PB97-964609
EPA/541/R-97/061
November 1997
EPA Superfund
Record of Decision:
Fort Wainwright, Operable Unit 2,
Fairbanks North Star Borough, AK
3/31/1997
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
for
OPERABLE UNIT 2
FORT WAINWRIGHT
FAIRBANKS, ALASKA
January 1997
-------
DECLARATION STATEMENT
for
RECORD OF DECISION
FORT WAINWRIGHT
FAIRBANKS, ALASKA
OPERABLE UNIT 2
JANUARY 1997
SOURCE AREA NAME AND LOCATION
Operable Unit 2
Fort Wainwright
Fairbanks, Alaska
STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE
This Record of Decision (ROD) presents the selected remedial actions for Operable Unit 2
(OU-2) at Fort Wainwright in Fairbanks, Alaska. OU-2 originally consisted of eight source
areas: the Defense Reutilization and Marketing Office (DRMO) Yard, the Building 1168
Leach Well, the North Post Site, the 801 Drum Burial Site, the Engineers Park Drum Site,
the Drum Site South of the Landfill, Building 3477, and the Tar Sites. This ROD was
developed in accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act of 1980 as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
of 1986 and 42 United States Code 9601 et seq., and, to the extent practicable, the National
Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan and 40 Code of Federal
Regulations 300 et seq. This decision is based on the Administrative Record for this OU.
The United States Army, the United States Environmental Protection Agency, and the State of
Alaska, through the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, have agreed to the
selected remedies.
ASSESSMENT OF THE SITE
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from the DRMO Yard and Building
1168 Leach Well source areas, if not addressed by implementing the response actions selected
in this ROD, may present a substantial endangerment to public health, welfare, or the
environment. Specific hazardous substances in the soil and groundwater at the DRMO Yard
and Building 1168 Leach Well include benzene, tetrachloroethene, trichloroethene, and
petroleum by-products.
DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED REMEDIES
This is the third OU to reach a final-action ROD at this National Priorities List site. This
ROD addresses soil and groundwater contamination at OU-2.
The 801 Drum Burial Site, Engineers Park Drum Site, and Drum Site South of the Landfill
were assigned to the Fort Wainwright OU-1 investigation and will be addressed through the
ii
-------
OU-1 decision process. No further action is selected for Building 3477 and the Tar Sites.
The contaminated soils at the North Post Site were addressed adequately through an Army
removal action; it is anticipated that this will constitute final action for the North Post Site.
Therefore, no analysis of remedial alternatives was conducted for these source areas. The
documents recommending these actions are included in Appendix A.
The remedial action objectives for the DRMO Yard and Building 1168 Leach Well are
designed to:
• Restore ground water to drinking water quality;
• Prevent further leaching of contaminants into groundwater;
• Reduce or prevent further off-site migration of contaminated
groundwater; and
• Prevent use of groundwater above federal Safe Drinking Water
Act and State of Alaska Drinking Water Standards (18 Alaska
Administrative Code 80) maximum contaminant levels
(MCLs).
The major components of the remedies at both source areas are:
• In situ soil vapor extraction and air sparging of the
groundwater to reduce volatile organic compounds to a level
that meets state and federal MCLs;
• Institutional controls that would include restrictions on ground-
water well installations, site access restrictions, and
maintenance of fencing at the DRMO Yard until state and
federal MCLs are met;
• Additional institutional controls, including a limitation on
refilling the DRMO Yard fire suppression water tank from the
existing potable water supply well, until state and federal
MCLs are met (except in emergency situations); and
• Natural attenuation to attain Alaska Water Quality Standards
after reaching state and federal MCLs.
STATUTORY DETERMINATION
The selected remedial actions are protective of human health and the environment, comply
with federal and state requirements that are legally applicable or relevant and appropriate to
the remedial actions, and are cost-effective.
The remedies utilize permanent solutions and alternative treatment technologies to the
maximum extent practicable and satisfy the statutory preference for remedies that employ
iii
-------
treatment that reduces toxicity, mobility, or volume (of contaminated media) as a principal
element.
Because these remedies will result in hazardous substances at concentrations remaining above
regulatory levels at these source areas, a policy review will be conducted within five years
after commencement of the remedial action to ensure that the remedies continue to provide
adequate protection of human health and the environment.
IV
-------
SIGNATURES
Signature sheet for the foregoing Operable Unit 2, Fort Wainwright, Record of Decision
between the Uoited States Army and United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region
10, with concurrence by the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation.
WILL1A
Lieuten
Comman
Date
-------
SIGNATURES.
Signature sheet for the foregoing Operable Unit 2, Fort Wainwright, Record of Decision
between the United States Army and United States Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 10, with concurrence by the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation.
Chuck Clarke Date
Regional Administrator, Region 10
United States Environmental Protection Agency
VI
-------
SIGNATURES -
Signature sheet for the foregoing Operable Unit 2, Fort Wainwright, Record of Decision
between the United States Army and United States Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 10, with concurrence by the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation.
rKurtFr£driksson Date
Director, Spill Prevention and Response
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation
VII
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
DECLARATION STATEMENT ii
DECISION SUMMARY 1
1.0 SITE DESCRIPTION 2
1.1 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION 2
1.1.1 801 Drum Burial Site 2
1.1.2 Engineers Park Drum Site 3
1.1.3 Drum Site South of the Landfill 3
1.1.4 Building 3477 3
1.1.5 Tar Sites 3
1.1.6 Defense Reutilization and Marketing Office Yard 4
1.1.7 Building 1168 Leach Well 4
1.1.8 North Post Site 4
1.2 SOILS AND GEOLOGY 5
1.3 HYDROGEOLOGY AND GROUNDWATER USE 5
1.4 LAND USE 7
2.0 SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES 13
2.1 SITE HISTORY 13
2.1.1 Defense Reutilization and Marketing Office Yard 13
2.1.2 Building 1168 Leach Well 13
2.2 ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES 14
2.3 HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION 14
2.4 SCOPE AND ROLE OF OPERABLE UNIT OR
RESPONSE ACTION 15
3.0 SUMMARY OF SOURCE AREA CHARACTERISTICS 16
3.1 DEFENSE REUTILIZATION AND MARKETING OFFICE YARD . . 16
3.1.1 Physical Features, Hydrogeologic Conditions,
and Transport Pathways 16
3.1.2 Nature and Extent of Contamination 17
3.1.3 Defense Reutilization and Marketing Office Yard Summary ... 19
3.2 BUILDING 1168 LEACH WELL 20
3.2.1 Physical Features, Hydrogeologic Conditions,
and Transport Pathways 20
3.2.2 Nature and Extent of Contamination 21
VIII
-------
4.0 SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS 54
4.1 IDENTIFICATION OF CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN 54
4.2 EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT 55
4.2.1 Identification of Site Uses, Exposed Populations,
and Exposure Pathways 55
4.2.1.1 Source Area Land Use Scenarios 55
4.2.1.2 Exposure Pathways and Assumptions 55
4.2.1.3 Calculation of Exposure 56
4.3 TOXICITY ASSESSMENT 57
4.4 RISK CHARACTERIZATION 57
4.4.1 Defense ReutUization and Marketing Office Yard 58
4.4.2 Building 1168 Leach Well 59
4.5 MAJOR UNCERTAINTIES 59
4.6 ECOLOGICAL RISKS 60
4.6.1 Problem Formulation 60
4.6.2 Analysis 62
4.6.3 Risk Characterization 62
4.6.3.1 Risk Estimation 62
4.6.3.2 Risk Description 62
5.0 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES 78
5.1 NEED FOR REMEDIAL ACTION 78
5.1.1 Defense ReutUization and Marketing Office Yard 78
5.1.2 Building 1168 Leach Well 78
5.2 REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES 79
5.3 SIGNIFICANT APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT
AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS 80
5.4 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES 80
5.4.1 Defense ReutUization and Marketing Office Yard 80
5.4.1.1 Alternative 1: No Action 80
5.4.1.2 Alternative 2: Institutional Controls and
Natural Attenuation with Groundwater
Monitoring/Evaluation 80
5.4.1.3 Alternatives: Soil Vapor Extraction,
Groundwater Air Sparging, Natural Attenuation,
and Groundwater Monitoring/Evaluation 82
5.4.1.4 Alternative 4: Alternative 3 Plus Excavation
of Surface Soils Containing Benzo(a)pyrene and
Disposal at the Fort Wainwright Landfill 83
5.4.1.5 Alternatives: Alternative 3 Plus Excavation
and On-Site Solidification of
Benzo(a)pyrene-Contaminated Soils 83
5.4.2 Building 1168 Leach Well 84
5.4.2.1 Alternative 1: No Action 84
5.4.2.2 Alternative 2: Institutional Controls and
Natural Attenuation 84
5.4.2.3 Alternative 3: Soil Vapor Extraction,
Groundwater Air Sparging, and Monitoring 85
ix
-------
5.4.2.4 Alternative 4: Alternative 3 Plus Excavation
and Low-Temperature Thermal Desorption of
Contaminated Unsaturated Soil 86
5.4.2.5 Alternative 5: Alternative 3 Plus Excavation
and Engineered Pile Treatment (Biopile and Vapor
Extraction Pile) of Contaminated Unsaturated Soil ... 87
6.0 SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES 92
6.1 DEFENSE REUTILIZAT1ON AND MARKETING OFFICE
YARD SOURCE AREA (COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF
ALTERNATIVES) ; 92
6.1.1 Threshold Criteria 92
6.1.1.1 Overall Protection of Human Health
and the Environment 92
6.1.1.2 Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and
Appropriate Requirements 92
6.1.2 Main Balancing Criteria 92
6.1.2.1 Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence 92
6.1.2.2 Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, and Volume
Through Treatment 92
6.1.2.3 Short-Term Effectiveness 93
6.1.2.4 Implementability 93
6.1.2.5 Cost 93
6.1.3 Modifying Criteria 93
6.1.3.1 State Acceptance 93
6.1.3.2 Community Acceptance 94
6.2 BUILDING 1168 LEACH WELL (COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS
OF ALTERNATIVES) 94
6.2.1 Threshold Criteria 94
6.2.1.1 Overall Protection of Human Health
and the Environment 94
6.2.1.2 Compliance with Applicable or Relevant
and Appropriate Requirements 94
6.2.2 Balancing Criteria 94
6.2.2.1 Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence 94
6.2.2.2 Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, and
Volume Through Treatment 94
6.2.2.3 Short-Term Effectiveness 95
6.2.2.4 Implementability 95
6.2.2.5 Cost 95
6.2.3 Modifying Criteria 95
6.2.3.1 State Acceptance 95
6.2.3.2 Community Acceptance 95
-------
7.0 SELECTED REMEDIES 98
7.1 DEFENSE REUTILIZATION AND MARKETING OFFICE YARD . . 98
7.1.1 Major Components of the Selected Remedy 98
7.1.2 Goals of Remedial Action 99
7.1.2.1 Defense Realization and Marketing Office
Yard Groundwater and Soil 99
7.2 BUILDING 1168 LEACH WELL 100
7.2.1 Major Components of the Selected Remedy 100
7.2.2 Goals of Remedial Action 101
7.2.3 Building 1168 Leach Well Groundwater and Soil 101
3.0 STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS 108
8.1 PROTECTION OF HUMAN HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT .108
8.1.1 Defense Reutilization and Marketing Office Yard 108
8.1.2 Building 1168 Leach Well 108
8.2 COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND
APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS AND TO-BE-CONSIDERED
GUIDANCE 108
8.2.1 Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Description 108
8.2.2 Chemical-Specific Applicable or Relevant and
Appropriate Requirements 109
8.2.3 Location-Specific Applicable or Relevant and
Appropriate Requirements 110
8.2.4 Action-Specific Applicable or Relevant and
Appropriate Requirements 110
8.2.5 Information To-Be-Considered 110
8.3 COST EFFECTIVENESS Ill
8.4 UTILIZATION OF PERMANENT SOLUTIONS AND
ALTERNATIVE TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES OR
RESOURCE RECOVERY TECHNOLOGIES TO THE MAXIMUM
EXTENT PRACTICABLE Ill
8.5 PREFERENCE FOR TREATMENT AS A MAIN ELEMENT Ill
9.0 DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES 112
Appendix
A FORT WAINWRIGHT COMPREHENSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL
RESPONSE, COMPENSATION, AND LIABILITY ACT
FEDERAL FACILITY AGREEMENT RECOMMENDED
ACTION DOCUMENTS 113
B ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX 133
C RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY 139
D FORT WAINWRIGHT OPERABLE UNIT 2 SOURCE AREA BASELINE
COST ESTIMATES FOR REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES 143
xi
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
3-1 Summary of Surface and Subsurface Soil Sample Results,
DRMO Yard Source Area 23
3-2 Summary of Sediment Sample Results, DRMO Yard Source Area 29
3-3 Summary of Groundwater Monitoring Well Sample Results,
DRMO Yard Source Area 31
3-4 Summary of Groundwater Probe Sample Results, DRMO Yard Source Area ... 35
3-5 Summary of Surface Water Sample Results Collected From Channel B,
DRMO Yard Source Area 39
3-6 Summary of Soil Sample Results, Building 1168 Leach Well Source Area 41
3-7 Summary of Groundwater Sample Results, Building 1168 Leach Well
Source Area 43
3-8 Summary of Microwell Sample Results, Building 1168 Leach Well
Source Area 46
4-1 Contaminants of Concern in Soil and Groundwater from the
Human Health Risk Assessment 65
4-2 Potential Exposure Routes, DRMO Yard Source Area 67
4-3 Potential Exposure Routes, Building 1168 Leach Well Source Area 68
4-4 Exposure Point Concentration and Statistical Summary,
Chemical of Potential Concern, Surface Soil at the DRMO Yard 69
XII
-------
List of Tabks (Cont.)
Table Page
4-5 Exposure Point Concentration and Statistical Summary,
Chemical of Potential Concern, Surface Soil at the DRMO Yard 70
4-6 Exposure Point and Statistical Summary of Chemicals
of Potential Concern for Groundwater at the DRMO Yard 71
4-7 Exposure Point Concentration and Statistical Summary of
Contaminants of Potential Concern for Groundwater at
Building 1168 Leach Well 74
4-8 Summary of Incremental Carcinogenic Risks and
Noncarcinogenic Hazard Indices for Potentially Exposed
Populations at the DRMO Yard 75
4-9 Summary of Incremental Carcinogenic Risks and
Noncarcinogenic Hazard Indices for Potentially Exposed
Populations at Building 1168 Leach Well Source Area 77
5-1 Selection of Chemicals of Concern for Remedial Evaluation
in the Feasibility Study for DRMO Yard 88
5-2 Selection of Chemicals of Concern to the Feasibility Study for
Building 1168 Leach Well Source Area 90
6-1 Present Worth Costs for Remedial Alternatives, DRMO Yard Source Area .... 96
6-2 Present Worth Costs for Remedial Alternatives,
Building 1168 Leach Well Source Area 97
7-1 DRMO Yard Remedial Action Objectives and Remediation Goals 103
7-2 Chemical-Specific Cleanup Goals for Soil, DRMO Yard Source Area 104
7-3 Building 1168 Leach Well Source Area Remedial Action Objectives
and Remediation Goals 105
7-4 Chemical-Specific Cleanup Goals for Soil, Building 1168
Leach Well Source Area 107
XIII
-------
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
Figurg Page
1-1 Source Area Location Map 8
1-2 DRMO Yard Source Area Location Map 9
1-3 Building 1168 Leach Well Source Area Location Map 10
1-4 North Post Site Source Area Location Map 11
1-5 Water Supply Well 12
3-1 DRMO Yard Source Area, Contaminants of Concern in Surface Soil 50
3-2 DRMO Yard Source Area, Contaminants of Concern in Groundwater 51
3-3 Building 1168 Leach Well Source Area, Contaminants of Concern
in Subsurface Soil 52
3-4 Building 1168 Leach Well Source Area, Contaminants of Concern
in Groundwater 53
5-1 Aerial Extern of Proposed Active Treatment, Alternative 3,
DRMO Yard Source Area 91
xtv
-------
DECISION SUMMARY
RECORD OF DECISION
for
OPERABLE UNIT 2
FORT WAINWRIGHT
FAIRBANKS, ALASKA
JANUARY 1997
This decision summary provides an overview of the problems posed by the contaminants at
Fort Wainwright, Operable Unit 2 (OU-2), source areas. This summary describes the
physical features of the site, the contaminants present, and the associated risks to human
health and the environment. The summary also describes the remedial alternatives
considered; provides the rationale for the remedial actions selected; and states how the
remedial actions satisfy the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) statutory requirements.
The United States Army (Army) completed a Remedial Investigation (RI) to provide
information regarding the nature and extent of contamination in the soils and groundwater. /
Baseline Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment was developed and used in
conjunction with the RI to determine the need for remedial action and to aid in the selection
of remedies. A Feasibility Study (FS) was completed to evaluate remedial options.
-------
1.0 SITE DESCRIPTION
1.1 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
Fort Wainwright, also referred to as the site, occupies 915,000 acres on the east side of
Fairbanks, Alaska. Fort Wainwright originally was established in 1938 as a cold weather
testing station. During World War II, it served as a crew transfer point in the United States-
Soviet Union Lend-Lease Program. After the war, it became a resupply and maintenance
base for remote experimental stations in the Arctic Ocean and remote Distant Early Warning
sites throughout Alaska. In 1961, Fort Wainwright was transferred to the Army.
Current primary missions at Fort Wainwright include training of infantry soldiers in the arctic
environment, testing of equipment in arctic conditions, preparation of troops for defense of
the Pacific Rim, and rapid deployment of troops worldwide. On-site industrial activities
include use and maintenance of fixed-wing aircraft, helicopters, vehicles, and support
activities. Fort Wainwright includes the main post area, two range complexes, and two
maneuver areas.
OU-2 originally consisted of the following eight source areas: the North Post Site, the 801
Drum Burial Site, the Engineers Park Drum Site, the Drum Site South of the Landfill,
Building 3477, four Tar Sites, the Defense Reutilization and Marketing Office (DRMO) Yard,
and the Building 1168 Leach Well. All OU-2 source areas have undergone Preliminary
Source Evaluations, which include historical record reviews and, if necessary, limited field
investigations. These investigations determined whether a source area should be referred to
another federal or state program or another OU, recommended for no further action (NFA),
or included in the CERCLA remedial investigation. Petroleum contamination can be
addressed in the Two-Party Agreement between the State of Alaska and the Army.
The Chena River flows through Fort Wainwright and the City of Fairbanks, into the Tanana
River. Figure 1-1 illustrates the entire installation and each source area's location. All
source areas are in a 500-year floodplain. except for the North Post and Engineers Park Drum
Sites, which are in the 100-year floodplain. No threatened or endangered species reside in the
area. Small ponds and wetlands are adjacent to the DRMO Yard. No known historic sites
are associated with the source areas.
1.1.1 801 Drum Burial Site
The 801 Drum Burial Site is in an undeveloped depression between River Road and the Chena
River, approximately 0.13 mile east of the 801 military housing area. This source area is
shown in Figure 1-1.
This source area was assigned to the Fort Wainwright OU-1 investigation and will be
addressed through the OU-1 decision process. The decision document recommending this
action is included in Appendix A. Therefore, the 801 Drum Burial Site source area will not
be discussed further in this Record of Decision (ROD).
-------
1.1.2 Engineers Park Drum Site
The source area location is shown in Figure 1-1. The Engineers Park Drum Site is located on
the northeast side of Engineers Park, on the south bank of the Chena River. Drum disposal
reportedly began at this source area after the 1967 Chena River flood.
This source area was assigned to the Fort Wainwright OU-1 investigation and will be
addressed through the OU-1 decision process. The decision document recommending this
action is included in Appendix A. Therefore, the Engineers Park Drum Site source area will
not be discussed further in this ROD.
1.13 Drum Site South of the Landfill
The Drum Site South of the Landfill is located 2,000 feet south of the Fort Wainwright
Landfill, as shown in Figure 1-1. Historical information and records regarding drum disposal
at this source area are not available. This site was identified as a potential source in the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Facility Assessment conducted in 1988.
This source area was assigned to the Fort Wainwright OU-1 investigation and will be
addressed through the OU-1 decision process. The decision document recommending this
action is included in Appendix A. Therefore, the Drum Site South of the Landfill will not be
discussed further in this ROD.
1.1.4 Building 3477
Building 3477 is located on Chippewa Avenue, approximately 0.25 mile northeast of the
South Gate Road Gate House (see Figure 1-1). Building 3477 was constructed as a vehicle
maintenance facility in 1955 and is being used for vehicle and equipment maintenance.
Batteries were serviced and stored at the site for an unknown period of time. In 1990, the
Army discontinued this practice and contracted for cleaning the battery service area. Storage
of old batteries continued along the east side of the building until they were disposed of.
Site investigations that included sampling and analysis of soil and groundwater in 1992
indicated that the source area was no longer being used for battery storage. Concentrations of
suspected contaminants were below the United States Environmental Protection Agency's
(EPA's) Region 3 risk-based screening levels based on residential land use. EPA, Region 10,
Supplemental Risk Assessment Guidance recommends use of EPA, Region 3, risk-based
screening criteria.
NFA is recommended for Building 3477 under CERCLA. This recommendation is recorded
in the decision document included in Appendix A. The Building 3477 source area will not be
discussed further in this ROD.
1.1.5 Tar Sites
The Tar Sites are in four locations: west of the South Post soccer field, on Southgate Road
on the former South Post parade field; at Glass Park next to Building 4040; northwest of the
Post Golf Course on the north bank of the Chena River; and west of the Post Power Plant
-------
cooling pond next to the railroad (see Figure 1-1). These locations generally are covered by
soil and vegetation. -
The Tar Sites reportedly were used as tar disposal areas. An investigation conducted in June
and July 1992 indicated that the analyzed tar samples have no potential to leach to
groundwater. These results indicate that the Tar Sites should be addressed as a solid waste or
through recycling/reuse. NFA is recommended for the Tar Sites under CERCLA. This
recommendation is recorded in the decision document included in Appendix A. The Tar Sites
source area will not be discussed further in this ROD.
1.1.6 Defense Reutilization and Marketing Office Yard
A detailed map of the DRMO Yard source area is depicted in Figure 1-2. The DRMO Yard
is located along Badger Road, northwest of Badger Road and the Richardson Highway. The
DRMO Yard source area is a fenced compound covering approximately 25 acres and
containing seven buildings. The DRMO Yard contains numerous aisles of surplus appliances,
tires, transformers, and wire. In addition, it serves as the hazardous material transfer point
for Fort Wainwright, Fort Greely, and Eielson Air Force Base. The yard's function is to
store obsolete, surplus, unserviceable equipment and supplies for transfer to another
authorized user, for public auctions, or for destruction and disposal. Historical records of
DRMO Yard activities were not maintained routinely. The DRMO Yard operates as a storage
facility in accordance with the Fort Wainwright RCRA Part B Permit.
Approximately 200 feet east of the DRMO Yard source area is the Arctic Surplus site, a
privately owned facility and a CERCLA National Priorities List (NPL) site. Many items
formerly stored at the DRMO Yard were sold to Arctic Surplus.
1.1.7 Building 1168 Leach Well
A detailed map of the Building 1168 Leach Well source area is depicted in Figure 1-3.
Building 1168 is located on the north side of Trainor Gate Road, adjacent to the Trainor Gate
entrance and within approximately 200 feet of the Post boundary to Fort Wainwright. The
Building 1168 Leach Well source area is surrounded by fenced storage yards on the north and
east and by unrestricted parking lots on the south and west. Building 1168 is a single-story,
65-foot by 95-foot, lube oil and vehicle storage facility, equipped with a 2,000-gallon heating
oil tank and a septic system for sanitary waste. A 10,000-gallon aboveground storage tank
(AST) was located inside the southeast corner of the building. In 1958, the tank was removed
and the area was converted to a petroleum, oil, and lubricant (POL) laboratory. Five floor
drains were located in the west half of the building and were used to drain into an oil/water
separator that emptied into a 250-gallon underground storage tank (UST) and a leach well.
During summer 1995, the floor drains were filled and the UST and leach well were removed
completely from service.
1.1.8 North Post Site
A detailed map of the North Post Site is depicted in Figure 1-4. The North Post Site covers
approximately 45 acres and is located northwest of and adjacent to two military housing areas,
on an oxbow of the Chena River.
-------
In 1947, the Arctic AeromedicaJ Laboratory (AAL) began operating on the northwest portion
of the source area. The laboratory conducted cold adaptation and acclimatization experiments
for 20 years. In 1967, the facility was closed. In addition to AAL, several temporary
buildings and a radio transmitter were located in the vicinity. The transmitter was most likely
a base radio station. Historical photographs show that a slough of the Chena River separated
the North Post Site source area from the main Post. This slough apparently was filled with
construction debris during the 1940s and early 1950s.
The North Post Site was discovered during a 1985 geotechnical investigation for construction
of a proposed housing development. The drilling crew noticed strong odors in soil borings on
the west side of the oxbow area. Additional soil borings and wells were drilled, and
petroleum and solvents were identified in the west portion of the oxbow. Additional sampling
and evaluation occurred in 1986 and 1987 to investigate and delineate areas of potential
contamination. An endangerment assessment was conducted to evaluate whether hazardous
wastes were present and whether they presented a threat to human health.
While most of the site was found to be free of contamination, fuels, solvents, pesticides, and
metals were identified in discrete locations within this source area. Additional samples were
collected at these sites to further characterize contamination and to evaluate levels for the
Baseline Risk Assessment.
Petroleum-contaminated soil was removed and treated by the Army in 1993. In situ
groundwater treatment continues at one of the source areas under the jurisdiction of the Two-
Party Agreement between the State of Alaska and the Army. During summer 1996, the Army
conducted an additional removal action that included excavation, treatment, and proper
disposal of soils containing fuel-related products. This is anticipated to be the final action for
this source area. The final report on this removal action may be found in Appendix A.
Therefore, the North Post Site will not be discussed further in this ROD.
1.2 SOILS AND GEOLOGY
Fort Wainwright is underlain by soil and unconsolidated sediment that consist of silt, sand,
and gravel and range in thickness from 10 feet to more than 400 feet before encountering
bedrock. A 5-foot-thick surficial soil layer of fine-grained soil overlies the deeper alluvial
deposits. The surficial soil consists of varying proportions of sand and gravel, which
generally are layered. At the base of Birch Hill and in areas adjacent to the Chena River, soil
types are coarse-grained and have high percentages of sand and gravel. Within the shallow
alluvial aquifer, predominant groundwater flow beneath Fort Wainwright is toward the Chena
River.
1J HYDROGEOLOGY AND GROUNDWATER USE
The main aquifer in the Fort Wainwright area is the Tanana Basin alluvial aquifer in a buried
river valley. This aquifer ranges from a few feet thick at the base of Birch Hill to at least
300 feet thick under the fort's main cantonment area. The aquifer may reach a thickness of
700 feet in the Tanana River valley. Groundwater in the Tanana-Chena floodplain generally
is considered to be unconfmed in permafrost-free areas. A confined aquifer may develop
seasonally where the depth to the water table is less than the depth of the seasonal frost
-------
penetration. The depth to groundwater varies and may range from 2 feet to 18 feet below
ground surface (BGS) at OU-2 source areas.
Groundwater movement between the Tanana and Chena Rivers generally follows a northwest
regional direction, similar to the flow direction of the rivers. The Chena River flows through
Fort Wainwright and the City of Fairbanks, into the Tanana River. The Tanana River
borders the south portion of Fort Wainwright. Flow probes near OU-2 source areas indicate
seasonal changes in flow direction of up to 180 degrees. This is because of the effects of
changing river stages in the Tanana River and, to a lesser extent, in the Chena River.
Groundwater levels near the Chena River fluctuate greatly because of river stage and
interactions with the Tanana River. Typically, groundwater levels rise when the river stage
increases, particularly during spring breakup and the late summer runoff. Groundwater levels
usually drop during fall and winter, when precipitation becomes snow. During winter,
groundwater seeps into surface water bodies, such as the Chena River, and produces overflow
ice. In addition to shifts in the groundwater flow direction due to the surface water
hydrology, the groundwater flow direction may be impacted by high-volume pumping at off-
post gravel pits for dewatering activities.
Where present, permafrost forms discontinuous confining layers that influence groundwater
movement and distribution. The depth to permafrost, when present, ranges from 2 feet to 40
feet BGS. The greater depths are found on cleared and developed land surfaces, where
thermal degradation of underlying permafrost occurs.
Groundwater is the only source of potable water used at Fort Wainwright and the Fairbanks
area. Approximately 95% of Fort Wainwright's potable water is supplied through a single
distribution system which is normally fed by two large-capacity wells located in Building
3559, near the Post Power Plant (see Figure 1-5). These wells were completed at a depth of
approximately 80 feet and provide between 1.5 million and 2.5 million gallons of water to the
Post Water Treatment Plant for processing and distribution.
In addition to the main drinking water supply wells, there are five emergency standby supply
wells located around the cantonment area. These wells have been completed between 80 feet
and 120 feet and are capable of pumping approximately 250.000 gallons per day per well.
These wells, if used in an emergency, will supply minimally treated water to Fort
Wainwright's main drinking water supply system.
During summer 19%, a potable water supply/fire suppression well was installed in the
DRMO Yard, 50 feet upgradient of the defined solvent plume and 100 feet downgradient of a
defined petroleum plume. Associated with the fire suppression system is a 400,000-gallon
tank. To prevent hydraulic movement of the adjacent plumes, the State of Alaska Plan
Approval to Construct stipulated a pumping rate limitation of 60 gallons per minute.
Additionally, contract restrictions required that initial filling of the storage tank be done with
tank trucks rather than from the DRMO Yard aquifer. A granulated activated carbon
treatment system was installed for the drinking water supply to remove taste, odor, and
potential contaminants of concern.
Residential developments that utilize private wells for domestic water supply are close to the
DRMO Yard and Building 1168 Leach Well source areas. Some of these private wells near
-------
the DRMO Yard are contaminated with solvents and petroleum products. The DRMO Yard
is not considered the source of these contaminants. Federal and state regulatory agencies are
investigating several locations, not associated with Fort Wainwright, that were identified as
potential sources of this contamination.
The City of Fairbanks uses the same aquifer and has four developed Municipal Utility System
wells located 1 mile downgradient of the Post's boundaries, on the banks of the Chena River.
These wells serve as the main drinking water supply for most of the City of Fairbanks.
1.4 LAND USE
Current land use for the OU-2 source areas is light industrial. Although no residences are
located on any source area, residential developments are close to the DRMO Yard and
Building 1168 Leach Well source areas. Domestic water use occurs at one OU-2 source area:
the DRMO Yard. Groundwater in the aquifer under these source areas is the sole source of
drinking water for Fort Wainwright and the City of Fairbanks. Operations at the DRMO
Yard and Building 1168 Leach Well are expected to continue indefinitely. Access is
unrestricted to OU-2 source areas, except for the DRMO Yard.
-------
iNORTH POST
DRUM SITE
SOUTH OF LANDFILL
'BUILDING 1168
LIACH
3LASS
FAR SITE
Rgure 1—1
SOURCE AREA
LOCATION MAP
-------
KEY.
»-« Fence
f'.YJ Former Building Location
AST Aboveground Storage Tank
Drainage
Channel
UST Underground Storage Tank
Sub-Area
DRM01
Approximate
^. Location of
Concrete Cistern
/ / / F0(1
/ //Wainwright
/' / / Reservation
SCALE (Feet)
0 300 600
Sub-Area
DRMO5
Sub-Area
DRMO2
Former UST
Location
Building
(Corrosive)
f Arctic
Surplus Yard
Figure 1-2
DRMO YARD SOURCE AREA
LOCATION MAP
OPERABLE UNIT 2
Sub-Area
DRMO4
-------
® Water Supply Well (unused)
Former
Auto Shop
Area
OilWVater
Separator
250-Gallon UST
Leach
Well Pipeline
Waste une
Cleanout
Figure 1-3
BUILDING 1168 LEACH WELL
SOURCE AREA
LOCATION MAP
OPERABLE UNIT 2
FAIRBANKS
-------
Military
Housing
Concrete Pad Foundations
ol Former Buildings
Abandoned Petroleum. Oils.
and Lubricants (POL) Line
Dogwood Street
Rgure 1-4
NORTH POST SITE SOURCE AREA
LOCATION MAP
OPERABLE UNIT 2
JOB NO
JT2901
FILE NO
JT2674 5.CDR
DATE
96MAY28
11
-------
sscfe - VJEtr*
-------
2.0 SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
2.1 SITE HISTORY
The DRMO Yard and Building 1168 Leach Well source areas have limited documents
available to describe past practices. However, most source areas underwent evaluations,
including sampling and analyses, before the Rl. The source areas were listed as hazardous
waste sites requiring further evaluation in the RCRA Facility Assessment.
2.1.1 Defense Realization and Marketing Office Yard
From 1945 to 1961, the DRMO Yard was used for vehicle storage and contained a vehicle
maintenance shop. In 1961, the source area was convened into a salvage yard and was used
to store drums of waste oil; pesticides; solvents; vehicle fluids such as antifreeze and
hydraulic fluid; asphalt; and electrical transformers, some of which may have contained
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Many drums reportedly leaked. Items such as mattresses,
wood furniture, and possibly plastics were incinerated routinely in a burn pit. It is likely that
the drummed fluids also were disposed of by burning. Waste oil, which historically contained
heavy metals, solvents, PCBs, and other contaminants, was used to control dust on roads in
the DRMO Yard during the 1970s and early 1980s. During the early 1980s, an estimated
3,000 gallons to 8,000 gallons of No. 1 diesel fuel were spilled near the former location of
Building 5001. Cleanup included spreading the contaminated soil throughout die yard.
Storage and destruction records were maintained by DRMO Yard personnel for three years
and then were destroyed. Consequently, complete records of DRMO Yard activities are
unavailable.
From 1988 to 1996, eight leaking underground petroleum storage tanks, ranging in size from
500 gallons to 10,000 gallons, were removed from the DRMO Yard. Cleanup of the
associated petroleum-contaminated soil and groundwater is being conducted under the Two-
Party Agreement.
From 1990 through 1993, investigations including geophysical surveys, surface and
subsurface soil sampling, and installation of groundwater monitoring wells were conducted to
identify the extent of contamination at the DRMO Yard.
The DRMO Yard serves as the permitted hazardous material transfer point for Fort
Wainwright, Fort Greely, and Eielson Air Force Base.
2.1.2 Building 1168 Leach Well
Building 1168 was constructed as a lube oil and vehicle storage facility in 1949 and was
convened into a petroleum test laboratory in 1962. The building contained a 10,000-gallon
lube oil AST, oil/water separator system, 250-gallon UST that discharged to the leach well,
2,000-gallon heating oil UST, and septic system for sanitary waste. Contaminant and water
mixtures apparently entered floor drains, passed through the oil/water separator, and flowed
into the leach well that serviced the building. Contaminants suspected to have entered the
floor drains include engine and transmission oil, gasoline, diesel, jet fuel, solvents, hydraulic
fluid, and engine coolants.
13
-------
As-built drawings from 1962 indicate that the room housing the 10,000-gallon AST was
converted into a POL laboratory. The 10,000-gallon tank was removed, and a new floor and
floor drain system were installed.
In 1985, the Post utility maintenance group replaced the waste line from Building 1168 to the
leach well. The workers did not report any stained soil or odors; however, they reportedly
felt light-headed when working near the connection to the leach well.
Numerous investigations occurred at the Building 1168 Leach Well before the start of the RI.
From 1990 through 1993, investigations including geophysical surveys, surface and
subsurface soil sampling, and installation of groundwater monitoring wells were conducted to
identify the extent of contamination at the Building 1168 Leach Well.
In 1990, a groundwater survey conducted by the United States Army Environmental Hygiene
Agency and a RCRA Facility Assessment conducted by EPA recommended further
investigation at the Building 1168 Leach Well. This recommendation was based on the high
potential for releases via the leach well and UST.
In 1994, a pilot-scale remediation system was installed around the leach well to determine
whether an in situ treatment system was technically feasible in source area soils because the
contamination is located mainly in subsurface soils and groundwater. Progress reports have
shown that the soil vapor extraction (SVE)/air sparging (AS) system has been very effective
as a remediation technology at this source area.
2.2 ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
Fort Wainwright was placed on the CERCLA NPL in August 1990. Consequently, a Federal
Facilities Agreement (FFA) was signed by EPA, the Alaska Department of Environmental
Conservation (ADEC), and the United States Department of Army in spring 1992. The FFA
ensures that appropriate actions are taken to protect public health and the environment in
accordance with state and federal laws. The FFA divided Fort Wainwright into five OUs,
one of which is OU-2, and outlines the general requirements for investigation and/or
remediation of suspected historical hazardous waste source areas associated with Fort
Wainwright.
An additional goal of the FFA was to integrate the Army's CERCLA response obligations and
RCRA corrective action obligations. Remedial actions implemented will be protective of
human health and the environment such that remediation of releases shall obviate the need for
further corrective actions under RCRA (i.e., no further corrective action shall be required for
source areas).
