EPA Superfund
Record of Decision:
PB97-964608
EPA/541/R-97/054
November 1997
Fort Wainwright,
Operable Unit 1,
Fairbanks North Star Borough, AK
6/27/1997
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
for
OPERABLE UNIT 1
FORT WAINWRIGHT
FAIRBANKS, ALASKA
JUNE 1997
-------
DECLARATION STATEMENT
for
RECORD OF DECISION
FORT WAINWRIGHT
FAIRBANKS, ALASKA
OPERABLE UNIT 1
SOURCE AREA NAME AND LOCATION
Operable Unit 1
Fort Wainwright
Fairbanks, Alaska
STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE
This Record of Decision (ROD) presents the selected remedial action for the 801 Drum Burial Site for
Operable Unit 1 (OU-1) at Fort Wainwright in Fairbanks, Alaska. OU-1 originally included 22
suspected source areas: the 801 Drum Burial Site, Building 1599, Building 2077, the Utilidor
Expansion Drum Site, the Beacon Tower Landfill, the Blair Lakes Drum Site, Building 3015, Burial
Site M, the Building 1128 Transformer Storage Yard, the Trainor Gate Railroad Spur, the Runway
Radioactive Waste Site, the Birch Hill Radioactive Waste Site, Building 1567, Site N-4, the Chemical
Agent Dump Site, the Transformer Storage Yard East of Building 3019, the Alaska Railroad Storage
Yard, Building 2250, the Drum Site South of the Landfill, the Engineers Park Drum Site, the Motor
Pool Buildings, and the Former Explosive Ordnance Detonation Range.
This ROD was developed in accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) as amended by the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act of 1986; 42 United States Code Section 9601 et seq.; and, to the extent
practicable, the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan, 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, collectively referred to as the
agencies, have agreed to the selected remedies.
ASSESSMENT OF THE SITE
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from the 801 Drum Burial Site source area, if
not addressed by implementing the response actions selected in this ROD, may present substantial
endangerment to public health, welfare, or the environment. Pesticides and petroleum-related
compounds are contaminants of concern in the soil; and benzene, pesticides, solvents, and other
petroleum-related compounds are contaminants of concern in groundwater at the 801 Drum Burial
Site.
This is the fourth OU of five OUs at Fort Wainwright to reach a final-action ROD at this National
Priorities List site. This ROD addresses soil and groundwater contamination at OU-1.
-------
DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED REMEDIES
OU-1 originally consisted of 22 potential source areas, only four of which were carried through the
Remedial Investigation: the 801 Drum Burial Site, Site N-4, Building 1S99, and Building #2077.
The 801 Drum Burial Site is the only source area recommended for cleanup under CERCLA, based
on potential risk to human health and the environment.
The Army and the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation have a cooperative agreement
to address petroleum-contaminated source areas. Two source areas, Buildings 1599 and 2077, are
being addressed under this agreement because the contaminants of concern at these source areas are
petroleum-related. These source areas do not require any further action under this ROD.
The Motor Pool Buildings and Former Explosive Ordnance Detonation Range will be addressed
through the OU-S decision process. No analyses of remedial alternatives were conducted for these
source areas under OU-1.
In August 1995, an interim ROD was signed by the agencies to conduct an Interim Remedial Action
at the Chemical Agent Dump Site to ensure that no chemical warfare materials were buried at the
source area. Soil and groundwater analytical results from the 1995 Interim Remedial Action indicated
that chemical warfare materials and their breakdown products were not present. This source area is
recommended for no further action under this ROD.
The no-further-action decision was made for each source area if: 1) the physical location could not
be identified or located in the investigation, 2) no visible sign of contamination was observed during
the source area inspection, or 3) environmental sampling results showed that contamination is present
at levels below the protective human health-based levels. Based on this decision process, the
following suspected source areas are recommended for no further action under this ROD: the
Utilidor Expansion Drum Site, the Beacon Tower Landfill, the Blair Lakes Drum Site, Building 3015,
Burial Site M, the Building 1128 Transformer Storage Yard, the Trainor Gate Railroad Spur, the
Runway Radioactive Waste Site, the Birch Hill Radioactive Waste Site, Building 1567, Site N-4, the
Transformer Storage Yard East of Building 3019, the Alaska Railroad Storage Yard, Building 2250
(pesticide storage area), the Drum Site South of the Landfill, and the Engineers Park Drum Site. No
analysis of remedial alternatives was conducted for these suspected source areas. A description of the
no-further-action decisions can be found in the Administrative Record.
The selected remedy for the 801 Drum Burial Site was chosen from the best alternatives presented in
the Feasibility Study and is considered the most cost-effective and permanent solution available for
addressing contaminated soil and groundwater at this source area. The selected remedy addresses the
risk by reducing contamination below cleanup levels established for the 801 Drum Burial Site.
The remedial action objectives for the 801 Drum Burial Site are designed to:
Ensure that groundwater meets state and federal drinking water
standards;
Prevent buried drums and contaminated soil from continuing to act as
a source of groundwater contamination;
in
-------
Reduce risks associated with exposure to contaminants in drums and
soil; and
Minimize potential contaminant migration to the Chena River and
downgradient drinking water wells.
The major components of the remedies at the 801 Drum Burial Site include:
Locating potential buried drums and, if found, removing and disposing
of drums and contaminated soil, while restricting access to the source
area during this work;
Establish and maintain institutional controls to ensure that the
groundwater will not be used until federal and state maximum
contaminant levels are attained, except for activities undertaken to
initiate the selected remedies detailed in this ROD. Institutional controls
include restrictions governing site access, construction, and well
development or placement as long as hazardous substances remain on
site at levels that preclude unrestricted use. The Army shall ensure
compliance with the institutional controls in place at this site because
noncompliance will violate a requirement of this ROD, therefore
violates the Fort Wainwright Federal Facility Agreement between the
Army, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and the Alaska
Department of Environmental Conservation;
To ensure long-term effectiveness of this remedy, the Army's permanent implementation
processes and policies for implementing institutional controls will be developed through
joint U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Alaska Department of Environmental
Conservation, and Army negotiations. These implementation processes and policies are
intended to be in place before the OU-S postwide ROD;
Natural attenuation of groundwater with long-term groundwater
monitoring; and
A groundwater contingent remedy, which includes a soil vapor
extraction and air sparging treatment system to specifically treat volatile
organic compounds. This remedy would be implemented when either:
1) the concentration of contaminants in the groundwater plume shows an
increasing trend over any three consecutive sampling events throughout
the projected 20-year monitoring period, or 2) the designated monitoring
points around the plume indicate that contaminants are migrating away
from the source area.
A soil vapor extraction and air sparging treatment system will reduce volatile contaminants to acceptable
levels. If a technology becomes available for treating the pesticide contamination, then the agencies may
consider modifying the contingency.
IV
-------
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 remedy utilizes permanent solutions and alternative treatment technologies to the maximum extent
practicable. The contingent remedy of soil vapor extraction and air sparging to reduce volatile
contaminants will satisfy the statutory preference for remedies that employ treatments that reduce
toxicity, mobility, or volume as a principal element.
Because these remedies will result in hazardous substances remaining above health-based levels at this
source area, a review will be conducted within five years after commencement of remedial action to
ensure that the remedies continue to provide adequate protection of human health and the
environment.
-------
SIGNATURES
Signature sheet for the foregoing Operable Unit 1, Fort Wainwright, Record of Decision between the
United States Army and United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region X, with concurrence
by the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation.
William M. St
Lieutenant G
Commanding
Date
Army
VI
-------
SIGNATURES
Signature sheet for the foregoing Operable Unit 1, Fort Wainwright, Record of Decision between the
United States Army and United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region X, with concurrence
by the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation.
/ Ch
-------
SIGNATURES
Signature sheet for the foregoing Operable Unit 1, Fort Wainwright, Record of Decision between the
United States Army and United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region X, with concurrence
by the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation.
tafKurt Fi^Sriksson Date
Director, Spill Prevention and Response
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation
Vlll
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
DECLARATION STATEMENT ii
DECISION SUMMARY xviii
1.0 SITE DESCRIPTION -1
1.1 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION -1
1.1.1 801 Drum Burial Site -2
1.2 GENERAL SOILS AND GEOLOGY -3
1.3 GENERAL HYDROGEOLOGY AND GROUNDWATER USE -3
1.4 LAND USE 1-4
2.0 SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES 2-1
2.1 SITE HISTORY SOURCE AREA 2-1
2.1.1 Source Area Requiring Action Under Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act 2-1
2.1.1.1 SOlDrum Burial Site 2-1
2.1.2 Source Areas Transferred to Other Operable Units 2-2
2.1.2.1 Motor Pool Buildings 2-2
2.1.2.2 Former Explosive Ordnance Detonation Range 2-2
2.1.3 Source Areas Referred to the Two-Party Agreement 2-3
2. .3.1 Building 1599 2-3
2. .3.2 Building 2077 2-4
2.1.4 Source Areas Requiring No Further Action 2-5
2. .4.1 Site N-4 2-5
2. .4.2 Utilidor Expansion Drum Site 2-6
2. .4.3 Beacon Tower Landfill 2-6
2. .4.4 Blair Lakes Drum Site 2-7
2. .4.5 Burial Site M 2-8
2. .4.6 Building 1128 Transformer Storage Yard 2-8
2. .4.7 Trainor Gate Railroad Spur 2-8
2. .4.8 Runway Radioactive Waste Site 2-9
2.1.4.9 Birch Hill Radioactive Waste Site 2-9
2.1.4.10 Building 1567 2-10
2.1.4.11 Chemical Agent Dump Site 2-10
2.1.4.12 Transformer Storage Yard East of Building 3019 2-11
2.1.4.13 Alaska Railroad Storage Yard 2-11
IX
-------
Table of Contents (Cont.)
Section Page
2.1.4.14 Drum Site South of the Landfill 2-12
2.1.4.15 Engineers Park Drum Site 2-12
2.1.4.16 Building 3015 2-12
2.1.4.17 Building 2250 2-13
2.2 ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES 2-14
2.3 HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION 2-14
2.4 SCOPE AND ROLE OF OPERABLE UNIT OR RESPONSE ACTION 2-15
3.0 SUMMARY OF SOURCE AREA CHARACTERISTICS 3-1
3.1 801 DRUM BURIAL SITE 3-1
3.1.1 Physical Features, Hydrogeologic Conditions,
and Transport Pathways 3-1
3.1.2 Nature and Extent of Contamination 3-1
4.0 SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS 4-1
4.1 IDENTIFICATION OF CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN (SCREENING
ANALYSIS) 4-2
4.2 EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT 4-2
4.2.1 Identification of Site Uses, Exposed Populations,
and Exposure Pathways 4-2
4.2.1.1 Source Area Land Use Scenarios 4-2
4.2.1.2 Exposed Populations and Pathways 4-2
4.2.1.3 Calculation of Exposure 4-3
4.3 TOXICITY ASSESSMENT 4-3
4.4 RISK CHARACTERIZATION 4-4
4.4.1 801 Drum Burial Site Source Area 4-5
4.5 MAJOR UNCERTAINTIES 4-5
4.6 ECOLOGICAL RISKS 4-6
4.6.1 Problem Formulation 4-6
4.6.2 Analysis 4-7
4.6.3 Risk Characterization 4-8
4.6.3.1 Risk Estimation 4-8
4.6.3.2 Risk Description 4-8
5.0 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES 5-1
5.1 NEED FOR REMEDIAL ACTION 5-1
5.2 REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES 5-1
5.2.1 801 Drum Burial Site 5-1
5.2.1.1 Groundwater 5-2
5.2.1.2 Soil 5-2
5.3 BASIS FOR CLEANUP LEVELS 5-2
-------
Table of Contents (Cont.)
Section page
5.4 SIGNIFICANT APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE
REQUIREMENTS 5-3
5.5 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES 5-3
5.5.1 Alternative 1: No Action 5-3
5.5.2 Alternative 2: Institutional Controls with Natural
Attenuation with Groundwater Monitoring/Evaluation 5-4
5.5.3 Alternative 3: Soil Capping, Soil Vapor Extraction with
Air Sparging to Treat Soil and Groundwater, and Natural
Attenuation of Groundwater with Long-Term Monitoring/Evaluation ... 5-5
5.5.4 Alternative 4: Drum Removal and Disposal, and Natural Attenuation of
Groundwater with Long-Term Groundwater Monitoring/Evaluation with
Institutional Controls with a Contingency for Soil Vapor Extraction and
Air Sparging to Treat Soil and Groundwater 5-7
5.5.5 Alternative 5: Drum Removal and Disposal, and Long-Term
Groundwater Monitoring/Evaluation with Contingency of
Groundwater Extraction and Treatment 5-8
6.0 SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES 6-1
6.1 801 DRUM BURIAL SITE (COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF
ALTERNATIVES) 6-1
6.1.1 Threshold Criteria 6-1
6.1.1.1 Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment 6-1
6.1.1.2 Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and
Appropriate Requirements 6-1
6.1.2 Primary Balancing Criteria 6-2
6.1.2.1 Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence 6-2
6.1.2.2 Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, and Volume
Through Treatment 6-2
6.1.2.3 Short-Term Effectiveness 6-2
6.1.2.4 Implementability 6-3
6.1.2.5 Cost 6-4
6.1.3 Modifying Criteria 6-4
6.1.3.1 State Acceptance 6-4
6.1.3.2 Community Acceptance 6-4
7.0 SELECTED REMEDY 7-1
7.1 801 DRUM BURIAL SITE 7-1
7.2 REMEDIAL ACTION GOALS 7-2
7.3 MAJOR COMPONENTS OF THE SELECTED REMEDY 7-2
7.3.1 SoilRemoval and Disposal of Drums and Soil 7-2
XI
-------
Table of Contents (Coot.)
tior
8.3 COST EFFECTIVENESS 8-4
8.4 UTILIZATION OF PERMANENT SOLUTIONS AND ALTERNATIVE
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES OR RESOURCE RECOVERY
TECHNOLOGIES TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PRACTICABLE 8-4
8.5 PREFERENCE FOR TREATMENT AS A PRINCIPAL ELEMENT 8-4
9.0 DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES 9-1
Appendix
A CHRONOLOGICAL SUMMARY OF DETECTED ANALYTES IN
GROUNDWATER AT 801 DRUM BURIAL SITE A-l
B RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY B-l
C COST ESTIMATES C-l
XII
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
2-1 Summary of Risks and Hazard Quotients for Site N-4, Building 1599,
and Building 2077 2-14
3-1 Summary of Previous Maximum Surface and Subsurface Soil Sample
Results (Pre-1994), 801 Drum Burial Site 3-4
3-2 Historical Groundwater Contamination (Pre-1994), 801 Drum Burial Site 3-8
3-3 Detected Analytes in Surface Soil, 1994 Data, 801 Drum Burial Site 3-11
3-4 Detected Analytes in Subsurface Soil, 1994 Data, 801 Drum Burial Site 3-12
3-5 Detected Analytes in Groundwater, 1994 Data, 801 Drum Burial Site 3-13
3-6 Summary of Analytes Detected in Surface Soil Samples During the
Remedial Investigation, 801 Drum Burial Site 3-15
3-7 Summary of Analytes Detected in Excavation Subsurface Soil Samples
Collected During the Remedial Investigation, 801 Drum Burial Site 3-17
3-8 Summary of Analytes Detected in Subsurface Soil Samples Collected
During the Remedial Investigation, 801 Drum Burial Site 3-20
3-9 Summary of Analytes Detected in Groundwater During the Remedial
Investigation, 801 Drum Burial Site 3-23
3-10 Analytes Detected in Surface Sediment During the Remedial Investigation,
801 Drum Burial Site 3-26
3-11 Analytes Detected in Surface Water During the Remedial Investigation,
801 Drum Burial Site 3-28
4-1 Chemicals of Concern from Human Health Risk Assessment,
801 Drum Burial Site 4-11
4-2 Potential Exposure Routes, 801 Drum Burial Site, from Human
Health Risk Assessment 4-12
xiii
-------
List of Tables (Cont.)
Table Page
4-3 Summary of COPCs, Exposure Point Concentrations, and RBC Screening
Levels, 801 Drum Burial Site 4-13
4-4 Exposure Parameters, Recreational User Scenario 4-14
4-5 Summary of Excess Lifetime Cancer Risks and Noncarcinogenic Hazard
Indices, 801 Drum Burial Site 4-16
4-6 Summary of Excess Lifetime Cancer Risks, Future Residential Scenario,
801 Drum Burial Site 4-17
6-1 801 Drum Burial Site, Cost Comparison Table 6-5
7-1 Remedial Action Objectives and Remediation Goals, 801 Drum Burial Site 7-4
xiv
-------
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure Page
1-1 Source Area Location Map, Sites Requiring Further Action 1-5
1-2 Source Area Location Map, Sites Requiring No Further Action 1-6
1-3 Source Area Location Map, 801 Drum Burial Site 1-7
3-1 801 Drum Burial Site, Analytes in Soil Exceeding ARARs or RBCs, Pre-RI Data .... 3-29
3-2 801 Drum Burial Site, Analytes in Groundwater Exceeding ARARs or RBCs,
Pre-RI Data 3-30
3-3 801 Drum Burial Site, Analytes in Soil and Sediments Exceeding ARARs
or RBCsRI Data 3-31
3-4 801 Drum Burial Site, Analytes in Groundwater Exceeding ARARs
or RBCs-RI Data 3-32
xv
-------
LIST OF ACRONYMS
AAC Alaska Administrative Code
ADEC Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation
ADOT&PF Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities
AR Army Regulation
ARARs applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements
Army United States Army
AS air sparging
AWQS Alaska Water Quality Standards
BGS below ground surface
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DCE dichloroethylene
DDD dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane
DDT dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane
DRMO Defense Reutilization and Marketing Office
DRO diesel-range organics
EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
FFA Federal Facility Agreement
GPR ground-penetrating radar
GRO gasoline-range organics
IRA Interim Remedial Action
MCLs maximum contaminant levels
mg/kg milligrams per kilogram (ppm)
MUS Municipal Utility System
NCP National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan
OU Operable Unit
O&M operation and maintenance
PCBs polychlorinated biphenyls
POLs petroleum, oil, and lubricants
PSE Preliminary Source Evaluation
RA Risk Assessment
RAB Restoration Advisory Board
RAOs remedial action objectives
RBCs risk-based concentrations
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RI Remedial Investigation
ROD Record of Decision
SVE soil vapor extraction
SVOCs semivolatile organic compounds
XVI
-------
List of Acronyms (Cont.)
TBC to-be-considered requirement
the agencies U.S. Army Alaska, United States Environmental Protection Agency, and Alaska
Department of Environmental Conservation
UCL upper confidence limit
USC United States Code
USTs underground storage tanks
VOCs volatile organic compounds
XVII
-------
DECISION SUMMARY
RECORD OF DECISION
for
OPERABLE UNIT 1
FORT WAINWRIGHT
FAIRBANKS, ALASKA
This decision summary provides an overview of the problems posed by the contaminants at Fort
Wainwright, Operable Unit 1. 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 statutory requirements.
The Army completed a Remedial Investigation (RI) to provide information regarding the nature and
extent of contamination of soil and groundwater. A Baseline 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 was completed to evaluate remedial options.
XVIII
-------
1.0 SITE DESCRIPTION
1.1 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
Fort Wainwright occupies 918,000 acres on the east side of Fairbanks, Alaska. Fort Wainwright
includes the main post area, a range complex, and two maneuver areas. Fort Wainwright originally
was established in 1938 as a cold-weather testing station. During World War II, it served as a crew
and supply transfer point for the United States' Lend-Lease program to the Soviet Union. After the
war, it became a resupply and maintenance base for the remote Distant Early Warning sites, an
experimental station in the Arctic Ocean, and the Nike Hercules missile sites located in Interior
Alaska. In 1961, all operations were transferred to the United States Army.
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 the operation,
maintenance, and repair of fixed-wing aircraft, helicopters, tactical and nontactical vehicles, weapon
systems, and general support activities. The activities also include power generation; steam heat
production; drinking water production, treatment, and distribution; and standby power and water
production.
The scope of Operable Unit 1 (OU-1) was to initiate investigation at suspected source areas that did
not have adequate information to confirm or disprove the existence of contamination. These
suspected source areas were identified based on limited historic information and were evaluated
through a Preliminary Source Evaluation (PSE) process. The PSE process is a two-phase approach
involving historical review and, if necessary, a limited field investigation. For source areas that
needed more thorough evaluations, a Remedial Investigation (RI) was conducted. During an RI,
information is gathered through a field investigation at each source area to determine the nature and
extent of contamination and the potential human health and ecological risks associated with that
contamination. When the RI is complete, a Feasibility Study is written to evaluate various site
cleanup alternatives based on information collected during the RI. All of the cleanup alternatives in
the Feasibility Study then are reviewd by the Army, the Alaska Department of Environmental
Conservation (ADEC), and the United States Environmental Protection Agency and are evaluated
against nine criteria that were established by the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan. An RI was conducted for source areas that needed more thorough evaluations:
the 801 Drum Burial Site, Building 2077, Building 1599, and Site N-4 (see Figures 1-1 and 1-2).
The 801 Drum Burial Site is the only OU-1 source area recommended for remedial action under this
Record of Decision (ROD). The Army and ADEC have a cooperative agreement to address
petroleum-contaminated source areas. Two source areas, Buildings 1S99 and 2077, are being
addressed under this agreement because the contaminants of concern at these source areas are
petroleum-related. These source areas do not require any further action under this ROD. Site N-4
did not have contaminant detections above protective human-health-based levels and is recommended
for no further action under this ROD.
In August 1995, the Chemical Agent Dump Site underwent an Interim Remedial Action (IRA) to
remove any remaining chemical warfare material from the source area. The IRA proved that the
source area did not have chemical warfare materials buried on site, nor were there any other
contaminants of concern in the soil or groundwater. A complete record of this removal action and its
findings are included in the Fort Wainwright Administrative Record. This source area also is
1-1
-------
recommended for no further action under this ROD.
The no-further-action decision was made for each source area if: 1) the physical location could not
be identified or located in the investigation, 2) no visible sign of contamination was observed during
the source area inspection, or 3) environmental sampling results showed that contamination is present
at levels below the protective human-health-based levels. Based on this decision process, the
remaining suspected source areas are recommended for no further action under this ROD: Site N*4,
the Utilidor Expansion Drum Site, the Beacon Tower Landfill, the Blair Lakes Drum Site, Building
3015, Burial Site M, the Building 1128 Transformer Storage Yard, the Trainor Gate Railroad Spur,
the Runway Radioactive Waste Site, the Birch Hill Radioactive Waste Site, Building 1567, the
Transformer Storage Yard East of Building 3019, the Alaska Railroad Storage Yard, Building 2250,
the Drum Site South of the Landfill, and the Engineers Park Drum Site. The Motor Pool Buildings
and the Former Explosive Ordnance Detonation (EOD) Range will be addressed through the OU-5
decision process. No analysis of remedial alternatives was conducted for these suspected source
areas. A description of the no-further-action decisions can be found in the Administrative Record (see
Figures 1-1 and 1-2).
Nine of the OU-1 source areas are located within the Ladd Field National Historic Landmark/District:
Building 1128, Building 1567, Building 1599, Building 2077, the Building 3019 Transformer Storage
Yard, the Trainor Gate Railroad Spur, the Alaska Railroad Storage Yard, the Runway Radioactive
Waste Site, and the Blair Lakes Drum Site. However, the Fort Wainwright Historical Preservation
Officer has determined that none of the source areas are "contributing elements to the national
landmark" and as such do not require additional consultations as described in Section A106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act. He also has determined that because of the temporary nature of
the remediation systems, consultation will not be required for the installation, operation, and
implementation of remedial actions. The Blair Lakes Drum Site is considered an archaeological site
because artifacts were found in "largly undisturbed, multi-component prehistoric sites."
The Chena River flows through Fort Wainwright and the City of Fairbanks into the Tanana River.
Figures 1-1 and 1-2 illustrate the entire installation and each source area's location. All the source
areas are in a 500-year floodplain, except for the 801 Drum Burial Site, which is in a 100-year
floodplain. No threatened or endangered species reside in the area.
1.1.1 801 Drum Burial Site
The 801 Drum Burial Site is approximately 0.13 mile east of the 801 Military Housing Area on the
east side of River Road and near the west bank of the Chena River (see Figures 1-1 and 1-3). The
801 Drum Burial Site is undeveloped and vegetated with grass, brush, and trees. The area is in a
small depression between River Road and the Chena River. Surface water tends to pond at the source
area during spring thaw. Soil at the source area varies from silty sand and gravel to clean sand and
gravel. Groundwater is shallow, varying from 5 feet to 15 feet below ground surface (BGS) in the
on-site wells. The groundwater flow direction and gradient at the source area and the flow stage of
the Chena River fluctuate seasonally. During periods of high flow stage, the groundwater flow
direction is west. The flow direction during winter and early spring (low flow stage) is generally
east-northeast toward the river. The hydraulic gradient at the source area is approximately 3 feet per
mile. This relatively flat gradient is highly variable and causes a great degree of uncertainty in flow
direction.
1-2
-------
This source area was used as a drum storage area and disposal site. The drums historically contained
diesel fuel, gasoline, jet fuel, solvents, asphalt, pesticides, and lubricants. Aerial photographs from
the 1950s through 1960s show a gravel pit in the southwest corner of the storage pad. Subsequent
aerial photographs from 1974 show that the pit had been filled. Ninety-two drums were removed
from this source area in 1992. In 199S, 34 drums were removed from the excavation. Because it
was apparent after the drum excavation that numerous drums remained, two geophysical surveys were
performed. The surveys revealed eight areas of anomalies. In 19%, 118 drums were removed from
the areas identified in the geophysical surveys.
1.2 GENERAL SOILS AND GEOLOGY
Fort Wainwright is located in central Alaska near the north side of the Tanana River Valley, within
the Tanana-Kuskokwim Lowlands. Fort Wainwright is located near the base of the low rolling hills
of the Yukon-Tanana Uplands. The uplands are northwest-tending and lie between the Yukon and
Tanana Rivers. The regional bedrock consists of a Precambrian and Paleozoic metamorphic complex
of gneiss and schist that has been intruded extensively by igneous rocks of Mesozoic to Tertiary Age.
The lowland basin consists of a thick sequence of Quaternary deposits above the metamorphic
basement. The Quaternary deposits include glacial outwash and fluvial sediments. Most of Fort
Wainwright is within the lowlands of the Tanana River floodplain. The lowlands consist of alluvial
floodplain deposits of sand and gravel with generally less than 10% silt and an overlying fine-grained
surface soil up to 5 feet thick. The unconsolidated alluvial floodplain deposits consist of varying
proportions of sand and gravel that are commonly layered, and range in thickness from 10 feet to
more than 400 feet before encountering bedrock.
13 GENERAL 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 700 feet in the Tanana River Valley.
Groundwater in the Tanana-Chena floodplain generally is considered to be unconfined 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 regional groundwater flow direction is generally west-northwest, similar to the flow of the Chena
and Tanana Rivers. The Chena River flows through Fort Wainwright and the City of Fairbanks into
the Tanana River. The Tanana River boarders the southern portion of Fort Wainwright. Flow
fluctuates seasonally because of the effects of changing river stages in the Tanana River and, to a
lesser extent, in the Chena River. Groundwater levels occur between 5 feet and 15 feet BGS near the
Chena River and can fluctuate greatly because of river stage and interactions with the Tanana River.
Groundwater flow direction also fluctuates dramatically for the same reason. The intensity and length
of these fluctuations depend on how fast the river stage changes and the cause of the change.
Hydrogeologic conditions at the 801 Drum Burial Site are also difficult to characterize because of the
source area's proximity to the Chena River.
The aquifer generally recharges the Chena River (i.e., groundwater flows into the river) when the
river stage is low, which occurs during the low precipitation periods of late fall through late winter
and mid-summer to early fall. The Chena River recharges the aquifer (i.e., groundwater flows from
the river into the surrounding aquifer) during the high river stage, which occurs during the high
1-3
-------
precipitation periods and spring snowmelt, generally from early fall through mid-fall and from early
spring through early summer.
Existing data suggest that the contaminant plumes in the groundwater are migrating from the known
source areas; however, migration rates cannot be determined at this time. Existing data also suggest a
high potential for the contaminants to migrate to the Chena River and affect downgradient
groundwater users. Fate and transport calculations were based on the predominant flow patterns in
order to provide a scenario that was reasonable and protective of human health and the environment.
Where present, permafrost forms discontinuous confining layers that influence groundwater movement
and distribution. The presence of near-surface permafrost usually retards groundwater movement
within the shallow subsurface.
Groundwater is the only source of potable water used at Fort Wainwright and the Fairbanks area.
