PB97-964614
EPA/541/R-97/202
January 1998
EPA Superfund
Record of Decision:
Fort Richardson (USArmy), OUs A & B
Anchorage, AK
9/15/1997
-------
Final August 8, 1997
RECORD OF DECISION
for
OPERABLE UNITS A AND B
FORT RICHARDSON
ANCHORAGE, ALASKA
August 1997
-------
Final August 8, 1997
DECLARATION STATEMENT
for
RECORD OF DECISION
FORT RICHARDSON
ANCHORAGE, ALASKA
OPERABLE UNIT A AND OPERABLE UNIT B
AUGUST 1997
SOURCE AREA NAME AND LOCATION
Operable Unit A and Operable Unit B
Fort Richardson
Anchorage, Alaska
STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE
This Record of Decision (ROD) presents the selected remedial actions for Operable Unit B (OU-B)
and the rationale for addressing OU-A under a cleanup agreement with the State of Alaska at Fort
Richardson. OU-A consists of three source areas: the Roosevelt Road Transmitter Site Leachfield
(Transmitter Site); the Ruff Road Fire Training Area (Fire Training Area); and the Petroleum, Oil,
and Lubricant Laboratory Dry Well (Dry Well). OU-B consists of one site: the Poleline Road
Disposal Area (Poleline Road). 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 9601 et seq.; and, to
the extent practicable, the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP),
40 Code of Federal Regulations Part 300 et seq. This decision is based on the Administrative Record
for both OUs.
The United States Army (Army); die United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); and the
State of Alaska, through the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC), have agreed
to the selected remedies.
ASSESSMENT OF THE SITE
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from OU-B source areas, if not addressed by
implementing the response actions selected in this ROD, may present an imminent or substantial
threat to public health, public welfare, or the environment. OU-A is contaminated with petroleum
compounds, and OU-B is contaminated with chlorinated solvents.
The OU-A and OU-B source areas are the first areas of Remedial Investigation to reach a final-action
ROD at this National Priorities List site.
11
-------
Final August 8, 1997
DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED REMEDY
The Army, ADEC, and EPA have determined that the sources included within OU-A do not represent
unacceptable risks to human health or the environment, based- on EPA criteria. Thus, no remedial
action is necessary to ensure protection of human health and the environment under CERCLA.
However, the levels of petroleum contamination in the soil do exceed the ADEC soil cleanup criteria.
Accordingly, these sites will be cleaned up under the State-Fort Richardson Environmental
Restoration Agreement (Two-Party Agreement) in accordance with applicable State of Alaska
regulations. The specific cleanup actions and the time required to remediate the source areas have yet
to be determined. The components of the removal actions selected for OU-A will be detailed in
separate decision documents prepared in accordance with the Two-Party Agreement.
A remedy was chosen from many alternatives as the best means of addressing contaminated soil and
groundwater at OU-B. The selected remedy addresses the risk by reducing contamination to attain
cleanup goals. The remedial action objectives for OU-B are designed to:
• Reduce contaminant levels in the groundwater to comply with drinking
water standards;
• Prevent contaminated soil from continuing to act as a source of
groundwater contamination;
• Prevent the contaminated groundwater from adversely affecting the
Eagle River surface water and sediments; and
• Minimize degradation of the State of Alaska's groundwater resources
at the site as a result of past disposal practices.
The major components of the preferred remedy for OU-B are:
• High-vacuum extraction (HVE) to remove contaminated vapors and
groundwater from the "hot spot." The "hot spot" is defined as the
subsurface area containing greater than 1.0 milligrams per liter of
1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane in groundwater and/or free-phase solvents;
• An air stripping system to treat extracted groundwater to meet State of
Alaska and federal maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) before being
reinjected into the deep aquifer;
• Institutional controls that will include restrictions on groundwater well
installations, site access restrictions, and maintenance of fencing until
state and federal MCLs for drinking water are met;
• Natural attenuation of groundwater contamination in areas outside the
"hot spot"; and
iii
-------
Final August 8. 1997
Long-term monitoring to assess whether groundwater contamination is
approaching the Eagle River and to ensure that contamination levels in
the groundwater are decreasing through natural attenuation.
Groundwater at Poleline Road is contaminated with volatile organic compounds, including chlorinated
solvents. While there are no current uses of groundwater in the site area or seeps by which wildlife
could be exposed to groundwater, modeling indicates that groundwater at the site eventually could
reach the Eagle River. Modeling results indicated a time period of more than 100 years for on-site
groundwater to reach the Eagle River.
Remediation of the site is necessary because the NCP Groundwater Protection Strategy requires
consideration of current and potential future uses of groundwater in remedy selection, and protection
and restoration of groundwater resources if necessary and practicable.
The selected remedy will be conducted in a multi-step approach because of the complexity of the
contaminant characteristics and the hydrogeology of the site. The HVE system will be installed to
reduce the quantity and concentration of contaminants in the "hot spot," and to prevent migration, to
the maximum extent practicable, of contaminants above state and federal MCLs. Concurrently,
technologies mat could enhance the performance of the selected remedy will be evaluated in a
Treatability Study, and if these enhancing technologies are deemed effective, they will be
implemented to improve performance of the selected remedy. The plume outside the "hot spot" will
be monitored to track plume migration and the progress of natural degradation processes. If cleanup
of contaminants in the "hot spot" does not appear to be successful, then alternative remedial action
goals and/or strategies will be pursued for the site (see Section 7.2).
STATUTORY DETERMINATION
The selected remedy is protective of human health and the environment, complies with federal and
state requirements that are legally applicable or relevant and appropriate to the remedial action, and is
cost-effective. The remedy utilizes permanent solutions and alternative treatment technologies to the
maximum extent practicable, and satisfies the statutory preference for remedies that employ treatment
that reduces toxicity, mobility, or volume as a principal element.
Because the remedy will result in hazardous substances remaining above regulatory levels on site, a
review will be conducted within five years after commencement of the remedial action to ensure that
the remedy continues to provide adequate protection of human health and the environment, and will
continue for five-year increments until the remedy is complete.
IV
-------
Final August 8, 1997
SIGNATURES
Signature sheet for the foregoing Operable Units A and B, Fort Richardson, 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. Steele Date
Lieutenant General, USA
Commanding
v
-------
Final August 8, 1997
SIGNATURES
Signature sheet for the foregoing Operable Units A and B, Fort Richardson, 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.
Chuck Clarke, Regional Administrator, Region X Date
United States Environmental Protection Agency
VI
-------
Final
August 8, 1997
SIGNATURES
Signature sheet for the foregoing Operable Units A and B, Fort Richardson, Record of Decision
between the United States Army and United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region X, with
concurrences by the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation.
William WSteele
LieutenanKQeneraLJySA
Commanding General
U.S. Army, Pacific
Dat
-------
Final August 8, 1997
SIGNATURES
Signature sheet for the foregoing Operable Units A and B, Fort Richardson, 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.
^b W9T
Clarke, Regional Administrator, Region X Date
United States Environmental Protection Agency
VI
-------
Final _ August 8, 1997
SIGNATURES
This signature sheet documents an agreement between the United States Army and the United States
Environmental Protection Agency on the Record of Decision for Operable Units A and B at Fort
Richardson. The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation concurs with the Record of
Decision.
*>
fKurt/Fre^fiksson, Director, Spill Prevention and Response Date
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation
VII
SE? 2' "
-------
Final August 8, 1997
SIGNATURES
This signature sheet documents an agreement between the United States Army and the United States
Environmental Protection Agency on the Record of Decision for Operable Units A and B at Fort
Richardson. The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation concurs with the Record of
Decision.
Run Fredriksson, Director, Spill Prevention and Response Date
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation
VII
-------
Final August 8, 1997
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
DECLARATION STATEMENT ii
DECISION SUMMARY 1
1.0 SITE DESCRIPTIONS 2
1.1 OPERABLE UNIT A 3
1.1.1 Site Locations and Description 3
1.1.2 Land Use 3
1.2 OPERABLE UNIT B 4
1.2.1 Site Location and Description 4
1.2.2 Hydrogeology and Ground water Use 4
1.2.3 Land Use 4
2.0 SITE HISTORIES AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES 12
2.1 SITE HISTORIES BEFORE REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS 12
2.1.1 Site History of Operable Unit A 12
2.1.1.1 Roosevelt Road Transmitter Site Leachfield 12
2.1.1.2 Ruff Road Fire Training Area 12
2.1.1.3 Petroleum, Oil, and Lubricant Laboratory Dry Well .... 13
2.1.2 Site History of Operable Unit B 13
2.2 ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES 14
2.3 HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION 15
2.4 SCOPE AND ROLE OF OPERABLE UNITS 15
3.0 SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS 17
3.1 OPERABLE UNIT A 17
3.1.1 Physical Features, Hydrogeologic Conditions, and Transport Pathways .. 17
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
.1.1 Roosevelt Road Transmitter Site Leachfield 17
.1.2 Ruff Road Fire Training Area 17
.1.3 Petroleum, Oil, and Lubricant Laboratory Dry Well .... 18
3.1.2 Nature and Extent of Contamination 19
.2.1 Roosevelt Road Transmitter Site Leachfield 19
.2.2 Ruff Road Fire Training Area 19
.2.3 Petroleum, Oil, and Lubricant Laboratory Dry Well .... 20
3.2 OPERABLE UNIT B 21
3.2.1 Physical Features, Hydrogeologic Conditions, and Transport Pathways 21
3.2.2 Nature and Extent of Contamination 22
4.0 SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS 46
Vlll
-------
Final August 8, 1997
4.1 OPERABLE UNIT A 46
4.1.1 Human Health Risk Assessment 46
4.1.1.1 Contaminants of Potential Concern 46
4.1.1.2 Exposure Assessment 47
4.1.1.3 Toxicity Assessment 48
4.1.1.4 Risk Characterization 48
4.1.2 Ecological Risk Assessment SO
4.1.3 Summary of Risks 51
4.2 OPERABLE UNIT B 52
4.2.1 Human Health Risk Assessment 52
4.2.2 Ecological Risk Assessment 53
4.2.3 Summary of Risks 55
5.0 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES 61
5.1 NEED FOR REMEDIAL ACTION 61
5.2 REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES 61
5.3 SIGNIFICANT APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE
REQUIREMENTS 62
5.4 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES 62
6.0 SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES 68
6.1 THRESHOLD CRITERIA 68
6.2 BALANCING CRITERIA 68
6.3 MODIFYING CRITERIA 70
7.0 SELECTED REMEDY 74
7.1 MAJOR COMPONENTS OF THE SELECTED REMEDY 74
7.2 AGENCY REVIEW OF THE SELECTED REMEDY 76
8.0 STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS 79
8.1 PROTECTION OF HUMAN HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT 79
8.2 COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE
REQUIREMENTS AND TO-BE-CONSIDERED GUIDANCE 79
8.2.1 Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements 79
8.2.2 Chemical-Specific Requirements 80
8.2.3 Location-Specific Requirements 80
8.2.4 Action-Specific Requirements 81
8.2.5 Information To-Be-Considered 82
8.3 COST EFFECTIVENESS 82
8.4 UTILIZATION OF PERMANENT SOLUTIONS AND ALTERNATIVE
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES OR RESOURCE RECOVERY
TECHNOLOGIES TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PRACTICABLE 82
8.5 PREFERENCE FOR TREATMENT AS A MAIN ELEMENT 83
9.0 DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES 84
Appendix
A ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX 85
ix
-------
Final August 8, 1997
B RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY 121
C FORT RICHARDSON, OPERABLE UNIT B SOURCE AREA, BASELINE COST
ESTIMATES FOR REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES 126
-------
Final August 8, 1997
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
3-1 Summary of RI Subsurface Soil Samples Exceeding Screening Criteria,
Roosevelt Road Transmitter Site Leachfield, Operable Unit A 24
3-2 Summary of RI Cesspool Sample Results, Roosevelt Road Transmitter Site Leachfield,
Operable Unit A 26
3-3 Summary of RI Surface Soil Samples Exceeding Screening Criteria, Ruff Road
Fire Training Area, Operable Unit A 28
3-4 Summary of RI Subsurface Soil Samples Exceeding Screening Criteria, Ruff Road
Fire Training Area, Operable Unit A 30
3-5 Building 986 POL Laboratory Dry Well, 1992 Investigation Results, Operable Unit A . . 32
3-6 Summary of RI Sludge Sample Results, POL Laboratory Dry Well, Operable Unit A ... 33
3-7 Summary of RI Subsurface Soil Sample Results Exceeding Screening Criteria, POL
Laboratory Dry Well, Operable Unit A 34
3-8 Summary of Soil Sample Results, Areas A-l and A-2, and Other Areas, Poleline Road
Disposal Area, Operable Unit B 36
3-9 Summary of Soil Sample Results, Areas A-3 and A-4, Poleline Road Disposal Area,
Operable Unit B 37
3-10 Summary of Groundwater Sample Results, Poleline Road Disposal Area, Operable Unit B 38
4-1 Contaminants of Potential Concern, Human Health Risk Assessment, Operable Unit A . . 56
XI
-------
Final August 8, 1997
4-2 Estimated Human Health Risks. Future Residential Land Use, Operable Unit A 57
4-3 Current Exposure Scenarios, Reasonable Maximum Exposure Excess Lifetime Cancer
Risks and Hazard Indices, Human Health Risk Assessment, Operable Unit A 58
Operable Unit B, Exposure Pathways Evaluated in Human Health Risk Assessment .... 59
4-5 Summary of Site Risks, Operable Unit B 60
5-1 Remedial Cleanup Goals for Groundwater, Poleline Road Disposal Area 66
5-2 Remedial Action Objectives for Soil 67
6-1 Criteria for Evaluation of Alternatives 72
6-2 Cost Summary of Remedial Alternatives, Poleiine Road Disposal Area 73
XII
-------
Final August 8, 1997
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure Page
1-1 Operable Units A and B Location Map 5
1-2 Generalized Geologic Cross Section, Operable Unit A 6
1-3 Site Map, Roosevelt Road Transmitter Site Leachfield, Operable Unit A 7
1-4 Monitoring Well Locations, Ruff Road Fire Training Area, Operable Unit A 8
1-5 Site Map, POL Laboratory Dry Well Area, Operable Unit A 9
1-6 Poleline Road Disposal Area, Operable Unit B 10
1-7 Groundwater Zones at Poleline Road Disposal Area, Operable Unit B 11
3-1 Conceptual Site Model, Roosevelt Road Transmitter Site Leachfield—Operable Unit A . . 40
3-2 Conceptual Site Model, Ruff Road Fire Training Area 41
3-3 Conceptual Site Model, POL Laboratory Dry Well—Operable Unit A 42
3-4 Extent of Contamination in Former Ground Surface Soils, Ruff Road Fire Training
Area, Operable Unit A 43
3-5 Lateral Extent of Area to be Remediated, Ruff Road Fire Training Area, Operable
Unit A 44
3-6 VOC Results in Groundwater from Monitoring Wells, Poleline Road Disposal Area .... 45
7-1 Remedy Implementation Strategy, Poleline Road Disposal Area 78
xiii
-------
Final
August 8, 1997
LIST OF ACRONYMS
AAC
ADEC
AMSL
AR
ARARs
Army
AS
AWQS
BGS
BNAs
CERCLA
CFR
COCs
COECs
COPCs
COPECs
CSM
DNAPL
DRO
ED
EPA
EPCs
ERA
FFA
FS
ft/day
HEAST
HHRA
HI
HQ
HVE
IRIS
MCLs
mg/kg
Alaska Administrative Code
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation
above mean sea level
Army Regulation
applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements
United States Army
air sparging
Alaska Water Quality Standards
below ground surface
base/neutral and acid extractable organic compounds
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of
1980
Code of Federal Regulations
contaminants of concern ,
contaminants of ecological concern
contaminants of potential concern
contamintants of potential ecological concern
conceptual site model
denser-than-water nonaqueous phase liquid
diesel-range organics
exposure duration
United States Environmental Protection Agency
exposure point concentrations
Ecological Risk Assessment
Federal Facility Agreement
Feasibility Study
feet per day
Health Effects Assessment Summary Table
Human Health Risk Assessment
hazard index
hazard quotient
high-vacuum extraction
Integrated Risk Information System
maximum contaminant levels
micrograms per kilogram
micrograms per liter (ppb)
milligrams per kilogram (ppm)
XIV
-------
Final
August 8, 1997
mg/kg-day
mg/L
NCP
NPL
OU
O&M
PCBs
PCE
POLs
ppm
RAOs
RBCs
RCRA
RfD
RI
RME
ROD
SFs
SVE
TBC
TCE
TI
UCLs
use
VOCs
milligrams per kilogram per day
milligrams per liter
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan
National Priorities List
Operable Unit
operation and maintenance
polychlorinated biphenyls
tetrachloroethene
petroleum, oil, and lubricants
parts per million
remedial action objectives
risk-based concentrations
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
reference dose
Remedial Investigation
reasonable maximum exposure
Record of Decision
slope factors
soil vapor extraction
to-be-considered requirement
trichloroethene
Technical Impracticability
upper confidence limits
United States Code
volatile organic compounds
XV
-------
Final August 8, 1997
DECISION SUMMARY
RECORD OF DECISION
for
OPERABLE UNITS A AND B
FORT RICHARDSON
ANCHORAGE, ALASKA
AUGUST 1997
This Decision Summary provides an overview of the problems posed by the contaminants at Fort
Richardson, Operable Unit A (OU-A) and OU-B source areas. This summary describes the physical
features of the site, the contaminants present, and the associated risks to human health and the
environment. The summary also describes the remedial alternatives considered at OU-B; provides the
rationale for the remedial actions selected; and states how the remedial actions satisfy the Comprehen-
sive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) statutory
requirements.