2.3 HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
The public was encouraged to participate in the selection of the remedies for OU-2 during a
public comment period from May 1 to May 31, 19%. The Fort Wainwright Proposed Plan
for Remedial Action, Operable Unit 2 presents more than 11 combinations of options
considered by the Army, EPA, and ADEC to address contamination in soil and groundwater
at OU-2. The Proposed Plan was released to the public on May 1, 1996, and was sent to 130
14
-------
known interested parties, including elected officials and concerned citizens. An informationaJ
Fact Sheet dated Ma/ch 1996, providing information about the Army's entire cleanup program
at Fort Wainwright, was mailed to the same mailing list.
The Proposed Plan summarizes available information regarding OU-2. Additional materials
were placed in two information repositories: one at the Noel Wien Library in Fairbanks and
the other at the Fort Wainwright Post Library. An Administrative Record, including all items
placed in the information repositories and other documents used in the selection of the
remedial actions, was established in Building 3023 on Fort Wainwright. The public is
welcome to inspect materials available in the Administrative Record and the information
repositories during business hours. The Administrative Record index is provided in Appen-
dix B.
Interested citizens were invited to comment on the Proposed Plan and the remedy selection
process by mailing comments to the Fort Wainwright project manager, by calling a toll-free
telephone number to record a comment, or by attending and commenting at a public meeting
on May 8, 1996, at the Carlson Center Prow Room in Fairbanks. No official comments were
received from the public during the comment period. Six people attended the public meeting.
Display advertisements in the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner, published on April 28 and May 1,
5, 6, 7, and 8, 1996, also include information regarding the information repositories, the toll-
free telephone line, and an address for submitting written comments.
The Responsiveness Summary in Appendix C summarizes and addresses public comments on
the Proposed Plan and the remedy selection process.
2.4 SCOPE AND ROLE OF OPERABLE UNIT OR RESPONSE ACTION
As with many Supertund sites, the problems at Fort Wainwright are complex. OU-2 will be
die third OU, following OU-3 and OU-4, at Fort Wainwright to have completed the RI/FS
process and to begin remedial action activities. The OU-2 RI and FS were performed in
accordance with the RI/FS Management Plan for OU-2. The RI fieldwork was conducted
during summer 1993. The final RI, Data Validation Review, Risk Assessment, and FS
reports were submitted to EPA and the State of Alaska in January, September, and October
1995 and April 1996, respectively.
This ROD presents the selected remedial action for OU-2 chosen in accordance with
CERCLA as amended by the Supertund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986
(SARA) and, to the extent practicable, the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan (NCP). The decision for OU-2 is based on the Administrative Record.
The remedial actions described in this ROD address threats to human health and the
environment posed by the contamination at OU-2. The RI/FS has defined potential risks
posed by existing groundwater contamination and the potential for migration if remediation
does not occur.
15
-------
3.0 SUMMARY OF SOURCE AREA CHARACTERISTICS
Physical features, hydrogeologic conditions, and the nature and extent of contamination for
the DRMO Yard and Building 1168 Leach Well source areas are described briefly in the
following sections.
3.1 DEFENSE REUTILIZATION AND MARKETING OFFICE YARD
3.1.1 Physical Features, Hydrogeologic Conditions, and Transport Pathways
The topography at the DRMO Yard source area grades gently to the north and northwest.
However, numerous depressions and the presence of silty soil may promote surface water
ponding. Surface water runoff from the northeast portion of the source area drains east to a
drainage ditch, adjacent to Badger Road, that eventually drains into the Chena River. Surface
water runoff from the west half of the source area may enter Channel B, a man-made,
riprapped conveyance that parallels the west boundary of the DRMO Yard and connects the
Chena and Tanana Rivers. Flow is predominantly toward the Chena River, approximately 1
mile away.
A shallow stream bed located north of the DRMO Yard source area may serve as a channel
for surface water runoff to the Chena River during spring breakup and heavy precipitation. A
small pond is located ISO feet north of the DRMO Yard; however, the pond does not
discharge into a well-defined surface drainage system and the relationship of the pond to
groundwater is unknown.
At the DRMO Yard, surface soil can be characterized as fill material, 3 feet to 6 feet deep,
consisting of silt, silty sands, and gravels. Subsurface soil at the DRMO Yard is variable and
consists of layers of unconsolidated silty sand, gravel, silt, and alluvial deposits of sand and
gravel.
Contaminants were detected in surface soil, subsurface soil, sediment, surface water, and
groundwater at the DRMO Yard.
Contaminants in surface soil are available to migrate via surface runoff. Although the DRMO
Yard is relatively flat, nearby ponds and drainage ditches may receive contaminated runoff
from the site. Contaminated runoff from the DRMO Yard would be deposited in sediments.
Dissolved contaminants in runoff may be transported through the system of drainage channels
and streams in and around the source area to the Chena River. Contaminants in surface soil
also can migrate via infiltration to subsurface soil through the downward percolation of
precipitation and snowmelt. The extent of contaminant infiltration into subsurface soil
depends on the affinity of specific contaminants to adsorb or complex with soil particles.
Surface soil contamination also can migrate from the DRMO Yard via paniculate transport
and volatilization; however, this migration pathway is considered relatively minor because of
the six-month snow cover in the Fairbanks area.
Contaminants in subsurface soil are available to migrate downward through percolation to
groundwater, caused by infiltration of precipitation and snowmelt. Volatile subsurface soil
contaminants also can migrate upward to the surface through volatilization.
16
-------
Groundwater is encountered at approximately 7.5 feet BGS in an unconfmed drinking water
aquifer consisting of~poorly graded, coarse-grained deposits of sand and gravel. Groundwater
generally flows west to northwest toward Channel B, which was constructed as part of the
Chena River flood control project that connects the Chena and Tanana Rivers. Changes in
flow direction in Channel B occur frequently and are attributable to water level changes in the
Chena and Tanana Rivers. This change may result in Channel B recharging groundwater near
the DRMO Yard. However, fluctuations in flow direction occur frequently and are
attributable to water level changes in the Chena and Tanana Rivers.
Dissolved contaminants in groundwater will migrate through advective forces, influenced by
horizontal and vertical groundwater flow gradients. Contaminated groundwater migrating
from the DRMO Yard area eventually may be discharged to Channel B or to the drainage
channel located north of the DRMO Yard (see Figure 1-3).
Residents in three nearby subdivisions use groundwater as a drinking water source. These
private wells are located upgradient of the DRMO Yard, in the same unconfined aquifer as
the identified DRMO Yard groundwater contamination. Groundwater generally flows west to
northwest, away from these residential areas; however, fluctuations in flow direction
occur. The first residential area is approximately 1,400 feet to the north, the second is
approximately 1,000 feet to the northeast, and the third is approximately 400 feet to the
southeast. A public drinking water well and fire suppression system were installed in 19%
and are in service within the fenced DRMO Yard. This well was installed directly upgradient
of the known groundwater solvent contamination plume, at a depth of 102 feet. The solvent
plume extends from approximately 7 feet BGS to between 30 feet and 40 feet BGS. Pumping
rates at the public drinking water well will be limited until federal Safe Drinking Water Act
and State of Alaska Drinking Water Standard maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) are
achieved in the contaminant plume to reduce the chance of changing plume characterization
and of causing the plume to be drawn within the cone of influence of the potable water well.
3.1.2 Nature and Extent of Contamination
From 1990 through 1993, investigations including geophysical surveys, surface and
subsurface soil sampling, and installation of groundwater monitoring wells were conducted to
identify the extent of contamination at the DRMO Yard.
In July 1992, 12 borings and two monitoring wells were installed in an area north of Building
5001 at the DRMO Yard as part of a geotechnical investigation for placing a building
foundation. Petroleum hydrocarbons that exceeded ADEC's soil cleanup levels were detected
in the soils. Groundwater in one monitoring well contained trichloroethene (TCE)
at 8.6 parts per billion (ppb). The state and federal MCL for TCE is 5 ppb. A petroleum
UST was associated with the most significant contamination at this source area, which is
being remediated under the Two-Party Agreement.
Additional areas of soil and groundwater contamination at the DRMO Yard were investigated
through a Preliminary Source Evaluation at the DRMO Yard in September 1992. The
evaluation confirmed results from previous investigations conducted in the vicinity of and in
the DRMO Yard. Petroleum hydrocarbons and volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
associated with fuels and low levels of dioxins/furans, PCBs, and pesticides were detected in
17
-------
soils and groundwater.
In 1993, the OU-2 RI was conducted. The main objectives at the DRMO Yard were to verify
information about the nature and extent of surface and subsurface soil and groundwater
contamination and to collect information of sufficient quality to be used in a Baseline Risk
Assessment. The field investigation consisted of the following tasks: a geophysical survey,
surface and subsurface soil sampling, installation of groundwater probes and monitoring
wells, collection of groundwater samples, surface water and sediment sampling, and aquifer
testing.
Contaminants detected in soil, groundwater, and sediments included organic compounds; i.e.,
petroleum hydrocarbons, PCBs, polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons, chlorinated VOCs,
dioxins, and pesticides. Several inorganic elements also were detected; i.e., manganese, lead,
and arsenic (see Tables 3-1 through 3-5). These contaminants are believed to have come from
several on-site sources, including former petroleum USTs; on-site storage of electrical
transformers and drums without secondary containment; and the incineration of mattresses,
wood furniture, drummed fluids, and plastics in an on-site fire burn pit. These contaminants
were compared to existing background levels determined for inorganics in this mineral-rich
area, screened for inclusion in the Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment, and
compared to state and federal drinking water standards. Analytes were retained as
contaminants of concern if they exceeded background levels, standard risked-based screening
criteria for residential exposure assumptions of 1 x 10*7 for soils and 1 x 10* for groundwater
and a hazard index of 0.1, or state and federal MCLs. The levels of inorganics are
attributable to elevated background concentration. No floating products (lighter-than-water
nonaqueous phase liquids [LNAPLs]) or pure product solvents (denser-than-water nonaqueous
phase liquids [DNAPLs]) were identified in the groundwater at the DRMO Yard.
This source was divided into six sub-areas. Sub-areas were used because of the size of the
site, and to accurately characterize different types of suspected contaminants based on
historical activities or known releases that had occurred. Planned remediation of source areas
also is identified by sub-area.
The suspected sources of contaminants in the soil and groundwater at two sub-areas, DRMO2
and DRMO3, are removed USTs. Contaminants include petroleum and fuel products that
exceed State of Alaska soil cleanup levels. Groundwater contamination included TCE and
tetrachloroethene (PCE) at levels below state and federal MCLs.
Petroleum hydrocarbons in soil and groundwater at sub-area DRMOS exceeded State of
Alaska soil cleanup levels for UST petroleum-contaminated soil. This source area also
contained PCBs at concentrations below action levels and one soil boring with dieldrin at a
concentration of 1.0 milligrams per liter. A resampling event was conducted at this source
area; five samples were collected in the vicinity of the positive dieldrin sample. The results
were nondetect or less than screening levels. Because of the type of contaminants and
suspected sources of contamination in DRMO2, DRMO3, and DRMOS, these source areas
are being remediated under the Two-party Agreement.
At sub-area DRMO1, two contaminants—PCE and TCE—were detected in the groundwater at
levels above their state and federal MCLs of 5 ppb. A well-defined groundwater plume, with
18
-------
maximum concentrations of 190 ppb and 17 ppb for PCE and TCE, respectively, has been
identified. PCE has migrated to the northwest in the direction of the groundwater flow and
extends beyond the DRMO Yard boundary, toward Channel B. The extent of the PCE plume
is illustrated in Figure 3-1. TCE detected in groundwater and soil is likely a degradation
product of PCE. The RI indicates that PCE-saturated soils above the groundwater plume are
the source of groundwater contamination; however, soil contaminant levels were not found at
concentrations that would result in the identified groundwater contaminant levels. The
maximum depth of PCE in groundwater is between 30 feet and 40 feet BGS, with the highest
concentration near the soil-water interface (7 feet BGS). This indicates that there is not a
pure product DNAPL source in the aquifer. Shallow and fluctuating groundwater conditions
contribute to the ongoing release of contaminants to groundwater. This is supported by the
highest soil concentration found in the saturated vadose zone, possibly associated with
subsurface releases from an abandoned wood stave pipe. Additionally, the groundwater
plume isocontours and concentrations are indicative of a discrete defined subsurface source.
While soil sampling in an approximate 75-foot grid in this area did not identify the source, the
conceptual model supports its presence. The soils will be treated during in situ remediation at
this site.
Benzo(a)pyrene was detected in three "hot spots" at sub-areas DRMO1 and DRMO4 (see
Figure 3-1). Approximately 1,900 cubic yards of soil has been impacted by this compound.
The source of the benzo(a)pyrene has not been identified, but the compound may be a by-
product of the burning and drum storage activities within the "hot spot" areas at the source
area. The maximum depth of detection was 2 feet BGS, indicating that the contaminant does
not migrate readily through the soil column and is not a threat to groundwater.
At sub-area DRMO4, benzene and PCE in the groundwater exceed state and federal MCLs of
5 ppb (at 7.5 ppb and 51 ppb, respectively) and appear to originate from miscellaneous
releases associated with operations occurring along a railroad spur. Soils contaminated with
solvent and petroleum compounds are considered the source of groundwater contamination.
The groundwater contamination is found at the southwest portion of the railroad spur and is
isolated and small in size. Although only one groundwater sample exceeded the state and
federal MCL for PCE and two samples exceeded the state and federal MCLs for benzene, a
well-defined groundwater plume is present. The contamination begins at the southwest
portion of the railroad spur and extends northwest to the road, from the west gate through the
DRMO Yard (see Figure 3-2). Several other compounds were detected at concentrations
below action screening levels in the soil and groundwater during the RI.
At sub-area DRMO6, sample detections included petroleum hydrocarbons and low levels of
PCBs, dioxins, and inorganic elements; however, no contaminants attributable to activities
associated with this sub-area exceeded screening levels. Sediment and surface water sample
results will be evaluated further for potential contribution to cumulative ecological risk in the
postwide Risk Assessment. No action is planned for this sub-area.
3.13 Defense Reutilization and Marketing Office Yard Summary
The petroleum-related contamination, including diesel-range organics (DRO) and gasoline-
range organics (GRO) found in soil and groundwater throughout the source area, will be
addressed through the Two-Party Agreement, except in areas where they are comingled with
19
-------
other contaminants of concern. The PCE and TCE groundwater contaminant plumes underlie
a sizable portion of sub-areas DRM01 and DRMO4. Groundwater monitoring well
contaminant levels in these source areas exceed state and federal MCLs for PCE and TCE at
DRMO1 and for PCE and benzene at DRMO4. In addition, "hot spots" of benzo(a)pyrene
were found in DRMO1 and DRMO4. A summary of analytical results for the DRMO Yard
can be found in Tables 3-1 through 3-5.
3.2 BUILDING 1168 LEACH WELL
3.2.1 Physical Features, Hydrogeologic Conditions, and Transport Pathways
The topography at the Building 1168 Leach Well source area is relatively flat. No surface
water drainage pathways are evident. During periods of high precipitation and spring
snowmelt, surface water may flow overland to low-lying areas north and southeast of the site.
The nearest surface water body, the Chena River, is approximately 1,800 feet to the east.
The source area is surrounded by a spruce-hardwood forest to the west, north, and east.
Subsurface soil at the Building 1168 Leach Weil source area consists of unconsolidated lenses
of interlayered silt, silty sand, and poorly graded sand and gravel, underlain by sandy gravel.
Fine-grained silt deposits appear as shallow lenses within silty sand and sand, and are overlain
mostly by silty gravel. Silty, gravelly surface soil is predominantly fill material, likely laid
down when the Building 1168 parking lot was constructed. Near surface sand and silt are
underlain mainly by poorly graded, loose- to medium-density, saturated, sandy gravel that is
highly permeable.
Contamination originated from a leach well that received liquids collected in floor drains
within Building 1168. Floor drains were connected to a buried pipe that discharged to the
leach well at approximately 13 feet BGS. Because of the release mechanism, significant
surface soil contamination has not been identified at this source area. Floor drains within the
building are suspected of receiving spilled oil and lubricants, fuels, solvents, and engine
coolants. Contaminants in subsurface soil are available to migrate vertically toward
groundwater with infiltration of precipitation and snowmelt. Lateral spreading of contami-
nants in subsurface soil has occurred from point sources of contamination because of capillary
forces and partitioning exceeding gravitational forces on contaminant movement. Volatile
contaminants in subsurface soil also can migrate upward through volatilization from
groundwater to soil.
Infiltration and percolation through contaminated soil have been contributors to groundwater
contamination. Leaching through contaminated soils caused by fluctuating groundwater levels
and the affinity of petroleum products to float also have been major factors in continued
groundwater contamination.
Groundwater is the main contaminant migration pathway at the Building 1168 Leach Well
source area. Groundwater was encountered between 12 feet to 17 feet BGS and flows to the
northwest toward the west boundary of Fort Wainwright and off-post residential areas. No
confining layers have been encountered in the source area. Dissolved contaminants in
groundwater will migrate through advective forces, influenced by horizontal and vertical
groundwater flow gradients.
20
-------
3.2.2 Nature and Extent of Contamination
Numerous investigations occurred at the Building 1168 Leach Well before the start of the RI.
In 1990, a groundwater survey conducted by the United States Army Environmental Hygiene
Agency and an EPA RCRA Facility Assessment recommended further investigation at the
Building 1168 Leach Well. This recommendation was based on the high potential for releases
from the leach well and UST.
In 1992 and 1993, a Preliminary Source Evaluation was performed and included analytical
measurements of surface and subsurface soil and groundwater samples. Petroleum
hydrocarbons were detected in subsurface soil samples exceeding the State of Alaska cleanup
levels for non-UST petroleum-contaminated soil. TCE and benzene exceeded the state and
federal MCLs of 5 ppb. Ethylbenzene and xylenes also were detected in groundwater. The
highest analyte concentrations in soil and groundwater were from samples closest to the leach
well.
The OU-2 RI was conducted in 1993. The principal objectives of the RJ at the Building 1168
Leach Well were to obtain information about the nature and extent of subsurface soil and
groundwater contamination. The field investigation consisted of the following tasks: one
surface soil sample, numerous subsurface soil samples, installation of two monitoring wells,
collection of groundwater samples, aquifer testing, and a Treatability Study.
The RI results confirmed petroleum hydrocarbon and semivolatile organic compound
contamination in groundwater, specifically benzene and TCE above state and federal MCLs of
5 ppb. No floating petroleum product (LNAPL) was found in the groundwater at this site.
Manganese also exceeded risk-based concentrations but is attributable to background
concentrations in this minerally rich area.
Contaminants detected in subsurface soils at the Building 1168 Leach Well include inorganics
and petroleum hydrocarbons. Groundwater at the Building 1168 Leach Well contained
petroleum hydrocarbons, aromatic and chlorinated VOCs, and inorganic elements. Tables
3-6, 3-7, and 3-8 list the chemicals detected in soil and groundwater at the Building 1168
Leach Well.
In subsurface soil, petroleum hydrocarbon-contaminated soil extends approximately SO feet
radially from the leach well. Contaminant concentrations decrease with increasing horizontal
distance from the leach well. The thickness of subsurface soil contamination ranges from the
bottom of the leach well to the seasonal low-water table elevation. A smear zone
approximately 4 feet thick exists underneath the leach well and is a result of water table level
fluctuations. An estimated 1,300 cubic yards of subsurface soil has been impacted by
contaminants discharged from the leach well (see Figure 3-3). Table 3-6 lists the analytes
detected in soil.
The contaminated soil around the leach well appears to be the source of petroleum
hydrocarbons and VOCs detected in groundwater. Contamination from subsurface soil has
created a comingled benzene and TCE plume in groundwater 20 feet to 50 feet BGS. The
plume extends horizontally downgradient (northwest) approximately 400 feet from the leach
21
-------
well (see Figure 3-4). Measurable free-floating product on the groundwater has not been
detected at the Building 1168 Leach Well.
An SVE/AS pilot-scale treatability study was initiated in November 1994. Quarterly
monitoring results indicate at least a 50% reduction of petroleum-related contaminants in
groundwater in the active treatment zone over the last two years. Benzene and TCE were not
detected within the active zone. However, exceedances of state and federal MCLs still exist
outside the pilot-scale active treatment zone.
22
-------
Page 1 of 6
Table 3-1
SUMMARY OF SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE SOIL SAMPLE RESULTS
DRMO YARD SOURCE AREA
OPERABLE UNIT 2
FORT WAINWRIGHT, ALASKA
(mg/kg)
Analyte
PHroleum Hydrocarbons
Diesel-range organic$b
Gasoline-range organici0
Number of Samples
Analyzed/Detected
Range of Detected
Concentrations
Location of
Maximum
Concentration
328/163
322/66
0.0038 - 9,600
0.25 - 690
AP-6738
AP-6773
Risk-Based
Screening
Concentration*
100
SO
Background
Concentration
Number of
Samples
Exceeding RBCs
NA
NA
37
IS
Volatile Organic Compounds
t ,2.4-Trimelhylbenzene
1 ,3 ,5-Trimethy (benzene
Acetone
Benzene
Cumene (isopropylbcnzcnc)
Elhylbcnzene
m&p-Xylcnc
Methylene chloride
n-Butylbenzene
n-Propylbenzene
o-Xylene
p-lsopropyllolucnc
323/9
323/18
323/30
323/4
323/2
323/5
323/7
323/212
323/6
323/2
323/7
323/13
0.004 - 2.8
0.006 - 5.6
0.017-0.42
0 006 - 0.008
0 0092 • 0.016
0.003 - 0.023
0.005 - 0.077
0.003 • 0.095
0.006 - 0.63
0.0082 - 0.023
0.002 - 0 035
0.005 - 2.2
AP-6773
AP-6773
AP-6806
AP-6771
AP-6806
AP-6771
AP-6771
AP-6773
AP-6806
AP-6806
AP-6771
AP-6771
39
31
7,800
22
3.100
7,800
160,000
85
NA
NA
160,000
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
NA
NA
0
NA
Key at ciul nl table
-------
Page 2 of 6
Table 3-1
SUMMARY OF SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE SOIL SAMPLE RESULTS
DRMO YARD SOURCE AREA
OPERABLE UNIT 2
FORT WAINWRIGHT, ALASKA
(mg/kg)
Analyte
sec-Bulylbcnzcne
lect-Butylbcnzenc
Tct rachlo roclhcnc
Toluene
Number of Samples
Analyzed/Detected
323/2
323/1
323/24
323/11
Range of Detected
Concentrations
0.011 -0.220
0.0034
00025-0 15
0.0024 - 0.09
Location of
Maximum
Concentration
AP6806
AP-6796
AP-6803
AP-6771
Risk-Based
Screening
Concentration*
780
780
12
16,000
Background
Concentration
NA
NA
NA
NA
Number of
Samples
Exceeding RBCs
0
0
0
0
Semivolatile Organic Compounds
2-Mclhylnaphlhalene
Accnaphthcne
Anthracene
Ben/o(a)anlhracenc
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Bcnzo(k)fluoranthcne
bis(2-ethylhexyl)-phlhalale
Hulyl Itcn/yl plitlwlnlc
Chrysene
328/8
328/2
328/4
328/7
328/7
328/9
328/7
328/7
328/28
12K/7
328/8
0.057 - 13
0 130-0 170
0 050 - 0 350
0 045 - 0 320
0.049 - 0.350
0.048 - 0.350
0.046 - 0.370
0.052 - 0 330
0.029- 1.600
0 150-0710
0 046 - 0.390
AP-6773
AP-6763
AP-6796
AP6758
AP-6758
AP-6758
AP-6747
AP-6758
AP-6745
AP 6798
AP-6758
NA
4,700
23,000
088
0088
0.88
NA
8.8
46
16.000
88
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
0
0
6
0
NA
0
0
n
0
Key ul end of lablc.
-------
Page 3 of 6
Table 3-1
SUMMARY OF SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE SOIL SAMPLE RESULTS
DRMO YARD SOURCE AREA
OPERABLE UNIT 2
FORT WAINWRIGHT, ALASKA
(mg/kg)
Analyte
di-n-Butyl phlhalate
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
Fluoranthenc
Fluorene
lndeno( 1 ,2 ,3-cd)py rene
Naphthalene
Plicnunllircne
Pyrenc
Number of Samples
Analyzed/Detected
327/J33
328/2
328/11
328/4
328/5
651/10
328/16
328/9
Range of Detected
Concentrations
0.024 - 2.600
0.052 - 0.084
0.058 - 0.660
0.230- 1.0
0.052 - 0.2
0.004-4.7
0.059 0 950
0.091 - 0.640
Location of
Maximum
Concentration
004
AP-6758
AP-6758
AP-6738
AP-6758
AP-6738
AP6773
AP-6758
Risk-Based
Screening
Concentration*
NA
0.088
3.100
3,100
0.88
3.100
NA
2.300
i
Background
Concentration
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Number of
Samples
Exceeding RBCs
NA
0
0
0
0
0
NA
0
Other Organic Compounds
Tolal organic carbon
331/331
290 - 40,300
AP-6736
NA
NA
NA
PCBs and Organochtorine Pesticides
4,4' Dichlorodiphcnyldichlorocthanc
(ODD)
4,4'-Dichlorodiphcnyldichlorocthene
(DDE)
4,4'-Dichlorodiphcnyllnchloroc(hane
(DDT)
331/31
331/38
331/119
0.0024 - 0.039
0.0016 - 0.059
00013- II
AP-6751
AP-6739
AP-6747
2.7
1.9
1.9
NA
NA
NA
0
0
0
Key ul end of (able.
-------
Page 4 of 6
Table 3-1
SUMMARY OF SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE SOIL SAMPLE RESULTS
DRMO YARD SOURCE AREA
OPERABLE UNIT 2
FORT WAINWRIGHT, ALASKA
(rag/kg)
Analyte
Aroclor 1254
Aldrin
Aroclor 1260
beta-BHC
Dicldrin
Endosulfan 1
Endosulfan II
Endrin
Endrin aldehyde
Endrin ketone
gamma BHC (Lindane)
Heptachlor epoxidc
Mcthoxychlor
Number of Samples
Analyzed/Detected
331/2
331/1
331/55
331/4
331/4
331/1
331/5
331/3
331/1
331/5
331/6
331/1
331/1
Range of Detected
Concentrations
0.026 - 0.430
0.00065
0.017- 1.3
0.00057 - 0.0016
0.012-1.0
0.016
0.00078 - 0.016
0.0097 - 0.014
0.0086
0.0015 - 0.027
0.0042-0.130
0019
00048
Location of
Maximum
Concentration
AP6730
AP-6806
005
AP-6797
AP-6794
AP-6796
AP-6758
AP-6794
AP6803
SP-6796
SP-6763
AP-6796
AP-6793
Rbk-Based
Screening
Concentration*
0.083
0.038
0.083
0.35
0.04
470
470
23
DA
NA
0.49
0.07
390
Background
Concentration
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Number of
Samples
Exceeding RHCs
'1
0
25
0
2
0
0
0
NA
NA
0
0
0
Key al cud
k
-------
Page 5 ol 6
Table 3-1
SUMMARY OF SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE SOIL SAMPLE RESULTS
DRMO YARD SOURCE AREA
OPERABLE UNIT 2
FORT WAINWRIGHT, ALASKA
(mg/kg)
Analyte
Metals
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Number of Samples
Analyzed/Detected
Range of Detected
Concentrations
332/318
331/331
331/84
331/330
336/332
331/330
331/22
331/214
331/12
331/6
0.79 - 72.4
18-381
0.48-8 1
2.7-46.1
1.7-996
29.1 -2,420
0 07 - 23
0051 -4.1
0.55 - 5.3
013-98
Location of
Maximum
Concentration
AP-6744
AP-6750
AP-6782
AP-6742
AP-6735
AP-6780
AP-6732
AP-6750
AP-6778
AP-6776
Risk-Based
Screening
Concentration*
Background
Concentration
Number of
Samples
Exceeding RBCs
0.37
5.500
39
78,000
400
390
23
390
390
NA
29
234
NA
46
NA
318
ND
0.17
1 10
ND
318
0
0
0
3
33
0
0
0
NA
Dioxins/Furans (pg/g)
x 2.3.7.8-TCDD TEQ
267/244
0.0008-97.356
AP-6734
4.1
NA
9
Note:- The RBC used for m&p-xylene is the RBC for xylencs mixed. No RBC for p-xylenc in soil exists. The RBC used for chromium is the one for trivalent chromium. The RBC
used for arsenic is the one for the carcinogenic form of arsenic.
Key al end of lahle.
-------
Page 6 of 6
Table 3-1 (Coot.)
a Risk-based screening concentration values are based on a 1 x IO"6 residential direct contact risk or an HQ=1 (EPA, Region 111, July II, 1994, Risk Based Concentration Tables)
b ADEC soil cleanup matrix score Level A for DRO is 100 mg/kg.
c ADEC soil cleanup matrix score Level A for GRO is SO mg/kg.
Key:
ADEC = Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation.
BHC = Benzcnehexachloride.
DRMO = Defense Reulilization and Marketing Office.
DRO = Diesel-range organics.
GRO = Gasoline-range organics.
jig/kg = Micrograms per kilogram.
mg/kg = Milligrams per kilogram.
NA = Not applicable.
ND = Not detected.
0 PCBs = Polychlorinatcd biphenyls.
30 Pg'8 = Picograms per gram.
RBCs = Risk-based concentrations.
TCDD = Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin.
TEQ = Toxicity equivalency.
Key al ciiil
-------
Page I of 2
Table 3-2
SUMMARY OF SEDIMENT SAMPLE RESULTS
DRMO YARD SOURCE AREA
OPERABLE UNIT 2
FORT WAINWRIGHT, ALASKA
(mg/kg)
Analyte
Number of Samples
Analyzed/Detected
Range of Detected
Concentrations
Location of
Maximum
Concentration
Risk-Based
Screening
Concentration*
Background
Concentration
Number of
Samples
Exceeding RBCs
Petroleum Hydrocarbons
Diesel-range organic*
9/9
63- 1,000
007
100
NA
5
Volatile Organk Compounds
Chloroform
9/1
0.008
008
100
NA
0
Other Organic Compounds (%)
Total organic carbon
7/7
1 - 9.35
007
NA
NA
NA
l*CBs and Orginochtorine Pesticides
Aroclor 1260
9/3
7-60
007
Mrtab
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium
LcaJ
Manganese
9/9
9/9
9/4
9/9
9/9
9/9
8-38
139 - 387
2-6
18 49
10- 1.390
251 -5.140
001
01
007
007
007
002
0083
NA
3
0.37
5.500
39
78.000
400
390
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
9
0
0
0
2
7
Key at end of table.
-------
Page 2 of 2
Table 3-2
SUMMARY OF SEDIMENT SAMPLE RESULTS
DRMO YARD SOURCE AREA
OPERABLE UNIT 2
FORT WAINWRIGHT, ALASKA
(mg/fcg)
Analyte
Dioxins/Furans (pg/g)
2,3.7.8 TCDD TEQ
Number of Samples
Analyzed/Detected
9/9
Range of Detected
Concentrations
00043-71.98
Location of
Maximum
Concentration
007
Rbk-Based
Screening
Concentration*
i
Background
Concentration
Number of
Samples
Exceeding RBCs
4 10
NA
3
Noic: The RBC used Tor chromium is the one for trivalent chromium. The RBC used for »rsenic is for the carcinogenic form ol arsenic.
a Risk-based screening concentration risk values are based on a 1 x 10"* residential direct contact or an HQ = I (EPA, Region III, July II, 1994, Risk-Based Concentration
Tables).
b ADEC soil cleanup matrix score for Level A cleanup of DRO is 100 mg/kg.
Key:
ADEC
DRO
DRMO
mg/kg
NA
PCBs
Pg/g
RBCs
TCDD
TEQ
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation.
Diesel-range organics.
Defense Reutilizaikm and Marketing Office.
Micrograms per kilogram.
Milligrams per kilogram.
Not applicable.
Polychlorinated biphcnyls.
Picograms per gram.
Risk-based concentrations.
Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin.
Toxicity equivalency.
-------
Page I of 4
Table 3-3
SUMMARY OF GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL SAMPLE RESULTS
DRMO YARD SOURCE AREA
OPERABLE UNIT 2
FORT WAINWRIGHT, ALASKA
Gtg/L)
Analyte
Number of
Samples
Analysed/
Detected
Kange of Detected
Concentrations
Locution of
Maximum
Concentration
Alaska Water Quality
Criteria
(18 AAC 70/MCL 18
AAC 80)
Risk-Bused
Screening
Concentration*
Background
Concentration
Number of
Samples
Exceeding
MCL
Petroleum Hydrocarbons
Diesel-range organic!
Gasoline-range organics
23/16
31/8
130-23,000
50 - 940
AP-5825
AP-5825
NA/NA
NA/NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Volatile Organic Compounds
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
1 ,3,5-Trimcihylbcnzenc
Chloroform
cis-l ,2-Dichlorocthcnc
Cumenc
Ethylbenzenc
m&p-Xylcne
Methyl ethyl kctone
Mclhylenc chloride
n-Bulylbenzcne
n-Propylbcn/.enc
31/5
31/5
31/1
31/1
31/5
31/3
31/3
31/2
31/12
31M
3/31
2.9 - 460
3.7 - 130
1.9
7.3
1.6-14
2.6-3.7
3.2 - 92
64 - 12
1-1.9
33
1.7 - 16
AP-5825
AP-5825
AP-6802
AP-5764
AP-5825
AP-5825
AP-5825
AP-5825
AP6799
AP6806
AP-5825
100/70
100/NA
1,240/100
11,600/70
NA/NA
0.2/700
0.2/10,000
NA/NA
NA/5
NA/NA
NA/NA
3
2.4
0.15
61
1.500
1.300
520
22.000
4.1
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1
NA
0
0
NA
0
0
NA
0
NA
NA
Key at end »l table.
-------
Pugc 2 ol 4
Table 3-3
SUMMARY OF GROUND WATER MONITORING WELL SAMPLE RESULTS
DRMO YARD SOURCE AREA
OPERABLE UNIT 2
FORT WAINWRIGHT, ALASKA
(Mg/L)
Analyte
Naphthalene
o-Xylenc
p-lsopropylloluene
sec-Bulylbenzenc
Telrachloroclhene (PCE)
trans- \ ,2-Dichloroclhene
Trichlorocthcnc (TCE)
Trichlorofluoromethane
Number of
Samples
Analyzed/
Detected
54/6
31/1
31/2
31/7
31/6
3/31
5/31
31/1
Range of Detected
Concentrations
14 - 530
170
3.5- 19
16- 11
1.3 - 190
1.2- 1.7
48 - 17
63
Semivolalile Organic Compounds
2-Methylnaphth*lenc
Bui/»ic ut'id
Fluorene
Naphthalene
23/5
23/1
23/1
54/6
Organophosphorus Pesticides
Disulfoton
23/3
11 -200
19
2
14 - 530
0 14 - 1.3
Location of
Maximum
Concentration
AP-5825
AP582S
AP-5825
AP-5825
AP-6803
AP-6804
AP-6804
AP-5764
AP-5825
AP6803
AP-6803
AP-5825
Alaska Water Quality
Criteria
(18 AAC 70/MCL 18
AAC 80)
0.1/NA
0.2/10.000
NA/NA
NA/NA
840/5
11,600/100
5/5
NA/NA
Risk-Based
Screening
Concentration*
1,500
1,400
NA
61
1.1
120
16
1,300
Background
Concentration
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Number of
Samples
Exceeding
MCL
NA
0
NA
NA
3
0
3
NA
0.1/NA
NA/NA
0.1/NA
0.1/NA
NA
150,000
1.500
1.500
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
AP-5826
NA/NA
1.5
NA
NA
Key at cnJ ol table.
-------
Page 3 of 4
Table 3-3
SUMMARY OF GROUND WATER MONITORING WELL SAMPLE RESULTS
DRMO YARD SOURCE AREA
OPERABLE UNIT 2
FORT WAINWRIGHT, ALASKA
Analytc
Metals
Arsenic (dissolved)
Arsenic (loliil)
Barium (dissolved)
Barium (total)
Lead (dissolved)
Manganese (dissolved)
Manganese (total)
Number of
Samples
Analyzed/
Detected
Range of Detected
Concentrations
23/13
23/13
23/20
23/20
23/1
23/20
23/20
6-24
6-23
100 310
100 - 320
6
250- 13.000
270- 13.000
Location of
Maximum
Concentration
AP-5825
AP-5825
AP5825
AP-5825
AP-6802
AP-5825
AP-5825
Alaska Water Quality
Criteria
(18 AAC 70/MCL 18
AAC 80)
Risk-Based
Screening
Concentration*
Background
Concentration
Number of
Samples
Exceeding
MCI.
48/50
48/50
1.000/2.000
1.000/2,000
NA/15
50b
50b
0.038
0.038
2.600
2,600
NA
ISO
180
56
230
520
2,000
27
1.900
1.900
0
0
0
0
0
20
20
Dioxins/Furans (pg/L)
2.3,7.8-TCDD TEQ
20/19
0.33 - 8.4183
AP-5765
10/30
0.43
NA
0
Note: The RBC used for m&p-xylene is Ihc one for p-xylene. This RBC is the more conservative of the two. The RBC used for arsenic is for the carcinogenic form of arsenic.
a Risk-based screening concentration values are based on a I x 10"6 residential direct contact risk or HQ = 1 (EPA, Region III, July II. 1994, Risk Based Concentration Tables).
b Secondary MCL.