Most of Fort Wainwright's potable water supply comes from two large-capacity wells located west of
the Post Power Plant. Fort Wainwright facilities not connected to the post water system are serviced
by individual wells. In addition to the main production well, standby supply wells are located
throughout Fort Wainwright to provide large quantities of chlorinated, unfiltered water to the main
drinking water system in the event of a catastrophic fire or similar emergency.
The City of Fairbanks Municipal Utility System (MUS) uses this same aquifer and has four wells
located 1 mile downgradient of the post's boundaries, on the banks of the Chena River. These wells
serve as the main supply for most of the population of the City of Fairbanks. The four MUS wells
are completed at depths approximately 90 feet BGS and pump 5 million gallons per day. Some
nonmilitary residents north of the Chena River obtain drinking water from the City of Fairbanks MUS
wells; however, in this area there are residential and commercial wells that provide residential and
bottled drinking water, respectively. Residents of the 801 Military Housing Area obtain their
drinking water from the City of Fairbanks water system.
1.4 LAND USE
The land under the OU-1 source areas was withdrawn from the public domain for military purposes
by Executive Order. U.S Army Alaska holds no deed documents to the land.
Current land use for all the OU-1 source areas, except the 801 Drum Burial Site, is industrial.
Although the 801 Drum Burial Site is adjacent to a housing unit, the current land use is considered
recreational. Access to the 801 Drum Burial Site currently is unrestricted; however, the main areas
under current investigation have been surrounded by an orange construction fence and designated as a
contaminated area with signs since intrusive investigations began.
The Tanana Basin alluvial aquifer is the main aquifer that provides approximately 95% of all drinking
water for Fort Wainwright, Fairbanks, and surrounding areas. Even though domestic water use does
not occur at the OU-1 source areas, all source areas are hydrogeologically connected to the main
aquifer.
1-4
-------
02: JT2901\A704UT29ROD1 PG(2).CDR
I
in
OU-1 sites recommended for
action under CERCLA
Sites transferred to the Two-Party
Agreement
Sites referred to OU-5
SHANNON PARK
UBDIVTSION
' Motor Pool
Building
HAMILTON
ACRES
SUBDIVISION
MUNICIPALITY
OF
FAIRBANKS
801 Drum
I Burial Site
Building 1599 \-Building 1053
1054
Motor Pool Buildine 2077
Building 3425
* DENNIS
MANOR I
UBDIVISION.
Motor Pool
Building 3479
6-MILE VILLAGE
SUBDIVISION
Motor Pool
Building 3487
Motor Pool
Building 3485
Motor Pool
Building 3480
Figure 1-1 SOURCE AREA LOCATION MAP, SITES REQUIRING FURTHER ACTION
OPERABLE UNIT 1, FAIRBANKS, ALASKA
-------
02: JT2901\A704\JT29ROD1.CDR
Chemical Agent Dump Site
OU-1 sites requiring
no further action
Building 1128
Transformer Storage I Drum Site South
Yard I of the Landfill
SHANNON PARK,
UBDFVISION '
Birch Hill
Radioactive
Waste Site
Engineers Park
Drum Site
MUNICIPALITY
OF
FAIRBANKS
Alaska Railroad
Storage Yard
Transformer Storage
Yard East of Building
3019
Runway
Radioactive
Waste Site
( 1
Utilidor Expansion
Site
DENNIS
MANOR
SUBDIVISION |
6-MTLE VILLAGE
SUBDIVISION
Figure 1 -2 SOURCE AREA LOCATION MAP, SITES REQUIRING NO FURTHER ACTION
OPERABLE UNIT 1, FAIRBANKS, ALASKA
-------
02: JT2901'A704\JT29ROD2.CDR
S> Approximate location of unidentified pipe
HIM 1994drum excavation location
II 1995 drum excavation location
1996 drum excavation location
Boundary of 801 Drum Burial Site where
ground-penetrating radar will be conducted
Extent of geophysical survey
801 Military
Housing Area
Rgure 1-3 SOURCE AREA LOCATION MAP, 801 DRUM BURIAL SITE
OPERABLE UNIT 1, FAIRBANKS, ALASKA
1-7
-------
2.0 SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
2.1 SITE HISTORY
The suspected source areas associated with Operable Unit 1 (OU-1) have limited available documents
describing past practices, but all OU-1 suspected source areas were evaluated through Preliminary
Source Evaluations (PSEs) that included record searches; interviews; and, if warranted, limited field
investigations. For source areas that needed more thorough evaluations, a Remedial Investigation (RI)
was conducted. In 1995, an RI was conducted for the following four OU-1 suspected source areas:
801 Drum Burial Site,
Building 2077,
Building 1599, and
Site N-4.
A Feasibility Study (FS) was conducted for the 801 Drum Burial Site.
In August 1995, the Chemical Agent Dump Site underwent an Interim Remedial Action (IRA) to
remove any remaining chemical warfare material from the source area. The IRA proved that the
source area did not have chemical warfare materials buried on site, nor were there any other
contaminants of concern in the soil or ground water. A complete record of this removal action and its
findings are included in the Fort Wainwright Administrative Record. This source area also is
recommended for no further action under this Record of Decision (ROD).
Nine of the OU-1 source areas are located within the Ladd Field National Historic Landmark/District:
Building 1128, Building 1567, Building 1599, Building 2077, the Building 3019 Transformer Storage
Yard, the Trainor Gate Railroad Spur, the Alaska Railroad Storage Yard, the Runway Radioactive
Waste Site, and the Blair Lakes Drum Site. However, the Fort Wainwright Historical Preservation
Officer has determined that none of the source areas are "contributing elements to the national
landmark" and as such do not require additional consultations as described in Section A106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act. He also has determined that because of the temporary nature of
the remediation systems, consultation will not be required for the installation, operation, and
implementation of remedial actions. The Blair Lakes Drum Site is considered an archaeological site
because artifacts were found in "largly undisturbed, multi-component prehistoric sites."
2.1.1 Source Area Requiring Action Under Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act
2.1.1.1 801 Drum Burial Site
The 801 Drum Burial Site formerly was used as a drum storage area and disposal area. The drums
historically have contained diesel fuel, gasoline, jet fuel, solvents, asphalt, pesticides, and lubricants.
Aerial photographs from the 1950s and 1960s indicate that a pit was in the southwest corner of the
storage area. Subsequent aerial photographs show that the pit was filled. During summer 1992,
buried drums were found during construction of the storm sewer that runs west-east through the
2-1
-------
source area and outfalls in the Chena River. Numerous drums were removed during these
construction activities.
PSEs were conducted in 1991 and from 1992 through 1993. As a result of the PSEs and several
geophysical surveys, 92 drums were removed from this source area in September 1992; 34 drums
were removed in 1995.
The RI found that pesticides, such as dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) and dieldrin, were
present in surface soils at the 801 Drum Burial Site. DDT was found in an area of mature
vegetation. Petroleum-based compounds, and pesticides such as dieldrin, aldrin, and DDT, were
detected in subsurface soil mainly in the area where drums were excavated. Groundwater analytical
results indicate that benzene, pesticides, solvents, and metals were present in groundwater.
A large-scale geophysical survey was performed in May 1996 to further delineate the presence of
buried drums. An additional 118 drums were removed. The condition and content of the excavated
drums varied; the drums contained fuels, solvents, pesticides, and lubricants. Based on the 1996
excavation and interviews with post employees, there still is a potential for additional buried drums.
In 1996, approximately 850 cubic yards of contaminated soil associated with the drum removal was
excavated and stockpiled. Analytical results from soil collected from the excavation indicate that the
area is contaminated with pesticides, metals, and diesel-range organics (DRO). U.S. Army Alaska
will move these soils to an area away from the housing complex to conduct a Treatability Study to
determine whether an innovative technology called rhizosphere-enhanced phytoremediation can reduce
the contaminants of concern and allow the soils to be disposed of in the Fort Wainwright Landfill.
This study will attempt to exploit the chemical and biological processes that occur in the root-soil
interface zone (rhizosphere) of certain plants between the microbial communities in the soil and the
plant root systems. This study, if successful, will save the government several million dollars in
shipping and disposal costs for this soil. The 19% analytical results also indicate that groundwater is
contaminated with volatile organic compounds (VOCs), pesticides, and metals (see Appendix A).
2.1.2 Source Areas Transferred to Other Operable Units
Following are descriptions of the OU-1 source areas that have been referred to other OUs (see Figure
1-1).
2.1.2.1 Motor Pool Buildings
The Motor Pool Buildings (1053, 1054, 1168, 3015, 3421, 3425, 3479, 3480, 3485, and 3487) were
referred to OU-5. OU-5 is the comprehensive OU for Fort Wainwright. Two motor pool source
areas are located within OU-5 source areas. Minimal amounts of petroleum, oil, and lubricants
(POLs) and solvents were stored at the Motor Pool Buildings. Investigations included analyses for
these materials. Because the Motor Pool Buildings are being addressed as one source area, they can
be investigated more effectively in OU-5.
2.1.2.2 Former Explosive Ordnance Detonation Range
The Army and Air Force reportedly used the Former Explosive Ordnance Detonation Range as an
open burn/open detonation site for disposing of unexploded ordnance, unused propellants, rocket
2-2
-------
motors, and small-arms munitions from the 1950s through 1974. This source area is located close to
the open burn/open detonation area originally listed in OU-S. Therefore, it can be addressed more
effectively in OU-5.
2.13 Source Areas Referred to the Two-Party Agreement
2.13.1 Building 1599
The former location of Building 1599 is north of Taxiway 18 on Front Street and approximately 0.14
mile south of the Chena River (see Figure 1-1). Built in 1942, Building 1599, also identified as
Building T-106, was originally the Facilities Engineer Maintenance Shop. It was a 60-foot by 180-
foot wood-framed building with a concrete foundation. The building was destroyed intentionally in a
fire training exercise in 1984. Only the remnants of the concrete foundation remain buried beneath a
6-inch gravel pad. A 6-inch-diameter wood stave sanitary sewer pipe is adjacent to the former
building and ends at the Chena River. Past practices at Building 1599 include automobile and heavy
equipment maintenance, and pesticide mixing and storage. As-built drawings from 1943 show a
welding shop, body shop, warm storage area, light and heavy equipment repair area, lubrication and
service room with a grease pit, and wash rack equipped with a sand trap floor drain. A 3-inch pipe is
shown on the as-built drawings, extending from the floor drain in the wash rack area to a manhole in
the lubrication and service room, where it passes through a grease trap and out of the building into a
septic tank.
Past practices in Building 1599 vicinity also included dispensing diesel and gasoline from the West
Quarter Master Refueling Point. A truck unloading stand was approximately 300 feet north of
Building 1599. Pesticide storage and mixing reportedly occurred in the building before 1973. No
records of hazardous waste storage in the Building 1599 vicinity exist.
An RI conducted in 1995 focused on surface soil contamination at Building 1599. DRO, gasoline-
range organics (GRO), dioxins, and pesticides were detected in surface soil adjacent to and south of
the former building. A Baseline Risk Assessment (RA) was conducted for this source area. Excess
lifetime cancer risks for the source area are within the acceptable risk range for current and future
exposure scenarios for an industrial area. The noncancer risks were below a hazard index of 1. The
results of the RA are summarized in Table 2-1. Based on the results of the RA, no further action is
needed for the pesticide-contaminated soil under the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). For a more detailed explanation of risk concepts, see
Section 4.
2-3
-------
Table 2-1
SUMMARY OF RISKS AND HAZARD QUOTIENTS FOR SITE N-4, BUILDING 1599,
AND BUILDING 2077
OPERABLE UNIT 1
FORT WAINWRIGHT, ALASKA
RI Sites
Site N-4
(NFA)
Building 1599
(Two-Party)
Building 2077
(Two-Party)
Residential
Risk
3 x ID'7
4 x i
-------
A PSE and RI were conducted at Building 2077 to investigate reports of spills and groundwater
contamination. Petroleum hydrocarbons, including DRO; GRO; and benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene,
and total xylenes, were detected in surface and subsurface soils to a maximum depth of 10 feet below
ground surface (BGS) during the 1995 RI. Petroleum-related compounds also were detected in
surface soil from 2 feet to 3 feet BGS along the edge of the pavement. Surface and subsurface
petroleum contamination exceed Alaska soil cleanup levels. Petroleum contamination was detected at
concentrations exceeding state drinking water levels in groundwater wells adjacent to and
downgradient of the source area. Benzene was detected in two wells during the RI. Solvent-related
compounds were not detected in soil or groundwater during the RI.
A Baseline RA was conducted for this site. Excess lifetime cancer risks for the source area are
within the acceptable risk range for current and future exposure scenarios. The noncancer risks were
below a hazard index of 1. The results of the RA are in Table 2-1. Based on the results of the RA,
no further action is needed under CERCLA.
This source area has been referred to the Two-Party Agreement because the contaminant of concern is
petroleum. Under the Two-Party Agreement, the Army intends to remediate the soil and groundwater
contamination by installing a soil vapor extraction and air sparging system.
2.1.4 Source Areas Requiring No Further Action
The analytical results from the PSEs and the 1995 RI are compared to conservative screening values
known as risk-based concentrations (RBCs) to aid in determining whether a source area requires
further action. The no-further-action decision was made for each source area if: 1) the source area
could not be identified or located in the investigation, 2) no visible sign of contamination was
observed during the source area inspection, or 3) environmental sampling results showed that
contamination is present at levels below the protective human health risk-based levels. Source areas
requiring no further action are shown in Figure 1-2.
2.1.4.1 SiteN-4
Site N-4, formerly named Drum Site West of DEMO, is a 650-foot by 700-foot area approximately
400 feet west of the Defense Reutilization and Marketing Office (DRMO) salvage yard and 200 feet
north of the Old Richardson Highway (see Figure 1-2). The source area originally was identified as a
potential source of contamination based on a review of a 1967 aerial photograph. Site N-4 was
designated as a motorpool and automotive maintenance shop in the 1950s. The motorpool reportedly
used solvents, oils, and fuels in its operation. In 1961, the Army turned the area into a landfill and
operated it as such until the early 1970s. The landfill reportedly was used to dispose of solid
materials such as porcelain products, refrigerators, ranges, and signposts.
Several investigations have been conducted at Site N-4 to review historical activities at the source area
and to evaluate the potential presence of soil and groundwater contamination at the source area based
on its past use as a landfill. An RI was conducted in 1995 to determine the extent of lead
contamination in surface and subsurface soil. Samples collected during the RI contained contaminant
levels below naturally occurring levels for the area, RBCs, or applicable or relevant and appropriate
requirements. Groundwater samples were analyzed to determine whether the landfill operations
impacted groundwater quality at this location. Analytical results detected very low levels of solvent
in two samples during one sampling event.
2-5
-------
A Baseline RA was conducted for this source area. Excess lifetime cancer risks for the source area
are within the acceptable risk range for current and future exposure scenarios. The noncancer risks
were below a hazard index of 1. The results of the RA are summarized in Table 2-1. Based on the
results of the RA, no further action is needed under CERCLA.
Based on the results of the RI and RA, the Army, ADEC, and the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) have recommended no further action for Site N-4. A description of the no-
further-action decision can be found in the Administrative Record.
2.1.4.2 Utilidor Expansion Drum Site
The Utilidor Expansion Drum Site is located along the utilidor section identified as A-line, north of
Building 3496 (see Figure 1-2). The source area originally was named FWA 022 in 1987 when metal
debris (i.e., several exposed and buried drums) was discovered during construction of a utilidor.
Excavation operations removed debris from the immediate vicinity of the utilidor corridor
(approximately 900 square feet).
A 1992 PSE, which included interviews and a source area visit, revealed that past metal disposal
practices included filling a depression with nonhazardous construction debris. Three individuals that
had first-hand knowledge of the source area indicated that the drums were unmarked, empty, and
rusted. In addition, they reported that no evidence of contamination was apparent at the suspected
source area, other than some rust-stained soil adhering to the drums. Historically, it was a common
practice to fill any depression at Fort Wainwright with nonhazardous construction debris.
The PSE concluded that based on the reported condition of the drums, it was assumed that little or no
contents remained in them. Furthermore, even if a release had occurred, for which there is no
evidence, it likely occurred 30 to 40 years ago and would be difficult to document or find at this
point.
The PSE results indicate that incidental scrap metal disposal occurred at the suspected source area, but
it does not appear to be a drum burial area. No further action is recommended for the Utilidor
Expansion Drum Site. A description of the no-further-action decision can be found in the
Administrative Record. The Utilidor Expansion Drum Site will not be discussed further in this ROD.
2.1.43 Beacon Tower Landfill
The Beacon Tower Landfill reportedly is located east of the Fort Wainwright north runway on a hill
in the approach/departure zone (see Figure 1-2). Before 1954, the area was identified as Army Camp
No. 3 and contained three temporary structures and a beacon tower. Currently, the area is identified
as Beacon Tower No. 5.
The suspected source area was identified as a potential source of contamination in 1983. The source
area allegedly was used as a sanitary landfill during the 1967 Chena River flood. Landfill operations
allegedly consisted of surface burning followed by burial.
The 1992 PSE included reviews of aerial photographs and site visits. The aerial photographs revealed
no clear indication of waste disposal or burning activities in the area. In addition, field inspections
failed to locate the landfill. A record review and a report from an anonymous person indicate that the
2-6
-------
Beacon Tower Landfill was used as a sanitary landfill in 1967 after the Chena River flood. The
report identifies a sanitary landfill containing approximately 1,000 cubic meters of refuse at the
Beacon Tower Landfill. Based on this report, landfill operations consisted of burning waste followed
by burial. If the Beacon Tower Landfill had been used for a landfill, the activities appeared to have
occurred for a short time more than 25 years ago.
If Army Camp No. 3 was constructed similarly to other Army camps, the structures were barracks, a
maintenance shop, and a generator building. The type and quantity of hazardous wastes from a camp
of this nature would not be expected to be significant.
Based on the findings of the PSE, the Army, ADEC, and EPA concluded that insufficient evidence
existed to consider the Beacon Tower Landfill a potential source of contamination; therefore, the
source area is recommended for no further action. A description of the no-further-action decision can
be found in the Administrative Record. The Beacon Tower Landfill will not be discussed further in
this ROD.
2.1.4.4 Blair Lakes Drum Site
The Blair Lakes Drum Site is in the Tanana Flats Training Area, approximately 35 miles southeast of
the Fort Wainwright main cantonment area (see Figure 1-2). The suspected source area consists of
North and South Blair Lakes; a 3,000-foot by 60-foot dirt and grass runway and taxiway; a small
group of interconnected, wood-framed Quonset huts; eight archaeological sites; and the surrounding
uplands and lowlands.
Since the early 1940s, the United States Department of Defense used the Blair Lakes Drum Site as a
remote materials and weapons testing facility, recreational camp, Air Force bombing range, and
Army small arms range.
A limited investigation was conducted in 1986. Surface water, sediment, and drum content samples
were collected. Surface water and sediment samples were analyzed for VOCs, semivolatile organic
compounds (SVOCs), total cyanide, total phenols, and metals. No analytes were detected in water
samples; however, cyanide and metals were detected in the sediment samples. Drum content samples
contained petroleum products.
In August 1987, 1,618 empty and 48 full 55-gallon drums, two fuel storage tanks, and IS yards of
miscellaneous debris were removed from the source area. The remaining debris was landfilled in a
permitted area located west of the runway and north of South Blair Lake.
Analytical results from a 1993 PSE reported DRO at four locations, with one sample exceeding the
ADEC cleanup level. Low levels of pesticide contamination were detected in soil. These levels were
within the acceptable risk range specified in the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan (NCP). Additionally, the Army Environmental Hygiene Agency, in conjunction
with project managers, completed an ecological evaluation of pesticide concentrations and concluded
that DDT concentrations presented no significant risks to fish, wildlife, or the ecosystem.
Based on the 1993 PSE and ecological evaluation at this suspected source area, there is no evidence
of a continuing source of contamination that poses an unacceptable risk to human health or the
environment. Therefore, the Army, ADEC, and EPA have recommended the Blair Lakes Drum Site
2-7
-------
for no further action. A description of the no-further-action decision can be found in the
Administrative Record. The Blair Lakes Drum Site will not be discussed further in this ROD.
2.1.4.5 Burial Site M
Burial Site M is located along the eastern reservation boundary, south of Badger Road and the Alaska
Railroad tracks, and southwest of the DRMO (see Figure 1-2). Burial Site M was the suspected
source of petroleum and pesticide contamination found in soil samples collected along the western
boundary of the DRMO during a State of Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities
(ADOT&PF) preconstruction field sampling event for a road widening project on Badger Road in
1991. The United States Army Toxic and Hazardous Materials Agency attributed the sample results
to Burial Site M, but the report failed to provide a reference to where the original samples were
collected.
In 1992, a PSE was conducted. Interviews did not identify anyone aware of hazardous waste disposal
at this location. A records search included review of historical information and aerial photographs for
this location. In 1994, ADOT&PF expanded Badger Road as designed. Soil samples from the road
construction adjacent to the source area did not detect any contaminants of concern above RBCs. No
evidence exists to indicate that any contaminants were released from this location. As a result, it was
concluded that the attribution of contamination to Burial Site M was in error. The Army, ADEC, and
EPA have recommended no further action at Burial Site M. A description of the no-further-action
decision can be found in the Administrative Record. Burial Site M will not be discussed further in
this ROD.
2.1.4.6 Building 1128 Transformer Storage Yard
Building 1128 is one of three adjacent warehouses near the Rail car Off-Loading Facility, located
north of Gaffhey Road (see Figure 1-2). Transformers have been stored in the transformer storage
yard, located east of Building 1128, since the 1980s.
The Building 1128 Transformer Storage Yard originally was identified as a potential source of
contamination in 1990. A PSE was conducted in 1992. No one interviewed during the PSE reported
any knowledge of a release at this suspected source area. A review of aerial photographs from 1948
through 1990 confirmed that there is no evidence of a release at the location. Analytical results from
the PSE indicated that no poly chlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) were released at the source area. An
ADEC visual inspection in 1992 confirmed that no evidence of a release from the storage yard exists.
Spill records were provided routinely to ADEC during this time period; however, ADEC has no
record of a spill being reported at this source area during this time.
Based on the results of the PSE and the ADEC inspection, it was determined that the Building 1128
Transformer Storage Yard does not pose a threat to human health and the environment. Therefore,
the Army, ADEC, and EPA have recommended no further action for the Building 1128 Transformer
Storage Yard. A description of the no-further-action decision can be found in the Administrative
Record. The Building 1128 Transformer Storage Yard will not be discussed further in this ROD.
2.1.4.7 Trainor Gate Railroad Spur
The Trainor Gate Railroad Spur is between the Chena River bridge and Gaffhey Road, east of the
2-8
-------
Alaska Railroad Storage Yard (see Figure 1-2). The source at this source area, identified in 1987,
was reportedly adjacent to the railroad spur, at the former location of a warehouse and loading dock
where solvent reportedly was dumped off the loading dock.
A PSE was conducted for the Trainor Gate Railroad Spur in 1992. Interviews conducted during the
PSE revealed that a small quantity of a solvent used for typewriter cleaning and repair was dumped
off the loading dock at the north end of the building during 1954 and 1955. No other historic
releases of solvents have been reported at this source area. This suspected source area is not likely to
pose a threat to human health and the environment because most contaminants would have volatilized
during the dumping process; the area has experienced several flooding events from the Chena River,
resulting in a significant amount of scouring and soil transport; and any remaining solvents likely
were transported from this location.
Based on the results of the PSE, the Army, ADEC, and EPA have recommended no further action for
the Trainor Gate Railroad Spur. A description of the no-further-action decision can be found in the
Administrative Record. The Trainor Gate Railroad Spur will not be discussed further in this ROD.
2.1.4.8 Runway Radioactive Waste Site
The Runway Radioactive Waste Site reportedly is located north of Building 2104, east of vault 2112,
under the Fort Wainwright south runway (see Figure 1-2). This source area originally was identified
as a potential source of contamination on a 1984 map and by local hearsay. Low-level radioactive
materials, such as radio tubes, airplane instruments, and watch dials, reportedly were disposed of at
this suspected source area.
A PSE was conducted for the Runway Radioactive Waste Site in 1992. A review of aerial photos
from 1948 to 1990 showed no evidence of excavation in the area. After completion of extensive
interviews, no one with firsthand knowledge of the storage area, its contents, the types of materials
stored there, or its exact location was identified. No Army records referencing a radioactive waste
site in the runway locations were located. Several maps identify the source area's location; however,
the locations are not consistent with each other. No evidence that a radioactive vault was constructed
under the runway exists, based on the Master Plan maps from 1958 to current operations. The area
was checked with a Geiger counter and scintillometer. Neither instrument revealed any radioactive
readings above background. The survey concluded that there were no radioisotopes that would pose a
threat to human health or the environment at the source area. No radioactive isotopes have been
detected in groundwater wells downgradient from the general area.
The location identified for this contaminant source has been proven inaccurate by the PSE. The PSE
results indicate that there is no risk to human health or the environment from this source area. As a
result, the Army, ADEC, and EPA have recommended no further action for the Runway Radioactive
Waste Site. A description of the no-further-action decision can be found in the Administrative
Record. The Runway Radioactive Waste Site will not be discussed further in this ROD.
2.1.4.9 Birch Hill Radioactive Waste Site
The Birch Hill Radioactive Waste Site is located in a wooded area near the abandoned Birch HU1
underground POL tank farm and south of Birch Hill (see Figure 1-2). In 1973, the source area was
the subject of an article titled, "Army Discovers Old Radioactive Disposal Site" in the Yukon Sentinel.
2-9
-------
According to the article, the "four foot site contained four holes 18 inches in diameter each lined with
a vertical concrete drain pipe having a concrete cover." The photograph accompanying the article
shows a fenced wooded area with an aboveground, square concrete bunker with four concrete covers.
Interviews with individuals having institutional knowledge of Fort Wainwright confirmed the waste
site's location and that a cleanup of low-level radioactive material (i.e., radium dials) took place in
about 1973.
In 1992, a PSE involving a records search, interviews, and a visual inspection of the Birch Hill
Radioactive Waste Site was conducted. As a result of the interviews, the source area was located.
The area was checked with a Geiger counter and scintillometer. Neither instrument revealed any
radioactive readings above background. The survey concluded that there were no radioisotopes that
would pose a threat to human health or the environment at the source area.
No evidence proves that a potential source of contamination exists at this source area. Therefore, the
Army, ADEC, and EPA have recommended no further action for the Birch Hill Radioactive Waste
Site. A description of the no-further-action decision can be found in the Administrative Record. The
Birch Hill Radioactive Waste Site will not be discussed further in this ROD.
2.1.4.10 Building 1567
The former location of Building 1S67, a Quonset hut, was on Front Street, between Buildings 1575
and 1564 (see Figure 1-2). Building 1567 formerly was used as a Facilities Engineer Maintenance
Shop in 1947, a motor vehicle storage area in 1958, a pesticide storage and mixing area in 1979, and
a hazardous waste storage area in 1986. The building collapsed in 1991 because of a record snowfall
and subsequently was removed.
In 1987, ADEC conducted an inspection of the pesticide storage and mixing operations at this facility.
The final Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Facility Assessment Report (July 1990)
states that exposure potential is low because pesticides found in the soil have been excavated and
removed from the source area.
Soil samples were collected in 1991 during the building removal activities. The pesticide 2,4,5-T
(Silex) was detected in the soil samples at concentrations within EPA's acceptable risk range. In
1994, subsurface soil samples were collected to assess the potential for vertical and horizontal
migration of pesticides. Only one sample had detectable levels of pesticides, and the concentrations
were within EPA's acceptable risk range.
Based on the historical record searches, interviews, and sampling results, no evidence of a
contaminant release posing an unacceptable risk to human health or the environment at this source
area exists. Therefore, the Army, ADEC, and EPA have recommended no further action for
Building 1567. A description of the no-further-action decision can be found in the Administrative
Record. Building 1567 will not be discussed further in this ROD.
2.1.4.11 Chemical Agent Dump Site
The Chemical Agent Dump Site, formerly known as the Chemical 'Warfare Disposal Area, is a 50-
foot by 150-foot area at the base of Birch Hill north of the main cantonment area of Fort Wainwright
and east of the Fairbanks Fuel Terminal (see Figure 1-2). The source area reportedly was used as a
2-10
-------
burial site for containers of mustard agent and chemical agents test kits.
In 1991, a PSE was conducted for this source area. In August 1995, an interim ROD was signed by
the agencies to conduct an IRA to ensure that no chemical warfare materials were buried at the source
area. Soil and groundwater analytical results from the 1995 IRA indicated that chemical warfare
materials and their breakdown products were not present.
Based on the results of the 1995 IRA, the Army, ADEC, and EPA agreed to a no-further-action
decision for the Chemical Agent Dump Site. A description of the no-further-action decision can be
found in the Administrative Record. This source area is no longer considered a contaminant source
by the agencies and will not be discussed further in this ROD.