The United States Army (Army) completed Remedial Investigations (RIs) for OU-A and OU-B to
provide information regarding the nature and extent of contamination in the soils and groundwater.
Baseline Human Health Risk Assessments (HHRAs) and Ecological Risk Assessments (ERAs) were
developed and used in conjunction with the RIs to determine the need for remedial action and to aid
in the selection of remedies. Feasibility Studies (FSs) were completed to evaluate remedial options.
-------
Final August 8, 1997
1.0 SITE DESCRIPTIONS
Fort Richardson, established in 1940 as a military staging and supply center during World War II,
originally occupied 162,000 acres north of Anchorage. In 1950, the Fort was divided between the
Army and the Air Force. The Fort now occupies approximately 56,000 acres bounded to the west by
Elmendorf Air Force Base, to the east by Chugach State Park, and to the north and south by the
Municipality of Anchorage (see Figure 1-1).
Fort Richardson's land use supports its current mission to provide the services, facilities, and
infrastructure necessary to support the rapid deployment of Army forces from Alaska to the Pacific
Theater. The area managed by Elmendorf adjacent to Fort Richardson is dedicated to military and
recreational use.
The Post contains features that include flat to rolling wooded terrain. The upland areas near the
adjacent Chugach Mountain Range rise to approximately 5,000 feet above mean sea level. The Post
is located in a climatic transition zone between the maritime climate of the coast and the continental
interior climate of Alaska.
The predominant vegetation type at Fort Richardson comprises varying-aged stands of mixed
coniferous and deciduous forest. The diverse plant communities provide habitats for a diverse
wildlife population including moose, bear, Dal I sheep, swans, and waterfowl. There are no known
threatened or endangered species residing on the Post.
Five major Pleistocene glaciations have shaped the Cook Inlet basin. These glacial deposits become
thicker as they progress from the Chugach Mountain Range to Cook Inlet. Remnants of the giaciation
include the massive Elmendorf Moraine, alluvial fans, and a large outwash deposit called the
Naptowne Outwash. The Elmendorf Moraine comprises poorly sorted, unconsolidated till with
boulders, gravel, sand, and silt. The moraine acts as a surface water divide, but not as a groundwater
divide.
Two major aquifers exist in the Anchorage area; they dip westward and extend from the Chugach
Mountain Range across the Anchorage basin (see Figure 1-2). Most groundwater flows in the
Naptowne and Knik glacial outwash sands and gravels. Relatively little groundwater flows in the
underlying consolidated bedrock of the Kenai Formation because of the bedrock's low permeability.
Well logs from previous investigations indicate that wells installed in bedrock yield small quantities of
water.
The Naptowne and Knik outwash aquifers are replenished by surface water runoff from the
mountains, direct infiltration of precipitation, and percolation from surface waters. Groundwater
flows through these deposits into glacial outwash sediments beneath portions of Fort Richardson south
of the Elmendorf Moraine.
Fort Richardson obtains drinking water from the Ship Creek Dam Reservoir and has several
emergency supply wells near Ship Creek. Groundwater used for the emergency water supply is
obtained from the confined aquifer in the Knik outwash deposit. Water storage for Fort Richardson is
-------
Final August 8, 1997
provided by a permanent 2.5-million-gallon underground reservoir in the Elmendorf Moraine, and by
the Ship Creek Dam Reservoir at the base of the Chugach Mountain Range. A water treatment plant
near the dam processes the drinking water.
Fort Richardson has generated and disposed of various hazardous substances since it began
operations. The Fort was added to the United States Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's)
National Priorities List (NPL) in June 1994. On December 5, 1994, the Army, Alaska Department of
Environmental Conservation (ADEC), and EPA signed a Federal Facility Agreement (FFA) that
outlines the procedures and schedules required for a thorough investigation of suspected historical
hazardous substance sources at Fort Richardson. The FFA divided Fort Richardson into four OUs:
OU-A, OU-B, OU-C, and OU-D. Only OU-A and OU-B are addressed in this Record of Decision
(ROD; see Figure 1-1). OU-C and OU-D will be addressed in future RODs. The potential source
areas were grouped into OUs based on the amount of existing information and the similarity of
potential hazardous substance contamination.
1.1 OPERABLE UNIT A
OU-A comprises three source areas: the Roosevelt Road Transmitter Site Leachfield (Transmitter
Site); the Ruff Road Fire Training Area (Fire Training Area); and the Building 986 Petroleum, Oil,
and Lubricant (POL) Laboratory Dry Well (Dry Well).
1.1.1 Site Locations and Description
The Transmitter Site is located north of the main Fort area near Otter Lake; the site is illustrated in
Figure 1-3. The site includes an underground communications bunker used from World War II
through the Korean War. The sanitary facilities within the bunker are connected to a septic leachfield
that was the subject of the OU-A RI.
The Fire Training Area is located east of Bryant Airfield near the Glenn Highway (see Figure 1-4).
The site consists of an area used for fire-fighting exercises from the 1940s to 1980. The exercises
involved applying fuels and other waste combustible liquids to an unlined earthen pit, igniting the
fuels, and extinguishing the resulting fires with water.
The Dry Well is located at Building 986 within the main cantonment area of Fort Richardson, near
Loop Road and Warehouse Street (see Figure 1-5). The Dry Well opening is approximately 4 feet in
diameter, with a concrete collar and a metal and plywood cover. The Dry Well was used for the
disposal of drain and sink water from the adjacent POL laboratory. Numerous chemicals were used
at the POL laboratory during performance of quality testing of fuels used at Fort Richardson.
1.1.2 Land Use
While land use at the Transmitter Site and Fire Training Area is generally recreational, the Dry Well
is a working laboratory. In the future, continued recreational land use (i.e., hiking, hunting, etc.) at
the Transmitter Site and Fire Training Area represents the most likely scenario. Continued industrial
use of the Dry Well area is expected in the future.
-------
Final August 8, 1997
12 OPERABLE UNIT B
1.2.1 Site Location and Description
OU-B consists of one site: the Poleline Road Disposal Area (Poleline Road). Poleline Road is
located in the north portion of Fort Richardson, approximately 1 mile south of the Eagle River and
0.6 mile north of the Anchorage Regional Landfill (see Figure 1-6). The site is situated in a low-
lying wooded area at Poleline Road and Bam Boulevard. The site was used as a chemical disposal
area from 1950 to 1972. During this time, chemical agent identification sets and other military debris
were burned and disposed of in trenches. The chemical sets were neutralized with a mixture of
bleach or lime and chlorinated solvents before burial.
1.2.2 Hydrogeotogy and Groundwater Use
Four water-bearing intervals have been identified at Poleline Road: a perched zone, a shallow
groundwater zone, an intermediate groundwater zone, and a deep aquifer (see Figure 1-7). The
saturated intervals are separated by zones of very dense, low-porosity, compact tills, and the detection
of contaminants in all four intervals suggest that they are interconnected to some degree. The top of
the perched interval was encountered at 4 feet to 10 feet below ground surface (BGS) and is
approximately 5 feet thick. The shallow saturated zone is an average of 10 feet thick; the top was
encountered at 20 feet to 25 feet BGS. Groundwater in the shallow zone flows in a northeasterly
direction (see Figure 1-6). The intermediate zone was encountered at approximately 65 feet to 95 feet
BGS. The deep aquifer is an advance moraine/till complex with a thickness between 3 feet and 40
feet and was encountered at 80 feet to 125 feet BGS. Groundwater elevations indicate that the flow
direction in the deep aquifer is locally to the northeast and regionally to the northwest (see Figure
1-6). Hydraulic conductivities were estimated from existing site data and averaged 0.5 feet per day
(ft/day) for all saturated zones, except that the intermediate zone averaged 0.05 ft/day. These
relatively low hydraulic conductivities suggest that groundwater flow in the site area would not
significantly disperse dissolved contaminants.
Available data indicate that the deep aquifer below Poleline Road is not connected with the aquifers
used for drinking water in the community of Eagle River (more than 1 mile to the northeast). It is
unlikely that groundwater beneath Poleline Road ever would be used for a drinking water supply.
Yield from the intermediate, shallow, and perched saturated zones would be too low to supply an
average household, and the installation of septic systems would preclude use of the shallow or
perched zones for drinking water. The deep aquifer may provide sufficient yield, but the installation
of drinking water wells in the deep aquifer is unlikely based on the present growth pattern in the area.
1.2.3 Land Use
The Army uses the land surrounding Poleline Road for military training activities and recreational
purposes. OU-B is situated on public domain land that belongs to the United States Department of
Interior, Bureau of Land Management. This land is withdrawn from the public domain for military
purposes. U.S. Army Alaska holds no deed documents for this land.
-------
02: JV9905VJV9 11.COR
Fort Richardson
Military Reservation
Boundary
Eagle River Flats it v
— Dirt Road
PolelineRoad
Disposal Area
(OU-B)
Roosevelt Road
Transmitter Site
Leachfield (OU-A)
I POL Lab
Dry Well
Ruff Road
Fire Training Area
(OU-A)
2500 5000
Chugach State Park
Approximate Scale in Feet
Figure 1 -1 OPERABLE UNITS A AND B LOCATION MAP
FORT RICHARDSON, ALASKA
-------
U S. ARMY
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
CLACK*. OtfflMIN (MM M» OUWUi
[ ' | CLAY AND >M VU: mMN»MA1lUtA»MC IMI
«tACUl 111; HVQMIIIAIIMAPMC UMI
COKJOUOAICD UOMNUM KXMt. mDK»MAIIUAfl«
MIAMMPMC iOCHV HIMOSIlAllCIAFMC UNI
NOMOHlAl KM1. f
vuticu tent: r.»oe-
VIUCA. IIACCWAMIM . i it
3v*o3OJ!'ttf3oy. • •• •'.'
0000OoSftOoOoOV. . . V •.
n PMr l^^~ T^ ^ • V .'
m^mM^,:-y:--
s yj 5S93 Pi Pi 03 o • pi O3 05 o • o^ oj 05 05 pi o » o»cr» C
>yoo0g°y°oao°oqy°aQo°o°o»ogoggQo»QQa£gi-i>:
AM coma Aourci jl^go'gogo^go^fiiWTo^o^
•0>0'.OJ.().0'0.n?0*O.OfO/«sV.i>'.Z
O5»oq^qo«>«qcfaoq^qo0eq5aoq«oo»eq5«oq&o
o • O °O o r >o « O « OO (J«O ° O » O « O » O « O « O » no n rVSn
> o ' » o « > o » oo oo o o oe o » o o o« o o o o ^ a o o, cr» L*?** »i
• O • O O • O • O • O
Figure 1-2
IAD aOLOUL IH.IS-. •.((
OHERABLt UNI I A
fORI RiCHAROSON
. . in *iiS p,( M> p,i -K;
^__ h | /I Hidii J HHii-iib •, i,, .„.
-------
CORfWOF ENGINEERS
LLS,
TILE DRAIN HELD (BURIED)
SEWER UNES
(BURIED)
UST VENT PIPE
SUSPECTED LOCATION
Of SEPTIC TANK
(FORMER)
BOMBPROOF
TRANSMITTER
BUNKER
TRANSMITTER
ANNEX
FOUNDATION
APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF FENCE
SOURCE: U.S. ARMY 1952
LEGEND
UST
UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK
EDGE OF TREES
SCALE IN FEET
100 200
300
jj ecology tod Mvlrwrnttat. Inc.
U.S. ARMY
ENGINEER DISTRICT. ALASKA
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
ANCHORAGE. ALASKA
Figure 1-3
SITE MAP
ROOSEVELT ROAD TRANSMITTER SITE LEACHFIELD
OPERABLE UNIT A
FORT RICHARDSON
ANCHORAGE
ALASKA
9ZE
JOB. NO.
JT3000
Flf NO.
JT3S209A
RATE:
4/29/97
PLATE
-------
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
U.S. ARMY
LEGEND
EDGE Of TREES
POND
MONITORING WELL LOCATION
SCALE IN FEET
ISO 300
450
it Inc.
U.S. ARMY
ENGINEER DISTRICT. ALASKA
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
ANCHORAGE, ALASKA
Figure 1-4
MONITORING WELL LOCATIONS
RUFF ROAD FIRE TRAINING AREA
OPERABLE UNIT A
FORT RICHARDSON
ANCHORAGE
9ZE
ALASKA
JOB. NO.
JT3000
FUNO.
JT3S207A
PATL
4/29/97
PLATE
-------
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
U.S. ARMY
PROP. BOOK
WAREHOUSE
BLOC. 984
LEGEND
AST
FENCE
RAILROAD TRACKS
DIRT ROAD
ABOVE GROUND STORAGE TANK
SCALE IN FEET
120 240
360
ecology and ftrtraMMDt, inc.
VKM* k •• li
U.S. ARMY
ENGINEER DISTRICT, ALASKA
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
ANCHORAGK. ALASKA
Figure 1-5
SITE MAP
POL LABORATORY DRY WELL AREA
OPERABLE UNIT A
FORT RICHARDSON
ANpHORAGE
JOB NO
JT3000
ALASKA
FILE NO
• 3UMCI
JT3S208A
DATE:
4/29/97
P| A If
-------
02:JV9905UV9 16.CDR
Anchorage Regional
Landfill is located
0.6 mile South
Key:
Approximate groundwater flow
direction in shallow interval and
deep aquifer
SCALE
100
200 Feet
Figure 1 -6 POLELINE ROAD DISPOSAL AREA
OPERABLE UNIT B
FORT RICHARDSON, ALASKA
10
-------
02 JV990SUV9 17 COB
SOUTH
320'
5,200« — »•
Ground Surface
Surfidal Deposits
SCALE
Horizontal
Vortical. r = 30
NORTH
320'
300-
-290'
260
27ff
26ff
25ff
-2301
•220-
20ff §
- W 1
180" °
-170-
16ff
- ISO1
140
130-
1201
-llff
-10ff
- 80-
- TO
- GO
- SO
-SOURCE: Ecology and Environment. Inc. 1996.
Figure 1-7 GROUNDWATER ZONES AT POLEUNE ROAD DISPOSAL AREA
OPERABLE UNIT B
FORT RICHARDSON, ALASKA
-------
Final August 8, 1997
2.0 SITE HISTORIES AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
2.1 SITE HISTORIES BEFORE REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS
2.1.1 Site History of Operable Unit A
2.1.1.1 Roosevelt Road Transmitter Site Leachfield
The Transmitter Site was utilized from World War II through the end of the Korean War as part of
the Alaska Communications System, established to provide command and control communications in
the event of enemy attacks on Anchorage or Fort Richardson. The leachfield was associated with the
sanitary system facilities at the underground bunker. Two sewer lines originate from the west side of
the bunker and extend westward, eventually connecting to a septic tank and a concrete cesspool that is
the nucleus of the leachfield. The quantity of sewage disposed of through the septic system is
unknown. Additionally, at least two other sewage disposal facilities were present at the Transmitter
Site.
During 1978, vandalism of several transformers stored in die former transmitter annex building
resulted in a spill of dielectric oils containing poly chlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). The spill later was
remediated by washing the concrete foundation of the former transmitter annex building with diesel
fuel. The date of this action is not documented in existing records; however, anectodal information
suggests that the washing action occurred in 1979. In 1988, 150 tons of PCB-contaminated soil
surrounding the concrete pad was excavated. Another cleanup effort was conducted in 1992, when at
least 600 tons of PCB-contaminated soil was removed.
Three separate investigations were performed at the site between 1988 and 1990 to determine the
presence and extent of PCB contamination inside and around the underground bunker. As pan of the
1990 investigation, two samples and a duplicate were collected from the leachfield cesspool. The
sampling records indicate that the material sampled was sludge and soil. Analytical results of these
samples showed the presence of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and semi-VOCs, PCBs, and
heavy metals. Because of the limited amount of sludge-like material observed in the cesspool during
the RI, most of this contaminated material may have been removed from the cesspool through sample
collection during the 1990 investigation. Alternatively, the cesspool identified during the 1990
investigation may have been the septic tank that could not be located during the RI and that is
believed to have been excavated and removed during soil removal operations at the site in 1992.
2.1.12 Ruff Road Fire Training Area
The Fire Training Area began operations during the initial establishment of the Post in approximately
1940, and it was used until 1980 to conduct exercises for training fire department and rescue crews.
The fire training exercises were conducted by saturating unlined excavations with water, pumping fuel
into the excavations, and igniting the fuel. Petroleum fuel products burned during die fire training
exercises included jet fuel, waste oil, diesel, brake fluid, and solvents. Based on the assumption that
1,500 gallons to 2,300 gallons of combustible material was burned annually at this site, approximately
85,500 gallons of wastes was burned and disposed of at the Fire Training Area.
12
-------
Final August 8, 1997
The former Fire Training Area has been estimated to be an area of petroleum-stained soils
approximately 50 feet in diameter. In 1991, the original road in the area was demolished and the
present Ruff Road was constructed. The charred debris associated with the Fire Training Area was
removed at that time. In 1994, the Fire Training Area was filled with approximately 18 inches of soil
and regraded. During winter 1994, the National Guard parked vehicles at the present site. No visual
evidence of the Fire Training Area remains.
Three investigations were conducted at the Fire Training Area—in 1986, 1989, and from 1991 to
1992—to determine the presence and extent of contamination at the site and to estimate potential
human health and environmental risks. Analytical results from these investigations documented the
presence of petroleum hydrocarbons; benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and total xylenes; and dioxins
in surface and subsurface soils at the site.