Table 33 (font.)
Key al cud ol Ijblc.
-------
Page 4 of 4
Key:
AAC = Alaska Administrative Code.
DRMO = Defense Reutilization and Marketing Office.
MCL = Maximum contaminant level.
pg/L = Micropranis per liter.
NA = Not applicable.
pg/L = Picograms per liter.
TCDD = Tctrachlorodibenzo-p-dioKin.
TEQ = Toxicily equivalency.
-------
Page I of 5
Table 3-4
SUMMARY OF GROUNDWATER PROBE SAMPLE RESULTS
DRMO YARD SOURCE AREA
OPERABLE UNIT 2
FORT WAINWRIGHT, ALASKA
0»g/U
Analyte
Petroleum Hydrocarbons
Diesel-range organics
Gasoline-range organics
Number of Samples
Analyzed/Detected
94/65
89/19
Range of Detected
Concentrations
120-41.000
70 - 28.000
Location of
Maximum
Concentration
P34
P34
Alaska Water
Quality Criteria
18 AAC 70/MCL
(18 AAC 80)
NA/NA
NA/NA
Risk-Based
Screening
Concentration*
Background
Concentration
NA
NA
NA
NA
Number of
Samples
Exceeding
MCLs
NA
NA
Volatile Organic Compounds
1 ,2,4-Trimeihylbenzene
1 ,2-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,2-Dichloroelhanc
1 ,3,5-Trimcthylbenzene
1 ,3-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,4-Dichlorobcnzene
Acetone
Benzene
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform
cis- 1 ,2-Dichloroethcne
CtJincnc
93/11
161/2
93/1
93/10
161/1
161/2
93/7
93/6
93/1
93/27
93/3
93/10
1.3 -340
19-38
15
1.3 - 130
15
6- 12
3.1 -79
1.4-7.5
2.6
II -8
1.2 -2.3
14 14
P35
P15
P13
P35
P60
PI5
P35
P05
P15
MW2
P59
P34
100/NA
763/600
5/5
100/NA
763/NA
763/75
NA/NA
0.2/5.0
N A/100
1,240/100
1 16,000/70
NA/NA
3
370
0.12
2.4
540
044
3.700
0.36
39
0.15
61
1,500
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
0
NA
NA
0
NA
3
0
0
0
NA
Key ul crul <>! lablc.
-------
Page 2 of 5
Table 3-4
SUMMARY OF GROUNDWATER PROBE SAMPLE RESULTS
DRMO YARD SOURCE AREA
OPERABLE UNIT 2
FORT WAINWRIGHT, ALASKA
0«g/L)
Anilyte
Dichlorodifluoromahane
Elhyll)cn/cnc
m&p-Xylene
Methyl elhyl ketone (MEK)
Melhylene chloride
n-Bulylbcnzene
n-Propylbenzene
x-Xylene
p-lsopropylluluene
scc-Butylbcnzcne
Styrenc
Tetrachloroethene (PCE)
Toluene
lrans-1 ,2-Dichloroethenc
Trichlorocthenc (TCE)
Trichlorofluoromelhane
Number of Samples
Analyzed/Detected
93/2
93/7
93/8
93/21
93/26
93/1
93/8
93/7
93/10
93/7
93/2
93/20
93/5
93/6
93/19
93/2
Range of Detected
Concentrations
1.7- 18
1.3 -6
1.6-87
2-110
1 -8.8
30
1.6-32
1.2 - 150
1.5-200
1.2-25
1.7-69
1.1 -65
1.5-3.7
13 -4.4
1.4 - 9.1
1.6-4.1
Location of
Maximum
Concentration
P07
P27
P35
Trip Blink
P35
P34
P34
P35
P34
P34
P57
P35
P61
P43
P5I
P12
Alaska Water
Quality Criteria
18 AAC 70/MCL
(18 AAC 80)
11,000/NA
0.2/700
0.2/10.000
NA/NA
NA/5
NA/NA
NA/NA
0.2/10,000
NA/NA
NA/NA
N A/100
840/5
0.2/1,000
11.600/100
5/5
NA/NA
Risk-Based
Screening
Concentration*
390
1,300
520
22,000
41
NA
NA
NA
NA
61
1.600
I.I
750
120
16
1.300
Background
Concentration
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Number of
Samples
Exceeding
MCLs
NA
0
0
NA
->
NA
NA
0
NA
NA
0
3
0
0
12
L °
Key at end
-------
Page 3 ol 5
Table 3-4
SUMMARY OF CROUNDWATER PROBE SAMPLE RESULTS
DRMO YARD SOURCE AREA
OPERABLE UNIT 2
FORT WAINWRIGHT, ALASKA
-------
igc 4 of 5
Table 3-4
SUMMARY OF GROUND WATER PROBE SAMPLE RESULTS
DRMO YARD SOURCE AREA
OPERABLE UNIT 2
FORT WAINWRIGHT, ALASKA
0»8/L)
Analyte
Barium (total)
Chromium (total)
Lead (dissolved)
Lead (total)
Manganese (dissolved)
Mnnguncsc (luliil)
Mercury (dissolved)
Number of Samples
Analyzed/Detected
68/65
64/8
67/3
68/10
67/63
68/65
67/1
Range of Detected
Concentrations
30- 1.200
20-510
3-5
2-14
20 - 6.100
20 6.400
08
Dioxins (pg/L)
2.3.7.8-TCDD TEQ
68/50
0.02 - 8.66
Location of
Maximum
Concentration
P04
P57
P23
P21
P35
P35
P Slough 1
Alaska Water
Quality Criteria
18 AAC 70/MCL
(18 AAC 80)
1.000/2.000
11/100
NA/15
NA/15
NA/SO6
NA/50h
0.012/2
Risk-Based
Screening
Concentration*
2.600
37.000
0.0037
0.0037
180
180
II
Background
Concentration
2,000
390
27
160
1.900
1.000
NA
Number of
Samples
Exceeding
MCLs
0
2
0
0
57
57
0
P25
10/30
0.43
NA
0
Note: The RBC used m&p-xylene as the one for p-xylene. This RBC is the more conservative of the two RBCs. The RBC used for arsenic is for the carcinogenic form of arsenic.
a Risk-based screening concentration values are based on a I x IO'6 residential direct contact risk or HQ = I (EPA, Region III, July 11, 1994. Risk Based Concentration Tables).
b Secondary MCL.
Key ul enJ nl
-------
Page 5 of 5
Table 3-4 (Coot.)
Key:
AAC
DRMO
MCL
NA
Pg'L
TCDD
TEQ
Alaska Administrative Code.
Defense Reuiilizalion and Marketing Office.
Maximum contaminant level.
Micrograms per liter.
Not applicable.
Picogrems per liter.
Tdrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin.
Toxicily equivalency.
-O
-------
Page I uf 2
Table 3-5
SUMMARY OF SURFACE WATER SAMPLE RESULTS
COLLECTED FROM CHANNEL B
DRMO YARD SOURCE AREA
OPERABLE UNIT 2
FORT WAINWRIGHT, ALASKA
0«g/L)
Aiulyte
Number of Samples
Analyzed/Detected
Range of Detected
Concentrations
Petroleum Hydrocarbons
Diesel-range organics
Volatile Organic Compounds
Chloroform
Mclhylcne chloride
4/1
62
Location of
Maximum
Concentration
003
Alaska Water
Quality Criteria
18 AAC 70/MCL (18
AAC 80)
NA/NA
Risk-Based
Screening
Concentration*
NA
4/3
4/3
0.5 - 3.2
1 - 1
002
002
1,240/100
NA/NA
0.15
4.1
Background
Concentration
Number of
Samples
Exceeding
MCLs
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
NA
Metals
Barium (dissolved)
Barium (lolul)
Manganese (dissolved)
Manganese (total)
4/4
4/4
4/4
4/4
71 -74
70- 74
479 - 536
478 - 532
001
003
001
001
1,000/2.000
1.000/2.000
NA/501'
NA/50h
2,600
2.600
180
180
520
2.000
1.900
1.900
0
0
4
4
a Risk-based screening concentration values aie based on a 1 x IO"6 residential risk or an HQ=1 (EPA, Region III, July II, 1994, Risk Based Concentration Tables).
b Secondary MCL.
Key al end of lahle.
-------
Table 3-5 (Coot.)
Key:
AAC = Alaska Administrative Code.
DRMO = Defense Reutilization and Marketing Office.
MCL = Maximum contaminant level.
/ig/L = Micrograms per liter.
NA = Not applicable.
-------
Table 3-6
SUMMARY OF SOIL SAMPLE RESULTS
BUILDING 1168 LEACH WELL SOURCE AREA
OPERABLE UNIT 2
FORT WAINWRIGHT, ALASKA
(mg/kg)
Analyte
PCBs and Organochlorine Pesticides
4 .4 ' -Dichlorodiphcny llrichloroclhanc
Number of
Samples
Analyzed/Detected
5/1
Range of
Detected
Concentrations
Location of
Maximum
Concentration
0.0048
AP-6808
Risk-Based
Screening
Concentration*
19
Background
Concentration
Number of
Samples
Exceeding RBCs
NA
1
Metals
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Manganese
Selenium
Silver
5/5
5/5
5/5
5/5
5/5
5/5
5/1
5/4
1.3-5.1
29 - 120
0.73 - 2.2
6.8 - 22
2.4 - 7.9
93 - 380
0.22
0.98 - 3.7
AP-6808
AP-6808
AP-6808
AP-6808
AP-6808
AP-6808
AP-6808
AP-6808
0.37
5.500
39
78.000
400
390
390
390
17
275
1.7
35
25
NA
NA
NA
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Petroleum Hydrocarbons
DRO
GRO
7/7
7/7
Volatile Organic Compounds
Benzene
m&p Xylcncs
7/0
7/6
260 - 7.700
26 - 4,600
NA
44 - 62
SB-2
SB-1
100b
50C
NA
NA
7
6
NA
SB3
22
160,000
NA
NA
NA
0
Key al end of (able.
-------
Page 2 of 2
Table 3-6
SUMMARY OF SOIL SAMPLE RESULTS
BUILDING 1168 LEACH WELL SOURCE AREA
OPERABLE UNIT 2
FORT WAINWRIGHT, ALASKA
(mg/kg)
Aoalyte
o-Xylcncs
Toluene
BTEX
Trichlorocthene
Number of
Samples
Analyzed/Detected
7/6
7/4
7/6
7/0
Range of
Detected
Concentrations
2.9-31
0.34 - 10
7.3 - 103
NA
Location of
Maximum
Concentration
SB 3
SB-3
SB-3
NA
Risk-Based
Screening
Concentration*
160,000
16.000
10<
58
Background
Concentration
NA
NA
NA
NA
Number of
Samples
Exceeding RBCs
0
/
0
5
0
*».
CJ
Note: The RBC used for m&p-xylcncs is Ihc RBC for xylcnes mixed. No RBC cxisles for p-xylenes in soil. The RBC used for arsenic is I lie one for the cuivinogcnic
form of arsenic. The RBC used for chromium is the one for trivalent chromium.
a Risk-based screening concentration values are based on a 1 x 10 6 residential direct contact risk or an HQ= I (EPA Region 111. July 11, 1994, Risk Based
Concentration Tables).
" ADEC soil cleanup mulnx score lor Level A DRO is 100 nig/kg.
c ADEC soil cleanup matrix score for Level A GRO is SO mg/kg
^ ADEC soil cleanup matrix score fur Level A BTEX is 10 mg/kg.
Key:
BTEX =
DRO =
GRO =
mg/kg =
NA =
PCBs =
RBCs =
Benzene, toluene, ethylbcnzene, and total xylenes.
Diesel-range organics.
Gasoline-range organics.
Milligrams per kilogram.
Not applicable.
Polychlorinated biphenyls.
Risk-based concentrations.
-------
Page 1 of 3
Table 3-7
SUMMARY OF GROUNDWATER SAMPLE RESULTS
BUILDING 1168 LEACH WELL SOURCE AREA
OPERABLE UNIT 2
FORT WAINWRIGHT, ALASKA
0»g/L)
Analyle and Concentration
Units
Number of
Samples
Analyzed/Detected
Petroleum Hydrocarbons
Diesel-range organics
Gasoline-range organics
15/9
20/7
Range of
Detected
Concentrations
77 - 34.000
11 - 18.000
Ixicalion of
Maximum
Concentration
Alaska Water
Quality Criteria
18 AAC 70/MCI. (18
AAC 80)
AP-5751
AP-5747
NA/NA
NA/NA
Risk-Based
Screening
Concentration*
Background
Concentration
Number of
Samplrx
Kxcivdini;
MCLs
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Volatile Organic Compounds
1 ,2,4-Trimelhylbcnzenc
1 ,3,5-Trimelhylbenzene
Acetone
Benzene
Cumene
Elhylbcnzcne
m&p-Xylcne
n-Butylbenzene
n-Propylbenzene
Naphthalene
o-Xylcne
20/4
20/4
20/1
20/1
20/4
20/4
20/4
20/3
20/4
35/8
20/4
49 - 350
18- ISO
41
5.1
18-59
26-310
44-620
13-16
21 -71
5- 130
3-1.000
AP-5751
AP-5751
AP-5751
AP-5752
AP-5751
AP-5751
AP-5751
AP-5747
AP-5751
AP-5751
AP-5751
100/NA
100/NA
NA/NA
0.2/5
NA/NA
0.2/700
0.2/10,000
NA/NA
NA/NA
0.1/NA
0.2/10.000
3
2.4
3,700
0.36
1.500
1.300
520
NA
>IA
1.500
1.400
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1
NA
0
0
NA
NA
NA
0
Key at end of luble.
-------
Page 2 of 3
Table 3-7
SUMMARY OF GROUND WATER SAMPLE RESULTS
BUILDING 1168 LEACH WELL SOURCE AREA
OPERABLE UNIT 2
FORT WAINWRIGHT, ALASKA
C«g/L)
Analyte and Concentration
Units
p-lsopropylioluene
scc-Butylbenzcne
Toluene
Trichloroelhene
Trichlorofluoromethanc
Number of
Samples
Analyzed/Detected
20/4
20/4
20/1
20/1
20/3
Range of
Detected
Concentrations
10-30
4.4-11
770
23
5 I -26
Location of
Maximum
Concentration
AP-5751
AP-5751
AP-5751
AP-5751
AP-5781
Alaska Water
Quality Criteria
18 AAC 70/MCL (18
AAC80)
NA/NA
NA/NA
0.2/1.000
5/5
NA/NA
Risk-Based
Screening
Concentration*
NA
61
750
1.6
1.300
Background
Concentration
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Number of
Samples
Exceeding
MCLs
NA
NA
0
1
NA
Semivolatile Orginic Compounds
2-Mclhylnaphlhalcnc
Naphthalene
15/4
35/8
5 -59
5- 130
AP-5751
AP-5751
0.1/NA
0.1/NA
MeUh
Arsenic (dissolved)
Arsenic (total)
Barium (dissolved)
Barium (total)
Cadmium (dissolved)
Chromium (total)
15/7
16/6
15/14
16/14
15/1
16/2
1/2 - 27
1 8-25
62 - 350
48 - 330
49
8 - 48
AP-5751
AP-5751
AP-5751
AP575I
AP6333
AP6332
48/50
48/50
1 ,000/2,000
1 ,000/2.000
9.3/5
11/100
NA
1,500
0.038
0.038
2.600
2.600
18
37.000
NA
NA
NA
NA
20
72
988
341
4.8
NA
0
0
0
0
0
0
Key it cnJ i
-------
Page 3 of 3
Table 3-7
SUMMARY OF GROUNDWATER SAMPLE RESULTS
BUILDING 1168 LEACH WELL SOURCE AREA
OPERABLE UNIT 2
FORT WAINWRIGHT, ALASKA
(M8/L)
Analyte and Concentration
Units
Lead (dissolved)
Lead (total)
Manganese (dissolved)
Manganese (total)
Selenium (dissolved)
Selenium (total)
Silver (total)
Number of
Samples
Analyzed/Detected
15/2
16/14
15/13
16/14
15/2
16/3
16/1
Range of
Detected
Concentrations
1.6-5.4
1.1 -21
82 - 4.400
1 1 - 4,400
2.4-3.1
1.7-2.5
22
Location of
Maximum
Concentration
AP-5751
AP-5751
AP-5751
AP-5751
AP-5751
AP-5751
AP-5781
Alaska Water
Quality Criteria
18 AAC 70/MCL (18
AAC 80)
NA/15
NA/15
NA/50b
NA/50b
10/50
10/50
NA/100b
Risk-Based
Screening
Concentration*
0.0037
0.0037
180
180
180
ISO
180
Background
Concentration
9.9
66
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
i
Number of
Samples
Exceeding
MCLs
0
1
II
11
0
0
0
Note. The RBC used for m&p-xylcnc is the one for p-xylene. This RBC is the more conservative of the «wo. The RBC used for arsenic is the one for the carcinogenic form of arsenic.
The RBC used for chromium is the one for trivalent chromium.
a Risk-based screening concentration values based on a 1 x 10'6 residential risk or in HQ= 1 (EPA, Region III, July 11. 1994, Risk Based Concentration Tables).
b Secondary MCL.
Key:
AAC = Alaska Administrative Code.
MCLs = Maximum contaminant levels.
UglL = Micrograms per liter.
NA = Not applicable.
-------
Page 1 of 4
Table 3-8
SUMMARY OF MICROWELL SAMPLE RESULTS
BUILDING 1168 LEACH WELL SOURCE AREA
OPERABLE UNIT 2
FORT WAINWRIGIIT, ALASKA
-------
Page 2 of 4
Table 3-8
SUMMARY OF MICROWELL SAMPLE RESULTS
BUILDING 1168 LEACH WELL SOURCE AREA
OPERABLE UNIT 2
FORT WAINWRIGHT, ALASKA
(M8/L)
Analytes
Number of
Samples
Analyird/Detecled
Range of
Detected
Concentrations
Location of
Maximum
Concentration
Alaska Water
Quality Criteria
18 AAC 70/MCL
(18 AAC 80)
Risk-Based
Screening
Concentration*
Background
Concentration
Number of
Samples
Exceeding
MCLs
Volatile Organic Compounds
1 ,2,4-Trimelhylbcnzene
1 ,3,5-Trimethylbenzenc
1 ,3-Dichlorobcnzene
2-Bulanone (MEK)
4-Chlorololuenc
Acclone
Benzene
Brumubcrucnc
Carbon disulfide
Chloroform
Dichlorodifluoromethanc
Eihylbcnzcne
Cumene (Isopropylbenzene)
27/6
27/5
27/1
27/2
27/1
27/9
27/12
27/1
27/2
27/1
27/7
27/8
27/5
2 -800
3-370
3
2-3
5
2-9
0.6 - 250
9
0.5- 1
2.4
07- 1
36 - 650
2- 10
PSOl
PSOI
PS21
PS10
PS21
PS09
PSOl
PS2I
PS05
PSII
PS15
PSOl
PSOl
100/NA
100/NA
763/NA
NA/NA
NA/NA
NA/NA
0.2/5.0
NA/NA
NA'/NA
1 .240/100
NA/NA
0.2/700
NA/NA
3
2.4
540
22,000
NA
3.700
036
NA
21
O.IS
390
1.300
1,500
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
8
NA
NA
0
NA
0
NA
Key at end ol table.
-------
Page 3 of 4
Table 3-8
SUMMARY OF MJCROWELL SAMPLE RESULTS
BUILDING 1168 LEACH WELL SOURCE AREA
OPERABLE UNIT 2
FORT WAINWRIGHT, ALASKA
(Mg/U
Analytes
Naphthalene
Toluene
Total xylcncs
Trichlorodhene
Trichlorofluoromelhane
cis-l ,2-Dichloroethene
n-Propylbenzene
Number of
Samples
Analyzed/Detected
27/3
27/8
27/10
27/6
27/7
27/4
27/2
Range of
Detected
Concentrations
6-250
0.6 - 2.700
1 .4 - 4,300
\.0 - 47
0.5 - 17
0.7-9.5
4-6
Location of
Maximum
Concentration
PSOI
PSOI
PSOI
PS23
PS11
PS21
PS21
Alaska Water
Quality Criteria
18 AAC 70/MCL
(18 AAC 80)
O.I/NA
02/1,000
N A/I 0,000
5/5
NA/NA
11,600/70
NA/NA
Risk-Based
Screening
Concentration*
1.500
750
12.000
1.6
1,300
61
NA
Background
Concentration
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Number of
Samples
Exceeding
MCLs
NA
2
0
4
NA
0
NA
Semivolatile Organic Compounds
2-Methylnaphthalcne
3- and 4-Melhylphenol
Naphthalene
27/3
27/3
27/4
19-29
18-64
10-87
PS23
PSOI
PS23
0.1/NA
NA/NA
O.I/NA
NA
180
1,500
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Key at end of table.
-------
Page 4 of 4
Table 3-8 (Coot.)
Note: The RBC used for arsenic is for the carcinogenic form of arsenic. The RBC used for chromium is the one for trivalenl chromium. The RBC used for xylenes is
the one for xylenes mixed. The RBC used for 3- and 4-mcthylphenol is the one for 4-methylphenol, I he more conservative of the two.
* Risk-based screening concentration values based on a I x 10 6 residential risk or HQ= I (EPA, Region III, July II, 1994, Risk-Based Concentration Tables).
b Secondary MCL.
Key:
AAC = Alaska Administrative Code.
DRO = Diesel-range organics.
GRO = Gasoline-range organics.
MCLs = Maximum contaminant levels.
MEK = Methyl ethyl keione.
/ig/L = Micrograms per liter.
NA = Not applicable.
VOCs = Volatile organic compounds.
-------
ui
O
Drainage
Channel
Approximate
Location ol
Concrete Cistern
Sub-Area
DRMO1
Fort
Wainwright
Reservation
Boundary
::::.. O
Approximate
Groundwater Flow
Former UST
Location
Arctic
Surplus Yard
Sub-Area
DRM04
KEY.
*—« Fence
[""_"! Former Building Location
AST Aboveground Storage Tank
UST Underground Storage Tank
EQJ] Benzo(a)pyrene in surtace soil
SCALE (Feet)
0 300 600
Figure 3-1
DRMO YARD SOURCE AREA
CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN
IN SURFACE SOIL
OPERABLE UNIT 2
FAIRBANKS ALASKA
SIZE
JOB NO
J1290I
FILE NO
JT2674 I CDR
DATE
96MAY26
PLAIE
-------
Drainage
Channel
Approximate
Location of
Concrete Cistern
Sub-Area
DRMO1
Fort
Wainwnght
Reservation
Boundary
Approximate
Groundwater Flow
Former UST
Location
Arctic
Surplus Yard
Railroad /
pur "---'
Sub-Area
DRMO4
KEY:
»—« Fence
C™j Former Building Location
AST Aboveground Storage Tank
UST Underground Storage Tank
;:::; Benzene in groundwater
Tetrachloroethene in groundwater
Trichloroethene in groundwater
SCALE (FMt)
0 300
600
Figure 3-2
DRMO YARD SOURCE AREA
CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN
IN GROUNDWATER
OPERABLE UNIT 2
FAIRBANKS ALASKA
SIZE
B
JOB NO.
JT2901
FILE NO.
JT2674 2.CDR
DATE
96MAY28
PLATE
51
-------
Water Suppiy Well (unused)
KEY:
"—« Fence
I I Building Location
UST Underground Storage Tank
_. Below ground piping
era
Diesel Range Organics. Gasoline Range Organics. Benzene, Toluene.
Ethytbenzene. and Xytene in subsurface soil
SCALE (FMt)
SO
100
Rgure 3-3
BUILDING 1168 LEACH WELL
SOURCE AREA
CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN
IN SUBSURFACE SOIL
OPERABLE UNIT 2
FAIRBANKS
ALASKA
SIZE
B
JOB NO.
JT2901
FILE NO.
JT2674 4.CDR
DATE
96MAY28
PLATE
52
-------
Trees
Water Supply Well (unused)
Trees
KEY
*—" Fence
I 1 Building Location
LIST Underground Storage Tank
—• — Below ground piping
\///\ Trichloroetnene in groundwater
•;;:l Benzene in groundwater
SCALE (fiMt)
50
100
Figure 3-4
BUILDING 1168 LEACH WELL
SOURCE AREA
CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN
IN GROUNDWATER
OPERABLE UNIT 2
FAIRBANKS
ALASKA
SIZE
B
JOB NQ
JT2901
FILE NO
JT2674 3.COR
DATE
96MAY28
PLATE
53
-------
4.0 SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
The Baseline Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment is one mechanism for
determining the need for taking action at the source areas and indicates exposure pathways
that need to be addressed by remedial action. Risk Assessments are performed using
information regarding contaminants and assumptions regarding the extent to which people may
be exposed to them. This summary of the Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment for the
source areas is divided into the five following sections:
• Identification of chemicals of potential concern;
• Exposure assessment;
• Toxicity assessment;
• Risk characterization, which is an integration and summary of the
information gathered and analyzed in the preceding sections; and
• Analysis of the uncertainties involved in developing a Risk Assessment.
The summary concludes with the results of the Ecological Risk Assessment conducted for the
DRMO Yard and Building 1168 Leach Well.
Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessments were conducted for OU-2 to determine
potential risks in the absence of remedial action. CERCLA guidance allows the Baseline
Human Health Risk Assessment to reflect the expected future use of a site. Scenarios
involving future residential use of the DRMO Yard and Building 1168 Leach Well were
completed; however, these scenarios were determined to not be appropriate for soils because
industrial use is the reasonably anticipated future use, based on the Post Master Plan and
historical use of both areas.
It was determined, because of site hydrological conditions, that future residential risks
identified in the Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment apply to groundwater because an
exposure pathway for domestic water users exists. The NCP requires that groundwater be
returned to its beneficial uses whenever practicable. At these source areas, the beneficial use
is domestic water supply.
4.1 IDENTIFICATION OF CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN
Selection of contaminants of concern, which are chemicals that potentially contribute to
human health risks at the source areas, was a three-step process. First, the maximum
concentrations of contaminants detected in on-site soil and water during the RI field
investigation were compared to health-based screening levels for soil and drinking water
developed by EPA, Region 3, (April 20, 1994) and Region 10, Supplemental Risk Assessment
Guidance. These standards reflect residential exposure assumptions of 1 x 10* and 1 x 10~7
risks associated with groundwater and soil, respectively, or a hazard quotient of 0.1 for all
media. Secondly, inorganic chemicals were compared to naturally occurring background
levels. If concentrations were found below established background levels, they were
54
-------
eliminated from further consideration. Thirdly, chemicals detected at a frequency of less than
1 % were elirainatedTrom consideration unless their concentration was significantly higher
than EPA's health-based screening levels. While soil contamination did not pose a direct
threat to human health, it does act as an ongoing source of contamination to groundwater.
Table 4-1 presents the contaminants of concern identified in each environmental medium
evaluated for each source area.
4.2 EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT
The exposure assessment estimates the type and magnitude of exposures to the contaminants
of concern at the source areas. The exposure assessment considers the current and potential
future uses of the source area, characterizes the potentially exposed populations, identifies the
important exposure pathways, and quantifies the intake of each contaminant of concern from
each medium for each population at risk. The Human Health Risk Assessment for OU-2 was
completed for the DRMO Yard and Building 1168 Leach Well.
4.2.1 Identification of Site Uses, Exposed Populations, and Exposure Pathways
4.2.1.1 Source Area Land Use Scenarios
The exposure assessment for the DRMO Yard and Building 1168 Leach Well source areas
considers land use scenarios to evaluate exposed populations. The Baseline Human Health
Risk Assessment evaluated future residential land use of the site, which assumes that
individuals would spend 30 years of their time at the source. Even though this scenario is
unlikely, it provides a conservative baseline to avoid underestimation of risks. The industrial
scenario assumes that the site would continue to be used for industrial purposes and that
workers would spend 25 years of continuous employment at the site. Tables 4-2 and 4-3
identify the potential exposure routes evaluated for the Human Health Risk Assessment. It
was determined that the industrial scenario would be appropriate for these source areas for the
land use purposes. For groundwater, the future residential use scenario is used to represent
the impacted drinking water supply aquifer and potential consumption.
4.2.1.2 Exposure Pathways and Assumptions
An exposure pathway is the mechanism by which chemicals migrate from their source or
point of release to the population at risk. A complete exposure pathway comprises four
elements: a source of a chemical release, transport of contaminants through environmental
media, a point of potential human contact with a contaminated medium, and entry into the
body or exposure route.
The exposure pathways considered in the Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment varied
depending on the land use and population potentially exposed. The exposure assessment
identified potential pathways for contaminants of concern to reach the exposed population for
each source area. A "complete" exposure pathway must exist for a contaminant to pose a
potential human health risk (i.e., the potential receptor to be exposed to a contaminant must
exist).
55
-------
4.2.13 Calculation of Exposure
EPA's Superfund guidance requires that the reasonable maximum exposure be used to
calculate potential health impacts at Superfund sites. The reasonable maximum exposure is
the highest exposure that is reasonably expected to occur at the source areas and is calculated
using conservative assumptions in order to represent exposures that are reasonable and
protective. The Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment reasonable maximum and average
exposures were estimated for the residential and industrial land use scenarios. Average
exposures were calculated to represent exposures of a more typical person.
To estimate exposure, data regarding the concentrations of contaminants of concern in the
media of concern at the source area (the exposure point concentrations) are combined with
information about the projected behaviors and characteristics of the people who potentially
may be exposed to these media (exposure parameters). These elements are described below:
a) Exposure Point Concentrations. Surface soil (0 feet to 2 feet BGS), subsurface
soil (2 feet to 12 feet BGS), and groundwater sample results for the DRMO Yard
were averaged to calculate exposure point concentrations for the reasonable
maximum exposure and average exposure calculations. At the DRMO Yard, two
wells were selected from three areas (Area 1, Area 2, and Area 3) within the
source area to be evaluated to ensure that the risks associated with "hot spots"
were considered. Data from these areas were averaged to provide the reasonable
maximum exposure. Because contaminant release occurred through a subsurface
leach well at Building 1168, only subsurface soil contamination exists. Therefore,
surface soil, sediment, and air exposure pathways risks were not calculated.
Groundwater exposure point concentrations were calculated. Tables 4-4 through
4-7 contain exposure point concentrations for carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic
contaminants of concern at both source areas. The exposure point concentrations
were calculated on the arithmetic mean as the data (average) and as the 95% upper
confidence level of the arithmetic mean of the data (reasonable maximum
exposure).
Note: A value of one-half the detection limit was used for nondetect
concentrations for soil and groundwater to calculate the exposure point
concentration. Because of the large number of nondetects (between 75% and 95%
of the samples for many chemicals), the calculated 95% upper confidence limits
(UCLs) are generally representative of the mean concentration. In addition, the
maximum detected concentration for many chemicals was often only one to two
orders of magnitude greater than the mean concentration. This finding indicates
that, in general, there was not a wide variability in the distribution of chemicals in
the different media. Because of these reasons, the 95% UCLs for many of the
chemicals detected in soil and groundwater at OU-2 are not substantially different
from the mean concentration.
b) Exposure Parameters. The parameters used to calculate the reasonable maximum
exposure include body weight, age, contact rate, frequency of exposure, and
exposure duration. Exposure parameters were obtained from EPA, Region 10,
Risk Assessment guidance (Region 10, Supplemental Risk Assessment Guidance for
56
-------
Superfund [EPA 1991]). The default exposure factors were modified to reflect
site-specific climatologicaJ and other factors at Fort Wainwright. Site-specific
exposure assumptions were made for soil contact, including ingest ion, dermal
contact, and inhaling dust, based on snow cover half the year.
For all of the media, exposures were estimated assuming long-term exposures to source area
contaminants.
4 J TOXICITY ASSESSMENT
The baseline human health evaluation provides toxicity information for the chemicals of
concern. Generally, cancer risks are calculated using toxicity factors known as slope factors,
while noncancer risks rely on reference doses.
EPA developed slope factors for estimating lifetime cancer risks associated with exposure to
potential carcinogens. Slope factors are expressed in units of (milligrams per kilogram
[rag/kg]-day'') and are multiplied by the estimated intake of a potential carcinogen, in mg/kg-
day"', to provide an upperbound estimate of the excess lifetime cancer risk associated with
exposure at that intake level. The term upperbound reflects the conservative estimate of the
risks calculated from the slope factor. Use of this approach makes it highly unlikely that the
actual cancer risk would be underestimated. Slope factors are derived from the results of
human epidemiological studies or chronic animal bioassays to which mathematical
extrapolations from high to low dose and from animal to human dose have been applied.
Reference doses were developed to indicate the potential for adverse health effects from
ingestion of potential contaminants of concern that exhibit such noncancer effects as damage
to organ systems (e.g., the nervous system and blood forming system). Reference doses also
are expressed in units of mg/kg-day and are estimates within an order of magnitude of
lifetime daily exposure levels for people, including sensitive individuals, who are likely to be
without risk of adverse effect. Estimates of intakes of contaminants of concern from
environmental media (e.g., the amount of a contaminant of concern ingested from
contaminated drinking water) can be compared to the reference dose. Reference doses are
derived from human epidemiological studies and from animal studies to which uncertainty
factors have been applied.
The toxicity factors were drawn from the Integrated Risk Information System or, if no
Integrated Risk Information System values were available, from the Health Effect Assessment
Summary Tables. For chemicals that do not have toxicity values available, other criteria,
such as state and federal MCLs. were used to assess potential hazards or to determine action
levels.
4.4 RISK CHARACTERIZATION
The purpose of the risk characterization is to integrate the results of the exposure and toxicity
assessments to estimate risk to humans from exposure to site contaminants. Risks were
calculated for carcinogenic (cancer-causing) and noncarcinogenic (toxic) effects based on the
reasonable maximum exposure (see Section 4.2). To estimate cancer risk, the slope factor is
multiplied by the exposure expected for that chemical to provide an upperbound estimate of
57
-------
the excess lifetime cancer risk. This estimate is the incremental probability of an individual
developing cancer over a lifetime as a result of exposure to cancer-causing chemicals at a
source area. EPA considers excess lifetime cancer risks between 1 in 1 million (1 x 10*) and
1 in 10,000 (1 x 10") to be within the generally acceptable range; risks greater than 1 in
10,000 usually suggest the need to take action at a site.
In defining effects from exposure to noncancer-causing contaminants, EPA considers
acceptable exposure levels as those that do not adversely affect humans over their expected
lifetime, with a built-in margin of safety. Potential concern for noncarcinogenic effects of a
single contaminant in a single medium is expressed as a hazard quotient, which is the ratio of
the estimated exposure from a site contaminant to that contaminant's reference dose. If the
hazard quotient is less than 1, then adverse noncancer health effects are unlikely to occur.
Hazard quotients for individual contaminants of concern are summed to yield a hazard index
for the sub-area. The potential excess lifetime cancer risks and hazard indices described in
this summary were calculated using reasonable maximum exposure assumptions.
Under current land use conditions, the estimates of carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic effects
for the DRMO Yard fell within or below the EPA acceptable risk range for CERCLA sites.
A current land use scenario was not evaluated for the Building 1168 Leach Well because there
were no complete exposure pathways.
The future land use for both source areas is considered to be industrial. However, a
residential scenario for groundwater is considered appropriate and representative of risk to
current downgradient users, given DRMO Yard and Building 1168 Leach Well site
hydrological conditions and the presence of the potable water supply/fire suppression well
within the DRMO Yard. When considering groundwater as a source of domestic water,
manganese was detected in groundwater at concentrations above EPA's acceptable risk range
at the Building 1168 Leach Well. However, the manganese concentrations detected at the
Building 1168 Leach Well are considered reflective of background concentrations in this
mineral-rich area and are consistent with concentrations found in other source areas
throughout Fort Wainwright.
Excess lifetime incremental cancer risks and hazard indices for both source areas are
summarized in Tables 4-8 and 4-9. The incremental risks and hazard indices are calculated
after subtracting the background concentrations of inorganics.
While soil contaminant concentrations do not pose a hazard for direct human contact, the
levels are high enough to pose an ongoing threat to groundwater. Existing groundwater
contaminant concentrations exceed state and federal MCLs.
4.4.1 Defense Reutilization and Marketing Office Yard
Excess lifetime incremental cancer risks for soil are below the 1 in 10,000 to 1 in 1 million
risk range at the DRMO Yard, with the exception of benzo(a)pyrene, which is within the EPA
acceptable risk range. Incremental hazard indices for soil at the DRMO Yard are less than 1.
Arsenic was the main contaminant responsible for exceedance of an excess lifetime cancer risk
of 1 x 10~* for site workers and future residents. The average background concentration of
arsenic in soil is higher than the estimated surface soil reasonable maximum exposure,
58
-------
indicating that the arsenic risk for soil is attributable to background concentrations.
Excess incremental lifetime cancer risks for groundwater are below or within EPA's
acceptable risk range of 1 in 10,000 to 1 in 1 million at the DRMO Yard. However,
groundwater near the DRMO Yard groundwater supply/fire suppression well is contaminated
with PCE at concentrations approaching unacceptable excess lifetime cancer risks (8.7x 10~}).