2.1.4.12 Transformer Storage Yard East of Building 3019
Building 3019 is southwest of the south runway and on the northwest corner of Meridian and Neely
Roads (see Figure 1-2). The transformer storage yard, a fenced area, is located on the east side of
Building 3019. Historically, the east side of Building 3019 has been used to store transformers, some
of which were filled with polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) or PCB-containing oil.
In the early 1980s, approximately 40 PCB-containing transformers reportedly were removed. A PSE
conducted in 1993 verified that PCBs were not detected above RBCs in soils. Because no PCBs were
detected in the soil samples analyzed, no evidence exists of a contaminant release at the source area.
Based on the results of the PSE, the Army, ADEC, and EPA have recommended no further action for
the Transformer Storage Yard East of Building 3019. A description of the no-further-action decision
can be found in the Administrative Record. The Transformer Storage Yard East of Building 3019
will not be discussed further in this ROD.
2.1.4.13 Alaska Railroad Storage Yard
The Alaska Railroad Storage Yard is approximately 100 yards southwest of Building 1130, on the
"inside" of the circular railroad tracks on Vest Road (see Figure 1-2). The source area was used for
storage of equipment and drums containing railroad maintenance parts. Drums labeled waste paints
and herbicides were inspected visually during a site visit in 1990 and contained spikes, bolts, and
miscellaneous railroad maintenance parts. Historical record searches and interviews with responsible
individuals verified that no significant volume of hazardous material was stored or used at this source
area. Additionally, no releases of hazardous substances were reported or observed. No liquid waste
was found at the source area.
Analytical results from the 1992 PSE indicated that groundwater is contaminated with POLs;
however, the source of this contamination originates from sources addressed under OU-3. The
groundwater contamination was assigned to the Fort Wainwright OU-3 investigation and was
addressed through the OU-3 decision process.
The 1992 PSE confirmed that no hazardous waste was used or stored on site; therefore, the Army,
ADEC, and EPA have recommended no further action for this source area. A description of this
decision can be found in the Administrative Record. The Alaska Railroad Storage Yard will not be
addressed further in this ROD.
2-11
-------
2.1.4.14 Drum Site South of the Landfill
The Drum Site South of the Landfill is located 2,000 feet south of the active Fort Wainwright
Landfill, between River Road and the Chena River (see Figure 1-2). This source area includes two
drum areas: west drum area and east drum area. The source area was identified as a potential
contaminant source in the RCRA Facility Assessment. However, no historical information about the
drum storage or disposal activities at this source area is available. The area is an undeveloped
woodland with no structures. Historically, the area has been used for military training exercises and
Motorcross racing.
In August and September 1992, 573 unburied drums were removed. Approximately 20% of the
drums contained gasoline, kerosene, and degreasing solvents. Analytical results from a 1992 PSE
showed that levels of POL- and solvent-related compounds were below RBCs in soil. In 1993,
ground-penetrating radar (GPR) confirmed that no additional drums were present.
The Army, ADEC, and EPA have recommended this source area for no further action because there
is no evidence of a contaminant release that poses an unacceptable risk to human health or the
environment, and GPR confirmed that no additional drums are present. A description of the no-
further-action decision can be found in the Administrative Record. The Drum Site South of the
Landfill will not be discussed further in this ROD.
2.1.4.15 Engineers Park Drum Site
The Engineers Park Drum Site is located on the northeast side of Engineers Park on the south bank of
the Chena River (see Figure 1-2). Engineers Park has a picnic area with a football and baseball field
and an area used for Bureau of Land Management smoke jumper training.
Drum disposal reportedly began at this source area after the 1967 Chena River flood. In August and
September 1992, 680 unburied drums were removed from the source area. Approximately 10% of
the drums contained gasoline, kerosene, degreasing solvents, and PCBs.
During the 1992 drum removal, low levels of SVOCs were detected in the surface soils. No
additional drums were found during a 1993 PSE, and the maximum detected concentrations of
contaminants of concern in subsurface soil and groundwater were below EPA's acceptable risk levels.
GPR was used to confirm that no additional drums were present. The PSE concluded that there is no
evidence that a contaminant release that poses an unacceptable risk to human health or the
environment has occurred at this source area.
Based on the results of the PSE, the Army, ADEC, and EPA have recommended no further action for
the Engineers Park Drum Site. A description of the no-further-action decision can be found in the
Administrative Record. The Engineers Park Drum Site will not be discussed further in this ROD.
2.1.4.16 Building 3015
Building 3015 is located southwest of the Fort Wainwright runways, on Montgomery Road between
Whidden and Meridian Roads (see Figure 1-2). Building 3015 is a two-story concrete block facility
built in 1954. It was built as a heavy equipment maintenance, repair, and storage facility, and the
second floor was built as an office area. A fenced motor park area is located west, north, and east of
2-12
-------
the building.
Potential sources of contamination at this source area include a drum and battery storage area located
along the west fence, a transformer storage area located along the north fence, and two 5,000-gallon
underground storage tanks (USTs) associated with a heavy equipment and vehicle refueling point in
the northwest corner of the motor park. In addition, multiple dry wells that were connected to the
floor drain system before 1980 were a concern because of the chemicals used during routine
maintenance and repair of heavy equipment and support vehicles, equipment and vehicle painting
operations, pesticide storage and mixing operations, transformer storage, POL storage, and chemical
storage within the building.
In 1989, the two leaking 5,000-gallon USTs, all related refueling equipment, and approximately 5,366
cubic yards of POL-contaminated soils were removed from the motor park. Soils were thermally
remediated on Fort Wainwright, taken to the Fort Wainwright Landfill, and used for cover after
analytical results indicated that the soils were remediated.
In 1993, a hazardous waste disposal contractor completed the removal and proper disposal of all
drums and batteries from this source area. In addition, all stained soil was excavated, sampled,
containerized, and removed from the area. Soil and groundwater analytical results from the
subsequent PSE indicated that only petroleum compounds were present above ADEC regulatory levels
but did not pose an unacceptable risk to human health or the environment.
Soil and groundwater sampling at the transformer storage area and within the building itself revealed
no evidence of a release. Sampling and analysis around the dry wells indicated minor petroleum
contamination, but levels did not pose an unacceptable risk to human health or the environment.
Because there is no evidence that the contaminant release at this source area poses an unacceptable
risk to human health or the environment, the Army, ADEC, and EPA have recommended no further
action for Building 3015. A description of the no-further-action decision can be found in the
Administrative Record. Building 3015 will not be discussed further in this ROD.
2.1.4.17 Building 2250
Building 2250 is located approximately 1,200 feet southeast of Building 2092, the Golf Course Club
House (see Figure 1-2). Building 2250 reportedly was used as a pesticide storage area during
construction of the club house in the mid-1960s and contained a waste oil accumulation point.
Herbicides also were stored in the building in the 1980s. The building was removed in 1991, and a
fence was erected around the concrete pad. The concrete pad is used by the golf course as a
maintenance equipment storage area.
PSE investigations were conducted from 1992 through 1994 to identify potential soil and groundwater
contamination associated with the past use of pesticides and waste storage at the source area. No
information confirming hazardous materials releases at this source area was found during the records
search or interviews. PSE analytical results indicated that no pesticides or herbicides were present in
soil or groundwater; however, petroleum products were detected in soil and groundwater.
Because there is no evidence that pesticides or herbicides were mismanaged or released to the soil at
levels above RBCs, the Army, ADEC, and EPA have recommended no further action for Building
2-13
-------
2250. A description of the no-further-action decision can be found in the Administrative Record.
Petroleum-contaminated soil and groundwater are being investigated and remediated under the Two-
Party Agreement. Building 2250 will not be discussed further in this ROD.
2.2 ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
Fort Wainwright was placed on the CERCLA National Priorities List in August 1990. Consequently,
a Federal Facility Agreement (FFA) was signed during spring 1992 by the Army, ADEC, and EPA.
The FFA divided Fort Wainwright into five OUs, one of which is OU-1, and outlines the general
requirements for investigation and/or remediation of suspected historical hazardous waste source areas
and the associated procedures and schedules. The FFA ensures that appropriate actions are taken to
protect public health and the environment in accordance with state and federal laws.
An additional goal of the FFA was to integrate the Army's CERCLA response obligations and
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) corrective action obligations. This enabled the
Army to obtain an RCRA Part B permit for its interim status facilities. This permit was issued during
spring 1992. Remedial actions implemented under this ROD will be protective of human health and
the environment and shall meet the substantive requirements of the NCP.
23 HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
The public was encouraged to participate in the selection of the remedies for OU-1 during a public
comment period from March 4 to April 3, 1997. The Fort Wainwright Proposed Plan for Remedial
Action, Operable Unit 7, presents five combinations of options considered by the Army, ADEC, and
EPA to address contamination in soil and groundwater at OU-1. The Proposed Plan was released to
the public on March 1, 1997, and was sent to all known interested parties, which included
approximately 150 elected officials and concerned citizens. A Fact Sheet dated January 1997, which
provided additional information about the Army's entire cleanup program at Fort Wainwright, was
distributed to the same mailing list.
The Proposed Plan summarizes cleanup alternatives for OU-1. 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 was invited 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; calling a toll-free telephone number to
record a comment; or attending and commenting at a public meeting on March 11, 1997, in Fairbanks
at the Carlson Center. No 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 March 2, 5, 7, 9, and 11,
1997, also include information regarding the information repositories, the toll-free telephone line, and
an address for submitting written comments.
The public did not provide any comments on the Proposed Plan. The Responsiveness Summary
2-14
-------
provides a background discussion of community involvement activities conducted in association with
OU-1. This document is Appendix B of this ROD.
This decision document presents the selected remedial action for OU-1 chosen in accordance with
CERCLA as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 and, to the
extent practicable, the NCP. The decision for OU-1 is based on the Administrative Record.
2.4 SCOPE AND ROLE OF OPERABLE UNIT OR RESPONSE ACTION
As with many Superfund sites, the problems at Fort Wainwright are complex. OU-1 will be the
fourth OU at Fort Wainwright, following OU-3, OU-4, and OU-2, to have completed the RI/FS
process and to begin remedial action activities. The OU-1 RI and FS were performed in accordance
with the RI/FS Management Plan for OU-1. The RI fieldwork was conducted from July through
September 1995. The final RI, RA, and FS Reports were submitted to EPA and ADEC in September
1996 and February 1997, respectively. The Final 801 Drum Burial Site, Supplemental 1996
Investigation Report was completed in January 1997 and is part of the Administrative Record.
The remedial actions described in this ROD address threats to human health and the environment
posed by the contamination at the OU-1 source areas.
2-15
-------
3.0 SUMMARY OF SOURCE AREA CHARACTERISTICS
Physical features, hydrogeologic conditions, and the nature and extent of contamination for the 801
Drum Burial Site source area are described briefly in the following sections.
3.1 801 DRUM BURIAL SITE
3.1.1 Physical Features, Hydrogeologic Conditions, and Transport Pathways
The 801 Drum Burial Site is located approximately 0.13 mile east of the 801 Military Housing Area,
immediately west of the Chena River, south of the Alaska Railroad bridge, and north of power lines
(see Figure 1-1). Access to this source area was unrestricted before commencement of intrusive
investigations. The source area was delineated by an orange construction fence and designated a
contaminated area with signs since intrusive investigations began under the Remedial Investigation
(RI).
A contractor-owned and operated military housing development (the 801 Military Housing Area) is
close to the source area, across River Road. However, the road is elevated and provides a physical
barrier that prevents typical surface water runoff from reaching the housing area. The road does
direct surface water runoff to the Chena River, which is directly adjacent to the source area. Portions
of the source area are heavily vegetated with small trees and thick brush, and other portions are
covered with low grasses and unpaved roads.
Hydrogeologic conditions are difficult to characterize because of the source area's proximity to the
Chena River. Groundwater occurs between 5 feet and IS feet below ground surface (BGS) and
fluctuates drastically with the rise and fall of the river. Groundwater flow direction also fluctuates
drastically for the same reason.
The aquifer generally recharges the Chena River (i.e., groundwater flows into the river) when the
river stage is low, which occurs during the low precipitation periods of late fall through late winter
and mid-summer to early fall. The Chena River recharges the aquifer (i.e., groundwater flows from
the river into the surrounding aquifer) during the high river stage, which occurs during the high
precipitation periods and spring snowmelt, generally from early fall through mid-fall and from early
spring through early summer.
Existing data suggest that the contaminant plumes in the groundwater are migrating from the known
source areas; however, migration rates cannot be determined at this time. Existing data also suggest a
high potential for the contaminants to migrate to the Chena River and affect downgradient
groundwater users. Surface soil investigations suggest that contaminants have been transported to the
river and other adjacent areas by overland flow of surface water (i.e., rain and snowmelt).
3.1.2 Nature and Extent of Contamination
Numerous investigations occurred at the 801 Drum Burial Site before the start of the RI. Historical
soil and groundwater sample results are shown in Tables 3-1, 3-2, 3-3, 3-4, and 3-5, and in Figures
3-1 and 3-2.
During 1992, buried drums were discovered at the source area. In September 1992, 92 drums were
3-1
-------
removed from the source area; 18 contained aqueous liquid, organic solids, flammable organic liquid,
or chlorinated organic liquid. The other 74 drums were empty. During subsequent investigations,
geophysical surveys were conducted to determine the location of additional buried drums. Soil
borings were drilled, and monitoring wells were installed.
Surface soil analytical results indicated that diesel-range organics (DRO), toluene, xylenes, pesticides,
and metals were present at the source area. Dieldrin was detected at a concentration exceeding risk-
based concentrations (RBCs) in one surface soil sample. RBCs are conservative screening values
used to determine whether a source area requires further action. Barium and chromium were found
above background levels in several soil samples. DDT was detected above RBCs in one surface soil
sample.
Gasoline-range organics (GRO), DRO, several volatile organic compounds (VOCs), naphthalene, di-
n-butylphthalate, chlorinated pesticides, and metals were detected in subsurface soil samples at the
801 Drum Burial Site. GRO and DRO were found at concentrations above potential applicable or
relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs). Aldrin; dieldrin; dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane
(DDD); and 1,2,3-trichloropropane were detected at concentrations exceeding RBCs. Barium and
chromium were detected at concentrations exceeding background values.
GRO, DRO, naphthalene, chlorinated pesticides, and metals were detected in groundwater samples at
the 801 Drum Burial Site. Benzene; cis-l,2-dichloroethene; trichloroethene; aldrin; and dieldrin were
detected at concentrations exceeding either potential ARARs or RBCs. Arsenic and lead
concentrations exceed State of Alaska Drinking Water Standards (18 Alaska Administrative Code 80),
the federal Safe Drinking Water Act maximum contaminant levels (MCLs), and background levels.
Iron and manganese concentrations exceed secondary MCLs.
In 1995, the RI for Operable Unit 1 (OU-1) was conducted. The principal objectives were to define
the boundary of drum burial areas, the extent of surface soil contamination, and the vertical and
horizontal extent of subsurface soil and groundwater contamination. The OU-1 RI field investigation
consisted of the following tasks: geophysical survey, surface and subsurface soil investigations,
groundwater monitoring well installation and sampling, surface water and sediment sampling, and
monthly water level measurements. A summary of the RI surface soil, excavation, subsurface soil,
groundwater, and sediment sample results is in Tables 3-6 through 3-11 and in Figures 3-3 and 3-4.
Three surface soil samples were collected in presumed undisturbed areas to provide background data;
however, the analytical results from the collected samples indicate that the sampled areas probably
were disturbed. DRO, methylene chloride, pesticides, and metals were detected in these samples.
DDT was detected at concentrations exceeding the RBC in all three samples. Chromium was detected
at concentrations exceeding background concentrations.
Three areas were identified as having anomalies in previous geophysical surveys. No drums were
found in excavations in these areas. However, a fourth area was investigated because drums were
suspected to have been buried in this area. Thirty-four drums were removed before the Army had to
halt operations because the work exceeded the scope of the contract. Twenty-six drums were empty.
The eight remaining drums were partially full; these were overpacked and will be sampled before
disposal. Analytical results from this excavation indicated the presence of GRO, DRO, VOCs, aldrin,
dieldrin, and DDD. Dieldrin was detected at concentrations exceeding its RBC in six of the seven
samples collected.
3-2
-------
Two soil borings were drilled during the 1995 RI fieldwork. GRO, DRO, several VOCs, pesticides,
and metals were detected in subsurface soil samples. DRO, DDT, and dichlorodiphenyldichloroe-
thene concentrations exceeded either ARARs or RBCs at the 5-foot- and 10-foot-BGS intervals in
boring AP-7162 (see Figure 3-3). No analytes were detected above ARARs or RBCs in the other
boring drilled (AP-7163).
GRO, DRO, several VOCs, and pesticides were detected in groundwater samples collected from the
10 on-site monitoring wells (see Figure 3-4). Dieldrin was detected at concentrations exceeding its
RJBC in five of the 12 samples (including two duplicate samples). Benzene; 1,1-dichloroethylene
(DCE); cis-l,2-DCE; and vinyl chloride were detected at concentrations exceeding their respective
RBCs in well AP-6326. In well AP-6327, the detected benzene concentration exceeded its MCL (5
micrograms per liter) and the vinyl chloride concentration exceeded its RBC.
Arsenic and barium were detected in surface water samples collected from the Chena River; however,
the detected concentrations did not exceed Federal Ambient Water Quality Criteria (see Table 3-11).
VOCs, ODD, DDT, and metals were detected in sediment samples collected from the Chena River.
DDD, DDT, arsenic, and barium levels exceed sediment quality benchmarks published by Hall and
Suter. However, the highest hits of DDD and DDT are located upgradient of the source area.
Because the excavation indicated the presence of possibly more drums, another geophysical survey
was conducted to evaluate other potential locations of buried drums. Magnetic and electromagnetic
surveys were conducted in 19%, and up to eight areas with anomalies were encountered. In 1996,
118 drums were excavated from the areas identified in the geophysical survey. Results of the 1996
excavation are summarized in the 801 Drum Burial Site Supplemental 1996 Investigation Report.
During the investigation, 10 monitoring wells and 11 Microwells were sampled (see Appendix A).
Analytical results indicate that the 10 monitoring wells exceeded the MCLs for VOCs, one pesticide
(dieldrin), and total metals. Groundwater from the 11 Microwells exceeded the MCLs for benzene,
bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, aldrin, dieldrin, and several metals (see Appendix A). Analysis of soil in
excavated drums indicated DRO, DDD, DDT, aldrin, dieldrin, lindane, and heptaclor epoxide.
Drum water contained benzene; 1,4-dichlorobenzene; 1,2-dichIoroethane; cis-l,2-dichloroethene;
vinyl chloride; dieldrin; and heptaclor. Sludge in excavated drums contained DRO; GRO; benzene,
toluene, ethylbenzene, and total xylenes; DDD; DDT; aldrin; dieldrin; heptaclor; 1,2,4-
trimethylbenzene; and lindane.
3-3
-------
Page 1 of 4
U>
I
Table 3-1
SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS MAXIMUM SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE SOIL SAMPLE RESULTS (PRE-1994)
801 DRUM BURIAL SITE
OPERABLE UNIT 1
FORT WAINWRIGHT, ALASKA
(mg/kg)
Analyte
Number of Samples
Analyzed/Detected
Petroleum Hydrocarbons
Diesel-range organics
Gasoline-range organics
26/10
26/7
Range of Detected
Concentrations
15-860
5-300
Location of Maximum
Concentration
Risk-based Screening
Concentration or AJRAR*
AP-6329
AP-6327
200b
lOO0
Number of Samples
Exceeding RBCs
3
6
Volatile Organic Compounds
Toluene
Xylenes
1,2,4-TMB
1,3,5-TMB
1 ,2,3-Trichloropropane
Acetone
cis-l,2-DCE
Chloroform
2-Butanone
trans- 1 ,2-Dichloroethcne
26/1
26/2
26/1
26/1
26/1
26/6
26/1
26/1
26/1
26/1
0.006
0.017-0.45
0.4
0.23
0.043
0.052-0.36
0.035
0.019
0.032
0.005
AP-6326
AP-6329
AP-6329
AP-6329
AP-6331
AP-6329
AP-6326
AP-6326
AP-«330
1,600*. 15d
16,000*, isd
39*
3901
0.0091*
780*
781
10*
4,700*
160*
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Semivolatile Organic Compounds
Naphthalene
26/1
0.12
AP-6329
310b
0
Key at end of table.
-------
Page 2 of 4
U
I
en
Table 3-1
SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS MAXIMUM SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE SOIL SAMPLE RESULTS (PRE-1994)
801 DRUM BURIAL SITE
OPERABLE UNIT 1
FORT WAINWRIGHT, ALASKA
(mg/kg)
Antlyte
Pesticides
Aldrin
Dieldrin
4.4--DDD
4,4>-DDE
4,4'-DDT
Endrin
Number of Samples
Analyzed/Detected
Range of Detected
Concentrations
Location of Maximum
Concentration
26/5
26/12
26/6
26/4
26/11
26/1
0.06-1.9
0.01-2.2
0.02-0.61
0.02-0.13
0.01-0.25
0.02
AP-6329
AP-6330
AP-«29
Background
Background
AP-«330
Risk-based Screening
Concentration or ARAR*
Number of Samples
Exceeding RBCs
0.00381
0.004*
0.271, O.IT*1
0.19*. 0.101d
0.19a, 0.2T*
2.3s
5
5
1
0
1
0
Metals
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Calcium
Cobalt
Chromium
Copper
Iron
26/26
26/26
26/7
26/26
26/26
26/7
26/26
26/26
3,750-11,800
1-11
59-116
1,680-8,900
4-12
14-24
8-31
7,370-22,500
NR
Background
AP-6328
NR
NR
AP-6326
NR
NR
NA
2.3*. 14*
550". I15e
NA
NA
39a, 19*
10,000"
NA
NA
7
0
NA
NA
0
0
NA
Key al end of table.
-------
Page 3 of 4
Table 3-1
SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS MAXIMUM SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE SOIL SAMPLE RESULTS (PRE-1994)
801 DRUM BURIAL SITE
OPERABLE UNIT 1
FORT WAINWRIGHT, ALASKA
(mg/kg)
Analyte
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Nickel
Potassium
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
Number of Samples
Analyzed/Detected
26/7
26/26
26/26
26/26
26/26
26/26
26/26
26/26
Range of Detected
Concentrations
4-8
2,460-7.000
92-397
10-25
500-1,520
114-432
15-44
18-58
Location of Maximum
Concentration
AP-6326
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
Risk-based Screening
Concentration or ARAR*
26e. 400f
NA
30,000*
NA
NA
NA
2,000a
80,000*
Number of Samples
Exceeding RBCs
0
NA
0
NA
NA
NA
0
0
U)
I
Risk-based screening concentration values are based on 1 x 10"7 residential direct contact risk (EPA, Region 3, RBC Tables, October 20, 1995).
ADEC soil cleanup matrix score Level B for DRO is 200 mg/kg.
ADEC soil cleanup matrix score Level B for GRO is 100 mg/kg.
Recommended background level for pesticides.
Recommended background level for metals.
EPA-recommended screening level for lead.
it end of table.
-------
-j
Page 4 of 4
Table 3-1 (Cont.)
Key:
ADEC = Akska Department of Environmental Conservation.
ARARs = Applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements.
DCE = Dichloroethene.
ODD = Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane.
DDE = Dichlorodiphenyltrichlorocthene.
DDT = Dichlorodiphenyttrichloroethane.
DRO = Diesel-range organics.
EPA = United States Environmental Protection Agency.
GRO = Gasoline-range organics.
mg/kg = Milligrams per kilogram.
NA = Not applicable.
NR = Not reported.
RBCs = Risk-based concentrations.
TMB = Trimethylbenzene.
-------
Page 1 of 3
ui
Table 3-2
HISTORICAL GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION (PRE-1994)
801 DRUM BURIAL SITE
OPERABLE UNIT 1
FORT WAINWRIGHT, ALASKA
(Mg/L)
Analyte
Number of Samples
Analyzed/Detected*
Range of Detected
Concentrations
Location of Maximum
Concentration
MCL or Risk-Based
Screening Concentration*
Number of Samples
Exceeding RBCs
Petroleum Hydrocarbons
Diesel-range organics
Gasoline-range organics
7/7
7/4
87-5.570
198-1,800
AP-6327
AP-6327
15b
15b
7
4
Volatile Organic Compounds
Benzene
Ethylbenzene
Xylenes
1,2,4-TMB
1,3,5-TMB
n-Propylbenzene
1 , 1-Dichlorocthene
cis-1 ,2-Dichloroethenc
trans- 1 ,2-Dichlorocthcne
Trichloroethene
Vinyl chloride
Carbon disulfidc
7/4
7/3
7/3
7/3
7/3
7/1
7/1
7/3
7/1
7/1
7/1
7/1
3.4-140
7-74
17-450
84-130
30-58
21
5.7
12-390
50
7.3
0.9
25
AP-6327
AP-6327
AP-6329
AP-6327
AP-6327
AP-6327
AP-6326
AP-6326
AP-6326
AP-6326
AP-6326
AP-6329
5C, 0.36d
700*. 130*1
10,000C, l,200d
30*
SO*
NA
T6, 0.044d
70C, 6.1d
100C, 12d
5C, 1.6d
2C. 0.0 19d
100
3
0
0
3
1
NA
1
2
1
1
1
0
Key at end of table.
-------
Page 2 of 3
U)
vfc.
Table 3-2
HISTORICAL GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION (PRE-1994)
801 DRUM BURIAL SITE
OPERABLE UNIT 1
FORT WAINWRIGHT, ALASKA
G*g/U
Analyte
Pesticides
Dieldrin
Aldrin
Endrin
Number of Samples
Analyzed/Detected*
7/7
7/1
7/1
Range of Detected
Concentrations
0.04-1.5
0.17
0.06
Location of Maximum
Concentration
AP-6331
AP-6329
AP-6331
MCL or Risk-Based
Screening Concentration*
0.0042d
0.004d
2C, l.ld
Number of Samples
Exceeding RBCs
6
1
0
Semivolatile Organic Compounds
Naphthalene
7/2
28
AP-6327
1,500*
0
Metals
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Lead
Iron
7/7
7/4
7/7
7/7
7/3
7/3
7/4
7/4
7/7
172-5,190
8-82
149-511
39,100-137,000
5-17
10-16
12-23
4-8
1,280-86,000
AP-6330
AP-6329
AP-6327
AP-6327
AP-6630
AP-6327
AP-6330
AP-6630
AP-6327
NA
50e, lld
2,000e, 2,600d
NA
100*. 180d
2,200d
1,000
15f
300*. ll,000d
NA
1
0
NA
0
0
0
0
NA
Key at end of table.
-------
Page 3 of 3
Table 3-2
HISTORICAL GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION (PRE-1994)
801 DRUM BURIAL SITE
OPERABLE UNIT 1
FORT WAINWRIGHT, ALASKA
Analyte
Manganese
Magnesium
Potassium
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
Number of Samples
Analyzed/Detected*
7/7
7/7
7/7
7/7
7/2
7/4
Range of Detected
Concentrations
358-5,910
9,150-40,600
4,480-9,800
2,330-8,480
8-11
22-38
Location of Maximum
Concentration
AP-6327
AP-6327
AP-6327
AP-6327
AP-6330
AP-6330
MCL or Risk-Based
Screening Concentration*
1,000
NA
NA
NA
260*1
10.00011
Number of Samples
Exceeding RBCs
7
NA
NA
NA
0
0
5
a
b
c
d
Duplicate samples are included.
State of Alaska Water Quality Standards (18 AAC 70).
Primary MCL, 18 AAC 80.
EPA, Region 3, RBC Tables, October 20, 1995.
e The MCL is provided where available. If none exists, then the RBC is provided based on a 1 x 10"* risk for tap water.
1 18 AAC 80.815, lead action level.
S Secondary MCL, 18 AAC 80.
Key:
AAC = Alaska Administrative Code.
EPA = United States Environmental Protection Agency.
MCL = Maximum contaminant level.
pg/L = Micrograms per liter.
NA = Not applicable.
RBCs = Risk-based concentrations.
TMB = Trimethylbenzene.
-------
Page 1 of 1
Table 3-3
DETECTED ANALYTES IN SURFACE SOIL
1994 DATA
801 DRUM BURIAL SITE
FORT WAINWRIGHT, ALASKA
(nig/kg)
Analyte
Petroleum Hydrocarbons
DRO
Number of
Samples
Analyzed/
Number of
Detections
3/3
Volatile Organic Compounds
Acetone
3/1
Range of Detected
Concentrations
4.3-5.3
0.019
Risk-Based
Screening
Concentration
200*
780b
Number of Samples
Exceeding RBCs
0
0
Pesticides
DDT
3/1
0.0064
0.19C, 0.27*
Metab
Arsenic
Barium
Chromium
Lead
3/3
3/3
3/3
3/3
7.3-12
70-121
12-20
5.6-7.8
2.3s. 14=
550e, 115C
39e, 19C
26C. 400f
0
3
0
0
0
a Level B cleanup level for DRO is 200 mg/kg.