Conclusions from the most recent investigation during 1991 to 1992 suggested that concentrations of
petroleum and dioxin were high enough to warrant remediation. The highest levels of contamination
were detected in the surface and near-surface soils in the immediate area of the fire training pit. This
area later was regraded, and much of the original surface soil was spread and/or buried beneath up to
3 feet of fill.
2.1.13 Petroleum, Oil, and Lubricant Laboratory Dry Well
The Dry Well has been used from the 1950s to the present, but the quantity of waste discharged to
the Dry Well from the laboratory has not been documented. Operations performed at the POL
laboratory include analysis of various fuels such as motor gas, aviation fuel, JP-4, and arctic-grade
diesel for United States Government quality assurance purposes.
An 800-gallon underground storage tank was located north of Building 986 until 1992. The tank
received the same laboratory waste as the Dry Well. The Army drilled eight soil borings around the
tank in 1991 as part of the removal effort. Several soil samples collected from the borings indicated
the presence of petroleum hydrocarbons at 10 feet to 20 feet BGS. Following removal of the tank in
1992, the tank excavation was sampled and backfilled with clean fill and closed in accordance with
the cleanup standards set forth by the State of Alaska.
The Army conducted an investigation at the Dry Well in November 1992 to determine the presence
and extent of contaminants in the well. During the investigation, approximately 18 inches of water
and 6 inches to 8 inches of sludge were observed in the well at approximately 15 feet BGS.
Analytical results indicated that the sludge and water contained petroleum hydrocarbons and heavy
metals, including arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, selenium, and silver.
2.1.2 Site History of Operable Unit B
Poleline Road was identified in 1990 through interviews conducted by the Army with two former
soldiers who were stationed at Fort Richardson in the 1950s and who recalled the disposal of
chemicals, smoke bombs, and Japanese cluster bombs. The disposal location was corroborated by a
1954 United States Army Corps of Engineers map showing a "Chemical Disposal Area" at Poleline
13
-------
Final August 8, 1997
Road and by 1957 aerial photography showing trenches in the area. The disposal area was active
from approximately 1950 to 1972.
The site was divided further into four disposal areas: Areas A-l, A-2, A-3, and A-4. Areas A-3 and
A-4 showed the greatest evidence of buried waste and trenching. Historical information describes
how relatively shallow (8-feet- to 1 (Meet-deep) trenches were dug and used for the disposal of a wide
variety of debris, including chemical agent training kits. During this time, a layer of "bleach/lime"
was laid in the bottom of the trench, and then the materials contaminated with chemical weapons were
placed on a pallet in the trench. Diesel fuel was poured on the agent and then ignited with thermal
grenades. After burning was complete, a mixture of either bleach or lime, combined with chlorinated
solvent carrier (trichloroethene [TCE]; tetrachloroethene fPCE]; and 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane), was
poured over the materials to neutralize the chemical agent.
During the 1993 and 1994 removal action, contaminated debris and soil were removed from Areas
A-3 and A-4. Included during this removal action were individual components of gas identification
sets that were issued by the Army Chemical Warfare Service during the 1940s and 1950s. These sets
were used to train military personnel in the identification of chemical warfare agents. Among the
training set components were their drawn steel cylindrical shipping containers, also referred to as
pigs. Of the approximately 12 pigs recovered at the site, seven were intact and moved to a secure
storage location on Fort Richardson. The pigs will be analyzed to verify their contents and will be
opened. Their contents will be neutralized by Army chemical destruction personnel. This action is
scheduled for late Fiscal Year 1998.
Soils were excavated to a maximum depth of 14 feet, where ground water was encountered. During
the removals, sampling indicated the presence of chlorinated solvents, including TCE; PCE; and
1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane, in soil and groundwater within 20 feet of the surface. Removal action
concentration levels were established for TCE (600 milligrams per kilogram [mg/kg]); PCE (100
mg/kg); and 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane (30 mg/kg). Soils that exceeded these action levels were
stockpiled in lined, plastic-covered piles surrounded by berms on Barrs Boulevard southeast of the
site. The stockpile area is fenced, and remediation of the stockpiled soil from the removal action is
scheduled to begin in 1997. A geophysical survey was performed in 1995 to determine whether any
suspicious material remained in the recently excavated areas. Results of the survey indicated that the
burial material had been removed.
Sampling was not conducted at Areas A-l and A-2 because of the potential presence of unexploded
ordnance. However, geophysical surveys of these areas indicate that they contain lesser quantities of
buried waste than Areas A-3 and A-4. In addition, sampling of soil and groundwater surrounding
Areas A-l and A-2 did not detect any compounds or breakdown products associated with ordnance.
The sampling did detect relatively lower concentrations of chlorinated solvents than levels detected
near Areas A-3 and A-4.
2.2 ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
Fort Richardson was placed on the CERCLA NPL in June 1994. Consequently, an FFA was signed
in December 1994 by EPA, ADEC, and the United States Department of Army. The FFA details the
14
-------
Final August 8, 1997
responsibilities and authority associated with each party pursuant to the CERCLA process and the
environmental investigation and remediation requirements associated with Fort Richardson. The FFA
divided Fort Richardson into four OUs, two of which are OU-A and OU-B, and outlines the general
requirements for investigation and/or remediation of suspected historical hazardous waste source areas
associated with Fort Richardson.
2 J HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
The public was encouraged to participate in the selection of the remedies for OU-A and OU-B during
a public comment period from January 20 to February 18, 1997. The Fort Richardson Proposed
Plan for Remedial Action, Operable Units A and B presents combinations of options considered by the
Army, EPA, and ADEC to address contamination in soil and groundwater. The Proposed Plan was
released to the public on January 17, 1997, and was sent to 150 known interested parties,
including elected officials and concerned citizens.
The Proposed Plan summarizes available information regarding OU-A and OU-B. Additional
materials were placed in information repositories established at the Alaska Resources Library, Fort
Richardson Post Library, and University of Alaska Anchorage Consortium Library. An
Administrative Record, including other documents used in the selection of the remedial actions, was
established in the Public Works Environmental Resource Office on Fort Richardson. The public is
welcome to inspect materials available in the Administrative Record and the information repositories
during business hours. The Administrative Record Index is provided in Appendix A.
Interested citizens were invited to comment on the Proposed Plan and the remedy selection process by
mailing comments to the Fort Richardson project manager; by calling a toll-free telephone number to
record a comment; or by attending and commenting at a public meeting on January 29, 1997, at the
Russian Jack Chalet in Anchorage. Fifteen people attended the public meeting. Two comments were
received from the public during the comment period.
The Responsiveness Summary in Appendix B provides more details regarding community relations
activities and summarizes and addresses public comments on the Proposed Plan and the remedy
selection process.
2.4 SCOPE AND ROLE OF OPERABLE UNITS
The OU-A and OU-B RI/FSs were performed in accordance with the RI/FS Management Plans for
OU-A and OU-B, respectively. The RI fieldwork for both OUs was conducted during summer 1995.
The principal contamination at source areas within OU-A is petroleum in soil but does not pose
unacceptable risks to human health. Because the levels of contamination exceed ADEC soil cleanup
criteria, the Agencies (U.S. Army Alaska, EPA, and ADEC) have elected to pursue further cleanup
efforts at these sites under the State-Fort Richardson Environmental Restoration Agreement (Two-
Party Agreement). Decisions regarding specific cleanup alternatives for OU-A source areas will be
documented in separate decision documents, and cleanup will be conducted in accordance with
applicable State of Alaska regulations.
15
-------
Final August 8, 1997
The principal contamination at OU-B is chlorinated solvents in soil and groundwater. Based on the
origin and nature of disposal, these chlorinated solvents are not listed hazardous wastes under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). According to results of the RI, potential risks to
human health and the environment are posed by on-site contamination. Accordingly, the Agencies
have elected to pursue remedial actions under Superfund to address these potential risks.
16
-------
Final August 8, 1997
3.0 SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS
Physical features, hydrogeologic conditions, and the nature and extent of contamination for OU-A and
OU-B are described briefly in the following sections,
3.1 OPERABLE UNIT A
3.1.1 Physical Features, Hydrogeologic Conditions, and Transport Pathways
The northern and central sections of Fort Richardson, where the OU-A source areas are located,
feature flat to gently rolling, wooded terrain, including ponds and numerous streams leading from the
mountains and uplands westward to Cook Inlet. Drainages flow mainly west-northwest into the Knik
Arm. However, streams in the southernmost portion of the Fort, including Ship Creek, flow through
Anchorage before entering the Knik Arm.
3.1.1.1 Roosevelt Road Transmitter Site Leachfleld
The Transmitter Site is located near the northern margin of the Elmendorf Moraine on the Naptowne
Outwash deposits. Site soil boring logs indicate that the soil consists of dry, massive, very dense,
well-graded gravel and sand, with minor silt and clay.
The Transmitter Site is located in an undeveloped portion of Fort Richardson. The site is surrounded
by forests. Wetlands are located within 0.5 mile of the site to the southwest, southeast, and
northeast.
Groundwater at the Transmitter Site occurs from 88 feet to 99 feet BGS (approximately 176 feet to
178 feet above mean sea level [AMSL]) within a sandy gravel deposit of the Naptowne Outwash
Formation. Groundwater generally flows southwest with an estimated gradient of 0.01. This
groundwater flow direction is not consistent with the regional west-northwest groundwater flow.
Because the contaminant source is in the subsurface, the most likely contaminant migration pathway at
the Transmitter Site is lateral and vertical transport through subsurface soil. Groundwater is not a
contaminant migration pathway, as indicated by the absence of contaminants in the samples collected
at the site. Figure 3-1 presents a conceptual site model (CSM) based on the results of the RI.
3.1.1.2 Ruff Road Fire Training Area
The Fire Training Area is located near the southern margin of the Elmendorf Moraine on the
Naptowne Outwash deposits. Site soil boring logs indicate that the soil consists of dry, massive,
well-graded gravel, with minor silt and clay.
The Fire Training Area is located within an area used for gravel excavation and is surrounded by
relatively undisturbed forested areas. A wetland is located approximately 600 feet from the southwest
corner of the former Fire Training Area. A former gravel pit is located approximately 0.6 mile south
and hydraulically upgradient of the site. The pit has filled with water, which is likely an expression
17
-------
Final August 8, 1997
of a localized, perched groundwater zone.
Groundwater occurs from 140 feet to 153 feet BGS (approximately 236 feet to 250 feet AMSL) and
within the unconfined sandy gravel to gravelly sand aquifer. Groundwater generally flows westward
and has an average horizontal hydraulic gradient from 0.018 to 0.023. These conditions are
consistent with the regional hydrogeologic characteristics described in Section 1.2.2.
Contaminants were detected in surface and subsurface soil. Off-site contaminant transport through
surface runoff and windblown particulates is possible but not expected to contribute significantly to
contaminant transport from the site. The absence of site-related contaminants in the surface water and
sediment samples collected at the nearby pond substantiates the conclusion that surface water runoff
and paniculate transport are not migration pathways of concern at the Fire Training Area. The RI
conducted transport modeling of petroleum constituents in the subsurface soils. The model predicted
that petroleum contaminants will migrate approximately 10 feet vertically from their present location
over a 90-year period and that groundwater likely would not be impacted. Based on this result and
the absence of contaminants in groundwater samples collected at the site, groundwater is not a
contaminant migration pathway. Figure 3-2 presents a CSM based on the results of the RI.
3.1.1 J Petroleum, Oil, and Lubricant Laboratory Dry Weil
The Dry Well is located near the southern margin of the Elmendorf Moraine on the Naptowne
Outwash deposits. Soil boring logs indicate that the soil consists of dry, massive, very dense, well-
graded gravel and sand, with minor silt and clay.
The Dry Well is located in a partially developed portion of the Fort Richardson main installation.
Patches of developed/disturbed forests surround the site. No known wetlands occur within a 0.5-mile
radius of Building 986.
The Dry Well was completed to a depth of 18 feet. Groundwater occurs mainly within a silty sand
bed of the Naptowne Outwash Formation from 113 feet to 122 feet BGS (approximately 177 feet to
181 feet AMSL). Groundwater generally flows west with an average gradient from 0.001 to 0.006.
These conditions are consistent with the regional hydrogeologic characteristics described in Section
1.2.2.
Contaminants were detected in sludge and subsurface soil. The sludge and the Dry Well will be
removed during the upcoming field season. Lateral and vertical migration of contaminants through
subsurface soil is the most important pathway at the site. Based on results obtained during the RI,
lateral contaminant migration has been restricted to an area within an approximately 40-foot radius of
the Dry Well. Contaminant transport modeling suggests that petroleum contaminants would migrate
approximately 11 feet vertically from their present location during a 90-year period. Because the
distance between the deepest soil contamination at the Dry Well and the groundwater table is
approximately 40 feet, the likelihood of groundwater contamination caused by contaminants leached
from subsurface soil is low. Based on the results of the RI, neither volatilization of contaminants to
air nor paniculate transport of contaminants by wind is a release mechanism. Figure 3-3 presents a
CSM for the Dry Well.
18
-------
Final August 8, 1997
3.1.2 Nature and Extent of Contamination
3.1.2.1 Roosevelt Road Transmitter Site Leachfield
In 1990, a limited characterization of the septic system was performed. A cesspool sample was
obtained from a layer of sludge and detritus on the bottom of the concrete-lined cesspool, while soil
samples were obtained from sloughed material in the cesspool. Analytical results indicated the
presence of VOCs, base/neutral and acid extractable organic compounds (BNAs), PCBs (up to 5,600
micrograms per kilogram [/tg/kg]), and heavy metals including copper (up to 1,100 mg/kg) and lead
(up to 1,200 mg/kg). During the 1990 investigation, analysis for fuel was not performed.
The OU-A RI was conducted in 1995. The principal objectives of the RI were to conduct a
geophysical survey and to investigate the cesspool, subsurface soil, and groundwater. The results of
the RI indicated that soils in isolated locations within the leachfield have been impacted by petroleum
contamination. Table 3-1 provides the locations and concentrations of site-related contaminants in
subsurface soils. Low levels of heavy metals and PCBs were encountered. The presence of diesel-
range organics (DRO) in subsurface soils indicates that these contaminants have dispersed from the
leachfield and associated plumbing and have migrated to 15 feet BGS. The lateral extent of DRO
contamination appears to be limited to an area extending northwest from the buried sewer line, which
connects the transmitter building and the cesspool, to a portion of the leachfield. The presence of
PCBs near the bunker at 5 feet BGS suggests that either contaminated soil was reworked during
remedial activities or that limited migration through subsurface soils has occurred. These
concentrations probably represent residual contamination remaining from remedial activities conducted
between 1988 and 1992 at the transmitter annex foundation. Therefore, it is unlikely that this
contamination is related to discharges from the leachfield or its associated plumbing.
Sloughed soils within the cesspool contained petroleum hydrocarbons; PCB Aroclor 1260; cyanide;
and heavy metals including barium, cadmium, lead, and mercury (see Table 3-2). Petroleum
hydrocarbons were detected up to a maximum concentration of 23,000 mg/kg. Cyanide was detected
at a concentration of 1.2 mg/kg.
No site-related contaminants were detected at concentrations exceeding state and federal maximum
contaminant levels (MCLs) in die Transmitter Site groundwater samples.
3.1.2.2 Ruff Road Fire Training Area
Previous investigations were conducted at the Fire Training Area in 1986, in 1989, and from 1991 to
1992.
In 1986, the Army drilled three soil borings and collected 20 subsurface soil samples at the site.
Eight samples were analyzed for VOCs, but VOCs were not detected at concentrations exceeding
detection limits.
In 1989, as part of the Installation Restoration Program, 15 soil-gas probes were installed in the area
to a depth of 9 feet. Benzene, toluene, and xylene were identified in the soil-gas samples with
19
-------
Final August 8, 1997
maximum concentrations of 250 parts per million (ppm), 2,500 ppm, and 1,200 ppm, respectively.
In 1991, the Army collected surface and subsurface soil samples at the site. A composite surface soil
sample was collected in triplicate from stained soil near the center of the Fire Training Area. The
sample contained lead (80.8 ppm to 543 ppm), diesei and other fuels (10,000 ppm to 20,000 ppm),
pyrene (750 fig/kg), PCE (48 /ig/kg to 485 /ig/kg), toluene (732 jig/kg), xylene (1,116 Mg/kg), bis(2-
ethylhexyOphthalate (4,100 Mg/kg), and dioxins (0.0022 jig/kg toxicity equivalency factor).
Subsurface soil samples also were collected during the 1991 effort. The highest VOC concentrations
detected in these samples were acetone (283 Mg/kg), TCE (46 Mg/kg), toluene (56 Mg/kg), and xylene
(42 jig/kg)- The investigation was continued in 1992. Analytical results obtained in 1992 confirmed
the presence of petroleum contamination in surface and subsurface soils. Dioxins also were detected
in the surface soils; one sample contained a maximum concentration of 45.4 Mg/kg dioxin toxicity
equivalency factor.