VOCs are the contaminants responsible for exceedance of a 1 x 10"* risk for future residential
use of groundwater. The incremental hazard index for groundwater at the DRMO Yard is
less than 1.
State and federal MCLs for PCE and TCE are exceeded consistently in sub-area DRMO1
groundwater. State and federal MCLs for benzene and PCE are exceeded in sub-area
DRMO4 groundwater.
4.4.2 Building 1168 Leach Well
Excess lifetime incremental cancer risks for groundwater are below or within the 1 in 10,000
to 1 in 1 million risk range at the Building 1168 Leach Well. Arsenic was the main
contaminant responsible for exceedance of an excess lifetime cancer risk of 1 x 10~*.
The average incremental hazard index for future groundwater use is less than 1; however, the
reasonable maximum exposure hazard index is 7.8. Manganese is the main contaminant
contributing to the elevated hazard index. However, manganese was not used and was not a
by-product of any process conducted at the Building 1168 Leach Well.
4.5 MAJOR UNCERTAINTIES
Uncertainty is associated with every step of the Risk Assessment process. The main
uncertainty associated with the OU-2 Human Health Risk Assessment process that could result
in overly conservative risk evaluation is summarized below:
• EPA recommends use of a default value of 30 years for residential
exposure: however, most military assignments are for a much shorter
period of time, often only one to three years.
Uncertainties that may underestimate site-related risk and exposures include the following:
• As a result of a data review reported by one laboratory, many pesticide
and PCB data points were rejected for data quality reasons. However,
these rejections do not appear to significantly affect the Risk
Assessment; and
• Some of the analyses performed (diesel-range organics, gasoline-range
organics. and total petroleum hydrocarbons) do not provide chemical-
specific data; therefore, associated risks could not be quantified.
However, surrogate chemicals were evaluated.
59
-------
Uncertainties with unknown effects on the outcome of the Human Health Risk Assessment
include the following:
• Multiple laboratories were used to analyze OU-2 samples, which can
lead to inconsistencies in approach and can introduce errors or
laboratory artifacts not easily identified;
• Surrogate toxicity factors were used to evaluate the potential risk
associated with structurally similar chemicals that lack EPA-verified
toxicity factors (e.g., naphthalene was used as a surrogate for
methylnaphthalene). However, it was impossible to identify
appropriate surrogates for all chemicals lacking verified toxicity
factors. Therefore, certain chemicals were not evaluated in the Risk
Assessment.
• The quality assurance/quality control process identified some concerns
with regard to analytical results for organochlorine and
organophosphorus pesticide samples. After data concerns were raised
for OU-2 pesticide analytical results, separate independent reviews of
the data were conducted by the Army; United States Army Engineer
District, Alaska; and EPA. While the conclusions of both reviews
indicate that the data are usable and consistent with other quality
assurance laboratory analyses, uncertainty remains. However, to
provide perspective, the action/no action decisions in this Record of
Decision would not change even if the results were an order of
magnitude different than those reported. The variability of results Is
not expected to exceed this estimate, even under worst-case conditions.
Because numerous conservative assumptions were used in the selection of contaminants of
concern and the exposure and toxicity assessments, the risk characterization results likely
overestimate risks associated with contaminants of concern at OU-2.
4.6 ECOLOGICAL RISKS
An Ecological Risk Assessment addresses the impacts and potential risks posed by contami-
nants to natural habitats, including plants and animals, in the absence of remedial action. The
three main phases of the Ecological Risk Assessment are problem formulation, analysis, and
risk characterization.
The following sections present a brief discussion of the Ecological Risk Assessment steps.
4.6.1 Problem Formulation
To narrow the scope and to focus the Ecological Risk Assessment on the most important
aspects of OU-2, a number of steps was performed. An ecological survey was conducted at
the DRMO Yard and Building 1168 Leach Well. In addition, previous ecological
investigations, including wildlife inventories, were reviewed. A description of the regional
and local ecology was completed, and threatened, endangered, sensitive, or rare species were
60
-------
identified.
Chemicals of potential ecological concern were identified by a review of the OU-2 analytical
database with regard to data quality, spatial representation and adequacy for an Ecological
Risk Assessment, comparison to background concentrations, and comparison to ecological
risk-based criteria for sediment and surface water. Next, pathways of contaminant migration
exposure were identified by an evaluation of sources of contaminants and the mechanisms by
which they may be transported to media of ecological concern, plants, and animals.
Potential ecological effects are summarized by a review of the lexicological literature. These
summaries present a review of the known lexicological effects of the chemicals of potential
ecological concern on wildlife species.
Two types of ecological end points are considered in the Ecological Risk Assessment:
assessment and measurement end points:
• Assessment end points are qualitative or quantitative expressions of the
environmental values to be protected at OU-2 and are selected by
consideration of species that play important roles in community
structure or function; species of societal significance or concern;
species of concern to federal and state agencies; diet, habitat
preference, and behaviors that predispose the species to chemicals of
potential ecological concern exposure; amenability of the selected
species to measurement or prediction of effects; and species that may
be particularly sensitive to the chemicals of potential ecological concern
identified at OU-2; and
• Measurement end points include the species and communities used to
quantify the potential ecological impacts posed by OU-2 chemicals of
potential ecological concern. Representative measurement species are
selected based on the relative abundance of each species and
establishment of functional groups based on trophic level and preferred
habitat. Representative indicator species then are selected based on the
potential for exposure and the availability of lexicological data. The
following measurement species and communities were selected for
evaluation at OU-2: meadow voles, muskrats, and benthic
invertebrates.
A conceptual ecological exposure model is formulated and defines the receptors and pathways
to be evaluated in the Ecological Risk Assessment. The refined conceptual ecological
exposure models for OU-2 are potential ecological risks that may result from exposure of
terrestrial wildlife and vegetation to chemicals of potential ecological concern found in the
surface soils at the DRMO Yard and from exposure of benthic invertebrates to sediments and
surface water associated with the DRMO Yard. No complete ecological exposure pathways
associated with the Building 1168 Leach Well were identified; therefore, the source area was
not evaluated further.
61
-------
4.6.2 Analysis
The analysis phase of the Ecological Risk Assessment evaluates receptor exposure to
chemicals of potential ecological concern and the potential adverse effects of that exposure.
Analysis of exposure and effects is based on the ecological end points and the refined
conceptual ecological exposure site model derived during the problem formulation phase.
Analysis comprises two main components:
• Exposure assessment, in which exposure point concentrations and
chemical of potential ecological concern intakes for the measurement
species are estimated; and
• Ecological effects assessment, in which toxicity benchmark values are
derived from the literature and lexicological databases, and uncertainty
factors are selected and applied to the toxicity benchmark values to
yield toxicity reference values. The uncertainty factors are used to
compensate for applying data derived from laboratory or domestic
animal studies to free-ranging wildlife (for which little empirical data
are available).
4.6J Risk Characterization
Risk characterization involves two major components: risk estimation and risk description.
4.6J.1 Risk Estimation
Risk estimation involves calculating hazard quotients to assess potential ecological risks to
measurement species and communities. This method involves comparing calculated exposure
doses or media concentrations with toxicity reference values and/or experimentally derived
risk-based concentrations. Ecological effects are quantified by calculating the ratio between a
chemical of potential ecological concern's estimated intake or concentration and its
corresponding toxicity reference value (i.e., the intake level or concentration at which no
adverse ecological effects are expected to occur). If this ratio (i.e., the hazard quotient)
exceeds 1 , then adverse ecological effects may be expected for the chemical of potential
ecological concern. The hazard quotients described in this summary were calculated using
.conservative reasonable maximum exposure assumptions.
The hazard quotients for each exposure pathway (e.g., soil ingestion and surface water
ingestion) may be summed for each chemical of potential ecological concern to establish
chemical-specific hazard indices for each measurement species. The hazard indices provide a
species- and chemical-specific characterization of the potential ecological risks across all of
the assessed exposure pathways. Finally, the hazard indices can be added across contaminants
that have similar effects.
4.6 J^ Risk Description
Risk description involves summarizing the ecological significance of the potential risks and
presenting the uncertainties associated with the Ecological Risk Assessment.
62
-------
The results of the Ecological Risk Assessment for OU-2 indicate a potential for adverse
effects to small terrestrial mammals (e.g., voles) at the DRMO Yard, reflecting ecologically
significant concentrations of manganese and lead. These risks are associated with ingestion of
soil and vegetation. These contaminants do not appear to be associated with historical source
area activities and are consistent with regional background concentrations. Additionally, the
DRMO Yard is an industrial area with a significant amount of heavy equipment and human
activity. The habitat area in these locations has been altered significantly from the
surrounding land. Specific species surveys and traps were not used. The actual number of
animals that could be affected by these chemicals could be very low.
At the DRMO Yard drainage ditches, muskrats may be impacted by lead, manganese, arsenic,
dioxin, and PCBs present in the sediments; however, the east drainage ditch containing the
PCBs and dioxins was excavated in 1995. For the purposes of the Ecological Risk
Assessment, it was assumed that the muskrat would remain year-round in the surface water
bodies at the DRMO Yard. This is a conservative assumption because muskrats are known to
migrate to larger water bodies during winter, when smaller water bodies freeze. Therefore,
the risk is overestimated. In addition, impacts to the muskrat population are not expected
because the affected areas are limited in size.
Sediment quality criteria are a measure of the potential adverse effects to benthic
invertebrates. Organic chemicals of potential ecological concern, lead, and cadmium exceed
the sediment quality criteria in the east ditch. However, the east ditch is dry throughout most
of the year and therefore does not support aquatic life. In addition, this ditch was excavated
in 1995. Although the sediment quality criteria were exceeded for arsenic, manganese, and
lead in Channel B and the north channel at the DRMO Yard, the origin of these inorganic
chemicals is assumed to be attributable mainly to a combination of naturally occurring
concentrations, contributions from other anthropogenic sources, and diffuse nonpoint source
input from the DRMO Yard source area.
Overall, there do not appear to be unacceptable potential ecological risks associated with the
DRMO Yard source area.
The Ecological Risk Assessment is subject to uncertainties because virtually every step in the
Risk Assessment process involves assumptions using professional judgment. Principal
uncertainties associated with the OU-2 Ecological Risk Assessment include the following:
• Site and media with incomplete exposure pathways were eliminated
from evaluation;
• For terrestrial species, the risks were estimated using average site
chemical concentrations in soil between 0 feet and 2 feet BGS and
modeled chemical concentrations in plants for the meadow vole;
• For aquatic species, risks were estimated by calculating hazard indices
for muskrats potentially exposed to chemicals of potential ecological
concern in sediments and plants, and by evaluating the potential
adverse effects to benthic invertebrates by comparing sediment
chemicals of potential ecological concern to sediment quality criteria;
63
-------
• Sampling was biased toward areas of "expected" soil contamination.
This is likely to result in an overestimation of potential risks to the
OU-2 ecological receptors;
• Conservative assumptions were used in estimating exposures and in
developing the contaminant screening criteria (such as using the lowest
no observed adverse effect level value from the literature), which tend
to overestimate risks;
• Indicator species were selected on the basis of likelihood of exposure to
contaminants. Exposure of other terrestrial and aquatic receptors is not
expected to exceed these risks. Conservative assumptions were used in
the selection of the indicator species to minimize the potential for
underestimating the exposure to other unevaluated receptors;
• Exposure parameters for all measurement species were selected based
on professional judgment. Assumptions included the following: that
chemicals do not degrade, terrestrial receptors are exposed chronically
to the mean concentration of all chemicals of potential ecological
concern in soil and sediment, receptors spend their lifetime within the
contaminated portion of the site, contaminants are absorbed completely
via all evaluated exposure routes, chemicals do not combine to form
new chemicals, and plant uptake modeling accurately describes
chemical uptake in plants. Without extensive site-specific field data, it
is unclear whether potential risks are underestimated or overestimated
using the selected exposure parameters;
• Assumptions used in the effects assessment include the following: use
of animal data can be extrapolated across species, laboratory species
have sensitivity to chemicals of potential ecological concern similar to
species in the natural environment, data for reproductive and
development end points can predict impacts to populations, oral
exposure toxicity values can be used to evaluate dermal exposure,
indicator species are as sensitive to the toxic effects of chemicals of
potential ecological concern as the other species on site, and the
toxicity benchmarks adequately address the potential toxicity of
chemicals of ecological concern to relevant species. It is unclear
whether these assumptions overestimate or underestimate potential
risks; and
• Chemicals with different target organs and end points add linearly to
potential risks. This assumption probably results in an overestimation
of risk.
The approach described in this Ecological Risk Assessment uses realistic assumptions
wherever possible; reasonable and conservative assumptions were used when empirical data
were unavailable. Consequently, potential ecological risks to OU-2 species are more likely to
be overestimated rather than underestimated.
64
-------
Page 1 of 2
Table 4-1
CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN IN SOIL AND GROUNDWATER
FROM THE HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
OPERABLE UNIT 2
FORT WAINWRIGHT, ALASKA
Chemical
Aroclor 1260
Arsenic
Barium
Benzene
Benzo(a)anthrmcene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluormnthene
n-Buty Ibenzcnc
icc-Butylbenzene
Cadmium
Chloroform
Chromium
4,4'-DDT
1 ,2-Dichlorobcnzene
1 , 1-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
1 ,2(cii)-Dich)oroethene
Dieldrin
Diesel-range organic*
Diaulfoton
Ethylbenzene
Guo line-range organic!
Indenod ,2,3-cd)pyrene
Lindane
Manganeic
Source Area
DRMO Yard
Groundwater
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Soil
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Building 1168 Leach Well
Grouodwater
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Key at end of table.
65
-------
Page 2 of 2
Table 4-1
CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN IN SOIL AND GROUNDWATER
FROM THE HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
OPERABLE UNIT 2
FORT WAINWRIGHT, ALASKA
Chemical
Mercury
Methylene chloride
2-Mcthyinaphlhalene
2.3.7.8-TCDD (as
TEQt)
Tetrmchloroethene
Toluene
Trichloroethene
o-Xylene
Source Area
DRMO Yard
Ground water
X
X
X
X
X
X
SoU
X
X
Building 1168 Leach Weil
Ground water
X
X
X
Key:
DDT
DRMO
TCDD
TEQs
X
Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane.
Defense Reutilization and Marketing Office.
Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioiun.
Toxicily equivalencies.
Indicates that the chemical was selected as a chemical of concern for the specific site and media
shown.
66
-------
Page 1 of 1
Exposure Medium and
Route
Ground water
Ingestion
Dermal contact
Table 4-2
POTENTIAL EXPOSURE ROUTES
DRMO YARD SOURCE AREA
OPERABLE UNIT 2
FORT WAINWRIGHT, ALASKA
Potentially Exposed Populations
Current
Worker
X
X
Future
Worker
X
X
Future
Resident
Future
Construction
Worker
X
X
—
—
Future Site
Visitor
—
—
Air
Inhalation of VOCs
Inhalation of particulars
—
X
—
X
X
—
—
—
—
—
Soil
Ingestion
Dermal contact
X
X
X
X
—
—
—
—
—
—
Key:
DRMO
VOCi
X
= Exposure of this population through this route is not likely to occur.
= Defense Reutilization and Marketing Office.
= Volatile organic compounds.
= Exposure of this population through this route is probable.
67
-------
Page 1 of 1
Table 4-3
POTENTIAL EXPOSURE ROUTES
BUILDING 1168 LEACH WELL SOURCE AREA
OPERABLE UNIT 2
FORT WAINWRIGHT, ALASKA
Exposure Medium and
Route
Grouodwater
Ingestion
Dermal contact
Potentially Exposed Populations
Future
Worker
—
—
Future
Resident
X
X
Future
Construction
Worker
Future Site
Visitor
—
—
—
—
Air
Inhalation of VOCs
—
X
—
—
Key:
VOC«
X
Exposure of this population through this route is not likely to occur.
Volatile organic compounds.
Exposure of this population through this route is probable.
68
-------
Page 1 of 1
Table 4-4
EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATION AND STATISTICAL SUMMARY
CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
SURFACE SOIL AT THE DRMO YARD
OPERABLE UNIT 2
FORT WAINWRIGHT, ALASKA
(mg/kg)
Chemical
1 ,3.5-Trirnethylbenzene
4,4'-DDT
Aroclor 1260
Arsenic
Benzo(a)anihracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Cadmium
Dieldrin
Diesel-range organic*
Gasoline-range organic*
Indeno(l ,2,3-cd)pyrcnc
Lead
Lindane
Manganese
Mercury
p-Isopropyltoluene
Thallium
2.3,7.8-TCDD (TEQi)
SUcwide
Average
Concentration
0.004
0.055
0.113
8.37
0.150
0.153
0.125
0.68
0.014
55.682
4.62
0.098
35.46
0.002
263.56
0.05
0.003
0.12
2.54 pg/g
• Maximum
Detected
Concentration
0.12
1.1
1.1
72.4
0.32
0.35
0.35
8.1
1.0
2,000
130
0.2
996
0.004
440
0.32
0.051
0.13
97.4 pg/g
Standard
Deviation
0.013
0.0129
0.156
7.904
58.557
60.802
57.736
1.044
113.058
251.039
15.098
0.046
111.649
0.0007
77.887
0.040
0.006
0.027
11.460
RME
95% UCL
0.006
0.079
0.143
9.85
160.97"
164.77
136.31
0.88
35.66
103.402
7.49
0.106
56.27
0.002
278.27
0.06
0.004
0.!2
4.77 pg/g
Note: The average and RME concentrations represent the arithmetic mean and
surface soil data.
Key:
95% UCL = 95% upper confidence limit on the arithmetic mean.
DDT = Dichlorodiphenyldtchloroethane.
DRMO = Defense Reutilization and Marketing Office.
mg/kg = Milligrams per kilogram.
pg/g = Picograms per gram.
RME = Reasonable maximum exposure.
TCDD = Tetnchlorodibenzo-p-dioxin.
TEQs = Toxicity equivalencies.
the 95% UCL calculated on the site wide
69
-------
Page 1 of 1
Table 4-5
EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATION AND STATISTICAL SUMMARY
CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
SUBSURFACE SOIL AT THE DRMO YARD
OPERABLE UNIT 2
FORT WA1NWRIGHT, ALASKA
(ing/kg)
Chemical
1 ,3 ,5-TrimethyIbcnzene
4.4'-DDT
Aroclor 1260
Arsenic
Benzofa)anthncene
Bcnzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Cadmium
Dieklrin
Diesel-range organici
Gasoline- range organici
Lead
Lindane
Manganeae
Mercury
p-l«opropyholuene
Thallium
2.3.7,8-TCDD (TEQ«)
Sitewide
Avenge
Concentration
0.0543
0.0120
0.0790
5.38
0.0409
0.0441
0.0432
0.42
0.0016
114.19
16.04
7.59
0.004
235.89
0.06
0.025
2.24
0.350 pg/g
Maximum
Detected
Concentration
5.600
0.380
0.590
19.6
0.045
0.049
0.048
2
0.013
9.600
690
130
0.130
2.420
2.3
2.200
9.8
1.73 pg/g
Standard
Deviation
0.457
0.029
0.047
3.643
0.009
0.011
0.010
0.311
0.001
732.435
63.206
9.326
0.009
210.473
0.152
0.172
1.388
1.914
RME
95% UCL
0.104
0.015
0.085
5.78
0.042
0.045
0.044
0.46
0.002
194.586
22.98
8.60
0.004
258.88
0.07
0.044
2.39
0.584
Note: The avenge and RME concentrations represent the arithmetic mean and the 95% UCL calculated on the
sitewide subsurface soil data.
Key:
95% UCL = 95% upper confidence limit on the arithmetic mean.
DDT = Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane.
DRMO - Defense Reutilization and Marketing Office.
mg/kg = Milligrams per kilogram.
pg/g = Picograms per gram.
RME = Reasonable maximum exposure.
TCDD = Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin.
TEQs = Toxicity equivalencies.
70
-------
Page 1 of 3
Table 4-6
EXPOSURE POINT AND STATISTICAL SUMMARY OF CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN FOR
GROUNDWATER AT THE DRMO YARD
OPERABLE UNIT 2
FORT WAINWRIGHT, ALASKA
(Mg/L)
Chemical
1 ,2,4-Trimelhylbenzene
1 ,2-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,2-Dichlorocthane
1 .3,5-Trimethylbenzene
1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene
2-Mclhylniphthalene
Barium (lolal)
Benzene
Bulylbcnzenc(scc)
Chloroform
Chromium (total)
cis-l ,2-Dichlorocthene
Diesel-range organics
Disulfolon
Gasoline-range organics
Sitewide
Average
Concentration
15.881
2.962
O.S24
6.845
2.716
15.539
176
0.825
1.276
1.218
25
0.644
2.613
0122
531
Maximum
Detected
Concentration
460
38
1.5
130
12
240
1,200
7.5
25
8
510
7.3
41,000
1.3
28.000
Standard
Deviation
65.375
3.805
0.154
22.937
2.365
39.433
ISO
1.226
3. 141
1.537
69
0.802
7.474
0.146
3,113
RME
95% UCL .
27.837
3.462
0.552
11.04
3.027
23.084
205
1.049
1.850
1.449
39
0.791
3.856
0.150
1.104
RME
Area 1
310.000
NO
ND
95.500
ND
155.000
255
ND
18.0
1.100
ND
ND
32.000
ND
14,470
RME
Area 2
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1
165
ND
3.2
ND
ND
ND
2,700
0.315
250
RME
Area 3
1.15
ND
ND
1.05
ND
ND
705
6.7
ND
ND
160
ND
250
ND
235
Key at end of table.
-------
Page 2 of 3
10
Table 4-6
EXPOSURE POINT AND STATISTICAL SUMMARY OF CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN FOR
GROUNDWATER AT THE DRMO YARD
OPERABLE UNIT 2
FORT WAINWRIGHT, ALASKA
0
-------
Page 3 of 3
Table 4-6 (Coot.)
Key:
95% UCL = 95% upper confidence limit on the arithmetic mean.
COPC = Chemical of potential concern.
DRMO = Defense Reutilization and Marketing Office.
pg/L = Micrograms per liter.
ND - Not delected.
RME = Reasonable maximum exposure.
TCDD = Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin.
TEQs = Toucily equivalencies.
-------
Page 1 of 1
Table 4-7
EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATION AND STATISTICAL SUMMARY OF
CONTAMINANTS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN FOR GROUNDWATER AT
BUILDING 1168 LEACH WELL
OPERABLE UNIT 2
FORT WAINWRIGHT, ALASKA
Otg/L)
Chemical
1 .2,4-Triineihyibenzefie
1 ,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
Arsenk
Barium
Benzene
Diesel-range organic*
Ethylbenzene
Gasoline-range organic*
Manganese (dissolved)
n-Butylbenzene
o-Xylene
p-Isopropyltoluene
sec-Butylbenzene
Toluene
TrichJoroethene
Sttewidc
Avenge
Cooceatratioa
95.22
40.78
8.63
238
2.12
7,316
87.32
4,365
1,682
6.77
201.62
11.24
4.8
154.8
5.56
MjudmuB
Detected
four ftitfiliftB
350
150
27
350
5.1
34,000
310
18,000
4.4OO
16
1.000
30
11
770
23
Standard
Deriatkw
145.940
62.427
103
0.100
1.733
14,940
130.681
7.669
1.716.601
7.557
446.309
11.903
4.139
343.907
9.749
RME 95% UCL
234.368
100.302
185
0.334
3.772
21.561
211.919
11.677
3,318.710
13.975
627.158
22.589
8.747
482.702
14.856
Note*: Both the average and RME concentrations represent the arithmetic mean and the 95% UCL of the five wells
located close* to the leach well: AP-5747, -5751. -5752. -5754. and -6332.
Although cadmium was retained a* a CO PC based on the screening for all wells at Building 1158. cadmium
was not detected in any of the five wells included in the EPC calculations.
Key:
95% UCL
COPC
EPC
95% upper confidence limit on the arithmetic mean.
Chemical of potential concern.
Exposure point concentration.
Microgrmmi per liter.
RME = Reasonable maximum exposure.
74
-------
Page 1 of 2
Table 4-8
SUMMARY OF INCREMENTAL CARCINOGENIC RISKS AND
NONCARCINOGENIC HAZARD INDICES FOR POTENTIALLY EXPOSED
POPULATIONS AT THE DRMO YARD
OPERABLE UNIT 2
FORT WAINWRIGHT, ALASKA
i
Receptor/Pathway
Surface soil ingestion
Surface soil dermal contact
Total
Carcinogenic Risks
Average
1.9E-08
l.OE-08
3.0E-08
RME
3.4E-07
1.2E-06
1.5E-06
NoocarYiiMtcfflic Hazard Indices
Average
1.1E-04
3.3E-05
1.4E-04
RME
6.9E-04
1.9E-03
2.6E-03
Future Resident— Sitcwide
Surface soil ingestion
Surface soil dermal contact
Total
4.6E-07
7.0E-09
4.7E-07
3.1E-06
2.0E-06
S.1E-06
8.4E-04
2.5E-05
8.6E-04
5.3E-03
2.8E-03
8.1E-03
Future Resident— Sttewide
Groundwater ingestion
5.5E-07
l.OE-05
3.4E-02
7.1E-01
Notes: Incremental risks are presented for only those receptors exceeding a total risk of 10"* or a total hazard
index of 1.0. Incremental risks are not presented for the three areas with elevated chemical
concentrations.
Incremental risks are calculated after subtracting the background concentrations of inorganics.
Arsenic was not a chemical of potential concern in groundwater. Therefore, the groundwater-related
incremental risks are identical to the total risks.
The soil and groundwater for OU-2 source areas was reviewed to identify whether hotspots (ares with
chemical concentrations significantly elevated above that detected across the rest of the site) were
present. There were no clearly discernible hotspots in soil at the DRMO Yard. Three potential
groundwater hotspots were identified at the DRMO Yard. Data from two monitoring wells at each
hotipot were evaluated independently from the sitewide groundwater database. The Area 1 hotspot
included 19 of the maximum detected groundwater concentrations at the DRMO Yard. Areas 2 and 3
represented PCE and benzene hotspots, respectively. Potential human health risks associated with
exposure to these hotspots was evaluated separately. Eleven monitoring wells were sampled during the
Rl at the Buidling 1168 source area. A subset of the five wells closest to the leachfield source were
evaluated in the Risk Assessment. The other six wells were somewhat distant from the Buidling 1168
source area and did not appear to be impacted significantly by source area chemicals. As a result, the
Risk Assessment is based on a grouping of wells that represent the highest concentrations from the
Building 1168 source area. Exposure to soil at Building 1168 was not evaluated in the Risk Assessment
because of the nature of the release (into deep subsurface soil) and the limited soil data collected during
the Rl.
75
-------
Page 2 of 2
Table 4-8 (Coot.)
Key:
DRMO = Defense Reulilization and Marketing Office.
OU = Operable Unit.
PCE = Tetrachloroethene.
RJ = Remedial Investigation.
RME = Reasonable maximum exposure.
76
-------
Page 1 of 1
Table 4-9
SUMMARY OF INCREMENTAL CARCINOGENIC RISKS AND
NONCARCINOGENIC HAZARD INDICES FOR POTENTIALLY EXPOSED
POPULATIONS AT BUILDING 1168 LEACH WELL SOURCE AREA
OPERABLE UNIT 2
FORT WAINWRIGHT, ALASKA
Receptor/Pathway
Future Resident
Groundwater ingestion
Groundwater dermal contact
Groundwater inhalation of VOC*
Total
Careinogenk Risks
Average
1.1E-07
3.2E-11
8.4E-08
1.9E-07
RME
Noocarciaogefiic
Hazard Indkes
Average
3.2E-06
3.6E-10
2.3E-06
5.5E-06
2.0E-02
2.0E-05
2.7E-02
4.7E-02
RME
7.5E+00
7.6E-05
2.8E-01
7.8E+00
Note: Incremental riski are calculated after subtracting the background concentrations of inorganic*.
The soil and groundwater for OU-2 source areas was reviewed to identify whether hotspots (ares with
chemical concentrations significantly elevated above that detected across the rest of the site) were
present. There were no clearly discernible hotspols in soil at the DRMO Yard. Three potential
groundwater hotspots were identified at the DRMO Yard. Data from two monitoring wells at each
hotspot were evaluated independently from the sitewide groundwater database. The Area 1 hotspot
included 19 of the maximum detected groundwater concentrations at the DRMO Yard. Areas 2 and 3
represented PCE and benzene hotspols. respectively. Potential human health risks associated with
exposure to these hotspots was evaluated separately. Eleven monitoring wells were sampled during the
Rl at the Buidling 1168 source area. A subset of the five wells closest to the leachfield source were
evaluated in the Risk Assessment. The other six wells were somewhat Distant from the Buidling 1168
source area and did not appear to be impacted significantly by source area chemicals. As a result, the
Risk Assessment is based on a grouping of wells that represent the highest concentrations from the
Building 1168 source area. Exposure to soil at Building 1168 was not evaluated in the Risk Assessment
because of the nature of the release (into deep subsurface soil) and the limited soil data collected during
theRI.
Key:
OU = Operable Unit.
PCE = Tetrachloroethene.
Rl = Remedial Investigation.
RME = Reasonable maximum exposure,
VOCs = Volatile organic compounds.
77
-------
5.0 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES
5.1 NEED FOR REMEDIAL ACTION
Remedial actions were deemed necessary with respect to ground water at the DRMO Yard and
Building 1168 Leach Well to comply with state and federal MCLs.
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from the DRMO Yard and Building
1168 Leach Well source areas, if not addressed, may present substantial endangerment to
public health, welfare, or the environment.
Groundwater is the only source of potable water for Fort Wainwright and surrounding
communities. The aquifer is considered unconfined except in areas of permafrost.
Additionally, the aquifer is considered highly transmissive, with large hydraulic
conductivities. Remedial actions for soils were selected to remove volatile organic and
petroleum compounds from the soils as quickly as possible in order to minimize soils acting
as an ongoing source of contamination to the groundwater.
5.1.1 Defense Reutilization and Marketing Office Yard
The specific reasons for conducting remedial actions at the DRMO Yard source area are
provided below, with the main focus being protection of groundwater:
• VOCs (i.e., benzene, PCE, and TCE) in groundwater at the DRMO
Yard are present at concentrations above state and federal MCLs; and
• VOC- (e.g., PCE, benzene, and TCE) contaminated soils from
unknown sources (within an identified area) are a continuing source of
groundwater contamination, as discussed in the nature and extent
section.
Petroleum-contaminated subsurface soils act as a continuing source of groundwater
contamination because of shallow aquifer conditions and annual groundwater fluctuations.
These contaminants are present at concentrations above State of Alaska cleanup levels for
UST petroleum-contaminated soil.
Many chemicals were detected at the DRMO Yard; however, the above-listed VOCs and
petroleum-related compounds were the only chemicals to exceed regulatory limits or to act as
significant sources of risk to human health or the environment. Contamination related to
petroleum, including DRO/GRO, has been referred to the Two-Party Agreement, except in
instances where it is comingled with other contaminants of concern. Table 5-1 provides the
rationale for discarding and retaining chemicals detected at the DRMO Yard source area.
5.1.2 Building 1168 Leach Well
The specific reasons for conducting remedial actions at the Building 1168 Leach Well source
area are provided below, with the main focus being protection of groundwater:
78
-------
• VOCs (benzene and TCE) in groundwater near the Building 1168
Leach Well are present at concentrations exceeded state and federal
MCLs; and
• VOC-contaminated subsurface soils are a continuing source of
groundwater contamination.
Petroleum-contaminated subsurface soils, including DRO/GRO, act as a continuing source of
groundwater contamination because of shallow aquifer conditions and annual groundwater
fluctuations. These contaminants are present at concentrations above State of Alaska cleanup
levels for non-UST petroleum-contaminated soil.
Other chemicals were detected at the Building 1168 Leach Well source area; however, the
above-listed VOCs and petroleum-related contaminants were the only chemicals to exceed
regulatory limits or to act as significant sources of risk to human health or the environment.
Table 5-2 provides the rationale for discarding and retaining chemicals detected at the
Building 1168 Leach Well.
5.2 REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES
Remedial action objectives (RAOs) are based on federal and state applicable or relevant and
appropriate requirements (ARARs). All groundwater RAOs are based on state and federal
MCLs. Soil RAOs are based on State of Alaska cleanup levels for non-UST petroleum
contamination. The RAOs for the DRMO Yard and Building 1168 Leach Well are as follows:
Groundwater
• Restore groundwater to its beneficial use of drinking water quality
within a reasonable time frame through source control;
• Reduce or prevent further migration of contaminated groundwater from
the source areas;
• Prevent use of groundwater containing contaminants at levels above
Safe Drinking Water Act and State of Alaska Drinking Water Standard
MCLs and Alaska Water Quality Standards (AWQS), and limit high-
volume pumping from the aquifer at the DRMO Yard until state and
federal MCLs are achieved; and
• Use natural attenuation to attain AWQS (18 Alaska Administrative
Code [AAC] 70) after reaching state and federal MCLs.
Soil
• Prevent migration of soil contaminants to groundwater, which could
result in groundwater contamination and exceedances of state and
federal MCLs and AWQS (18 AAC 70).
79
-------
5.3 SIGNIFICANT APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE
REQUIREMENTS
A full list of ARARs is in Section 8. The following ARARs are the most significant
regulations that apply to the remedy selections for the DRMO Yard and Building 1168 Leach
Well:
• State and federal MCLs are relevant and appropriate for groundwater.
These set the active remediation goals for groundwater. AWQS (18
AAC 70) is also applicable; and
• Alaska oil pollution regulations (18 AAC 75) are applicable, and
Alaska guidelines for non-UST petroleum-contaminated soil are to be
considered. These guidelines require cleanup of petroleum-
contaminated soils to protect groundwater quality.
5.4 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES
5.4.1 Defense Reutilization and Marketing Office Yard
Preliminary remedial alternatives for the DRMO Yard are described below. Numerous
assumptions had to be made to determine cleanup time frames. These include consistent
contaminant concentrations in soil and groundwater, treatment efficiencies similar to the
currently operating SVE/AS system, and consistent groundwater flow direction.
5.4.1.1 Alternative 1: No Action
The no-action alternative for the DRMO Yard source area involves no environmental
monitoring, institutional controls, or remedial action and would leave the VOC-contaminated
groundwater in its present state. The groundwater plume would continue to migrate in the
direction of groundwater potentially migrating to the Chena River. Development of the no-
action alternative is required by the NCP to provide a basis of comparison for the remaining
alternatives, serving as a baseline reflecting current conditions without any cleanup effort.
The no-action alternative was evaluated consistent with NCP requirements. No present worth,
capital, operation and maintenance (O&M), or groundwater monitoring costs are associated
with this no-action alternative.
5.4.1.2 Alternative 2: Institutional Controls and Natural Attenuation with
Groundwater Monitoring/Evaluation
Institutional controls for the DRMO Yard source area would include land use and site access
restrictions, and downgradient groundwater monitoring/evaluation that includes developing
and implementing a long-term annual groundwater monitoring program for approximately
eight wells (six existing and two new wells) for 30 years. Land use restrictions include
limiting future use of the land to operations currently conducted at the DRMO Yard. Access
restrictions include maintaining the existing fence around the DRMO Yard. Additional
institutional controls would include a prohibition on refilling the DRMO Yard fire suppression
tank from the existing potable water supply well until state and federal MCLs are met (except
80
-------
in emergency situations). This .restriction would effectively limit significant groundwater
pumping from the'aquifer, which could affect the existing groundwater contaminant plume.
The VOC-contaminated groundwater would remain as it exists at this source area, thereby not
reducing contaminant concentrations other than through natural attenuation. However,
institutional controls would decrease or minimize human exposure to contaminants. Periodic
inspections and maintenance of the institutional controls would be conducted. Groundwater
use restrictions would be incorporated into the Fort Wainwright Comprehensive Master Plan.
Natural attenuation or breakdown of contaminants occurs over time and is the reduction of
contaminant concentrations in the environment through biological processes (aerobic and
anaerobic biodegradation, and plant and animal uptake), physical phenomena (advection,
dispersion, dilution, diffusion, volatilization, and sorption/desorption), and chemical reactions
(ion exchange, complexation, and abiotic transformation). Remediation of VOC-contaminated
soil and groundwater at the DRMO Yard source area by natural attenuation is expected to
take more than 50 years.
Environmental monitoring and data evaluation would be performed periodically to obtain
information regarding the effectiveness of the natural attenuation process in remediating the
contamination, as well as to track the extent of contaminant migration from the site. To the
extent practicable, this monitoring and evaluation will be conducted using six existing wells
that are screened in geological zones hydraulically connected with the contamination source,
supplemented by installing two groundwater monitoring wells when required. Upgradient
wells would be used to provide information about the background groundwater quality at a
source. Downgradient wells are used to monitor the extent of contaminant migration, change
in flow direction, or occurrence of degradation products to protect downgradient drinking
water wells.