" RBCs are based on 1 x 10~7 direct contact risk (EPA, Region 3, RBC Table, October 20, 1995).
c United States Army Corps of Engineers-recommended background level for metals.
" United State* Army Corps of Engineers-recommended background level for pesticides.
e Risk-based screening concentration values are based on 1 x 10"7 residential direct contact risk (EPA, Region 3, RBC
Tables, October 20, 1995).
' EPA-recommended screening level for lead.
Key:
DDT
DRO
EPA
mg/kg
RBCs
Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethene.
Diesel-range organics.
United States Environmental Protection Agency.
Milligrams per kilogram.
Risk-based concentrations.
3-11
-------
Page 1 of 1
Table 3-4
DETECTED ANALYTES IN SUBSURFACE SOIL
1994 DATA
801 DRUM BURIAL SITE
FORT WAINWRIGHT, ALASKA
(mg/kg)
Analyte
Number of
Samples
Analyzed/
Number of
Detections
Petroleum Hydrocarbons
DRO
14/10
Range of Detected
Concentrations
Risk-Based Screening
Concentration
Number of Samples
Exceeding RBCs
4.4-12
200"
0
Volatile Organic Compounds
Acetone
14/1
0.028
780k
0
Sentivolatile Organic Compounds
di-n-Butylphlhalate
14/4
Metals
Arsenic
Barium
Chromium
Lead
14/14
14/14
14/14
14/14
0.458-0.534
1.9-12
42-94
7.1-15
2.6-6
780b
2.3b, 14C
55, 115C
39b, 19°
26C. 400d
0
-
0
0
0
0
a Level B cleanup level for DRO is 200 mg/kg.
b RBCs are based on 1 x 10"7 residential direct contact risk (EPA, Region 3, RBC Tables, October 20, 1995).
c United States Army Corps of Engineers-recommended background level.
** EPA-recommended screening level for lead.
Key:
DRO
EPA
mg/kg
RBCs
Diesel-range organics.
United States Environmental Protection Agency.
Milligrams per kilogram.
Risk-based concentrations.
3-12
-------
Page 1 of 2
Table 3-5
DETECTED ANALYTES IN GROUNDWATER
1994 DATA
801 DRUM BURIAL SITE
FORT WAINWRIGHT, ALASKA
0»g/L)
Analyte
Number of Samples
Analyzed/Detected
Range of Detected
Concentrations
MCL or Risk-Based
Screening
Concentration*
Number of
Samples
Exceeding RBCs
Petroleum Hydrocarbons
DRO
7/7
120-75,000
Volatile Organic Compounds
Benzene
Ethylbenzene
Toluene
Total xylenes
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
1 ,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
cis-1 ,2-Dichloroethene
Isopropylbcnzcnc
n-Propyl benzene
sec-Butyl benzene
Naphthalene
p-Isopropyl toluene
in
1/7
2/7
2/7
in
in
1/7
in
2/7
217
in
in
14-39
51
2.0-5.1
43-74
23-120
12-40
2.2
5.8-14
5.7-18
1.6-5.2
6.7-32
4.1-6.4
15b
7
0.36C
130C
75C
1,200C
30°
30C
6.1C
UA
UA
6.1C
150C
UA
2
0
0
0
1
1
0
NA
NA
0
0
NA
Semivolatile Organic Compounds
Naphthalene
1/7
Pesticides/Polychlorinated Bipbenyls
Aldrin
Dieldrin .
in
in
15
150°
0
0.039-0.24
0.064-0.27
Metals
Arsenic
Barium
Chromium
Lead
7/7
7/7
4/7
7/7
10-81
190-720
30-100
14-77
0.004
0.0042
2
2
72d
988d
125d
66d
2
0
0
1
Key at end of table.
3-13
-------
Page 2 of 2
Table 3-5 (Cont.)
a MCL ia provided where available. Also included is the RBC.
b State of Alaska Water Quality Standards (18 AAC 70).
c RBCs are based on 1 x 10*7 for Up water risk (EPA, Region 3, RBC Table, October 20, 1995).
° United States Army Corps of Engineers-recommended background level.
Key:
AAC = Alaska Administrative Code.
DRO = Diesel-range organic*.
EPA = United States Environmental Protection Agency.
MCL = Maximum contaminant level.
pg/L = Milligrams per liter.
NA = Not applicable.
RBCs = Risk-based concentrations.
UA = Unavailable.
3-14
-------
Page 1 of 2
U)
I
t-1
tn
Table 3-6
SUMMARY OF ANALYTES DETECTED IN SURFACE SOIL SAMPLES
DURING THE REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION
801 DRUM BURIAL SITE
OPERABLE UNIT 1
FORT WAINWRIGHT, ALASKA
(mg/kg)
Analyte
Number of Samples
Analyzed/Detected*
Range of Detected
Concentrations
Location of Maximum
Concentration
Risk-Based Screening
Concentration or ARARb
Number of Samples
Exceeding RBCs
Petroleum Hydrocarbons
Diesel-range organics
Total organic carbon
4/4
4/4
35-133
1.55-2.86
Surface 2
Surface 2
200°
NA
0
NA
Volatile Organic Compounds
Methylene chloride
4/2
0.018-0.029
Surface 2
8.5*
0
Pesticides
4,4'-DDD
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDT
Dicldrin
4/4
4/4
4/4
4/1
0.003-0.005
0.06-0.1
0.2-0.38
0.002
Surface 2
Surface 2
Suface 2
Surface 1
0.27b, 0.174
0.19b, 0.101d
0.19b, 0.27*
0.004b
0
0
4
0
Metals
Arsenic
Barium
Chromium
Lead
Silver
4/4
4/4
4/4
4/4
4/4
8-10
90-107
16-20
10-17
0.6-0.9
Surface 1
Surface 1
Surface 1 and 2
Surface 3
Surface 1
2.3b, 14e
55, 115d
39b 19e
26e, 400f
39b
4
0
0
0
0
Key at end of table.
-------
Page 2 of 2
Table 3-6 (Cent.)
a Duplicate samples are included.
" Risk-based screening concentration values are based on a 1 x IO"7 residential direct contact risk (EPA, Region 3, RBC Table, October 20, 1995).
c ADEC soil cleanup matrix score Level B for DRO is 200 mg/kg.
° Recommended background level for pesticides.
e United States Army Corps of Engineers-recommended background level for metals.
* EPA-recommended screening level for lead in soil.
Key:
ADEC = Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation.
ARAR = Applicable or relevant and appropriate requirement.
DDD = Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane.
DDE = Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethene.
DDT = Dichlorodiphenyltrichlorocthanc.
DRO = Diesel-range organics.
EPA = United States Environmental Protection Agency.
mg/kg = Milligrams per kilogram.
NA = Not applicable.
RBCs = Risk-based concentrations.
-------
Page 1 of 3
OJ
i
Table 3-7
SUMMARY OF ANALYTES DETECTED IN EXCAVATION SUBSURFACE SOIL SAMPLES
COLLECTED DURING THE REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION
801 DRUM BURIAL SITE
OPERABLE UNIT 1
FORT WAHNWRIGHT, ALASKA
(mg/kg)
Aoalyte
Petroleum Hydrocarbons
Diesel-range organics
Gasoline-range organics
Number of Samples
Analyzed/Detected
10/6
10/4
Range of Detected
Concentrations
Location of Maximum
Concentration
13-562
8-120
Excavation 4-2
Excavation 4-1
Risk-Based Screening
Concentration*
200b
100°
Number of Samples
Exceeding RBCs
4
1
Volatile Organic Compounds
1 ,2,3-Trichlorobenzene
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1 ,2,4-Trimcthylbenzene
1 ,2-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,3,5-Trimelhylbenzene
1 ,3-Dichlorobenzcnc
1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene
2-Bulanone
Acetone
Hexachlorobutadiene
Mcthylene chloride
n-Butylbenzene
10/1
10/1
10/2
10/1
10/3
10/1
10/1
10/2
10/5
10/1
10/8
10/1
0.003
0.002
0.008-0.042
0.001
0.012-0.037
0.001
0.001
0.006-0.98
0.039-2.3
0.002
0.005-0.032
0.0008
Excavation 3
Excavation 3
Excavation 4-2
Excavation 3
Excavation 4-4
Excavation 3
Excavation 3
Excavation 4-2
Excavation 4-2
Excavation 3
Excavation 4-2
Excavation 3
NA
78*
39»
700*
390«
700»
2.7»
NA
780«
0.82»
8.5«
NA
NA
0
0
0
0
0
0
NA
0
0
0
NA
Key at end of table.
-------
Page 2 of 3
u>
I
I-1
00
Table 3-7
SUMMARY OF ANALYTES DETECTED IN EXCAVATION SUBSURFACE SOIL SAMPLES
COLLECTED DURING THE REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION
801 DRUM BURIAL SITE
OPERABLE UNIT 1
FORT WAINWRIGHT, ALASKA
(mg/kg)
Analyte
Naphthalene
p-Isopropyltoluenc
sec-Butylbenzcnc
Toluene
Total xylenes
Number of Samples
Analyzed/Detected
10/3
10/3
10/1
10/1
10/2
Range of Detected
Concentrations
0.002-0.008
0.0009-0.009
0.0007
0.013
0.011-0.038
Location of Maximum
Concentration
Excavation 4-2
Excavation 4-2
Excavation 3
Excavation 4-2
Excavation 4-2
Risk-Based Screening
Concentration*
310*
NA
78*
600*. 15d
16,000*. 15d
Number of Samples
Exceeding RBCs
0
NA
0
0
0
Pesticides
4,4'-DDD
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDT
Aldrin
Dieldrin
Endrin
10/6
10/7
10/10
10/6
10/7
10/5
0.003-1.0
0.003-0.01
0.002-0.17
0.001-1.1
0.02-1.2
0.003-0.02
Excavation 4-1
Excavation 4-3
Excavation 4-3
Excavation 4-4
Excavation 4-6
Excavation 4-6
0.27V 0.17*
0.19*. 0.101«
0.19*. 0.27«
0.0038*
0.004*
2.3*
1
0
0
5
7
0
MeUls
Arsenic
Barium
Chromium
10/10
10/10
10/10
3-6
50-92
9-15
Excavation 1
Excavation 4-3
Excavation 4-1 and 4-3
2.3*. 14f
550*. 115f
39*. 19f
10
0
0
at end of table.
-------
Page 3 of 3
Table 3-7
SUMMARY OF ANALYTES DETECTED IN EXCAVATION SUBSURFACE SOIL SAMPLES
COLLECTED DURING THE REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION
801 DRUM BURIAL SITE
OPERABLE UNIT 1
FORT WAINWRIGHT, ALASKA
(mg/kg)
Analyte
Lead
Nickel
Silver
Number of Samples
Analyzed/Detected
10/10
3/3
10/6
Range of Detected
Concentrations
3-10
12-20
0.4-0.9
Location of Maximum
Concentration
Excavation 4-1
Excavation 1
Excavation 4-3
Risk-Based Screening
Concentration*
26f, 400*
160«
39*
Number of Samples
Exceeding RBCs
0
0
0
OJ
I
M
VO
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
Key:
Risk-based screening concentration values are based on a 1 x 10"7 residential direct contact risk (EPA, Region 3, RBC Table, October 20, 199S).
ADEC soil cleanup matrix score Level B for DRO is 200 mg/kg.
ADEC soil cleanup matrix score Level B for GRO is 100 mg/kg.
ADEC soil cleanup matrix score Level B for BTEX is 15 mg/kg.
USACE-recommcnded background level for pesticides.
USACE-rccommcndcd background level for metals.
EPA-recommended screening level for lead in soils.
ADEC = Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation.
BTEX = Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and total xylenes.
ODD = Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane.
DDE = Dichlorodiphenyldichlorocthcne.
DDT = Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane.
DRO = Diesel-range organics.
EPA = United States Environmental Protection Agency.
GRO = Gasoline-range organics.
mg/kg = Milligrams per kilogram.
NA = Not applicable.
RBCs = Risk-based concentrations.
USACE = United States Army Corps of Engineers.
-------
Page 1 of 3
I
NJ
O
Table 3-8
SUMMARY OF ANALYTES DETECTED IN SUBSURFACE SOIL SAMPLES
COLLECTED DURING THE REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION
801 DRUM BURIAL SITE
OPERABLE UNIT 1
FORT WAINWRIGHT, ALASKA
(mg/kg)
Analyte
Number of Samples
Analyzed/Detected
Petroleum Hydrocarbons
Diesel-range organ ics
Gasoline-range organics
11/9
11/1
Range of Detected
Concentrations
Location of Maximum
Concentration
Risk-Based Screening
Concentration*
4-1,030
6
AP-7162
AP-7162
200b
100C
Number of Samples
Exceeding RBCs
2
0
Volatile Organic Compounds
1 ,2,3-Trichlorobenzene
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
Acetone
Hexachlorobutadiene
Methylene chloride
Naphthalene
11/6
11/2
11/8
11/2
11/9
11/4
0.0006-0.001
0.0007-0.0008
0.034-0.18
0.0006-0.0007
0.004-0.018
0.0007-0.001
AP-7163
AP-7163
AP-7162
AP-7163
AP-7162
AP-7163
NA
781
780*
0.82*
8.5*
310«
Pesticides
4.4--DDD
4,4'-DDE
4.4--DDT
Endrin
11/4
11/6
11/6
11/1
0.005-0.14
0.008-0.37
0.06-6.1
0.002
AP-7162
AP-7162
AP-7162
AP-7162
0.271, OAT*
0.19>,0.101d
0.19*. 0.27*
2.3g
NA
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
5
0
Key at end of table.
-------
Page 2 of 3
Table 3-8
SUMMARY OF ANALYTES DETECTED IN SUBSURFACE SOIL SAMPLES
COLLECTED DURING THE REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION
801 DRUM BURIAL SITE
OPERABLE UNIT 1
FORT WAINWRIGHT, ALASKA
(mg/kg)
Analyt*
Methoxychlor
Number of Samples
Analyzed/Detected
11/1
Range of Detected
Concentrations
0.005
Location of Maximum
Concentration
AP-7163
Risk-Based Screening
Concentration"
3.9*
Number of Samples
Exceeding RBCs
0
Metals
Arsenic
Barium
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
11/11
11/11
11/11
11/11
11/1
11/11
2-10
45-119
8-20
3-12
0.05
11-26
AP-7163
AP-7163
AP-7163
AP-7162
AP-7163
AP-7163
2.3«. 14e
550*. 115'
39§. 19e
26e, 400f
2.3*
160«
10
0
0
0
0
0
I
M
3 Risk-based screening concentration values are based on 1 x 10'7 residential direct contact risk (EPA, Region 3, RBC Table, October 20, 1995).
" ADEC soil cleanup matrix score Level B for DRO is 200 mg/kg.
c ADEC soil cleanup matrix score Level B for GRO is 100 mg/kg.
" USACE-recommended background levels for pesticides.
e USACE-recommended background levels for metals.
' EPA-recommended screening level for lead in soils.
Key at end of table.
-------
Page 3 of 3
Table 3-8 (Cont.)
Key:
ADEC
DDD
DDE
DDT
DRO
EPA
GRO
mg/kg
NA
RBCs
USAGE
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation.
Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane.
Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethene.
Dichlorodiphenyhrichloroethanc.
Diesel-range organics.
United States Environmental Protection Agency.
Gasoline-range organics.
Milligrams per kilogram.
Not applicable.
Risk-based concentrations.
United States Army Corps of Engineers.
OJ
i
M
NJ
-------
Page 1 of 3
u>
i
N
Ul
Table 3-9
SUMMARY OF ANALYTES DETECTED IN GROUND WATER DURING THE REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION
801 DRUM BURIAL SITE
OPERABLE UNIT 1
FORT WAINWRIGHT, ALASKA
fog/L)
Analyte
Number of Samples
Analyzed/Detected"
Range of Detected
Concentrations
Petroleum Hydrocarbons
Diesel-range organics
Gasoline-range organics
12/12
12/4
34-2,480
41-1,210
Location of Maximum
Concentration
AP-6327
AP-6327
MCL or Risk-Based
Screening Concentration''
15C
15C
Number of Samples
Exceeding RBCs
12
4
Volatile Organk Compounds
Benzene
Ethylbenzene
Toluene
Total xylenes
1.1,2-Trichloroethane
1 , 1 -Dichloroethene
1.2,4-TMB
1,2-Dichlorocthane
1,3,5-TMB
1 ,3-Dichloropropane
2-Butanonc
4-Methyl-2-pentanone
12/2
12/1
12/8
12/1
12/2
12/1
12/1
12/1
12/1
12/2
12/6
12/2
1.7-42
41
0.1-1.1
64
0.1-0.2
1.7
89
0.2
28
0.1-0.2
1-3
30-40
AP-6327
AP-6327
AP-6327
AP-6327
AP-7162
AP-6326
AP-6327
AP-6326
AP-6327
AP-7162
AP-6331
AP-6331
0.36b, 3d
130b, 700d
75b, l.OOO11
l,200b, 10,000d
0.1 9b, 3d
0.044b, 7"1
30d
5C, 0.12d
30d
NA
NA
NA
2
0
0
0
1
1
1
0.2
0
NA
NA
NA
Key at end of table.
-------
Page 2 of 3
u>
I
Table 3-9
SUMMARY OF ANALYTES DETECTED IN GROUNDWATER DURING THE REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION
801 DRUM BURIAL SITE
OPERABLE UNIT 1
FORT WAINWRIGHT, ALASKA
0«g/L)
Analyte
Acetone
cis-1 ,2-Dichloroethene
Dibromomcthane
Isopropylbenzene
Methylene chloride
n-Butylbenzene
n-Propylbenzcnc
Naphthalene
p-lsopropyltolucne
sec-Bulylbcnzene
trans- 1 ,2-Dichloroethene
Trichlorocthcnc
Vinyl chloride
Number of Samples
Analyzed/Detected*
12/12
12/4
12/1
12/1
12/4
12/1
12/1
12/3
12/1
12/1
12/3
12/1
12/2
Range of Detected
Concentrations
2-14
1.3-230
0.2
14
0.1-1.0
2
14
0.2-60
5
4
0.2-24
3.1
0.2-0.7
Location of Maximum
Concentration
AP-6331
AP-6326
AP-7162
AP-6327
AP-6327
AP-6327
AP-6327
AP-6327
AP-6327
AP-6327
AP-6326
AP-6326
AP-6326
MCL or Risk-Based
Screening Concentration1*
370"
70b, 6.1d
NA
NA
5°. 4.1d
NA
NA
150d
NA
6.1d
100C, 12d
5C, 1.6d
2e, 0.019d
Number of Samples
Exceeding RBCs
0
1
NA
NA
0
NA
NA
0
NA
0
1
1
2
|tey at end of table.
-------
Page 3 of 3
Table 3-9
SUMMARY OF ANALYTES DETECTED IN GROUNDWATER DURING THE REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION
801 DRUM BURIAL SITE
OPERABLE UNIT 1
FORT WAHNWRIGHT, ALASKA
(Mg/L)
Analytc
Pesticides
Dicldrin
Endrin
4,4'-DDT
gamma-BHC (lindanc)
Number of Samples
Analyzed/Detected*
Range of Detected
Concentrations
Location of Maximum
Concentration
MCL or Risk-Based
Screening Concentration1*
12/8
12/4
12/3
12/1
0.007-1.9
0.004-0.04
0.008-0.03
0.005
AP-6331
AP-6331
AP-7162
AP-6327
0.0042"1
2C, l.ld
0.2"
0.2C, 0.052d
Number of Samples
Exceeding RBCs
8
0
0
0
3 Duplicate samples arc included.
" MCLs are provided when available. The RBC for a risk of 1 x 10"6 for tap water also is provided or an HQ = 0.1 when available.
c Primary MCL, 18 AAC 80.
" EPA, Region 3, RBC Table, October 20, 1995. The RBC for a risk of 1 X Iff6 for tap water also is provided or an HQ = 0.1 when available.
Key:
AAC = Alaska Administrative Code.
BHC = Benzene hexachloride.
DDT = Dichlorodiphcnyltrichloroethanc.
EPA = United States Environmental Protection Agency.
HQ = Hazard quotient.
MCL = Maximum contaminant level.
Hg/L = Micrograms per liter.
NA = Not applicable.
RBCs = Risk-based concentrations.
TMB = Trimethylbenzene.
-------
Page 1 of 2
OJ
I
10
0>
Table 3-10
ANALYTES DETECTED IN SURFACE SEDIMENT DURING THE REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION
801 DRUM BURIAL SITE
OPERABLE UNIT 1
FORT WAINWRIGHT, ALASKA
(mg/kg)
Analytes
Acetone
Arsenic
Barium
2-Butanone
Cadmium
Chromium
ODD
DDT
DRO
Lead
Methylene chloride
Naphthalene
Petroleum recoverable
hydrocarbon
1 ,2,3-Trichlorobenzene
Number of Samples/
Number of Detections
6/1
6/6
6/6
6/1
6/2
6/6
4/3
4/4
6/6
6/6
6/1
6/2
2/2
6/2
Range of Detected
Concentrations
0.08
7-10
90-126
0.01
0.6-1
16-23
0.002
0.003-0.008
22-97
8-10
0.02
0.0008-0.002
44-53
0.0008-0.002
Location of Maximum
Contaminant Level
OU-1 EC01
SEDI DUP
SEDI DUP
OU-1 EC01
OU-1 EC01
SEDI DUP
SED 1.SED2. andSED3
SED3
SED 1
SEDI DUP, SED 3
SED 1 DUP
SED 1
OU-1 EC01
SED 1
Rbk-Bued
Screening or ARAR
0.064"
3-8*
20-60"
NA
1-10*
25-75"
0.063s
0.7451
NA
110-60"
0.427"
0.407
NA
NA
Number of Samples
Exceeding RBC
1
3
6
NA
0
0
0
0
NA
0
0
0
NA
NA
Key at end of table.
-------
Page 2 of 2
Table 3-10 (Cent.)
a Sediment quality benchmark.
Key:
ARAR = Applicable or relevant and appropriate requirement.
ODD = Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane.
DDT = Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane.
DRO = Diesel-range organics.
mg/kg = Micrograms per kilogram.
NA = Not applicable.
RBC = Risk-based concentration.
CO
I
to
-------
Page 1 of 1
Table 3-11
ANALYTES DETECTED IN SURFACE WATER DURING THE
REMEDIAL
INVESTIGATION
801 DRUM BURIAL SITE
OPERABLE UNIT 1
FORT
Number of Samples/
Analytes Number of Detections
Arsenic 1/1
Barium 1/1
WAINWRIGHT,
Cig/L)
Range of Detected
Concentrations
2
38
ALASKA
Risk-Based
Screening or ARAR
360/190"
61.1/38b
Number of Samples
Exceeding RBC
0
0
a National ambient water quality criteria for arsenic HI (acute/chronic).
" Tier II value water quality criteria for barium: secondary acute/secondary chronic.
Key:
ARAR
RBC
Applicable or relevant and appropriate requirement.
Micrograms per liter.
Risk-based concentration.
3-28
-------
RI/FS MCPORT
UMT t
fO«T WAIMWtKJKT. ALASKA
MB OM
il KM (Ml
nowtc
801 DKUM M)RIAL SITE
ANALTTCS IN SO*. EXCCCDINO
ARAJN OR ftBCt. PRt-RI DATA
e te 100
SS^
KMI M «n
3-29
-------
RI/FS REPORT
OPtRAtU UNIT 1
FORT WAINWRHJHT. ALASKA
FIGURE 5-2
601 DRUM BURIAL SITE
AMALYTtS IN CROUNOWATER tXCCCDINC
ARAR* OR RK». PRE-RI DATA
3-30
-------
DETAIL: EXCAVATION 4
RJ/FS REPORT
OPERABLE UNIT 1
FORT WAJNWRICHT. ALASKA
FIGURE 3-S
$01 DRUM BURIAL SITt
ANALYTCS IN SOIL It SEDIMENTS
EXCCCDINO AMAH* OR RKt - HI'OATA
-------
DETAIL: EXCAVATION 4
RI/FS REPORT
OPERABLE UNIT 1
WAINWRICHT. ALASKA
riOURE 34
Ml DRUM BURIAL SITE
ANALYTCS IN CROUNDWATCR EXCEEWHO
ARAR* OR Rtt* - Rl DATA
3-32
-------
4.0 SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
A Baseline Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment is one mechanism for determining the
need for taking action at the source areas and indicates the exposure pathways that need to be
addressed by remedial action. Risk Assessments are performed using information regarding toxicity
of contaminants and assumptions regarding the extent to which people may be exposed to them. The
Risk Assessment evaluation was based on the Operable Unit 1 (OU-1) Remedial Investigation (Rl).
This summary of the Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment for the 801 Drum Burial Site source
area is divided into the five following sections:
Identification of contaminants of 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 uncertainty involved in developing the Risk
Assessment.
The summary concludes with the results of the Ecological Risk Assessment conducted for the 801
Drum Burial Site source area.
Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessments were conducted for four of the OU-1 source areas
(801 Drum Burial Site, Building 1599, Building 2077, and Site N-4) to determine the potential risk in
the absence of remedial action. Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act (CERCLA) guidance allows the Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment to reflect the
expected future use of a site. Scenarios involving future residential, recreational, and industrial use
of the source areas were completed. However, future residential and recreational scenarios were
determined to not be appropriate for Building 1599, Building 2077, and Site N-4 soils because
industrial use is the reasonably anticipated future use, based on the post Master Plan and historical use
of these three areas. The estimated cancer risks at Building 1599, Building 2077, and Site N-4 using
the assumptions discussed above were below or within the acceptable risk range (see Table 2-1); these
source areas will no longer be discussed in this Record of Decision. The current and future land uses
at the 801 Drum Burial Site are recreational because the source area is located on the Chena River
floodplain.
It was determined, because of source area hydrogeologic conditions, that future residential risks
identified in the Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment are applicable to groundwater at the 801
Drum Burial Site because an exposure pathway for downgradient Municipal Utility System well users
exists. Existing groundwater contaminant concentrations also exceed federal drinking water maximum
contaminant levels (MCLs) and require remedial action because of downgradient groundwater users.
The National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan requires that groundwater be
returned to its beneficial uses whenever practicable. The beneficial use is domestic water supply.
4-1
-------
4.1 IDENTIFICATION OF CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN (SCREENING ANALYSIS)
Selection of contaminants of concern, which are chemicals that potentially contribute to human health
risks at the source areas, was a two-step process. First, the maximum concentrations of contaminants
detected in on-site soil and water during die RI were compared to health-based screening levels for
drinking water, soil, and air in accordance with United States Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), Region 10, Supplemental Risk Assessment Guidance. Region 10 recommends the use of
EPA, Region 3, risk-based concentration values (June 1996). These concentrations reflect residential
exposure assumptions and were modified as necessary to reflect excess lifetime cancer risks of 1 x 10*
and 1 x 10~7 associated with groundwater and soil, respectively, or a hazard quotient of 0.1 for all
media. Inorganic chemicals were compared statistically to naturally occurring background levels. If
concentrations were found below established background levels, they were eliminated from further
evaluation. Eighteen contaminants were identified as contaminants of concern in soil and groundwater
at the 801 Drum Burial Site. 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 the environmental medium evaluated.
A supplemental 19% investigation was conducted for the 801 Drum Burial Site after the RI. The
investigation results showed that the contaminant levels were higher than the levels found in the RI.
As a result, it is expected that the risk is higher than predicted in the OU-1 Baseline Risk Assessment.
See the 507 Drum Burial Site Supplemental 1996 Investigation Report in the Administrative Record
for details.
4.2 EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT
The exposure assessment estimates the type and magnitude of exposures to the contaminants of
concern at the source areas. It 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.
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 801 Drum Burial Site source area considers land use scenarios to
evaluate exposed populations. The Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment evaluated future
residential land use of the source area, which assumes that individuals would spend 30 years of their
lifetime at the source area. Although this use scenario is unlikely, it provides a conservative Baseline
to avoid underestimation of risks. The recreational exposure scenario assumes that an individual will
spend five days a year for 30 years at the source area. Table 4-2 identifies the potential exposure
routes evaluated for the Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment.
4.2.1.2 Exposed Populations and Pathways
An exposure pathway is the mechanism by which chemicals migrate from their source or point of
release to the population at risk. Four elements comprise a complete exposure pathway: 1) a source
of a chemical release, 2) movement of contaminants through environmental media, 3) a point of
potential human contact with a contaminated medium, and 4) entry into the body or exposure route.
4-2
-------
The exposure pathways considered in the Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment varied depending
on the land use and on the population potentially exposed. The exposure assessment identified
potential pathways for contaminants of concern to reach the exposed population at the 801 Drum
Burial Site (see Table 4-2). A "complete" exposure pathway must exist for a contaminant to pose a
human health risk (i.e., the potential for a receptor to be exposed to a contaminant must exist).