The RI field investigation was conducted in 1995 to further investigate surface and subsurface soils,
groundwater, and surface water/sediment. As mentioned in Section 2.1.1.2 (page 12), the site was
covered with approximately 18 inches of soil and regraded in 1994. Accordingly, the RI samples
were collected from the current soil surface (fill) and the former soil surface that was characterized in
the 1991 to 1992 investigation. The results confirmed the presence of petroleum hydrocarbons and
dioxins in the surface and subsurface soil. Maximum contaminant concentrations detected in the RI
soil samples include 3,400 mg/kg DRO, 1,300 mg/kg gasoline-range organics, 5,400 mg/kg total
recoverable petroleum hydrocarbons, and 0.0239 fig/kg dioxin toxicity equivalency factor (see Figure
3-4). VOCs, semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs), and lead concentrations detected during the
RI were significantly lower than the 1991 to 1992 results. None of the RI soil samples contained
dioxin concentrations within three orders of magnitude of the 1992 soil results, which indicates that
the maximum 1992 result was associated with a very localized "hot spot" or was related to an
analytical error.
The lateral extent of surface soil contamination was estimated based on the findings of the RI and
previous site investigations, and by applying ADEC's Interim Guidance for Non-UST Contaminated
Soil Cleanup Levels for petroleum hydrocarbons. Contamination above the acceptable cleanup level is
estimated conservatively to be confined to an area 175 feet by 190 feet. Figure 3-5 depicts the
approximate boundaries of lateral contamination. No contamination was detected in any of the
subsurface soil samples collected from depths greater than 5 feet BGS. Using these boundaries, the
estimated volume of contaminated soil is 6,200 cubic yards. Tables 3-3 and 3-4 summarize the
frequency of detection, range, and locations of maximum concentrations of analytes detected in
surface and subsurface soil.
No site-related contaminants were detected in groundwater and surface water /sediment samples.
Inorganic elements were detected in these samples, but the concentration levels were consistent with
naturally occurring background levels.
3.1.2.3 Petroleum, Oil, and Lubricant Laboratory Dry Well
The Army conducted an investigation at the Dry Well in November 1992 to determine the presence
20
-------
Final August 8, 1997
and extent of contaminants in the well. During the investigation, approximately 18 inches of water
and 6 inches to 8 inches of sludge were observed in the well at approximately IS feet BGS. The
sludge contained VOCs; BNAs; petroleum hydrocarbons; and heavy metals including arsenic, barium,
cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, selenium, and silver. Table 3-5 summarizes the anaJytes
detected during the 1992 investigation.
Sludge samples collected from the bottom of the Dry Well during the RI field investigation showed
concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons as kerosene (67,000 mg/kg); cyanide (6.8 mg/kg); and
heavy metals including barium, chromium, lead, silver, and mercury (see Table 3-6). The results of
the RI indicated that this sludge is contaminated with petroleum products and that approximately 230
cubic yards of petroleum-contaminated subsurface soil is near the bottom of the Dry Well. The heavy
metals chromium and mercury also were detected in subsurface soil at the site (see Table 3-7). VOCs
were not encountered in soil at levels expected to pose a risk to human health or the environment.
The petroleum constituents detected in subsurface soils exceed Alaska cleanup levels for petroleum-
contaminated soils; however, the other contaminants of concern (COCs) detected in soil do not exceed
EPA's Region 3 risk-based concentrations (RBCs).
Groundwater has not been impacted by petroleum-contaminated sludge and subsurface soil at the site.
However, high levels of chloroform, methyiene chloride, and manganese were detected. Chloroform
and methyiene chloride are laboratory contaminants associated with the sample analysis performed for
this site; moreover, neither chloroform nor methyiene chloride was detected in sludge or subsurface
soil samples collected at the Dry Well, which makes it unlikely that chloroform and methyiene
chloride are contaminating ground water. Based on results of previous investigations, the presence of
manganese in the groundwater samples is likely attributable to naturally occurring minerals in
groundwater at the site.
3.2 OPERABLE UNIT B
3.2.1 Physical Features, Hydrogeologic Conditions, and Transport Pathways
Poleline Road is a low-lying, relatively flat area bordered by wooded hills to the northwest and
southeast. Wetlands are located directly south and southwest of disposal Areas A-l and A-4 (see
Figure 1-6). The remaining area bordering Poleline Road is relatively flat and wooded.
The surftcial deposits of the region are fluvially reworked glacial sediments and glacial tills. These
deposits appear to be up to 30 feet thick at the site and consist of unstratified to poorly stratified
clays, silts, sands, gravels, and boulders. A basal till lies below the surficial deposits and overlies an
advance moraine/till complex. Underlying the glacial sediments is bedrock composed of a hard black
fissile claystone.
The subsurface soils collected during the 1995 field investigation were glacial tills, generally
described as silty sands with some gravel. The soils at Poleline Road were difficult to drill through
and sample because of the high density.
The hydrogeologic conditions are discussed in Section 1.2.2. Dissolved contaminants in groundwater
21
-------
Final August 8, 1997
will migrate through advective forces, influenced by horizontal and vertical groundwater flow
gradients.
3.2.2 Nature and Extent of Contamination
In 1993 and 1994, contaminated debris and soil were removed from two of four burial locations.
Soils were excavated to a maximum depth of 14 feet, where groundwater was encountered. During
the removals, sampling indicated the presence of chlorinated solvents. Solvents found in soil during
this removal included TCE at a maximum concentration of 360 mg/kg; PCE at a maximum
concentration of 25 mg/kg; and 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane at a maximum concentration of 2,920
mg/kg. During the 1993 removal action, the site was divided into four areas corresponding to the
four disposal areas identified previously: Areas A-l, A-2, A-3, and A-4 (see Figure 1-6). Another
geophysical survey was performed in 1995 and indicated that the buried material had been removed.
Areas A-l and A-2 have not been excavated or sampled because of the potential presence of
unexploded ordnance. Additionally, there are no breakdown products from the unexploded ordnance,
which suggests that Areas A-l and A-2 do not appear to be an ongoing source of groundwater
contamination. Lesser contaminant concentrations were detected in the soils and groundwater
surrounding Areas A-l and A-2. The groundwater flow pattern suggests that the contaminants
detected near groundwater zones in Areas A-l and A-2 migrated there from Areas A-3 and A-4.
Contaminants detected during surface sampling near Area A-2 were due to migration from Areas A-3
and A-4.
During the RI, the highest concentrations of contaminants detected in soil and groundwater samples
were found in Areas A-3 and A-4 (see Tables 3-8, 3-9, and 3-10). This area of greatest
contamination at the site is referred to as the "hot spot* and encompasses an area approximately 150
feet by 300 feet that is bounded by a 1 milligram per liter (mg/L; 1,000 micrograms per liter [>ig/L])
or greater concentration of 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane in groundwater (see Figure 3-6). The highest
soil concentrations of these contaminants were encountered more than 15 feet BGS at the "hot spot."
The results of the RI indicated the presence of chlorinated solvents in soil up to a maximum
concentration of 2,030 mg/kg for 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethene. PCE; TCE; and 1,1,2,2-
tetrachloroethane in contaminated soils are a continuing source of groundwater contamination.
The RI results also indicated the presence of four main water-bearing zones underneath the site (see
Table 3-10). Chlorinated solvent contamination, including TCE and 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethene, was
detected in all four groundwater zones. TCE concentrations exceeded the state and federal MCL of 5
/ig/L in the perched, shallow, and deep aquifers. 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane was detected up to a
maximum concentration of 1,900 mg/L in the perched groundwater zone. While 1,1,2,2-
tetrachloroethane does not have a state or federal MCL, its RBC (tap water), based on an excess
cancer risk of 1 x 10"4, is 0.052 mg/L. This concentration was exceeded in the perched, shallow, and
deep water-bearing zones. Studies performed at the site indicated that the contaminated groundwater
in the deep aquifer is flowing regionally northwest toward the Eagle River, but in the immediate
vicinity of Poleline Road it is flowing to the northeast (see Figure 3-6); groundwater flow modeling
results suggested that this contaminated groundwater could migrate to the Eagle River within 120
years.
22
-------
Final August 8, 1997
During fall 1996, a Treatability Study was conducted at the site to evaluate the effectiveness of
potential remedial technologies addressed in the FS. The Treatability Study involved field tests to
evaluate the potential performance of soil vapor extraction (SVE) and air sparging (AS) of
groundwater. The studies also involved characterization of hydraulic conductivity of water-bearing
zones underlying the site and collection of groundwater samples to assess which types of natural
attenuation processes may be degrading contaminants in groundwater. The study concluded that SVE
may reduce contamination at the site but AS would not be an effective technology to remediate
contaminants in groundwater. The study also concluded that biological components of natural
attenuation would not be an important degradation mechanism. However, other attenuation processes,
such as adsorption and dispersion, are expected to decrease contaminant concentrations over time.
Groundwater sampling to determine dissolved oxygen levels during the study revealed a two-phase
sample of groundwater in the sampling bailer. This was the first time that such a sample was
observed at the site, and it was not observed during a single follow-up sampling event to characterize
the separate phases at the same location. The two-phase sample was drawn from a newly installed 2-
inch-diameter polyvinyl chloride well, screened between 28 feet and 33 feet BGS in the shallow
groundwater interval. This well is located several feet from MW-14, which was the location of the
highest groundwater contaminant concentrations at OU-B during the RI. MW-14 is screened at
approximately IS feet BGS in the perched groundwater interval.
23
-------
Page 1 of 2
Table 3-1
SUMMARY OF Rl SUBSURFACE SOIL SAMPLES EXCEEDING SCREENING CRITERIA
ROOSEVELT ROAD TRANSMITTER SITE LEACHF1ELD
OPERABLE UNIT A
FORT RICHARDSON, ALASKA
(rag/kg, except as noted)
Analyte
DRO
Frequency of
Detection
47/89
Range or Detected
Concentrations
3 -470
Location and
Depth (ft. BGS)
of Maximum
Concentration
AP-3S98 (15 A.)
Screening
Concentration
100«
Number of
Samples Exceeding
Screening
Concentration
4
PCBs
Aroclor 1260
2/87
0.04 - 0.2
AP-3617
0.083b
1
Inorganics
Aluminum
Barium
Calcium
Chromium
. Copper
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
89/89
89/89
89/89
89/89
89/89
89/89
89/89
89/89
89/89
89/89
89/89
9.250-24.100
30-211
1,810-20.900
20-76
18-81
20.300 - 44,600
3-48
272-1,070
72 - 450
30-86
41 - 203
AP-3S99 (15 ft.)
AP-3602 (40 ft.)
AP-3604 (40 A.)
AP-3604 (20 ft.)
AP-3604 (20 ft.)
AP-3610 (5 ft.)
AP-3617 (5 ft.)
AP-3610 (5 ft.)
AP-3604 (IS ft.)
AP-3610 (5 ft.)
AP-3604 (10 ft.)
22,400°
154e
19,400°
61 .9C
54C
41,300°
29°
817°
299°
77°
108°
3
1
1
1
1
1
2
5
1
2
1
Key at end of table.
-------
Page 2 of 2
Table 3-1 (Coat.)
* Matrix A cleanup levels (ADEC 1991).
b Risk-based concentration equivalent to a cancer risk of 1 x 10"* or a hazard quotient of I for soil ingest ion and residential land use (EPA I99S).
c Maximum background concentration detected in Rl background samples or as listed in the Fort Richardson Background Study (E A E 1996).
Key:
ADEC - Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation.
DRO = Diesel-range organics.
E & E = Ecology and Environment, Inc.
EPA = United States Environmental Protection Agency.
H. BGS = Fed below ground surface.
m^/kg - Milligrams per kilogram.
PCBs = Polychlorinatcd biphcnyls
Rl = Remedial Investigation.
N)
-------
Page 1 of 2
N)
ON
Table 3-2
SUMMARY OF Rl CESSPOOL SAMPLE RESULTS
ROOSEVELT ROAD TRANSMITTER SITE LEACHFIELD
OPERABLE UNIT A
FORT RICHARDSON, ALASKA
Aoalyte
Unknown Fuel (mg/kg)
Frequency of
Detection
2/2
Range of Detected
Concentrations
12.000 - 23,000
Location and
Depth (ft. BGS)
of Maximum
Concentration
23.000
Screening
Concentration
-
Number of
Samples Exceeding
Screening
Concentration
NA
PCBs (rag/kg)
Aroclor 1260
2/2
1.8-2.3
CESS
0.0083*
2
Inorganics (mg/kg)
Cyanide
1/2
1.2
CESS
-
NA
TCLP Inorganics (rag/I.)
TCLP Barium
TCLP Cadmium
TCLP Lead
TCLP Mercury
Flashpoint (*F)
2/2
2/2
2/2
1/2
1/1
0.7
0.06-0.11
0.24 - 0.27
0.001
200
CESS
CESS
CESS
CESS
CESS
lOO*
l.0*>
5.0b
2.0b
-------
: Page 2 of 2
Table 3-2 (Coot.)
Key:
- = No screening concentration exists for analyte.
CFR = Code of Federal Regulations. I
EPA = United States Environmental Protection Agency.
•F = Degrees Fahrenheit.
ft. BGS = Feel below ground surface.
mg/kg = Milligrams per kilogram.
mg/L = Milligrams per liter.
NA = Not applicable.
PCBs = Polychlorinated biphenyls.
Rl = Remedial Investigation.
TCLP = Toxicily characteristic leaching procedure.
M
-------
Page I of 2
K)
00
Table 3-3
SUMMARY OF Rl SURFACE SOIL SAMPLES EXCEEDING SCREENING CRITERIA
RUFF ROAD FIRE TRAINING AREA
OPERABLE UNIT A
FORT RICHARDSON, ALASKA
(me/kg)
Analytc
DRO
GRO
TRPII
Frequency of
Detection
11/11
3/5
11/11
Range of
Concentrations
10 - 3,400
2.1 - 1.300
20 - 5.400
BNAs
Benzo(a)pyrcne
Bcnzo(b)fluoranlhenc
Dioxins, TKF
3/11
4/11
11/11
0.21 - 0.94
0.19-1.4
7.25 x IO'9 -
2.39 x 10'5
Location and Depth
of Maximum
Concentration
(ft. BGS)
N9 (1 ft.)
N9 (1 ft.)
Mil (1.5 ft.)
O9(l 5 ft.)
O9 (1.5 ft.)
Mil (1.5 A.)
Screening
Concentration
1001
50*
2.000"
Number of
Samples Exceeding
Screening
Concentration
2
2
2
0.088b
O.ST1'
4.3 x 10^b
3
2
1
Inorganics
Aluminum
Barium
Calcium
Copper
Lead
Potassium
11/11
11/11
11/11
11/11
11/11
11/11
11,000-20,000
64-360
2.100 - 4.500
18- 100
66 - 94
230 - 780
O9(l.5 ft.)
L10(0ft.)
09(1.5 ft.)
LIO (0 ft.)
LIO(0 ft.)
LIO(0 ft.)
19.0004
130C
3.600C
54C
27s
420C
1
1
1
2
2
4
Key Jl eml »l lahlir
-------
Page 2 of 2
Table 3-3
SUMMARY OF Rl SURFACE SOIL SAMPLES EXCEEDING SCREENING CRITERIA
RUFF ROAD FIRE TRAINING AREA
OPERABLE UNIT A
FORT RICHARDSON, ALASKA
(mg/kg)
Analyte
Sodium
Zinc
Frequency of
Detection
11/11
11/11
Range of
Concentrations
91 - 450
47 - 210
Location and Depth
of Maximum
Concentration
(ft. BGS)
K9 (0 ft.)
LlO(Oft)
Screening
Concentration
420C
108C
Number of
Samples Exceeding
Screening
Concentration
3
2
M
VO
3 Screening criteria based on Alaska non-UST matrix level A concentrations for petroleum-contaminated soil (ADEC 1991).
" Screening criteria based on EPA, Region 3, risk-based concentration corresponding to excess lifetime cancer risk of 1 x 10"6 or a hazard index of 1 for soil
ingestion and residential land use (EPA* I99S).
c Screening criteria based on the maximum concentrations delected in site-specific background samples or background levels listed in the Background Data
Analysis Report, Fort Richardson (E & E 1996).
Key:
ADEC = Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation.
BNAs = Base/neutral and acid cxlrucloltlc organic compounds.
DRO = Diesel-range organics.
E & E = Ecology and Environment, Inc.
EPA = United Stales Environmental Protection Agency.
f). BGS = Feet below ground surface.
GRO = Gasoline-range organics.
mg/kg = Milligrams per kilogram.
Rl = Remedial Investigation.
TEF = Toxic it y equivalency factor.
TRPH = Total recoverable petroleum hydrocarbons.
UST = Underground storage tank.
-------
Page I of 2
Table 3-4
SUMMARY OF Rl SUBSURFACE SOIL SAMPLES EXCEEDING SCREENING CRITERIA
RUFF ROAD FIRE TRAINING AREA
OPERABLE UNIT A
FORT RICHARDSON, ALASKA
(rag/kg)
Analyte
DRO
GKO
TRI'll
Dioxins, TEF
Frequency of
Detection
73/113
28/82
83/111
58/100
Range of
Concentrations
1 -610
0.28 - 420
9.3 - 3.000
1.54 X IO'9-
1.91 x 10'5
Location and Depth
of Maximum
Concentration
(ft. BGS)
AP-3635 (20 ft.)
AP-3635 (20 ft.)
AP 3635 (30 ft.)
AP-3637(IOft.)
Screening
Concentration
100«
50«
2.000*
4.3 x IQ-*
Number of
Samples Exceeding
Screening
Concentration
5
4
1
2
Inorganics
Arsenic
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Nickel
no/no
Ill/Ill
Ill/Ill
Ill/Ill
Ill/Ill
Ill/Ill
110/110
Ill/Ill
Ill/Ill
2.1 - 17
2.700- 14,100
15-69
7.7 - 18
17 - 230
16,000 - 40,000
4.2 - 59
5.400- 15,000
18-79
AP-3645 (20 ft.)