Monitoring requirements would target VOCs, including the contaminants that were found to
exceed the state and federal MCLs or their potential degradation products as specified in the
RAOs for the DRMO Yard source area. To the extent practicable, monitoring data
requirements will be coordinated or combined with those from other state or federal
programs, such as RCRA and the Safe Drinking Water Act. Sample collection, analysis, and
data evaluation would continue until sufficient data regarding changes in contaminant plume
migration (including potential seasonal fluctuations in groundwater contaminant
concentrations) and attenuation rates are gathered. The frequency of monitoring would be
defined specifically during the Remedial Design phase. Changes to this remedy may be
required as a result of the Remedial Design or construction phase. These changes will be
addressed in the post-ROD documents.
The estimated present worth cost of this alternative is $180,000, which includes $34,000 for
capital costs and $146,000 for annual groundwater monitoring, based on an estimated 30-year
time frame for groundwater monitoring for cost estimating purposes (monitoring may be more
frequent during the initial post-ROD years to address seasonal changes in groundwater
elevation and flow direction). However, monitoring would occur until state and federal
MCLs are achieved, which would be more than 30 years.
81
-------
5.4.1.3 Alternative 3: Soil Vapor Extraction, Ground water Air Sparging, Natural
Attenuation, and Groundwater Monitoring/Evaluation
This alternative involves treatment of VOC-contaminated soils in place via SVE, on-site
treatment of ground water via AS with natural attenuation, and ground water
monitor ing/eval uation.
The SVE/AS system will inject air below the groundwater table to promote movement of
VOCs from subsurface soils and groundwater and to collect the vapors by applying a vacuum
through a series of vapor extraction wells. The SVE/AS system would be installed to provide
active treatment out to the 20-ppb isocontour of the defined groundwater plume (see Figure
5-1). Treatment beyond this isocontour out to the state and federal MCL of 5 ppb would be
through natural attenuation, except for a line of curtain wells near Channel B to prevent
contaminants from entering the surface water.
For cost analysis purposes, the major components of the enhanced SVE system are assumed
to include approximately 21 driven-point extraction wells; below-ground, horizontal polyvinyl
chloride (PVC) piping, valves, sampling ports, and vacuum gauges; 10 extraction blowers; an
air/water separator with storage tank; and a heating system for the prefabricated buildings and
SVE piping. The blowers would be housed in prefabricated buildings. The SVE system
would consist of explosion-proof equipment and automatic safety devices that would deactivate
the system if the treatment building interior atmosphere were to exceed 20% of the lower
explosive limit. Treatment of exhaust gases will be accomplished by directing these gases
through a granulated activated carbon filter unit or air mixing chamber if sampling results
exceed regulatory limits. Any water extracted from the air /water separator would be collected
in a drum or tank, treated via carbon filtration, and discharged to the sanitary sewer system.
The major components of the AS system would include 62 driven-point sparging wells;
below-grade, horizontal PVC piping; and 10 centrifugal injection blowers. Changes to this
remedy may be required as a result of the Remedial Design phase. These changes will be
addressed in post-ROD documents.
Air will be injected below the water table to strip volatiles from groundwater and soil in the
saturated and unsaturated zones, respectively. Volatiles are purged to the unsaturated zone,
where they will be collected in the vacuum extraction wells. In addition, the vacuum
extraction wells create a negative pressure in the unsaturated soil, which enhances contaminant
mobility. From the extraction wellhead, the VOCs are routed to the treatment facility.
Under current regulations, no off-gas treatment is required. However, off-gas treatment will
occur until it is determined that off-gases are safe. The SVE discharge will be monitored
during initial operations to determine whether filtration or dispersion of off-gases is necessary.
Regular monitoring of the enhanced SVE system will be conducted to ensure and document its
effectiveness and optimize the progress of cleanup. Vapor samples and airflow readings taken
from the soil vapor monitoring probes and system exhaust sampling ports will be utilized to
monitor the progress of cleanup, to estimate the volume of VOCs removed by the system, and
to establish a timetable and cost estimate for completion of the project.
Historically, SVE/AS remediation has been successful at remediating soil and groundwater to
the state and federal MCLs within several months to two years, dependent on many conditions
82
-------
including initial contaminant concentrations. Because of climatic conditions at Fort
Wainwright, it is'estimated that SVE/AS treatment would operate for three years to meet state
and federal MCLs in the active treatment zone and 10 years in the remainder of the
groundwater plume, which is located beyond the 20-ppb isocontour.
Remediation of VOC-contaminated soil and groundwater at the DRMO Yard source area by
natural attenuation is expected to take more than 50 years.
The estimated present worth cost of this alternative would be approximately $2,195,000,
which comprises $1,426,000 for capital costs, $680,000 for annual O&M costs, and $89,000
for annual groundwater monitoring. For costing purposes, it was assumed that a groundwater
monitoring program would be implemented and that there would be one monitoring event per
year (monitoring may be more frequent during the initial post-ROD years to address seasonal
changes in groundwater elevation, flow direction, and treatment system efficiency). The
estimated time frame for cleanup goals to be achieved and for monitoring to be performed is
15 years. These are estimated costs. Actual costs are likely to be within +50% to -30% of
these cost values.
5.4.1.4 Alternative 4: Alternative 3 Plus Excavation of Surface Soils Containing
Benzo(a)pyrene and Disposal at the Fort Wainwright Landfill
This alternative supplements the remedial measures included under Alternative 3. One
thousand nine hundred cubic yards of benzo(a)pyrene-contaminated surface soils would be
excavated from the DRMO Yard and transported to the Fort Wainwright Landfill. Clean fill
would replace the excavated material. Excavation and disposal of benzo(a)pyrene-
contaminated soil would require one month. See DRMO Yard Alternative 3 above for a
description of SVE/AS and groundwater monitoring. Soil contaminated with benzo(a)pyrene
does not contribute to groundwater contamination and falls within the acceptable risk range
for human health.
The estimated present worth cost of this alternative would be approximately $2,269,000,
which comprises $1,498,000 for capital costs, $682,000 for annual O&M costs, and $89,000
for annual groundwater monitoring. For costing purposes, it was assumed that there would
be one monitoring event per year (monitoring may be more frequent during the initial post-
ROD years to address seasonal changes in groundwater elevation, flow direction, and
treatment system efficiency). The estimated time frame for cleanup goals to be achieved and
for monitoring to be performed is 15 years. These are estimated costs. Actual costs are likely
to be within +50% to -30% of these cost values.
5.4.1.5 Alternative 5: Alternative 3 Plus Excavation and On-Site Solidification of
Benzo(a)pyrene-Contaminated Soils
On-site solidification involves encapsulating benzo(a)pyrene-contaminated soils in concrete.
Benzo(a)pyrene-contaminated soil will be excavated, solidified using a Portland cement matrix
slurry, and disposed of on site. Excavation and solidification of benzo(a)pyrene-contaminated
soils would require three months. See DRMO Yard Alternative 3 above for a description of
an SVE/AS system and groundwater monitoring.
83
-------
The estimated present worth cost of this alternative would be approximately $2,892,000.
which comprises_$2,062,000 for capital costs, $698,000 for annual O&M costs, and $132.000
for annual groundwater monitoring. For costing purposes, one monitoring event per year was
assumed (monitoring may be more frequent during the initial post-ROD years to address
seasonal changes in groundwater elevation, flow direction, and treatment system efficiency).
The estimated time frame for cleanup goals to be achieved and for monitoring to be
performed is IS years. These are estimated costs. Actual costs are likely to be within +50%
to -30% of these cost values.
5.4.2 Building 1168 Leach Well
Preliminary remedial alternatives for the Building 1168 Leach Well source area are described
below. Numerous assumptions had to be made to determine cleanup time frames. These
include consistent contaminant concentrations in soil and groundwater, treatment efficiencies
similar to the currently operating SVE/AS system, and consistent groundwater flow.
5.4.2.1 Alternative 1: No Action
The no-action alternative for the Building 1168 Leach Well source area involves no
environmental monitoring, institutional controls, or remedial action and would leave the VOC-
contaminated soil and groundwater and petroleum-contaminated soils in their present state.
Operation of the existing pilot-scale treatability system would be discontinued. The
contaminated soils will continue to be subjected to infiltration and vertical seepage, which
would cause further contamination of the groundwater. The groundwater plume will continue
to migrate in the direction of groundwater flow. Development of the no-action alternative is
required by the NCP to provide a basis of comparison for the remaining alternatives, serving
as a baseline reflecting current conditions without any cleanup effort. The no-action
alternative was evaluated consistent with NCP requirements. No present worth capital,
O&M, or groundwater monitoring costs are associated with this no-action alternative.
5.4.2.2 Alternative 2: Institutional Controls and Natural Attenuation
Institutional controls for the Building 1168 Leach Well source area will include well
installation restrictions, land use and site access restrictions, and downgradient groundwater
monitoring/evaluation that includes developing and implementing a long-term annual
groundwater monitoring program for approximately four wells (two existing and two new
wells) for 30 years. Operation of the existing pilot-scale treatability study system would be
discontinued. Land use restrictions include limiting future use of the land to operations being
conducted at the Building 1168 Leach Well. The VOC-contaminated groundwater would
remain as it exists at this source area, thereby not reducing contaminant concentrations other
than through natural attenuation. However, institutional controls would decrease or minimize
human exposure to contaminants. Periodic inspections and maintenance of the institutional
controls would be conducted. Groundwater use restrictions would be incorporated into the
Fort Wainwright Comprehensive Master Plan.
Natural attenuation or breakdown of contaminants occurs over time and is the reduction of
contaminant concentrations in the environment through biological processes (aerobic and
anaerobic biodegradation, and plant and animal uptake), physical phenomena (advection,
84
-------
dispersion, dilution, diffusion, volatilization, and sorption/desorption), and chemical reactions
(ion exchange, complexation, and abiotic transformation). Remediation of VOC-contaminated
soil and groundwater at the Building 1168 Leach Well source area by natural attenuation is
expected to take more than SO years.
Environmental monitoring and data evaluation would be performed to obtain information
regarding the effectiveness of the natural attenuation process in remediating the contamination,
as well as to track the extent of contaminant migration from the site. To the extent
practicable, this monitoring and evaluation would be conducted using four wells that are
screened in geological zones hydraulically connected with the contamination source,
supplemented by installing two additional groundwater monitoring wells if required.
Upgradient wells would be used to provide information about the background groundwater
quality at a source. Downgradient wells are used to monitor the extent of contaminant
migration, change in flow direction, or occurrence of degradation products to protect
downgradient drinking water wells.
Monitoring requirements would target VOCs, including contaminants that were found to
exceed the state and federal MCLs or their potential degradation products, as specified in the
RAOs for the Building 1168 Leach Well source area. Sample collection, analysis, and data
evaluation would continue until sufficient data regarding changes in contaminant plume
migration (including potential seasonal fluctuations in groundwater contaminant
concentrations) and attenuation rates are gathered. The frequency of monitoring would be
defined during the post-ROD activities.
The estimated present worth cost of this alternative is $130,000, which comprises $49,000 for
capital costs and $81,000 for annual groundwater monitoring, based on an estimated 30-year
time frame for groundwater monitoring for cost estimating purposes (monitoring may be more
frequent during the initial post-ROD years to address seasonal changes in groundwater
elevation and flow direction). However, monitoring would occur until state and federal
MCLs are achieved, which would be more than 30 years.
These are estimated costs. Actual costs are likely to be within +50% to -30% of these cost
values.
5.4.2 J Alternative 3: Soil Vapor Extraction, Groundwater Air Sparging, and
Monitoring
A pilot-scale treatability system is operating at the source area to test the effectiveness of the
technologies included in this alternative. This alternative would upgrade the existing system
to a full-scale system. The saturated zone active treatment area would be expanded by a
factor of six to cover the entire contaminated saturated zone. System modifications would
include installation of approximately four additional sparge points and one additional SVE
point, increasing the capacity of sparging, extraction, and control equipment. System
modification also would require installation of an additional blower to compensate for the
increased head losses of the additional wells and piping.
Air will be injected below the water table to strip volatiles from groundwater and soil in the
saturated and unsaturated zones, respectively. Volatiles are purged to the unsaturated zone,
85
-------
where they will be collected in the vacuum extraction wells. In addition, the vacuum
extraction wells create a negative pressure in the unsaturated soil, which enhances contaminant
mobility. From the extraction wellhead, the VOCs are routed to the treatment facility.
Under current regulations, no off-gas treatment is required. However, off-gases were treated
initially through a carbon adsorption system. Use of the treatment system was discontinued
because air modeling using a worst-case scenario indicated that treatment was unnecessary.
This system can be restarted if analytical results indicate that off-gas treatment is necessary.
Regular monitoring of the enhanced SVE system will be conducted to ensure and document its
effectiveness and optimize the progress of cleanup. Vapor samples and airflow readings taken
from the soil vapor monitoring probes and system exhaust sampling ports will be utilized to
monitor the progress of cleanup, to estimate the volume of VOCs removed by the system, and
to establish a timetable and cost estimate for completion of the project.
Historically, SVE/AS remediation has been successful at remediating soil and groundwater to
state and federal MCLs within several months to two years, depending on many conditions
including initial contaminant concentrations. Based on the operational data acquired since the
start of the pilot-scale treatment system in 1994, it is estimated that SVE/AS treatment would
operate an additional three years to meet state and federal MCLs in the active treatment zone.
State and federal MCL exceedances outside the active treatment zone are anticipated to
attenuate naturally, partially in response to the increased downgradient dissolved oxygen
availability associated with the active treatment system.
Monitoring requirements will target the contaminants that were found to exceed the state and
federal MCLs as specified in the RAOs for the Building 1168 Leach Well source area.
Sample collection, analysis, and data evaluation would continue until sufficient data regarding
changes in contaminant plume migration (including potential seasonal fluctuations in
groundwater contaminant concentrations) and attenuation rates are gathered. To the extent
practicable, monitoring data requirements will be coordinated or combined with those from
other state or federal programs, such as RCRA and the Safe Drinking Water Act. The
frequency of monitoring would be defined specifically in post-ROD documents.
This alternative would achieve remediation goals in approximately three years. Groundwater
monitoring would be conducted 10 years. For costing purposes, one well would be installed
for the SVE system and four wells would be installed for the AS system for an operational
periou of three years. The estimated present worth cost of this alternative would be approxi-
mately $269,000, which comprises $174,000 for capital, $66,000 for annual O&M costs, and
$29,000 for annual .groundwater monitoring (monitoring may be more frequent during the
initial post-ROD years to address seasonal changes in groundwater elevation, flow direction,
and treatment system efficiency). These are estimated costs. Actual costs are likely to be
within +50% to -30% of these cost values.
5.4.2.4 Alternative 4: Alternative 3 Plus Excavation and Low-Temperature Thermal
Desorption of Contaminated Unsaturated Soil
This alternative is similar to Alternative 3, except that approximately 1,400 cubic yards of soil
contaminated with DRO; GRO; and benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and total xylenes will be
excavated and treated using a low-temperature thermal desorption (LTTD) process. This
86
-------
alternative would be implemented only if SVE/AS could not reduce contaminant
concentrations in the unsaturated zone to below RAOs. LTTD involves heating excavated
soils in a rotary kiln dryer to release organic contaminants and moisture in the form of gases.
The gases go through a series of cooling and condensing stages before they are vented.
Excavation would be conducted to an estimated depth of 19 feet below present grade, which
would require shoring. Approximately 4,400 cubic yards of uncontaminated overburden
material would need to be removed. Clean soil would replace the 1,300 cubic yards of
excavated soil. The treated soil would be disposed of at the Fort Wainwright Landfill.
See Alternative 3 above for descriptions of SVE and groundwater AS and for a description of
groundwater monitoring.
Excavation and LTTD treatment would require one month. The estimated present worth cost
of this alternative would be approximately $559,000, which comprises $452,000 for capital,
$78,000 for annual O&M costs, and $29,000 for annual groundwater monitoring (monitoring
may be more frequent during the initial post-ROD years to address seasonal changes in
groundwater elevation, flow direction, and treatment system efficiency). These are estimated
costs. Actual costs are likely to be within +50% to -30% of these cost values.
5.4.2.5 Alternative 5: Alternative 3 Plus Excavation and Engineered Pile Treatment
(Biopile and Vapor Extraction Pile) of Contaminated Unsaturated Soil
This alternative is similar to Alternative 3, except that excavated soil is treated using
engineered pile treatment at a nearby location. There are two options for the engineered pile
treatment of the contaminated unsaturated soil: a vapor extraction pile and a biopile. Both
options are ex situ remedies and would require excavation, as described in Building 1168
Leach Well Alternative 4. A vapor extraction pile uses the same processes as in situ vapor
extraction, but the processes are applied to a pile in a lined cell. Blowers built into a piping
system inject and extract air to strip off VOCs and petroleum hydrocarbons from the soil.
Biopile or biocell treatment is a process that uses naturally occurring bacteria in soil to break
down VOCs •and petroleum hydrocarbons. The excavated soil is placed in lined piles and is
aerated using an air injection system.
See Alternative 3 above for descriptions of SVE and groundwater AS and for a description of
groundwater monitoring and evaluation requirements.
The estimated time frame for cleanup goals to be achieved is three years. The estimated
present worth cost of this alternative would be $498,000, which comprises $350,000 for
capital costs, $119,000 for annual O&M costs, and $29,000 for annual groundwater
monitoring (monitoring may be more frequent during the initial pcst-ROD years to address
seasonal changes in groundwater elevation, flow direction, and treatment system efficiency).
These are estimated costs. Actual costs are likely to be within +50% to -30% of these cost
values.
87
-------
Page 1 of 2
Table 5-1
SELECTION OF CHEMICALS OF CONCERN FOR REMEDIAL EVALUATION IN
THE FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR DRMO YARD
OPERABLE UNIT 2
FORT WAINWRIGHT, ALASKA
Chemicals of Potential
Concern to the FS
Bub for Discarding or Retaining as Chemical of Concern to the FS
The following contaminant! were found in toils and were discarded or carried through the FS as contaminants
of concern for remedial evaluation. This is based on the following reasons:
SoU
Benzo(a)pyrene
PCBs
Dioxin
DRO
GRO
Dieldrin
Arsenic
Retain: Concentrations are within the 10"4 to 10"* risk range.
Benzo(a)pyrene was found in surface soils and is not considered a threat to
groundwater.
Discard: The maximum concentration of PCBs delected in soil at the
DRMO Yard source area is 1.3 mg/kg, significantly less than the Toxic
Substances Control Act (TSCA 1987) most restrictive cleanup level of 10
mg/kg.
Discard: Concentrations do not cause exceedance of 10"4 cancer risk for
site worker, future site worker, future residents, future construction
workers, and future recreational users/site visitors. In addition, dioxin is
ubiquitous throughout (he DRMO Yard source area, at very low
concentrations. Analytical results do not indicate that a dioxin "hot spot"
exists.
Discard: DRO in the DRMO Yard soils is attributed to surface spills and
UST releases and will be addressed in a separate Two-Party Agreement
between the Army and ADEC.
Discard: GRO in the DRMO Yard soils is attributed to surface spills and
UST releases and will be addressed in a separate Two-Party Agreement
between the Army and ADEC.
Discard: The HRA concluded that cancer risk presented by dieldrin
exceeded 10"6 for two exposure pathways (current/future worker RME
dermal contact with surface soil and future resident RME dermal contact
with surface soil). However, resampling of surface soil in August 1995 in
five locations around (he only sampling location where dieldrin was
previously detected indicates that dieldrin concentrations are not detectable
or are two to three orders of magnitude below 1 mg/kg (1 mg/kg
corresponds to a 10"* cancer risk to future residents). Dieldrin was
detected in six of 314 samples.
Discard: Concentrations cause exceedance of 10"6 cancer risk for two
exposure pathways (current/future worker RME and future resident RME
and average exposure ingestion of surface soil) but was not considered a
COC because of documented elevated concentrations of arsenic in
background surface soil samples. Recalculation of risks after subtracting
background concentrations results in a cancer risk of less than 10 .
Key at end of table.
88
-------
Page 2 of 2
Table 5-1
SELECTION OF CHEMICALS OF CONCERN FOR REMEDIAL EVALUATION IN
THE FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR DRMO YARD
OPERABLE UNIT 2
FORT WAINWRIGHT, ALASKA
Chemkab of Potential
Concern to the FS
Basis for Discarding or Retaining as Chemical of Concern to the FS
The following contaminant! were found in groundwater and were discarded or carried through the FS ai
contaminants of concern for remedial evaluation. This it based on the following reasons:
Groundwater
Benzene
Trichloroethene
Tetrachloroethene
Manganese
Chloroform
Dioxin
1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene
Retain: Concentrations cause cxceedance of MCL.
Retain: Concentrations measured in excess of MCL.
Retain: Concentrations cause exceedance of MCL.
Discard: Concentrations cause exceedance of hazard index of 1 .0 for one
exposure pathway (future resident RME ingestion) but was not considered
a COC because of documented elevated concentrations of manganese in
background groundwater samples. Recalculation of risks after subtracting
background concentrations results in a hazard index of less than 1 .0 for
the entire DRMO Yard.
Discard: Concentrations cause slight exceedance of 10"6 cancer risk for
one exposure pathway (future resident RME inhalation) but was not
considered a COC because concentrations did not exceed MCL.
Discard: Concentrations cause exceedance of 10"* cancer risk for one
exposure pathway (future resident RME ingestion) but was not considered
a COC because concentrations did not exceed MCL.
Discard: Concentrations cause exceedance of 10~* cancer risk for one
exposure pathway (future resident RME ingestion) but was not considered
a COC because concentrations did not exceed MCL.
Note: Breakdown products of the contaminants of concern were not in concentrations that exceeded action
levels; however, these will be included in groundwater monitoring.
Key:
ADEC = Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation.
Army — United States Army.
COC — Chemical of concern.
DRMO = Defense Reutilization and Marketing Office.
DRO — Diesel-range organic*.
FS = Feasibility Study.
GRO = Gasoline-range organics.
HRA = Human Health Risk Assessment.
MCL = Maximum contaminant level.
mg/kg - Milligrams per kilogram.
PCBs = Polychlorinated biphenyU.
RME - Reasonable maximum exposure.
TSCA = Toxic Substances Control Act.
UST = Underground storage tank.
89
-------
Page 1 of 1
Table 5-2
SELECTION OF CHEMICALS OF CONCERN TO THE FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR
BUILDING 1168 LEACH WELL SOURCE AREA
OPERABLE UNIT 2
FORT WAINWRIGHT, ALASKA
Chemicals of
Potential Concern
Soil
DRO
GRO
BTEX
Discard or Retain as Chemical of Concern to the FS and Bases
Retain: Concentrations exceed ADEC guidelines.
Retain: Concentrations exceed ADEC guidelines.
Retain: Concentrations exceed ADEC guidelines.
Groundwater
Benzene
Trichtoroethene
Manganese
Arsenic
Retain : Concentrations cause exceedance o f M CL .
Retain: Concentrations cause exceedance of MCL.
Discard: Concentrations cause exceedance of hazard index of 1.0 for one exposure
pathway (future resident RME and average ingestion) but was not considered a COC
because of documented elevated concentrations of manganese in background
groundwater samples. Recalculation of risks after subtracting background
concentrations of manganese and arsenic results in a hazard index of less than 1.0.
Discard: Concentrations cause exceedance of hazard index of 1 .0 for one exposure
pathway (future resident RME and average ingestion). Arsenic concentrations also
cause exceedance of 10"6 cancer risk for one exposure pathway (future resident RME
and average ingestion). However, arsenic is not considered a COC because of
documented elevated concentrations of arsenic in background groundwater samples.
Recalculation of risks after subtracting background concentrations of manganese and
arsenic results in a hazard index of less than 1 .0. Background arsenic concentrations
still contribute to cancer risk in excess of 10 .
Note:
Key:
Breakdown products of the contaminants of concern were not in concentrations that exceeded action
levels; however, these will be included in groundwater monitoring.
ADEC = Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation.
BTEX = Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and total xyknes.
COC = Chemical of concern.
DRO = Diesel-range organics.
FS = Feasibility Study.
GRO = Gasoline-range organics.
MCL = Maximum contaminant level.
RME = Reasonable maximum exposure.
90
-------
Drainage __\
Channel
Approximate
Location of
Concrete Cistern
Sub-Area
DRMO1
Fort
Wainwright
Reservation
Boundary
Approximate
Ground water Flow
illS
Arctic
Surplus Yard
Sub-Area
DRMO4
KEY:
•—« Fence
['.".} Former Building Location
AST Aboveground Storage Tank
-20- PCE Isoconcentration contour
in micrograms per liter
UST Underground Storage Tank
HD Benzene in groundwater
Tetrachloroethene in groundwater
Trichloroethene in groundwater
SCALE
300
600
Rgure S-1
AERIAL EXTENT OF PROPOSED ACTIVE TREATMENT
ALTERNATIVE 3
DRMO YARD SOURCE AREA
OPERABLE UNIT 2
FAIRBANKS
ALASKA
SIZE
8
JOB NO.
JT2901
FILE NO.
JT2674 8.CDR
DATE
96MAY28
PLATE
91
-------
6.0 SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
In accordance with federal regulations, the five alternatives for the DRMO Yard source area
and five other alternatives for the Building 1168 Leach Well source area were evaluated based
on the nine criteria presented in the NCP.
6.1 DEFENSE REUTIUZATION AND MARKETING OFFICE YARD SOURCE
AREA (COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES)
6.1.1 Threshold Criteria
6.1.1.1 Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
Alternatives 3, 4, and 5 would provide the greatest protection to human health and the
environment by actively treating contaminated soil and ground water. Alternatives 1 and 2
would rely on natural processes to slowly decrease contaminant concentrations in the soil and
groundwater. Alternatives 1 and 2 would provide no treatment and would not be protective
of human health or the environment.
6.1.1.2 Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 are expected to achieve regulatory requirements. Alternatives 3,
4, and 5 include active soil and groundwater treatment to achieve state and federal MCLs and
would be expected to achieve these standards more rapidly than Alternative 2. Alternative 2
would rely on natural processes that slowly decrease soil and groundwater contamination.
Alternative 1 would not comply with ARARs. AWQS would be achieved through natural
attenuation under all of the alternatives.
6.1.2 Main Balancing Criteria
6.1.2.1 Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence
Alternatives 3, 4, and 5 would involve permanent and active reduction of soil and
groundwater contamination and would achieve long-term effectiveness. Alternatives 4 and 5
would permanently remove the benzo(a)pyrene-contaminated soil. None of the contaminants
would be addressed by Alternatives 1 and 2, except through natural processes. Therefore,
Alternatives 1 and 2 would provide the least effective long-term permanence.
6.1.2.2 Reduction ofToxicity, Mobility, and Volume Through Treatment
Alternatives 3, 4, and S would involve treatment technologies that reduce the toxicity and
mobility of VOC-contaminated soil and groundwater. Alternative 4 would slightly increase
the volume of contaminated soil and would not decrease toxicity or mobility of
benzo(a)pyrene. Alternative 5 would reduce the mobility and significantly increase the
volume of contaminated material. Alternatives 1 and 2 would not reduce the toxicity,
mobility, or volume of the contaminants through treatment.
92
-------
6.1.2J Short-Term Effectiveness
Alternatives 3, 4, and 5 would pose some short-term potential risks to on-site workers during
the estimated three months for groundwater treatment installation and soil excavation
(Alternatives 4 and 5). These risks could be minimized by engineering controls. These
alternatives may take up to 10 years to achieve state and federal MCLs. The excavation and
disposal in Alternative 4 would require one month. Solidification (Alternative 5) would
require approximately three months.
Risks associated with groundwater contamination are equal for Alternatives 3, 4, and 5.
Because Alternatives 3, 4, and 5 actively treat soil and groundwater contamination, it is
expected that contaminant levels would be reduced during the estimated three-year cleanup
period. Alternatives 1 and 2 do not actively treat soil contamination; therefore, risks would
not change over time except through natural attenuation. Under Alternative 1, no monitoring
would be conducted to determine the groundwater remediation time frame. However, it is
expected that the time frame to reach remedial goals will be similar to Alternative 2—natural
attenuation with groundwater monitoring—which is estimated to exceed 50 years.
Risks associated with groundwater contamination are equal for Alternatives 3, 4, and 5.
Because Alternatives 3, 4, and 5 actively treat soil contamination, it is expected that
groundwater contaminant levels would be reduced during the estimated three-year cleanup
period. Alternatives 1 and 2 do not actively treat soil contamination; therefore, risks would
not change over time, except through natural attenuation.
6.1.2.4 Implementabilily
All alternatives would use readily available technologies and would be feasible to construct.
Alternatives 1 and 2 would be readily implementable because they would require no additional
action other than monitoring or institutional controls. A pilot-scale test study or field test
would be conducted before full-scale implementation of the SVE and AS systems proposed in
Alternatives 3, 4, and 5. A solidification treatability study would be required before
implementing Alternative 5.
6.1.2.5 Cost
The estimated present worth cost for each alternative evaluated for the DRMO Yard source
area is shown in Table 6-1. Detailed baseline cost estimates are included in Appendix D.
Based on the information available at the time the alternatives were developed, the estimated
costs for each alternative evaluated for the DRMO source area are in Table 6-1. Actual costs
are likely to be within +50% to -30% of the values on the table. Present worth is based on a
5% discount rate over 30 years.
6.1.3 Modifying Criteria
6.1 J.I State Acceptance
ADEC has been involved with the development of remedial alternatives for OU-2 and agrees
93
-------
with the selected alternative for the DRMO Yard source area.
6.1.3.2 Community Acceptance
Although no official comments were received, community response to the preferred
alternatives was generally positive. Community response to the remedial alternatives is
presented in the Responsiveness Summary, which addresses comments received during the
public comment period.
6.2 BUILDING 1168 LEACH WELL (COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF
ALTERNATIVES)
6.2.1 Threshold Criteria
6.2.1.1 Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
Alternatives 3, 4, and 5 would provide the greatest protection to human health and the
environment by actively treating contaminated soil and ground water. Alternatives 1 and 2
would provide no treatment and would not be protective of human health or the environment.
6.2.1.2 Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 are expected to achieve regulatory requirements. Alternatives 3,
4, and 5 include active groundwater treatment to achieve state and federal MCLs and would
be expected to achieve these standards more rapidly than Alternative 2. Alternative 2 would
rely on natural processes that slowly decrease soil and groundwater contamination.
Alternative 1 would not comply with ARARs. AWQS would be achieved through natural
attenuation under Alternatives 3, 4, and S.
6.2.2 Balancing Criteria
6.2.2.1 Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence
Alternatives 3, 4, and 5 would involve permanent and active reduction of soil and
groundwater contamination and would achieve long-term effectiveness. Alternatives 4 and S
would permanently remove the VOC-contaminated soil by excavation and treatment. None of
the contaminants would be addressed by Alternatives 1 and 2, except through natural
processes. Therefore, Alternatives 1 and 2 would provide the least effective long-term
permanence
6.2.2.2 Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, and Volume Through Treatment
Alternatives 3, 4, and 5 would involve treatment technologies that would reduce the toxicity
and mobility of contaminants in soil and groundwater. Alternatives 4 and S would reduce the
volume of the contaminated soil by excavation and treatment. Alternatives 1 and 2 would not
reduce the toxicity, mobility, or volume of the contaminants through treatment.
94
-------
6.2.2.3 Short-Term Effectiveness
Alternatives 3, 4, and 5 would pose some short-term potential risks to on-site workers during
the estimated three months for groundwater treatment installation and soil excavation
(Alternatives 4 and 5). These risks could be minimized by engineering controls. These
alternatives may take up to three years to achieve groundwater cleanup to state and federal
MCLs. The excavation and LTTD portion of Alternative 4 would be expected to require one
field season. The engineered pile treatment portion of Alternative 5 would require five years.
Risks associated with groundwater contamination are equal for Alternatives 3, 4, and 5.
Because Alternatives 3, 4, and 5 actively treat soil and groundwater contamination, it is
expected that contaminant levels would be reduced during the estimated three-year cleanup
period. Under Alternative 1, no monitoring would be conducted to determine the
groundwater remediation time frame. However, it is expected that the time frame for
remediation will be similar to Alternative 2—natural attenuation with groundwater
monitoring—which is estimated to exceed SO years. Alternatives I and 2 do not actively treat
soil contamination; therefore, risks would not change over time except through natural
attenuation.
6.2.2.4 Implementability
All alternatives would use readily available technologies and would be feasible to construct.
The SVE and AS system pilot study is being conducted at the Building 1168 Leach Well, and
results to date indicate that the system is effectively remediating the groundwater
contamination. Alternatives 3, 4, and 5 propose expansion of this system for full-scale
treatment. LTTD and engineered pile treatability studies would be required before
implementing Alternatives 4 and 5, respectively.
6.2.2.5 Cost
The estimated present worth cost for each alternative evaluated for the Building 1168 Leach
Well source area is shown in Table 6-2. Detailed cost tables are in Appendix D.
6.23 Modifying Criteria
6.2.3.1 State Acceptance
ADEC has been involved with the development of remedial alternatives for OU-2 and agrees
with the selected alternative for the Building 1168 Leach Well source area.
6.2J.2 Community Acceptance
Although no official comments were received, the community response to the preferred
alternatives was generally positive. Community response to the remedial alternatives is
presented in the Responsiveness Summary, which addresses comments received during the
public comment period.
95
-------
Page I of 1
VO
Table 6-1
PRESENT WORTH COSTS FOR REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES
DRMO YARD SOURCE AREA
OPERABLE UNIT 2
FORT WAINWRIGHT, ALASKA
Description
Alternative 1 : No Action
Alternative 2: Institutional Controls. Natural
Attenuation, and Groundwalcr Monitoring/Evaluation
Alternative 3: Soil Vapor Extraction, Ground water
Air Sparging, Natural Attenuation, and Groundwater
Monitoring/Evaluation
Alternative 4: Alternative 3 Plus Excavation and
Disposal of Surface Soils Containing Benzo(a)pyrene
Alternative 5: Alternative 3 Plus Excavation and
On-Site Solidification of Soils Containing
Benzo(a)pyrene
Capital
Cost
$0
$34,000
$1,426,000
$1,498,000
$2,062,000
Annual Operation
and Maintenance
Cost
$0
$0
$680,000
$682,000
$698,000
Annual
Groundwater
Monitoring Cost
$0
$146,000
$89,000
$89,000
$132,000
Total
Present
Worth Cost
$0
$180,000
$2.195,000
$2,269,000
$2,892.000
Present
Worth of
Annual Cost
$0
$146.000
$769.000
$771,000
$830,000
Key:
DRMO = Defense Reutilization and Marketing Office.
-------
Page t of 1
Table 6-2
PRESENT WORTH COSTS FOR REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES
BUILDING 1168 LEACH WELL SOURCE AREA
OPERABLE UNIT 2
FORT WAINWRIGHT, ALASKA
Description
Alternative 1: No Action
Alternative 2: Institutional Controls and Natural
Attenuation with Groundwater Monitoring/Evaluation
Alternative 3: Soil Vapor Extraction, Groundwater
Air Sparging with Natural Attenuation, and
Groundwaler Monitoring/Evaluation
Alternative 4: Alternative 3 Plus Excavation and
Low-Temperature Thermal Dcsorption of
U maturated Soil
Alternative 5: Alternative 3 Plus Engineered Pile
Treatment of Unsaturaled Soil
Capital
Cost
$0
$49,000
$174,000
$452.000
$350,000
Annual Operation
and Maintenance
Cost
$0
$0
$66,000
$78.000
$119,000
Annual
Groundwater
Monitoring Cost
$0
$81,000
$29,000
$29,000
$29.000
Total
Present
Worth Cost
$0
$130,000
$269,000
$559,000
$498,000
Present
Worth of
Annual Cost
$0
$81.000
$95.000
$107,000
$148,000
-------
7.0 SELECTED REMEDIES
7.1 DEFENSE REUTILIZATION AND MARKETING OFFICE YARD
Because it best meets the nine CERCLA criteria, Alternative 3 is the selected remedy for
groundwater contamination for the DRMO Yard source area. This alternative involves in-
place treatment of soils via vacuum extraction; in-place, on-site treatment of groundwater via
air sparging; groundwater monitoring/evaluation; and institutional controls. Alternative 3 is
expected to achieve overall protection of human health and the environment and to meet
ARARs through active treatment of soil and groundwater (see Table 7-1). This alternative
protects the on-site potable drinking water well as well as the downgradient drinking water
aquifer by treating and controlling the source of contamination and is viewed as being an
effective and permanent solution to contamination at the DRMO Yard.
After a thorough assessment of the applicable alternatives for the DRMO Yard source area,
taking groundwater risks, cleanup times, and cost into consideration, it was determined that
protection of human health and die environment is best attained through active in-place
treatment of soils and groundwater. After evaluation of the potential risks and appropriate
cleanup standards and comparison with the nine CERCLA criteria, it was determined that
action is not required for benzo(a)pyrene in soils. This alternative is believed to provide the
best balance of criteria among the alternatives evaluated.
7.1.1 Major Components of the Selected Remedy
• In situ treatment of groundwater and soil via air sparging to attain state
and federal drinking water standards. Air sparging wells will be
placed in the areas of highest contamination;
• In situ treatment of soils via soil vapor extraction to prevent contami-
nated unsaturated soils from acting as an ongoing source of
contamination to groundwater. Soil vapor extraction wells will be
placed in areas of highest soil contamination;
• Air emissions from the soil vapor extraction/air sparging treatment
system will be monitored and evaluated periodically to meet emission
requirements;
• The treatment system will be evaluated and modified as necessary to
optimize effectiveness;
• Duration of treatment system operation is estimated to be three years in
the active treatment zone and nine years at the Channel B wells to meet
soil cleanup goals and state and federal maximum contaminant levels.