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 area. It is calculated using conservative
assumptions in order to represent exposures that are reasonable and protective. The Baseline Human
Health Risk Assessment reasonable maximum exposure and average exposures were estimated for
residential, industrial, and recreational land use scenarios.
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. The 95% upper confidence limit
(UCL) on the arithmetic mean was used to calculate exposure point
concentrations (EPCs) for soil and groundwater reasonable maximum
exposure scenarios, except where the 95% UCL exceeded the
maximum contaminant concentration. Table 4-3 contains the exposure
point concentrations for carcinogenic chemicals of potential concern in
surface and subsurface soil, and groundwater at the 801 Drum Burial
Site.
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 (EPA
1991, Region X Supplemental Risk Assessment Guidance for
Superfiuut). The default exposure factors were modified to reflect
site-specific climatological and other factors at Fort Wainwright. Site-
specific exposure assumptions were made for soil contact, including
ingestion, dermal contact, and inhaling dust, based on snow cover half
the year. The exposure parameters used for the recreational user
scenario are included in Table 4-4.
For the media evaluated, exposures were estimated assuming long-term exposures to source area
contaminants. However, the risks associated with acute exposure to contents of drums were not
assessed.
4.3 TOXICITY ASSESSMENT
The Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment provides toxicity information for the contaminants of
4-3
-------
concern. Generally, cancer risks are calculated using toxicity factors known as slope factors, while
noncancer risks rely on reference doses.
EPA has developed slope factors for estimating lifetime cancer risks associated with exposure to
potential carcinogens. Slope factors are expressed in units of milligram per kilogram per day'1
(mg/kg-day"1) and are multiplied by the estimated intake of a potential carcinogen, in mg/kg-day, to
provide an upper-bound estimate of the excess lifetime cancer risk associated with exposure at that
intake level. The term upper-bound 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 have been developed to indicate the potential for adverse health effects from
ingestion of potential contaminants of concern that exhibit noncancer effects, such as damage to organ
systems (e.g., the nervous system and blood-forming system). They also are expressed in units of
mg/kg-day. Reference doses 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 effects.
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 or 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 Effects Assessment Summary Tables. For
chemicals that do not have toxicity values available at this time, other criteria, such as MCLs
promulgated under the Safe Drinking Water Act, were used to assess potential hazards.
4.4 RISK CHARACTERIZATION
The purpose of the risk characterization is to integrate the results of the exposure assessment and the
toxicity assessment to estimate risk to humans from exposure to site contaminants. Risks were
calculated for carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic effects based on the reasonable maximum exposure
(see exposure assessment discussion [Section 4.2]). To estimate cancer risk, the slope factor is
multiplied by the exposure expected for that chemical to provide an upper-bound estimate of 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 that excess lifetime cancer risks between 1 in 1 million (1 x 10*) and 1 in 10,000 (1 x 10"4)
are 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's
contaminant to that contaminant's reference dose. If this ratio, called a hazard quotient, is less than
1, then adverse noncancer health effects are not likely to occur. Hazard quotients for individual
contaminants of concern are summed to yield a hazard index for the subarea. The potential excess
4-*
-------
lifetime cancer risks and hazard indices described in this summary were calculated using reasonable
maximum exposure assumptions.
4.4.1 801 Drum Burial Site Source Area
Table 4-5 presents excess lifetime cancer and noncancer risks for soil and groundwater for the 801
Drum Burial Site.
Table 4-6 shows the analyte-specific excess lifetime cancer risks for a future residential scenario for
soil and groundwater. Under current land use conditions, the estimates of carcinogenic and
noncarcinogenic effects for the 801 Drum Burial Site source areas fell within or below the acceptable
risk range for the CERCLA sites. The future land use for the 801 Drum Burial Site was determined
to be recreational. However, a residential scenario for groundwater use is considered appropriate and
representative of risk to current downgradient users, given 801 Drum Burial Site hydrogeological
conditions. When considering groundwater as a source of domestic water, several contaminants were
detected in groundwater at concentrations above EPA's acceptable risk range for the 801 Drum Burial
Site. These risk drivers include benzene; aldrin; dieldrin; 1,1-DCE; and vinyl chloride. Iron
contributed to a hazard quotient in excess of 1 at the 801 Drum Burial Site groundwater. Note,
however, that the iron concentrations detected at OU-1 reflect background concentrations in this
mineralogicaliy rich area.
Hazard indices associated with current and future use of the 801 Drum Burial Site soil did not exceed
a hazard quotient of 1; they ranged from 0.004 to 0.2. Risks associated with current and future use
of 801 Drum Burial Site soils do not exceed EPA's acceptable risk range. Risks associated with
potential downgradient drinking water users do not exceed an excess lifetime cancer risk of 1 x Ifr4.
The primary contaminants of concern in groundwater are benzene; aldrin; dieldrin; 1,1-DCE; and
vinyl chloride. Hazard indices associated with future residential groundwater use ranged from 0.0005
to 6; the principal contaminants of concern were iron and manganese. These metals are considered to
be naturally occurring.
4.5 MAJOR UNCERTAINTIES
Uncertainty is associated with every step of the risk assessment process. The principal uncertainties
associated with the OU-1 risk assessment process, which could overestimate site-related risks and
exposures, are summarized below:
Toxicity data developed for animals were converted for use in
humans, and toxicity studies at high doses were extrapolated to
exposure levels;
Nondetected contaminants of concern were assigned a value of one-
half the method detection limit in the Risk Assessment evaluation; and
Natural degradation was not factored into the calculation of exposure
point concentrations.
Uncertainties that may serve to underestimate site-related risk and exposures include:
4-5
-------
Detected chemicals without toxicity values, data that do not meet
quality objectives, or tentatively identified compounds are not
evaluated as chemicals of potential concern;
The minimum sample quantitation limit exceeded the risk-based
concentration screening level for some anaJytes;
The source area is used for recreational purposes; however, it is
located adjacent to a residential area;
The Risk Assessment was not conducted for potential exposure to
drum contents and surrounding highly contaminated soils; and
The Risk Assessment was conducted in 1995 and therefore does not
include the 19% Supplemental Investigation data.
In addition, surrogate compounds were used when toxicity data were unavailable. The actual toxicity
for a compound may be greater or less than the surrogate, resulting in either overestimation or
underestimation of risk.
4.6 ECOLOGICAL RISKS
An Ecological Risk Assessment addresses the current and future impacts and potential risks posed by
contaminants 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 section presents a brief discussion of the Ecological Risk Assessment steps described
above.
4.6.1 Problem Formulation
To narrow the scope and to focus the Ecological Risk Assessment on the most important aspects of
OU-1, many steps were performed. A physical site description of the ecological features of interest at
the 801 Drum Burial Site was prepared, and previous ecological investigations, including wildlife
inventories and Environmental Impact Statements, were reviewed. A description of the regional and
local ecology was completed. Threatened, endangered, sensitive, or rare species were identified.
Chemicals of potential ecological concern were identified by reviewing the 801 Drum Burial Site
analytical database with regard to data quality, spatial representation, and adequacy for an Ecological
Risk Assessment; frequency with which analytes are detected in environmental media; comparison to
background concentrations; and comparison to ecological risk-based criteria for sediment and surface
water. Next, pathways of contaminant migration and exposure were identified by evaluating 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 reviewing the lexicological literature. These
summaries present a review of the known lexicological effects of the chemicals of potential ecological
4-6
-------
concern on wildlife species.
Two types of ecological endpoints are considered in the Ecological Risk Assessment: assessment and
measurement endpoints.
Assessment endpoints are qualitative or quantitative expressions of the
environmental values to be protected at the 801 Drum Burial Site and
are selected by considering 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 the 801 Drum Burial Site; and
Measurement endpoints include the species and communities used to
quantify the potential ecological impacts posed by OU-1 chemicals of
potential ecological concern. Representative measurement species are
selected based on the relative abundance of each species and
establishing 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 the 801 Drum Burial Site: plants, masked shrews, and
meadow voles.
The refined conceptual ecological exposure model for the 801 Drum Burial Site can be summarized
by the following working hypotheses:
Potential ecological risks may result from exposure of terrestrial
wildlife to chemicals of potential ecological concern found in the
surface soils at the 801 Drum Burial Site; and
Potential ecological risk may result from exposure of aquatic
organisms to chemicals of potential ecological concern found in
surface water and sediment.
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 endpoints and refined conceptual site model derived during the
problem formulation phase. Analysis comprises two principal components:
Exposure assessment, in which exposure point concentrations and
chemicals of potential ecological concern intakes for the measurement
species are calculated; and
4-7
-------
Ecological effects assessment, in which toxicity benchmark values are
derived from the literature and lexicological databases, and uncertainty
factors are selected and applied to die 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).
4.63 Risk Characterization
Risk characterization involves two major components: risk estimation and risk description.
4.63.1 Risk Estimation
Risk estimation involves calculating hazard quotients to assess potential ecological risks to measure-
ment 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 contaminant-specific hazard
indices for each measurement species. The hazard indices provide a species- and contaminant-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.
4.63.2 Risk Description
Risk description involves summarizing the ecological significance of the potential risks and presenting
the uncertainties associated with the Ecological Risk Assessment.
The results of the Ecological Risk Assessment indicate that there is a potential for adverse effects to
small mammals (e.g., shrews and voles) at the 801 Drum Burial Site, reflecting ecologically
significant concentrations of dieldrin.
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 801 Drum Burial Site, benthic (sediment-dwelling) invertebrates may be impacted slightly by
metals, or DDT and DDD or their metabolites present in the sediments. These concentrations are
consistent with postwide levels and most likely represent residues associated with historical aerial
spraying of the Fairbanks area for mosquito control. These concentrations do not appear to be
associated with a chemical release associated with 801 Drum Burial Site activities because the highest
4-8
-------
concentrations were found in upgradient locations.
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-1 Ecological Risk Assessment include the following:
A limited number of samples was collected from the source areas, and
the samples were biased toward areas of "expected" soil
contamination. This is likely to result in an overestimation of
potential risks to the OU-1 ecological receptors;
Selection of indicator species and exposure parameters was based on
best professional judgment;
Phytotoxicity and sediment screening values were not available for
several chemicals of potential ecological concern. In addition, the
available screening values were not site-specific;
The use of 95% UCLs or maximum detected concentrations likely
overestimates exposure;
Toxicity reference values were used for evaluating assessment
endpoints; however, scaling factors had to be used in the development
of toxicity reference values for certain chemicals of ecological
concern, and toxicity reference values do not exist for the exposure
pathways of concern;
No pesticide data were available for downgradient Chena River
sediment sampling locations;
No organic data were collected for surface water samples;
Surface soil ingestion was assumed to represent 100% of the masked
shrew's diet. This assumption may overestimate exposure;
Speculative assumptions were made to generate tentative toxicity
reference values for inhalation by borrowers. It is unknown whether
these assumptions underestimated or overestimated exposures; and
Although no significant risks were indicated with the measured surface
water concentrations in the Chena River, the collection of only one
surface water sample allows for only limited analysis of potential
impacts due to potential transport of chemicals of potential ecological
concern from the source area.
The approach described in this Ecological Risk Assessment used realistic assumptions wherever
possible; reasonable and conservative assumptions were used when empirical data were unavailable.
As a consequence, potential ecological risks to OU-1 species are more likely to be overestimated than
4-9
-------
underestimated.
Ecological risks have been calculated for small mammals (e.g., shrews and voles) at this source area
using the contaminants of concern detected at this source area. However, these calculations are based
on the most conservative estimates available. There is no indication of a risk to plants in the area.
Complete details are available in the OU-1 RI Report dated September 1996.
4-10
-------
Page 1 of 1
Table 4-1
CHEMICALS OF CONCERN
FROM HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
801 DRUM BURIAL SITE
OPERABLE UNIT 1
FORT WAINWRIGHT, ALASKA
Analyte
Inorganics
Aluminum
Iron
Manganese
SoU
Groundwater
X
X
X
X
Pestkides/PolychJorinated Bipheoyb
DDD
DDE
DDT
Aldrin
Dieldrin
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Volatile Organic Compounds
1 , 1 -Dichloroethene
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
1 ,3,5-Trimelhylbenzenc
1 ,3-DichIoropropane
Benzene
cis-1 ,2-Dichlorocthcne
n-Propylbenzene
p-Isopropylbenzene
trans- 1 ,2-Dichlorocthene
Vinyl chloride
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Key:
DDD
DDE
DDT
Not identified as a chemical of concern in environmental media at this source area.
Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane.
Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethene.
Dichlorodiphenyltrichloro ethane.
4-11
-------
Page 1 of 1
Table 4-2
POTENTIAL EXPOSURE ROUTES
801 DRUM BURIAL SITE
FROM HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
OPERABLE UNIT 1
FORT WAINWRIGHT, ALASKA
Exposure Medium and Route
Commercial and Industrial
Population
Ground water
Ingcstion
Dermal contact
Future
Residential
X
X
She Visitors
and
Recreational
Population
Air
Inhalation of indoor vapors
Inhalation of fugitive dust (soil)
X
X
X
X
X
Surface SoU
Ingestion
X
X
X
Subsurface Soil
Ingestion
X (future)
X (future)
X (future)
Key:
= Exposure of this population through this route is not likely to occur.
X = Exposure of this population through this route is likely to occur.
4-12
-------
Table 4-3
SUMMARY OF COPCS, EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATIONS, AND RBC SCREENING LEVELS
801 DRUM BURIAL SITE
COPC
Maxhnumi
D*^ctMll 95% UCL
EPC-
Surface Soil
enzene
1 .3.5-Trimethylbenzene
1 ,3-Oichloropropane
Benzene (c)
ds-lut-Ochtoreethene
rvPropytbenzene
p-lsoprepyttoluena
tram 1.2-OteNoroettMne
Vlnyt chloride (c)
None
Ejq»«ur»Po«Ccne«rtiBbon(EPC)l
Df*ama n**» end 1/2 niwi 0«nri
RBC Seraen to 1/10 of ttw EPA Region II
(OeeianegM.
t" StnttCB totMd on cofnonod curfw
2. ITwfraqucncyaf abMnwian to tan t
5. The »S« Upper CanMM»Umtt(UC
6. Th»95%UCLc wncn
a*.
tcdaspsttelectMn
nanvika.
«(>» RBC town *
3.906*01
2.706-01
1.906-01
1.906-01
3JOE-03
4.006-03
3.706*03
1.106*O4
1.806*02
4.006-03
4^06-03
4.406-02
3.006*01
3.006*01
7.706-02
3.606-01
6.106*01
6.106*00
6.106*00
1.20E*01
1.906-02
5. 6. 10
10
10
8. 10
8. 10
7. 8, 10
10
6.10
7. 8. 9. 10
8, 10
10
6. 8, 10
6. 10
6,10
7, 8, 9. 10
fppvr ConfldoftOe) Lvwf of
otnt Modrt.
re th» eeluel Reoian III RBC valuM.
dl dettft or fevntty.
kw.
4-13
-------
TABLE 4-4
EXPOSURE PARAMETERS
RECREATIONAL USER SCENARIO
Parameter
OoMgi from tngotlon at »oU:
Expowrt point concentrWon In soil
IngGffeon rvtv
Fraction vigttiod
Exposure ft«qu«ncy
Expowra dunton
BodyvwigM
Averaging Dm (cardnogwifc)
Averaging time (non-csrcinog*nic)
Doug* from Mutation of fugNh* duet
Exposure point eonoemmwn m ar
lflnaJc*ton rats
Exposure frequency
Exposure durnon
Bodywwgfit
Avtraging tar* (cvonoocnic)
Avtf»QJng Oma (norvcwctnoo^nic)
So« to » oiaaon toctor tor pwttcuMM
PwtfouMB rntotion rato*
\Mdm of »ouro»VM*
comcoon actor
VMnd tpMd MOV* ground wrtM**
MMnMbtfMMtfW.
OoM9« from Inlutebon of »oN vipon:
Noc=potum-
No vottttto COPC* In surtcM Milt rt any of tw tout
Twm Unite
EPC mpyKg
IR moAtty
Fl unrMw
EF d^^yr
ED y*an
BW Kg
AT y«m
AT y*OT
CA rrg/m'
IR m'May
EF d*yi/yMr
ED yMra
BW Kg
AT yMra
AT y«ar>
PPC moAte
SF Kgyrn'
PE ttonf-t
W cm
CF cm'-Kg/m'-g
WS orrt
MZ cm
MM
No«powm>
RKtMMral nor aaivrud to tav* r» npoMn to oroundwMw
Oo*a^* from ktgMlton e* tap WMW:
NowqftODM-
R«crMOonrtu»^>iiMTMdfc>r»v*no«po>uf»«l»-
NO CXPOMM*
RwfwflorMl UMT Mtunwi to rw^ no xpoourv to oroundvMiv
V«lu»AM*n) SOEF
EPA Supwftnd SOEF pv MM* iMMin
MMMrad
C«od«M - IM Appndn K
ASTUES3»«4
A8TUES3»«4
ASTMES3»«4
ASTMES3»«4
ASTUESM-04
4-14
-------
TABLE 4-4
-------
Page 1 of 1
Table 4-5
SUMMARY OF EXCESS LIFETIME CANCER RISKS AND NONCARCINOGENIC
HAZARD INDICES
801 DRUM BURIAL SITE
OPERABLE UNIT 1
FORT WAINWRIGHT, ALASKA
Exposure Pathway
Future Residential
Soil
Groundwater
Total
Carrinogenir Risk
s x i
-------
Page 1 of 2
I
M
-J
Table 4-6
SUMMARY OF EXCESS LIFETIME CANCER RISKS
FUTURE RESIDENTIAL SCENARIO
801 DRUM BURIAL SITE
OPERABLE UNIT 1
FORT WAINWRIGHT, ALASKA
COPC
Excess Lifetime Cancer Risk
Exposure Pathway
Ingestion
Inhalation
Dermal
Total
Soil
Manganese
Aldrin
Dieldrin
Total Pathway
NA
7.3E-08
1.6E-05
1.6E-05
NA
1.3E-14
2.7E-12
2.8E-12
NA
1.7E-07
3.7E-05
3.7E-05
OE+00
2E-07
5E-05
SE-05
Percentage of Total
Site ELCR
0.0%
0.1%
25.1%
25.2%
Water
Aluminum
Iron
Manganese
Aldrin
Dieldrin
1,1-Dichloroethene
1 ,2,4-Trimelhylbenzene
1 ,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
1 ,3-Dichloropropane
NA
NA
NA
9.6E-06
l.OE-04
9.4E-06
NA
NA
8.0E-08
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
7.2E-07
NA
: NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
3.1E-08
3.2E-06
3.0E-07
NA
NA
2.1E-09
OE+00
OE+00
OE+00
1 E-05
1 E-04
1 E-05
OE+00
0 E+00
8E-08
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
4.6%
48.8%
4.9%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
-------
Page 2 of 2
Table 4-6
SUMMARY OF EXCESS LIFETIME CANCER RISKS
FUTURE RESIDENTIAL SCENARIO
801 DRUM BURIAL SITE
OPERABLE UNIT 1
FORT WAINWRIGHT, ALASKA
COPC
Benzene
cis-1 ,2-Dichlorocthcnc
n-Propylbenzene
p-Isopropyltoluene
trans- 1 ,2-Dichloroethcne
Vinyl chloride
Total Pathway
Total Site
Excess Lifetime Cancer Risk
Exposure Pathway
Ingestioo
1.1E-05
NA
NA
NA
NA
2.0E-05
1.5E-04
1.7E-04
Inhalation
2.4E-06
NA
NA
NA
NA
8.0E-07
4.0E-06
4.0E-06
Dermal
4.5E-07
NA
NA
NA
NA
2.9E-07
4.3E-06
4.2E-OS
Total
1 E-05
OE+00
OE+00
OE+00
OE+00
2 E-05
2E-04
2E-04
Percentage of Total
She ELCR
6.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
9.9%
74.8%
100.0%
I
(-
00
Key:
COPC = Chemicals of potential concern.
ELCR = Excess lifetime cancer risk.
NA =Not applicable.
-------
5.0 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES
5.1 NEED FOR REMEDIAL ACTION
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from the 801 Drum Burial Site, if not addressed
by the response actions selected in this Record of Decision, may present a threat to human health,
welfare, or the environment. Remedial action is necessary at the 801 Drum Burial Site to protect
human health and the environment.
Remedial action is necessary at the 801 Drum Burial Site for the following reasons:
An unknown number of buried drums remaining on site could act as a
continuous source of contamination to ground water;
Contaminated soil acts as an ongoing source of contamination to
ground water;
Groundwater from the Xanana Basin alluvial aquifer is the only source
of potable water for Fort Wainwright and the surrounding area. This
aquifer is unconfined except in areas of permafrost. In addition, the
source area is upgradient of Municipal Utility System (MUS) wells;
Contaminant levels in the groundwater exceed state and federal
maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) for benzene; aldrin; dieldrin;
1,1-DCE; and vinyl chloride;
The 801 Drum Burial Site is adjacent to the Chena River.
Groundwater discharges into the Chena River during periods of high
precipitation. The Remedial Investigation (RI)/Feasibility Study
determined that groundwater flow directions varied from month to
month throughout the year at the 801 Drum Burial Site. The variation
in groundwater flow direction was due, in part, to the influence of the
Chena River. Because of the variability in the flows, an average
direction has not been estimated for the 801 Drum Burial Site;
There are potential ecological risks associated with contaminants in the
soil and groundwater; and
The source area is immediately adjacent to a residential area.
5.2 REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES
5.2.1 801 Drum Burial Site
The remedial action objectives (RAOs) for the 801 Drum Burial Site are as follows:
5-1
-------
5.0 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES
5.1 NEED FOR REMEDIAL ACTION
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from the 801 Drum Burial Site, if not addressed
by the response actions selected in this Record of Decision, may present a threat to human health,
welfare, or the environment. Remedial action is necessary at the 801 Drum Burial Site to protect
human health and the environment.
Remedial action is necessary at the 801 Drum Burial Site for the following reasons:
An unknown number of buried drums remaining on site could act as a
continuous source of contamination to groundwater;
Contaminated soil acts as an ongoing source of contamination to
groundwater;
Groundwater from the Tanana Basin alluvial aquifer is the only source
of potable water for Fort Wainwright and the surrounding area. This
aquifer is unconfmed except in areas of permafrost. In addition, the
source area is upgradient of Municipal Utility System (MUS) wells;
Contaminant levels in the groundwater exceed state and federal
maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) for benzene; aldrin; dieldrin;
1,1-DCE; and vinyl chloride;
The 801 Drum Burial Site is adjacent to the Chena River.
Groundwater discharges into the Chena River during periods of high
precipitation. The Remedial Investigation (RI)/Feasibility Study
determined that groundwater flow directions varied from month to
month throughout the year at the 801 Drum Burial Site. The variation
in groundwater flow direction was due, in part, to the influence of the
Chena River. Because of the variability in the flows, an average
direction has not been estimated for the 801 Drum Burial Site;
There are potential ecological risks associated with contaminants in the
soil and groundwater; and
The source area is immediately adjacent to a residential area.
5.2 REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES
5.2.1 801 Drum Burial Site
The remedial action objectives (RAOs) for the 801 Drum Burial Site are as follows:
5-2
-------
5.2.1.1 Groundwater
Ensure that groundwater use at the 801 Drum Burial Site meets federal
and state standards;
Minimize potential migration of contaminated groundwater to the
Chena River and downgradient drinking water wells; and
Establish and maintain institutional controls to ensure that the
groundwater will not be used until federal and state MCLs are attained,
except for activities undertaken to initiate the selected remedies detailed
in this ROD. Institutional controls include restrictions governing site
access, construction, and well development or placement as long as
hazardous substances remain on site at levels that preclude unrestricted
use. The Army shall ensure compliance with the institutional controls in
place at this site because noncompliance will violate a requirement of
this ROD, therefore violate the Fort Wainwright Federal Facility
Agreement between the Army, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
and the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation;
To ensure long-term effectiveness of this remedy, the Army's permanent
implementation processes and policies for implementing institutional controls will be
developed through joint EPA, ADEC, and Army negotiations. These implementation
processes and policies are intended to be in place before the OU-S postwide ROD.
5.2.1.2 SoU
Prevent further leaching of contaminants from soil to groundwater;
Reduce risks associated with exposure to contaminated soil and drums;
and
Prevent migration of soil contaminants to groundwater, which could
result in groundwater contamination and exceedances of state and
federal MCLs and Alaska Water Quality Standards (AWQS; 18 Alaska
Administrative Code [AAC] 70).
5.3 BASIS FOR CLEANUP LEVELS
The current and projected future land use for the 801 Drum Burial Site is recreational; however, the
source area is adjacent to a military housing unit. Therefore, the source area is visited frequently by
residents from the 801 Military Housing Area. The cleanup goal for soil is based on an excess lifetime
cancer risk of 1 x 10"4 associated with a residential exposure scenario. This scenario is considered
protective of the 801 Military Housing Area residents and recreational users. These soil concentrations
also are considered to be protective of groundwater quality based on the fate and transport model
conducted by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The cleanup goals for
groundwater are the federal and state drinking water MCLs or are based on an excess lifetime cancer
risk of 1 x 10^ for a residential exposure scenario when an MCL is unavailable. The cleanup levels
5-3
-------
also are considered to be protective of groundwater quality based on the fate and transport model
conducted by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The cleanup goals for
groundwater are the federal and state drinking water MCLs or are based on an excess lifetime cancer
risk of 1 x 10"6 for a residential exposure scenario when an MCL is unavailable. The cleanup levels
are protective of downgradient residential, commercial, and MUS well users.
5.4 SIGNIFICANT APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS
A full list of applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs) is in Section 8.2. The
following ARARs are the most significant regulations that apply to the remedy selections for the 801
Drum Burial Site:
Federal and state MCLs are relevant and appropriate for groundwater.
This sets the active remediation goals for groundwater. AWQS (18
AAC 70) are also applicable;
Alaska Petroleum Cleanup Guidance is not finalized yet, but will be
considered a guideline for cleanup of petroleum-contaminated soil; and
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan
(NCP) off-site disposal rules are applicable for disposal of drums and
contaminated soil.
5.5 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES
Preliminary remedial alternatives for the 801 Drum Burial Site are described below. Numerous
assumptions were made to determine cleanup time frames. These assumptions include consistent
contaminant concentrations in soil and groundwater and consistent groundwater flow direction. The
assumption used to calculate a remedial time frame was that no new contaminant release occurs after
drum removal. A biological half-life evaluation based on laboratory data and industry handbooks was
used to calculate a remedial time frame for saturated and unsaturated soils. Costs should be considered
estimates but are comparable within the alternatives provided for this source area. For costing
purposes, groundwater monitoring/evaluation was based on a time frame of 20 years (The accuracy of
a cost estimate beyond 20 years becomes increasingly suspect because of the limitations of the standard
cost prediction mathematical models.).
5.5.1 Alternative 1: No Action
The no-action alternative for the 801 Drum Burial Site involves no environmental monitoring,
institutional controls, or remedial action and would leave contaminated groundwater, approximately
2,350 cubic yards of chlorinated-pesticide contaminated soil, and an unknown number of drums in their
current locations. The groundwater plume would continue to migrate in the direction of groundwater
flow, potentially to the Chena River and the downgradient MUS wells. Because no monitoring of
surface and subsurface soils and groundwater at the source area would take place under this alternative,
the effectiveness of natural attenuation for reducing the contaminant concentrations would be unknown.
Development of the no-action alternative is required by the NCP to provide a basis of comparison for
5-4
-------
Capita] Cost: None
Annual O&M Cost: None
Total Cost (Present Worth): None
5.5.2 Alternative 2: Institutional Controls with Natural Attenuation with Groundwater
Monitoring/Evaluation
Institutional controls for the 801 Drum Burial Site would include land- and groundwater-use
restrictions, site access restrictions, and groundwater monitoring/evaluation. Institutional controls
would minimize potential exposures to the contamination. Land use restrictions would prevent
residential development and prohibit drilling of drinking water wells in the vicinity of, and
downgradient of, the contaminated groundwater plume. Engineering and safety controls such as signs
and fences would be located around the source area perimeter to restrict access and to warn the public
of the contamination. Land and groundwater use restrictions would be incorporated into the Fort
Wainwright Master Plan. The effectiveness of these controls would be evaluated periodically.
Any potentially buried drums would remain in place under this alternative; thus, a potential
contaminant source to soil and groundwater would exist. The Master Plan would specify that the
potentially buried drums and contaminated soil excavated in the future must be handled properly and
disposed of in accordance with state and federal regulations.
Establish and maintain institutional controls to ensure that the groundwater will not be used until federal
and state MCLs are attained, except for activities undertaken to initiate the selected remedies detailed in
this ROD. Institutional controls include restrictions governing site access, construction, and well
development or placement as long as hazardous substances remain on site at levels that preclude
unrestricted use. The Army shall ensure compliance with the institutional controls in place at this site
because noncompliance will violate a requirement of this ROD, therefore violate the Fort Wainwright
Federal Facility Agreement between the Army, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and the Alaska
Department of Environmental Conservation.
