
The selected alternative will be designe4 for long-term effectiveness and permanence.
With the characterization and potential stabilization of the shoreline debris, the near
shore marine environment will be effectively protected from imminent hazardous
releases. By placing a cover over portions or all. of the landfill, human and eCological
exposure to 1~nnfi11 wastes at the.surface will be permanently and effectively prevented.
The m~vitude of residual risk and the ability of the selected remedy to m~int~in
reliable protection of IT11m~n health and the environment over time will be reevaluated
as. part Qf the fiDn~ and conclusions of the basewide RIfFS. Monitoring will be us~
to confirm the effectiveness of the action. Long-term monitoring requirements for.
Metals T ~nitfill will be established under the basewide ROD. .
. lWluction of Toxidty~ MobilitJ~ or Volume Through TTeI1tnumt
Treatment is not envisioned as part of the IRA The selected alternative, however, will
reduce the toxicity and/or volume of any cont~minants detected in the shoreline debris
by removal and disposal. It will also reduce the mobility of the con~minauts by placing
a cover over the site and constructing effective drainage controls to reduce infiltration
and minimi'i.e lea~hate generation.. . . . . .
Shott-Term Bffectiveness
During.implementation of the IRAs, the selected alternative will be designed to safely
contain alllandfilled waste, reduce human exposure to wastes and leached con~min~nts,
-------
NAP ADAK, SITES 11 AND 13
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract
Engineering'Field Activity, Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
era 0154
Record of Decision
. Date: 02/1i3/95
Page 95
and reduce the generation and migration of leachate. Appropriate construction
techniques will be used to minimize short-term cont~minant releases that might affect
on-site personnel and the environment during remedial operations.
Implementllbility
The Navy will be able. to implement the selected alternative. Construction activities will
incur high costs. for mobilizing equipment and personnel to a remote ~ocation. It is
estimated that the selected alternative will require approximately 18 months to
implement Variations within this projected timeframe will depend on the availability of
supplies' and equipment, completion and acceptance of work plans, and on-island'
environmental conditions.
. .
Cost
The projected capital cost of the selected alternative is $5,000,000 with O&M costs
projected to be 5521,000. This gives a total projected cost for the selected alternative of
55,521,000. .
The O&M costs are the present worth of the annual costs over a 30-year period. The
cost estimates provide an accuracy of +50 percent. to -30 percent in accordance with
EP A guidelines. .
Stote Accepumce
ADEC was involved in the preparation of the ROD and supports the selected alternative
pursuant to the State cleanup requirements set forth in 18 AAC 75 and AS 40.09.020.
Community Acceptllnce
Community acceptance was evaluated as part of the first public comment period. In
general, the public supponed the preferred alternative presented in the April 1994
proposed plan. Because of the significant changes from the proposed plan's preferred
.alternative to the ROD's selected.alteniative, a second comment period was conducted
from January 16, 1995, to Febmary 7, 1995. The comment period was initiated through
a fact' sheet, with no public meetings being conducted during the second comment
period. No public comments were received during the second comment period.
-------
NAF ADAK, SITES 11 AND 13
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
era 0154 .
Record of Decision -
Date: 02/113/95
Page 96
11.3.3 Metals Landfill-Contingent Alternative
Overall Protection of HU11UIn Health and Environment
The contingent alternative would meet all the RAOs identified for this site. The landfill
. cap would m;n;m;7.e human and ecological exposure to the wastes contained in the
landfill. By characteriziDgf stabilizing the shoreline. debris, potential for adverse impacts
to the environment will be min;mi7.ecl
Monitoring would ensure harmful levels of cont~m;n~nts would not be present in the
near shore environment. If l1n~cceptable levels of cont~m;n::lnts were detected in water
emanating downgradient of the landfill, then the FF A parties would evaluate additional
actions to address the problem during the basewide RIfFS.
Complitm~ With ARARs
At the time of the proposed plan, the preferred alternative was conceived specifically to
meet the substantive portions of RCRA 40 ~ 264, landfill closure requirements. At
this time it is likely that only a p~rtion of the site would require closure as an RCRA
hazardous waste -unit; however, the contingent alternative would include a cap over part
or all of l~dfiIl in.the event that the RCRA designation does not proceed as expected
and the site needs to be closed as a hazardous waste landfill. The contingent alternative
would be designed and implemented to meet the ARAR requirements (see Section 122).
Long-Term Effectiveness and PeTfIUDU!IJCe
The contingent alternative would be designed for: long-term effectiveness and
permanence. With the characterization and potential stabilization of the shoreline
debris, long-term effectiveness would be obtained for the near shore marine
environment. By placing a cap over portions or all of the landfill, a permanent barrier
would be placed to min;m;7.e human and ecological exposure to landfill wastes.
The magnitude of residual risk and the ability of the contingent remedy to maintain
reliable protection of human health and the environment over time. would be reevaluated .
as part of the findings and conclusions of the basewide RIfFS. Monitoring would be
used to confirm the effectiveness of the action. Long-term monitoring requirements for
Metals Landfill would be established under the basewide ROD. .
-------
NAF ADAK, SITES 11 AND 13
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract .
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
era 0154
Record of Decision
Date: 02/113/95
Page, 97
Reduction 01 Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume Through Treotment
Treatment is not envisioned as part of the IRA The contingent alternative, however,
will reduce the toxicity and/or volume of any cont~m;na.Dts detected in the shoreline
debris by removal and disposal. It will also reduce the mobility of the cont~m;n~nts by
placing a cover over the site and constructing effective drainage controls to reduce
infiltration and m;11;m;7.e leachate generation.
ShoTt-Term Effet:tiyeness
During implementation of the IR.As, the contingent alternative would be designed to
safely contain. alllandfilled waste, reduce human exposure to wasteS and leached
cont~m;11a11ts, and reduce the generation and migration of leachate.. Appropriate ,
construction techniqUeS would be used to m;ntm;7.e short-term cont~nn;n~nt releases that
may affect on-site personnel and the environment during remedial operations.
Implementability
The Navy would be able to implement the 'conrlD.gent alternative. Construction activities
would incur high costs for mobilizing equipment and personnel to a remote location. It
is estimated that the selected alternative would require approximately 18 months to
implement. Variations within this projected timeframe would depend on the availability
of supplies and equipment, completion and acceptance cf work plans, and on-island
environmental conditions.
Cost
The projected capital cost of the contingent alternative is $8,271,000 with O&M costs .
projected to be $625,000. This gives a total projected cost for the contingent 3lternative
of $8,896,000. '. .
The O&M costs are the present worth of the annual costs over a 30-year period. The
cost estimates provide an accuracy of + 50 percent to -30 percent in accordance with
EP A guidelines.
-------
NAF ADAK, SITES 11 AND 13
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
era 0154
Record of Decision
Date: rJ2/28/95
Page 98
Stale Acceptilnce
ADEC was involved in the pr~paration of the ROD and supports the contingency
alternative pursuant to the State cleanup requirements set forth in 18 AAC 75 and
AS 40.09.020. .
Community Acceptlmce
Community acceptance was evaluated as pari of the first public Comment period. In
general, the public supported the preferred alternative presented in the Aprll1994
proposed plan. The preferred alternative was $imilar to the contingent alteIIiative. Both
alternatives include an RCRA cap, but the contingent alternative evaluates the shoreline
debris prior to any removal activity. BecauSe of the significant changes from the .
proposed plan's preferred alternative to the ROD's selected alternative, a second
comment period was conducted from J~ary 16, 1995, to Febnwy 7, 1995. The
comment period was initiated through a fact sheet, with no public meetings being .
conducted during the second comment period No public comments were received
during the second comment period .
12.0 STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
Under Section Ul of CERCLA, selected remedies must be protective of human health
and the environment, comply With ARARs, be cost-effective, and use permanent .
solutions and alternative treatment technologies or resource recovery technologies to the
maximum extent practicable. In addition, CERCLA. includes a preference for remedies
whose principal element is treatment that significantly .and permanently reduces the .
volume, toxicity, or mobility of hazardous wastes. The selected and contingent
alternatives have been chosen so as to be consistent with any envisioned final remedial
actions at these two landfills. The following sections discuss how the selected alternative
for Palisades Landfill and the selected and contingent alternatives for Metals Landfill
meet with these statutory requirements.
-------
NAF ADAK, SITES 11 AND 13
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
era 0154
Record of Decision
Date: CJ2j2Bj95
Page 99
U.l
PROTECTION OF HUMAN HEALTH AND TIlE ENVIRONMENT
The selected IRA for Palisades Landfill and the selected and contingent IRAs for Metals
Landfill protect human health and the environment by covering areas where wastes and
debris have been disposed and by institutionally restricting access to the sites.
Monitoring and maintenance activities will be designed to ensure long-term
protectiveness. ..
Installation of the landfill cover will m;"imi7e human contact with debris and control
run-on or runoff. It will also protect terrestrial receptors from contact with the wastes
and debris. Constructing perimeter ditches will reduce potential 'erosion to the landfill
surface and reduce the potential of water infiltrating the landfill debris. A monitoring
program will be initiated to inSpect and maintain the integrity of the cover and to detect '
, any releases to the nearshore marine environment through surface water and sediment
sampling. Implementing ~tutional ~ntrols will restrict future land use at the landfill,
warn the public of the landfill contents,' and minimi'7.e the potential for activities at or
near the surface of the site that cOuld disturb the integrity of the Cover. Repair efforts
would be conducted if erosion degraded the performance of the cover.
Implementation of the IRAs for either landfill will not pose unaCceptable short-term
risks for site workers, or residents. There are currently no existing or planned residential
dwellings in the vicinity of the landfills. .
12.2
COMPLIANCE WITH ARARS
The selected IRA for Palisades T .audfi11 and the selected and contingent IRAs for Metals
Landfill will comply with federal and state ARARs. No waiver. of any ARAR is being
, sought or invoked at this time for any component of the selected remedy. '
U.2.1 Palisades Landfill Action-Specific ARARs
The action-specific ARARs for Palisades Landfill are described below.
.
40 C.F.R part 257 specifies' federal requirements for the classification of
solid waste disposal facilities and associated practices. This regulation is
not applicable, since the wastes were placed in the landfill before 1979.
However, there are three substantive requirements of subsections of 40
-------
NAF ADAK, SITES 11 AND 13
U.s. Navy CLEAN COntract
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
ere 0154
Record of Decision
Date: CJ2/1l3/95
Page 100
C.F.R. part 257 that are relevant and appropriate; they are discussed
below. Although the three subsections below are releVant and appropriate,
ADECs substantive solid waste requirements contained in 18AAC60.410
will supersede the 40 CPR part 257 citations when more stringent.
Subsection 2573-3 (Surface Water)
Land areas that have been used for the disposal of solid wastes may
not discharge pollutants into surface waters in violation of the Dean
Water Act (NPDES).
Land areas that.have been used for the disposal of solid wastes may.
not discharge dredge. or fill material into surface waters in violation
of the Oean Water Act (Section 404). . .
Land areas that have been used for the disposal of solid Wastes may
not cause "non-point" source pollution of surface. waters in violation
of State water quality management plans (approved pursuant to
Section 208 of the Oean Water Act).
Subsection 257.3-6 (Disease)
. .
For land areas that have been used for the disposal of solid wastes,
owners must m;n;m;7'.e the on-site population of disease vectors by
periodically applying cover material or using other teclmiques as
appropriate so as to protect public health. .
Subsection 257.3-8 (Safety)
The concentration of explosive gases generated by solid waste
landfills may not exceed 2S percent of the lower explosive limit
(LEL) for gases in structures; and the LEL at the property
boundary. .
The. owner/operator must not allow uncontrolled public access to
the solid waste landfill area if that access could expose the public to
health/safety hazards.
-------
Record of Decision
Date: 02/28/95
Page 101
NAF ADAK, SITES 11 AND 13
U.S. Navy CLEAN Conttact
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
era 0154
.
RCRA Subtitle C (40 C.P.R. part 264, subparts F, G, and N) specifies
standards for owners and operators of hazardous waste treatment, storage,
and disposal facilities. This regulation is not applicable since the wastes
were placed in the landfill before 1980. Because waste disposed of would
be considered hazardous waste today, substantive requirements of subparts
F, G, and N are relevant and appropriate. Subpart F establishes standards
for the releases from solid waste m:lT1:1Eement units. Subpart G specifies.
requirements for the closure and postclosure care. of hazardous waste
management facilities. Subpart N de""'gTlates standards for owners and
operators that dispose of haZardouS waste in landfillS.
The federal regulation, RCRA Subtitle D (40 c.F.R. Part 258) specifies standards for
owners and operators of municipal solid waste landfills. This regulation is not
considered an ARAR for this IRA since the wastes in the landfill were placed before
1991 and the IRA meets certain substaD,Uye requirements of Subtitle C, which are more
conservative than corresponding requirements in Subtitle D.
31S4O\~1.Q3C\ tEXr
.
Substantive requirements of the Fish and WIldlife Coordination Act (16
D.S.C. 662 and 663), as per the regulations in 40 C.F.R part 6302(g),
requires federal agencies involved in actions that will result in the control
or StIUctural modification of any natural stream to take additional action to
protect fish and wildlife resources that may be affected by the action.
Because Palisades Creek will be rerouted, the substantive requirements of
these regulations are applicable for the IRA. Under these regulations, the
Navy will be required to "ascertain the means and measures necessary to
mitigate, prevent, and compensate for project-related losses of wildlife
. resources and to enhance the resources."
.
Several small water areas are located in the central portion of the landfill
and appear to be man-made or created due to landfill settlement. These
areas will be filled during the IRA Based on preH""';T1ary observations, it
appears that. the small water areas are not wetlands. During the remedial
design stage, a wetlands delineation will be made. H the water areas are
classified as wetlands, the substantive requirements of the Clean Water Act
(Section 404) will. be applicable.