AP-3657(MOft.)
AP-3637 (5 ft.)
AP-3637 (40 ft.)
Nil (2.5 ft.)
AP-3637 (40 ft.)
Nil (2.5 ft.)
AP-3640 (40 ft.)
AP-3640 (40 ft.)
14C
1 2.000°
58C
16C
54C
38,000°
29C
11.200*
63C
1
3
1
2
4
1
1
5
2
Key ul end of table.
-------
Page 2 of 2
Table 3-4
SUMMARY OF Rl SUBSURFACE SOIL SAMPLES EXCEEDING SCREENING CRITERIA
RUFF ROAD FIRE TRAINING AREA
OPERABLE UNIT A
FORT RICHARDSON, ALASKA
-------
Page 1 of 1
Table 3-5
BUILDING 986 POL LABORATORY DRY WELL
1992 INVESTIGATION RESULTS
OPERABLE UNIT
A
FORT RICHARDSON, ALASKA
Maximum C
imV,
Analyt* (pg
VOCi
1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,3 ,5-Trimethy (benzene
BNAj
1 ,2-Dichk>robenzene
Key:
NAs =
£/k£ —
Ig/L. **
ND =
POL =
OCs =
Base/neutral and acid extractable organic compounds.
Micrograms per kilogram.
Micrograms per liter.
Not detected.
Petroleum, oil, and lubricant.
Volatile organic compounds.
oocentration Maximum Concentration
'tier !• Sludge
/L) (PC/kg)
0.44 ND
1 .8N 42,000
270 34,100
Source: United States Army Engineer District, Alaska. 1993.
32
-------
Page 1 of I
Ul
Table 3-6
SUMMARY OP Rl SLUDGE SAMPLE RESULTS
POL LABORATORY DRY WELL
OPERABLE UNIT A
FORT RICHARDSON, ALASKA
Analyte
Inorganics (jig/L)
TCLP Lead
TCLP Mercury
TCLP Silver
Frequency of
Detection
I/I
I/I
1/1
Concentration
4,600
87 J
240
RCRA
Hazardous
Waste Criteria
5,000
200
5,000
Number of
Samples Exceeding
RCRA Criteria
0
0
0
Fuel ID (mg/kg)
Kerosene
I/I
67.000
-
NA
Key:
•- = No screening criterion exists for analyte.
ID = Identification.
J = Estimated.
/ig/L = Micrograms per liter.
mg/kg = Milligrams per kilogram.
NA = Not applicable.
POL = Petroleum, oil, and lubricant.
RCRA = Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.
RI = Remedial Investigation.
TCLP = Toxicity characteristic leaching procedure.
-------
Page I of 2
U)
Table 3-7
SUMMARY OF HI SUBSURFACE SOIL SAMPLES EXCEEDING SCREENING CRITERIA
POL LABORATORY DRY WELL
OPERABLE UNIT A
FORT RICHARDSON, ALASKA
(mg/kg)
Analyte
DRO
GRO
Frequency of
Detection
55/66
8/56
Range of
Concentrations
2- 1,800
0.34 - 650
Location and Depth of
Maximum
Concentration
(ft. BGS)
AP-3619 (IS ft.)
AP-3619 (15 ft.)
Screening
Concentration
100*
50*
Number of
Samples Exceeding
Screening
Concentration
6
3
Inorganics
Antimony
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Lead
Magnesium
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Silver
Vanadium
25/66
66/66
66/66
66/66
66/66
66/66
37/66
66/66
66/66
3/66
66/66
0.46-5.4
2,500 - 13,600
12 - 120
6.2 - 36
2.7-64
4.400 - 55,000
0.066 - 2.2
18-280
280 - 962
2.4 - 12
22 - 78.8
AP-3648 (80 ft.)
AP-3648 (80 ft.)
AP-3619 (15 A.)
AP-3620 (50 ft.)
AP-3621 (5 ft.)
AP-3620 (50 ft.)
AP-3618 (5 ft.)
AP-3620 (50 ft.)
AP-3648 (80 ft.)
AP-3620 (50 ft.)
AP-3648 (80 A.)
0.5b
13,000b
69b
2|b
52b
24,000**
0.6b
I70b
950b
4.2b
77b
22
2
I
1
1
1
3
I
1
2
1
Key at end of (able.
-------
Page 2 of 2
Table 3-7 (Cent.)
a Screening criteria based on Alaska non-UST matrix level A concentrations for petroleum-contaminated soil (ADEC 1991).
" Screening criteria based on the maximum concentrations detected in site-specific background samples or background levels listed in the Background Data
Analysis Report, Fort Richardson (E & E 1996).
I
Key:
ADEC = Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation.
DRO = Diesel-range organics.
E & E = Ecology and Environment, Inc.
ft. BGS = Feet below ground surface.
GRO = Gasoline-range organics.
mg/Vg = Milligrams per kilogram.
POL = Petroleum, oil, and lubricant.
Rl = Remedial Investigation.
UST = Underground storage tank.
-------
Page 1 of I
Table 3-8
SUMMARY OF SOIL SAMPLE RESULTS
AREAS A-l AND A-2, AND OTHER AREAS
POLEL1NE ROAD DISPOSAL AREA
OPERABLE UNIT B
FORT RICHARDSON, ALASKA
(mg/kg)
Analyte
Inorganics
Arsenic
Beryllium
Frequency of
Detection
24/24
13/24 '
Range of Detected
Concentrations
4.6-15
0.28-0.45
Location of Maximum
Concentration
SB-01 1 (6--91) and
SB-015 (12M51)
SB-07 (0'-3')
Screening
Concentration*
Number of Samples
Exceeding Screening
Concentration
0.43(C). 23(N)
0.1 5(C)
23
13
EPA, Region 3. October 20, 1995, Risk-Based Concentrations, Residential Soil.
Key:
(C)
EPA
mg/kg
(N)
= Carcinogenic risk-based screening concentration.
= United States Environmental Protection Agency.
= Milligrams per kilogram.
= Noncarcinogcnic risk-based screening concentration.
-------
Page 1 of 1
UJ
Table 3-9
SUMMARY OF SOIL SAMPLE RESULTS
AREAS A-3 AND A-4
POLELINE ROAD DISPOSAL AREA
OPERABLE UNIT B
FORT RICHARDSON, ALASKA
(mg/kg)
Analyte
Frequency of
Detection
VOCs
1,1.2,2-
Tclrachlorocthenc
14/14
Range of Detected
Concentration!
0.0018-79 1
Location of Maximum
Concentration
Screening
Concentration*
Number of Samples
Exceeding Screening
Cone nitration
MW-14 (I8'-20')
3.2(C)
5
Inorganics
Arsenic
Beryllium
14/14
6/14
4.0-11
0.304.39
SB-D1 (5'-7')
SB-Dl (0'-2')
0.43(C). 23(N)
0.15(C)
14
6
a EPA, Region 3, October 20, 1995, Risk-Based Concentrations, Residential Soil.
Key:
(C)
EPA
J
mg/kg
(N)
VOCs
Carcinogenic risk-based screening concentration.
United States Environmental Protection Agency.
Estimated.
Milligrams per kilogram.
Noncarcmogenic risk-based screening concentration.
Volatile organic compounds.
-------
Pagel of 2
Table 3-10
SUMMARY OF GROUNDWATER SAMPLE RESULTS
POLELINE ROAD DISPOSAL AREA
OPERABLE UNIT B
FORT RICHARDSON, ALASKA
(mg/L)
Analyte
VOCs
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloridc
Chloroform
1 , 1 -Dichloroethcne
cis- 1 ,2-Dtchlorocthene
trans- 1,2-
Dichlorocihcnc
1,1,2,2-
Tetrachlorocihane
Tetrachloroethene
1,1 ,2-Trichloroelhanc
Trichloroethenc
Frequency of
Detection
3/14
2/14
4/14
4/14
9/14
6/14
10/14
5/14
4/14
12/14
Range of Detected
Concentrations
Location of Maximum
Concentration
0.00034 - 2.9 J
0.0022 -2. 6 J
000053- 1.4 J
000014 J - 0.0012
00053- 1.6
0.0038- 12 J
0.0063-1, 900 J
0.00035-1 1 J
0.00078-0.0023
0.00031 -220 J
MW-14
MW-14
MW-14
MW-9
MW-4
MW-14
MW-14
MW-14
MW-3
MW-14
Risk-Baled Screening
Concentration*
0.00036(C)
000016(C)
0.0001 5(C)
0.000044(C)
0.061(N)
0.12(N)
0.000052(C)
0.001 1(C)
0.0001 9(C)
00016(C)
Number of Samples
Exceeding Risk-Based
Screening
Concentration
2
2
4
4
3
•>
* *
10
2
4
9
Inorganics
Arsenic (unfillercJ)
1/15
0012
MW-7
0.000045(C), 0.01 1(N)
1
u
00
Key a I cud til luhlc
-------
Page 2 of 2
Table 3-10
SUMMARY OF GROUND WATER SAMPLE RESULTS
POLEL1NE ROAD DISPOSAL AREA
OPERABLE UNIT B
FORT RICHARDSON, ALASKA
(mg/L)
Analyte
Frequency of
Detection
Range of Detected
Concentrations
Location of Maximum
Concentration
Risk-Based Screening
Concentration*
Number of Samples
Exceeding Risk-Based
Screening
Concentration
Arsenic (filtered)
1/15
0.0071
MW-7
000045(C), 0.011 (N)
1
EPA. Region 3, October 20. 199S, Risk-Based Concentrations, Residential Tap Water Ingcsiion
ui
v£>
Key:
(C)
EPA
J
mg/L
(N)
RBC
VOCs
Carcinogenic risk-based screening concentration.
United Stales Environmental Protection Agency.
Estimated.
Milligrams per liter.
Noncarcinogenic risk-based screening concentration.
Risk-based concentration.
Volatile organic compounds.
-------
POTENTIAL RECEPTORS
PRIMARY
SOURCES
PRIMARY
RELEASE
MECHANISM
SECONDARY
SOURCES
SECONDARY
RELEASE
MECHANISM
TERTIARY
SOURCES
EXPOSURE
ROUTE
I Current
Is ilc Visiton
Future Fulur
s[ Rqidenb |SiteVi5i
Future
Site Visiton
Future
Workers
Soil in
Cesspool
and I eachfield
txcavation
I*
Surface and
Subsurface Soil
•h
InfMioQ
Demul Contact
--
••
* 1 *
• 1 '•
•
•
Leaching
of Soil
Dermal CoMM
i Complete Exposure Pathwiy
liKiimplete Exposure Pathway
• No COPCs were identified in gfoundwater, consequently, this exposure pathway is incomplete
ecology and environment, inc.
International Specialists in the Environment
Anciiuoge Alaska
FORT RICHARDSON
Anchorage, Alaska
Figure 3-1
CONCEPTUAL SITI: MODIiL
ROOSEVELT ROAD
TRANSMITTER SITE Ll-ACHFIELD • OPP.RABI.I: UNIT A
Dnwn By:
MRJi
D*te
4/21/97
TDD/Job No.
JV990S
Dwg No
JV990S3I
-------
PRIMARY PRIMARY SECONDARY
SOURCES RELEASE SOURCES
MECHANISM
f
» ire 1 raining Abovcgruund
Ontfalmntand ate ^nillc 1 mk« fc buflace tnd ^
Incineralmn „%,,««.« Subsurface Soil
llv Pi iitttrt'L
t Previous I ». Surface and 1 J
1
• Complete Exposure Pathway
• • Incomplete Ixposuie Pathway
IIP ecology and environment, inc.
PR]) International Specialists in the Environment
POTENTIAL RECEPTORS
SECONDARY TERTIARY EXPOSURE Curort Future Future Future
RELEASE SOURCES ROUTE Site Visitors Residents Site Visitors Workers
MECHANISM
1
_ k> ' K) ma ^ Groundvutei * t> Denial Contact
PCrCOlltlOn «~"WW ^ir. -I.TJT
Inhalation of Vapor*
1 ' ' ' '1 —^ ^ _^
*J «. «; at^-m ^1 "'i**1011 W | W W V
| t"01*1"011 soil 1 Donul COMKI • [ • • •
^ t
A
1
f
^ Inriltiation and ^ Subsurface ^ ta|eBJo« 1 • • •
Percolation Soil DcmalCoMact | • • •
J Excavation/ ^ Fugitive ^j ijj,!,^^, • • I • 1 •
•
- •• • "" 1 - -
-ah \i^i.-r^n I ^ Air ••••M Inhalation of Vamt * * 1 * * • * 1
•* \tolatilizatron nu \ •""•"~" «• ¥^»»» | |
1 ...
• No COPCs were identified in ground water, consequently, this exposure pathway is incomplete
Figure 1-2
FORT RICHARDSON . CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL
Anchoraee. Alaska RUFF ROAD FIRE TRAINING AREA
Drawn By: Dale TDD/Job No Dwg No
MRE 4/29/97 JV990S JV9905J2
-------
PRIMARY
SOURCES
Sludge in
Dry Well
Waslewater
in
Dry Well
POTENTIAL RECEPTORS
PRIMARY
RELEASE
MECHANISM
SECONDARY
SOURCES
SECONDARY
RELEASE
MECHANISM
TERTIARY
SOURCES
EXPOSURE
ROUTE
Current
Site Visitors
Current
Workers
Future
Residents
Future
Site Visitors
Future
Workers
M.Y
• Complete Exposure Pathway
• • Incomplete Exposure Pathway
ecology and environment, inc.
[[ill International Specialists in the Environment
FORT RICHARDSON
Anchorage, Alaska
Figure 3-3
CONCEPTUAL SITE MODLL
POL LABORATORY DRY WELL - OPERABLE UNIT A
Drawn By:
MRK
Date
4/28/97
TDD/Job No. '
JV9905
Dwg No
JV900513
-------
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
U.S. ARMY
SCALE
25 50 Feet
KEY:
| | Estimated extent ol field screening
petroleum hydrocarbon contamination
(concentrations listed in mg/kg)
| 1 Contaminants detected in laboratory
samples (concentrations listed in mg/kg)
A Perimeter surface soil sample location
TEF 2,3,7,8-TCDD Toxicity Equivalency Factor
DRO Diosel Range Organics
GRO Gasoline Range Organics
TRPH Total Recoverable Petroleum Hydrocarbons
NO No Analytes Detected
NOTE. Gud nodes with no listed concentietion
ware not sampled at this depth.
SOURCE: Ecology and Environment. Inc. 1995
1 ecology ind environment. Inc.
Figure 3-4
Extent of Contamination in
Former Ground Surface Soils
Ruff Road Fire Training Area
Operable Unit A, Fort Richardson, Alaska
SIZE
JOB. NO.
JV9905
FILE NO.
JV9 34.CDR
DRO 3,400
TRPH 5.000
Oioxins (TEF) 3«10"6
U.S.ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
ALASKA DISTRICT
ANCHORAGE, ALASKA
DATE:
8-5-97
PLATE
Ben;o(a)anirvacene 0 87
Benzo(a)pytene 0 94
Benzo(b)lluoianitiene I 4
lndeno( 123cd)pyiene 0 66
-------
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
U.S. ARMY
SCALE
0 25 50 Feet
KEY:
V777\ Approximate area of *oH contamination.
^^ 1992 surface sou Investigation
m Extent ol contamination In former
ground surface soils
Extent of contamination In fill surface soils
Brush and trees
SOUnCE: Ecology md Envkororwril, Inc. 1995
ecology ind tivlroamtnl, Inc.
>ttfaua Vi
Figure 3-5
Lateral Extent of Area to be Remediated
Rulf Road Fire Training Area
Operable Unit A, Fort Richardson, Alaska
SIZE
JOB. NO
JV9950
FILE NO.
JV9 36.CDR
U.S.ARMY
ENGINEER DISTRICT. ALASKA
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
ANCHORAGE, ALASKA
DATE:
4-25-97
-------
02: JV9905UV9 37.CDR
(Dry)
(Dfy)
N\
Eagle River is located
1 mile North
MW-15
(0.0063. 0.270)
-9-
MW-16
(NO. 0.00031)
I Area A-3
MW-7 A
I MW-5 /(3.1. 1.01''' (0.0011,0.0067)
/ Hjk-MW-3
(0.54. 0.26) VI
Wetlands
Monitoring well completed in perched interval
Monitoring well completed in shallow interval
Monitoring well completed in deep aquifer .
i
(x,y) 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroetnane, TCE (units - mg/L) '
— — Estimated boundary of hotspot
Approximate groundwater flow direction in
shallow interval and deep aquifer
SCALE
100
200 Feet
Figure 3-6 VOC RESULTS IN GROUNDWATER FROM MONITORING WELLS
POLELINE ROAD DISPOSAL AREA
45
-------
Final August 8, 1997
4.0 SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
Baseline Risk Assessments were conducted to determine the necessity for and extent of remediation to
be protective of human health and the environment. The detailed reports discussing this evaluation
are Risk Assessment Report, Operable Unit A and Risk Assessment Report, Operable Unit B and are
available at the information repositories. The risk evaluations were based on the location and amount
of contamination, toxicity of each contaminant, current and potential future land use by each site, and
pathways by which people could be exposed to contaminants. The Risk Assessment results were used
to support decisions concerning the extent of remediation and to aid in the selection of remedial
technologies.