To ensure long-term effectiveness of this remedy, the Army's permanent implementation processes and
policies for implementing institutional controls will be developed through joint EPA, ADEC, and Army
negotiations. These implementation processes and policies are intended to be in place before the OU-S
postwide ROD.
Natural attenuation is the breakdown of contaminants through a variety of biological, chemical, or
physical processes without artificial stimuli. Biological processes include aerobic and anaerobic
biodegradation, and plant and animal uptake. Chemical reactions include ion exchange, complexation,
and abiotic transformation. Physical phenomena that aid the natural attenuation processes include
advection, dispersion, dilution, diffusion, volatilization, and sorption/desorption.
For the 801 Drum Burial Site, it is expected to take 100 years for natural attenuation of contaminants of
concern to reach health-based cleanup levels, assuming that no additional releases occur from any
remaining buried drums. This time estimation is based on a chemical half-life evaluation for aldrin
and dieldrin. The effectiveness of natural attenuation in reducing contaminant levels will be evaluated
through periodic groundwater monitoring/evaluation.
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 source area. To the extent practicable, this
5-5
-------
monitoring and evaluation will be conducted using the existing wells that are screened in geological
zones hydraulically connected to the contamination source, supplemented by installing additional
groundwater monitoring wells when required. Upgradient wells would be used to provide information
about the background groundwater quality. 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.
The monitoring requirement would target volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and pesticides, including
the contaminants that were found to exceed the state and federal MCLs and the contaminants' potential
degradation products as specified in the RAOs for the 801 Drum Burial Site. 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. For costing purposes, it is assumed that groundwater monitoring would be
conducted annually for 20 years.
This alternative potentially could reduce the risks associated with the contaminants in soil and
groundwater. However, a significant amount of uncertainty is associated with the effectiveness of
natural attenuation. Moreover, under this alternative, any remaining buried drums likely will continue
to release contaminants to the environment. This alternative would not prevent migration of
groundwater into the Chena River or nearby drinking water wells in the short term. The estimated
costs to implement this alternative are as follows:
Capita] Cost: $169,192
Annual O&M Cost: $123,070 (20 years)
Total Cost (Present Worth): $2,630,592
5.5.3 Alternative 3: Soil Capping, Soil Vapor Extraction with Air Sparging to Treat Soil and
Groundwater, and Natural Attenuation of Groundwater with Long-Term
Monitoring/Evaluation
This alternative consists of soil capping of pesticide-contaminated soil and active treatment of VOC
contaminants in soil and groundwater via soil vapor extraction (SVE) and air sparging (AS). Under
this alternative, any remaining buried drums would act as a continuous source of contamination to the
environment. Although the RI did not find soil contamination at levels above the acceptable risk range,
the most contaminated soils are expected to be found associated with the buried drums. A low-
permeability soil cap would be placed over the soil contaminated with pesticides at levels above an
excess lifetime cancer risk of 1 x 10"6 for a residential scenario; capping of the source area would
prevent dermal contact and ingestion of the pesticide-contaminated soil. This alternative will minimize
surface water infiltration through contaminated soil, thus significantly reducing the downward
migration of contaminants.
In addition to soil capping, this alternative consists of installing SVE wells and AS wells to treat the
VOCs in soil and groundwater. SVE and AS wells typically are used together as an integrated
treatment system. Implementing an SVE/AS system would consist of ambient air being injected into
the aquifer using either compressors or forced air blowers. The air movement through groundwater
would promote the release or stripping of volatile contaminants from the groundwater into the
overlying soils. The resultant contaminated vapor in the soil and at the groundwater table then would
be drawn to the surface by applying a vacuum to the vapor extraction wells. The extracted vapor then
5-6
-------
would be channeled to a central treatment building. The vapor will be monitored and, if necessary,
treated to meet air emission standards. In addition to the stripping effects of air injection into the
contaminated aquifer, injection of air is expected to enhance biodegradation of contaminants in the
ground water and overlying soils.
Soil and groundwater would be treated until cleanup goals for volatile contaminants are met.
Groundwater monitoring/evaluation would be performed to assess the effectiveness of SVE/AS and to
ensure that volatile and pesticide contamination do not migrate via the natural groundwater flow. In
addition, groundwater monitoring/evaluation would be performed to determine the extent and migration
of pesticide contamination because pesticide contamination would not be actively remediated under this
alternative.
Buried drums potentially would remain in place under this alternative, and the drums could act as
continuous sources of contamination to soil and groundwater. The Master Plan would specify that any
remaining drums and associated contaminated soil excavated in the future must be handled and disposed
of properly in accordance with state and federal regulations.
This alternative is projected to achieve cleanup levels for volatile organic contaminants in
approximately five to 10 years. Natural attenuation of pesticide-related contaminants is estimated to
take approximately 100 years to reach the cleanup goals, if no additional releases from the drums
occur.
This alternative would prevent dermal exposure to pesticide-contaminated surface soil, and it would
reduce risks associated with ingestion of volatile contaminants in surface and subsurface soil and
groundwater. Long-term institutional controls also would be included to prevent future residential
development and to restrict the use of groundwater. For costing purposes, it is assumed that
groundwater monitoring would be conducted annually for 20 years.
Establish and maintain institutional controls to ensure that the groundwater will not be used until federal
and state MCLs are attained, except for activities undertaken to initiate the selected remedies detailed in
this ROD. Institutional controls include restrictions governing site access, construction, and well
development or placement as long as hazardous substances remain on site at levels that preclude
unrestricted use. The Army shall ensure compliance with the institutional controls in place at this site
because noncompliance will violate a requirement of this ROD, therefore violate the Fort Wainwright
Federal Facility Agreement between the Army, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and the Alaska
Department of Environmental Conservation.
To ensure long-term effectiveness of this remedy, the Army's permanent implementation processes and
policies for implementing institutional controls will be developed through joint EPA, ADEC, and Army
negotiations. These implementation processes and policies are intended to be in place before the OU-5
postwide ROD.
Estimated costs to implement this alternative are as follows:
Capital Costs: $292,547
Annual O&M Costs: $155,920 (20 years)
Total Costs (Present Worth): $3,410,941
5.5.4 Alternative 4: Drum Removal and Disposal, and Natural Attenuation of Groundwater
5-7
-------
with Long-Term Groundwater Monitoring/Evaluation with Institutional Controls with a
Contingency for Soil Vapor Extraction and Air Sparging to Treat Soil and Groundwater
Alternative 4 involves using geophysical equipment to locate areas of possible buried drums that would
be excavated and subsequently removed and disposed of. Because the additional drums are suspected
to be a continuing source of soil and groundwater contamination, this alternative would effectively
remove the main source of contamination at the source area. The estimated excavation depth is IS feet
below ground surface. It is assumed that approximately 500 drums would be located, removed, and
disposed of and that half of them would require off-site disposal to a permitted hazardous waste
disposal facility. Approximately 2,350 cubic yards of soils is expected to be excavated during the drum
removal operation. Of that sum, approximately 650 cubic yards of soils is expected to be
contaminated. Excavated soil designated as a hazardous waste under RCRA through laboratory
analysis would be disposed of at an off-site, permitted hazardous waste disposal facility. If the current
Treatability Study using rhizosphere-enhanced phytoremediation proves successful, then excavated
pesticide-contaminated soil will be treated on Fort Waimvright. Excavated soil not regulated under
RCRA as a hazardous waste would be disposed of at the Fort Wainwright Landfill. The excavation
would be backfilled with clean soil.
In addition to drum removal, this alternative also consists of institutional controls, and long-term
groundwater monitoring with a contingency of SVE/AS. Institutional controls will be initiated and
maintained to prevent the use of contaminated groundwater at this source area and to establish
restrictions governing site access, construction of new facilities, and well development as long as
hazardous substances remain on site at levels that preclude unrestricted use. Because the drums are
suspected to be the source of soil and groundwater contamination, it is expected that contamination,
after removal of the drums, would decrease noticeably with time because of natural attenuation. Long-
term groundwater monitoring/evaluation would confirm the progress of natural attenuation. The
contingency would be implemented if: 1) the concentration of contaminants within the identified
groundwater plume shows an increasing trend over any three consecutive sampling events throughout
the 20-year monitoring period, or 2) the designated monitoring points around the plume indicate that
contaminants are migrating away from the source area. The contingent remedy of an SVE/AS system
would be the same as that described in Alternative 3. The SVE/AS system would reduce the levels of
volatile contaminants of concern. For the pesticide contamination, the agencies may consider a
treatment technology if one becomes available. Long-term groundwater monitoring/evaluation would
continue until the contaminants in soil and groundwater are reduced to the cleanup levels. Site access
will be restricted during all phases of construction.
If use of the SVE/AS contingency is needed as discussed above, cleanup levels for volatile organic
contaminants should be reached within five to 10 years. For costing purposes, it is assumed that
SVE/AS would be used for approximately five years. Natural attenuation of other contaminants of
concern at the site (e.g. pesticides) will take approximately 100 years to achieve cleanup levels.
Establish and maintain institutional controls to ensure that the groundwater will not be used until federal
and state MCLs are attained, except for activities undertaken to initiate the selected remedies detailed in
this ROD. Institutional controls include restrictions governing site access, construction, and well
development or placement as long as hazardous substances remain on site at levels that preclude
unrestricted use. The Army shall ensure compliance with the institutional controls in place at this site
because noncompliance will violate a requirement of this ROD, therefore violate the Fort Wainwright
Federal Facility Agreement between the Army, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and the Alaska
Department of Environmental.
5-8
-------
To ensure long-term effectiveness of this remedy, the Army's permanent implementation processes and
policies for implementing institutional controls will be developed through joint EPA, ADEC, and Army
negotiations. These implementation processes and policies are intended to be in place before the OU-5
postwide ROD.
Estimated costs associated with this alternative without the SVE/AS contingency are as follows:
Capital Costs: $2,652,668
Annual O&M Costs: $122,476 (20 years)
Total Costs (Present Worth): $5,102,195
Estimated costs associated with this alternative with the SVE/AS contingency are as follows:
Capital Costs: $2,806,386
Annual O&M Costs: $138,406 (20 years)
Total Costs (Present Worth): $5,574,518
5.5.5 Alternative 5: Drum Removal and Disposal with Institutional Controls, and Long-Term
Groundwater Monitoring/Evaluation with Contingency of Groundwater Extraction and
Treatment
Removal of drums and soil, and long-term groundwater monitoring/evaluation, would be conducted as
described in Alternative 4, which has a contingent remedy of groundwater extraction and treatment.
Under this alternative, groundwater extraction and treatment would be implemented if the concentration
of contaminants within the identified groundwater plume increases with time or if the concentration of
contaminants at monitoring points around the plume exceeds groundwater cleanup levels. Groundwater
would be treated using air stripping or carbon adsorption techniques. Contaminated groundwater
would be pumped to the surface and collected in large holding tanks. The treatment process involves
introducing air through the contaminated water to evaporate or strip off VOCs. Treated groundwater
would be discharged to the sanitary sewer.
The number of groundwater extraction wells would be determined based on the results of further
exploratory drilling, which would be a component of a Remedial Design. Groundwater pumping rates
would be established through groundwater pumping tests to provide hydraulic control of the
contaminant plume. VOC emissions from an air stripping system would be monitored and, if
necessary, treated to meet air emission standards.
This alternative would remove potential contamination sources. This alternative also would reduce
risks associated with all contaminants in groundwater and prevent contaminant migration.
Groundwater extraction and treatment (VOCs and pesticides) are projected to achieve cleanup goals in
approximately five years. Natural attenuation of pesticide-related contaminants would take
approximately 100 years, assuming that no additional releases occur. If the contingency is
implemented, groundwater extraction and treatment (VOCs and pesticides) are projected to achieve
cleanup goals in approximately five years.
Establish and maintain institutional controls to ensure that the groundwater will not be used until federal
and state MCLs are attained, except for activities undertaken to initiate the selected remedies detailed in
this ROD. Institutional controls include restrictions governing site access, construction, and well
5-9
-------
development or placement as long as hazardous substances remain on site at levels that preclude
unrestricted use. The Army shall ensure compliance with the institutional controls in place at this site
because noncompliance will violate a requirement of this ROD, therefore violate the Fort Wainwright
Federal Facility Agreement between the Army, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and the Alaska
Department of Environmental.
To ensure long-term effectiveness of this remedy, the Army's permanent implementation processes and
policies for implementing institutional controls will be developed through joint EPA, ADEC, and Army
negotiations. These implementation processes and policies are intended to be in place before the OU-S
postwide ROD.
Estimated costs associated with this alternative without the groundwater extraction and treatment
contingency are as follows:
Capital Costs: $2,652,668
Annual O&M Costs: $122,476 (20 years)
Total Costs (Present Worth): $5,102,195
Estimated costs associated with this alternative with the groundwater extraction and carbon treatment
contingency are as follows:
Capital Costs: $8,315,899
Annual O&M Costs: $141,213
Total Costs (Present Worth): $11,140,174
5-10
-------
6.0 SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
In accordance with federal regulations, the five alternatives for the 801 Drum Burial Site were
evaluated based on the nine criteria presented in the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan.
6.1 801 DRUM BURIAL SITE (COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES)
6.1.1 Threshold Criteria
6.1.1.1 Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
All of the alternatives, except Alternative 1, the no-action alternative, are protective of human health
and the environment. Because the no-action alternative does not meet this threshold criterion, it will
not be considered further in this analysis.
Alternatives 4 and 5 would provide the most protection to human health and the environment by
removing the contamination source. Both alternatives reduce risk associated with potential exposure
to the sources of contamination. Contaminant source removal (drum and soil removal) also would
prevent further leaching of contaminants to the groundwater. The contaminants in the groundwater
would be expected to attenuate naturally. The groundwater monitoring/evaluation would ensure that
groundwater meets federal drinking water standards. Groundwater would be sampled at monitoring
points around the contaminant plume to ensure that contamination does not migrate from the source
area. The groundwater also would be sampled within the contaminant plume to assess the progress of
natural attenuation.
If the groundwater contingent remedies are implemented, Alternative 5 would provide a higher level
of overall protection than Alternative 4 because the groundwater would be extracted and treated for
all contaminants.
Alternatives 2 and 3 are less protective than Alternatives 4 and 5 because potential sources of
contamination would remain in place. Alternative 3 would protect human health and the environment
by reducing the possibility of human contact with contaminants and minimizing future infiltration of
contaminant concentrations in the soil and groundwater. Alternative 2 would rely on natural
processes to slowly decrease contaminant concentrations in the soil and groundwater. Alternative 2
would provide some protection of human health and the environment through institutional controls,
which would reduce contact with contamination.
6.1.1.2 Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
Potential applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs) include State of Alaska Water
Quality Standards, State of Alaska Drinking Water Standards (state maximum contaminant levels
[MCLs]), the Safe Drinking Water Act (federal MCLs), the Clean Water Act (a federal regulation
governing wastewater discharge). State of Alaska Solid Waste Management Regulations, State of
Alaska Hazardous Waste Regulations, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (federal
hazardous waste regulations), the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, and Army Regulations
AR200-2 and AR210-20
6-1
-------
Alternatives 3, 4, and 5 are expected to meet all state and federal ARARs. Alternatives 4 and 5
include removal and disposal of drums and soil, and would comply with all ARARs. By removing
the major sources of contamination, Alternatives 4 and 5 would be expected to achieve groundwater
cleanup levels more quickly than Alternatives 2 and 3. In all alternatives, State of Alaska Water
Quality Standards would be achieved through natural attenuation.
6.1.2 Primary Balancing Criteria
6.1.2.1 Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence
Alternatives 4 and 5 would involve permanent reduction of soil and groundwater contamination
because major sources of contamination (drums and soil) would be removed. The excavation area
would be backfilled with clean soil. None of the contaminants would be addressed by Alternatives 2
and 3, except through natural processes. Therefore, Alternatives 2 and 3 would provide the least
effective long-term permanence.
Without the groundwater contingency for Alternatives 4 and 5, all of the alternatives rate similarly in
long-term effectiveness and permanence for addressing the groundwater contamination. Natural
attenuation is recommended for addressing the contaminants in groundwater for Alternatives 2, 3, 4,
and 5. Long-term groundwater monitoring/evaluation would assess the effectiveness of natural
attenuation.
If the groundwater contingent remedy is implemented, groundwater extraction and treatment proposed
in Alternative 5 would not be expected to be effective in the long run because of the hydrogeological
conditions at Fort Wainwright. The aquifer at Fort Wainwright has high transmissivity and a low
hydraulic gradient, which would increase the difficulty in effectively extracting the groundwater
contaminants. It would be difficult to pump groundwater at the 801 Drum Burial Site without
pumping clean river water. Therefore, Alternative 4 provides the most effective long-term
permanence.
6.1.2.2 Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, and Volume Through Treatment
Alternative 3 would reduce toxicity associated with volatile organic compounds through treatment and
reduce the possibility of pesticide contaminants leaching to groundwater by restricting future
infiltration of rainfall and snowmelt through contaminated soils to groundwater. Without the
groundwater contingency, Alternatives 2, 4, and 5 would slowly decrease the toxicity and volume of
the groundwater contaminants through natural attenuation. If the groundwater contingency is
implemented, Alternatives 4 and 5 would involve treatment technologies that reduce toxicity and
mobility of groundwater contaminants.
6.1.2.3 Short-Term Effectiveness
Dust, noise, and truck traffic are expected with Alternatives 4 and 5 because of drum excavation and
removal. Short-term impacts from noise and dust could be controlled through protective equipment
for workers and dust control measures. Workers would use protective clothing and respirators if
required. Decontamination procedures would be in place to prevent tracking of chemicals off site.
Truck routes could be established to minimize truck traffic problems near the 801 Military Housing
Area. Removal of drums and soil would take two months to complete.
6-2
-------
If the groundwater contingent remedy is implemented, groundwater extraction and treatment proposed
in Alternative 5 would not be expected to be effective in the long run because of the hydrogeological
conditions at Fort Wainwright. The aquifer at Fort Wainwright has high transmissivity and a low
hydraulic gradient, which would increase the difficulty in effectively extracting the groundwater
contaminants. It would be difficult to pump groundwater at the 801 Drum Burial Site without
pumping clean river water. Therefore, Alternative 4 provides the greatest degree of short-term
effectiveness.
If the groundwater contingency plan is implemented, Alternative 5 would have the greatest short-term
risks because it involves construction and operation of a groundwater extraction and treatment system.
It would take 18 months to install the groundwater extraction and treatment system. Alternative 4
would have lower short-term risks because it does not include extraction of contaminated
groundwater. Installation and operation of the in situ soil vapor extraction (SVE) and air sparging
(AS) would not be expected to affect workers or the community. It would take six months to
complete the installation of the SVE and AS systems.
Alternative 3 has fewer short-term impacts because no drum or soil removal would occur. Capping
would take a short time to construct and would pose limited and controllable short-term risks from
heavy equipment movement and dust. It would take about six months to complete capping and the
SVE and AS system.
Alternative 2 has the least amount of short-term impacts because no physical work is required other
than fencing the source area and posting warning signs. It would take 10 months to implement these
control measures.
Assuming that no additional releases of contaminants to the groundwater occur, it would take 100
years for pesticide contaminants to reach cleanup levels via natural attenuation. Alternatives 3 and 4
would take five years to 10 years to reach cleanup levels for the volatile contaminants. Alternative 5
would take five to 10 years for the volatile contaminants to reach the cleanup levels.
6.1.2.4 Implementability
All alternatives are technically and administratively feasible, and the required goods and services are
readily available. Alternative 2 is readily implementable because it requires only institutional controls
and monitoring. A soil cap could be implemented readily with Alternative 3. SVE and AS is a
technology that has been used on Fort Wainwright extensively to clean up petroleum, oil, and
lubricant contamination. Alternatives 4 and S would require a pilot study and testing of the
contingency systems during installation to determine the exact configuration and spacing, and
optimum operating conditions would be required. Alternatives 4 and 5 would be slightly more
complicated because drum and soil removal depend on the technology available to locate the drums.
If the groundwater contingent remedy is implemented, groundwater extraction and treatment proposed
in Alternative 5 would not be expected to be effective in the long run because of the hydrogeological
conditions at Fort Wainwright. The aquifer at Fort Wainwright has high transmissivity and a low
hydraulic gradient, which would increase the difficulty in effectively extracting the groundwater
contaminants. It would be difficult to pump groundwater at the 801 Drum Burial Site without
pumping clean river water. Therefore, Alternative 4 is the most easily implemented alternative.
6-3
-------
If the ground water contingency is implemented, Alternative 5 would be more complicated than
Alternative 4 because of the hydrogeologic conditions on Fort Wainwright and the extreme weather
conditions in Fairbanks.
6.1.2.5 Cost
The total costs of the alternatives are summarized in Table 6-1 and are based on the information
available at the time the alternatives were developed. These costs are estimated for purposes of
comparison and are considered to be accurate to within -30% to +50%. Costs are described using
the present worth methodology with a discount rate equal to 5%. Cost estimates include direct and
indirect capital costs, as well as annual operation and maintenance costs.
Without the groundwater contingency remedies for Alternatives 4 and 5, the two alternatives contain
the same remedial components and cost the same. With the contingent groundwater remedy,
Alternative 5 is the most expensive option, and it is $6 million more than Alternative 4. Alternatives
3 and 4 differ by only $1.5 million. Alternative 2 is the least expensive.
A detailed cost analysis is provided in Appendix C.
6.1 J Modifying Criteria
6.1.3.1 State Acceptance
The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) has been involved with the
development of remedial alternatives for Operable Unit 1 and concurs with the selected alternative.
6.13.2 Community Acceptance
The Army, ADEC, and the United States Environmental Protection Agency invited the public to
comment on the Proposed Plan during the public comment period from March 4, 1997, through April
3, 1997. No official comments from the public were received on this Proposed Plan, so the agencies
assume that the community accepts this decision and states this in the Responsiveness Summary (see
Appendix B).
6-4
-------
Page 1 of 1
Table 6-1
801 DRUM BURIAL SITE
COST COMPARISON TABLE
OPERABLE UNIT 1
FORT WAINWRIGHT, ALASKA
Alternative
1 : No Action
2: Institutional Controls with Natural
Attenuation with Groundwater
Monitoring
3: Soil Capping and Soil Vapor
Extraction with Air Sparging with
Groundwater Monitoring
4: Drum Removal and Disposal and
Long-Term Groundwater
Monitoring
-',<. '<'.. . . \
Estimated
Construction
Costs
($)
0
169,192
292,547
2.652,668
; *****
2.652,668
1?>ri
Estimated
Annual
O&M Costs
($)
0
123,070
155,920
122,476
«M«|
122,476
." i?tsa]
Years in
Present
Worth
Analyses
0
20
20
20
30
20
.->' ?6
Estimated
Total Costs
($)
0
2,630.592
3,410,941
5,102,195
; 5,574,518 ;
5,102,195
; a"°*i74
Key:
O&M = Operation and maintentance.
6-5
-------
7.0 SELECTED REMEDY
7.1 801 DRUM BURIAL SITE
After a thorough assessment of the various alternatives for the 801 Drum Burial Site, the agencies
determined that Alternative 4 is the preferred alternative. Alternative 4 would protect human health
and the environment and meet all applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements. In addition, it
also provides the best balance of the nine Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act (CERCLA) criteria. This alternative involves:
Locating any potentially buried drums and removing and disposing of
drums and contaminated soil, if found, and restricting access to the site
during execution of the work;
Establish and maintain institutional controls to ensure that the
groundwater will not be used until federal and state maximum
contaminant levels (MCLs) are attained, except for activities
undertaken to initiate the selected remedies detailed in this ROD.
Institutional controls include restrictions governing site access,
construction, and well development or placement as long as hazardous
substances remain on site at levels that preclude unrestricted use. The
Army shall ensure compliance with the institutional controls in place at
this site because noncompliance will violate a requirement of this ROD,
therefore violate the Fort Wainwright Federal Facility Agreement
between the Army, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and the
Alaska Department of Environmental.
To ensure long-term effectiveness of this remedy, the Army's permanent
implementation processes and policies for implementing institutional controls will be
developed through joint EPA, ADEC, and Army negotiations. These implementation
processes and policies are intended to be in place before the OU-5 postwide ROD;
Natural attenuation with long-term groundwater monitoring/evaluation;
A groundwater contingent remedy, which includes a soil vapor
extraction (SVE)/air sparging (AS) treatment system. The system
would be implemented to treat the volatile contaminants when either the
concentration of contaminants in the groundwater plume shows an
increasing trend over any three consecutive sampling events or the
designated monitoring points around the plume indicate that
contaminants are migrating away from the source area; and
For the pesticide contamination, the agencies may consider a treatment
technology, if one becomes available.
Alternative 4 is expected to meet the remedial action objectives. Removal of the main sources of
contamination would reduce the risk associated with exposure to drums and contaminated soil, and it
would minimize further contamination of the groundwater. Natural attenuation of the contaminants in
groundwater would occur over time and is expected to meet Alaska Water Quality Standards (AWQS;
7-1
-------
18 Alaska Administrative Code [AAC] 70). Groundwater monitoring/evaluation would be
implemented to track the progress of natural attenuation and to ensure that the groundwater
downgradient from the source area remains unaffected by the 801 Drum Burial Site source area
contaminants. The groundwater remedy also includes a contingent remedy of SVE with AS.
7.2 REMEDIAL ACTION GOALS
The final cleanup levels for soil and groundwater are presented in Table 7-1. The current and
projected future land uses for the 801 Drum Burial Site are recreational; however, the source area is
adjacent to a military housing unit. Therefore, the source area is visited frequently by the residents
from the housing unit. The cleanup level for the contaminants of concern in soil is based on an excess
lifetime cancer risk of 1 x 10"* associated with a residential exposure scenario. This scenario is
considered protective of the 801 Military Housing Area occupants and recreational users. These soil
concentrations are considered to be protective of groundwater quality based on the contaminant fate and
transport model conducted by EPA.
The cleanup levels for the contaminants of concern in groundwater are the federal and state drinking
water MCLs, and when an MCL is unavailable, the cleanup level will be based on a risk-based
concentration equivalent to an excess lifetime cancer risk of 1 x 10"* for a residential exposure scenario.
The cleanup levels for the contaminants of concern in groundwater are protective of downgradient
residential, commercial, and Municipal Utility System well users.
7.3 MAJOR COMPONENTS OF THE SELECTED REMEDY
7.3.1 SoilRemoval and Disposal of Drums and Soil
Geophysical investigative apparatus will be employed to locate any remaining buried drums. Once the
drum locations are confirmed, the drums and associated contaminated soil will be removed. The
maximum excavation depth generally would be to the top of the groundwater, which is estimated to be
approximately IS feet below ground surface. The Army will initiate and maintain institutional controls
to prevent the use of contaminated groundwater and to establish restrictions governing site access,
construction of new facilities, and well development. The drums containing liquid will be sampled,
overpacked, and disposed of at an off-site, permitted hazardous waste disposal facility. Excavated soils
designated as RCRA hazardous materials through laboratory analysis would be disposed of at an off-
site, permitted hazardous waste facility. If the current Treatability Study using rhizosphere-enhanced
phytoremediation proves successful, then the excavated pesticide-contaminated soil will be treated on
Fort Wainwright. The drums and soil that are not RCRA hazardous waste would be disposed of in the
Fort Wainwright solid waste landfill, in accordance with the Fort Wainwright Solid Waste Landfill
Permit. The excavations would be backfilled with clean soil.
7.3.2 GroundwaterNatural Attenuation, Institutional Controls, and Long-Tenn
- Monitoring/Evaluation with a Contingency of Soil Vapor Extraction and Air Sparging
Because the drums and associated contaminated soil are suspected to be the main source of
contamination, contaminants of concern in groundwater are expected to decrease in concentration
through natural attenuation processes following the removal activities. Groundwater monitoring points
would be established within and surrounding the identified groundwater plume to confirm the progress
of natural attenuation and to verify that the contaminant plume does not migrate from the source area.
If the results of groundwater monitoring indicate that the concentration of contaminants within the
7-2
-------
identified groundwater plume increases significantly over any three consecutive sampling events
throughout the 20-year monitoring period, or if the designated monitoring points surrounding the plume
indicate that the contaminants are migrating away from the source area, then a contingent remedy of an
SVE/AS system would be implemented. The SVE/AS system would reduce the levels of volatile
contaminants, thereby reducing the overall risk associated with the source area. For the pesticide
contamination, the agencies may consider an innovative technology if one becomes available.
In this alternative it establishes and maintain institutional controls to ensure that the groundwater will
not be used until federal and state MCLs are attained, except for activities undertaken to initiate the
selected remedies detailed in this ROD. Institutional controls include restrictions governing site access,
construction, and well development or placement as long as hazardous substances remain on site at
levels that preclude unrestricted use. The Army shall ensure compliance with the institutional controls
in place at this site because noncompliance will violate a requirement of this ROD, therefore violate the
Fort Wainwright Federal Facility Agreement between the Army, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
and the Alaska Department of Environmental.