Substantive State of Alaska Hazardous Waste Management Regulations
(18 AAC 62.020) establish applicable requirements for the identification of
-------
NAF ADAK, SITES 11 AND 13
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
era 0154
Record of Decision
Date: 02/28/95
Page 102
hazardous waste~. This regulation applies to the identification of potential
hazardous waste that may be found during the IRA The regulation
incorporates by reference 40 C.F.R 261.11 and includes "the additional
criterion of acute aquatic toxicity."
.
Substantive State of Alaska Solid Waste Management Regulations (18
AAC 60.410) are relevant and appropriate requirements for the closure of
a solid waste landfilL
.
Alaska Statutes (AS 16.05.840) establish substantive requirements for the
protection of fish. Because Palisades Creek will be rerouted, these
substantive requirements are applicable to the IRA
12.2.2 Palisades Landfill Location-Specific ARARs
The location-specific ARARs for Palisades Landfill are described below.
.
Substantive requirements of the National Wildlife Refuge System
Regulations (16 USC 668dd) are applicable becai1se Adak Island is
included in the Alaska Maritime National WIldlife Refuge.
.
State of Alaska Coastal Management Regulations (6 AAC 80.130) specify
relevant and appropriate substantive requirements for the protection of
habitats. .
12.2.3 Palisades Landfill Chemic:al-Specific ARARs
Chemical-specific ARARs for Palisades Landfill. are described below. .
.
Substantive requirements of State of Alaska Solid Waste Management
Regulations (18 AAC 60.410(d)(2)(B,C,D» are relevant and appropriate
for the development of chemical parameters involving a long-term
monit()ring plan for landfill closure. .
12.2.4 Metals Landfill Action-Specific ARARs (Selected Alternative)
Action-specific ARARs for MetaJs Landfill are discussed below.
-------
NAP ADAK, SITES il AND 13
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
era 0154
Record of Decision
. Date: (J2/28/95
Page 103
Substantive requirements of 40 C.P.R. part 257, subsections 2573-3, 2573-
6, and 2573-8 are applicable unless the State is authorized to anmini"ter
this program, and State's regulations are at least as stringent as those in 40
C.F.R part 257~ Subsections 2573-3,2573-6, and 2573-8 are as follows:
Subsection 2573-3 (Surface Water)
.
Land areas that have been used for the disposal of solid wastes may
not discharge pollutants into surface waters in violation of the Clean
Water Act (NPDES).
Land areas that have been used for the disposal of solid wastes may
not discharge dredge or fill material into surface waters in violation
of the Clean Water Act (Section 404). .
. .
Land areas that:have been used for the disposal of solid wastes may
not cause "non-point" source pollution of surface waters in violation
of State water quality management plans (approved pursuant to
Section 208 of the. Clean Water Act).
Subsection 2573-6 (Disease)
For land areas that have been used for the disposal of solid wastes,
owners must minimi7.e the on-site population of disease vectors by
p~riodically applying cover material or using other techniqu,es as
appropriate so as to protect public health.
Subsection 2573-8 (Safety)
The concentration of explosive gases generated by solid waste
landfills may not exCeed 25 percent of the loWer explosive limit
(LEL) for gases. in structures; and the LEL at the. property
boundary.. .
The owner/operator must not allow uncontrolled public access to
the solid waste landfill area if that access could expose the public to
health/safety hazards. .
-------
NAF ADAK, SITES 11 AND 13
U.s. Nary CLEAN Contract
Engineering Field Activity; Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
era 0154 -
Record of Decision
Date: 02/113/95
Page 104
.
RCRA Subtitle C (40 C.F.R. part 264, subparts F, G, and N) specifies
standards for owners and operators of hazardous waste treatment, storage,
and disposal facilities. 11ris regulation is not -applicable since the wastes
were placed in the landfill before 1980. Because of the potential of
hazardous substances being placed in the landfill, substantive requirements
of Subparts F, G, and N are relevant and appropriate. Subpart F -
establishes standards for the releases from solid waste management units. -
Subpart G specifies requirements for the closure and postclosure care of
hazardous waste management facilities. Subpart N designates sfa,ndards for
owners and operators that dispose of hazardous waste in landfillS.
The federal regulation, RCRA Subtitle D (40 c.F.R. Part 258) specifies standards for
owners and operators of municipal solid waste landfills. This regulation is not
considered an ARAR for this IRA since the wastes in the landfill were placed before
1991 and the IRA meets certain substantive requirements of Subtitle C, which are more
conservative than corresponding requirements in Subtitle D.
.
Substantive State of Alaska Hazardous Waste Management Regulations
(18 AAC 62020) establish applicable requirements for the identification of
hazardous wastes. 1bis reguJation applies to the identification of potential
hazardous waste that may be found during the-IRA The regulation
incorporates by reference 40 CP.R. 261.11 and includes "the additional
criterion of acute aquatic toxicity." .
.
Substantive State of Alaska-Solid Waste Management Regulations (18
AAC 60.410) are relevant and appropriate requirements for the closure of
a solid waste landfill -
12.2.5 Metals Landfill Location-Specific ARARs (Selected Alternative)
Location-specific ARARs for Metals T ~nrlfi11 are discussed below.
31s.o\9S01J134\'I1!XT
.
The COastal Zone Management Act (16 V.S.C. 1451 et seq.), as per the
regulations in 40 c.F.R part 6302( d), specifies that all federal activities in
coastal areas muSt, to the maximum extent possible, be consistent with any
"State Coastal Zone Management Programs." The impact of the IRA on
-------
Record of Decision
Date: fll/']J!,/95
Page 105
NAF ADAK, SITES 11 AND 13
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract
EngiIleering Field Activity, Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
ero 0154
.
are significant and a State program is in place, a "consistency
determination" would be required as per 15 CF.R. part 930.
Substantive requirements of the National Wildlife Refuge System
regulations (16 use 668dd) are appliCable because Adak Island is included "
in the Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge.
.
Substantive requirements of the State of Alaska Coastal Management
Regulations (6 AAC 80.130) specify relevant and appropriate protection of
, habitats.
12.2.6 Metals Landfill Chemical-Spedfic ARARs (Selected Alternative)
.
. Substantive requirements of State of Alaska Solid Waste Management
Regulations (18 AAC 60.4.10 (d)(2)(B, C, D) are relevant and appropriate'
for the development of chemical parameters involving a long-term
momtoriIig plan for landfill closUre. ' ' '
12.2.7 Metals Landfill Action-Specific ARARs (Contingent Alternative)
3lSIO\9SD1J134\1I!XT
. ' RCRA Subtitle C (40 c.F.R. part 264, subParts G and N) specifies
standards for owners and operators of hazardous waste treatment, storage,
and disposal facilities. The substantive requirements of thiS regulati,on are
applicable since hazardous wastes were placed in the landfill after 1980.
Subpart G specifies requirements for the closure and postclosure care of
~dous waste management facilities. 'Subpart N designates standards for
owners and operators that dispose of hazardous waste in l3ndfills.
.
Substantive State of Alaska Hazardous Waste Management Regulatio~
(18 AAC 62.020) establish applicable requirements for the identification of
hazardous wastes. This regulation applies to the identification of potential
hazardous waste that may be found'during the IRA The regul3rlon
incorporates by reference 4.0 CF.R. 261.11 and includes ~e additional
criterion of acute aquatic toxicity."
.
Substantive State of Alaska Solid Waste Management Regulations (18
AAC 60.4.10) are relevant and appropriate requirements for the closure of
-------
NAP ADAK. SITES 11 AND 13
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
era 0154
Record of Decision
Date: f1l./12,/95
Page 106
12.2.8 Metals Landfill Location~Specific ARARs (Contingent Alternative)
Location-specific ARARs for Metals Landfill are discussed below.
.
The Coastal Zone Management Act (16 V.S.C. 1451 et seq.), as per the
regulations in 40 C.F.R part 6.302( d), specifies that all federal activities in
coastal areas must, to the maximum extent possible, be consistent with any
"State Coastal Zone Management Programs." The imp~ of the IRA on
the coastal zone is assessed, and if the impacts to recognized off-site areas
are significant and a State program is in place, a "consistency
determination" would be required as per 15 c.F .R. part 930.
.
Substantive requirements of the National Wildlife Refuge System
regulations (16 USC 668dd) is applicable because Adak Island is included
in the Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge.
.
Substantive requirements of the State of Alaska Coastal Management
Regulations (6 AAC 80.130) specify relevant and appropriate protection of
habitats. .
12.2.9 Metals Landfill Chemical-Specific ARARs (Contingent . Alternative)
.12.3
.
. Substantive .requirements of State of Alaska Solid . Waste Management .
Regulations (18 AAC 60.410 (d)(2)(B, C, D) are.relevant and appropriate
for the development of chemical parameters mvolving a long-term
monitoring plan for landfill closure.
COST
The selected alternap've for Palisades Landfill, and the selected and contingent
altemativesfor Metals Landfill will be designed to attain the RAOs. The selected IRA
achieves this level of effectiveness while minimi7.ing costs. .
-------
NAF ADAK, SITES 11 AND 13
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
, era 0154
Record of Decision
Date: C12j1i3j95
Page 107
12.4
UTILIZATION OF PERMANENT SOLUTIONS AND ALmRNATIVE
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES OR RESOURCE RECOVERY
mCHNOLOGIES TO THE,MAXIMUM EXTENT PRACI1CABLE
Although the selected IRA for each landfill and the contingent alternative for Metals
Landfill has certain features of a permanent solution because of its use of a landfill
cover or cap and monitoring programs, this is an interim action and may not provide a
final remedy for the'landfills. The FF A parties may propose additional activities at the
landfills as part of a final remedial action, based on the findings and conclusions of the
basewide RIfFS. Any additional activities will be documented in the basewide ROD. ,
12.5
PREFERENCE FOR TREATMENT AS PRINCIPAL ELEMENT
The selected interim remedial action (and contingent alternative for Metals Landfill) is
being undertaken primarily to prevent contact with potential cont;ni,in~nts within the
, landfills and protect human health and the environment. The IRA does not employ a
treatment technology as the principal alternative. At.PaIisades and, Metals Landfill,
levels of hazardous substances do riot currently appear to be releasing from the site at
high concentrations. Based on the nature of the sites today, what its potential might be
for environmental n~m~ge in the futur~ and what costs would be incurred by
implementing a treatment alternative, an alternative that included treatment was not
selected for the' IRA, or the contingent alternative. The cost to excavate and treat the
wastes at the landfills was prohibitively expensive. . .
13.0 DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES
After soliciting public commerit last spring on actions designed to remediate Palisades
and Metals Landfills, the FF A parties reconsidered the scope and scale of the April 1994
proposed plan's preferred alternatives. As a result, the parties have determined that the
actual selected remedies should be'modificatioDs of those previously proposed to the
, public. . The modifications have become possible through an- anticipated redesignation of
the regulatory status of one of the landfills (Metals LandfiiI), and should significantly
enhance the cost-effectiveness of the implemented actions.
-------
NAP ADAK, SITES 11 AND 13
U.$. Navy CLEAN Contract
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
era 0154
Record of Decision
Date: 02/28/95
Page 108
The proposed plan identified stream diversion and landfill cap (Alternative 2) and waste
removal from surface water and landfill cap (Alternative 3) as the preferred alternative
for Palisades and Metals Landfills, respectively. The Navy reviewed all written and
verbal comments submitted during the public comment period. All comments and
responses to comments are provided in Appendix B, Responsiveness Summary. Very few
public comments were received on the interim action proposed plan. Although the
comments did not voice n1)~nimo~ approval for the preferred alternatives at the
landfills, there appeared to be little opposition to these actions. Commonly this would
lead directly to selection and implementation of the preferred alternatives. In this case,
however, the FF A par:ties have concluded that certain modifications to the preferred
alternatives (Alternative 2 for Palisades Landfill and Alternative 3 for Metals Landfill)
wiIi improve the' actual implemented actions. The reasons for these modifications have
been previously discussed in Sections 11.1, -Palisades Landfill," and 11.2, "Metals
Landfill. n Due .to the modifications to the preferred alternatives presented in the
proposed plan, the original RAOs were modified to develop the selected alternatives in
the ROD.. " .
" .
Based on the modifications, Tables 6 and 7 compare the scope of work or activity
differences between the original preferred alternatives as "pres~nted in "the proposed plan
and the selected alternatives presented in Section 11 of this ROD. Only activities that
were affected by the modification changes are presented in Tables 6 and 7. Activities
that were not affected by the modifications are not presented.
Table'
Scope of Wodt Modifications
Palisades Landfill
1Dfiltration barrier or landfill cap
Leachate collection system
Slope stabilization
wrh~te monitoring
Landfill Cover
Not included
Not "included .
Stream and sediment monitoring
-------
NAF ADAK, SITES 11 AND 13
U.s. Navy CLEAN Contract
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
Contract No. N6247~89-D-9295
era 0154
Record of Decision
Date: fJ2/1i3j95
Page 109
Table 7
Scope of Work Modifications
Metals Landfill
Removal of shoreline debris in northern section
of landfill
Cleanup of east section of landfill
Hazardous waste handling
Infiltration barrier or landfill cap
Not included
i~lil[I~I\1t'~__il.llit1"11111 f*F
Limited to surface debris
Not anticipated
Landfill cover"
Site removal evaluation of shoreline debris in
northem sedimi. of landfill .
-rIDs will remain a landfill cap for the contingent alternative.
-------
NAF ADAK, SITES 11 AND 13
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract
EDgineering Field Activity, Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
era 0154
Record of Decision
, Date: 02/113/95
, Page 110
14.0 REFERENCES
Environmental Sciences and Engineering (ESE). 1986. Initial Assessmei7J Study of Naval
Air Station, Naval Security Group ActiVity, ,arid Naval Facility Adak, Adak Island,
Alaska. NEESA 13-103. April-1986.