The estimated risks from each pathway are added to determine total risk. The potential for adverse
effects to human health is evaluated for carcinogens and noncarcinogens. The National Oil and
Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) defines the acceptable risk range at
Superfund sites as excess lifetime cancer risks ranging from 1 in 10,000 (1 x 10"4) to 1 in 1 million
(1 x 10"6). This means that an individual could face up to a 1 in 10,000 to 1 in 1 million chance of
developing cancer because of exposure to chemicals at a site, beyond those cancers expected from
other causes. Noncarcinogenic effects are evaluated by calculating the ratio between the estimated
intake of a contaminant and its corresponding reference dose (RfD); that is, the intake level at which
no adverse health effects are expected to occur. This ratio is a summation of all site contaminants. If
this ratio, called a hazard index (HI), is less than 1, then noncarcinogenic health effects are not
expected at the site.
4.1 OPERABLE UNIT A
The sites within OU-A are used for industrial or recreational purposes. No residential areas are
located within a 1-mile radius of these sites. The Post does not use groundwater as a source for
drinking water. All drinking water is supplied by the Ship Creek Dam Reservoir located in the
foothills of the Chugach Mountain Range east of the Post.
4.1.1 Human Health Risk Assessment
An assessment of human health involves a four-step process: identification of contaminants of
potential concern (COPCs), an exposure assessment for the population at risk, an assessment of
contaminant toxicity, and a quantitative characterization of the risk.
4.1.1.1 Contaminants of Potential Concern
A screening analysis was conducted to identify the COPCs. Before screening, detection limits were
evaluated. In the first step of the screening, COPCs were selected based on a very conservative
estimate of potential health risk. Maximum concentrations of chemicals in media (e.g., soil and
groundwater) on the site were compared to conservative RBCs. For this ROD, the RBCs reflect
residential exposure assumptions of 1 x 10"6 for soil and groundwater, or a hazard quotient (HQ) of
1.0 for all media. These criteria differ from the criteria used in the 199S OU-A RI Report, which
applies screening criteria of 1 x 10"7 for groundwater and an HQ of 0.1, which were determined to
46
-------
Final August 8, 1997
be overly conservative by the Agencies. Inorganic chemical concentrations were compared to
naturally occurring background levels in the 1995 OU-A RI Report.
The final list of COPCs for soil and groundwater is shown in Table 4-1. The potential for these
COPCs to impact health was evaluated further using site-specific exposure assumptions.
4.1.1.2 Exposure Assessment
The exposure assessment estimates the type and magnitude of exposures to the COCs at the site. The
exposure assessment considers the current and potential future uses of the site, characterizes the
potentially exposed populations, identifies the important exposure pathways, and quantifies the intake
of each COC from each medium for each population at risk.
An exposure pathway is the mechanism by which chemicals migrate from their source or point of
release to the population at risk. A complete exposure pathway comprises four elements: a source of
a chemical release, transport of contaminants through environmental media, a point of potential
human contact with a contaminated medium, and entry into the body or exposure route.
Under current land use conditions, individuals potentially could be exposed to COPCs in soil by
ingesting soil and inhaling vapors and dust. Exposures to groundwater were not evaluated because
the groundwater beneath OU-A is between 80 feet to 160 feet BGS and is not used for drinking
purposes. Figures 3-1, 3-2, and 3-3 identify the potential complete exposure routes for OU-A.
EPA's Superfund guidance recommends that the reasonable maximum exposure (RME) be used to
calculate potential health impacts at Superfund sites. The RME is the highest exposure that is
reasonably expected to occur at the source areas and is calculated using conservative assumptions to
represent exposures that are reasonable and protective. The estimated risks associated with the
contaminants at OU-A are presented in Table 4-2. The risks presented are overly conservative (i.e.,
health-protective) because they are based on future residential land use, which is not likely at this site,
thereby overestimating risk for site-specific exposure scenarios.
To estimate exposures, data regarding the concentration of COCs in the media of concern at the site
(the exposure point concentrations [EPCs]) are combined with information about the projected
behaviors and characteristics of the people who potentially may be exposed to these media (exposure
parameters).
To estimate EPCs in soil, the 95% upper confidence level (UCL) on the mean was calculated. If the
95% UCL was greater than the maximum detected concentration, then the maximum detected
concentration was used as the EPC; otherwise, the 95% UCL was used. If data sets contained fewer
than 10 samples, then the maximum detected concentration was used as the EPC. EPCs were
calculated for the RME and average exposure.
Exposure parameters used to calculate the RME include body weight, age contact rate, frequency of
exposure, and exposure duration. Exposure parameters were obtained from EPA, Region X. Risk
Assessment guidance (EPA, Region X Supplemental Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund; EPA
47
-------
Final August 8, 1997
1991). The default exposure factors were modified to reflect site-specific climatological and other
factors at Fort Richardson. Site-specific exposure assumptions were made for soil contact, including
ingest ion, dermal contact, and inhaling vapors and dust, based on snow cover for four months of the
year. Exposures were estimated assuming long-term exposures to site contaminants.
4.1.1 J Toxitity Assessment
Toxicity information was provided in the Risk Assessment for the COPCs. Generally, cancer risks
are calculated using toxicity factors known as slope factors (SFs), while noncancer risks are assessed
using RfDs.
EPA developed SFs for estimating excess lifetime cancer risk associated with exposure to potential
carcinogens. SFs are expressed in units of milligrams per kilogram per day (mg/kg-day )~* 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 SF. Use of this
approach makes underestimates of the actual cancer risk highly unlikely. SFs are derived from the
results of human epidemiological studies, or chronic animal bioassay data, to which mathematical
interpolation from high to low doses, and from animal to human studies, has been applied.
EPA developed RfDs to indicate the potential for adverse health effects from exposure to chemicals
exhibiting noncarcinogenic effects. RfDs, which are expressed in units of mg/kg-day, are estimates
of lifetime daily exposure for humans, including sensitive subpopulations likely to be without risk of
adverse effect. Estimated intakes of COCs from environmental media (e.g., the amount of a COG
ingested from contaminated drinking water) can be compared to the RfD. RfDs are derived from
human epidemiological studies or animal studies to which uncertainty factors have been applied.
The Risk Assessment relied on oral and inhalation SFs and RfDs. Toxicity factors were obtained
from the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) or, if no IRIS values were available, from the
Health Effects Assessment Summary Table (HEAST). For the few chemicals that did not have
toxicity values available, sources other than IRIS and HEAST were used.
4.1.1.4 Risk Characterization
The purpose of the risk characterization is to integrate the results of the exposure and toxicity
assessments to estimate risk to humans from exposure to site contaminants. Risks were calculated for
carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic effects based on the RME. Excess lifetime cancer risk is calculated
by multiplying the SF by the quantitative estimate of exposure: the chronic daily intake. These risks
are probabilities generally expressed in scientific notation (e.g., 1 x 10"6). An excess lifetime cancer
risk of 1 x 10"6 indicates that an individual has a 1 in 1 million chance of developing cancer as a
result of a site-related exposure to a carcinogen under the specific exposure conditions assumed. EPA
considers that an excess lifetime cancer risk between 1 in 1 million (1 x 10"6) and 1 in 10,000 (1 x
10"4) is within the generally acceptable range; risks greater than 1 in 10,000 usually suggest the need
to take action at a site.
48
-------
Final _ August 8, 1997
The potential for noncarcinogenic effects is evaluated by comparing an exposure level over a specified
time period (lifetime) to an RfD derived for a similar exposure period. The ratio of exposure to
toxicity is called an HQ. HQs are calculated by dividing the exposure by the specific RfD. If the
HQ is less than 1, then adverse health effects are not likely to occur. By adding the HQs for all
COCs that affect the same target organ Giver, nervous system, etc.), the HI can be calculated. 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.
Soil
Under current land use conditions, the estimates of carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic effects for
OU-A fell within or below the acceptable risk range for CERCLA sites. The only complete exposure
pathway under current land use conditions was recreational exposure to surface soil at the Fire
Training Area (see Table 4-3). The other OU-A sites do not have complete exposure pathways under
current land use conditions.
At the Fire Training Area, excess lifetime cancer risks greater than or equal to 1 x 1CT6 were
determined only for potential future RME exposures to soil (3 x 10"*).
At the cesspool area of the Transmitter Site, potential excess lifetime cancer risks greater than 1 x
10"6 were calculated for potential future RME industrial and residential exposures to soil (1 x 10~5
and 5 x 10"5, respectively).
While sludge contained in the Dry Well was not evaluated directly in the Risk Assessment because of
the lack of exposure pathways, this material is contaminated and could present a health risk if
contacted by humans. Sludge in the Dry Well will be removed and disposed of during summer 1997
to eliminate this potential threat.
Under future exposure conditions, no noncancer His exceeded EPA's regulatory benchmark of 1 for
any exposure scenario at any OU-A site.
The results of the baseline HHRA indicated that for soil exposure pathways, the estimated cumulative
potential cancer risks for all current and future exposure scenarios at all OU-A source areas do not
represent unacceptable risks to human health, based on EPA criteria.
Groundwater
No COPCs were identified in groundwater at the Fire Training Area or the Transmitter Site.
Furthermore, exposures to groundwater at these source areas were considered to be incomplete
exposure pathways. Two COPCs, chloroform and manganese, were identified at the Dry Well.
Groundwater at the Dry Well is not used as a source of potable water. Therefore, exposure to
groundwater under current land use conditions at the Dry Well represents an incomplete exposure
pathway. The HHRA concluded that the estimated cumulative potential cancer risks at the Dry Well
for hypothetical future groundwater exposure pathways would fall within or below the range of
49
-------
Final August 8, 1997
acceptable risks as established by the EPA Superfund program. For noncarcinogenic effects, the
regulatory benchmark of a total HI of 1 was not exceeded at any wells at the Dry Well. Removal of
contaminated sludge and soil will occur in 1997, further reducing potential threats to future
ground water users.
Uncertainties associated with the baseline HHRA also affect the degree of confidence that can be
placed in risk characterization results. The principal uncertainties associated with the OU-A HHRA
process, which could result in overly conservative risk evaluations, are summarized below:
• Chloroform was detected in groundwater samples from two wells at
the Dry Well. This analyte is a common laboratory contaminant.
Because no evidence exists to suggest that chloroform is a site-
related contaminant, the risks presented in this section should be
regarded with caution;
• Based on results of previous investigations, the presence of
manganese in the groundwater samples is likely attributable to
naturally occurring minerals in groundwater at the site;
• Future surface soil concentrations were derived from subsurface soil
data up to IS feet BGS. The assumption that subsurface soil would
be disturbed and mixed with the present surface soil layer represents
a conservative approach; and
• The most conservative exposure scenarios evaluated in the baseline
HHRA involved residential exposure assumptions. If future
residential development of OU-A source areas does not occur, then
the risk estimates for this exposure scenario greatly overestimate
actual future site risks. Note that future residential development is
not anticipated; rather, land use is expected to remain the same in
the future.
Because numerous conservative assumptions were used in the selection of COPCs and the exposure
and toxicity assessments, the risk characterization results likely overestimate risks associated with
COPCs at OU-A.
4.1.2 Ecological Risk Assessment
The ERA performed for OU-A addressed the impacts and potential risks posed by source-related
contaminants to natural habitats, including plants and animals, in the absence of remedial action.
Unlike the HHRA, the ERA focused on the contaminants' effects on populations or communities,
rather than individuals. If identified during the ERA, potential risks to individuals of a species are
evaluated within a larger context to determine ecological significance.
The masked shrew, red fox, robin, and kestrel were selected as representative terrestrial site receptors
50
-------
Final August 8, 1997
for OU-A based on site-specific exposure pathways and ecological considerations. The potential for
adverse effects from contaminants of ecological concern (COECs) on plant communities and aquatic
invertebrates also was evaluated.
Risk estimation involves calculating HQs to assess potential ecological risks to measurement species
and communities. Ecological effects are quantified by calculating the ratio between a chemical of
potential ecological concern's (COPEC'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 HQ) is less than 1, then adverse ecological effects are
not expected for the COPEC. This ratio is a summation of all site contaminants. The HQs described
in this summary were calculated using conservative RME assumptions.
Based on the risk analysis, COEC concentrations at OU-A result in negligible risk to small-mammal
populations, aquatic invertebrates, emergent wetland vegetation, and upland plant vegetation. The
overall potential for valued environmental resources at this site to be adversely affected is considered
negligible.
The ERA is subject to uncertainties because virtually every step in the Risk Assessment process
involves assumptions using professional judgment. Principal uncertainties associated with the OU-A
ERA include the following:
• Avian and mammalian bioaccumulation factors were unavailable for
many COPECs, which resulted in an underestimation of potential
risks to measurement species; and
• Most of the available toxicity values were determined using
laboratory animals under laboratory conditions. These values, as
well as toxicity values determined based on indirect effect measures
(such as increased body weight), may not be representative of other
significant indirect effects (such as behavioral changes) realized in
free-ranging wildlife.
Reasonable and conservative assumptions were used in the ERA when empirical data were unavail-
able. Consequently, potential ecological risks to OU-A species are more likely to be overestimated
rather than underestimated.
4.1 J Summary of Risks
The conclusion of the baseline Risk Assessment for OU-A is that contaminant levels in soil and
groundwater at the OU-A sites do not represent unacceptable risks to human health or the
environment, based on EPA criteria. However, the levels of petroleum contamination in the soil do
exceed the ADEC soil cleanup criteria. While sludge within the Dry Well may pose a threat to
human health, this material will be removed and disposed of in 1997. The Army, ADEC, and EPA
have elected to pursue further cleanup efforts at these sites under the Two-Party Agreement. Under
the Two-Party Agreement, the Army and ADEC will clean up contaminated materials at each site in
51
-------
Final _ August 8, 1997
accordance with applicable State of Alaska regulations. While the specific cleanup actions and'the
time required to remediate the sites have yet to be determined, the Army and State of Alaska will
jointly consider all available information before selecting appropriate OU-A site cleanup activities.
Decisions regarding OU-A site cleanup will be documented in accordance with stipulations of the
Two-Party Agreement. Because the OU-A source areas will be addressed through the Two-Party
Agreement, they are not discussed further in this ROD.
4.2 OPERABLE UNIT B
4.2.1 Human Health Risk Assessment
The OU-B Risk Assessment identified ways that people working or living on or near the source areas
could be exposed to contaminated media: touching and ingesting soil, inhaling vapors and dust
released from soil, and using groundwater for drinking and showering. On-site workers and visitors
are the individuals most likely to be exposed under current exposure conditions. Current use of
Poleline Road is limited to periodic visits by authorized personnel, and by trespassers or open space
recreational users. Under potential future land use conditions, exposures to on-site workers, visitors,
residents, or downgradient groundwater users are possible. Table 4-4 lists the exposure pathways
evaluated at OU-B.
Based on analytical results from surface and subsurface soil surrounding Areas A-l and A-2, the risk
of cancer and noncancer health effects from exposure to low concentrations of solvents in soil was
negligible. The excess lifetime cancer risk was 1 in 100,000 (1 x 10"5), and the noncarcinogenic HI
was less than 1 for residential exposure to soils at 0 feet to 15 feet BGS in Areas A-3 and A-4.
Generally, remediation is not warranted for protection of public health if the total lifetime excess
cancer risk does not exceed 1 in 10,000 and if noncarcinogenic effects have an HI of less than 1.
However, although these contaminants in soil do not pose a threat to human health, they may serve as
a continuing source of contamination to groundwater.
Excess lifetime cancer risks for soil in the "hot spot" area beneath Area A-3 (see Figure 3-6) and the
hillside were not within the acceptable risk range for the current-worker exposure scenario.
However, these soils are 14 feet BGS; therefore, the likelihood of direct exposure to humans is
unlikely.
The NCP and state regulations require protection and restoration of water resources. Contamination
of OU-B groundwater, if used as a drinking water source, presents an unacceptable risk to human
health. The "hot spot" area beneath Area A-3 and the hillside presents a continuing source of
contamination to the groundwater at the site. Table 4-5 summarizes the maximum possible human
risks associated with the various locations at the site and the risks to humans if groundwater from
different depths at the site is ingested.
Groundwater at OU-B is not used, and there are no residents or wells downgradient of the site.
There are no current plans for commercial or residential development in the site area. Additionally,
groundwater transport modeling was used to estimate time of travel for detectable concentrations of
TCE and 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane (0.005 mg/L) with no depletion or remediation of the contaminant
52
-------
Final _ August 8, 1997
source and no biodegradation over time. The modeled transport time for 0.005 mg/L of TCE to
reach the Eagle River is approximately 120 years, and for 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane, 170 years.
Concentrations of 0.005 mg/L of TCE and 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane do not exceed conservative
exposure assumptions, nor do they exceed Alaska Water Quality Standards for ingestion of freshwater
organisms. Therefore, concentrations in the leading edge of the plume, if it were to reach the Eagle
River, would not pose a threat to human health.
The principal uncertainties associated with the OU-B HHRA process, which could result in overly
conservative risk evaluations, are summarized below:
• Detection limits for the field screening analytical method for VOCs
in soil were higher than those for the laboratory analytical method
(about 0.005 mg/kg) and were higher than many detected values
from laboratory sampling results. The higher detection limits in
field screening samples add uncertainty to the estimates of VOC
EPCs;
• Hazard/risk results were assessed based on on-site residential
exposure scenarios that assumed an exposure frequency of 350 days
per year; an exposure duration (ED) of 30 years; and daily intake
rates for soil, air, and water based on an exposure time of 24 hours
per day. The potential for future residential development is remote.
Exposure of current and possible future receptors at Poleline Road
would be much less than that for the residential scenario.