A combination of groundwater monitoring and off-gas measurements
will be used to determine attainment of remedial action objectives;
98
-------
• After active treatment achieves state and federal maximum contaminant
levels," natural attenuation will be relied on to achieve Alaska Water
Quality Standards;
• Maintaining institutional controls, including restricted access and well
development restrictions, and a groundwater monitoring and evaluation
program for the potable drinking water supply wells. These controls
will remain in place as long as hazardous substances remain on site at
levels that preclude unrestricted use; and
• Additional institutional controls to prohibit refilling the DRMO Yard
fire suppression water tank from the existing DRMO Yard potable
water supply well until state and federal maximum contaminant levels
are met (except in emergency situations).
7.1.2 Goals of Remedial Action
The overall goal of a remedial action is to provide the most effective mechanism to meet state
and federal regulations for drinking water. To facilitate selection of the most appropriate
remedial action, source area-specific cleanup objectives that specify the contaminants of
concern in each medium of interest, exposure pathways and receptors, and an acceptable
regulatory level were developed. The following remediation goals were established for the
specific contaminants of concern determined to require remedial action at both source areas.
These goals are intended for the areas where active remediation will occur.
7.1.2.1 Defense Reutilization and Marketing Office Yard Groundwater and Soil
CHEMICALS OF CONCERN IN GROUNDWATER
Benzene
Trichloroethene
Tetrachloroethene
Vinyl chloride
1 , 1-Dichloroethene
1 ,2-Dichloroethene
REMEDIATION GOAL (jig/LY
5.0
5.0
5.0
2.0
7.0
70.0
Groundwater remediation goals are based on federal and state MCLs for organic
contaminants in public water supply systems (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR]
141.147 and ISAAC 80).
At the DRMO Yard, after state and federal MCLs are achieved through active remediation,
passive treatment of groundwater through natural attenuation will be relied on to attain AWQS
(18 AAC 70).
99
-------
Because soils contaminated with VOCs and petroleum-related compounds are acting as a
continuing source.of contamination to groundwater, the remedial action goal for in situ soils is
active remediation until contaminant levels in groundwater are consistently below state and
federal MCLs. The State of Alaska cleanup levels for UST petroleum-contaminated soil will
be considered as a guideline for the treatment of in situ soils (see Table 7-2).
The cost for Alternative 3 is $1,498,000 for present worth capital costs, which include direct
and indirect cost; annual monitoring for IS years (monitoring frequency may vary) at
$89,000; and present worth of annual operating cost $680,000, for a total cost of $2,195,000.
The remedial action goal for in situ soils contaminated with comingled VOC- and petroleum
related-compounds is protection of the groundwater. Because the soils are acting as a
continuing source of contamination to the groundwater, active remediation of the soils will
continue until state and federal MCLs are met consistently. Natural attenuation will continue
until AWQS are met. Some changes or modifications could be made to the remedy as a result
of Remedial Design and construction processes. These changes will be addressed in post-
ROD documents.
The goal of this remedial action is to restore groundwater to its beneficial use, which is a
drinking water aquifer. Based on information obtained during the RI and on careful analysis -
of all remedial alternatives, the Army, EPA, and ADEC believe that the selected remedy
would achieve this goal.
7.2 BUILDING 1168 LEACH WELL
Alternative 3 is the preferred alternative for the Building 1168 Leach Well source area
because it best meets the nine CERCLA criteria summarized in Table 7-3. This alternative
involves in place treatment of soils and groundwater via soil vapor extraction/air sparging,
groundwater monitoring, and institutional controls. Alternative 3 is expected to achieve
overall protection of human health and the environment and to meet ARARs (see Table 7-4).
In addition, this alternative is viewed as being an effective and permanent solution to
contamination at the Building 1168 Leach Well.
After a thorough assessment of the applicable alternatives for the Building 1168 Leach Well
source area, taking groundwater risks, cleanup times, and cost into consideration, it was
determined that protection of human health and the environment is best attained through active
in-place treatment of soils and groundwater. This alternative is believed to provide the best
balance of criteria among the alternatives evaluated.
7.2.1 Major Components of the Selected Remedy
• In situ treatment of groundwater via air sparging to remove volatile
organic compounds, thereby attaining state and federal drinking water
standards. Additional air sparging wells will be placed to optimize the
existing treatment system;
• In situ treatment of soils via soil vapor extraction to prevent contami-
nated soils from acting as an ongoing source of contamination to
100
-------
groundwater. Additional soil vapor extraction wells will be placed to
optimize the existing treatment system;
• The treatment system will be evaluated and modified as necessary to
optimize effectiveness;
• Air emissions from the soil vapor extraction/air sparging treatment
system will be monitored and evaluated periodically to meet emission
requirements;
• The duration of treatment system operation is estimated to be three
years to meet State of Alaska cleanup levels for non-underground
storage tank petroleum-contaminated soil and state and federal MCLs.
A combination of groundwater monitoring and off-gas measurements
will be used to determine attainment of remedial action objectives;
• After active treatment achieves state and federal maximum contaminant
levels, natural attenuation will be relied on to achieve Alaska Water
Quality Standards; and
• Maintaining institutional controls, including restricted access and well
development restrictions, as long as hazardous substances remain on
site at levels that preclude unrestricted use.
7.2.2 Goals of Remedial Action
The overall goal of a remedial action is to provide the most effective mechanism to meet state
and federal MCLs for drinking water. To facilitate selection of the most appropriate remedial
action, source area-specific cleanup objectives that specify the contaminants of concern in
each medium of interest, exposure pathways and receptors, and an acceptable regulatory level
were developed. The following remediation goals were established for the specific
contaminants of concern determined to require remedial action at both source areas. These
goals are intended for the areas where active remediation will occur.
7.2.3 Building 1168 Leach Well Groundwater and Soil
CHEMICALS OF CONCERN IN GROUNDWATER
Benzene
Trichloroethene
Tetrachloroethene
Vinyl chloride
1,1-Dichloroethene
1,2-Dichloroethene
REMEDIATION GOAL 0*g/L)a
5.0
5.0
5.0
2.0
7.0
70.0
101
-------
a Groundwater remediation goals are based on state and federal MCLs for organic
contaminants in public water supply systems (40 CFR 141.147 and 18 AAC 80).
At the Building 1168 Leach Well, after state and federal MCLs are achieved through active
remediation, passive treatment of groundwater through natural attenuation will be relied on to
attain cleanup levels mandated by the AWQS (18 AAC 70).
Because soils contaminated with VOCs and petroleum-related compounds are acting as a
continuing source of contamination to groundwater, the remedial action goal for in situ soils is
active remediation until contaminant levels in groundwater are consistently below state and
federal MCLs. The State of Alaska cleanup levels for non-UST petroleum-contaminated soil
will be considered as a guideline for the treatment of in situ soils.
The cost for Alternative 3 is $174,000 for present worth capital costs, which include direct
and indirect costs; annual monitoring for 15 years at $29,000 (monitoring frequency may
vary); and a present worth of annual operating cost of $66,000, for a total cost of $269,000.
The remedial action goal for in situ soils contaminated with VOC and POL compounds is
protection of the groundwater. Because the soils are acting as a continuing source of
contamination to the groundwater, active remediation of the soils will continue until state and *
federal MCLs are met consistently. Natural attenuation will continue until AWQS are met.
Some changes or modifications could be made to the remedy as a result of Remedial Design
and construction processes. These changes will be addressed in post-ROD documents.
The goal of this remedial action is to restore groundwater to its beneficial use, which is, at
this site, a potential drinking water aquifer, and to remediate soil to State of Alaska cleanup
levels for non-UST petroleum-contaminated soil. Based on information obtained during the
RI and on careful analysis of all remedial alternatives, the Army, EPA, and ADEC believe
that the selected remedy would achieve this goal.
Because the remedies will result in contaminants remaining on site above health-based or
regulatory levels, a review will be conducted within five years after commencement of
remedial action. This review will ensure that the remedies continue to provide adequate
protection of human health and the environment.
102
-------
Page I of I
O
U>
Table 7-1
DRMO YARD REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES AND REMEDIATION GOALS
OPERABLE UNIT 2
FORT WAINWRIGHT, ALASKA
Remedial Action Objectives
Environmental Protection
Prevent migration of chemicals of concern that could result in
groundwater contamination exceeding chemical-specific ARARS.
Restore groundwater to below chemical-specific ARARs.
Human Heath
Reduce cancer risk (via ingestion and inhalation by future
residents) to within or below the 1 x 10~* to 1 x IO"6 risk
range.
Chemicals of
Concern
DRO
Benzene
Tetrachloroethene
Trichloroethene
Vinyl chloride
l.l-DCEb
1.2-DCE6
Preliminary
Remediation Goal
ADEC Cleanup Matrix*
5Mg/L
5Mg/L
5*g/L
2Mg/L
7,,g/L
70 ng/L
Basis
ADEC 18 AAC 78
MCL
MCL
MCL
Potential degradation
Potential degradation
Potential degradation
Maximum
Measured
Concentration
2,500 mg/kg
7.50 g/L
190 Mg/L
!7^g/L
ND
ND
ND
a ADEC soil matrix concentrations will be considered as a guidance for in situ treatment of soils.
" Breakdown products of trichlorocthene were not detected at concentrations that exceeded action levels; however, these will be included in groundwater
monitoring.
Key:
AAC = Alaska Administrative Code.
ADEC = Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation.
ARARs = Applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements.
DCE = Diclilornctlicuc.
DRMO = Defense Reulilizution and Marketing Office.
DRO = Diesel-range organics.
g/L = Grams per liter.
MCL = Maximum contaminant level.
mg/kg = Milligrams per kilogram.
/ig/L = Micrograms per liter.
ND = Not delected.
-------
Page I of I
Table 7-2
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC CLEANUP GOALS FOR SOIL
DRMO YARD SOURCE AREA
OPERABLE UNIT 2
FORT WAINWRIGHT, ALASKA
CLEANUP GOALS FOR SOIL
DRMO YARD SCORE
Matrix Score • 44
BTEX - 15mg/kg
Benzene = 0.5 mg/kg
VPH - 100 mg/kg
EPH - 200ntf/k|
Level Ac >40
Level B 27-40
Level C 21-26
Level D <20
Diesel
Diesd-Range
PelrolcuDi
Hydrocarbon
(EPH)
100
200
1,000
2.000
ADEC Clomp Level (»g/kg)
GasohDe/Uaknow*
GasottBC-Raote
PetrolMM
Hydrocarbon*
(VTH)
SO
100
500
1.000
•.1
0.5
0.5
05
BTEX
10
15
50
100
a Site-specific background groundwalcr concentration.
" Background concentrationi from USAED Aliika-recommcnded background value for Fort Wainwright. -
c Groundwaler remedial goali are bated on federal and itate MCLj for organic coniaminanli in public water tupply lyttemi (40 CFR 141.147 and 18 AAC 80).
d 18 AAC 70. Water Quality Standard!. The regulatory level for BTEX ia 10 »tg/L.
e Level A cleanup goal it applied to the total matrix acore of 44 becauae of (he aoil acting aa an ongoing aource of contamination to groundwaler.
Key:
AAC • Alaaka Adminiatrative Code.
ADEC » Alaaka Department of Environmental Conservation.
BTEX » Benzene, toluene, ethy (benzene, xy kite.
CFR = Code of Federal Regulation!.
DRMO •= Defenae Reutilization and Marketing Office.
EPH = Dieael-range petroleum hydrocarbona.
MCLi =• Maumum contaminant level.
Hg/L " Micrograma per liter.
mg/kg « Milligram per kilogram.
USAED Alaska =» United Slate* Army Engineer District, Alaska.
VPH " Gaaoline-range petroleum hydrocarbona.
-------
Page 1 of 2
Table 7-3
BUILDING 1168 LEACH WELL SOURCE AREA REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES AND REMEDIATION GOALS
OPERABLE UNIT 2
FORT WAINWRIGHT, ALASKA
Media
Subsurface soil
Ground water
Remedial Action Objectives
Environmental Protection
Prevent migration of chemicals of
concern.
Reduce chemical concentrations to
below ADEC cleanup levels.
Environmental Protection
Restore groundwatcr to below chemical-
specific ARARs.
Human Health
Reduce cancer risk (via ingestion and
inhalation by future residents) to within
or below the EPA accepted risk range of
1 x ID"4 to 1 x KT6.
Chemicab of
Concern
DRO
GRO
BTEX
Benzene
Trichloroelhene
Vinyl chloride
1,1-DCE
1,2-DCE
Preliminary Remediation
Goal
ADEC soil cleanup matrix*
ADEC soil cleanup matrix*
ADEC soil cleanup matrix*
5j,g/L
5Mg/L
2Mg/L
7Mg/L
70 Mg/L
Basb
ADEC 18 AAC 78
ADEC 18 AAC 78
ADEC IB AAC 78
MCL
MCL
Potential
degradation product
Potential
degradation product
Potential
degradation product
Maximum
Measured
Concentration
435 mg/kg
2.000 mg/kg
Not available
250 pg/Lb
23.0 g/L
ND
ND
ND
o
Ul
Note: Breakdown products of trichloroelhene were not delected in concentrations that exceeded action levels; however, these will be included in groundwater
monitoring.
a ADEC soil concentrations will be considered as a guidance for treatment of in situ soils.
0 Maximum concentration of benzene was measured in a groundwater sample collected from Micro well installed by Pine and Swallow under direction from
the United Slates Army's Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory. The sample was collected and analyzed in September 1993 (HLA 1994).
Key at end of table.
-------
Page 2 of 2
Table 7-3 (Coot.)
Key:
AAC = Alaska Administrative Code.
ADEC = Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation.
ARARs = Applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements.
BTEX = Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and total xylenes.
DCE = Dichloroethene.
DRO - Diesel-range organic*.
EPA = United States Environmental Protection Agency.
GRO = Gasoline-range organics.
g/L = Grams per liter.
HLA = Harding Lawson Associates.
MCL = Maximum contaminant level.
/ig/L = Mkrograms per liter.
mg/kg = Milligrams per kilogram.
ND = Not detected.
-------
Page 1 of 1
Table 7-4
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC CLEANUP GOALS FOR SOIL
BUILDING 1168 LEACH WELL SOURCE AREA
OPERABLE UNIT 2
FORT WAINWRICHT, ALASKA
CLEANUP GOALS FOR SOIL
BUILDING 1168 LEACH WELL SOURCE AREA SCORE
Matrix Score = 46
BTEX = 15 mg/kg
Benzene - 0.5 ing/kg
VPH - 100 mg/kg
EPH - 200 mg/kg
Level A* ><0
Level B 27-40
Level C 21-26
Level D <20
ADEC Cleanup Level (mg/kg)
Diesel
DieuJ-fUnge
Petruktn
Hydrocarbons
(EPH)
100
200
1.000
2,000
Gasotme/UBknowii
Gasoline-Range
Petroleum
Hydrocarbons
(VPH)
SO
100
500
1,000
Beaueoe
O.I
0.5
0.5
0.5
BTEX
10
15
50
100
a
b
c
d
e
Key:
Site-specific background groundwtter concenlntion.
Background concemmioni from USAED Alaika-reconunended background value for Fon Wainwrighl.
Groundwaler remedial goals are bated on federal and Mate MCLa for organic contaminants in public water supply ayitemi (40CFR 141.147 and 18 AAC 80).
18 AAC 70, Water Quality Standards. The regulatory level for BTEX is 10 ng/L.
Level A cleanup goal is applied to the total matrix score of 46 because of soil acting as an ongoing source of contamination to groundwaler.
AAC ~ Alaska Administrative Code.
ADEC * Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation.
BTEX = Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, total xylenc.
CFR = Code of Federal Regulations.
EPH = Diesel-range petroleum hydrocarbons.
MCLs = Maximum contaminant level.
>zg/L = Micrograms per liter.
mg/kg = Milligrams per kilogram.
USAED Alaska = United Staled Army Engineer District, Alaska.
VHII — Gasoline-range petroleum hydrocarbons.
-------
8.0 STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
The main responsibility of the Army, EPA, and ADEC under their legal CERCLA authority
is to select remedial actions that are protective of human health and the environment. In
addition. Section 121 of CERCLA, as amended by SARA, provides several statutory
requirements and preferences. The selected remedy must be cost-effective and utilize
permanent treatment technologies or resource recovery technologies to the extent practicable.
The statute also contains a preference for remedies that permanently or significantly reduce
the volume, toxicity, or mobility of hazardous substances through treatment. CERCLA
finally requires that the selected remedial action for each source area must comply with
ARARs established under federal and state environmental laws, unless a waiver is granted.
8.1 PROTECTION OF HUMAN HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT
The selected alternatives for the DRMO Yard and Building 1168 Leach Well source areas will
provide long-term protection of human health and the environment and satisfy the
requirements of Section 121 of CERCLA.
8.1.1 Defense Reutilization and Marketing Office Yard
The selected remedy will provide long-term protection of human health and the environment
by removing the contamination from soils and groundwater through installation of an SVE/AS
system. The remedy will eliminate the potential exposure routes and minimize the possibility
of contamination migrating to drinking water sources. Groundwater monitoring/evaluation
will be completed to assess contaminant plume movement and concentrations.
8.1.2 Building 1168 Leach Well
The selected remedy will provide long-term protection of human health and the environment
by removing the contamination from soils and groundwater through installation of an SVE/AS
system. The remedy will eliminate the potential exposure routes and minimize the possibility
of contamination migrating to drinking water sources. Groundwater monitoring/evaluation
will be completed to assess contaminant plume movement and concentrations.
83 COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE
REQUIREMENTS AND TO-BE-CONSIDERED GUIDANCE
The selected remedy for each source area will comply with all applicable, relevant, and
appropriate requirements of federal and state environmental and public health laws. These
requirements include compliance with all the location-, chemical-, and action-specific ARARs
listed below. No other waiver of any ARAR is being sought or invoked for any component
of the selected remedies.
8.2.1 Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Description
An ARAR may be either "applicable" or "relevant and appropriate." Applicable requirements
are those substantive environmental protection standards, criteria, or limitations promulgated
under federal or state law that specifically addresses a hazardous substance, remedial action.
108
-------
location, or other circumstance at a CERCLA site. Relevant and appropriate requirements are
those substantive environmental protection requirements promulgated under federal and state
law that, while not legally applicable to the circumstances at a CERCLA site, addresses
situations sufficiently similar to those encountered at the CERCLA site so that the
requirements' use is well-suited to the particular site. The three types of ARARs are
described below:
• Chemical-specific ARARs are usually health- or risk-based numerical
values or methodologies that establish an acceptable amount or con-
centration of a chemical in the ambient environment;
• Action-specific ARARs are usually technology- or activity-based
requirements for remedial actions; and
• Location-specific ARARs are restrictions placed on the concentration of
hazardous substances or the conduct of activity solely because the
ARARs occur in special locations.
To-be-considered requirements (TBCs) are nonpromulgated federal or state standards or
guidance documents that are to be used as appropriate in developing cleanup standards.
Because they are not promulgated or enforceable, TBCs do not have the same status as
ARARs and are not considered required cleanup standards. They generally fall into three
categories:
• Health effects information with a high degree of credibility;
• Technical information regarding how to perform or evaluate site
investigations or response actions; and
• State or federal agency policy documents.
8.2.2 Chemical-Specific Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
• Federal Safe Drinking Water Act (40 CFR 141) and Alaska Drinking
Water Regulations (18 AAC 80): The MCL and non-zero MCL goals
were established under the Safe Drinking Water Act and are relevant
and appropriate for groundwater that is a potential drinking water
source;
• AWQS (18 AAC 70): Alaska Water Quality Standards for Protection
of Class (1)(A) Water Supply, Class (1)(B) Water Recreation, and
Class (1) Aquatic Life and Wildlife (18 AAC 70) are applicable to both
source areas. Many of the constituents of groundwater regulated by
AWQS are identical to MCLs in Drinking Water Standards;
• Alaska Oil Pollution Regulations (18 AAC 75): Alaska Oil Pollution
Control Regulations, are applicable. Under these regulations,
responsible parties are required to clean up oil or hazardous material
109
-------
releases. The Army anticipates achieving a cleanup level consistent
with this regulation; and
• Alaska Regulations for Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (18 AAC
78): The State of Alaska has established cleanup requirements for
petroleum-contaminated soils from leaking USTs to protect
groundwater and are relevant and appropriate for the DRMO Yard.
8.2 J Location-Specific Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
No location-specific ARARs have been identified for the DRMO Yard and Building 1168
Leach Well source areas.
8.2.4 Action-Specific Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
• RCRA Subtitle C Hazardous Waste Management Standards must be
considered in the evaluation of whether any of the excavated soils from
the OU-2 source areas exhibit the characteristics of a RCRA hazardous
waste; however, no soils have been identified to date. RCRA
regulations will be applicable to the storage and disposal of any RCRA
hazardous waste;
• Federal Clean Air Act (42 United States Code 7401), as amended, is
applicable for venting contaminated vapors;
• Alaska Air Quality Control Regulations (18 AAC SO). Although on-
site remedial actions do not require permitting, the substance portion of
these regulations must be met for the venting of contaminated vapors
associated with operation of the air sparging, SVE, or LTTD; and
• Alaska Solid Waste Management Regulations (18 AAC 60) must be
met for proper management and transport of wastes that meet the
definition of a RCRA hazardous waste but contain contaminants that
exceed cleanup levels.
8.2.5 Information To-Be-Considered
The following information TBC will be used as a guideline when implementing the selected
remedy:
• State of Alaska Interim Guidance for Non-UST Contaminated Soil
Cleanup Levels (July 17, 1991) for the Building 1168 Leach Well;
• State of Alaska Guidance for Storage, Remediation, and Disposal of
Non-UST Petroleum-Contaminated Soils (July 29, 1991) for the
Building 1168 Leach Well; and
• State of Alaska Interim Guidance for Surface and Groundwater Clean-
110
-------
up Levels (September 26, 1990) for both source areas.
8.3 COST EFFECTIVENESS
The selected remedies provide an overall effectiveness proportionate to their costs, such that
they represent a reasonable value for the money spent.
8.4 UTILIZATION OF PERMANENT SOLUTIONS AND ALTERNATIVE TREAT-
MENT TECHNOLOGIES OR RESOURCE RECOVERY TECHNOLOGIES TO
THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PRACTICABLE
The Army, State of Alaska, and EPA have determined that the selected remedies represent the
maximum extent to which permanent solutions and treatment technologies can be used in a
cost-effective manner at the OU-2 source areas. Of those alternatives that protect human
health and the environment and comply with ARARs, the Army, State of Alaska, and EPA
have determined that the selected remedies provide the best balance of trade-offs in terms of
long-term effectiveness and permanence; reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume through
treatment; short-term effectiveness; implementability; cost; and the statutory preference for
treatment as a principal element in considering state and community acceptance.
8.5 PREFERENCE FOR TREATMENT AS A MAIN ELEMENT
The selected remedy for each source area satisfies the statutory preference for treatment for
soil and ground water.
Ill
-------
9.0 DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES
The selected remedy for the DRMO Yard and-Building 1168 Leach Well source areas is the
same preferred alternative for each area presented in the Proposed Plan. No changes in the
components of the preferred alternative have been made.
112
-------
APPENDIX A
PORT WAINWRIGHT
COMPREHENSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE, COMPENSATION,
AND LIABILITY ACT
FEDERAL FACILITY AGREEMENT
RECOMMENDED ACTION DOCUMENTS
113
-------
CONTENTS
Source Area Page
801 DRUM BURIAL SITE ii
ENGINEERS PARK DRUM SITE 1
DRUM SITE SOUTH OF THE LANDFILL
BUILDING 3477
TAR SITES
DEFENSE REUTILIZATION AND MARKETING OFFICE YARD . . . :
BUILDING 1168 LEACH WELL
NORTH POST SITE
114
-------
FORT WAINWR1GHT
CERCLA FEDERAL FACILITY AGREEMENT
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Source Area: 801 Drum Burial Site
Engineer Park Drum Site
Drum Site South of Landfill
Recommended Action: Referral from Operable Unit 2 to Operable Unit 1.
Background: A removal action was completed on these source areas in 1992. The
information needed to adequately assess further actions was not received in time to
meet the schedule of Operable Unit 2. It was agreed by the Project Managers to move
these source areas to Operable Unit 1.
Comments:
Approvals: The following project managers, representing their respective agencies
which are signatories to the FFA, concur with this evaluation.
Rielle Markey <3 Date
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation
Remedial Project Manager
Dianne Soderiund Date
US Environmental Protection Agency
Remedial Project Manager
Cnstal Fosbrook Date
6th Division (Light), US Army Garrison
Directorate of Public Works
Remedial Project Manager
115
-------
Revised 3 June 94
FORT WAINWRIGHT
CERCLA FEDERAL FACILITY AGREEMENT
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Source Area: Tar Sites
Recommended Action: No Further Action
Background: After evaluation of ail available historical information and interviews with
individuals having an institutional knowledge of Fort Wainwright (FWA), site visit and
review of analytical data, no further action (NFA) is planned for this source based on
one or more of the following reason:
1. 1992 analytical results.
A systematic, qualitative approach has been used to determine the disposition of this
potential source of contamination which is consistent with Rl/FS guidance and
Superfund objectives. This approach is based on a conceptual model of this particular
source, the ultimate risk to human health or the environment that it represents, and
analytical results, if, at any juncture, additional information becomes available which
alters the information used in this decision, the source will be reevaluated.
This decision document will become part of the Record of Decision (ROD) for Operaoie
Unit (OU) 2, as designated by the Federal Facility Agreement (FFA), which was signed
by US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) the Alaska Department .of
Environmental Conservation (ADEC) and the US Army.
Location: West of the FWA South Post Soccer Reid; at Glass park next to Building
4040; northwest of the FWA Golf Course; and west of the power plant cooling pond
next to the railroad.
History: Reportedly the sites were used as tar disposal areas. Based on a concern of
possible leachate release from these sites, they were included in the FFA as sources
that needed further investigation. A sampling effort was conducted in June and July of
1992. The results we summarized in U.S. Army Corps of Engineers memorandum
dated October 7th and 15th 1992.
-------
Summary: The critgria used in the decision process TOP mis sue is as TOIIOWS:
• During a 1992 sampling effort the source areas were located and tar samples were
collected for Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) analysis: The
analytical results indicate that there is no potential for groundwaier contamination.
Based on the above information, there is no evidence that a potential source of
contamination exists at these sites.
Reference: October 7th and 15th chemical analysis results of the samples collected in
June and July of 1992.
Comments:
117
-------
TAR SITES NO FURTHER ACTION
Approvals: Tne following project managers, reoresenting their respective agencies
which are sianatories to the FFA, csncur with this evaluation.
Rielle Markey O~ Date
Alaska Depanment of Environmental Conservation
Remedial Project Manager
Dianne Sodenund Date
US Environmental Protection Agency
Remedial Project Manager
Cristal Fosbrook Date
6th Division Light/US Army Garrison
Directorate of Public Works
Remedial Project Manager
118
-------
Revised 3 June 94
FORTWAINWRIGHT
CERCLA FEDERAL FACILITY AGREEMENT
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Source Area: Engineer Park Drum Site
Recommended Action: No Further Action (NFA).
Background: After evaluation of all available historical information, interviews with
individuals having an institutional knowledge of Fort Wainwright, site visits, and review
of analytical data, no further action is planned for this source based on the following.
reasons:
•. In 1992. 680 drums were removed.
2. Results of 1992 and 1993 limited field investigations.
A systematic, qualitative approach has been used to determine the disposition of this
potential source of contamination which is consistent with RI/FS guidance and
Supertund objectives. This approach is based on a conceptual model of this particular
source and the ultimate risk to human health or the environment that it represents. If at
any juncture, additional information becomes available which alters the information
used in this decision, the source will be reevaluated.
This decision document will become part of the Record of Decision (ROD) for Operable
Unit (OU) 1, as designated by the Federal Facility Agreement (FFA), which was signed
by the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC), the US
Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). and the US Army. This source was moved
from OU2 toOUt as part of a Recommended Action dated February 4.1994.
*
Location: This source is located on the northeast side of Engineers Park on the south
bank of the Chena River. See attached map of source area.
History; Disposal of drums at this location began after the August 1967 flood.
Summary; The criteria used in the decision process for this site is as follows:
119
-------
• A drum removal was conducted in August and Seotemoer of 1992. The crum
removal activities at-this site included removing unouned drums. A total of 680
arums were removed, 613 of the drums found were empty and 67 contained
material. The drums contained gasoline, kerosene, decreasing solvents and PCE.
• Dunne a 1992 investigation ten surface soils samoies were taken. Low levels of
ssmivolatile organic compounds were detected. The maximum detected site
concentration of the suspected contaminates were compared to EPA Regions 10's
Risk-Based-Concentrations, which were used as conservative screening values.
The comparison indicates no unacceptable potential *isks to human hea::n or the
environment
• During 1993 ground penetrating radar (GPR) was conducted with no additional
arums being located. Additionally, eleven surface samples were taker =id two soil
borings were completed as monitoring wells. The maximum detected s::=
concentration of the suspected contaminates were compared to EPA Regions 10's
Risk-Based-Concentrations and the comparison indicates no unacceptable risks tc
human health or the environment
• In both sampling events an observational approach was employed to assure
samples represented potential worst case contamination.
• Detected concentrations of soil with Di-n-butyiphthalate were determined to be
laboratory contaminates.
• All detected concentrations in groundwater data were determined to be laboratory
contaminates.
Based on the above information there is no evioence that a contaminant release has
occurred at this source area which poses an inacceptatole risk to human health or the
environment
References:
Preliminary Source Evaluation 2. Blair Lakes and Drum Sites. Fort Wainwrght, AK.
Harding Lawson and Associates, March 1994
Final Report for Drummed Waste Removal. Fort Wainwright. Fairbanks. Alaska.
Volume I. II. and ill. OHM Remediation Services Corporation, February 1993
Comments:
120
-------
Engineer Park Drum Site-No Further Action
Approvals: The following project managers, representing their respective agencies
which are signatories to the FFA. concur with this evaluation.
RIELLE MARKEY CT Date
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation
Remedial Project Manager
DIANNE SODERLUNO Date
US Environmental Protection Agency
Remedial Project Manager
l\
CRISTAL FOSBROOK Date
6th Division (Light), US Army Garrison
Directorate of Public Works. Alaska
Remedial Project Manager
121
-------
SORT
=',33 998
ENGINEERS PARK
RAVINE
MOTH
IK fjicm rw me OOMIKS MMC SAMUS
(0*) omnr iingocr MPUCK
oumnr f nMfm. pupuotic
OHM MMOML
is.
MIT. »
-------
FORTWAINWRIGHT
CERCLA FEDERAL FACILnTY AGREEMENT
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Source Area: Building 3477 • Battery Storage Area
Recommended Action: No Further Action
Background: Based on a review of ail available historical information, interviews
with individuals having an institutional knowledge of Fort Wainwright and, if
possible, this site, and a limited field investigation. No further action (NFA) is
planned for this source based on one or more of the following reasons:
1. Interviews with individuals confirming the source existed.
2. Results of a 1992 limited field investigation at the source indicates no.
real potential risks to human health or the environment exists at the
battery storage area.
A systematic, qualitative approach has been used to determine the disposition of
this potential source of contamination which is consistent with Rl/FS guidance
and Superfund objectives. This approach is based on a conceptual model of this
particular source and the ultimate risk to human health or the environment that it
represents. If, at any juncture, additional information becomes available whicn
alters the information used in this decision, the source will be reevaluated.
This decision document will become part of the Record of Decision (ROD) for
Operable Unit (OU) 2, as designated by the Federal Facility Agreement (FFA),
the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) and the US Army
on February 12,1993.
Location: The battery storage area is located on the east side of Building 3477.
Building 3477 is on Chippewa Avenue, approximately 1/4 mile northeast of the
South Gat* House.
History: Building 3477 was constructed 1955 as a vehicle maintenance facility.
The building is currently used for vehicle and equipment maintenance. The site
had been used for servicing and storing batteries for an unknown period. These
practices were discontinued in 1990. and the U.S. Army contracted for the
battery servicing area to be cleaned. The area on the east side of the building
123
-------
was used for temporary storage of batteries that were to be disposed of. Baser
on the potential for contaminant release from this site H was included in the FF
as a source that needed further investigation through ne Preliminary Source
Evaluation (PSE) 2 process. A draft PSE report was published November 4,
1992.
Summary: The criteria used in the decision process for this site is as follows:
• During interviews with former US Army personnel, one soldier, stated the site
was no longer used as a storage area for batteries that were to be disposed of
• During interviews with current and former employees (the site was identified
an area of building 3477).
• During a 1192 limited field investigation samples were collected. The
maximum detected site concentrations of the suspected contaminates were
compared with EPA Region KTs Risk-Based Concentrations and the comparis
indicates no real or potential risks to human health or the environment exists a
the battery storage area. Attachment 1 includes a plot plan of this source.
• Based on the above information, there is no evidence that a potential source
of contamination exists at this site.
Reference: Rnal Report. Operable Unit 2. Preliminary Source Evaluation 2.
Phase 1. Fort Wainwrioht. Alaska.: Harding Lawson and Associates,
April 23, 1993.
Comments:
124
-------
CURRENT POL CONTAINMENT AflEA
REPORTED FORMER 3ATTTRY STORAGE
w
f c-J
,, LOCATION OF FORMER
" WASTE OIL STORAGE
i: TANK FOR BLOC
OVERHEAD DOOR. TYPICAL
^515-GALLON
A8OVEGROUNO
WASTE OIL TANK
FORMER BATTERY
STORAGE AREA
BLOC.
3479
GRAVEL-^
^PARKING LOT
_ UNDERGROUND
UNDERGROUND SERVICE UTtUDOR
UTIUOOR—v
CHIPPEWA AVENUE
CHMN-L0MC FENCE
POWER POLE
BOMNG/MONnOmNC WEU.
CORPS OF EMGMEERS
100
SCALE W rtci
MAINTENANCE SHOP. DRAWING NUMBER 39-32-07
HLfl
ono
Sit* Plan, Building 3477
FWA-020
Unit 2. Pfrtminefy Sewm Evoluatien 2.
1O78S
125
10/92
043T
-------
Approvals: The following project managers, representing their respective agencie;
which are signatories to the FFA, concur with this evaluation.
Rielle Markey ^ Date
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation
Remedial Project Manager
Dianne Soderiund Date
US Environmental Protection Agency
Remedial Project Manager
Cristal Fosbrook
6th Division Light/US Army Garrison
Directorate of Public Works
Remedial Project Manager
126
-------
Revised 3 June 94
FORT WAINWRIGHT
CERCLA FEDERAL FACILITY AGREEMENT
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Source Area: Drum Site South of Landfill
Recommended Action: No Further Action (NFA).
Background: After evaluation oi all available historical information, interviews with
individuals having an institutional knowledge of Fort Wainwright, site visits, and revrew
of analytical data, no further action is planned for this source based on the following
reasons:
1. In 1992, 573 drums were removed.
2. Results of 1992 and 1993 limited field investigations.
A systematic, qualitative approach has been used to determine the disposition of this
poiential source of contamination which is consistent with RI/FS guidance and
Suoenund objectives. This approach is based on a conceptual model of this particular
source and the ultimate risk to human health or the environment that it reoresents. If at
any juncture, additional information becomes available which alters the information
used in this decision, the source will be reevaluated.
This decision document will become part of the Record of Decision (ROD) for Operable
Unit (OU) 1, as designated by the Federal Facility Agreement (FFA), which was signed
by the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC), the US
Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), and the US Army. This source was moved
from OU2 to OU1 as part of a Recommended Action dated February 4,1994.
Location: This source is located on the south of the landfill and includes drum areas,
referred to as the east and west drum sites. See attached map of source area.
History: Historical information and records on drum disposal at this location were not
available. The site was identified in the RCRA Facility Assessment as a potential
source.
127
-------
Summary; The criteria used in tne cecision crocsss for this site is as follows:
• A drum removal was conductea in August and September of 1992. The drum
removal activities at this site induced removing unouried drums. A total of 573
drums were removed, 474 of the drums found were empty and 99 contained
material. The drums contained gasoline, kerosene and degreasing solvents.
• During a 1992 investigation eleven surface soils samples were taken. Low level:
semivoiatiie organic compounds were detected. The maximum detected site
concentration of the suspected contaminates were compared to EPA Regions 1C
Risk-Based-Concentrations, which were used as conservative screening values.
These levels are within the 10-4 to 10-6 acceptable risk range as specified in
300.430(e)(2)(i)(A)(2) of the National Contingency Plan (NCP).
• During 1993 ground penetrating radar (GPR) was conducted with no additional
drums being located. Additionally, eleven surface samples were taken and two :
borings were completed as monitoring wells. Low levels of semivoiatiie organic
compounds were detected in groundwater. The maximum detected site
concentration of the suspected contaminates were compared to EPA Regions 1C
Risk-Based-Concentrations, which were used as conservative screening values
These levels are within the 10-4 to 10-6 acceptable risk range as specified in
300.430(e)(2)(i)(A)(2) of the National Contingency Plan (NCP). Attachment 2
includes pertinent analytical data.