Tetra Tech. 1989. Site Inspection Report; Naval Air Station Adak, Adak Island, Alaska.
V 01. 1: Field Report. TC-3603-02. '
URS Consultants, Ine. (URS). 1994a. Groundwater Monitoring Program Data' Swnmary
Repo~ Fourth Sampling Round, Naval Air Station Adak, Adak Island, AllIska.
Prepared for U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract N62474-89-D-9295. Seattle,
Washington. April 1994.
. 1994b. Technical Memorandum, Palisades and Metals LandjiiIs, Adak Is1mzd,
AllIska. Prepared for U.S. Navy ClEAN Contracts N62474-89-D-9295. Seattle,
WashiT1eton. April 1994. .
-. 1993. Summary of 1990 jnvestigations, Sites 11,15,16, 17, 20, 2M, and 22, Naval
Air Station Adak, Adak Island, Alaska. Prepared for U.S. Navy CLEAN Contracts
N62474-89-D-9295. Seattle, Wa.c;hineton. December 1993.
-. 1992. Site Inspection Final Repo~ Sites 13, 37, 38, 39, Naval Air' Station Adak,
Adak, AllIsko.. Prepared for U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract N62474-89-D-9295.
Seattle, W~~hington. ' , '
-------
APPENDIX A
-------
NAF ADAK, SITES 11 AND 13
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
era 0154
Record of Decision
Appendix A
Date: 02/213/95
Page A-I
EFA ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD DOCUMENTATION FOR PALISADES ANi> .
METALS LANDFILL INTERIM REMEDIAL ACTION
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC). 1995. ADEC
. Correspondence, re: Draft Record of Decision (ROD) for Interim Remedial
Actions at Site 11 (palisades Landfill) and Site 13 (Metals I,.andfill), Naval Air
Facility (NAF) Adak, Adak Island. January 17, 1995.
-. 1995. ADEC Cop-espondence, re: Clarification of Applicability or Appropriate
and Relevance for Palisades and Metals Landfills for Interim Remedial Action
Record of Decision (ROD). January 9, 1995. .
. -. 1994. ADEC correspondence, re: Review of Draft Interim Remedial Action
Record of Decision (ROD), December 13, 1994. November 18, 1994.
. .
. Environmental Sciences and Engineering (ESE). 1986. Initial Assessment Study of
Naval Air Station, Naval Security Group Activity, and Naval Facility Adak, Adak
Island, Alaska. NEESA 13-103. April 1986. .
Hild, C.M. 1994. Indigenous People's Council for Marine M~mm~k May 28, 1994.
Public Notice. 1995. re: U.S. Navy, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and the
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Hold a Public Comment
Period from JanuaIy 16, 1995, to February 7, 1995. On a modified Proposed
Interim Oeanup Action at Naval Air Facility Adak Island, Adak, .Alaska.
Anchorage Daily News. January 16,1995.
Public Notice. 1995. re: Proposed Interim Oeanup for Naval Air Facility Adak, Adak .
Island, Alaska. Eagles Call. January 6, 1995.
Science Applications International Corp. (SAlC).', 1991. RCRA Facility Assessment
PR/VSI Report, U.S. Naval Complex Adak, Adak Island, Alaska. EP A I.D. No.
AK4170024323. March 1991..
Tetra Tech, Inc. 1989. NAS Adak Expanded Site Inspection Program QA/QC Report
for Field and Laboratory Support Activities-Volume I: Field and Laboratory
Reports. May 1989.
-------
NAP ADAK, SITES 11 AND 13
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
era 0154
Record of Decision
.. Appendix A
Date: 02/'2J!,/95
Page A-2
-. 1989. NAS Adak Exparided Site Inspection Program QA/QC Report for Field
and LaboratOl)' Support Activities-Volume n: Analytical Data. May 1989.
-. 1989. Site Inspection Report, Naval Air Station Adak, Adak Island,
. Alaska-Volume I: Field Report. May 1989. .
-. 1989. Site Inspection Report, Naval Air Station Adak, Adak Island,
Alaska-Volume ll: Appendixes. May 1989. .
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1994.. EPA correspondence, re:
Draft Record of Decision (ROD) for Interim Remedial Actions at Metals and
Palisades Landfills. December 16, 1994.
-. 1995. BFA correspondence, re: Draft Final Record of Decision (ROD) for
Interim Remedial Actions at Me~ and Palisades Landfills. January 30, 1995.
-. 1990. Federal Facilities Compliance Agreement No. 1090-02-05-60001 for
Site 13. November 1990. .
. -. Notice of Deficiency (NOD). April 1990.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/AlaskA Department of Environmental
.Conservation (U.S. BFA/ADEC). Navy Federal Facilities Agreement No. 1092- .
08-06-120. November 1993. ..
u.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USF&W). 1994. USF&W correspondence, re: Review
of Record of Decision (ROD) for Naval Air Facility Adak, Site 11 (palisades
Landfill) and Site 13 (Metals Landfill). December 19, 1994.
-:---. 1995. USF&W Correspondence, re: Draft Final Record of Decision (ROD) for
. Interim Remedial Actions at Palisades and Metals Landfills. February 16, 1995.
U.S. Navy. 1995. Navy Correspondence, re: Record of Decision (ROD) for Interim
Remedial Actions at Site 11 (palisades Landfill) and Site i3 (Metals Landfill),
Naval Air Facility (NAP) Adak, Adak Island. January 17, 1995.
-------
NAF ADAK, SITES 11 AND 13
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
era 0154
Record of Decision
Appendix A
Date: 02/113/95
Page A-3
-. 1995. Navy Correspondence, re: Cover Letter for Final Record of Decision
(ROD) for Palisades and Metals landfillS, Naval Air Facility Adak, Adak Island,
Alaska. February 28, 1995. .
-. 1995. Navy Fact Sheet, re: Interim Remedial Actions at Two Landfills, Naval
Air Facility (NAF) Adak, Adak Island~ January 1995. . .
-. 1994. Navy e-mail.re: Palisades and Metals Landfills. D.S. Mong. r>ecember
22, 1994.
-. 1994. Navy e-mail.re:MeetingonPalisadesaridMetalsI.auitfil1~. D.S. Afong.
December 22, 1994.
-. 1994. .Navy e-mail.re:. USF&W Meeting on Palisades and Metals Landfills.
D.S. Afong. December 14, 1994.. . .
..
~. 1994. Navy e-mail.re: Palisades and Metals Landfills Draft ROD. D.S. Afong.
November 25, 1994.
-. 1994. Navy correspondence, re: Interim Remedial Actions for Palisades
(Site .11) and Metals Landfill (Site 13), Naval Air Facility Adak Island, Alaska.
November 18, 1994.
-. 1994. Navy correspondence, re: CLEAN Contract Technical Direction:
era 154, Palisades and Metals Landfills (Sites 11 and 13) Record of Decision
(ROD). August 16, 1994.
. 1994. Navy e-mail.re: Navy ~ AI ADEC meeting on Palisades and Metals
Landfill. D.S. Mong. June 21, 1994.. .
-. 1994. Navy e-mail.re: Palisades and Metals Landfill. D.S. Mong. July 22,
1994.
--:.-. 1994. Navy correspondence, re: Record of Decision (ROD) for Palisades
Landfill and Metals Landfill (Site 13), Naval Air Facility Adak, Adak Island,
Alaska. July 12, 1994. .
-------
NAF ADAK, SITES 11 AND 13
U.s. Navy CLEAN Contract
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
era 0154
Record of Decision
Appendix: A
Date: 02/2i3/95
PageA-4
. -. 1994. Navy e-mail.re: Followup on Palisades and Metals Landfills Actions.
D.S. Mong. August 5, 1994.
URS Consultants, Inc. (URS). 1994. Community Relations Plan, Naval Air Facility
Adak, Adak Island, Alaska. Prepared for U.S. Navy ClEAN Conttact N62474-89-
D-9295. Seattle,Wa.\;hington. September 30, 1994..
-. 1994. Groundwater Monitoring Program, Data Summary Report, Fourth
Sampling Round, Naval Air Station Adak, Adak Island, Alaska. Prepared for
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract N62474-89-D-9295. Seattle, Washington. April 25,
. 1994. . .
; 1994. Proposed Plan and Technical Memorandum-Palisades and Metals
Landfills, Naval Air Station Adak, Adak Island, Alaska. Prepared for U.S. Navy
CLEAN Contract. N62474-89-D-9795. Seattle, Washington. April 1994.
. 1995. Addendum to the Technical Memorandum-Palisades and Metals
Landfills, Naval Air Station Adak, Adak Island, Alaska. Prepared for U.S. Navy
ClEAN Contract N62474-89-D-9295. Seattle, Washington. February 1995.
.. 1993. Sl1mmary of 1990 Investigations, Sites 11, 15, 16, 17,20, 2lA, and 22.
Volume 1 of 2 Appendixes, Naval Air Station Adak, Adak Island, Alaska.
Prepared for U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract N62474-89-D-9295. Seattle,
Wa!O:hinfton. December 21, 1993.
. 1993. Sl1mmary of 1990 Investigations, Sites 11, 15, 16, 17,20, 2lA, and 22.
Volume 2 of 2 Appendixes, Naval Air Station Adak, Adak Island, Alaska.
Prepared for U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract N62474-89-D-9295. Seattle,
Washington. December 21, 1993.
. 1993. Draft Conceptual Site Model, Operable Unit B, Site'11-Palisades
Landfill and Site 13-Metals Landfill, Naval Air Station Adak, Adak Island,
Alaska. Prepared for U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract N62474-89-D-9295. Seattle,
Washington. July 13, 1993.
.. 1993. Internew Snmmary Report, Naval Air Station Adak, Adak Island, Alaska.
Prepared for U.S. Navy CLEAN Conttact N62474-89-D-9295. Seattle,
Washington. May 7, 1993. " .
-------
NAF ADAK, SITES 11 AND 13
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
era 0154
. Record of Decision
Appendix A
Date: 02/2B/95
Page A-5
-. 1992. Sites 13, 37, 38, and 29 Site Inspection Final Report (Revised), Naval Air
Station Adak, Adak Island, Alaska. . Prepared for U.S. Navy ClEAN Contract
N62474-89-D-9295. Seattle, Washington. April 10, 1992.
-. 1990. Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study Project Plans, Site 11, 17,20,
and 2lA, Naval Air Station, Adak Island, Alaska (includes Work Plan, Sampling
and Analysis Plan, and Health and Safety Plan). Prepared for U.S~ Navy CLEAN
Contract N62474-89-D-9295. Seattle, W3~hington. June 25, 1990.
Warnick, SJ. and K.M. Jezewski. 1994. Navy transcript of Sites 11 and 13 Proposed
Plan Meetings at Anchorage and NAS Adak, Adak Island. May 9 and 11, 1994.
-------
APPENDIX B
-------
NAP ADAK, SITES 11 AND 13
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
era 0154
Record of Decision
. . Appendix B
Date: 02/28/95
Page B-1
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
OVERVIEW
This responsiveness summary addresses public comments on the proposed plan for the
interim remedial actions .at NAP Adak, Palisades Landfill (Site 11) and Metals Landfill
(Site 13).. The public comment period on the proposed plan ~.held from April 29 to
May 29, 1994. Public meetings to present and explain the proposed plan and solicit
public comments were held on May 9, 1994, in Anchorage, Alaska, and on May 11, 1994,
at NAP Adak, Alaska. Members of the public attended both meetings and seven'
persons offered 17 oral comments that were responded to at the meetings. During the
public comment period, one letter was received offering six comments. A transcript of
the proceeilin~ of the public meetings and copies of the letters received are available in
the Amnh1;~trative Record .
Because of the changes from the proposed plan's .preferred alternative to the ROD's
~elected alternative, a s~nd comment period was conducted from January 16, 1995, to
February 7, 1995. The comment period was initiated through a fact sheet, with no public
meetings being conducted during the second comment period. No public comments were
received during the second .comment period
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED PLAN
Comments received at the publi~ meetings and in letters during the first comment period.
are sumInarized and grouped according to mnil:'T concerns or questions. In the'
following paragraphs, the comments and responses are snmm:.rized Although no public
comments were received on the ROD's selected alternatives during the second comment
period, the comments presented on the proposed plan will also be applied to the
selected alternatives, where applicable.
Comment
Four comments asked for' confirmation that the commeilters' reading of the
proposed plan or supporting documents was accurate. Three of the
comments dealt with possible treatment for leachate and one of the
comments dealt with the agencies that are parties to the Federal Facilities
Agreement (FF A).
-------
. NAF ADAK., SITES 11 AND 13
U.S. Navy crEAN Contrad
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
Contrad No. N62474-89-D-9295
era 0154
Response
Record of Decision
Appendix B
Date: 02j'}J!,j95
Page B-2
~
The proposed plan's interim remedial actions at both sites do not include a
. treatment process for leachate. The actions at both sites do include
capping to minimi7.e the production of leac1iate and monitoring to measure
contaminant levels against appropriate ambient water quality criteria to
determine the effectiveness of the interim remedial actions. At Palisades
Landfill the proposed action includes construction of a l~r.bate collection
system so that, if needed, a treatment process. could be added at a fu~e
date without the need to dig into the landfill site a second time. The
configuration of Metals Landfill does not provide a similar opportunity to
inexpensively provide for future leachate treatment. However, jf required
in the future, leachate treatment would also not reqUire destruction of
elements constructed under the interim remedial action. The technical
memorandum supporting document discusses possible Palisades T ~ndfi11
leachate treatment and estimated costs in Section 4.4.1.2. For cost-
estimating purposes, two treatment systems were considered necessary jf
treatment were required: an ion exchanger would treat inorganic
contaminants and an enhanced oxidation and reduction system would treat
organic contamin~ms. .