To ensure long-term effectiveness of this remedy, the Army's permanent implementation processes and
policies for implementing institutional controls will be developed through joint EPA, ADEC, and Army
negotiations. These implementation processes and policies are intended to be in place before the OU-5
postwide ROD.
An SVE/AS system would be placed in areas of highest contamination and operated for a period of five
years or until groundwater cleanup levels are achieved. After active treatment achieves the cleanup
levels, natural attenuation will be relied on to meet AWQS (18 AAC 70).
7.3.3 Five-Year Review
Because the selected remedy will result in hazardous substances remaining above health-based levels,
U.S. Army Alaska will initiate and maintain institutional controls to prevent the use of contaminated
groundwater until contaminant levels are below state and federal MCLs. The controls will include
restrictions governing site access, construction, and well development as long as hazardous substances
remain on site at levels that preclude unrestricted use. Land and groundwater use restrictions shall be
incorporated into the Fort Wainwright Master Plan. Copies of the Fort Wainwright Master Plan will
be given to EPA and ADEC. The review for this operable unit will include, but not be limited to,
assessing the remedial action's effectiveness in achieving cleanup levels and the appropriateness of
monitoring well locations and monitoring frequency. Natural attenuation will be assessed through a
decreasing trend in the concentration of contaminants of concern, availability of electron acceptors, and
other relevant parameters over a five-year period.
7-3
-------
Page I of 1
Table 7-1
REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES AND REMEDIATION GOALS
801 DRUM BURIAL SITE
OPERABLE UNIT 1
FORT WA1NWRIGHT, ALASKA
Media
Surface and
Subsurface toil
Groundwalcr
Remedial Action Objectives
Environmental Protection
Prevent migration of chemicals of concern
Human Health
Reduce cancer risk to within or below the EPA accepted
risk range of 1 x 10'4 to 1 x ICT6.
Environmental Protection
Reilore groundwater to below chemical-specific ARARi
Human Health
Reduce cancer risk to within or below the EPA accepted
risk range of 1 x lO^to 1 x ID"6
Chemicals of
Concern*
Aldrin
Dicldrin
Aldrin
Dieldrin
1,1-Dichlorocthene
Benzene
Vinyl Chloride
Final Cleanup Levels
3.8 mg/kg
4.0 mg/kg
0.004 «ig/L
0.004 pg/L
7,g/L
5pg/L
2M/L
Basb
1 x 10~*b
1 x 10-411
1 x |0-'c
1 x |0"*c
MCL
MCL
MCL
Note: Diesel-range organics will be cleaned up to levels consistent with proposed State of Alaska regulations (18 AAC 75).
a Monitoring and sampling will follow EPA protocols and will not be limited to the specific contaminants of concern.
" Risk for toil is based on residential exposure scenario of an excess lifetime cancer risk of t x 10"*.
c Risk for groundwater based on federal and stale Junking water MCLs or an excess lifetime cancer risk of 1 X 10 for residential exposure scenario if an
MCL is not available.
Key:
AAC = Alaska Administrative Code.
ADEC = Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation.
ARARs = Applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements.
DRO = Diesel range organics.
RPA = United States Environmental Protection Agency.
MCL = Maximum contaminant level.
pg/L = Micrograms per liter.
mg/kg = Milligrams per kilogram.
-------
8.0 STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
The main responsibility of the Army, the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC),
and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under their legal Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (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 the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986, provides several statutory
requirements and preferences. The selected remedy must be cost-effective and utilize permanent
treatment technologies or resource recovery technologies to the maximum 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. Lastly, CERCLA requires that the
selected remedial action for each source area must comply with applicable or relevant and appropriate
requirements (ARARs) established under federal and state environmental laws, unless a waiver is
granted.
8.1 PROTECTION OF HUMAN HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT
The selected alternative for the 801 Drum Burial Site will provide long-term protection of human health
and the environment and satisfy the requirements of Section 121 of CERCLA.
8.1.1 801 Drum Burial Site
The selected remedy will provide long-term protection of human health and the environment. Removal
of the main sources of contamination would reduce the risk associated with exposure to drums and
contaminated soil, and it would minimize further contamination of the groundwater. Natural
attenuation of the contaminants in the groundwater would occur over time. Groundwater
monitoring/evaluation would be implemented to track not only the progress of natural attenuation but to
ensure that the use of groundwater downgradient from the source area meets federal and state drinking
water standards. The groundwater remedy also includes a contingent remedy of soil vapor extraction
and air sparging.
8.2 COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE
REQUIREMENTS AND TO-BE-CONSIDERED GUIDANCE
The selected remedy for the 801 Drum Burial Site will comply with all ARARs of federal and state
environmental and public health laws, including 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 address a hazardous substance, remedial action, 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, address situations sufficiently similar to those
encountered at the CERCLA site so that their use is well-suited to the particular site. The three types
of ARARs are described below:
8-1
-------
Chemical-specific ARARs are usually health- or risk-based numerical
values or methodologies that establish an acceptable amount or
concentration 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 they
occur in special locations.
To-be-considered (TBC) requirements are nonpromulgated federal or state standards or guidance
documents that are to be used on an "as appropriate" basis in developing cleanup standards. Because
they are not promulgated or enforceable, they 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 Requirement
Federal Safe Drinking Water Act (40 Code of Federal Regulations
[CFR] 141) and Alaska Drinking Water Regulations (18 Alaska
Administrative Code [AAC] 80): The maximum contaminant level
(MCL) and non-zero maximum contaminant level goals established
under the Safe Drinking Water Act are relevant and appropriate
requirements for ground water that is a potential drinking water source;
Alaska Water Quality Standards (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 the 801 Drum Burial Site source area.
Many of the constituents of groundwater regulated by AWQS are
identical to MCLs in Drinking Water Standards; and
Alaska Solid Waste Management Regulations (18 AAC 60): The
Alaska Solid Waste Management Regulations are applicable to the
disposal of nonhazardous soil at the Fort Wainwright Landfill.
8.2.3 Location-Specific Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirement
Clean Water Act Section 404: Section 404 of the Clean Water Act,
which is implemented by EPA and the Army through regulations found
in 40 CFR 230 and 33 CFR 320 to 330, prohibits the discharge of
dredged or fill materials into waters of the United States without a
8-2
-------
permit. This statute is relevant and appropriate to the protection of
wetlands adjacent to the 801 Drum Burial Site; and
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966: Section A106, which is
implemented by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and the
Army through regulations found in 36 CFR 800 through 800.15, 16
United States Code (USC) 470 et seqeua, and Public Law 89-665,
requires federal agencies to take into account the effects of the agency's
undertaking on properties included in or eligible for the National
Register of Historic Places and, before approval of an undertaking, to
afford the State Historical Preservation Officer and the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation a reasonable opportunity to comment
on the undertaking. This statute is relevant and appropriate to the
protection of the Ladd Field National Historic Landmark/District.
8.2.4 Action-Specific Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirement
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (40 CFR 261, 262, 263,
264, and 268): Applicable for identifying, storing, transporting, and
disposing of hazardous wastes;
EPA Off-Site Disposal Rule (40 CFR 300.440): Procedures for
planning and implementing off-site response actions;
Federal Clean Air Act (42 USC 7401), as amended, and implementing
regulations (Ambient Air Quality Standards, 40 CFR 50) are applicable
for venting contaminated vapors;
Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management (May 24, 1977):
Because the site is in a 100-year floodplain, Executive Order 11988 is
applicable. The remedial action will be designed to avoid long- and
short-term adverse impacts on the floodplain;
Army Regulation (AR) 200-2, Environmental Quality, Environmental
Effects of Army Actions: This regulation states Department of the
Army (DA) policy, assigns responsibilities, and establishes procedures
for the integration of environmental considerations into Army planning
and decision making in accordance with 42 USC 4321 et seq.,
"National Environmental Policy Act of 1969"; the Council on
Environmental Quality regulations of November 29, 1978; and
AR 210-20 This regulation explains the concept of comprehensive
planning and establishes policies, procedures, and responsibilities for
implementing the Army Installation Master Planning Program. It also
establishes the requirements and procedures for developing, submitting
for approval, updating, and implementing the Installation Master Plan.
8.2.5 Information to be Considered
8-3
-------
Blank Page
8-4
-------
The following information TBC will be used as a guideline when implementing the selected remedy:
State of Alaska Petroleum Cleanup Draft Guidance will be used as a
TBC for cleanup of petroleum contamination in soils; and
8.3 COST EFFECTIVENESS
The selected remedy is cost-effective because it provides overall protectiveness proportional to costs.
8.4 UTILIZATION OF PERMANENT SOLUTIONS AND ALTERNATIVE TREATMENT
TECHNOLOGIES OR RESOURCE RECOVERY TECHNOLOGIES TO THE
MAXIMUM EXTENT PRACTICABLE
The U.S. Army, ADEC, and EPA have determined that the selected remedy represents the maximum
extent to which permanent solutions and treatment technologies can be used in a cost-effective manner
at the Operable Unit 1 source areas. Of those alternatives that protect human health and the
environment and comply with ARARs, the Army, ADEC, and EPA have determined that the selected
remedy provides 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 PRINCIPAL ELEMENT
The selected remedy for the 801 Drum Burial Site does not actively treat groundwater; however, the
contingent remedy would use groundwater and soil treatment as principal elements if deemed
necessary.
8-5
-------
9.0 DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES
The selected remedy for the 801 Drum Burial Site source area is the same preferred alternative
presented in the Proposed Plan. No changes in the components of the preferred alternative have been
made.
9-1
-------
APPENDIX A
CHRONOLOGICAL SUMMARY OF DETECTED ANALYTES IN GROUNDWATER
AT 801 DRUM BURIAL SITE
A-l
-------
Page I of 9
Table A-l
HISTORICAL SUMMARY OF DETECTED ANALYTES
801 DRUM BURIAL SITE MONITORING WELLS
OPERABLE UNIT 1
FORT WAINWRIGHT, ALASKA
AP Number
Lab ID
Date
GW Elevation
Volatile Organic Compounds (pg/L)
,1-Dichloroethene
,2,3-Trichloro benzene
,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
.2-Dichloro benzene
,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
,4-Dichlorobenzene
2-Butanone
2-Hexanone
4-Isopropyltoluene
4-Methyl-2-pentanone
Acetone
Benzene
Bromodichloromethane
Chlorofonn
Chloromethane
cis- 1 ,2-Dichloroethene
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Ethylbenzene
Isopropylbenzene
Vlethylene chloride
n-Butylbenzene
n-Propylbenzene
Naphthalene
p-lsopropyltoluene
sec-Butylbenzene
ten-Butylbenzene
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
Total Xylenes
trans- 1 ,2-Dichloroeihene
Trichloroethene
Vinyl chloride
Pesticides (Mg/L)
4,4'-DDD
4,4'-DDT
Aldrin
Dieldrin
Endosulfan II
Endrin
Endrin aldehyde
gamma-BHC (Lindane)
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxide
AP6326
K96545401
Aug 29, 96
2.8
«
0.2 J
-
-
-
-
-
4J
3J.B
2.2
O.I J,B
320
0.1 J
0.07 J
O.I J.B
-
0.4 J
0.8
30
2.9
1
0.78
0.009 J
-
-
-
AP6326 '
K968 19701
Dec 16,96
427.32
8.7
2U
2U
0.5 J
0.5 U
0.2 J
0.5 U
20 U
2U
20 U
4.6
0.5 U
0.2 J
-
990
0.5 U
0.2 J
0.1 J
1 U
2U
2U
2U
-
-
0.5 U
0.5
1.1
80
3.8
2.4
0.04 U
0.04 U
0.7
-
0.04 U
0.04 U
0.04 U
0.04 U
0.04 U
AP6326 Dup
K968 19702
Dec 16.96
427.32
9
2U
2U
0.4 J
0.5 U
0.2 J
0.5 U
20 U
-
2U
-
20 U
4.6
0.5 U
0.2 J
--
970
0.5 U
0.2 J
0.1 J
1 U
2U
2U
2U
-
-
-
0.5 U
0.5
1.1
80
4
2.5
0.04 U
0.04 U
-
0.8
--
0.04 U
0.04 U
0.04 U
0.04 U
0.04 U
AP6327
232393
Dec 22. 94
-
-
-
120 J
40 J
~
-
-
-
-
--
39 J
-
--
--
2.2 J
--
51 J
14J
-
--
18J
32 J
6.4 J
5.2 J
-
-
2.0 J
74 J
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
--
AP6327
K96538302
Aug 27, %
-
-
97
-
31
~
1 J
4J
--
-
5 J.B
38
-
0.2 J
-
5.1
40
15
--
-
17
28
6
5
0.8 J
-
2.7
74
-
0.2 J
-
--
-
0.006 J
-
-
-
--
-
-
AP6327
K968I1405
Dec 14,96
426.99
0.5 U
2U
2U
160
0.5 U
53
0.5 U
20 U
7
5 J.B
43
0.5 U
0.5 U
4.3
0.5 U
44
17
1 U
3
18
30
--
0.1 J.B
5.4-
110
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.3 J
0.04 U
0.04 U
0.04 J
0.0 1 J
0.04 U
0.04 U
0.04 U
0.04 U
A-2
-------
Page 2 of 9
Table A-l (conL)
HISTORICAL SUMMARY OF DETECTED ANALYTES
801 DRUM BURIAL SITE MONITORING WELLS
OPERABLE UNIT 1
FORT WAINWRIGHT, ALASKA
AP Number
Lab ID
Date
GW Elevation
Volatile Organic Compounds (ug/L)
, 1 -Dichloroethene
,2.3 -Trichlorobcnzene
,2,4-Trichloro benzene
,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
,2-Dichlorobenzene
,3.5-Trimethylbenzene
,4-Dichlorobcnzene
2-Bulanone
2-Hexanone
4-Isopropy Itoluene
4-Methyl-2-pentanone
Acetone
Benzene
Bromodichloromeihane
Chloroform
Chloromethane
cis- 1 ,2-Dichloroethene
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Ethylbenzene
Isopropy 1 benzene
Slelhylene chloride
n-Butylbenzene
n-Propylbenzene
Naphthalene
p-Isopropyltoluene
sec- B uty 1 benzene
tert-Butylbenzene
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
Total Xylenes
trans- 1 ,2-Dichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Vinyl chloride
Pesticides (ug/L)
4,4'-DDD
4,4'-DDT
Aldrin
Dieldrin
Endosulfan II
Endrin
Endrin aldehyde
gamma-BHC (Lindane)
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxide
AP6328
232394
Dec 22, 94
-
-
-
-
-
-
..
-
-
-
..
_
0.27
..
..
-
AP6328
K96538301
Aug 27. 96
0.2 J
..
_
_
0.4 J
--
0.09 J
~
_
-
0.6
1-3
-
-
..
-
0.16
-
AP6328 Dup
K96538307
Aug 27, 96
-
.-
0.2 J
-
..
-
0.5 J
-
0.06 J
..
0.4 J
1
-
~
0.16
..
~
AP6328
K968I9703
Dec 16.96
427.37
AP6328 Dup
K968 19704
Dec 16, 96
427.37
1
0.5 U
2U
2U
0.2 J
0.5 U
2U
2U
0.2 J
0.5 U ! 0.5 U
0.06 J 0.06 J
0.5 U 0.5 U
20 U 20 U
2U
2U
|
2 J.B ! 3 J.B
0.09 J i 0.08 J
0.5 U
0.3 J
_
0.5 J
0.5 U
0.08 J
2U
1 U
2U
0.5 U
0.2 J
0.3 J
0.5 U
0.09 J
2U
0.09 J.B
2U
2U : 2U
2U i 2U
0.5 U _j
0.3 J
0.5 J
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.04 U
0.04 U
0.2
0.04 U
0.04 U
0.04 U
0.04 U
0.001 J
..
-
0.5 U
0.3 J
0.5
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.04 U
0.04 U
0.2
0.004 J
0.04 U
0.04 U
0.04 U
0.04 U
A-3
-------
Page 3 of 9
Table A-l (cent.)
HISTORICAL SUMMARY OF DETECTED ANALYTES
801 DRUM BURIAL SITE MONITORING WELLS
OPERABLE UNIT 1
FORT WAINWRIGHT, ALASKA
AP Number
Lab ID
Date
GW Elevation
Volatile Organic Compounds (fig/L)
l.l-Oichloroethene
1 ,2.3-Trichlorobenzene
1 ,2.4-Trichlorobenzene
1 ,2.4-Trimethylbenzenc
1 ,2-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,3.5-Trimethylbenzene
1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene
2-Butanone
2-Hexanone
4-Isopropyltoluene
4-Methyl-2-pentanone
Acetone
Benzene
Bromodichloromethane
Chloroform
Chloromethane
cis- 1 ,2-Dichloroethene
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Ethvlbenzene
Isopropylbenzene
Methylene chloride
n-Butylbenzene
n-Propylbenzene
Naphthalene
p-lsopropyltoluenc
sec-Butylbenzene
lert-Butylbcnzene
Tetrachloroeihene
Toluene
Total Xylenes
trans- 1 ,2-Dichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Vinyl chloride
Pesticides (ug/L)
4,4'-DDD
4,4'-DDT
Aldrin
Dieldrin
Endosulfan II
Endrin
Endrin aldehyde
gamma-BHC (Lindane)
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxide
AP6329
232388
Dec 22, 94
--
--
--
23 J
--
12J
--
-
-
--
--
--
14J
-
--
-
-
-
-
5.8 J
-
-
5.7 J
6.7 J
4.1 J
1.6 J
-
-
-
43 J
-
--
-
-
-
0.24
0.064
-
-
-
-
--
-
AP6330
K96545402
Aug29, 96
AP6330
K 968 15602
Dec 13,96
427.24
0.5 U
|_ 2U
1 2U
0.2 J
-
0.07 J
--
3J
-
~
5J
2J.B
0.08 J
-
0.3 J,B
-
0.4 J
--
0.07 J
-
-
0.2 J
0.5 U
2U
0.5 U
20 U
-
2U
~
3J.B
0.08 J
0.5 U
0.4 J
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.07 J
2U
1U
i 2U
i 2U
O.IJ.B i 2U
-
-
--
0.3 J
0.7
-
-
-
-
0.5 U
0.4 J
0.6
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
j 0.04 U
0.04 U
..
0.08 : 0.12
1
0.04 U
i 0.04 U
i 0.04 U
1 0.04 U
; 0.04 U
AP6331 AP6331
K96545403 K968 15605
Aug 29, 96 Dec 16, 96
427.31
0.5 U
i 2U
! 2U
0.3 J ' 0.4 J.B
! 0.5 U
0.09 J 0.2 J.B
0.5 U
2J 20 U
- : _
1 2 U
9J i
4 J.B 20 U
i 0.1 J
! 0.5 U
0.2 J.B ! 0.3 J
j
1 ': 1.5
; 0.5 u
O.I J . 0.2 J
: 0.1 J.B
1 U
2U
2U
O.IJ.B 2V
\
1
;
0.5 U
0.4 J 0.6
0.9 1.1
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
; 0.04 U
! 0.04 U
!
I.I ' 1.5
0.03 J 0.04
i 0.04 U
i 0.04 U
i 0.004 J
! 0.04 U
AP6331 Dup
K 968 15606
Dec 16. 96
427.31
0.5 U
0.3 J
0.2 J
0.4 J
0.06 J
0.1 J
0.04 J
20 U
-
2U
-
4 J.B
0.2 J
0.07 J
0.4 J
-
1.5
0.5 U
0.2 J
0.09 J
O.IJ
2U
2U
0.4 J.B
0.5 U
0.6
1.1
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.04 U
0.04 U
-
1.4
-
0.04
0.04 U
0.04 U
0.04 U
0.04 U
A-4
-------
Page 4 of 9
Table A-l (cont.)
HISTORICAL SUMMARY OF DETECTED ANALYTES
801 DRUM BURIAL SITE MONITORING WELLS
OPERABLE UNIT 1
FORT WAIXWRIGHT, ALASKA
AP Number
Lab ID
Date
GW Elevation
Volatile Organic Compounds (pg/L)
,1-Dichloroethene
,2,3-Trichlorobenzcne
,2,4-Trichlorobenzenc
,2,4-Trimelhylbenzene
,2-Dichlorobenzene
,3,5-Trimethylbenzene.
,4-Dichloro benzene
2-Butanone
2-Hexanone
4-Isopropyltoluene
4-Methyl-2-penlanone
Acetone
Benzene
Bromodichloromethane
Chloroform
Chloromethane
cis- 1 ,2-Dichloroethene
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Ethylbenzene
Isopropylbenzene
Vfethylene chloride
n-Butylbenzene
n-Propylbenzene
Naphthalene
p-Isopropyltoluene
sec-Butylbenzene
tert-Butylbenzene
Tetrach loroethene
Toluene
Total Xylenes
trans- 1 ,2-Dichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Vinyl chloride
Pesticides (ug/L)
4.4'-DDD
4,4'-DDT
Aldrin
Dieldrin
Endosulfan II
Endrin
Endrin aldehyde
gamma-BHC (Lindane)
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxide
AP6629 AP6629
232131 K96538303
Dec 2 1,94 Aug 27, 96
_
-
..
0.1 J
_
..
-
..
..
-
..
0.8 J,B
..
-
0.8
_
_
..
-
-
..
..
0.2 J
..
..
_
-
0.3 J
0.7
..
..
..
..
-
_
..
..
..
..
..
--
AP6629
K968 19705
Dec 16, 96
427.31
0.5 U
2U
2U
0.3 J
0.5 U
0.1 J
0.5 U
20 U
2U
3J.B
0.2 J
0.5 U
0.4 J
--
2.7
0.5 U
0.2 J
0.06 J
1 U
2U
2U
2U
-
0.5 U
0.6
0.8
0.3 J
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.04 U
0.04 U
0.002 J
0.04 U
0.04 U
0.04 U
0.04 U
0.04 U
AP6630
232132
Dec 21, 94
-
-
-
--
-
-
--
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
--
--
-
-
-
-
-
-
AP6630
K96538304
Aug 27. 96
0.07 J
-
-
0.3 J.B
--
0.3 J
--
-
0.06 J
--
-
-
-
-
0.4 J
0.7
-
-
-
AP6630
K968II404
Dec 13.96
427.36
0.5 U
2U
2U
0.2 J
0.5 U
2U
0.5 U
20 U
2U
4 J.B
0.08 J
0.5 U
0.3 J.B
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.07 J
2V
O.I J
2U
2U
2U
-
O.I J.B
0.4 J
0.6
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.04 U
0.04 U
0.04 U
-
0.04 U
0.04 U
0.04 U
0.04 U
0.04 U
A-5
-------
Page 5 of 9
Table A-l (cont.)
HISTORICAL SUMMARY OF DETECTED ANALYTES
801 DRUM BURIAL SITE MONITORING WELLS
OPERABLE UNIT I
FORT WAEVWRIGHT, ALASKA
AP Number
Lab ID
Date
GW Elevation
Volatile Organic Compounds (ug/L)
1 , 1 -Dichloroethene
1 ,2,3-Trichlorobenzene
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1 ,2,4-Trimethy 1 benzene
1 ,2-Dichloro benzene
1 ,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene
2-Butanone
2-Hexanone
4-Isopropyltoluene
4-Methyl-2-pentanone
Acetone
Benzene
Bromodichloromethane
Chloroform
Chloromethane
cis- 1 ,2-Dichloroethene
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Ethylbenzene
Isopropylbenzene
Methylene chloride
n-Bulylbenzene
n-Propylbenzene
Naphthalene
p-lsopropyltoluene
sec-Butylbenzene
tert-Butylbenzene
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
Total Xylenes
trans- 1 ,2-Dichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Vinyl chloride
Pesticides (ug/L)
4,4'-DDD
4,4'-DDT
Aldrin
Dieldrin
Endosulfan II
Endrin
Endrin aldehyde
gamma-BHC (Lindane)
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxide
AP6631
232141
Dec 21, 94
--
-
-
-
-
--
--
-
--
-
-
-
-
-
-
--
-
--
--
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
--
--
-
--
-
-
--
--
0.039 J
-
--
--
--
-
-
--
AP663I Dup
232142
Dec 21, 94
~
-
--
-
--
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
--
--
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
5.1
-
--
-
--
--
-
--
--
-
-
--
--
AP6631
K96538305
Aug 27, 96
-
--
0.07 J
-
--
--
--
-
--
-
-
-
0.3 J
--
--
--
-
--
-
--
-
--
--
-
--
0.3 J
0.6
--
-
-
--
--
-
0.007 J
--
--
-
-
-
--
AP6631
K968 15601
Dec 13. 96
427.35
0.5 U
2U
2U
0.2 J
0.5 U
0.05 J
0.5 U
20 U
-
2U
3J.B
0.07 J
0.5 U
0.2 J.B
-
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.08 J
2U
1 U
2U
2U
0.1 1
0.08 J.B
0.4 J
0.6
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.04 U
0.04 U
0.008 J
--
0.04 U
0.04 U
0.04 U
0.04 U
0.04 U
AP7162
K96532503
Aug 23. 96
--
-
0.1 J
-
-
--
-
0.08 J
-
6 J.B
0.09 J
-
0.3 J
0.4 J
--
0.07 J
-
0.2 J.B
--
0.4 J.B
--
0.5 J
0.9
-
-
0.005 J
0.02 J
-
«
-
-
--
AP7I62
K 968 II 403
Dec 13. 96
427.29
0.5 U
2U
2U
0.2 J
0.5 U
0.07 J
0.5 U
20 U
-
2U
_
4 J.B
0.2 J
0.2 J
1.5 B
-
0.5 U
0.5 U
O.I J
O.IJ
IU
2U
2U
2U
..
--
-
0.1 J.B
0.8
1.2
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.003 J
0.007 J
-
0.04 U
-
0.04 U
0.04 U
0.04 U
0.04 U
0.04 U
A-6
-------
Page 6 of 9
Table A-l (cont.)
HISTORICAL SUMMARY OF DETECTED ANALYTES
801 DRUM BURIAL SITE MONITORING WELLS
OPERABLE UNIT 1
FORT WAINWRIGHT. ALASKA
AP Number
LabID
Date
GW Elevation
Volatile Organic Compounds (ug/L)
I.l-Dichloroethene
1 ,2,3-Trichloro benzene
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
1 ,2-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,3.5-Trimethylbenzene
1 .4-Dichloro benzene
2-Butanonc
2-Hexanone
4-lsopropyItoluene
4-Methyl-2-pentanone
Acetone
Benzene
Sromodichloromethane
Chloroform
Chloromethane
cis- 1 ,2-Dichloroethene
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Ethylbenzene
Isopropylbenzene
Methylene chloride
n-Butylbenzene
n-Propylbenzene
Maphlhalene
p-Isopropyltoluene
sec-Butylbenzene
tert-Butylbenzene
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
Total Xylenes
trans- 1 .2-Dichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Vinyl chloride
Pesticides
-------
Page 7 of 9
Table A-l (cont.)
HISTORICAL SUMMARY OF DETECTED ANALVTES
801 DRUM BURIAL SITE MONITORING WELLS
OPERABLE UNIT 1
FORT WAINWRIGHT, ALASKA
AP Number
Lab ID
Date
GW Elevation
Volatile Organic Compounds (jig/L)
1 . 1 -Dichloroethene
1 ,2,3-Trichlorobenzene
,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
,2.4-Trimethylbenzene
,2-Dichlorobenzene
,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
,4-Dichloro benzene
2-Butanone
2-Hexanone
4-Isopropyltoluene
4-Methyl-2-pcnianone
Acetone
Benzene
Bromodichloromethane
Chloroform
Chloromethane
cis- 1 ,2-Dichloroethene
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Ethylbenzene
Isopropylbcnzene
Methylene chloride
n-Butylbenzene
n-Propylbenzene
Naphthalene
p-lsopropyltoluene
sec-Butylbenzene
ten- Butyl benzene
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
Total Xylenes
Irans- 1 ,2-Dichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Vinyl chloride
Pesticides (ug/L)
4,4'-DDD
4,4'-DDT
Aldhn
Dieldrin
Endosulfan II
Endrin
Endrin aldehyde
gamma-BHC (Lindane)
Hepiachlor
Heptachlor epoxide
AP7280
K96655601
Oct 14,96
-
-
-
0.4 J
O.I J
-
7J
0.9 J
0.7 J
4J
0.08 J
-
1.7
-
-
0.07 J
0.2 J
0.1 J
0.6 J,B
-
-
-
-
0.4 J
0.7
-
--
0.001 J
-
~
AP7280 Dup
K96655606
Oct 14, 96
-
0.4 J
O.I J
~
5J
-
0.8 J
-
4J
0.07 J
--
1.7
--
--
0.06 J
O.I J,B
0.2 J
0.09 J
0.5 J.B
-
--
-
0.4 J
0.7
-
-
..