• In both sampling events an observational approach was applied to assure samp
were taken in areas representing potential worst case contamination.
• Detected concentrations of Di-n-butytphthalate and Bis(2 etthyihexyl)ptha!tate ir
soil were-determined to be laboratory contaminates.
Based on the above information, there is no evidence that a contaminant release he
occurred which poses an unacceptable risk to human health or the environment.
128
-------
References:
Preiiminarv Source Evaluation _g._Slair Lake-? ana Drum Sites. Fort Wainwnaht, AK,
Harding Lawson and Asscsiaties. Marcn 1994
Final Report for Drummgj Waste Removal. Fort Wainwrioht. Fairbanks. Alaska.
Volume I. II. snd III. OHM Remediation Services Corporation, February 1993
Comments
129
-------
Haromq Ljwson
i-j: »»»M«»1 r«torv
6 • Indicates tno anatyte «•• found in the blank as veil as tne sa
E • Indicates estimated concentration.
Chemical Quality At«uranee <«aort (CO At! QuiUfttn
' Oata snould be censiderM ««tn caution (see COM. Aopendit F).
T • Tht CQA1 dew tne oata unacceotable.
lie.
11331
4-19
130
-------
WEST DRUM AREA
EAST DRUM AREA
•OJL
OUMJTT ,
> omurr CONTROL ouHicuc SM«U
__ BUXZMD MABU SUMIV. nc UKUION apvcr
QBC. is. iMi JOB KIT. wr i or 4 TV. . _
Harding Lawsen Assectotcs
Enajnccnnq and
Environmental S«rvic*s
Sit* Plans
East and W«st Drum
OpwaW* Unit 1. PfOmiwy
Fort
24540
131
9/93
rvt •««
2iSJ
-------
Drum Site South of Landfill-No Further Action
Approvals: The following project manage"., representing their respective agencie
wnicr, are signatories to the FFA, concur w.i.n this evaluation.
RIELLE MARKEY 0 Date
Alasxa Department of Environmental Conservation
Remedial Project Manager
*irw^i; SttrftflAt.^JJ fc /I h / °(
Dianne Soderlund Date
US Environmental Protection Agency
Remedial Project Manager
Cristal Fosbrook Date
6th Division (Light), US Army Garrison
Directorate of Public Works. Alaska
Remedial Project Manager
132
-------
APPENDIX B
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
133
-------
Fort Wainwright Administrative Record
List of Documents Pertaining to OU 2
Original Doc.
Date
6/1/86
10/1/86
4/1/87
11/1/88
7/7/89
7/21/89
8/15/89
9/7/89
2/9/90
2/9/90
3/1/90
4/3/90
4/9/90
5/1/90
5/21/90
6/20/90
7/2/90
9/2/90
5/1/91
5/24/91
Title
Preliminary Radar Survey of a Hazardous Waste
Dump-North Post Site
Endangerment Assessment (or FTW 150 Unit
Family Housing Project-Data Acquisition Plan
Conlirmation Study: Endangerment Assessment
for FTW Family Housing Area; included
Appendices Volumes 1 & 2
Risk Assessment for Proposed Family Housing
Facilities. FTW
Trip Report. Chena Project, IRP Projects on FTW
and Ft. Greely
ADEC Review Comments for Sampling Plan-IRP
North Post Family Housing
Memorandum for Record: Tar Seepage in the
Chena River
Trip Report, FTW, Ft. Greely
Letter Addressing Groundwater Contamination at
North Post Site on FTW
Discussion of Army Request for Interpretation of
Groundwater Analytical Data and Their Effect on
Remedial Approach for North Post Site
EPA Review Comments on Project Report for
North Post Site, FTW
ADEC Review Comments tor Draft Project Report
lor North Post Site. FTW
Memorandum for Record, Trip Report, Site
Investigation of 5 FTW IRP Sites
Project Report for the North Post Site, FTW
Notice of Availability and Comment Period
ADEC Response to EA & FNSI for North Post
Site on Fort Wainwright
Remedial Action Required at North Post Site,
FTW
Army Monitors Waste Site
Design Analysis for Soil Remediation Project at
the North Post Site. FTW
Review of Planned Removal Action at North Post
Site. FTW
Document
Typ«
Report
Report
Report
Report
Memorandum
Letter
Memorandum
Memorandum
Letter
Letter
Letter
Letter
Memorandum
Report
Notice
Letter
Fact Sheet
Article
Report
Memorandum
Author Name
Steven A. Arcone
None given
None given
None given
Georgeanne Reynolds
Douglas Lowery
Bill Quirk
Dan Knight
Jon Sandquist
Jon Sundquist
Douglas Johnson
Douglas Dasher
David Williams
None given
William Kakel
Rielle Markey
Catherine Scott
Kris Capps
None given
Paul Thies
Author
Organization
CRREL
URS Corporation
URS Corporation
Ecology &
Environment
COE
ADEC
DEH
COE
Ecology &
Environment
Ecology &
Environment
EPA ___
ADEC
COE
Ecology &
Environment
COE
ADEC
US Army
Fairbanks Daily
News-Miner
Ecology &
Environment
COE
Recipient Name
Cristal Fosbrook
None given
None given
CENPA-EN-PM-A
None given
Eddie Brooks
File
None given
Eddie Brooks
Eddie Brooks
Col. Edwin Ruff
Paul Steucke
File
Mark Wallace
Public
William Kakel
None given
Public
Mark Wallace
Cristal Fosbrook
Recipient
Organization
DPW
COE
COE
COE
None given
COE
File
None given
COE
COE
DEH
Env. Res. Div.
File
COE
Public
COE
None given
Public
COE
DPW
Start Page
02078
02142
022 1 1
02823
03109
05118
03103
03105
05243
05764
03249
03252
03117
03122
08303
05240
08304
05246
07429
07425
End Page
02141
02210
02822
03102
03116
05120
03104
03108
05244
05765
03251
03256
03121
03241
08303
05242
08304
05247
07456
07428
JVidmn ccdVou 2
-------
Fort Wainwright Administrative Record
List of Documents Pertaining to OU 2
Original Doc.
Oato
8/1/91
10/17/91
11/20/91
1/9/92
2/14/92
5/28/92
6/23/92
6/23/92
7/28/92
8/12/92
8/13/92
9/8/92
9/17/92
9/18/92
10/5/92
10/7/92
10/15/92
10/26/92
11/1/92
12/1/92
Title
Bidding Documents for IRP North Post Site Soil
Remediation, FTW
Fort Wainwright Solid Waste Management Units,
1991 Site Reconnaissance. FTW Site Safety
Plan.
Non-Invasive Site Investigation. SWMU FTW
Site Safety and Health Plan, Preliminary Source
Evaluation, Fort Wainwright, Alaska
DRAFT Chemical Data Acquisition Plan PSE,
FTW
Work Plan, OU2, PSE2. Phase 1 . FTW
Review Comments tor OU2. PSE2, Phase 2
DRMO
Review Comments for Draft Scope of Work for
OU2. PSE2. Phase 2
Non-Invasive Site Investigation, DRMO. OU2.
PSE2. Phase 2
Results of Chemical Analyses
Preliminary Summary of Invasive Investigation.
SWMU OU2, PSE2. Phase 1
Review Comments for Draft Work Plan for DRMO
Storage Yard, PSE2. Phase 2
Work Plan. DRMO, OU2, PSE2. Phase 2
Site Safety and Health Plan, OU2. PSE2. Phase 2
Results of Chemical Analyses
Chemical Analysis Results: Tar Pit
Chemical Analysis Results: Tar Pit 2
Preliminary Summary of Invasive Investigation
Investigations of Buried Drum Sites by Ground
Penetrating Radar
Biodegredation/Volatilization Bench Scale
Treatability Study Results for TPH Contaminated
So:is Located at the North Post Site
Document
Type
Report
Report
Report
Report
Report
Report
Letter
Letter
Report
Memorandum
Letter
Letter
Report
Report
Memorandum
Memorandum
Memorandum
Letter
Report
Report
Author Name
None given
Garson Carothers
Garson Carothers
James Slattery
Garson Carothers
Shaun Sexton
Ronan Short
Dianne Soderlund
Sandra Draper
Timothy Seeman
Shaun Sexton
Cami Grandinetti
William Burgess
Sandra Draper
Timothy Seeman
Delwyn Thomas
Delwyn Thomas
Sandra Draper
Daniel Lawson
None given
Author
Organization
COE
Harding Lawson
Harding Lawson
Harding Lawson
Harding Lawson
Harding Lawson
ADEC
EPA
Harding Lawson
NPDML
Harding Lawson
EPA
Harding Lawson
Harding Lawson
NPDML
COE
COE
Harding Lawson
CRREL
Lajdlaw Env. Svcs.
Recipient Name
Contractors
Mark Wallace
CENPA-EN-MB-C
Mark Wallace
Mark Wallace
CENPA-EN-MB-C
Cristal Fosbrook
Cristal Fosbrook
CENPA-EN-MB-C
Commander
Mark Wallace
Cristal Fosbrook
Mark Wallace
Mark Wallace
Commander
CENPA-EN-EE-AI
CENPA-EN-EE-AI
Mark Wallace
None given
None given
Recipient
Organization
Contractors
COE
COE
COE
COE
COE
DPW
DPW
COE
US Army, AK
Dist
COE
DPW
COE
COE
US Army. AK
Dist
US Army
US Army
COE
COE
COE
Start Page
05248
03257
04134,
03281
03359
03489
05121
05123
04170
04190
04224
05127
03670
03831
04233
04239
04277
04283
03242
08034
End Page
05680
03280
04169
03358
03488
03669
05122
05126
04189
04223
04232
05129
03830
03950
04238
04276
04282
04286
03248
08302
»\do 3\admn rcd\ou 2
i/4/96
-------
Fort Wainwright Administrative Record
List of Documents Pertaining to OU 2
Original Doc.
Data
1/24/93
2/1/93
2/1/93
2/1/93
3/26/93
4/20/93
4/21/93
4/21/93
5/20/93
6/16/93
6/17/93
6/21/93
7/20/93
7/30/93
7/30/93
8/9/93
8/23/93
4/6/94
4/26/94
4/29/94
Title
Review Comments lor OU2, PSE2, Phase 1
Report
Sampling and Analytical Final Report (or
Drummed Waste Removal
Operations Final Report (or Drummed Waste
Removal, Ft. Wainwright
Health & Safety Final Report (or Drummed Waste
Removal, Ft. Wainwright
Review Comments (or Final Report lor OU2,
PSE2. Phase 2. DRMO
Temporary Stockpile Plan North Post Site. FTW
Final Report OU2. Preliminary Source Evaluation
2. Phase 1.
ADEC Review Comments for Treatability Study,
North Post Sites 3 & 4
Notice of Violations During Remediation of
Contaminated Soils at Sites 3 & 4 at North Post
Site
Final Report, Operable Unit 2. PSE 2. Phase 2,
Defense Reutilization Marketing Office. Fort
Wainwright. Alaska; 2 volumes
Summary of Soil Sample Results tor North Post
Site Soil Remediation Project
Biopile Work Plan North Post Site Soil
Remediation, FTW
Final Report. OU2. PSE2, Phase 2. DRMO, FTW
Work Plan. OU2, PSE2, Support Work
Results of Chemical Analyses. FTW DRMO
Final Chemical Data Report for Pond Near
Badger Road
DRAFT OU2 RI/FS Management Plan
Final Management Plan, Operable Unit 2. Fort
Wainwright. Alaska
Preliminary Source Evaluation 2; Support Work;
801 Drum Burial Site; Fort Wainwright. Alaska
Operable Unit 2; Preliminary Source Evaluation 2;
Support Work; Building 1168. Fort Wainwright,
Alaska
Document
Type
Letter
Report
Report
Report
Letter
Report
Report
Letter
Loner
Report
Report
Report
Report
Report
Report
Report
Report
Report
Report
Report
Author Name
Dianne Soderlund
Thomas Warren
Thomas Warren
Thomas Warren
Ronan Short
None given
Shaun Sexton
Rielle Markey
Rielle Markey
Paul Adel
CPT Malsom
None given
Paul Adel
Timothy Gould
Timothy Seeman
CENPA-EN-G-MI
None given
Michael J. Schmetzer
Steven C. Gruhn
Steven C. Gruhn
Author
Organization
EPA
OHM Remed. Svcs.
OHM Remed. Svcs.
OHM Remed. Svcs.
ADEC
Laidlaw Env. Svcs.
Harding Lawson
ADEC
ADEC
Harding Lawson
US Army
Laidlaw Env. Svcs.
Harding Lawson
Harding Lawson
COE-NPDL
COE
Harding Lawson
Harding Lawson
Harding Lawson
Associates
Harding Lawson
Associates
Recipient Name
Cristal Fosbrook
None given
None given
None given
Cristal Fosbrook
None given
CENPA-EN EE-AI
Cristal Fosbrook
Robert Wrontmore
CENPA-EN-EE-AI
Joe Malen
None given
None given
None given
CENPA-EN-G-MI
CENPA-EN-EE-AI
None given
None given
Mark Wallace
Mark Wallace
Recipient
Organization
DPW
COE
COE
COE
DPW
COE
COE
DPW
USArmy
COE
DEH
COE
COE
COE
COE
COE
None given
COE
COE
COE
Start Page
05130
05766
06776
07109
05137
05681
04287
07457
07460
23684
07408
05692
04721
03951
05104
05139
07461
34940
21666
22098
End Page
05136
06775
07108
07407
05138
05691
04580
07459
07460
24200
07424
05763
05103
04133
05117
05177
08033
35955
21850
22319
I Vub«ib\fimyeis\coeVJo. 3\admn_rcd\ou 2
6/4/96
-------
Fort Wainwright Administrative Record
List of Documents Pertaining to OU 2
Original Doc.
Date
7/21/94
7/22/94
8/1/94
1.7/14/94
1/10/95
1/31/95
5/15/95
7/1/95
7/1/95
10/13/95
10/16/95
12/1/95
12/20/95
1/12/96
1/16/96
1/25/96
Title
Qualitative Ecological Risk Assessment
Approach, Remedial Investigation. Operable Unit
2, Fort Wainwright, Alaska
Groundwater Levels at DRMO and Building 1 168.
Pod Wainwright, Alaska
Investigation, Site Assessment, and
Recommendations. Building 1168, August 1994
Work Plan Building 1 168 Treatability Study. Fort
Wnlnwrlghl. Alaska
Operable Unit 2 Baseline Human Health Risk
Assessment Approach, Fort Wainwright. Alaska
Interim Report. Building 1 168 Treatability Study,
Fort Wainwright, Alaska
Building 1168 Treatability Study Off gas
Assessment
Final Site Safety and Health Plan, Fort
Wainwright Buildings 1002, 1 168, and 2250
Final Work Plan for Release Investigations
Building 1002, 1 168. and 2250. Fort Wainwright.
Alaska
Technical Memorandum, Underground Storage
Tank Release Investigations at the North Post
and DRMO Sites, Project No. 33414 and 33415
Find! Human Health Risk Assessment, OU2,
Delivery Order 002
Review Comments on Final Human Health Risk
Assessment. Operable Unit 2, Fort Wainwright,
Alaska, October 1995
Release Investigation Report, North Post Site 4,
Fort Wainwright, Alaska
Technical Memorandum. Monitoring Results,
Building 1 168 Treatability Study, Fort Wainwright,
Alaska
Request for Extension of Document Deadline lor
the Operable Unit 2 Record of Decision
Operable Unit 2 Final Remedial Investigation
Report. Fort Wainwright, Alaska, Volumes 1, II, III
Document
Type
Report
Memorandum
Report
nopoit
Report
Report
Report
Report
Report
Report
Report
Letter
Report
Memorandum
Letter
Report
Author Name
Michael J. Schmetzer
Delwyn Thomas
John H. Janssen
Timothy Gould
Michael J. Schmetzer
Joseph W. McElroy
Tim Gould
None given
None given
J. Robert Allen
Douglas N. Cox
Jack M. Heller
Karol Lorraine,
J. Robert Allen
Joseph W. McElroy.
Timothy F. Gould
Albert J. Kraus
Michael Schmetzer,
George Drewetl
Author
Organization
Harding Lawson
COE
Oil Spill Technology,
Inc.
Harding 1 nwson
Harding Lawson
Harding Lawson
Harding Lawson
Associates
ENSR Consulting .
and Engineering
ENSR Consulting
and Engineering
Harding Lawson
Associates
Harding Lawson
Associates
US Army Center for
Health Promotion
Harding Lawson
Associates
Harding Lawson
Associates
US Army
Directorate of Public
Works
Harding Lawson
Associates
Recipient Name
CENPA-EN-EE-AI
CENPA-EN-EE-AI
None given
Nono given
CENPA-EN-EE-AI
None given
Mark Wallace
None given
None given
None given
Mark Wallace
Mark Wallace
Mark Wallace
Mark Wallace
D. Soderlund; R.
Markey
Mark Wallace
Recipient
Organization
COE
COE
COE
OOF
COE
COE
COE
COE
COE
COE
COE
COE
COE
COE
US EPA
Reg X; ADEC
COE
Start Page
26837
26735
37864'
21111?
24735
27252
48750
37809
39929
End Page
26844
26754
38125
?4!MX)
24764
29025
48766
37818
40222
o. 3\admn. icd\ou_2
-------
Fort Wainwright Administrative Record
List of Documents Pertaining to OU 2
Original Doc.
Dale
4/1/96
Title
Fort Wainwright Proposed Plan for Remedial
Action at Operable Unit 2
FONSI and EA for the North Post Site
Tar from Old Dump May Seep Into Chena River
Document
Type
Report
Report
Article
Author Name
None given
None given
None given
Author
Organization
None given
COE
None given
Recipient Name
Public
Cristal Fosbrook
Public
Recipient
Organization
Public
DPW
Public
Start Page
05178
05245
End Page
05239
05245
Ul
CD
I.MjseiB\pmy8rs\co«\
-------
APPENDIX C
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
139
-------
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY FOR THE RECORD OF DECISION FOR
REMEDIAL ACTION AT OPERABLE UNIT 2, FORT WAINWRIGHT, ALASKA
OVERVIEW
The United States Army, Alaska (Army); United States Environmental Protection Agency; and Alaska
Department of Environmental Conservation, collectively referred to as the Agencies, distributed a
Proposed Plan for remedial action at Operable Unit 2 (OU-2), Fort Wainwright, Alaska. OU-2 comprises
eight source areas: the Defense Reutilization and Marketing Office (DRMO) Yard, the Building 1168
Leach Well, the North Post Site, the 801 Drum Burial Site, the Engineers Park Drum Site, the Drum Site
South of the Landfill, Building 3477, and the Tar Sites.
The Proposed Plan identified preferred remedial alternatives for two of the eight source areas within OU-
2: the DRMO Yard and Building 1168 Leach Well. The other six source areas were not considered for
remedial action in the Proposed Plan. The soil contamination at the North Post Site consists of petroleum
and petroleum-related products and will be addressed through an Army removal action that includes
excavation, treatment, and proper disposal of the remediated soil. The 801 Drum Burial Site, Engineers
Park Drum Site, and Drum Site South of the Landfill were assigned to Fort Wainwright OU-1 for a more
comprehensive investigation and will addressed through that OU's decision process. Finally, no further
action is recommended for Building 3477 and the Tar Sites.
The major components of the remedial alternatives for the DRMO Yard are:
• Soil vapor extraction,
• Groundwater air sparging with natural attenuation, and
• Groundwater monitoring/evaluation.
The major components of the remedial alternatives for the Building 1168 Leach Well are:
• Soil vapor extraction,
• Groundwater air sparging with natural attenuation, and
• Groundwater monitoring/evaluation.
No formal comments regarding the Proposed Plan for the OU-2 remedial action were submitted during
the public comment period.
BACKGROUND OF COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT
The public was encouraged to participate in the selection of the final remedies for OU-2 during a public
comment period from May 1 to May 31, 19%. The Fon Wainwright Proposed Plan for Remedial Action
at Operable Unit 2 presents combinations of options considered by the Agencies to address contamination
in soil and groundwater at OU-2. The Proposed Plan was released to the public on May 1, 1996, and
copies were sent to all known interested parties, including elected officials and concerned citizens.
Informational Fact Sheets dated March and September 1995 and March 19%, which provided information
140
-------
about the Army's entire cleanup program at Fort Wainwright, were mailed to the addresses on the same
mailing list.
The Proposed Plan summarized available information regarding the OU. Additional materials were
placed into two information repositories: one at the Noel Wien Library in Fairbanks and the other at the
Fort Wainwright Post Library. An Administrative Record, including all items placed in the information
repositories and other documents used in the selection of the remedial actions, was established in Building
3023 on Fort Wainwright. The public was welcome to inspect materials available in the Administrative
Record and the information repositories during business hours.
Interested citizens were invited to comment on the Proposed Plan and the remedy selection process by
mailing comments to the Fort Wainwright project manager, by calling a toll-free telephone number to
record a comment, or by attending and commenting at a public meeting on May 8, 1996, at the Carlson
Center in Fairbanks.
Basewide community relations activities conducted for Fort Wainwright, which includes OU-2, have
included:
• July 1992—Community interviews with local officials and interested
parties;
• April 1993—Preparation of the Community Relations Plan;
• July 1993—Distribution of an informational Fact Sheet covering all OUs
at Fort Wainwright;
• July 22, 1993—An informational public meeting covering all OUs;
• April 22, 1994—Establishment of information repositories at the Noel
Wien Library and the Fort Wainwright Post Library and at the
Administrative Record at Building 3023 on Fort Wainwright;
• March 1995—Distribution of an informational Fact Sheet covering all
OUs at Fort Wainwright;
• September 1995—Distribution of an informational Fact Sheet covering
all OUs at Fort Wainwright; and
• March 1996—Distribution of an informational Fact Sheet covering all
OUs at Fort Wainwright.
Community relations activities conducted specifically for OU-2 included:
• April 28 and May 1, 5, 6, 7, and 8, 1996—Display advertisement
announcing the public meeting in the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner,
• May 1, 19%—Distribution of the Proposed Plan for final remedial action
at OU-2;
141
-------
May 1 to May 31, 1996—Thirty-day public comment period. No
extension was requested;
May 1 to May 31, 1996—Toll-free telephone number for citizens to
provide comments during the public comment period. The toll-free
telephone number was advertised in the Proposed Plan and the newspaper
display advertisement that announced the public meeting; and
May 8, 1996—Public meeting at the Carlson Center to provide
information, a forum for questions and answers, and an opportunity for
public comment regarding OU-2.
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD
No comments were received during the public comment period.
142
-------
APPENDIX D
FORT WAINWRIGHT
OPERABLE UNIT 2 SOURCE AREA
BASELINE COST ESTIMATES
FOR REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES
143
-------
BUILDING 1168 SOURCE AREA
BASELINE COST SUMMARY
W0209R1 H-rdln, L.w.o« A~ocl.to.
-------
Fort Wainwright OU-2 Feasibility Study
Building 1168 Baseline Cost Estimate Summary
Component
Present Worth of CW Monitoring
Present Worth of Capital Costs*
Present Worth of AOC
Total Cost to Implement
Remedial Action Alternative
Alternative 1
$0
SO
JO
to
Alternative 2
$81.000
$49.000
)0
1130.000
Alternative 3
$29.000
$ 1 74.000
$66.000
$269.000
Alternative 4
$29.000
$452.000
$78.000
1559,000
Alternative 5
$29.000
$350.000
$119.000
$498.000
' Indudii Onto and Indiitct Caorti* Cottl.
GW: groundwiw
AOC: innuil opening cost
•oiiiMitT IlsieoSTSUlU
145
4J7V96
-------
fort Wnnwright OU-2 Fusibility Study
Baiilint Cost IstiiMtt Building 1168 Alurniuvt No. 1
No Action
T IRR
mn
WIM
1991
1901
• ISA' •«•• Mi ••••••• M» •••••••• «•
tnn
M4M
IMII
IMI* U
Itl
'.I
>399
'a
-------
Fort Wainwright OU-2 Feasibility Study
Baseline Cost Estimate • Building 1168 • Alternative No. 1
No Action
Indirect Capital Cost Detail
llBn
Engnwmq: D«j«jn 10 Migtauntiini
idmniu Jinn tne wgcmon
Dufn and dtntaoRiM
Oi9
i*»f*
UcnuiPvmiL^tl 110% ngMmq eotifl
Surt-o* IM Shiti OeiM (I TrdMwn Sftim
IMwab
1MB
feeum
UbTtum
Ja»«W
Coni«n»icY !15%ugit»ic«til
Tiul AMMI OP«IIM( Cat
TIN
VetrotiC Ei:enonirt
S»
N*
N*
N«
N*
N*
NA
Guniny
a
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
D
1
BUI
8500
7500
65.00
ROD
6600
85.00
75.00
6500
S500
63.00
0.00
1.000.00
65.00
1.00000
50000
:oo
Units
IV
hi
h
he
hi
hr
In
hi
In
hr
a
u
hr
H
U
S
Cost
10
10
10
U
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
M
to a
to
10
10
to
to
to 10
II
II
•CMC*
hrlMW
CMnciuonrtcan
N»:
eSUHHMTJdSBCt
147
-------
Fort Wainwright OU-2 Feasibility Study
Baseline Cost Estimate • Building 1168 • Alternative No.1
No Action
Annual System Operation Cost Detail
'ten
Oeeritnq uboi Coll
iPoil Coxitrwcinnj t«n 1: G-MIONII* momarnt
•«m2:T-iawg
Saiitw
Aouint MMitvunct Mimuu ino UBM Cut
HOT l:G'MMiatBmanninnf inmuiinuitrjnci
lin 2: SVL*r oiroi mri imiM munBuna
Urn 3: SVEJ «r sxrat mm *nut aamtrtea
Sutum
Auitey Muvitt ing tnufi
PionaCbmcn
ElKUKJII
WilB
Snm
5*"<"*
0M.U.,IR«Mi w^.,,.^,^^.
Suttfl*
PtirdusM Sonca
Pietnmui Svnca
HOT I U5arartf«o
nml
Mm
Ollw:
Sottot*
T»t«l Amtnl OptxiiKf Colt
Ouimitf
0
a
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
fttti
0
0
0
Until
Iw
IS
IS
IS
IS
IS
IS
IS
IS
IS
IS
IS
IS
IS
IS
IS
IS
IS
FrnuBiCT
TevlDof AOCEiMMmn
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
TonVytK
to
to
10
10
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
so
to
to
so
to
10
to
to
to
to
to
SO
to
Nxntv of run if
«OC: tnnul ootritfq ait
nrhov
IS: In* Km
NA: wt wpMtk tot tha ihviutm
SVL tod iipoi iniKim
IC.ix»MCiciprt*con
BSUHHARTllSBAOCl
148
ou-i
-------
Fort Wiinwright 01) 2 Feasibility Study
Baseline Cost Estimate • Building US8 • Alternative No3.
Institutional Cantrvt*
U41<
1-41
10 B
10 B
10 B
II B
II B
II B
II B
II B
10 B
It B
II B
II B
II B
II
lit Cl
ia a
:B CT
:«t a
II B
II •
10 B
II B
II B
II B
IIB
II B
IIB
IIB
IIB
i
IIB
IIB
10 B
10 B
IOB
II B
10 •
IIB
MB
IOB
MB
CT •
tt.4
ir-t
in
n m~
sn *«
149
-------
Fort Wainwright OU 2 Feasibility Study
Baseline Cost Estimate • Building 116B • Alternative No.2
Institutional Controls
Indirect Capital Cost Detail
tarn
Engiwtrtq. Ot&fn to ngmmuim
IdrMuititnn wt UKWnuo*
UUfJA tAd flMVOVRMRI
Drifing
Monrtotng KM intng rrm (X
fiafci mqnttat
Svtltlt/
EngnMrnf DturnroniM9
AOMUtrniM »
Mantomif md latnf
PTOJKI vi^'v^
S*tiHt
UtttUKPtron/Uj* 110% cnimviig ailD
Sin-up
-------
Fort Wainwright OU 2 Feasibility Study
Baseline Cost Estimate • Building 1168 • Alternative ftlo.2
Institutional Controls
Annual System Operation Cost Detail
•!«n
OM>II>IO, liooi Cost
IPon Contiiuctioiu -«n I GrmmdwiiBmonnoimf
•r-lT-iiwig
Sttiaul
Routm MiritnjIXt MllVlia IM LJMT Colt
'in 1- Srwnilwitit momomg mmttmnnttmitt
nnl SVLw S8«gt •«* jrauauiitNM*
in3 SvnatntMdtil
&4MW
Agi*«> Mtivitu «no trap
Proau Chiracta
r«CJtrnf
*•!•
SM«
'M
i«*MM/
Od»aui ot RB«MS
W» •!!•. tkX)9t. ftl.
Sttiitfl
nrtus«S«mcB
PntacoAM Stram
tlnl:U6»ltoryFMi
r.mt
Tni
Mmtf
Olto:
A ncn *m of inMBMnincM
Suiitam
Ttttl Annul 0»»in*t Cut
Quuttn<
20
1
. \
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
1
4
0
0
0
a
a
i
Hit*
6500
700.00
500 X
7500
500.00
SKSO
000
000
9354
Units
hr
LS '
LS
IS
tar
IS
IS
IS
IS
IS
IS
Ml
IS
LS
IS
IS
LS
LS
Fitouncn
mtw
IIYiv
inr»
inrur
mm
>tinn ot AOC EistMmra
Ho 30
iio»
1io 30
Mo 30
NA
111 30
I to 30
In 30
luU
IOUKTUT
11.300
1200
11.500
1500
10
1150
SSiO
to
10
«0
10
10
to
ISO)
tsoo
12.500
10
10
12.500
10
10
10
194
S94
»5JM
NixMt if ««if > if m
tOC.tmiuliocitBqast
M: MI wptutli loi tno wnttm
SVt ud >IM> «nr»ci»«
ISUMUMTJllSaiOC}
151
-------
foil Wii*Mif hi OU7 Fm*Uirr SiuO>
liufiM Utt iiliiMU • lutMtaoj MM • »ttif oin.e lit 3
Soil Vow (xoictua. GuuMVwmr Air S«v|iaf ing Monitoring
*•
:U IV* *•••••
•^"»
•.^^•w *•> W( f*
II I m**~ OHMIM
rzrirzrrrrr-.c,--
C«oM
s=~
~™^
iz^n^r"
5^rjir~"
«*«PMi»»««»«»MiJH»» <•««»• KC««» ||| •
am**au*mm mimmmmmmmmmim* l|M
*»"»"»II"W "••!••
>>^»> ••• UMiBita** 1 HI •. — • • mmmi
^"* ---,.,
srrrr^.....- , _*.«. —
^m^M
»^
•waKlo^w*
3
A
3
I.««4M
inn
MtU
twi
IV) •
I99K9I
z.?gooo
t»»
MtM
IM»
IUH
to
II IM •
1.900 N
tttigc
IB1«»
i.nid
lin«
t.MIM
\.tnm
uiir
!'•
1U.MXI
«.Hin
«>•
190«t»
linn
I.ONH
no«i
Ifc H
:u
SA
»••
I.MUI
!>'
IM
in
i .»
1U
i9i n
too*
nn
lf.OMO>
ml*
t ii
nn
UJMIl
t.MOM
WOW
> &^
<>I
SOWN
190 •
MM) 09
J7 10
't «'
1SS
123 00
III 01
I H
tn
got
HOI*
in
120 II
run
non
700
10 «
tn
i.non
icioon
mil
Jm
at
•i
•i
•
»
«•
U
n
u
•
•
•
«
•
a
a
m
«
«
CT
or
•
u
CT
n
n
9
CT
n
CT
U
CT
LI
1
CT
s
•
•
I*
f
•
•
CT
CT
•
n
•
•
u
CT
CT
•
U
•
'—
ivMin
ixin
nwm
nmu
itnn
ion
17 Z90BO
nnn
IIUU
>tun
MUM
mo
ion
ion
IlltUI
ion
n nin
nn
noun
unin
19 n
ii n
nliun
ui4in
inin
nonn
12 inn
it n
nn
ii •
10 •
u •
ii •
ltd
1101
ii n
itn
it n
nn
UK
» n
ion
ion
ii n
II H
u n
nn
ion
>in
tin
ion
i* goo to
lOOt
igoo
1000
II /MH
DIM 00
ion
ion
ii n
ii n
tin
11. inn
imn
un
nncn
ii •
nn
n.jnn
in now
u »n
numn
inut
I9MMUTJ(ISIOU
152
tasat
-------
Fort Wainwright Oil 2 Feasibility Study
Baseline Cost Estimate • Building 1168 • Alternative No. 3
Soil Vapor Extraction, Groundwater Air Sparging and Monitoring
Indirect Capital Cost Detail
Itvn
EngmMfng: Olbgn to m«m»uion
iOimirjtnn wo suovrao*
Daqmnddtntoonitftt
Olt*M*
Mmitni ind lull* (Y|* 01
rTOfKl flRQMMnnt
Srtltt*
EngnMiiit : OKommmwif
Adminrim n< amnowi
UHIfM W)4 dCMtOO"OTt
Oitftni
MiMornq w4 itstfif
PiijBt •ttnoriif
MOW
UamrPBiiMiVjtM nd%«(n«nif cuw
SlM-w UK Slukt Oowi tt TIHRMM S»t1«n
MMnH
Utai
Eiwmt
Ilk Tuirn
5«*Wf»(
ConinjBKT imupmlnstu
Tiul Yur
Tor
it* «l 1C Emtnanwi
0
3
0
0
0
«
1
QuantitT
BO
240
144
0
240
16
20
24
0
40
1
1
40
1
4
1
Rut
85.00
75.00
65.00
0.00
6500
85.00
7500
65.00
65.00
6300
5.67800
100.00
ssjn
100 JO
500.00
23.216.31
Urat
l»
hr
tt
a
kr
t»
l»
ii
V
IT
U
H
tr
u
n
S
Con
(6,800
118.000
I9JCO
to
115.600
»
-------
Fort Wainwright OU 2 Feasibility Study
Baseline Cost Estimate • Building 1168 • Alternative No.3
Soil Vapor Extraction, Groundwater Air Sparging and Monitoring
Annual System Operation Cost Detail
.Iff.
fining, uow Cost
P:s: Conuructiom Horn 1: G'ounewttor momtoifig
Horn 2. SVt AS s» sin momgino,
Mm 3: Tfinon
SuSlitll
R juint MMttonoKo Motonou tn« uoor Cost
torn 1: GiouMwaiot moMorno, annul HMUMKO
'.ml. SVfrtii sptcgt lytton omul nomonm*
t«n3 S*no*ng<«t»»it
&£/•«*
AIUBOT Mtwiili tat £mr(y
hetonCliawoot
EtettaiTini«iol|
Qonnotf (Run 2)
Wot*
Smv
Fuol
SutttlU
OOMUIOI Rnriuts
Wisk milor. slud4«. on.
&tf»r«/
PWOIMM SOIKOI
Hom 1: Lttoiotorv FOB
Horn 3:
Suttiru
Ctftor
idmmslfiim costs not ndudod n OIMT bwitotiu
maw«ico
• tits, tctnu^ P4nnft 'tMwtl
MmiontiKt Rtsmo hat
!S ol ciono casts gfviitd lo> ucfi >ut of finriomomitntt '
**'""
Toal AmiMi Of orotwt Cm linl^tt CW Monrtorii«l
turirt?