For the ROD's selected alternative at Palisades Landfill, the FFA parties
looked carefully at the nature of the site today, what its potential might be
for environmental damage in the future, and what costs would be incurred
by implementing different elements of the alternative. It appeared that
significant cost savings could be realized if, b~1Jse of the age of the site
and the nature of the materials disposed of, a site-wide infiltration banier
( cap) would not be reqmred to protect the marine environment from
releases within the landfill. . "
There is the possibility that harmful levels of contaminants continue to
exist in Palisades Landfill; however, a presumption that the current
contents of the landfill will not pose a future risk to receptors is "
insufficiently conservative by itself. -.For example, there may be a number
of petroleum or solvent drums that are present at the site and have yet to
release. Because. of this concern, the FF A parties evaluated a hypothetical
drum release scenario that used worst case, but reasonable, assumptions
about what materials could be in a drum at Adak and how that material
might travel after being released at the site. The results of the evaluation
showed that even with no cover or ~"oil the site, it was very unlikely that
-------
NAP ADAK, SITES 11 AND 13
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
era 0154
Record of Decision
Appendix B
Date: 02/2B/95
Page B-3
Comment
Response
such a release would lead to exceedances of regulatory criteria in Palisades
Creek or the nearshore Kuluk Bay environment. This finding supports the
assumption that a leachate treatment system is not required.
The agencies that are party to the FF A are the Navy, United States
Environmental Protection Agency, and the Alaska Department of .
Environmental Conservation. In addition, the United States Fish and -
Wildlife Service participated in discussions leading to the development of
the Proposed Plan and ROD.
Four comments recommended m;n;m;'7.inf intrusive activities into the
landfills. Concern was expressed that the cure might be worse than the
. problem, that bigbly intrusive action would hold greater potential for.
creating problems, and actions now should not .crea.te a high possibility that
the sites would have to b~ re-opened in the future.
The selection of elements in the proposed plan's alternatives and ~e
evaluation of alternatives in accordance with EP A's nine criteria did
consider the topics raised by these comments. In evaluating al~ernatives
under the "short-term effectiveness" criteria, the potential for releases to
tI;1e environment aDd exposure of on-site personnel to hazardous substances
weighed heavily in favor of alternatives that m;mm;7,e the need for
excavation in the existing landfills. The elements of the proposed plan
were selected using EP A guidance for addressing cont~m;n~ted landfills,
Presumptive Remedy for CERCLA. Municipal Landfill Sites, which identifies
containment as the appropriate responSe action or presumptive remedy.
The proposed interim remedial action is .eonsistent with this EP A guidance.
Although it is difficult to speculate what future remedial actions might be
necessary, implementing stronger containinent measures would not require
re-opening the sites. .
. The selected alternatives in the ROD are leSs intrusive than the preferred
alternatives presented in the proposed plan. For Palisades Landfill, the
leachate collection system and slope. stabilization will not be required.
under the selected alternative, thereby reducing intrusive activities at the
landfill. At Metals Landfill, waste removal from the north section
shoreline included in the proposed plans preferred alternative has been
el;min~ted in the ROD's selected alternative. . .
-------
NAF ADAK, SITES 11 AND 13
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
era 0154
Record of Decision
. Appendix B
Date: 02/~/95
PageB-4
Comment
Response
Three comments raised questions relative to implementation of the IRA:
How accurately do the electromagnetic surveys describe the area needing
to be capped? How will hazardous chemicals or perhaps chemical' .
weapons be dealt with? How will the potential for release of.
contamin::ttion be conttoIled?
The FF A parties are also concerned with. controlling potential
contamination releases. . In preparation of the proposed plan and ROD,
the areas .needing to be capped or covered were estimated using the results
. of previous geophysical surveys, soil logs from borings for investigations
and :insta1lation of monitoring wells, results of on-site visUal ~aminations,
and comparison of 1946 topographic maps with topographic maps produced
from 1993 surveys. Although specific techniques were not designed in the
proposed plan, the cost estimates include provisions .for treating hazardous .
wastes that may be encountered and for reduced work crew productivity
resulting from landfiiI' excavation as compared to .simple earthwork
excavation. Under the ROD's selected alternatives, landfill excavation will
not be conducted. Therefore, cost estimates did not include provisions for
. treating hazardous wastes that may have been encountered.
In general, all these items will receive more specific attention during future.
phases of the IRA Implementation of the IRA under the proposed plan
will involve preparation of a remedial design, preparation of a wor~.p1an
for remedial action, and execution of the remedial action work plan. .
These p4ases will include describing more specifically the extent of the
landfills; preparing" site-specific health and' safety plans to b~ implemented
. during remedial action; developing design solutions for treating hazardous
wastes, if they are encountered; and designing means for cOntrolling and
minimi'7.ing the potential for release of contamination from the site as a
result of remedial actions. Implementation of the IRA under the ROD's
selected alternatives will involve all phases included under the proposed
plan except developing design solutions for treating hazardous wastes.
Preferred and selected IRA measures that the FF A parties agree upon will
be described in documents that will be available in the Adak Information
Repository and future Adak fact sheets/mailers.
-------
NAP ADAK, SITES 11 AND 13
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
era 0154
Record of Decision
Appendix B
Date: 02/28/95
Page B-5
Comment
, Response
Four comments were addressed on issues of design and the need to take
natural events' into account. The potential for waste to come in contact
. with the environment as a result of earthquakes, tsl1n~mi) storm waves,
frost heave cracking in ~ clay cap, and simple rusting was mentioned.
The IRA process is being implemented to react to an existing problem.
The landfills are obviously located in a wlnerable position. Since the FF A
parties have little control over the landfill locations, reasonably designed
safeguards will be incorporated to minimi7.e damage caused by natural
'processes. As the landfills presently exist, , the release of coDt:4m1nation to
the environment as a result of a natural event is quite possiqle. At both
landfills, waste is presently in contact with either surface or marine waters.
Severe storms or earthquakes could cause even more material to come in
contact. with these waters if the steep slopes at Palisades Landfill and the
north section of Metals Landfill should collapse. The uncovered debris at
both sites is currently exposed to the oxidizing effects of natural events.
The preparation of the proposed plan did consider how elements of the
plan might be affected by natural events. Principally, these considerations
are reflected in the cost estiDt~tes, as noted in the technical memorandum
supporting document. Moving the waste out of water, frequency of
maintenance, reinforcement of the Palisades' Landfill slope, and the
selection of materials were all influenced by the risk of future natural
events.
, '
In developing the selected alternatives for Palisades and Metals Landfill,
the FF A parties looked carefully at the nature of the site today, what its
potential might be for environmenta1,d~m~ge in the future, and what costs
would be incurred by implementing different elements of the alternative.
It appeared that significant cost savings could be realized if, because of the
age of the site and the name of the materials disposed of, the materials in
the ravine at Palisades Landfill and. the' shoreline debris along the north
section of Metals Landfill would not be remo"Ved. The FF A parties believe
that the risk to marine receptors, based on the current knowledge of the
types of marii1e animals that inhabit the area and the appearance of the
exposed and weathered debris in the ravine, on the shoreline, and in
contact with Kuluk Bay, should be m1n1m81. These exposures are possible,
but there are no indications that ~n1m~1" inhabiting or. frequenting the
-------
NAF ADAK, SITES 11 AND 13
U.s. Navy CLEAN Contract
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
era 0154
Comment
Response
Comment
Response
Record of Decision
Appendix B
Date: 02j'li!Jj95
. . Page B-6
landfill or shoreline debris are imminently at risk. A more rigorous
evaluation of the risks posed by the exposed debris on the shoreline and in
contact with ~u.k Bay will be included within the scope of the basewide
RIfFS.
As with the prece.nine comment, these items will receive more specific
attention during future phases of the IRA Implemen~tion of the IRA will
involve preparation of a remedial design, preparation of a work plan for
remedial action, and execution of the remedial action work plan.
Preparation of the remedial design, in particular, will again focus on the
~nstruction elements and materials that best suit the Adak environment.
One comment asked whether the movement of groundwater and leachate
in the rock walls of the Palisades ravine had been considered.
It is believed that the bedrock of the Palisades .ravine is a considerable
deterrent to water moving downward after it has exited the bottom of the
landfi11 From information and observations available at this time, it
appears that water infiltrates the landfill, reaches the bedrock surface, and
flows. towards the existing Palisades Creek streambed Two observations
support this belief. . First, stream flow measurements of Palisades Creek,
taken above and below the 1~ndfi11 soon after rainfall events, showed a
consistent increase in flow from upstream to downstream. 1bis suggests
that little surface flow is lost to. bedrock infiltration and that surface flow is
being recharged as it passes through the landfill. Second, as a part of .
previous site investigations, the areas of exposed bedrock in ravine were.
examined in a s~ch for springs or seeps that would indicate movement of
. groundwater. No seeps were found, mdicating that the tightness of the
bedrock formation does not allow a significant amount of water movement
under the conditions found at Palisades Landfill.
. Two comments concerned the monitoring program. One asked how the
program would be conducted considering the reduction of personnel on
Adak. The second inquired whether it is possible to reduce the 30-year
monitoring period and its Cost.
. .
It is not anticipated that Navy personnel would perform the monitoring
work. The preferred and selected alternatives in the proposed plan and
-------
NAF ADAK, SITES 11 AND 13
U.5. Navy CLEAN Contract
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
era 0154
Record of Decision
Appendix B
Date: 02/'l2,/95
Page B-7
Comment
Response
Comment
Response
ROD, respectively, does assume that the Navy will continue operations on
Adak Island and will be able to provide logistical support, such as '
electricity. The cost estimate is based upon contract personnel performing
this work.
For the purpose of estimating costs for the preferred and selected, '
alternatives, it was assumed that monitoring would be oonducted for a 30-
year period. Regulations would allow for modification of the monitoring
program and/or a reduction in the period of monitoring, provided there is
sufficient protection of human health and the environment. Upon
completion of the bas~wide RIIFS and issuance of a ROD, scheduled for
1998, the Navy anticipates establishing one long-term monitoring program
for all baSe wide needs. ' ,
Three cOmments concerned what is known about contamiT1~tion at ,the
sites. How many samples 'were taken and what Was found? Was the waste
dumped in sealed or open containers? What additional information has
been gathered since the 1986 site ~essment survey?
Several investigations have been conducted on the Palisades and Metals
Landfills since the 1986 assessment. Data in the supporting documentation
at the Information repositories show that chemiCals have been detected at
the sites. It is not known whether waste was dumped in open or closed
containers. No other information is available concerning th~e sites.
One comment expressed concern over past impacts to the marine
environment adjacent to Palisades and Metals Landfills.
It is unknown whether harmful levels of chemicals have been released into
the near-shore marine environment adjacent to the' landfills. The
immediate objective of the IRA, is to limit potential exposure to on-site
Chemicals and "reduce the potential-for off-site migration of chemicals.
Placing cover material on the landfills and controlling surface water run-on
and run-off were identified as actions that would reduce leachate '
production and the potential for chemical migration from the, sites. Tissue
samples from marine plants and ~nimals that might come into contact with
chemicals potentially released from the sites have not yet been collected
under the Navy Installation Restoration Program. (IRP). The evaluation of
-------
NAF ADAK, SITES 11 AND 13
U.s. Navy CLEAN Contract
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D:9295
era 0154
Record of Decision
Appendix B
Date: ffl./28/95
Page B~8
possible impacts to the near-shore marine environment will be addressed in
the basewide remedial investigation scheduled to start in the fall of 1996.
Comment
One comment expressed concern about investigations at other sites.
Response
This proposed plan addresses only those issues concerning Palisades and
. Metals Landfills. ~vestigations of other sites on Adak Island are being
addressed under different IRP projects. . .
-------
APPENDIX C
-------
NAF ADAK, SITES 11 AND 13
U.S. Navy ClEAN Contract
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295 '
era 0154
Record of Decision
AppencUx C
Date: 02/12,/95
Page C-l
..
Data Qualifiers
The following data qualifiers are used on the Sl1mmary tables. Only those compounds
detected at least once during quarterly sampling are listed.
:. N
S
w
Organic Analysis
B
Analyte is found in both the associated method blank and in the sample.
It indicates possible/probable blank cont~mination and warns the data user
to take appropriate action. '
Compounds whose concentration exceed the cahoraiion range of the
GCfMS instrument for that specific analysis.
Estimated concentration for tentatively identified compounds (TICs) or
, when the presence of. a compound is quantitated to be less than the
'Contract Required Quanti~on limit (CRQL) but greater than zero.
Presumptive evidence 'of a TIC. '
Compound was analyzed for but not detected above the reported sample
quantitation limit. '
E
J '
N
U
Inorganic Analysis: Concentration (C) Qualifiers
B
Reported Value is less than the CRDL but grea~r than or equal to the
Instrument Detection limit (IDL). .
Analyte was not detected above the reported sample detection limit.
u
Inorganic Analysis: Quality Control (Q) Qualifiers,
E
Reported value is estimated due to the presence of an interference. An
explanatory note must be included in the data package narrative.
Spiked sample recovery not within control limits.
Reported value was determined by the Method of Standard Additions
(MSA).' " '
Post-digestion spike for Furnace Atomic Absorption analysis is out of
control limits. ' .
Duplicate analysiS not within control limits.
.
-------
.
NAF ADAK, SITES 11 AND 13
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
era 0154
Record of Decision
Appendix C
Date: 02('lI3(95
Page C-2
Table C-l
Detected Chemicals in Different Environmental Media at
Palisades Landfill From the 1988 Site Investigation
..