Therefore, hazard/risk results reported in the HHRA will
overestimate risk to current and possible future receptors; and
• For the purpose of evaluating risk from exposure to groundwater at
Poleline Road, it was assumed that groundwater was used for
household purposes, including drinking water. However, the
potential for residential or commercial development and groundwater
use is remote. Therefore, the calculated risk levels do not represent
actual risks under current or probable future exposure conditions.
In addition, an alternative water supply (pipeline from Eklutna Lake)
could meet future water demands near the site, if developed.
4.2.2 Ecological Risk Assessment
The ERA performed for OU-B addressed the impacts and potential risks posed by contaminants to
natural habitats, including plants and animals, in the absence of remedial action. Unlike the HHRA,
the ERA focuses on the effects to populations or communities of plants and animals, not individuals.
If identified during the ERA, potential risks to individuals of a species are evaluated within a larger
context to determine ecological significance.
The northern red-backed vole and muskrat were selected as representative terrestrial site receptors for
53
-------
Final August 8, 1997
OU-B based on site-specific exposure pathways and ecological considerations. The potential for
adverse effects from COECs on plant communities and aquatic invertebrates also was evaluated.
Based on the risk analysis, COEC concentrations at OU-B result in a negligible risk to small-mammal
populations, aquatic invertebrates, emergent wetland vegetation, and upland plant vegetation. The
overall potential for valued environmental resources at this site to be adversely affected is considered
negligible.
The ERA is subject to uncertainties because virtually every step in the Risk Assessment process
involves assumptions using professional judgment. Principal uncertainties associated with the OU-B
ERA include the following:
• ED and area use by potential receptors assumed a worst-case
scenario. Area usage by receptors was assumed conservatively to be
100%. It is also assumed that exposure to contaminated soils and
vegetation is continuous. Because mobile receptors are likely to
feed at or visit several locations, or avoid VOC-contaminated areas,
their daily dose, if averaged over time, could be less than that used
in this ERA for evaluating risk. Adverse effects in small, localized
areas on a few small-mammal individuals are negligible
considerations in terms of risk to the biological population;
• No standardized system is available for identifying toxicity-based
"safe" benchmark values for terrestrial wildlife. The potential exists
for wildlife species to be more or less sensitive than test species
(some biota adapt) and the lexicological benchmarks used. Toxic
dose values for laboratory organisms also may be substantially lower
than those for wildlife because of the sensitive strain of laboratory
animals used and the direct means by which they are dosed. LDn
studies usually are designed to promote maximum exposure
(absorption) and to lessen any chemical complexing with dietary
material. The LD» dietary studies probably provide a better
indication of the toxicity of the chemical tested, while no observed
adverse effect levels from longer studies are the best laboratory
studies to use as predictors of field effects; and
• Groundwater at the site is contaminated with VOCs. However,
there are no known on-site or off-site seeps by which wildlife can be
exposed. It was assumed that groundwater at the site and the
contamination within the groundwater eventually could reach the
Eagle River. There is a lack of information regarding migration of
the groundwater beneath the site. However, an evaluation of the
modeled groundwater data indicates that because of time of travel
and concentrations required for toxic effects, the additional risk
estimate is negligible.
54
-------
Final August 8, 1997
Because numerous conservative assumptions were used in the selection of COECs and the exposure
and toxicity assessments, the risk characterization results likely overestimate risks associated with
COECs at OU-B.
4.23 Summary of Risks
Exposure scenarios associated with OU-B soil do not exceed EPA's acceptable excess cancer risk/His
for human health and ecological receptors. Although excess lifetime cancer risks and His for soil at
the "hot spot" area beneath Area A-3 exceed EPA's acceptable risk ranges, the contaminants are
found at 14 feet BGS and therefore do not pose a hazard for direct human contact.
While soil contamination does not pose a threat to human health or the environment, the
contamination level is high enough to pose an ongoing threat to groundwater. Groundwater
contamination in the shallow and deep zones exceeds EPA's acceptable risk range and state and
federal drinking water MCLs for human consumption. The NCP and state regulations require
protection and restoration of water resources. Contamination of OU-B groundwater, if used as a
drinking water source, presents an unacceptable risk to human health. Therefore, groundwater and
the "hot spot" source at Poleiine Road require remedial action. The Army, ADEC, and EPA have
selected a preferred remedial alternative for OU-B based on criteria found in the NCP.
55
-------
Page 1 of 1
Sfe
RRTSL
RRFTA
FOLLOW
Table 4-1
CONTAMINANTS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
OPERABLE UNIT A
FORT RICHARDSON, ALASKA
Matrix
Subsurface Soil
Cesspool Soil
Surface Soil
Subsurface Soil
Subsurface Soil
Groundwater
Chemicals of Potential Concern
Aroclor 1260
DRO
Aluminum
Manganese
Vanadium
Aroclor 1260
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranlhene
Indenod ,2,3-cd)pyrene
DRO
GRO
2.3.7,8-TCDD
Aluminum
DRO
GRO
2,3,7.8-TCDD
Beryllium
Chromium
DRO
GRO
Chromium
Manganese
Chloroform
Key:
DRO
GRO
FOLLOW
RRFTA
RRTSL
TCDD
Diesel-range organics.
Gasoline-ranbc organics.
Petroleum. Oil. and Lubricant Laboratory Dry Well.
Ruff Road Fire Training Area.
Roosevelt Road Transmitter Site Leachfield.
Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin.
56
-------
Page 1 of I
Table 4-2
ESTIMATED HUMAN HEALTH RISKS
FUTURE RESIDENTIAL LAND USE
OPERABLE UNIT A
FORT RICHARDSON, ALASKA
Site
Roosevelt Road Transmitter Site
LeachfteU
POL Laboratory Dry Well
Ruff Road Fire Training Area
Contaminants of Concern
Petroleum Hydrocarbons; PCBs;
Petroleum, Oil, and Lubricant
Petroleum Hydrocarbons
Petroleum Hydrocarbons
Maximum Total Excess Cancer
Risk to Future Residents
2E-7
IE'7
3E-6
Key:
PCBs
POL
Poly chlorinated biphenyls.
Petroleum, oil, and lubricant.
57
-------
Page I of 1
Table 4-3
CURRENT EXPOSURE SCENARIOS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE EXCESS LIFETIME CANCER RISKS
AND HAZARD INDICES
HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
OPERABLE UNIT A
FORT RICHARDSON, ALASKA
Exposure
Scenario
Recreational
Expwurc Pathway
Ingcclion
Dermal Contact
Inhalation of Fugitive Dust
TOTAL
Fire Training Area
Excess Lifetime Cancer Risk
1.3E-07
9.1E-08
1.1E-11
2E-07
Hazard Index
2.1E-02
-
—
0.02
Note: Recreational exposure at the Ruff Road Fire Training Area is the only complete exposure pathway under
current land use conditions at Operable Unit A.
58
-------
Page 1 of 1
Table 4-4
OPERABLE UNIT B
EXPOSURE PATHWAYS EVALUATED
IN HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
FORT RICHARDSON, ALASKA
Receptor
Hypothetic*! On-Ske Resident
i
Hypothetical On-Site Industrial
Worker
Off-Site Recreational User
Exposure Pathway
Ingestion and inhalation of contaminants of concern in groundwater
from shallow and deep zone*
Incidental ingestion of soil in exposure Areas A-i, A-2, O and A-
3, A-4, and T
Inhalation of airborne constituents from soil in exposure Areas A-l.
A-2, O and A-3, A-4, and T
Ingestion and inhalation of contaminants of concern in wetland
surface water
Ingestion of wetland sediment
Inhalation of indoor vapors from soil and groundwater
Incidental ingestion of soil in exposure areas A-l, A-2, O and A-3,
A-4, and T
Inhalation of indoor vapors from soil and groundwater
Ingestion of fish from the Eagle River
59
-------
Page 1 of 1
Table 4-5
SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
OPERABLE UNIT B
FORT RICHARDSON, ALASKA
Media
'Hot spot* soili
'Hot spot* groundwater: shallow
zone
"Hot ipot* groundwater deep aquifer
Downgradient soil*
Down gradient groundwater: shallow zone
Downgradient groundwater: deep
aquifer
Maximum Cancer Risk
8E'3
1
9E'2
8F*
2E-2
2E'3
Maximum Hazard Index*
0.8
2.800
47
0.005
18
0.9
* Hazard index value* greater than 1.0 are considered by the United Stales Environmental Protection
Agency to represent conditions potentially requiring remedial action.
60
-------
Final Augusts, 1997
5.0 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES
5.1 NEED FOR REMEDIAL ACTION
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances (chlorinated solvents) from Poleline Road, if not
addressed by implementing the response action selected in this ROD, may present an imminent and
substantial endangerment to public health, public welfare, or the environment.
The specific reasons for conducting remedial actions at Poleline Road are provided below, with the
main focus being protection of groundwater in accordance with the NCP Groundwater Protection
Strategy:
• VOCs (i.e., PCE; TCE; and 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane) in
groundwater at Poleline Road are present at concentrations above
state and federal MCLs and risk-based criteria; and
• VOCs, including PCE; TCE; and 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane, in
contaminated soils are a continuing source of groundwater
contamination.
5.2 REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES
As a part of the RI/FS process, remedial action objective (RAOs) were developed in accordance with
the NCP and EPA guidance for conducting RI/FS investigations. The purpose of the objectives is to
reduce the contamination in the groundwater at OU-B to levels that do not pose a threat to human
health and the environment. If the OU-B area were converted to public domain at any time in the
future, the residents would not be at risk from use of the groundwater.
The objectives of remedial action at OU-B are as follows:
• Reduce contaminant levels in the groundwater to comply with
drinking water standards;
• Prevent contaminated soil from continuing to act as a source of
groundwater contamination;
• Prevent the contaminated groundwater from adversely affecting the
Eagle River surface water and sediments; and
• Minimize degradation of the State of Alaska's groundwater
resources at the site as a result of past disposal practices.
Tables 5-1 and 5-2 summarize the chemical-specific cleanup goals for groundwater and soil at
Poleline Road.
61
-------
Final _ August 8, 1997
RAOs are based on either human health risk estimates that exceed or fall within the 1 x 10"6 to
1 x 10"* risk range or on federal and state applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements
(ARARs). All groundwater RAOs are based on state and federal MCLs, with the exception of
1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane. The RAO for 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane is based on the RBC for this
chemical in residential drinking water. RAOs for soil are based on protection of the groundwater
from leaching of the contaminants (EPA, Region 3, RBCs): 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane—0.1 mg/kg
and PCE—4.0 mg/kg.
Monitoring at Poleline Road will be conducted to ensure that RAOs are achieved. The goal of this
monitoring will be:
• To ensure that no off-source migration of contaminants is occurring;
• To indicate contaminant concentrations and compliance with state
and federal MCLs; and
• To indicate whether remedial action is effective or needs
modification.
53 SIGNIFICANT APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS
A full list of ARARs is in Section 8. The following ARAR is the most significant regulation that
applies to the remedy selections for Poleline Road:
• State and federal MCLs are relevant and appropriate for ground-
water. These MCLs set the active remediation goals for
groundwater contaminants regulated by state and federal drinking
water regulations.
5.4 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES
Many technologies were considered to clean up the contaminated soil and groundwater at OU-B.
Appropriate technologies were identified and screened for applicability to site conditions. The
potential technologies then were combined into media-specific sitewide alternatives. Potential
remedial alternatives for OU-B were identified, screened, and evaluated in the FS.
During the development of the FS, a Treatability Study was performed to evaluate the effectiveness of
several remedial technologies included in the FS. The results of the Treatability Study indicated that
AS of chlorinated solvents in groundwater would not effectively treat contaminants to levels below
state and federal MCLs. In addition, the Treatability Study indicated that biological components of
natural attenuation would not be an important degradation mechanism of chlorinated solvents in the
groundwater system at Poleline Road.
62
-------
Final August 8, 1997
The following are alternatives evaluated in the Proposed Plan.
Alternative 1: No Action
CERCLA requires evaluation of a no-action alternative as a baseline reflecting current conditions
without any cleanup effort. This alternative is used for comparison to each of the other alternatives
and does not include monitoring or institutional controls. No costs would be associated with this
alternative.
Alternative 2: Monitored Natural Attenuation
Natural attenuation, or breakdown of contaminants without artificial stimuli, includes institutional
controls and groundwater monitoring to determine whether the contaminants in the groundwater are
degrading naturally. Natural attenuation can occur because of degradation processes such as
biological breakdown, chemical and physical processes, and volatilization. Even under ideal
conditions, entire breakdown of contaminants is rarely complete.
Institutional controls for Poleline Road could include access restrictions (i.e., posted signs; fencing
around the area; 6-foot, industrial-grade security fencing with appropriate entry gates; restrictions on
future land use; restrictions on groundwater well installation; restrictions on the use of wells; and well
use advisories). Such institutional controls would not reduce the source of contamination. While the
VOC-contaminated source area would remain as it exists, the concentrations in the groundwater
would be reduced by natural processes. However, institutional controls would decrease or minimize
human or wildlife exposure to contaminants. Periodic inspections and maintenance of the institutional
controls would be conducted.
Environmental monitoring would be performed to obtain information regarding the effectiveness of
the attenuation process in remediating the contamination as well as to track the extent of contaminant
migration from the site. Approximately two additional wells would be added to the 15 existing wells.
These wells would be screened in geological zones hydrauiically connected with the contamination
source, supplemented by installing groundwater monitoring wells when required. Upgradient wells
would be used to provide information regarding the background groundwater quality at a source. All
monitoring of downgradient wells necessary to determine the effectiveness of natural attenuation
would be performed.
Monitoring would include analysis for the contaminants that exceed the RAOs and associated
breakdown products for Poleiine Road. Sample collection, analysis, and data evaluation would
continue until sufficient data regarding changes in contaminant plume migration and attenuation rates
are gathered. Evaluation would include potential seasonal fluctuations in groundwater contaminant
concentrations. The frequency of monitoring would be defined during the post-ROD activities.
The total estimated present worth cost of this alternative is $ 1,300,000, which includes $80,000 for
capita] costs, $29,070 per year for annual operation and maintenance (O&M), and $29,070 per year
for annual groundwater monitoring. For costing purposes, it was assumed that the fencing would be
installed around the area of contamination. The estimated time frame for cleanup goals to be
63
-------
Final August 8, 1997
achieved and for monitoring to be performed was 500 years, although the cost estimate includes 30
years of annual operation costs.
Alternative 3: Containment
The objective of containment is to minimize water flow into or out of contaminated areas, thus
minimizing migration of contamination into lower aquifers. This alternative consists of a cap and
vertical barrier to reduce the mobility of the contaminants, monitoring, and institutional controls. See
Alternative 2 for a description of monitoring and institutional controls. Site soils would be covered
with a layer of sand overlying an impermeable synthetic membrane to minimize the amount of surface
water and rainwater infiltrating through the contaminated soils. Covering the soils would protect
humans and animals from contacting contaminated soils. Bentonite slurry walls would be installed to
inhibit the flow of water from the wetlands into the site. Without this flow, the mobility of the
contaminants in the soil would be reduced.
Existing groundwater contamination outside the source area would be expected to meet RAOs through
natural attenuation. Because the soils would be capped and surface water flow controlled, production
of leachate is expected to significantly decrease; therefore, groundwater would be expected to
naturally attenuate faster than if no cap were placed on the soils.
Groundwater monitoring/evaluation would be performed to assess when die groundwater naturally
attenuates and to evaluate any impact to potential downgradient receptors.
The estimated total present worth for this alternative is $2,500,000, which includes $993,325 for
capital costs, $9,600 per year for annual O&M, and $20,620 per year for annual groundwater
monitoring. For costing purposes, it was assumed that the fencing would be installed around the area
of contamination. The estimated time frame for cleanup goals to be achieved and for monitoring to
be performed was 500 years, although the cost estimate includes 30 years of annual operation costs.
Alternative 4: Interception Trench, Air Stripping, and Soil Vapor Extraction
The objective of this alternative is to remove contamination from the soil and groundwater within
Areas A-l through A-4. Trenches would be dug for collection of groundwater, which would be
pumped to an air stripper for treatment. Air stripping is a process that removes VOCs by transferring
them from contaminated water to air. Vapors from the air stripper would be treated as required by
state and federal regulations before being discharged to the atmosphere. SVE is an in-place process
for removal of VOCs from unsaturated soils. The system consists of a series of vapor extraction
wells, commonly called vapor extraction points, and air blowers to draw air through the soil and in
the VEPs. SVE includes piping to collect the extracted air and systems to remove contaminants from
the extracted air as required by state and federal regulations before being discharged. Long-term
monitoring of groundwater to evaluate system performance is also a component of this alternative.
The estimated total present worth for this alternative is $7,500,000, which includes $2,042,000 for
capital costs, $142,880 per year for annual O&M, and $20,620 per year for annual groundwater
monitoring. For costing purposes, it was assumed that the fencing would be installed around the area
64
-------
Final August 8, 1997
of contamination. The estimated time frame for cleanup goals to be achieved through active treatment
is five years, and 135 years is estimated for the remainder of the plume to achieve cleanup goals.
The cost estimate includes 30 years of annual operation costs.
Alternative 5: Air Sparging and Soil Vapor Extraction of the "Hot Spot" and Monitored
Natural Attenuation
The objective of this alternative is to remove contamination from the "hot spot" and to rely on natural
attenuation to restore the remainder of the contaminated groundwater plume. AS is the injection of
pressurized air into the shallow aquifer, which results in volatilization of VOCs and enhanced
biodegradation of contaminants susceptible to aerobic microbial degradation. SVE is used commonly
in combination with AS. See Alternative 4 for a description of SVE. See Alternative 2 (Section 7.1)
for a description of groundwater monitoring and institutional controls for Poleline Road.