12
52
t
1
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
4
2
0
0
0
0
1
Rttt
6500
65.00
400.00
500.00
mno
75.00
14.200.00
0.00
200 M
500.00
625JO
B4DO
889.96
Units
ni
hr
IS
IS
LS
tti
LS
LS
IS
LS
LS
LS
IS
Ml
LS
LS
LS
IS
LS
ftmtnci
Hyur
1/TW
IfrOK
"^"
"*"*
llfoor
feticslot AOC Eioononwi
Ho 10
1103
lie 10
Ito 10
lit 3
Ito 10
lit 3
Ito 10
Ito 10
He 3
Ho3
ItotO
InIO
lr*3
Ito 10
lit 10
Ito 10
lit 10
tie 10
liolO
Itol
4 to 10
InlO
::IUMT
1780
11380
1400
sun
S3.390
1500
1500
175
«75
1500
SO
114.200
SO
SO
SO
1700
1100
II4JOO
1500
ISOO
S 2.500
1130
SO
U520
10
SO
10
1890
ISSO
S24J55
S5J7S
13.780
Ntfnd* ol i urt of
tK: IIUIMI ipmng cut
S\t sad MOOT nU
G* growMwai*
UUMUMTJdSIAOa
154
FoftWoi
VUOS
-------
FtM WliHwrif hi OU 7 Fuiiiilift Slirff
liftlint Citt EitHuii • luiUiaf 1161 ilurniini Ml. 4
4lt«Ml»t 3 Pl« bciviuo* in* ITTD •< CtnlwniiuiH Unnantt Sail
•HdMBUhH. I 1.4' trnni'f Ml
'«M«Bi»«iar »*»«••«
III
U4M
in
i»
Mil
I • M»» IH- «m» • •• •
HI
IUM
ntu
14;
13721
n
IMIH
in* it
IIHH
:e
» u
IMilJI
II •
II»I
it
II HIM
II.IBM
14 •
IIII
111.144 II
IMCT
m n
HiUi
n«i
II.IMM
II •
HIWM
II •
II •
IIII
10 •
UN
II •
II •
ion
II •
II •
IIII
II •
• «•••• II tat
van
tin
I4H
II •
tin
»inm
uimi
i
it
rr <
DC I
itt
tai
B$UMMMTJ(IJUC4
155
•QMS
-------
Fort Wainwright OU 2 Feasibility Study
Baseline Cost Estimate • Building 1168 • Alternative No. 4
Alternative 3 Plus Excavation and LTTO of Contaminated Unsaturated Soils
Indirect Capital Cast Detail
:«n
EntitMing: Otsqn to iKownwiiien
Amntiiicn «w tuotrman
Daqn me Irrmtami
Outing
Momvng M letnf iTur 0)
Propel VHjntBrq
Siawt/
Engnwnf : OKOflroMn««
Admonition and tatnat*
UttJQfl tftO OWWOOOWI1
Driling
Momonnf tnd mtnf
Prwct «n rMrnq
&«r«rj/
LxmvPvmiUgjI 1 1 0% ngnvfif com)
Sl*n«« 6«
Equgmnt
lit Itsirg
Sustain
ConmqtncY ilS%c«m«c«iiu
Tttal tt«
Ttv
•or ot 1C Emtndrtufi
0
3
0
0
0
8
3
Ouinin*
80
2«0
168
0
240
GO
100
96
0
1
1
40
1
4
1
R»ll
85-00
75.00
65.00
OJ»
65.00
KM
75.00
65 A)
6100
8.056.00
too jo
6SA)
ioaoo
500 X
63824.S6
UMI
Iw
kt
hr
a
to
hi
hi
hi
hi
H
U
II
U
U
IS
Con
16.600
111000
110920
to
• 15.600
151.320
15,100
S7.SOO
16.240
SO
t!3140
IS.OS6 I&OS
tlOO
(Z600
sin
12.000
i4m
153.825 IS1C5
MJ1M1
iiua
BSUMiUKTJ(lSMC«
156
-------
Fort Wainwright OU 2 Feasibility Study
Baseline Cost Estimate • Building 1168 • Alternative No.4
Alternative 3 Plus Excavation and LTTO of Contaminated Unsaturated Soil
Annual System Operation Cost Detail
Km
Opcitiq libw Cost
(Piit-C*wniciBM lt«n 1: Groundnut* mtMUHH
Km 2: SVMS tysum nonriinif
ItBD 3: Tnrwfl
StUfUt
ini*iry Uitmtu MO ift*|f
(IB* 1: Gt«0d«>«« «ioniimn moil tammmt*
Han i SVEttS mum «••* MMMMK*
Itm 3: SmoM9loMt.it
&*Mr«
AiHBkm Mitvitt ing (jmfi
PiocoiChanuM
Etacintnt must It
EtetnotT mist 21
Wiw
StM
Frt
Mrtttf
Oo»n«ilRn*iB
Wukintfr tMtuct.
5Mr*W
Pwttus«S«K«
N« 1: (Jtafiw FN>
H«iJ
Mf«r«
Dttar
A^matiMM com MI tiOuttt • attar tn*««a
inimnct
TUB. teinmfl. p«nwi tvMwH
MWIVUKI Rti»t f at
I5\ o( CJOfl* costs giortitd lot ucti vur d notoMnuiionl
Sttui*
Tiul Awul 0*»»tM« CMI facfaftt S« MMtar««
QuM(n>
12
52
1
1
1
a
i
0
0
0
1
1
4
2
0
0
0
0
1
Rill
6500
SSOO
400 A3
500.00
500.00
7500
14.200.00
20D.OC
SOOHO
eKM
KM
2.44862
Units
hr
kr
LS
IS
IS
T
LS
LS
LS
LS
LS
IS
LS
Ml
mnti
LS
LS
S
LS
S
FreaMncv Vtviil ot IOC Ec«nong(«
1(y«i
llyur
1/YMT
1*Mf
ITM
)«w
itoia
lit)
Mo 10
III tO
lit 3
1 1.10
11*3
11*10
III 10
IttJ
It. J
into
/»«
ri*J
11.10
inig
IttlO
111 10
ire 10
itolO
ItalO
1M1
4 Mil
>W/0
TotiVvw
(710
»:.MO
1400
ii. i a
I3.3K
SSOO
1500
ITS
tsn
SSOO
to
* 14.200
to
to
1200
1200
mm
1500
ssa
tlSOO
1130
to
HS30
to
to
10
12.447
13.447
I2SJI2
•1332
nno
i«f turiol
»OC: MBMI oovitnt tut
10
SVtfei»»0«tITI«CTB«
157
4Q4M
-------
Fort Wtuwwunt OU I Fuifelitv SMv
SiiitiM Ctiiiiiuuii liuUiif 11(1 • AlttfMtnrtI*. S
AltBMim 1 Pin EIMVIIMI IM (O|JMW^ Pile TruDMni
Of »W«f «IO«C1l»l liltl f ( CtMMMMM $»il
ISUMMMTJUSMCS
158
rifMOU-t
4OT9S
-------
Fort Wainwright OU 2 Feasibility Study
Baseline Cost Estimate • Building 1168 • Alternative No. 5
Alternative JPIus Excavation and Engineered Pile Treatment (biopile
or vapor extraction pile) of Contaminated Soil
Indirect Capital Cost Detail
itn
Engnvmq: Ouig/i to (moMmtninon
idnrautinn tntf upanto*
Otogn via ocntoerant
3tilimf
Momamg int latng lYw 01
^BfVCI VQ'WViy
Sutuitl
EngnMmt : DKOiTimwwig
AAimnniMi Md SUWWBH
Oingn tnt ftMtopnwt
Diillnt
MomorKg V* iui«|
ProiKt wtnannt
&*wr*
LunivPwTiMiKtil 110% »igm»m| catttl
taring iM SAit(OaMi«l Trmmni Svitm
Mum*
Ub«
EtuWMm
Kb Tainq
Sututtl
ConirgwcT i!5% cionii eo»i«
TMt
Tom Tur
fui tl C EIO«X«IUII
a
3
0
3
0
(
I
Qumtity
80
240
168
0
240
60
120
96
0
200
1
1
40
1
4
t
Dili
85.00
75.00
65.00
0.00
55.00
85.00
75.00
65.00
65JX
65.00
8.W6.00
200 A)
65.00
700 J»
500.W
<8.927.0S
Unnt
l»
h<
hi
u
hr
lu
Iv
(V
hr
hr
u
u
w
u
u
s
Catt
« 6,800
118.000
1 10.920
10
MS.GOO
HI.3X
is. in
19.000
16.240
10
ItlOOO
rmti 131340
18.488 M4S6
»200
•2.600
1200
12.000
turn
141.927 IU.S27
I1M.MJ
IIIJ4I
UiMCfl
: indrKt cwnri cnt
BSUHHMTJIISIKS
159
4/24S6
-------
Fort Wainwright OU 2 Feasibility Study
Baseline Cost Estimate • Building 1168- Alternative No. 5
Alternative 3 Plus Excavation and Engineered Pile Treatment fbiopile
or vapor extraction pile) of Contaminated Soil
Annual System Operation Cost Detail
it«n
OMriino, Liter Coil
(Pui-Coniiroctam lt*m liGrouadwitunonnorin
Itn 2: SVE/AS STUB* momaraf
lt«m 3: *nera*TM p* rr»t«n nm»t>m
ItaMtTfimia.
Z&.M
Aununr MiiviMs ma uwat
lt«n 1 : G'ountwit* Mm*)**, mul nummnci
lt*m 2: SVEJv wvai tytin mul mamcnmc*
lum4:S*niotn*Mlkil
&«>««/
*ui*inr MilBiKt tnt faw|T
PriauClMMUb
BKOOIT (SVt/iSI
QnraHTlEn«MvM«iW
WM«
Sm*
FlMl
AM*r«
MpOMl 01 N«dMS
Wnkwim. «ud««.«c.
&AWfJ^
fvaaut Strata
H«tl 1: Ubvnory Fm C.W. MMimit
Hm 3: Efljnwr iintM CMWiMmn MnqitMitd pM
Itm 4: Utornon Fm MnfravM DM
Sutaoui
OllMT
Mmmntim com MI ncMM n tirw in urn
kuwnct
MwtmaciRtwMfvrt
5% «l CMHM com nirtM IH nek TM «* JnwkMmranl
&*f«r«/
TtMl AMMHI Oprifet CM! taMa SW MMtariql
QuMin*
12
156
M
1
1
1
16
1
0
1
t
0
0
1
1
4
2
IE
13
0
0
a
i
Rtl*
65.00
65.00
65.00
400.00
500.00
1.500.00
65.00
7500
14.200.00
1000.00
200.00
SOOJO
6210D
65.00
55.00
waoo
1.875.54
Until
hf
In
h
LS
LS
LS
l»
diy
LS
LS
IS
IS
IS
LS
LS
«Hl
IMMk
LS
u
LS
LS
LS
LS
F'mano
!.>!•
I.TW
!.•»«•
lifMT
1,>«*t
1|yU(
't»l>l ol AOC (uuMflin
ItelO
ll«3
4llS
lit 10
tie 10
tit 5
lit 3
11010
lit]
4ttS
1t«IO
lit 10
fitS
in 3
1i»3
4MS
11*10
;o/0
4HS
1*3
It* 10
IttIO
H»IO
lt»10
4t*S
41.5
/M/0
/.$«
to
to
to
1 1.876
tine
nm\
121.711
IIMI
I17K
i ifitmt (I fnatBMntitM:
tOC: mat tf*u*n tin
SVt KJ •«• aUKOW
laWHMTJOStAOCS
F*nW*
160
•i**tOO-l
4/2406
-------
DRMO YARD SOURCE AREA
BASELINE COST SUMMARY
W0209R1
161 Harding Lawaon Asaociataa
-------
Fort Wainwright OU-2 Feasibility Study
ORMO Yard Baseline Estimate Summary
Component
Present Worth of GW Monitoring
Present Worth of Capital Cuts'
Present Worth of AOC
Total Cost to Implement
Remedial Action A :ernanve
Alternative 1
SO
$0
$0
to
Alternative 2
$148.000
$34.000
$0
» 180.000
Alternative 3
$89.000
$1.426.000
$680.000
$2.195.000
Alternative *
$89.000
$1.498.000
$682.000
$2.289.000
Alternative S
$131000
52.062,000
$698.000
$2.892.000
' Includts Ditto ind Indirect Cipilil Com.
uW: groundwilti
AOC: aniwal optritnf cut
Hvtilf l«NM« AlMCiltti
DSUUMMTJHSOCOSTSUU8
162
-------
Tort Wiinwrignt OU 2 Feasibility Study
Baseline Cost £stimne • OKMO • Alternative No. t
No Action
'ion
I4JW
not
'MM
1000000
1 100 00
•»n
141 «
noi
'W
14
S.OM DO
rwi
i.m
i.ni
1II1
• Ml 00
mite
K.W
• tun
m
IOOCW
i.inn
t.BOOM
100 «
II •
III*
II •
!••
II 00
10
10
10
U
is; n
1100
mo
in
not
1100
1101
1009
toTT
10 OA
1001
I Si
HIM
100 H
10 00
10 00
1010
1000
tOOl
toiwn
<00
10000
I.'O
SHON
10090
10 00
1000
1000
1 ISO 00
sn
000
1100
1000
II •
1901
Z10
no
100
1000
sn
i.nooo
ion
1010
1010
10 •
1001
1000
n i
oc i
OSUHUMTJtLSOOCI
163
FonoV
•ftn OU I
van
-------
Fort Wainwright OU-2 Feasibility Study
Baseline Cost Estimate • DRMO • Alternative No. 1
No Action
Indirect Capital Cost Detail
It VI
tnqrtmtq Deign 10 r-c«n«iuiw
-armsitlion wtd superman
~tuf\ ino gnHodiwii
2'itirg
Mwnoinq ml luing flat 01
"•onet trwtMrfq
Svtltw
EngoMn* : Otcomntjjowio,
:*Twwtr»(on iM luotrram
:aqningdf»*topn)m
;-iftt>9
Memoing >n4 mtnq
'VaMci tm»«»«i9
St/tnrtt
Uunurvntiugil ' 0% mgnmnq cosii!
Slvivs m Stutt Dawn 31 ''uwunt S«ii«n
Miinta
JO*
ijuenwn
J6 Tu[»f
Svtiiaui
Contnqvn '5\ejpini costs)
Total Aniui Oportiinf Cost Tut
Uif
tm tl 1C Eiptndiluri
N»
N»
N»
N»
N»
N*
Nt
QuMltAT
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
\
fljlt
8500
75.00
QUO
65.00
GlOO
«500
75.00
65.M
6500
65.00
tat
\JOOOJX
650)
1.000X
500.00
0.00
Urn»
h
hi
kt
tt
hr
ht
hr
hr
hr
hr
H
N
hr
M
U
IS
Coil
U
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to to
10
10
to
to
to
to to
10
10
UlUCft
DrhM
HA: not mfcath) (if lha uvwnt
Ntrf)«| iMMM AlUOM
OSUMHMTJILSOCI
164
-------
Fort Wainwright OU 2 Feasibility Study
Baseline Cost Estimate • DRMO • Alternative No.1
No Action
Annual System Operation Cost Detail
nan
Opcitng laeof Con
iPost Con jnucionl lin 1 : Gioundwjitf monitor
Item 2: TfMm
Satteat
RouWil Mwiiontnct Maims » MrtriW tnd (Mf(T
PfUBi Ch«nt>ll
dectrolTlPlitsill
Ctactnciv IFIiiii 21
Wtt«
Snm
Futf
Suttlt*
OatotM it Rmtua
WMkmtii.sliitfqi.icl.
&4;»M
PwduiM S*»«s
ProttsuoiulSvwca
Urn 1: Utanonr f ia
ll«m 2: Enjm* rivmM connttii«
rt«n3:
5n«/cr«/
Otto:
t«nmsiittni rant not nOMtd n otto Mt nm
taiwancf
Tim. KWJ»H. pvim rtntml
MMiiminct Rtstrn fund
i5 S at cioiltl cost! orwiiMl toi iKti itn ol fnoKm«ri jtioni
SatlllH
Tttol Annul Ofvitmt C«sl
Quinlrt.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
c
0
0
1
I
Rut
:
,™ij If'tuuano
%
LS
IS
IS
tar
12
15
12
IS
IS
J
-S
>s
IS
LS
^
LS
J
c
ru>ltto<*OCEi««idrtwt
N»
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
TollllTMl
10
10
10
10
to
to
10
(0
to
10
to
10
10
10
to
to
to
10
to
to
to
10
to
to
to
10
;o
ID
if run «4
»OC: MnuH «WIW4 COM
hrhow
(.S.kn«s«n
NA: not tpotubk f» inn iHviiMiN
SVt: SMI iwor tnricloi
MM Atwciiu*
OSUIIIIWTJtlSOAOCl
165
-------
Fort WiiuwTiffct OU-2 Fmibilitv Study
Biitlinc C«t b'jmja • OBMO • Altirnitivi No. 2
Inslitutioiui Conu»b ind Natural Attenuation
inn
IUU
mi
O
in
on
on
on
1JW
M>U
iw»
IMBU
14
limn
it n
io
II H
ion
io
•.•in
ijn.
ijnn
O.MII
i-in i
inn
IT I
ii. wn
IWI U
»'n|u
i.n
HUM
ii n
u
ii n
ii n
ion
ii n
ion
101
101
III
:«ct
sn CT
n> a
in n
u n
ion
tin
ii n
ii n
ion
ion
11 n
>on
no
ttlMH
ion
ion
ion
ml
i tiler
ion
un
in
inlet
un
it n
un
ion
ion
ion
ii n
"rti
9 m
n a
166
F«1 WI
OSUUMU1JU200C7
-------
Fort Wainwright OU 2 feasibility Study
Baseline Cost Estimate • ORMO • Alternative No. 2
Institutional Controls and Natural Attenuation
Indirect Capital Cost Detail
H*n
Engmteng: Cixqn :o Riplwuniiiiw
tdnmnriion tnt lusvraan
Onfn tnt dntfopiwnt
Outing
Momgrnf tnd lolng (Yin 01
Propel ffpiMrnt
Suitor*
Efifmwnq : ~Kmmuxxvq
tdmnmniiofl »< Kiprnmon
Ooqn «ti dmtoemnt
Oultm
Memarn; mil wtnt
Ptonci (nguttrng
5t«»rM SUM Down ol Trutmnt Syim
Mmn*
LjMr
E««nm
Lit Tntfiq
Srttotii
Coniinqvcv 115% cicunltotul
T.til TIM
Trar
Tur et 1C fio«n*t<«
0
30
0
NA
0
0
38
QuinlRT
40
80
32
0
24
20
40
6
0
40
1
0
0
0
0
1
Ritt
8500
75.00
65.00
6500
65.00
1100
7500
6500
65.00
65 JO
2.08600
14)0000
65JO
14)0000
500.00
5.349 30
UlMI
kr
to
fe
hr
h>
hr
to
IT
to
to
M
H
r
H
U
IS
Can
13.400
16.000
12.080
13
11.560
IIJMO
11,700
11000
f»:ho»
lC.in*«iuaulc*ti
Nfc nai igmuM <« (la jhinuiw
OSUUMMTJItSOR
167
WV96
-------
Fort Wainwright OU 2 Feasibility Study
Baseline Cost Estimate • ORMO • Alternative No.2
Institutional Controls and Natural Attenuation
Annual System Operation Cost Detail
n m
Opoutno. Lttor Con
(PoiKoiwriictMl Horn 1: Gioumtwilor monnixng
II am 2: Trtnrq
SutttlH
DMIM MMIIOMKO Mnoutts on* Later Con
Him 1: Giountootor monrtotnfl wwua rumionanca
Itn 2: SVLw laargt wti annual marjnanc*
HOT 3: StmtfcM ftfd kit
&*««
Aiutary Mitvutt and Erargr
Procni ChBMUb
Ehcircmr
w««
StM
F tn« nomi
IflMinco
Tno. icounf. tomn (tntwol
Mmiononco Rtnm hfit
I5\ of CMfltl com ototitotf fn t«ch »n> ot noliniiniiinn!
Al»MW
Tout Annual 0**rotM| Cut
Qujntnv
40
1
0
t
0
0
0
a
c
i
i
3
3
0
0
0
Rito .ms
HO;
200.00
1.000.00
7500
500.00
625.00
0.00
000
S3 36
IV
IS
IS
LS
dir
LS
IS
LS
LS
IS
IS
•Ml
LS
LS
LS
LS
LS
LS
f-«CU*Kif
MUf
liTur
I.Tui
li^OM
IITuf
Tiiititof AOCEitBriituri
lto»
1U»
11130
. 1io30
NA
Ml 30
11030
no 30
It* II
Totjllrt*
12.600
1200
HUtt
11.000
to
M50
t I.I SO
10
10
10
10
10
to
isao
tsoo
IS.OOO
10
10
SS.OOO
10
10
10
in
set
•1.S1I
Nunow of Y«ri ol nv*mmiinft:
AK: MMl otoilU*] an
30
Hk a*l aptkukk to tha aMomaM
SVt u4 «*»• nnattM
DSUMHMTJtlSBMICI
168
ifMOlM
VZSSt
-------
Foil WoiowrifM OU7 Feisibilitv StirtY
giuliac Can £siimtti • ORMO • Alteraoiivi Mo.)
Soil VIPOJ UtriciMn. GtouoViojiir Air Sptiginf IM Moimoiuoj
!•••
II _!•••••»»*•.
lu*mm*mm
-.«••.»»'••»
>.» » «• tpo__
" -----T- —
%l»l >lllO»
•uto
•
iziiriff frz"""* "
*w» » «•••• tW Mnv> (• «•* •* •• ••• •••«••» M MI m
I.1M «•••*» tt*
Sa^kim
^£=r=r:=—
h*«irt
JUi""""
tzrir"
—••'-•»••
— •-_• —
«^«"««^»'"" i« " 'i'"m«' »«•• »«C «•«»«.«« ^.
9>W»-*» «•!>*••>•»•«[»• II Ml
••^•••^ "«•"••
•••»««•• •" I" !«••» I'M •»««—• «-!»•
NMMiWdMMI
srrjrL- . — —»«.«-
[znnn'zrM« —*-..«—
<^V«n« •!•«_«•«•
f^
'..Kt.^.
0
u
«*
••
••
•A
"
M
IS
1
It
a—.
i
i
i
i
t
;
i
j
j
i
now
ii
'D
10
to
10
10
10
10
10
. 10
10
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
J
0
a
3
0
9
3
0
-
0
'
1?
3
g
0
1 to
0
«.«•
0
10
1
IS
Rj«
I.«M t
1201
IKU
•SOI
'iOOt
lOOCOOt
MG004
uon
MM
IMI
tun
ii
iron oo
IflOOOO
rot 100
i.nio*
I.2UO*
tin «
IMI 00
utioo
tin;
irn
II.WOO
• tan
11' M
VOOOOO
MX 11
1.000 X
mo
K H
111
tn
moo
I.MM
?s;
OK
in
i ;!
It. 000 00
!St
K1H
100 H
2 Si
11 n
10.001 W
10000
2 M
1111
I.WOO
V 000 00
10000
' SS
00
1 000 00
no oo
1 HO 00
..1C
'641
• 3&
J<0 30
moo
J M
ill
000
10000
Ml
27000
110 00
100
(IS
i.fwoo
11.10000
in oo
JW
«
•
m
m
M
M
•
11
n
ii
M
•
•
•
•
•
•
11
1
•
•
•
•
cr
CT
•
1
CT
CT
CT
1*
CT
CT
CT
t
T
T
T
CT
CT
1
Imm
•R.IIOM
I'etu
1*4 •)•
•u.ioi«
onio
10*1
"4 JOOOQ
>I.Ut»
i'i~inu
in nut
UltOI*
HIIIUOI
10 «
UNOflO 00
'•1IIOS
MLnooi
iiuaoi
IIIJMW
iniign
• •nan
'i run
il'IM
tmiMoi
u 00
1000
10 •
10 •
tQ 00
1001
10 •
tool
ic ao
1001
10 M
1010
10 00
it BO
1000
1000
1330
'• :- 'c
>• 00
1630
1000
i MdOO
IM2IOO
id 00
1000
1000
1000
II*
iiAJWM
10 0>
mono*
10 •
n'MOl
HI MM
I'l.UO-IO
CT 1
gc i
i mi
tA-ai
ITCX
n •
M.I
Hortfiof UMM AiMctins
DSUHHMTJClUOa
169
4JSS6
-------
Fort Wainwright OU-2 Feasibility Study
Baseline Cost Estimate • DRMO • Alternative No. 3
Soil Vapor Extraction. Groundwater Air Sparging and Monitoring
Indirect Capital Cost Detail
li«n
:-9*iwm): Design lo imgfcmntitefl
tdmnstiuion ind jueewwi
Qtaqfi na MnMemnt
Diihni
Moratcrng ind mtflf IYu> 0)
Piom wgmrng
SutltlH
bifiiMrng : Oicmamaimi
Aikraiuton int wwnm
OtaiB mi tfntotmmi
Orifuig
Momorat tat taint
PlOIKI BlfilOTni
&t/«W
lunuiPinnuijpl llO%«i9«Mrnf conn
Slvt«p (ml SluH Down it Tintmm Suiw
Mitviitt
Utar
Eou^mtni
LrtTmn)
5<^rar
hr
hr
hr
hr
u
u
V
II
u
IS
Cul
U 7.200
)«000
115.600
(0
118.200
1103.000
IS.100
» 12.000
tlSOO
SO
11.970
tusn
I117P 111787
16.000
115.600
16.000
124.000
tSI.800
>:26.142 122S.IC
I4NJOI
UIJ70
•ruck
hrhMi
LS:km»nm
NK**| UNMI /UuciMM
OSUUMMTJISOC3
170
V2SM
-------
Fort Wainwright OU 2 Feasibility Study
Baseline Cost Estimate - ORMO • Alternative No.3
Soil Vapor Extraction. Groundwater Air Sparging and Monitoring
Annual System Operation Cost Detail
urn
OpBJtnj (Ma Ceil
(Post Censi'uctani nan 1: GiouMwittr momiernt
Horn 2: SVt/AS svstvn nwutofno,
'ton 3: Tiwin;
iuBWW
Rgutni MuittniKt tUteuls wn) Uoor Cost
Hen 1: G'0unsw»m nwiMgmo. mu* irjnunjne*
Itom 2: SVB«* W(i lynam maul uMiwnira
lt«n 3: SimoWo. l«*Uit
SvttatH
Auifer? MitdiM DM £n«jr
Piocm Clwracib
ElKlrclT IPtiist 11
ElKticnt iPhitt 2)
WltB
Sew*
Furi
Suttatit
OoptuielHtaduu
WiidwjiB. shdqcKi
Mnw
PwctiuM Sewn
ProlBtmui StratH
Hn 1: LiB«»iofT Fta
ii«n 2: Engrav imtwi coftjutliton
it wi 3:
MTflW
OllKl:
Atamtrnm eotii not noidad n cine mt nans
Inwinn
Tuts. Kranj. ppmn T(nm«
Mmtinawi fttiitvt fva
K\ of cigitx cent OIWIIM toi uch *tw o* meKnuminor
Sttteiv
T«M AMMI Optriting. C*>l 1 includes CW Mtmtwiiifl
Qu4--:"»
::s
i
i
2
0
!
I
3
:
i
i
8
12
0
3
Q
0
i
R>:t |Unni
7S.OO
55-00
iOOOO
1000 GO
1300.00
7500
152.000.00
14200.00
100.00
;oooo
525.00
'30.00
: T79 19
Iw
ht
IS
IS
IS
diVU>
llTt*
IfYMT
(VIC
I»U1
(yiar
f<*tt) of tOC Eiomoiuri
Ho IS
lie 10
lit IS
Hi IS
Hi 10
In 15
lit 10
It* IS
III IS
III 10
Ito 3
« it 10
ttolS
lit 15
11*10
t»3
He 15
lit IS
1l* IS
1 to IS
lie IS
Ho IS
lit IS
1»1
4 Mil
11 to 15
lie IS
lo\ifit*
12.600
113.520
1400
13.000
H3.SO
<1.000
< 1.000
(ISO
11 ISO
II 000
10
1152.000
(14.200
10
10
1400
S400-
IHJOO
"57.00
1500
1500
15.000
11.560
10
16.SSD
10
10
10
»5779
HS79
• 1I3.90J
U8.IOJ
• U.3IJ
18.600
Hint* »< »•»! it maiainniUBtt:
tOC: tmat oooiinf cost
15
hclni
LS:knesm
SVt sol tner HIIKIWI
Htr^Uf
OSUMMMTJUSOAOa
171
fWtWMN*l«MOU-!
-------
Fwi Wiiflw»«M OU7 Fciuoiliry Slut*
BostliM C*il btHMIt ORMO Alivootivo No. 4
All*Mini 3 Plgt LICIVIUO* (I Smile* Soils Comoiaojj ltnxei«l*yi«w
in« OiipoMl it tho foil Woiawriojlil LoitttrH
M4M
•SOU
ISO 01
10 no oo
*
IU
s» a
10 00
10
•JO
tOOl
It.
o.
1001
in
mn a
HO 00
n.
•JO
17 n
lo.oooio u
30010
4.
•••
1001
* IS
u a
1000 01
no
It
S.OOOOI U
1001
in
'lllOOl
H90
110 00
100
1000
s» a
1.1*00) •
10.000 • a
•nmm
Cl •<••
K *wi
172
OSUMMMYJISOOM
47SS6
-------
Fort Wainwright OU 2 Feasibility Study
Baseline Cost Estimate • DRMO • Alternative No. 4
Alternative 3 Plus Excavation of Surface Soils Containing Benzolalpyrene
and Disposal at the Fort Wainwright Landfill
Indirect Capital Cost Detail
it n
Engnntint Qosign to imoMmntitm
•dmMirinon »iu) supmnm
0<9fn uid dfwtopmw
anting
MoMocng and wing (Yw 0)
ProjKt •to.mraif
Suttoril
Engntent : OKonvmuioMg
Admratninfl tnt lupamsion
Oonfn mi MvHopiMiH
Onftng
Mootocnt tnd mtng
nofKl inQnHmt
StttitH
LxBUdPwmnlUgil IIO%«(««rii(CO>ut
Slin-u« tnd Stuki Down of Iiutm«m S»«i«n
Uatm>
UM>
E«u«nwni
l>b Tnirg
Stitrttil
CgningeiCT ilSSctpnucoitsl
Total Titf
Tow
Tur ol 1C Eutndiiuro
0
IS
0
0
0
t
IS
C-tniltY
320
770
:ss
0
540
80
ISO
it
0
170
1
E
240
6
«
'.
liu
85JO
not
SSJB
SLDO
sun
ISA)
7500
65.00
CTnr
EUO
17.124.00
t.OOUD
65 JO
'.000 AD
MOJO
:C1213«
Umt
ta
ht
hr
d
k>
I*
l»
kr
It
IV
u
«
r
u
u
IS
Cost
127.200
154000
ni.no
10
I41.SDO
tm.so
16.800
02.000
•1120
«0
« 7.800
tn.no
117.124 I17.I24
16.000
115.600
$6.000
124.000
til.SOO
•202.213 HIBJtJ
1412.457
121720
lC:ndvancaonilcitt
LS:kn«iun
173
OSUMUXTJ(ISOC4
-------
Fort Wainwright OU-2 Feasibility Study
Baseline'Cost Estimate • ORMO • Alternative No.4
Alternative 3 Plus Excavation of Surface Soils Containing Bei»o(a)pyrem
and Disposal at the Fort Wainwright Landfill
Annual Si stem Operation Cost Detail
lien
OpBtMtf Ijoot Con
iPon Connractcnl llvn 1 : Giountfwai* monnwrn
HBTI 2: SVEJAS tysim mornomf
lt«n 3: Ttimif
Suite!*
Rmnn* MMIIBIIKU Mitviae ina UM> Cost
II «n 1: GiMtfwtm nwMon^ mat numnBct
N«n 2: SVEJw w ft irsim muH mamvuna
Urn 3: Samehij tM kil
J«4««
iuiJun Mitviaa an« tfl«fy
Promt Chm*
Ekctncn* iniwt 11
Ekcnciif iPtint 2)
Wit*
S«w*
Fu*
S*llt*
OtttouiolRtidua
Wirt wiiv. iMfl. «ct
SuttHH
PWOIUM Svnca
ProltUBM* S«VKB
urn 1: Ubornocy Fm
Urn 2: EflpiMi ttmwl connniiw
li«n 3:
Sttttiu
Ollw:
Admnatinnt tgsti not neludM n aiha hit it«nt
Inswtnu
TIIU. Kimrij. wrmn rmt«r«
MMilfnwct nts»t fund
'SS ot ci:n»i cons ororitM lor iicfi »f« a< «nonm«r!j:onl
Siatot*
Tttil «MNM| OnrilHif Cat 1 inclvta SW M«Mifin>«t
Oujnmv
40
201
1
1
2
a
i
i
0
0
1
1
I
12
0
0
0
a
i
Rail
&00
6&DO
400O)
1.000.00
1.000JXI
7500
152.000 O)
14.200JX)
400 SO
50000
62100
13000
5.16767
Unni
he
hr
LS
IS
IS
in
IS
LS
IS
IS
IS
IS
IS
M«
momh
IS
LS
LS
LS
S
ftttanci
ll»««
llyui
llYHf
llfHr
llyw
(TIM
TllHD •< AOC EiMnoitiiri
111 IS
1U10
mis
lull
nue
It* IS
It* 10
It. 15
ItfIS
tnW
Ittl
4MIO
lit IS
11*15
41,10
IM3
1t(»
lit IS
Ml IS
mis
lit IS
1it1S
lit It
inl
4»ll
It HIS
1 1* IS
TotiWut
12.600
113.520
1400
am
tnao
11.000
11.000
1150
II.IU
ti/xo
10
1152.000
114.200
10
10
1400-
IVO
II4JO>
IIO.OOO
1500
SiOO
15.000
n.sco
to
IS.W
to
10
10
15.161
IS.IU
HI3.JJI
I4S.4SI
111.771
I8.SOO
ll run if moWMntiiBn:
»OC: omul K«nnq tin
»S. M lotrgi
-------
Fort WMMif ki OU7 Fninilin Stmtr
llj*tiM C«l t»tfl»»tt ORMO tiler Mint Ha. S
AltvMirvt 3 Plia Ejuntnt il Siffllci Sorlj Comnniog ltnicx»»T'tn«
M^ 0*-*rii SoMiliutni
OSUMMARTJUJDOCS
175
F«n Wtiwwifkt OU-I
-------
Fort Wainwrignt OU-2 Feasibility Study
Baseline Cost Estimate • ORMO • Alternative No. 5
Alternative 3 Plus Excavation of Surface Soils Containing Benzolalpyrene
and On site Solidification
Indirect Capital Cost Detail
urn
EngctMrng: Otiqn 10 Inttawiutm
tdmnnfiim tnt vis**"*
Dtagu mi ««»ilin»««ni
Ouflftg
UMtomt «ri toino. (Tor 01
PTOIKI aifnMnif
&*««
Engnwnt • OKomnaMMif
tdmmtuiBii nd tutrtam
Otugn and MmtopMm
Onting
MMMf nt m< itnn«
>r>pct »»BMHH
•bai^
5««/*W
lmMiPnimn.itil ',10%mq**m*qusia
Slvl-ge JM Shjki Dem *( TruuiMM Syun
Mftvutt
LMt
Egutmni
IrtTtjin,
5««»'J/
ContngoKf Il5\cioit»e«iiil
Tnr
ToM Tuc
Tnf
Tut of 1C £i:««mi»«
3
15
'5
IS
IS
30
0
0
0
0
1$
38
Outfimv 1 Hjtt
3oC
MO
TJj
rt
MO
U
'55
^
;
'»
SO
s
:«
5
i?
85.00
7500
65.00
300 00
6SJB
J5.00
75.00
65.M
65 JO
65 JO
6500
20.32SJX
lOOOfl)
65JM
1.000.00
MOJO
:?6.259.47
Umt
hi
to
to
u
to
to
to
to
to
to
.
M
(1
U
U
u
s
Con
130.600
ISO.OOO
121.140
119.500
138.400
SIS8.HO
i6.no
112.000
13.120
10
17.800
15.200
rav IS S13.710
rm» ISJOO
120.326 ^flO?5
taooo
111600
16,000
124.000
I5I.SOO
1276.259 1276.259
IS 11.525
121.710
IS.2tf
IC:ind>icicwn«coii
!)«<•( UwtM AOKUM
176
fifklOUl
-------
Fort Wainwright OU 2 Feasibility Study
Baseline Cost Estimate • ORMO • Alternative No. 5
Alternative 3 Plus Excavation of Surface Soils Containing Benzolalpyrene
and On site Solidification
Annual System Operation Cost Detail
•in
Opviino, iuo> Cost
(Pott Coiuiruciwil \wn l:GiOi*ttwilvmtY.o'«o,
:iom 2: SVL'tS lyitm rcmoina,
'torn 3: TfMuif
5rtiW
Routra Mintdunci Mattiitls ing LJMf Cos)
lim 1: GfOuMwaiB momomo; imui mimmnct
linn 2: SVEJii toutt irsiom amua mwttmci
Horn 3: Sxnotnt I«M in
Svttettt
*ui**> MitBittt ma tf*(r
Pioms Chomua
Etancnr iMiiit 11
E!«ctricur iPhisi 2)
Wnv
StMl
Furi
Sttlitt/
Oaaoui of Radua
Wijti M«I«. uuDgi. tc
J*""*
Pw duui Sonai
ltml:Uooi»onFta
1KB 2: F.nqnitr imnn cinndlitm
Il*n3:
5«»/»M/
Olhe:
tdnuintiitin coni not noatta n OIIKT m ntmi
lnnt of f;«"ffi«tioni
Sutuui
Ttul AMU! Of VOM« Cni 1 iitclofa t* Mt «urin||
Cit***tr Mmmf Arraa OT TtlilAOC
QuMlity
40
201
1
1
1
2
0
1
1
0
0
1
I
s
12
0
0
0
0
i
Rail lUiwi
65.00
65.00
400.00
1.000.00
1.000 00
75.00
152.00000
14.200.00
400.00
500.00
625.00
130.00
3.529.98
hr
1*
IS
IS
IS
«tt
IS
LS
IS
IS
IS
LS
IS
MO
month
IS
LS
LS
LS
LS
Fifoumcf
t/Ttar
llro>
IfVHI
IffM
*•*
'""
rtartilol*OC£itiiniliiiKi
1io30
ItotO
11030
In JO
In 10
llo 30
Ho 10
lto30
lit 30
InIO
110 3
4io10
Ito30
IttX
41,10
lit 3
lioX
'"*
UoM
lio30
lia 30
Ho 30
/<.«
,,.3
4 1(11
1IM30
Iti 30
Tot>l,
------- |