- mmltlif;iJP.~~M;:tifff:t@i @i@@Mffff@Iittffu~@f@@@:MimNWH@l
mM~~Ml: - . ,",","',',",','."'.'.',",'.',',',',',','.',','.',',',',',',',' -
-
ill..f.;lli~ m;¥~:ilfi~~~~~MfKKffmImMfWtt;IHt¥Mi:@;};I:Wi:~:~::f}iWIIiIWIif1]::WI:I:@iiI:I'i:W:!:!'Wi:ttlfI:It@@fIi@1@:Mi:fMiimi!:i~i
ND ND ND ND ND
:I~~i~!!t!:~~~!m~jM\\m;;:Mt~ii\W¥HWi 11~tf:frI~~~~~J!~lr~;~j~~~1f@f~i~I~~f.~%lmrtfj;~;~~~1~;~~J~l~~~~~@r*=*Iijf:Hi~1j~1!1~tf!tf~rtt!t~@~rr~J[1~~]
Phenanthrene 10 UJ 170 VI R 450 J 160 I
Anthracene 10 UJ 170 VI R 340 UJ 190 J
Fluoranthene 10 UI 170 VI R 460 1 340 VI
Pyrene R 170 VI R 470 1 190 J
Benzo(a}anthracene R 170 VI R 180 1 R
~ R 170 VI R 260 J 140 J
Benzo(k)fluorauthene 10 UJ R 10 UJ 540 J R
Benzo(a}pyrene 10 UJ R 10 VJ 270 J R
TIC hydrocarbous ND 1,300 IN ND 29,100 IN 32,600 IN
Arodor 1260 1.0 U 200 U 1.0 U I l.5oo 150 J
Organochlorine pesticides ND ND I ND I ND ND
Arsenic 2.0 UJ 9,200 2.0 VJ 25,000 2~
Cadmium 5.0 U 850 5.0 U 4,100 3,900 J
Chromium 10.0 U 12,200 I 10.0 U 34,100 26,100 I
Copper 25.0 V Z7;lJYJ 25.0 U 141,000 119,000
Lead 2.0 V 14,400 3.0 291,000 358,000
Nickel 40.0 V 8,900 40.0 U 40,900 28.700 1
Silver 10.0 U ill) 10.0 U 2,000 1,800
Zinc 35.0 U 144,000 J 21.0 U 820,000 765,000
W!'~i~t~~Wt}Mi:nW@!MJ;!m!!@tMt:miiWJtlnW::::::::ttfin1nttttM:l%Mt::i:iM:Wlf;tI!!I!I:ri:Mf&M1~;itf~@~ji::i
ND NA I ND NA NA
Notes:
R - The data were rejected and are unusable.
ND - The analyte was not detected.
NA - The analyte was not analyzed.
Source: Tetra Tech. 1989. Site Inspection Report, Naval Air Station Adak, Adak Island, Alaska.
Field Report. TC-3603-02. . .
Volume 1:
-------
,
NAF ADAK, SITES 11 AND 13
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
era 0154
Record of Decision
Appendix C
Date: 02/28/95
Page C-3
..
Table C-2
Statistical Summary of Valid Analytical Results for Site 11, Zone 1
1990 Investigation
-
Aluminum. 3 1.00E+02 3 4.40E+02 4.10E+03
Barium 3 LOOE+02 3 5.00E+00 l.90E+Ol
Calcium 3 l.()()E + 02 3 6.74E+03 1.03E+04
Copper 3 1.00E+02 3 3.00E+00 1.40E+Ol
Iron 3 1.00E+02 3 4.79E+02 4.72E+03
Magnesium 3 1.00E+02 3 2.09E+ 03 3.50E+03
Manganese 3 LOOE+02 3 2.3OE+Ol 1.57E+02
Mercury 3 1.00E+02 3 1.00&01 1.00&01
Nickel 3 6.67E+Ol 1 2 l.ooE+Ol 2.00E+Ol
Potassium 3 1.00E+02 3 5.00E+02 1.10E+03
Sodium 3 1.00E+02 3 8.85E+ 03 1.
-------
NAF ADAK, SITES 11 AND 13
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
era 0154
Table C-2 (Continued)
Statistical Summary of Valid Analytical Results for Site 11, Zone 1
1990 Investigation
Record of Decision
Appendix C
Date: 02/2S/95
PageC-4
,.
..
Manganese 3 1.00E+02 3 5.70E+02 1.81£ +03
N"1Ckel . 3 1.00E+02 3 8.00E+OO 2.10E+Ol
Phenanthrene 3 333E+01 2 1 4.40&01 4.4OE-01
Potassium 3 1.00E + 02 3 3.87E+02 9.06E+02
Sodium 3 1.00E+02 3 1.12E+03 22tE +03
Vanadium 3 1.00E+ 02 3 7.36E+01 134E +02
Zinc 3 1.00E+02 3 8.4SE+01 1.97E +02
3
2
2-Butanone 5 4.00E+Ol
Acetone 5 6.00E+Ol
Aluminum 5 1.00E+ 02
Barium 5 1.00E+02
Benzoic Acid 5 6.00E +01
Cadmium 5 2.00E+Ol
Calcium 5 1.00E+02
Carbon Disulfide 5 2.00E+01
Chromium' 5 " "1.00E+02
Cobalt 5 1.00E+02
Copper 5 ' 1.00E +02
Ethyibenzene 5 2.00E+Ol
Iron 5 1.00E+02
Lead 5 4.00E+Ol
Magnesium 5 1.00E+02
Manganese 5 1.00E +02
Methylene Chloride 5 6.00E +01
Nickel 5 1.00E+02
Potassium 5 1.ooE+02
Selenium 5 2.00E + 01
Sodium 5 1.00E+02
Toluene 5 1.00E + 02
Vanadium 5 1.00E+02
31S4O\9S01.034\TBLC2
2
4
2
3
5
5
3
1
5
1
5
5
5
1
5
2
5
5
3
5
. 5
1
5
5
5
4
4
3
2
4
3.20E-02
2.00E-02
2.42E+04
2.81E+0l
4.30&01
8.00E'{)1
5.79E+03
3.10E.{)3
3.90E + 00
3.60E + 00
239E+01
7.00&04
1.5SE+04
8.00E+OO
2.2OE+03
2.14E+02
1.10E-03
4.00E+OO
3.6SE + 02
1.10E+Ol
" I.20E+ 03
8.00&04
5.66E + 01
4.70E-02
2.6OE.{)1
3.86E+04
1.l2E+02
5.6OE-Ol
8.00E'{)1
1.08E+04
3.10E-03
2.51E+Ol
1.53E +01
6.38E+Ol
7.00E-04
2.93E+04
8.00E + 00
1.7SE+04
9.7SE+02
3.20E-03
2.00E + 01
1.06E+03
1.10E -+ 01
2.78E+03
2.5OE-02
-------
NAF ADAK, SITES 11 AND 13
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
era 0154
Record of Decision
Appendix C
Date: 02j2Bj95
Page C-5
.
.
Table C-2 (Continued)
Statistical Summary of Valid Analytical Results for Site 11, Zone 1
1990 Investigation
-=:JL8 --- . F;I .
Xy1enes 5 8..00E+Ol 1 4 4.ooE-04 5.6OE-03
Zinc 5 1.ooE+02 5 251Eo+ 01 9.18E+ 01
::\I!#.fimi\gi'i@_;:::~¥.i~ID11i@mi;1li~\;::@;mmMMw.:i~J.m1\~*t\m:i:::r:::::;@'I:\:::;;i.:::::\::N.::::;:i;::\iN;;@@;\::~H:@;::@1Mmg'MMri#.¥t.M;;im@l\m~;;'r:::
Aluminum 2 1.00E+02 2 5.97E+ 04 6.27E+ 05
Barium 2 1.00E+02 2 2.76E+02 2.47E+03
Beryllium 2 LOOE+02 2 1.00E+oo 7.00E+ 00
Cadmium 2 5.00E+Ol 1 1 2.00E+OO 2.00E+ 00
Calcium 2 1.00E+02 2 3.l2E+04 I.34E + 05
Chromium 2 1.00E+02 2 l.80E+Ol l.94E + 02
Cobalt 2 1.00E+02 2 1.70E+Ol 1.93E+ 02
Copper 2 1.00E+02 2 9.60E+Ol 1.00E+ 03
Iron 2 1.00E+02 2 3.63E+04 4.22E+ 05
Magnesium 2 1.00E + 02 2 2.45E+04 2.08E+ 05
Manganese 2 1.00E+02 2 1.3OE+03 1.3OE+ 04
Mercury 2 5.00E+Ol 1 1 3.00E-Ol 3.00E-Ol
Nickel 2 1.00E+02 2 3.00E+Ol 2. 70E+ 02
Potassium 2 1.00E+02 2 3.40E+03 1. 78E + 04
Selenium 2 5.00E+ 01 1 1 5.00E+Ol 5.ooE+Ol
Sodium 2 1.ooE+02 2 2.25E +04 4.34E+04
Thallium 2 5.00E+Ol 1 1 8.00E+Ol 8.00E + 01
Vanadium 2 1.00E+02 2 8.50E+Ol 1.15E+ 03
Zinc 2 1.00E+02 2 7.50E+Ol 7.98E+02
-------
NAF ADAK, SITES 11 AND 13
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
era 0154
Record of Decision
Appendix: C
Date: 02/28/95
Page C-6
Table C-3
Statistical Summary of Valid Analytical Results for Site 11, Zone 2
1990 Investigation
to
----
Aluminum 3 l.00E+ 02 3 5.70E+02 7.00E+ 02
Barium 3 l.00E+02 3 3.00E+00 9.00E+ 00
Calcium 3 l.00E+02 3 152E+03 9.8OE+ 03
Copper 3 l.00E+02 3 LIOE+Ol 1.3OE+01
Iron 3 1.00E+02 3 2.6SE+02 1.11E+ 03
Magnesium 3 LOOE+02 3 8.6OE+02 2.95E+03
Manganese 3 LOOE+02 3 LIOE+Ol 5.00E+Ol
Mercury 3 . l.00E+ 02 3 1.OOE-Ol 1.00E-01
Nickel 3 1.OOE+02 3 2.00E+Ol 3.00E+Ol
Potassium 3 l.00E+02 3 6.00E+02 8.00E+ 02
Sodium 3 1.OOE+02 3 6.6SE+03 1.07E+04
Vanadium 3 LOOE+02 3 3.00E+00 6.ooE+00
Zinc 3 l.ooE+02 3 l.3OE+02 1.83E+02
Acetone 3 6.67E+Ol 1 2 LIOE-02 3.40E-02
Aluminum 3 LOOE+02 3 L62E+04 3.45E+04
Antimony 3 3.33E+Ol 2 1 1.5OE+Ol 1.5OE+Ol
Barium 3 LOOE+02 3 3.63E+Ol 1.11E+02
BCIIZO(a)anthracene 3 3.33E+Ol 2 1 7.20E-02 7.20E-02
Benzo(b )f1uoranthene. 3 3.33E+Ol 2 1 1.40E-Ol 1.40E-Ol
Benzoic Acid 3 1.OOE+02 3 7.60E-02 l.20E..Ql
Cadmium 3 6.67E+Ol 1 2 2.10E +00 2.70E+00
Calcium 3 1.OOE+02 3 6.79E+03 228E+04
Chromium 3 l.00E+02 3 7.40E+OO 3.35E+Ol
Chrysene 3 3.33E+01 2 1 LOOE-Ol l.00E..Ql
Cobalt 3 1.OOE+02 3 1.10E +01 155E+Ol
Copper 3 l.00E+02 3 6.15E+0l 5.39E + 02
Fluoranthene 3 3.33E+01 2 1 3.40E-Ol 3.40E-01
Iron 3 1.00E +02 3 3.20E + 04 l.23E +05
-------
.
NAF ADAK, SITES 11 AND 13
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract
Engineering Field ActivitY. Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
era 0154
Record of Decision
Appendix C
Date: 02/28/95
Page C-?
.
Table C-3 (Continued)
Statistical Summary of Valid Analytical Results for Site 11, Zone 2
1990 Investigation
~. ::::;':~:' .~...:.,:-:.;::*; ~t~:~;~:;:;:;.;~::::.:~:::;.::::::::,:::::;:,: '::::~:I ~r..,:...:::m~w.......,..,.
"-:.;.' 1ili~~~
1111!~M~ ::::-' ..~
.....,".",".",",'.."..... .... ",',',',."'" ~:: : .. .. ... ..
Lead 3 1.00E+02 3 l.8OE+01 2.44E+02
Magnesium 3 1.00E+02 3 6.01£+03 750E+03
Manganese 3 1.00E+02 3 6.69E+02 1.79E+03
Mercury 3 3.33E+01 2 1 4.90&01 4.9OE-01
Methylene Chloride 3 3.33E+01 2 1 7.00E-D4 7.00&04
Nickel 3 1.00E+02 3 9.00E+00 9.4OE+Ol
Phenanthrene 3 3.33E+01 2 1 1.5OE-01 l5OE-01
Potassium 3 1.00E+02 3 4.73E+02 6.4lE+02
Selenium 3 6.67E+01 1 2 2.00E+Ol 2.5OE+01
Sodium 3 1.00E+02 3 1.10E+03 1.15E+03
Thallium 3 6.67E+01 1 2 2.00E+Ol 250E+Ol
Vanadium 3 1.00E+02 3 4.83E+Ol 9.47E+Ol
Zinc 3 1.00E+02 3 852E +01 5.8OE+02
;.!!!~~i~~m_~~4~f~\~~_~~@t~ii~l,flf$~~~t1t~lt~~[f~t~~i~iJ&¥ii~ll~'I..Wj[g
2-ButaDone 5 6.00E+01 2 3 5.70E..{)2 ~i
Acetone 5 8.00E+01 1 4 3.10E..{)2 6.90E-01
Aluminum 5 1.00E+02 5 3.00E+04 6.20E+04
Barium 5 1.00E+02 5 2.61£+01 7.58E+Ol
Bcnzoic Acid 5 4.00E+01 3 2 L10E-Ol 1.4OE-01
Calcium 5 1.00E+02 5 2.74E+03 9.14E+03
Carbon Disulfide 5 2.00E+01 4 1 15OE-03 1.50E-03
Chromium 5 1.00E+02 5 4.4OE+00 2.36E + 01
Cobalt 5 1.00E+02 5 3.70E+00 1.00E+ 01
Copper 5 1.OOE+02 5 2.74E+01 7.91E+01
Ethylbenzene 5 4.00E+01 3 2 7.00E-04 450E-03
F1uoranthene 5 2.00E+01 4 1 7.ooE-02 7.00E..{)2
Iron 5 1.00E+02 5 158E+04 3.69E+04
Lead 5 4.00E+01 3 2 7_00E+00 1.10E+Ol
Magnesium 5 1.00E+02 5 3.49E+03 9.25E+03
Manganese 5 1.00E+02 5 2.29E+02 5.82E+02
-------
NAF ADAK, SITES 11 AND 13
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
era 0154
Record of Decision
Appendix C
Date: 02/Zi!,/95
Page C-8
.