0.001 J
-
--
AP7280
K96825803
Dec 17, 96
427.28
0.5 U
2U
2U
0.2 J
0.5 U
0.07 J
0.5 U
20 U
'
2U
2J
O.IJ
0.5 U
0.2 J
--
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.06 J
2U
1 U
2U
2U
2U
--
0.5 U
0.4 J
0.5
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.04 U
0.04 U
0.0008 J
-
0.04 U
0.04 U
0.04 U
0.04 U
0.04 U
AP728I
K96655602
Oct 14, 96
-
0.3 J
O.IJ
-
5J
-
0.3 J
0.8 J
4J
0.07 J
0.08 J
1.7
-
-
-
0.06 J
-
0.1 J.B
O.IJ
-
0.3 J.B
-
--
-
--
0.4 J
0.9
-
-
-
-
-
0.001 J
~
-
-
"
"
"
AP7281
K96825802
Dec 17,96
427.31
0.5 U
2U
2U
0.2 J
0.5 U
2U
0.5 U
20 U
2U
20 U
0.08 J
0.5 U
O.IJ
-
0.2 J
0.5 U
0.5
2U
1 U
2U
2U
2U
-
-
-
0.5 U
0.2 J
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.04 U
0.04 U
0.0008 J
-
0.04 U
0.04 U
0.04 U
0.04 U
0.04 U
A-8
-------
Page 8 of 9
Table A-l (cont.)
HISTORICAL SUMMARY OF DETECTED ANALYTES
801 DRUM BURIAL SITE MONITORING WELLS
OPERABLE UNIT 1
FORT WAINWRIGHT, ALASKA
AP Number
Lab ID
Date
GW Elevation
Volatile Organic Compounds (Mg/L)
1 , 1 -Dichloroethene
1 ,2,3-Trichlorobenzene
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1 ,2,4-Trimethytbenzene
1 ,2-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,3.5-Trimethylbcnzene
1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene
2-Butanone
2-Hexanone
4-Isopropylloluene
4-Methyl-2-pentanone
Acetone
Benzene
Bromodichloromelhane
Chloroform
Chloromethane
cis- 1 ,2-Dichloroethene
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Ethylbenzene
Isopropylbenzene
Methylene chloride
n-Burylbenzene
n-Propylbenzene
Naphthalene
p-lsopropy (toluene
sec-Butylbenzene
tert-Butylbenzene
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
Total Xylenes
trans- 1 ,2-Dichloroethene
Trichloroelhene
Vinyl chloride
Pesticides (ng/L)
4,4'-DDD
4,4'-DDT
Aldrin
Dieldrin
Endosulfan II
Endrin
Endrin aldehyde
gamma-BHC (Lindane)
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxide
AP7282
K96655603
Oct 14, 96
--
-
--
0.5 J
-
0.2 J
-
4J
-
0.2 J
-
3J
O.I J
-
1.3
-
--
0.1 J
-
0.2 J,B
0.2 J
O.U
0.4 J.B
-
-
--
-
0.6
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.004 J
-
--
AP7282
K968 15603
Dec 16.96
427.25
0.5 U
2U
2U
0.2 J
0.5 U
0.07 J
0.5 U
20 U
-
O.U
--
3 J.B
O.U
0.5 U
0.2 J
I.I
0.5 U
O.U
0.05 J
0.08 J.B
2U
2U
2U
-
«
-
0.5 U
0.6
0.7
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.04 U
0.04 U
-
0.006 J
-
0.04 U
0.04 U
0.002 J
0.04 U
0.04 U
AP7283
K96655604
Oct 14. 96
0.3 J
-
O.U
10J
0.3 J
U
6J
0.2 J
1.4
-
0.3 J
0.2 J
O.I J.B
0.4 J
0.3 J
0.9 J.B
-
0.2 J
-
1
1.4
--
-
0.0009 J
-
-
AP7283
K 968 15604
Dec 16.96
427.33
0.06 J
2U
2U
0.3 J
0.5 U
0.2 J
0.5 U
20 U
2U
3 J.B
0.2 J
0.06 J
0.9
6.4
0.5 U
0.2 J
0.07 J
0.08 J.B
2U
2U
2U
-
-
--
0.5 U
0.5 J
0.9
0.7
0.06 J
0.5 U
0.04 U
0.04 U
-
0.005 J
-
0.04 U
0.04 U
0.04 U
0.04 U
0.04 U
AP7284
K96655605
Oct 14. 96
AP7284
K96811402
Dec 13, 96
427.33
1 0.5 U
0.3 J
O.U
-.
O.U
2U
2U
O.U
0.5 U
2U
0.5 U
20 U
__
2U
..
3J
0.08 J
3 J.B
0.08 J
0.5 U
1.3
0.2 J.B
0.5 U
: O.I J
0.2 J
O.U
0.2 J.B
0.2 J
0.2 J
0.4 J.B
-
0.06 J
2U
1 U
2U
2U
2U
-
~
O.I J.B
0.6
0.9
0.3 J
0.5
0.5 U
: 0.5 u
0.5 U
0.04 U
0.04 U
_
0.008 J
0.0007 J
0.04 U
0.04 U
1 0.04 U
1 0.04 U
1 0.04 U
A-9
-------
Page 1 of 6
Table A-2
HISTORICAL SUMMARY OF DETECTED ANAL YTES
801 DRUM BURIAL SITE MICROWELLS
OPERABLE UNIT 1
FORT WAINWRIGHT, ALASKA
AP Number
Lab ID
Date
Volatile Organic Compounds (ug/L)
1,1-Dichloroethene
1 ,2,3-Trichlorobenzene
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
1 ,2-Dichloro benzene
1 .3,5-Trimethylbenzene
1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene
2-Butanone
2-Hexanone
4-Isopropyltoluene
4-Methyl-2-pentanone
Acetone
Benzene
Broraodichloromethane
Chloroform
Chloromethane
cis- 1 ,2-Dichloroethene
Dichlorodifluorome thane
Ethylbenzene
Isopropylbenzene
Methylene chloride
n-Butylbenzene
n-Propylbenzene
Naphthalene
p-lsopropyltoluene
sec-Burylbenzene
tert-Butylbenzene
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
Total Xylenes
trans- 1 ,2-Dichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Vinyl chlohde
Pesticides (ug/L)
4,4'-DDD
4,4'-DDT
Aldrin
Dieldrin
Endosulfan 11
Endrin
Endrin aldehyde
gamma-BHC (Lindane)
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxide
PS 3
50244-06
Jul 19.95
--
-
-
-
--
--
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
«
-
--
-
-
-
--
--
-
-
PS3
K96532501
Aug 23. 96
-
-
-
0.09 J
-
-
6J.B
0.6 J
-
-
-
-
-
0.2 J
-
0.2 J,B
-
--
0.2 J.B
-
-
- -
--
1.8
0.7
0.3 J
-
-
--
0.002 J
-
-
-
-
-
--
PS4
50289-02
Jul 22. 95
--
-
-
-
--
-
-
-
-
-
-
--
-
-
-
-
-
-
--
--
-
~
--
-
--
-
-
--
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
--
-
--
--
~
PS4
K96526201
Aug 21, 96
--
-
-
-
--
-
--
-
-
-
--
--
-
--
--
-
--
-
--
--
-
-
--
--
-
--
0.2 J
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.02 J
--
-
-
-
-
PS5
50289-03
Jul 22, 95
--
-
--
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
~
-
-
--
-
-
-
0.03
0.031
0.25
0.46
0.039
--
-
-
-
0.015
PS5
K96545404
Aug 29. 96
0.9 J
0.3 J
5 J.B
1.7
--
1.4
0.2 J
0.3 J
0.1 J.B
-
--
7.2
7.3
0.21
0.34
'
A-10
-------
Page 2 of 6
Table A-2 (coat)
HISTORICAL SUMMARY OF DETECTED ANALYTES
801 DRUM BURIAL SITE MICROWELLS
OPERABLE UNIT 1
FORT WAINWRIGHT, ALASKA
AP Number
Lab ID
Date
Volatile Organic Compounds (ug/L)
. l-Dichloroelhene
,2.3-Trichloro benzene
,2.4-Trichlorobenzene
,2.4-Trimethylbenzene
.2-Dichlorobenzene
,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
.4-Dichlorobenzene
2-Butanone
2-Hexanone
4-Isopropyltoluene
4-Melhyl-2-pentanone
Acetone
Benzene
Bromodichloromethane
Chloroform
Chloromethane
cis- 1 ,2-Dichloroethene
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Ethylbenzene
(sopropy (benzene
Meihylene chloride
n-Butylbenzene
n-Propylbenzene
Naphthalene
p-lsopropyltoluene
sec-Butylbenzene
ten-Butylbenzene
Tctrachloroethene
Toluene
Total Xylenes
trans- 1 .2-Dichloroethene
Trichloroelhene
Vinyl chloride
Pesticides (ug/L)
4.4'-DDD
4,4'-DDT
Aldrin
Dieldrin
Endosulfan II
Endrin
Endrin aldehyde
gamma-BHC (Lindane)
Hcptachlor
Heptachlor epoxide
PS6
50244-07
Jul 19,95
-
-
--
-
-
--
-
-
-
-
-
-
--
-
-
-
~
--
-
--
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
~
0.046
0.49
--
-
--
-
-
-
PS6
K96545405
Aug 29, 96
-
0.3 J
~
0.09 J
-
2J.B
0.4 J
-
-
0.4 J
-
--
0.09 J
-
-
-
-
2
2.2
-
-
~
0.02 J
0.19
-
--
-
~
PS7
51266-09
Sep 4. 95
~
-
-
-
-
-
--
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
--
-
-
-
-
-
-
--
-
-
.,
--
.
-
-
-
-'
-
-
-
~
PS7
K96545406
Aug 28. 96
-
0.4 J
«
0.06 J
-
-
-
-
3J.B
1.3 J
0.07 J,B
--
--
~
1 J
0.2 J
0.2 J
O.I J.B
--
5J
4.5 J
~
-
-
-
0.08
--
--
--
-
PS7 DUP
K96545408
Aug 29. 96
0.4 J
0.06 J
-
3 J.B
1.2
0.07 J,B
-
\
0.2 J
-
0.2 J
0.1 J.B
5.1
4.1
-
-
-
-
0.1
--
-
A-ll
-------
Page 3 of 6
Table A-2 (cont.)
HISTORICAL SUMMARY OF DETECTED ANALYTES
801 DRUM BURIAL SITE MICROWELLS
OPERABLE UNIT 1
FORT WAINWRIGHT, ALASKA
AP Number
Lab ID
Date
Volatile Organic Compounds (pg/L)
1 , 1 -Dichloroeihene
1 ,2,3-Trichloro benzene
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1 ,2,4-Trimethy 1 benzene
1 ,2-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,3.5-Trimelhy 1 benzene
1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene
2-Butanone
2-Hexanone
4- Isopropy Itol uene
4-Methyl-2-penlanone
Acetone
Benzene
Bromodichloromethane
Chloroform
Chloromethane
cis- 1 ,2-Dichloroethene
Dichlorodi fluoromethane
Ethylbenzene
Isopropylbenzene
Mclhylene chloride
n-Butylbenzene
n-Propylbenzene
Naphthalene
p- Isopropy Itol uene
sec-Burylbenzene
tert-Butylbenzene
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
Total Xylenes
trans- 1 .2-Dichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Vinyl chloride
\
Pesticides (ug/L)
4,4'-DDD
4,4'-DDT
Aldrin
Dieldnn
Endosulfan II
Endrin
Endrin aldehyde
gamma-BHC (Lindane)
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxide
PS10
50289-05
Jul 22. 95
-
--
--
--
-
-
--
-
~
-
-
--
-
-
--
--
--
--
--
-
--
-
-
-
--
--
-
--
--
0.015
--
-
--
--
-
--
--
--
PS 10
K96530904
Aug 22, 96
--
-
-
0.07 J
-
-
--
-
-
-
3J.B
-
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
-
--
0.3 J
0.4 J
-
--
--
-
-
0.001 J
--
--
-
--
-
--
PS12
50289-06
Jul 22, 95
-
-
-
-
--
--
--
--
--
-
-
--
-
~
--
-
-
--
-
-
-
-
«
-
-
-
-
-
-
--
--
-
-
0.015
-
~
«
--
--
-
-
-
PS12
K96526202
Aug 21. 96
~
--
-
-
-
--
-
-
-
-
~
-
0.08 J
-
-
-
-
-
0.2 J
0.07 J
-
-
-
-
0.003 J
-
-
-
-
PS13
50289-07
Jul 22, 95
-
-
--
--
-
--
~
-
-
--
-
-
--
-
-
-
-
~
0.019
0.087
-
-
-
-
PS 13
K96526203
Aug 21. 96
-
-
-
--
..
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
--
-
-
--
-
--
-
~
-
--
-
--
-
-
0.06 J
--
--
0.06 J
--
-
-
0.006 J
0.11
--
-
--
--
--
--
A-12
-------
Page 4 of 6
Table A-2 (cone)
HISTORICAL SUMMARY OF DETECTED ANALYTES
801 DRUM BURIAL SITE MICROWELLS
OPERABLE UNIT 1
FORT WAESWRIGHT, ALASKA
AP Number
Lab ID
Date
Volatile Organic Compounds (pg/L)
,1-Dichloroethene
,2,3-Tnchloro benzene
.2,4-Trichlorobenzene
,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
,2-Dichloro benzene
,3.5-Trimethylbenzene
,4-Dichlorobenzene
2-Butanone
2-Hexanone
4-Isopropyltoluene
4-Methyl-2-pentanone
Acetone
Senzene
Bromodichloromethane
Chloroform
Chloromethane
cis- 1 ,2-Dichloroethene
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Ethylbenzene
[sopropylbenzene
Methylene chloride
n-Butylbenzene
n-Propylbenzene
Naphthalene
p-Isopropyltoluene
see-Bury (benzene
ten-Bury (benzene
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
Total Xylenes
trans- 1 .2-Dichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Vinyl chloride
Pesticides (ug/L)
4,4'-DDD
4,4'-DDT
Aldrin
Dieldnn
Endosulfan II
Endrin
Endrin aldehyde
gamma-BHC (Lindane)
Heptachlor
Hepiachlor epoxide
PS 16
50289-08
Jul21,95
-
-
-
-
--
-
-
--
--
--
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
--
-
-
0.021
0.06
0.57
0.32
0.036
-
-
--
-
-
PS 16
K96526204
Aug21.96
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
--
--
-
--
--
-
--
-
0.2 J
--
-
0.1 J
-
--
0.29
0.33
--
-
--
PS 17
50258-01
Jul 20. 95
~
«
-
--
-
-
-
-
~
-
~
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
~
-
--
-
-
-
-
-
PS 17
K96532502
Aug 23. 96
-
0.2 J
-
--
-
--
5J.B
0.9
--
1.5
«
0.1 J
-
0.2 J.B
0.2 J.B
-
-
--
--
1.4
0.6
--
0.6
-
--
-
-
«
-
-
A-13
-------
Pase 5 of 6
Table A-2 (cont.)
HISTORICAL SUMMARY OF DETECTED ANALVTES
801 DRUM BURIAL SITE MICROWELLS
OPERABLE UNIT 1
FORT WAINWRIGHT, ALASKA
AP Number
Lab ID
Date
Volatile Organic Compounds (ug/L)
, l-Dichlorocthcne
,2,3-Trichlorobenzene
,2.4-Trichlorobenzene
,2.4-Trimethylbenzene
,2-Dichloro benzene
,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
,4-Dichloro benzene
2-Butanone
2-Hexanone
4-Isopropylioluene
4-Methyl-2-pentanone
Acetone
Benzene
Bromodichloromethane
Chloroform
Chloromethane
cis-1 ,2-Dichloroethene
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Ethylbenzene
Isopropylbenzene
Methylene chloride
n-Butylbenzene
n-Propylbenzene
Naphthalene
p-lsopropylioluene
sec-Butylbenzene
tert- Butyl benzene
Tedachloroethene
Toluene
Total Xylenes
trans- 1 ,2-Dichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Vinyl chloride
Pesticides
-------
APPENDIX B
SUMMARY
B-l
-------
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY FOR THE RECORD OF DECISION FOR
REMEDIAL ACTION AT OPERABLE UNIT 1, FORT WAINWRIGHT, ALASKA
OVERVIEW
The United States Army (Army), Alaska; 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 1 (OU-1), Fort Wainwright, Alaska. OU-1
comprises 22 source areas: the 801 Drum Burial Site, Building 1599, Building 2077, the Utilidor
Expansion Drum Site, the Beacon Tower Landfill, the Blair Lakes Drum Site, Building 3015, Burial
Site M, the Building 1128 Transformer Storage Yard, the Trainor Gate Railroad Spur, the Runway
Radioactive Waste Site, the Birch Hill Radioactive Waste Site, Building 1567, Site N-4, the Chemical
Agent Dump Site, the Transformer Storage Yard East of Building 3019, the Alaska Railroad Storage
Yard, Building 2250, the Drum Site South of the Landfill, the Engineers Park Drum Site, the Motor
Pool Buildings, and the Former Explosive Ordnance Detonation Range.
The Proposed Plan identifies a preferred remedial alternative for one source area within OU-1: the
801 Drum Burial Site.
The major components of the remedial alternative for the 801 Drum Burial Site are:
Locating potential buried drums, and if found, removal and disposal
of drums and contaminated soil;
Institutional controls to prevent the use of contaminated groundwater
and to restrict site access;
Natural attenuation of groundwater with long-term groundwater
monitoring; and
A groundwater contingent remedy, which includes a soil vapor
extraction and air sparging treatment system, when either the
concentration of contaminants in the groundwater plume shows an
increasing trend or the monitoring points around the plume indicate
that contaminants are detected above groundwater cleanup levels.
No formal comments regarding the Proposed Plan for the OU-1 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-1 during a
public comment period from March 4 to April 3, 1997. The Fort Wainwright Proposed Plan for
Remedial Action at Operable Unit I presents 11 combinations of options considered by the Agencies
to address contamination in soil and groundwater at OU-1. The Proposed Plan was released to the
public on February 28, 1997, and copies were sent to all known interested parties, including elected
officials and concerned citizens. Informational Fact Sheets, dated March and September 1995,
B-2
-------
provide information about the Army's entire cleanup program at Fort Wainwright and were mailed to
the addresses on the same mailing list.
The Proposed Plan summarizes available information regarding the OU. 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 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 March 11, 1997, at the
Carlson Center in Fairbanks.
Basewide community relations activities conducted for Fort Wainwright, which includes OU-1, have
included:
July 1992Community interviews with local officials and interested
parties;
April 1993Preparation of the Community Relations Plan;
July 1993Distribution of an informational Fact Sheet covering all
OUs at Fort Wainwright;
July 22, 1993An informational public meeting covering all OUs;
April 22, 1994Establishment of information repositories at the Noel
Wien Library and the Fort Wainwright Post Library and the
Administrative Record at Building 3023 on Fort Wainwright;
March 1995Distribution of an informational Fact Sheet covering all
OUs at Fort Wainwright;
September 1995Distribution of an informational Fact Sheet covering
all OUs at Fort Wainwright;
March 19%Distribution of an informational Fact Sheet covering all
OUs at Fort Wainwright;
January 1997Distribution of an informational Fact Sheet covering all
OUs at Fort Wainwright; and
March 1997Distribution of an informational Fact Sheet regarding a
Restoration Advisory Board (RAB). The fact sheet included an RAB
membership application.
B-3
-------
Community relations activities specifically conducted for OU-1 included:
March 2, 5, 7, 9, and 11, 1997Display advertisement announcing
the public meeting in the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner;
February 28, 1997Distribution of the Proposed Plan for final
remedial action at OU-1;
March 4 to April 3, 1997Public comment period. No extension was
requested;
March 4 to April 3, 1997Telephone 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
March 11, 1997Meeting at the Carlson Center to provide
information, a forum for questions and answers, and an opportunity
for public comment regarding OU-1.
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD
No comments were received during the public comment period.
-------
APPENDIX C
COST ESTIMATES
C-l
-------
r?Qn: PUBi.:; -ORKS
Date 10/31/96
Time 13:5C
Fort Wair.wright AK
Samuel p. swearingen
10/31/96
FBX NO . : 9073843047
PROJECT SUMMARY REPORT
t1-:9-96 82127P = .02
?age l
Category
Amount
PA/SI S
Site Assessment $
Studies
Remedial Design
RA Capital
Site Work
Sampling and Analysis
RA Professional Labor
Subcontractor Overhead & Profit
General Conditions
Studies/Professional Labor Overhead
Prime Contractor Home Office
Subtotal $
Prime Contractor
Profit - (Fee) ( 8.57V)
RA Operations and Maintenance
O&M Service Contract
Overhead, Tax-fit Profit
Subtotal $
Escalation
Total Contract Costs $
Contingencies
Project Management
Total Project Costs
( 10.00%)
( 10.00*)
0
0
0
0
31.666
67,297
0
0
3,805
11,409
0
6,623
120,800
10.357
1,215,497
198,127
1,544,781
647.381
2,192.162
219,216
219,216
2,630,594
END OF REPORT
* * * This System Intended For Government Uae Only * * * *
C-2
-------
PUBLIC UORKS
Date 10/31/96
Time 13:23
1A
.^Li capping/sve/as
Fort Wainwrighc AK
Samuel ?. Swearingen
10/18/96
PflX NO. : 90738430*7
PROJECT SUMMARY REPORT
1 1-19-96 02:28P » .83
Page 1
Category
Amount
PA/SI $
Site Assessment S
Studies
Remedial Design
RA Capital
Site Work
Sampling and Analysis
RA Professional Labor
Subcontractor Overhead & Profit
General Conditions
Studies/Professional Labor Overhead
Prime Contractor Home Office
Subtotal $
Prime Contractor
Profit - (Fee) ( 8.05V)
RA Operations and Maintenance
O&M Service Contract
Overhead, Tax & Profit
Subtotal $
Escalation
Total Contract Costs $
contingencies
Project Management
Total Project Costs
( 25.00*)
( 10.00%)
1,
1,
2,
3,
0
0
0
0
111.714
0
0
0
6,181
60,077
0
8,591
186,563
15,020
368,631
223,121
793,535
733,089
526,624
631,656
252,662
410,942
**********
op REPORT ****»«»**
* * * * This System Intended For Government Use Only * * * *
C-3
-------
PUBLIC -;*<3 PBX NO.: 987384384? H-19-96 82.28P =.84
Date 10/31/96 Page I
Time 14:33
PROJECT SUMMARY REPORT
HB2
_rum Removal and Disposal with LTM/ No AS/SVE
Fort Wainwrighr AK A !4<&r**.-kv<. A u1'-^ KC- '
Samuel P. Swearingen n iT^-mm.
10/31/96
Categcry Amount
PA/SI £ 0
Site Assessment $ 0
Studies . 0
Remedial Design 0
RA Capital 2,899
Site work 0
Sampling and Analysis 1,008,000
RA Frafessional Labor 0
Subcontractor Overhead fc Profit 58,714
General Conditions 111,227
Studies/Professional Labor Overhead 0
Prirne Contractor Home Office 89.107
Subtotal $ 1,929,947
Prime Contractor
Profit - (Fee) ( 6.84V) 132,141
RA Operations and Maintenance 1,215,497
O&M Service Contract
Overhead, Tax & Profit 198,127
Subtotal $ 3,475,712
Escalation 776,119
Total Contract Costs $ 4,251,831
Contingencies ( 10.00*) 425,183
Pro^ecr Management ( 10.00%) 425,183
Total Project Costs $ 5..02,197
^.
*«**** END OF REPORT **********
. * * This System Intended For Government Use Only * * *
C-4
-------
Fttin: PUBLIC DORICS
Date 10/31/96
Time 14:19
PSX NO.: 987384384?
PROJECT SUMMARY REPORT
oUlB
drum removal & disposal/sve/as /
Fort Wainwright AK
sam gwearingen
10/18/96
;I - 19-96 82 :29P
?age 1
1 .as
Category
Amount
PA/SI S
Sire Assessment $
Studies
Remedial Design
RA Capital
Site work
Sampling and Analysis
RA Professional Labor
Subcontractor Overhead & Profit
General Conditions
Studies/Professional Labor Overhead
Prime Contractor Horns Office
Subtotal $
Prime Contractor
Profit - (Fee) ( 5.82*)
RA Operations and Maintenance
OtM Service Contract
Overhead, Tax & Profit
Subtotal $
Escalation
Total Contract Costs $
Contingencies
Project Management
Total Project Costs
( 10.00*)
( 10.00*)
1.
2,
1,
3,
4,
5,
0
0
0
0
734,146
0
008,000
0
81,633
138,003
0
94,009
055,791
119.703
366,967
222,818
765,279
880,155
645,434
464.543
464,543
574.520
******»** END OF REPORT »**»*»
* * * * Thia System Intended For Government Use Only * *
C-5
-------
FRii.i: PUBLIC WORKS r«X so.: 9873843847 11-19-96 82:3BP ".06
Date 10/31/96 Paoe i
Time 14:00
PROJECT SUMMARY REPORT
^w
801C
DiVAiu Removal aiid r/ipsosal/soil ex/grounawater PtT
Fort Wainwright AK
Samuel P Swearir.gen
10/18/96
Category Amount
PA/SI $ 0
Site Assessment $ 0
Studies 0
Remedial Design 0
RA Capital 2,832,336
Site Work 0
Sampling and Analysis 2,016,000
RA Professional Labor 0
Subcontractor Overhead i Profit 205,044
General Conditions 148,725
Studies/Professional Labor Overhead 0
Prime Contractor Home Office 249,854
Subtotal $ 5,451,959
Prime Contractor
Profit - (Fee) < 5.10%) 278,205
RA Operations and Maintanance 1,242,295
O6M Service Contract
Overhead, Tax & Profiz. 202,495
Subtotal $ 7,174,954
Escalation 1,077,028
Total Contract Costs $ 8,251,982
Contingencies ( 25.00%) 2,062,995 'PA-
Project Management ( 10.00%) 825,198
Total Project Costs $ 11,140,175
******** 2ND OF REPORT ********
* * * * This System Intended For Government Use Only * * * *
C-6
-------
APPENDIX D
INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS DISCUSSION PAPER
D-l
-------
APVR-RPW-EV 14 May 1997
Discussion Paper
SUBJECT. Institutional Controls
1. ISSUE:
Institutional controls are an administrative action that can be used to take the
place of a remedial action at a site regulated by the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act, the National Contingency Plan or the comparative state law.
Institutional controls place restriction on actions that can be conducted or uses that a
piece of property can be put to. Examples can include limiting excavation, limiting use
of groundwater, or limiting changes to a structure on the National Historic Preservation
List. In order for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the State of Alaska,
Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) to accept institutional controls,
they must be enforceable.
2. FACTS:
a. Directorate of Public Works, Environmental Resources Department (DPW),
working with Master Planning and Real Property, has established a protocol for
establishing institutional controls. Information on the specific site to be subject to
institutional controls is forwarded to Master Planning to be incorporated on the
installation map. Real Property is copied on which sites have institutional
controls in order to update their property records at the same time.
b. DPW is working through the Integrated Training Area Management program
to provide copies of maps showing institutional controlled sites to both the
Directorate of Plans, Training, Security and Mobilization, and Range Control.
c. A dig permit program is established within U. S. Army, Alaska (USARAK),
which ensures any activities that could potentially impact an area covered by
institutional controls are properly mitigated.
D-2
-------
-2-
SUBJECT: Institutional Controls
d. USARAK has already established institutional controls at Bldg 702 and Bldg
47-662 on Fort Richardson. Further areas of Fort Richardson and Fort
Wainwright have been placed under institutional controls in accordance with
signed Records of Decisions (ROD). Additional areas of Fort Richardson and
Fort Wainwright will be incorporated into institutional controls as the CERCLA
RODs are signed.
e. Violation of a signed ROD or Decision Document is a violation of the Fort
Richardson or Fort Wainwright Federal Facility Agreement (FFA) and CERCLA,
and can result in criminal or civil fines as stipulated in the FFA. This does not
include additional costs for corrective actions that would have to be taken at the
site.
f. Institutional controls are being established because they are the most cost
effective method for protecting human health and the environment, without
engaging in active remediation. The institutional controls at Bldg 702 and 47-
662 have saved USARAK approximately $800,000 and are expected to save
another $3 million dollars within the next 5 years.
g. The EPA and ADEC are questioning USARAK's ability to enforce any
institutional controls. Without a proven method for enforcement, EPA and
ADEC will require active remedial actions which could cost millions.
3. KEY POINTS TO BE STRESSED:
a. A program for enforcement of institutional controls must be established.
b. Actions that violate an institutional control established in a ROD or other
Decision Document also violate the law and place USARAK at risk of criminal
and civil fines and penalties.
c. Institutional controls provide an opportunity for USARAK to be protective of
human health and the environment, while being good stewards of the taxpayers
money.
Johnson/384-3093
Swearingen
D-3
------- |