Table C-3 (Continued)
Statistical Summary of Valid Analytical Results for Site 11, Zone 2
1990 Investigation
.
- . - ::~~:Q;i~liii~:::' . -
.
Methylene Chloride 5 4.00E +01 3 2 3.30E-03 9A0:&03
Nickel 5 1.00E+ 02 5 3.00E +00 1.30E +01
Phenanthrene 5 2.00E+01 4 1 1.80&01 1.80&01
Potassium 5 1.00E +02 5 3.20E+02 8.79E+02
Pyrenc 5 2.00E +01 4 1 LOO&Ol 1.(10&01
Sodium 5 1.00E +02 5 6.86E+02 2.5OE+03
Toluene 5 8.00E + 01 1 4 2.8OE-03 2.10&02
Vanadium 5 1.00E+02 5 4.91E+01 l.24E+02
Xylenes 5 6.00E+Ol 2 - 3 4.90E-03 5.50&02
Zinc 5 1.00E +02 5 2.24E+01 4.08E+01
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)pht'h~1~tt! 5 8.ooE +01 1 4 4.20&02 1.40&01
:iiMIU!:)~RIi~SBillim1.;f:fM~;@;!~WM~~i;\llif~1@~;~I~MiMf:1M!@jm!lUf!i!ffi!::;~i~::@I:It:i;H!:!i':!::ilHiil!!Imi!Hi!m@iillU&!iMi'i!:]!n1ill@1Th1titijj
2-Butanone 2 5.00E +01 1 1 3.10E+00 3.10E+00
4-Methylphenol 1 1.00E +02 1 1.00E+OO 1.00E+OO
Aluminum 2 1.00E +02 2 2.77E+04 2.44E+05
Barium 2 1.00E+02 2 8.60E+01 3.4OE+02
Beuzene 2 5.00E +01 1 1 5.00&01 5.00&01
Beryllium 2 5.00E+01 1 1 3.00E+00 3.ooE+00
Calcium 2 LOOE+02 2 225E+04 3.92E+04
Chromium 2 1.00E+02 2 5.00E+00 4.60E+01
Cobalt 2 5.00E +01 1 1 1.80E+01 l.80E +01
Copper 2 1.00E+02 2 3.30E+01 3.17E+02
Ethylbc:nzene 2 5.00E+01 1 1 5.60E+00 5.60E+00
Iron 2 1.00E +02 2 1.60E+05 3.57E+05
Magnesium 2 1.00E+02 2 1.32E+04 2.65E+04
Manganese 2 1.00E+02 2 4.46E+03 6.23E+03
Mercury 2 5.00E+01 1 1 3.00E-01 3.00£..01
Naphthalene 1 1.00E +02 1 1.00E+OO 1.00E+00
Nickel 2 5.00E +01 1 1 2.00E+ 01 2.00E +01
Potassium 2 1.00E+02 2 4.8OE+03 7.60E+03
-------
NAF ADAK, SITES 11 AND 13
U.S. Navy CLEAN-Contract
Engineering Field Acrivity, Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
era 0154
Record of Decision
Appendix C
Date: 02/28/95
Page C-9
Table C-3 (Continued)
Statistical Summary of Valid Analytical Results for Site 11, Zone 2
1990 Investigation
Selenium 2 5.ooE+01 1 1 6.ooE+01 6.00E+ 01
Sodium 2 1.00E+02 2 2.93E+04 3.47E+04
Toluene 2 5.00E+01 1 1 1.00E +00 1.00E+00
Vanadium 2 t.OOE+02 2 4.50E+01 4.51£+02
Vmyl Chloride 2 5.00E+01 1 1 1.20E+00 1.2OE+00
Xylenes 2 1.00E+02 2 1.50E+01 1.60E+01
Zinc 2 1.00E+02 2 2.10E+01 1.94E+02
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)Phthalate 1 1.00E+02 1 2.00E+OO 2.ooE+OO
-------
NAF ADAK, SITES 11 AND 13
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
era 0154
Record of Decision
Appendix C
Date: 02/1J!,/95
. Page C-lO
Table C-4
Statistical Summary of Valid Analytical Re.sults for Site 11, Zone 3
1990 Investigation
.
.
~g~~~~~~@t~~~t::::::::::::::::::::~:::::::;::::::~:::::~:::~:::~::: ,",',",",",',',', ::p\:i ..:.:.:.:.:.:.;.:.'.','.".'.;.:.;.;.;-:.:.;.:.:.:.:.:.:.;; ::i:tij*:~:~~~*M~m\;!i;::i:'i:i .
-:';-:-;':';':'. ...... ::.:.:.:.::.' 111illll:!~1
.:.;.:.;.;.;..:.;.;.;.;.:.;.;.;
:::::::~~~::::~~~:$:~' 1111~I~i;i~i'llll
:~lll,JI!iiIITI:~':~:::::::~~~;~::.....................'.'.'.''', .'."
::.:;:::~~:;.:~:::::~::::::.,::~~ :lli::;~:::~mlt:: MJ~i:i:li
',"','0"";';';';';';';';';', ..:.:.:.:.:.:.;.;.~::::::: ::;!I:@!;$tJ.:~lU.~~~;~1!t.jljIm::;:[m:~:@gili:::::;@ml1~f,lli1f,MmIm;tim::t~;tII!:I:i@lji~::~:i::Ii;ti:m:::::~:~~::::;gt!:ii:~@1~~~itIiii~:::::I@H;NfJt1!\m@1*f.%W
Aluminum 2 1.00E+02 2 4.60E+02 5.10E+ 02
Barium 2 LOOE+02 2 8.00E +00 8.00E+ 00
Calcium 2 LOOE+02 2 9:70E+03 9.82E + 03
Copper 2 1.00E+02 2 1.l0E+01 1.10E + 01
Iron 2 1.00E+02 2 6.99E+02 7.47E+ 02
Magnesium 2 l.OOE+02 2 2.88E+03 2.89E+ 03
Manganese 2 LOOE+02 2 2.90E+01 2.90E + 01
Mercury 2 5.00E+Ol 1 1 l.ooE-Ol 1.00E-01
Nickel 2 1.00E+02 2 1.00E + 01 2..00E+ 01
Potassium 2 1.00E+02 2 8.ooE+ 02 8.00E + 02
Sodium 2 . 1.00E + 02 2 1.06E + 04 1.08E+ 04
Vanadium 2 1.00E+02 2 2.00E+oo 3.00E+ 00
Zinc 2 1.00E+02 2 9.20E+ 01 9.20E+ 01
AJllm;nlll1) 6 1.00E+02 6 8.63E +03 2.23E+ 04
Anthracene 6 1.67E+Ol 5 1 6.40E-02 6.40E-02
Arsenic 6 1.67E+Ol 5 1 1.60E+01 l.60E+ 01
Barium 6 1.00E+02 6 9.50E+00 l.13E+ 02
Benzo( a) anthracene 6 333E+Ol 4 2 1.60E-01 210E-Ol
Benzo(a)pyrene 6 333E+ 01 4 2 1.10E-Ol 150E-Ol
Benzo(b )fluoranthene 6 333E+ 01 4 2 2.40E-01 270E-Ol
BenzO(k)fluoranthene 6 333E+Ol 4 2 1.40E-01 200E-Ol
Benzoic Acid 6 5.00E+Ol 3 3 4.60E-02 I.20E-Ol
Beryllium 6 L67E+Ol 5 1 2.00E-01 200E-Ol
Cadmium 6 LOOE+02 6 5.00E-Ol 3.80E + 00
Calcium 6 1.00E+02 6 5.13E+03 6.78E+ 04
Chromium 6 1.00E+02 6 8.00E-01 l.03E+ 02
Chrysene 6 333E+ 01 4 2 2.40E-01 3.30E-Ol
-------
NAF ADAK, SITES 11 AND 13
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
era 0154
Record of Decision
Appendix C
Date: 02/28/95
Page C-lI
.
Table C-4 (Continued)
Statistical Summary of Valid Analytical Results for Site 11, Zone 3
1990 Investigation
Cobalt 1.OOE+ 02 6 4.00E+00 1.99E+01
Copper 1.OOE + 02 6 1.84E+01 1.0SE +02
Fluoranthcne 333E+01 4 2 2.80&01 3.4OE-01
Iron 1.00E+02 6 127E+ 04 1.09E+05
Lead 833E + 01 1 5 5.00E+OO 5.9SE+02
Magnesium 1.00E+02 6 632E+03 9.21E+03
Manganese LOOE+02 6 4.03E+02 2.19E+03
Mercury .I.67E + 01 5 1 7.00E-02 7.00E-02
Nickel 8.33E+01 1 5 l.lOE+Ol 3.4OE+Ol
Phenanthrene 333E+Ol 4 2 2.00E-Ol 3.00E-01
Potassium 1.OOE+02 6 3.6SE+02 7.88E+02 ---
Selenium 1.67E+Ol 5 1 2.3OE+Ol 2.3OE+Ol
Sodium LOOE+02 6 7.58E+02 L72E+03
Thallium 2.00E+01 .4 1 22OE+Ol 2.2OE+Ol
Vanadium 1.00E+02 6 L67E+Ol 6.41E+Ol
Zinc 1.00E+02 6 5.98E+0l 8.85E+02
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate L67E+Ol 5 1 1.20&01 1.20E-01
-------
NAF ADAK, SITES 11 AND 13
U.s. Navy CLEAN Contract
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
era 0154
Record of Decision
Appendix C
Date: 02/28/95
Page C-12
Table C-5
Maximum Detected Chemical Concentrations From the 1989 SI Report
Metals Landfill
..
i:!1I1111\1I'I. ~i_1~~i:q
Phenanthrene
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Benzo( a)anthraa:ne
ChIysene
Benzo(b )fJ.uoranthcne
Benzo(a)pyrcne
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
TIC- hydroc:arbous
TIC- uob.owns
10m
10UJ
10UJ
10UJ
10UJ
10UJ
10UJ
10ID
ND
100 IN
460J
748J
640J
490J
52DJ
800J
450J
300J
110,000 IN
ND
170U
170U
170U
170U
170U
170U
170U
170U
170U
ND
~__m~f:**I!f:1m%l@K!f.m1tWJafm:41W*$e~~l£i!*W.%*iMigWilNiftM1.@i:NHM~;W;,lWJ!mmM~t.
I¥ta-BHC
0.073 N
Aroclor 1260
l:.:;:.,.::::::::::.::::.:<*lif.~Hf1t1WiMM@@!m0m@@t@i\1'M¥.if$"jWlet{t4*tWlMtWiM%'fU~lmilWi;1l@W@Mi@fuMmt@@;MW\%~
Arsenic 2.0 UJ 16,000 I 8,100
Gadmium 5.0UI 1,300 J 450
Chromium. 10.0 U so,OOOJ 7)J1J
Copper 25.0 U 9l,8OO 29,500
Lead 3.2J 99,700 4,400
Nickel 4O.oU 31,200 J 7,500 J
Silver 10.0 U 4,000 800U
Zinc 364 163,000 J Tl,~ J
8'fcntatively identified compound .
bGroundwater data shown as dissolved concentrations
Notes:
ND - The constituent was not detected.
Source: Tetra Tech. 1989. Site Inspection Report, Naval Air Station .Adak, Adak Island, .Alaska.
Field Report. TC-3603-02.
Volume 1:
-------
,
I
I
I
NAP ADAK, SITES 11 AND 13
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
era 0154
Record of Decision
Appendix: C
Date: 02/213/95
Page C-13
.
~
Table C-6
Maximum Detected Chemical Concentrations From the 1992 ESI Report
Metals Landfill
I
I
I
I
..';~!1111Iilllill[~~IIIII\"ll\~'\~
Benzene
2-Butanone
Carbon disulfide
Chloroform
1,l-Dicbloroethane
cis-1,2-Dicbloroethene
EthyIbem:cne .
Toluene
1,1,1- Trichloroethane
.Tricbloroethcne
Xylene
ND
ND
ND
2J
ND
1J
1J
15
16
67
ND
81 J
130
26J
ND
3J
ND
3,000 1
2,800 1
ND
ND
35,000 J
Accnaphthene ND 6301
Accnaphthylene ND 33,000
Acetone 18 400
Anthracene ND 47,000
Beuzo( a) anthracene ND 41,000
Beuzo(b )fluoranthene ND 34,000
Benzo(k)fluoranthene ND 16,000 J
Beuzo(g,h,1)pery1cne ND . 13,000
Beuzo(a)pyrene ND 33~000
Benzoic acid ND 8,400 J
ButylbeDzylphthalate 4J 4,900
Bis(2-ethylhe.xyl)phthalate ND 45,000
Bis(2-cbloroethyl)ether 12 ND
Chrysene ND 46,000 J
Dibeuzo( a,h)anthracene ND 5,800
Dibenzofuran ND 26,000 J
.. Dimethylphthalate ND 390 J
-------
NAP ADAK., SITES 11 AND 13
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
Contract' No. N62474-89-D-9295
era 0154
Re~rd of Decision
Appendix: C
Date: 02/28/95
Page C-14
<
Table C-6 (Continued)
Maximum Detected Chemical Concentrations From the 1992 ESI Report
. Metals Landfill
.
.s
Indeno(~pyrene
Methylene chloride
2-Mcthylnaphthalene
4-Mcthylphcnol
Naphthl'l1eoe
N-N"mosodiphcu.ylamjne
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Pyrene
1,2,4- TricblorobenzeDc
ND
ND
ND
ND
2J
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
7J
ND
ND
16,000 J
95,000
38,OOOJ
16,000
6J
16,000 J
891
41,000
1201
140,000
1301
110,000
900J
;f1t~l~i*$mi1~mflf.lftlmfWt~Wf.~ll£f~}tf!~*~~~~~f~~i~W4i~~1tt~{rn1ii~I~~]~I{~m~[f..mtj?J~Jil1\~~${£%i.r
4,4'-DDD
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDT
Dieldrin
EndosuJfan sulfate
Endrin
1.8
ND
ND
NP
ND
ND
2.81
1501
651
120J
L91
9.61
Aroclor 1242
Aroclor 12S4.
Aroc1or 1260
ND
ND
ND
410
3,300
8,800
,
-------
t
NAF ADAK, SITES 11 AND 13
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
era 0154
Record of Decision
Appendix C
Date: 02/28/95
Page C-15
.
'.,
Table C-6 (Continued)
Maximum Detected Chemical Concentrations From the 1992 ESI Report
Metals Landfill
Aluminum 506,000 21.800
Antimony ND 863J
Arsenic 40.5 14.2
Barium 7Zl 261
Beryllium 19.2 0.85
Cadmium ND 8.7
Chromium 589 60.9
Cobalt 250 14.2
Copper 1,560 1,150
Iron 439,000 42,000 ,
,Lead ND 40,200
Manganese ' 11,400 1,100
Magnesium 163,000 l2.100
Mercury ND 6.7
Nickel 407 463
Potassium 24,500 1,850
Selenium ND 6.2
Silver ND 9L6
Sodium 369,000 1,920
Vanadium 1460 82.6
Zinc ND 1,390
I
-Groundwater data shown as total concentrations
Notes:
ND - The constituent was not detected.
Source: URS Consultants, Ine. 1992. Site Inspection Fuuzl Report, Sites 13, 37, 38, 39, Naval Air Station
Adak, Adak, AJaskil. Prepared for U.s. Navy CLEAN Contract N62474-89-D-9295. Seattle, Washington.
.'
-------
Table 0.7
::
Analytical Results for Groundwater at Old Metals land1ill (1992-1993)
Installation: ADA(, Site: 13, Matrix: CW, Units: ug/l, Project: 15~
Sorted by Analytical ~thod, Par_ter Name
~18. 1
IN-CL.P
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons
Al~inuD
500 U
16/.00
t
Page: 1
OVO Aug-92 DC ove Oct-92 DC ove Feb.93 DC OVO
--- ------------ ---- --- ------------ ---- --- --..--------. .--- ---
a
33600 12000 . '.
27800 .
101000 .
1~ U 16 UN 31 UN
16 UN
13.3 5.2 8U 9-3 8S
'.6 8U
105 8 71.3 8 117 B
60.' B
1 U 1 U 1 U
1 U
2 U 2 u 2 u
2u
58100 56000 58700
52900
26.2 10.6 25.7
12.6
13.8 8 /'.6 8 12.5 8
, U
87.1 51.1 . 109
43.' .
/,5300 16800 . 37200 .
15500 .
15.7 S 13.9 . 34.3 $N*
11.6 .
328DO 26100 31.100
25300
3540 2630 .. 3810 II
2200 . ,
.2 U .2 U* .33
.2 U*
8U 15 U, 27 u
15 u
8850 7860 8400
77'0
2U11 2U 10 ~
2u
3 U 2U ',UN
2u
78900 75900 113000
73500
2U11 3UWt1 2 UWN
3 UWII
83.8 268 70.7
2/'.8 8
75 /'2.5 . 87_5
37_3 .
Repor~ Date: 26-MAY-9'
Location Xref 13-'
Method Parameter Name
JIZI- 92 00
----------...
---..--------------------------
------------ ----
IN-CL.P Ant i many " UN
IN-CL.? Arseni c 7.S BN
IN'CL.? Bariun 66./' B
IN-CL.P Beryll i 1811 1 U
IN-CLP Cacini un 2 U
IN-CL.P CalciUII /'7'900
III'CL.P Chromil8ll 12.1
IN-CL.P toba It 6.6 B
IN-C1,P Copper 62
IN-ClP Iron 25100
IN'C1,P lead 9.1
IN-ClP Magnes i 1811 2/,500
IN-C1,P Manganese 2850
IN-ClP Mercury -2 U
IN'ClP lIickel 9.5 8
III-C1,P Potassil.8ll 7830
IN-C:'P SeleniUD IoIAl
IN'ClP SH ver 3 U
IN-C1,P sOdil.8ll 83900
III-C1.P Thall il.8ll 3 UIIW
IN-ClP Vanad i \III 1,/,_6 B
I N-C1,P Zinc: 410.3
P/A-ClP ','-000 .1 U
P/A-ClP, /',Io-ODE _1 U
P/A-ClP /'.Io-OOT _1 U
P/A-ClP Aldrin' .OS U
P/A-ClP Araclor 1016 1 U
P/A-CLP Aroc:lor 1221 2 U
P/A-ClP "roc:lor 1232 1 u
P/A-ClP Aroc:lor 12/2 1 U
P/A-ClP Aroclor 121.8 1 U
P/"-ClP Aroc:lor 1251. 1 u
P/"-Cl? "roc lor 1260 1 U
P/A-Cl? Dieldrin _1 U
P/A-ClP Endosylf an I .05 U
P/"-ClP EnQosul fan I I .1 U
P/A-ClP Endosulfan sulfate .1 U
P/A-ClP Endrin .1 U
P/A-ClP Endr i n a l dellyde .1 U
P/A-ClP Endrin Icetone .1 U
P/A-ClP Heptadllor -OS U
P/A-ClP Heptachlor epoxide .05 U
P/A-ClP Metnoxydllor .5 U
P/A-ClP Toxapherw: 1 U
P/A-ClP alpha-8He .05 U
-------
Table Co7 (continued)
~~lytical Results tor Groundwater at Old Metals Landfill (1992-1993)
Installation: ADAK, Site: 13, Matrix: GW, units: US/l, Project: 15'
Sorted by Analytical Method, ParMeter Name
Report Date: 26-MAY-94 Page: 3
Location Xref 13-'
Method ParMleter Name JI.I'\-92 00 OVQ Aug-92 00 OVQ Oct-9Z 00 OVO Feb-93 00 DV
----------- ------------------------------ ------------ ---- .-- ------------ ---- --- ------------ ---- --- ------------ ---- .-
V-CLP 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 10 U 10 U
. V-CLP 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 10 U 10 U
'" 10'U
V-CLP 1,1.Z-Trichloroethane 10 U 10 U
10 U
V-CloP 1.1-0 ichloroethane 10 U 10 U
10 U
V-ClP 1,1-0iChloroethene 10 U 10 U
10 U
V-ClP 1,Z-0;chloroethane 10 U 10 U
10 U
V-Cl..P 1,Z-Oichloroethene 10 U 10 U
10 U
v-ClP 1.2-0ichloropropene 10 U 10 U
10 U
V-CloP Z-Hexanone 10 U 10 U
10 U
V-CLP .-Methyl-2-pentanone 10 U 10 U
10 u
V-Cl..P AcetOne 8BJ 10 U
10 U
V-C1.P Benzene 1 J 10 U
10 U
V-ClP 8M1111Odi ch lorometMrge 10 U 10 u
10 U
Y-ClP 8r"0111Ofonll 10 U 10 U
10 U
'11- C1.p. 8raDC1111!tll8ne 10 U 10 U
10 U
V-Cl..P ~rDon disul f;de 10 U 10 U
10 U
V-C1.P Cal"bon tetrachloride 10 U 10 U
10'U
V-CLP Ch lorobenzene 10 U 10 U
10 U
Y-Cl..P Ch loroettlane 10 U 10 U
10 U
Y-ClP Chlol"Ofonli 10 U 10 U
10 U
v-CLP OIlo~ 10 U 10 U
0 ibrallloCh loromethane 10U
v-CLP 10 U 10 U
V-ClP 10 U
E thy lbenzene 10 U 10 U
Y-ClP Methyl ethYl ket- 10 U
10 U 10 U
10 U
V-ClP Methylbenzene 10 U 10 U
10 U
V-ClP . Methylene chlor;de 3 J 32
10 U
v-CLP Styrene 10 U 10 U
10 U
V-ClP Tetrachloroethylene 10 U 10 U
10'U
V-CLP Trichloroethlyene . J 2 J
vinyl chloride 3 J
V-CLP 10 U 10 U
10 U
V-CloP Xylenes 10 U 10 U
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene 10 U
V-ClP 10 U 10 U
'11- ClP trans-1.3-Dichloropropene 10 U
10 U 10 U
10 U
-------
Table 0.7 (continued)
Analytical Results for Groundwater at Old Metals Landfill ('992-'9~3)
Installation: ADA(, Site: 13, Matrix: GW, Units: ug/l, Project: 15'
. Sorted by Analytical Method, Parallleter N- .
Report Date: 26-MAY-94
Location.Xref 13-2 "
Method Parllllleter Name J\6I-92 00
-...-..--....-.. ------------------------------ ------------ ----
P/A.-CLP alpha-Chlordane .05 U
P/A-CLP beU-8Ke .05 U
P/A.CLP delta-8KC .05 U
P/A-CLP gaamaa-BKC .05 U
P/A-CLP ganna-Chlordane .05 U
SV-CLP 1.2.'.Trichlorobenzene 23
SV.CLP 1,2-0icnloroben%ene 10 U
.SV-eLP 1.3-0ichlorobenZene 10 U
iV-eLP 1,'~OichlorobenZene 22
iv-eLP 2.Z-oxybis(1-Chloropropane) 10 U
SV-ClP 2.',5-TrichloroPhenol 25u
SV-ClP Z,',6-Trichlorophenol 10 U
SV-elP. 2.'-OichlorophenDl 10 U
SV-ClP 2.'-Oiaethylphenol 10 U
SV-eLP 2,'-Oinitrophenol 25U
SV-eLP Z,'-OinitrotOluene 35
sv-a:p 2,6-0initrotoluene 10 U
SV-ClP 2-Chlo~thal ene 10 U
SV-eLP 2-Ch 1 oropnenol 49
SV-eLP 2-Methylnaptthalene 10 U
SV-eLP Z-lIitroanil ine 25U
sv-ClP 2-Nitrophenol 10 U
SV-eLP 3,3-0ichlorobenzi4ine 10 U
SV-CLP 3-lIitroaniline ZSu
SV-ClP '.6-0initro-Z-aethylphenol ZSu
SV-CLP 4-8romophenyl-phenylether 10 U
SV-CLP .4-Chloro-3-aethylphenol . 58
SV-CLP 4-Chloroaniline 10 U
SV-eLP '-Chloropnenyl-phenylether 10 U
SV-CLP '-liitro8l'li 1 ine 25U
SV-ClP '-liitrophenol 59
SV-CLP Acenapl'lthene 34
SV-ClP Acenaptlthylene 10 U
SV-CLP Anthracene 10 U
SV-CLP BenzoCa)anthracene 10 U
SV-CLP 8enzo(a)pyrene 10 U
SV-eLP 8enzo(b)fluoranthene .10 U
SV-ClP Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 10 U
Time: 12:31:28
Aug-92 OQ
OVCI
Oct-92 OQ
ova
--- ------------ ----
--- .----------- ---- --.
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10U
10 U
. 10 U
10 U
ZSu
. ZS U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
25U
25U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 u
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
25U
ZSU
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
25U
25U
25U
25U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
25U
25U
25U
25U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
ova
Page: 5
Feb-93 00
ow
------------ ---- _e.
.
J'
-------
Table C-7 (continued)
Analytical Results for Groundwater at Old Metals Landfill (1992-1993)
Installation: ADA~, Site: 13, Matrix: ~, Units: ug/l, Project: 15'
Sorted by Analytical Method, Par_ter II~
)
Report Date: 26-MAY-9'
DW
.----------
Location Xrif 13-2
Method Par~ter Name
------------------------------
------------ ----
.-- ------------ ---- ---
------------ ---- ---
~..
Y- CLP
Y-CLP
Y-CLP
V-CLP
V-CLP
V-CLP
\I-ClP
V-CLP
V-ClP
V-C!.P'
\I-C!.P
V-C!.P
Y-CLP
V-C!.P
V-C!.P
V-CLP
V-C:'P
\I-C!.P
Y-CLP
Y-CLP
Y-C!.P
V- Cl.P
Y-Cl.P
V-Cl.P
V-C!.P
V-Cl.P
,.
Tillie: 12:31:28
Jun-92 DC
Aug-92 DD
DVO
Oct-92 DC
1,2-DiChloropropane
2-Hexanone
'-Methyl-2-pentanone
Acetone
Benzene '
Bramodichloromethane
BrCllllOform
BrOlllOlllethane
Carbon disulfide
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chloroethane
Ch lorcrfo1"lll
Chlonxnethane
DibrCllllOchloromethane
Ethylbenzene
Methyl ethyl ketone
Me'thy I benzene
Methylene chloride
Styrene' '
Tetrachloroethyiene
Trichioroethlyene
Vinyl cMoride
Xylenes
cis-1.3-Dichloropropene
trans-1.]-Oichioropropene
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
3S
10 U
10 U
10'U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
, J
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U .
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
, J
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 u
Page: 7
OVD
Feb-93 OC
D\
-------
Table C-7 (continued)
Analytical Resul~s for Groundwa~er at Otd Metals Landfill (1992-1993)
Ins~allation: ADAIC. Site: 13, Ma~rix: G\I. Uni~s: ug/t, Projec~: 151,
Sorted by Analytical Method, Par_ter Name
Report Date: 26-MAY-9i,
...........--....
location Xref 13-3
Method Parameter Naae
..-- ------------ ---- ---
SV-CLP
SV-CLP
SV-CLP
SV-CLP
SV-CLP
SV-CLP
SV-CLP
SV-CLP
SV-CLP
SV-ClP
SV-CLP
SV-CLP
SV-CLP
SV-CLP
SV-CLP
SV-CLP
.SV-CLP
SV-CLP
SV-CLP
.SV-CLP
$V-CLP
SV-a,p
SV-CLP
SV-a,p
SV-a,p
SV-a,p
SV-CLP
SV-a,p
SV-a,p
SV-CLP
SV-CLP
$V-CLP
$V-CLP
$V-CLP
$V-CLP
$V-CLP
SV-CLP
SV-C1.P
$V-C:U>
SV-CLP
$V-CLP
$V-CLP
$V-CLP
$V-C1.P
$V-C1.P
$V-C1.P
Y-CLP
Y-CLP
V-CLP
Y-CLP.
V-CLP
Y-CLP
Y-CLP
Y-CLP
Y-CLP
Y-CLP
Y-CLP
Y-CLP
Y-C1.P
Y-C1.P
V-C1.P
Y-C1.P
V-CLP
V- CLP
V-CLP
V-CLP
V-CLP
V-CLP
V-CLP
Y-CLP
. Tille: 12:31:28
.11.,-92 00
Aug-92 00
ovo
ovo
Oct-92 DO
------------------------------
------------ ----
--- ------------ ----
3-Nitroani t ine
',6-0in;~ro-2-me~hylphenol
'-Brcmophenyt-pnenylether
'-Chloro-3-methylphenol
.-Chloroaniline
'-Chlo~l-phenylether
4-Nitroani I ine
"lIi~ropftenol
Acenaphthene
ACenaphthylene
Anthracene .
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(g.h,i)perylene
8enzo(k)fluoranthene
8UtylbenZylphthalate
Car1luole.
CII rysefIe
Di-n-butylphthalate
Di-n-oc~lph~hal.~e
Dibenz(a.h)anthracene
Dibenzofuren
Di ethylphtha late
Di.ethylphthalate
Fluorantllene
F I UOren!
lIexacblorobenzene
llexadt lorotlutacti ene
IIeUcn loroc:yclapentacli ene
Hexacb loroethane
IndenoC1.Z.3-cd)pyrene
I saphorone
N-lli trosodinpropyl88ine
N-llitrosodiphenyl..ine
lI8Plthatene
II i ~f"Ob81Zene
Pent8c:tl1 oroplleno t
PheNnthrene
Ph_l
Pyrene
bisC2-CIIloroethoxy)methane
bis(Z-CIIloroethyl)etber
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate
o-cresol
p-cresol
1,1.1-Trichloroethane
1.1.2.2-Tetrachloroethane
1.1.2-Trichloroetftane
1.1-Cichloroethane
1,1-0ichloroethene
1.2-Dichloroethane
1,2-Cichloroethene
1.2-Dichlo~
2-ttuanone
4-Methyl-2-pen~anone
ACftone
Benzene
BrG80di ch loromethane
8r_fona
B rOlllCllletftane
Carbcn disul fide
Carbcn ~etrachloride
Ch lorobenzene
CIIloroe~hane
CM orofo,...
CIIloramethane
o ibr'CIIIOdI lorCllletftane
Ethylbenzene
Methyl ethyl ketone
ZSu
ZSu
10 U
10 U
10 u
10 U
zsu
ZSu
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 u
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 u
10 U
10 U
10 "
10 U
10 U
10.U
.10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U .
zsu
10 u
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
. 10 U
2...
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10U
10 U
10 U
."
ova
Page:. 9
.(
F~b-93 00
ow
------------ -_a.
...
j
-------
}
Table C-7 (continUed)
Analytical Results for Grour.dL~t~r at Old Metals landfill (1992-1993)
Installation: ADAK, Site: 13. Matrix: GW, units: ug/l. Project: 15'
Sorted by Analytical Method, Parameter Name
Recort Date: 2b-MAT-9'
Location Xref 13-'
Metnod Parameter Name
....................--
~
'18.1
IN-ClP
IN-ClP
IN-ClP
IN-ClP
IN-ClP
IN-ClP
IN-ClP
IN-ClP
IN-Cl'P
IN-ClP
IN-ClP
, IN-ClP
IN-ClP
IN'ClP
IN-ClP
IN-CLP
IN-eLP
IN-ClP
IN-CLP
IN-CLP
IN-CLP
IN-CLP
IN-ClP
P/A'ClP
P/A~CLP
P/A-CLP
P/A-CLP
P/A-CLP
P/A-ClP
, P/A-CLP
~l"'.:::";>
P/A-ClP
P/A'C"..P
P/A-CLP
PiA-ClP
P/A-ClP
P/A-ClP'
P/A-CLP
P/A-ClP
P/A-ClP
P/A-CLP
P/A-CLP
P/A-ClP
P/A-ClP
P/A-CLP
P/A-ClP
P/A-ClP
, P/A-CLP
P/A-CLP
P/A-CLP
P/A-ClP
SV-CLP
SY-ClP
SV-CLP
SV-CLP
SV-ClP
SV-ClP
SY-ClP
SY-ClP
SY-ClP
SY-ClP
SV-ClP
SY-Cli'
SY-CLP
SY-CLP
SY-CLP,
SV-CLP
SY-ClP
SV-ClP
~
,
Tillie: 12:31:28
----..--...........-------...---------.
Total Pet~oleum Hydrocarbons
Aluninun
Ant imony
Arsenic
, Bad l.1li
Berylliun
Cacaiun
Calciun
ChromiUli
Cabal t '
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnes i un
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassiun
SeleniUli
Sit ver
SocIi ua
Thall iua
Vanadiua
, Zinc
10.4-000
4.4-00E
1o.4-00T
Aldrin
Aroc:Lor 1016
Aroclor 1221
Areelor 1232
Aroclor ;242
ArecLor 1248
"roc lor 1254
"roclor 1260
Dieldrin
Endosut fan I
EndoSul fan II
EndoSutfan sulfate
Endrin
Endrin aldehyde
Endrin Itet-
Heptadllor
Heptachlor epoxide
Methoxydllor
Toxaphene
alpha-8ltC
a lpha-ChLorc!ane
beta-BNC
delta-B"C
~-B"C '
gaau-QI lordane
1.2.4-Trichlorobenzene
1.2-0ichlorobenzene
1.3-0ichloroben1ene
1,4-0ichlorobenzene
2.2-oxybisC1-Chloropropane)
2.4.5-TrichlOrophenol
Z.4.6-Trichlorophenol
2.4-0ichlorophenol
,2.4~Oilllethylphenol
2.4-0initrophencl
2.4-0i~:~r~toluene
2.6-0initrotoluene
2-Chloronaphthalene
2-Chlorop,enol '
2-Methylnaphtnalene
2-"1 troanil ine
2-Nitrophenol
3.3-0ichlorobenzidine
J\6'I-92 De
Page: l'
OW Aug-92 DO Dve Oct-92 DO OVO Feb-93 DO C
... ------------ .... -- -..- .........----........ ...-..- -.. ----------...- --..... .
6660 . 655 . 5810 .
l' UN 16 UN 31 UN
3_' B 2uu 2.1 B
25 _5 B 7 U 2'_5 B
1 U 1 U 1 U
2 u 2 U 2 u
16500 12300 23700
3_6 8 , u 6.' S
6 u , u 5 u
38.5 5.' SW 36.1
5830 " 5810 W 5230 .
12_7 S 5.6 ~ 9.8 NW
17200 13500 22000
11l.O W 128 W 780 N
-2,u -2 u- -2 u
8 u 15 U 27 u
14600 12300 15500
2 U 2 u 1UN
3 UN 2 U 4UN
278000 E 236000 238000
2 UWN 3 UWH 2 UWN
18~ 1 B 6U 18.1 B
93.5 17.6 BW 76.1
~----------- ----
500 u
1'500
1l.1.PI
581i
62.8 S
1 U
3_1 S
'51000
,16- 1 .
9_8 S
113
13900
27_9
52300
2960
_28
8_5 B'
2S6OO
loW
7.8 S
'56000
3U1A1
100_8 8
215
_1 U
.1 U
_1 U
.05 U
1,U
2.U
1 U
1 U
1 U
1 U
1 U
_1 U
.05 U
_1 U
- 1 U
_1 U
.1 U
_1 U
_OS U
.05 U
.5 U
1 U
_05 U
.00.U
" _OS U
-OS U
_OS U
.05 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
25U
10 U
10 U
10 U
25u
10 U
10 U
, 10 U
10 U
10 U
25u
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
25u
10 U
10 U
10 U
25u
10 U
10 U
10 u
10 u
10 u
25u
10 U
-------
Table C-7 (continued)
Analytical Resul~s for Groundwa~er at Old Metals Landfill (1992-1993)
Installation: ADAt, Site: 13, ".~rix: GW, units: US/I, Project: 15'
Sorted by Analytical Method, Par_ter liame
Report Date: 26-MAT-91.
.......---......
Location Xref 13-1.
Method Parameter Name
.-. --.-..-----. ---.
Y-CLP
V-ClP
V-CLP
Y-CLP
V-CLP
Y-CLP
V-CLP
Y-CLP
V-CL~
i'
JIn-92 OQ
Aug-92 OQ
Oct-92 DQ
ow
DW
------------------------------
------------ ---- ---
------------ ----
Methyl benzene .
Methylene chloride
Styrene
Tetrachloroethylene
Trichloroethlyene
Vinyl chloride
Xylenes
cis-1,3-0ichloroprcpene
trans-1,3-0ichlo~opene
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 u
10 U
10 u
10 U
Ti-: 12:3.1:28
OW.
Page: 13
~
Feb-93 OQ
ow
--- ------------ .--. ---
,.
.,
-------
.
Table C-7 (continued)
Analytical iesults for Groundwater at Old Metals Landfill (1992-1993>
Insullation: ADAI::, Site: 13, Matrix: GW, units: 119/1, Project: 15l.
Sorted by Analytical Method, Par8llleter Name .
Report Date: 26-~Y-9l.
Locat;on Xref 13-5
Method Parameter Name
J",-92 DO
Aug-92 DO
ova
Oct-92 00
OVO
"\
....------. ------------------------------
------------ ----
--- ------------ .---
--- ------------ ---- ---
r
SY-CLP
SV-CLP
SY-CLP
SY-CLP
SY-CLP
SY-ClP
SY-Clp
SV-Cli>
SV-CLP
SV-CIoP
SV-CLP
SV-C;LP
SV-ClP
SV-CLP
SV-CLP
SY-CLP
SV-CLP
SV-CLP
SV-ClP
SV-ClP
SV-CLP
SV-ClP
SV-ClP
SV-ClP
SV-ClP
SV-CLP
SV:"ClP
SV-ClP
SV-ClP .
SV-ClP
SV-ClP
SV-ClP
SV-CLP
SV-ClP
SV-ClP
SV-ClP
SV-ClP
SV-ClP
SV-ClP
SV-CLP
SV-ClP
SV-CLP
SV-ClP
SV-CLP
SV-ClP
SV-CLP
Y-ClP
Y-ClP
Y:"CLP
Y-CLP .
Y-CLP
Y-ClP
Y-ClP
V-CLP
Y-ClP
Y-ClP
V-ClP
. Y-CLP
V-ClP
V-Clp.
V-ClP
V-ClP
Y-CLP
Y-CLP
V-ClP
Y-CLP
Y-CLP
Y-ClP
Y-ClP
Y-ClP
..
3-Nitroaniline
",6-0initro-2-methylphenol
'-Bromophenyl-phenylether
'-Chloro-3-methylphenel
'-Chloroaniline
'-Chlorophenyl-phenylether
'-Nitroaniline
'-Nitrophenol
Ac:enapII thene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene.
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fl.uoranthene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
8enzo(k)fluoranthene
Butylbenzyl phtha late
CarbaZole
Chrysene
Oi-n-butylphtnalate
Oi-n-octylphtnaI8te
OibenzC8,h)anthracene
o i benzof\lran
Oiethylphthal8te
o i8ethylphtha late
Fluoranthene
F luarene
IIexac:ft lorobenZene
lluadllo~adiene
lluadllorocycl opentacli ene
lluadlloroethane
IndenoC1.2.3-cd)pyrenf:
lsopho~
N-Mitrosod;npropyla=ine
N-Mitrosodiphenylamine
I18p1\tha I ene
M i trabenzene
Pentadllor~l
Phen8nthrene
Phenol
Pyrene .
bisCZ-Chloroethaxy)8ethane
bisCZ-Chloroethyl)ether
bisCZ-Ethylhuyl)pllthalate .
o-cresol
p-cresol
1. 1. 1-Trichloroethane
1.1.2.Z-Tetracl\loroethane
1.1.2-Tridhloroethane
1.1-0idhloroethane
1,1-0idhloroethene
1.2-Didhloroethane
1.Z-Didhloroethene
1.2-Dichloropropane
2-lIexanone
'-MethYl-2-pentanone
Acetone .
Benzene
Bromodichloramethane
Br_fonll
Br_thane
Carbon disulfide
Carbon tetrachloride
Ch I orobenzene
Chloroethane
Chlorofol"lll
thlor_thane
Di~lorameth-
Ethyl benzene
Methyl ethyl ketone
25U
25U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
25U
25U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
'tOU
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 11
10 U
10 U
2Su
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
.10 U
. 10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
Tille: 12:31 :28
Dva
Page:
Feb-93 00
------------ ----
------- |