The estimated total present worth for this alternative is $5,500,000, which includes $1,600,000 for
capital costs, $72,736 per year for annual O&M, and $29,070 per year for annual groundwater
monitoring. For costing purposes, it was assumed that the fencing would be installed around the area
of contamination. The estimated time frame for cleanup goals to be achieved and for monitoring to
be performed was 150 years, although the cost estimate includes 30 years of annual operation costs.
Alternative 6: High-Vacuum Extraction of the "Hot Spot" and Institutional Controls with Long-
Term Groundwater Monitoring
The objective of this alternative is to remove the contamination from the "hot spot" and to monitor
the remainder of the contaminated plume in the groundwater to assess the progress of natural
attenuation and/or plume migration. This action ensures that removing the source inhibits further
migration of the contaminants into the groundwater. The monitoring will be conducted to determine
whether the plume is expanding beyond the boundaries of Poleline Road. This alternative also
includes enforcement of land use restrictions designed to prohibit extraction and use of the
groundwater, periodic groundwater monitoring to track the progress of contaminant breakdown and
movement, and an early indication of unforeseen environmental or human health risk. The high-
vacuum extraction (HVE) process uses a strong vacuum from the "hot spot" to extract contaminated
soil vapors and some contaminated groundwater. As this air and water moisture is drawn to the
surface, some of the contaminants in the water will transfer to the air. An air stripping system will
be used to treat the extracted groundwater to meet state and federal MCLs before the groundwater is
reinjected into the deep aquifer. Soil vapors extracted from the "hot spot" soil will be treated as
necessary to meet state and federal air quality standards before being released to the atmosphere.
The estimated total present worth for this alternative is $4,000,000, which includes $801,841 for
capital costs, $64,878 per year for annual O&M, and $29,070 per year for annual groundwater
monitoring. For costing purposes, it was assumed that the fencing would be installed around the area
of contamination. The estimated time frame for cleanup goals to be achieved in the "hot spot" is
seven to 12 years. The estimate for the remainder of the plume to remediate and for monitoring to be
performed was 150 years, although the cost estimate includes 30 years of annual operation costs.
65
-------
Page 1 of 1
Table 5-1
REMEDIAL CLEANUP GOALS FOR GROUNDWATER
POLELINE ROAD DISPOSAL AREA
FORT RICHARDSON, ALASKA
CQRtaminant of Cooccra
Benzene
Carbon Tetnchioride
ci»-l ,2-DichJoroethene
trani-1 ,2-Dichlorocthene
Tetrachloroethene (PCE)
Trichloroethene (TCE)
1 . 1 ,2,2-Tetnchloroethane
Maximum Detected
Coaceotratioa (mg/L)
2.9
2.6
37
12
11
220
1,900
Remedial Action Objective
-------
Page 1 of 1
Table 5-2
REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES FOR SOIL
FORT RICHARDSON, ALASKA
ContamiMot of Concern
Tetnchloroethcne
1 , 1 .2.2-Tetrachloroethane
Maximum Detected
Concentration (mg/kg)
159
2.030
Remedial Action
Objective (mg/kg)
4.0
0.1
Source of
RAO
RBC
RBC
Note: TCE did not exceed RBCs for soil.
Key:
mg/kg = Milligrams per kilogram.
RAO = Remedial action objective.
RBC = Risk-baaed concentration for soil conuminanu leaching to groundwater. based on an increased cancer
riakof 1 x lO^4.
TCE = Trichtoroethene.
67
-------
Final August 8, 1997
6.0 SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
The selection of alternatives was based on an evaluation using the nine Superfund criteria specified in
Table 6-1. The first two criteria are known as threshold criteria that must be met by all selected
remedial actions. The following five criteria are known as balancing criteria, and the final two
criteria as modifying criteria.
6.1 THRESHOLD CRITERIA
Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
Alternatives 4 and 6 would provide the greatest protection to human health and the environment by
actively treating VOC-contaminated soil and ground water. TreatabUity Studies indicated that
Alternative 5 would not reduce on-site contamination effectively, thereby not providing protection of
human health and the environment. Alternative 3 would protect human health and the environment
by reducing the possibility of human contact with contaminants and minimizing future infiltration of
contaminants from soil to ground water. Alternative 2 would rely on natural processes to slowly
decrease contaminant concentrations in the soil and groundwater. Alternative 2 does not protect
human health and the environment based on Treatability Study results that indicated no evidence of
biodegfadation. Alternative 2 would provide some protection of human health and the environment
through institutional controls, which would reduce contact with contamination. Alternative 1 (no
action) would be the least-protective alternative.
Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
Significant ARARs that apply to the OU-B site include the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act, Alaska
Drinking Water Regulations, and the Clean Water Act. Alaska Water Quality Standards (AWQS) are
also applicable requirements (see Section 8.2). However, state and federal MCLs have been used to
set the remediation goals for OU-B. The AWQS eventually would be achieved through monitored
natural attenuation under all of the alternatives, except no action. Alternatives 4, 5, and 6 are
expected to meet all state and federal ARARs. These alternatives include active soil and groundwater
treatment and would be expected to achieve state and federal standards more rapidly than Alternatives
1, 2, and 3. Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 would rely on natural processes that slowly decrease soil and
groundwater to attain cleanup standards. However, under Alternative 1, no monitoring would be
conducted to determine compliance with the ARARs.
6.2 BALANCING CRITERIA
Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence
Alternatives 4 and 6 would involve permanent and active reduction of soil and groundwater
contamination and would achieve long-term effectiveness. Alternative 4 would not be effective at
reducing contamination, based on Treatability Study results. None of the contaminants would be
addressed by Alternatives 1, 2, or 3, except through natural processes. Therefore, Alternatives 1. 2,
and 3 would provide the least-effective long-term permanence.
68
-------
Final August 8, 1997
Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, and Volume Through Treatment
Alternatives 4 and 6 would involve treatment technologies that effectively reduce the toxicity and
mobility of VOC-contaminated soil and ground water. Alternative 5 would not reduce contamination,
as shown by Treatability Studies. The other alternatives do not include treatment technologies to
reduce site risks. Alternative 3 would reduce contaminant mobility by restricting future infiltration of
rainfall and snowmelt through contaminated soils to groundwater. Alternatives 1 and 2 would slowly
decrease the toxicity and volume of contaminated media through natural attenuation. Because
Alternative 2 includes monitoring, the rate and degree of contaminant reduction would be known.
Short-Term Effectiveness
Alternatives 3, 4, 5, and 6 would pose some short-term potential risks to on-site workers and
visitors/members of the community during the time required for construction and installation of
containment and treatment systems. These potential risks could be minimized by engineering and
institutional controls. These alternatives are expected to achieve state and federal standards more
rapidly than Alternatives 1 and 2.
Risks associated with groundwater contamination are equal for Alternatives 4 and 6. Because these
alternatives actively treat groundwater contamination, contaminant levels would be expected to
decrease during die same period of time of active remediation. While Alternative 4 treats
groundwater more aggressively by addressing die entire plume area, die uncertainty associated with
this technology's long-term effectiveness suggests that this alternative would not clean the site faster
than Alternative 6. Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 do not actively treat soil or groundwater contamination;
therefore, risks would not change over time, except through natural processes. Under Alternative 1,
no monitoring would be conducted to determine die remediation time frame. However, the time
frame for remediation is expected to be similar to Alternative 2.
Implementability
All alternatives would use readily available technologies and would be feasible to construct.
Alternatives 1 and 2 would be readily implementable because they would require no additional action
odieir than monitoring or institutional controls. A pilot-scale test study or field test would be
conducted before full-scale implementation of Alternatives 4, 5, and 6.
Cost
The estimated costs for each alternative evaluated for OU-B are in Table 6-2 and are based on the
information available at die time die alternatives were developed. Actual costs are likely to be within
+50% to -30% of the values on the table. Appendix C includes detailed cost estimates for each of
the OU-B remedial alternatives.
69
-------
Final August 8, 1997
6J MODIFYING CRITERIA
State Acceptance
The State of Alaska has been involved with the development of remedial alternatives for OU-B and
concurs with the Army and EPA in the selection of Alternative 6. This acceptance is contingent on
the following items:
• The Remedial Design and Remedial Action will include refining the
contaminant fate and transport modeling based on new field data,
which will be reviewed and approved by ADEC, EPA, and the
Army. This refinement of the modeling is to verify whether the
proposed soil RAOs are protective of groundwater, and to better
evaluate the anticipated attenuation of groundwater contaminants and
the time needed to achieve MCLs;
• If the modeling results indicate that soil meeting the RAOs would
continue to act as a secondary source for groundwater
contamination, the RAOs will be re-evaluated and modified to be
protective;
• If the groundwater monitoring results indicate that contamination is
migrating farther from the source area and that the Eagle River
could be affected, alternative or additional remedial actions will be
evaluated and, if determined appropriate, implemented; and
• Based on current land ownership, ADEC will accept natural
attenuation as a treatment of groundwater for ISO years. However,
if the land use changes and becomes available for development, then
the department will re-evaluate whether the time frame is reasonable
for the proposed use.
Community Acceptance
Community response to the preferred alternatives was generally positive. Community response to the
remedial alternatives is presented in the Responsiveness Summary, which addresses comments
received during the public comment period.
Summary
After evaluation of the potential risks and the appropriate cleanup standards, the preferred alternative
for OU-B is Alternative 6: HVE of the "hot spot," sitewide institutional controls, natural attenuation,
and long-term monitoring of groundwater.
Alternative 6, the preferred alternative, is expected to achieve overall protection of human health and
70
-------
Final August 8, 1997
the environment and to meet ARARs. Additionally, this alternative is a cost-effective and permanent
solution to contamination at OU-B.
71
-------
Page 1 of 1
Table 6-1
CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
FORT RICHARDSON, ALASKA
Threshold Criteria: Must be met by all alternatives.
1. Overall protection of human health and the
environment. How well doe* the alternative protect
human health and the environment, both during and
after construction?
2. Compliance with rcquiremenu. Doe* the
alternative meet all applicable or relevant and
appropriate state and federal laws?
Balancing Criteria: Used to compare alternatives.
3. Long-term effectiveness and permanence. How
well does the alternative protect human health and
the environment after completion of cleanup? What,
if any, risks will remain at the site?
4. Reduction of loxkity, mobility, and volume
through treatment. Doe* the alternative effectively
treat the contamination to significantly reduce the
toxicity, mobility, and volume of the hazardous
substance*?
5. Short-term effectiveness. Are there potential
adverse effects to either human health or the
environment during construction or implementation
of the alternative?
6. Implementability. Is the alternative both
technically and administratively feasible? Has the
technology been used successfully at similar areas?
7. Cost. What are the relative costs of the
alternative?
Modifying Criteria: Evaluated as a result of public
comments.
8. State acceptance. What are the state's comments
or concerns about the alternatives considered and
about the preferred alternative? Does the state
support or oppose the preferred alternative?
9. Community acceptance. What are the
community's comments or concerns about the
alternatives considered and the preferred alternative?
Does the community generally support or oppose the
preferred alternative?
72
-------
Page 1 of 1
Table 6-2
COST SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES
POLELINE ROAD DISPOSAL AREA
FORT RICHARDSON, ALASKA
Alternative
1- No Action
2- Monitored Natural
Attenuation
3- Containment
4- Trench, Air Strip, SVE
5- Air Sparging. SVE. Natural
Attenuation
6- HVE and Long-Term
Groundwater Monitoring
Capital Cost
SO
$80.000
$993,325
S2.042.000
$1, 600,000
$801,841
Annual
O&MCost
SO
$29,070
$9,600
$142.880
$72.736
$64.878
Annual
Monitoring
Cost
SO
$29.070
$20,620
$20.620
$29,070
$29.070
ToUl Present-
Worth Cost
$0
$1 ,300,000
$2.500,000
S7.500.000
$5 ,500,000
$4.000,000
Notes: CotU may vary and could range from +50% to -30% of the figures presented.
No discount or escalation factors are included in the costs presented. Costs include an operational time
frame of 30 years.
Key:
HVE = High-vacuum extraction.
O&M = Operation and maintenance.
SVE = Soil vapor extraction.
73
-------
Final August 8, 1997
7.0 SELECTED REMEDY
Alternative 6 is the selected alternative for treating the soil and groundwater at OU-B. A thorough
assessment of alternatives considered groundwater risks, cleanup times, and costs. Alternatives 1 and
2 were eliminated because they did not satisfy the threshold criteria. Alternative 3, containment, does
not address the toxicity or volume of the contamination, nor does it actively treat the VOCs;
therefore, it was eliminated. While Alternative 4 would remediate a larger portion of the plume, this
alternative would not remediate the site noticeably faster than the selected alternative. Therefore, the
additional costs are not proportional to the benefits. Preliminary results of on-site testing during fall
19% indicate that the AS portion of Alternative 5 would not be effective at this site; therefore, this
alternative was eliminated.
Protection of human health and the environment and compliance with ARARs will best be attained
through cleanup of soil and groundwater in the source area, long-term monitoring of the groundwater
plume, and enactment of institutional controls to prevent unrestricted use of the area. The use of
HVE, a variation on SVE, is EPA's primary presumptive remedy for VOC-contaminated soils. The
multi-step approach adopted in Alternative 6 is pan of EPA's presumptive strategy for addressing
contaminated groundwater. Figure 7-1 illustrates the key decision points and implementation strategy
for the selected remedy.
Initially, the HVE system will be installed within the "hot spot" to decrease contamination and
provide hydraulic containment of this area in order to prevent additional contaminant migration
downgradient. While HVE directly addresses the source area, it indirectly assists in remediation of
the downgradient plume by hydraulic containment of the principal threat. Periodic monitoring of
groundwater within and downgradient of the "hot spot" will be performed in conjunction with this
effort to determine the effectiveness of the preferred alternative in meeting the long-term groundwater
restoration objectives. During this initial step of remedy implementation, Treatability Studies will be
conducted to evaluate innovative technologies that may enhance the selected remedy. These
technologies include, but are not limited to, soil beating and phytoremediation.
If HVE alone fails to remediate the source area within a reasonable time frame and the Treatability
Studies are successful, then one of the successful technologies (i.e., soil heating) for enhanced
extraction will be combined with the selected alternative (see Figure 7-1).
The "hot spot" is defined by the area containing greater than 1 mg/L 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane in
groundwater (see Figure 3-6). This area represents the main threat at this site. Specifically, the "hot
spot" is the area that contains the contamination and acts as a reservoir for migration of contamination
to groundwater. Actively remediating this "hot spot" addresses the main threat. Concentrations of
1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane and TCE that exceed the 1% solubility of these chemicals are found within
the "hot spot." These high concentrations indicate a need to closely monitor for a denser-than-water
nonaqueous phase liquid (DNAPL) during construction and operation of the "hot spot" treatment
system.
The flat gradient of the groundwater in this area indicates decreased probability of significant
contaminant transport, and the relatively low concentrations of contaminants outside the "hot spot"
' 74
-------
Final Augusts. 1997
justify classifying the downgradient plume as a relatively low-level threat. Concurrent with
implementation of the selected remedy will be monitoring of the downgradient plume to track and
assess the natural attenuation of ground water contaminants.
7.1 MAJOR COMPONENTS OF THE SELECTED REMEDY
The major components of the selected remedy include the following:
• Treat the "hot spot" through HVE of soil vapor and groundwater in '
the perched and shallow zones to prevent the main threat from
continuing as a source of contamination to groundwater. Soil vapors
extracted from the "hot spot" soil will be treated as necessary to
meet state and federal air quality standards before release to the
atmosphere. Extraction wells will be placed in areas of highest
contamination and operated until state and federal MCLs and risk-
based criteria are achieved in the "hot spot";
• Treat extracted groundwater through air stripping to achieve state
and federal MCLs before discharge;
• Allow natural attenuation of groundwater contamination in areas
outside the "hot spot";
• Evaluate and modify the treatment system as necessary to optimize
effectiveness in achieving RAOs;
• Monitor groundwater measurements to determine the attainment of
RAOs and to detect and thoroughly characterize possible DNAPL.
Duration of the HVE system is expected to be from seven years to
12 years for soil and shallow groundwater in die "hot spot" and 150
years for natural attenuation of remaining groundwater to meet state
and federal MCLs and risk-based criteria;
• Evaluate the effectiveness of the HVE system to meet long-term
restoration goals during initial implementation;
• Conduct Treatability Studies to evaluate innovative technologies with
potential to enhance the remedial action, and implement successful
innovative technologies if the initial remedy proves ineffective; and
• Maintain institutional controls, including restrictions governing site
access, construction, and well development, as long as hazardous
substances remain at levels that preclude unrestricted use on site.
Implement restrictions on groundwater until contaminant levels are
below state and federal MCLs and risk-based criteria.
75
-------
Final August 8, 1997
The Army shall establish and maintain institutional controls, including restrictions governing site
access, construction, road and utility maintenance, and well development (except as such wells may
be required by this remedial action), as long as hazardous substances remain on site at levels that
preclude unrestricted use. The Army shall implement restrictions on groundwater use until
contaminant levels are below federal and state MCLs throughout the site. The Army shall ensure
compliance with the institutional controls in place at the facility, because noncompliance violates a
requirement of this ROD, and therefore violates a requirement of the FFA between the Army, EPA,
and ADEC. The institutional controls strategy includes the following:
• To ensure long-term effectiveness of this remedy, permanent
implementation processes and policies for implementing institutional
controls at the site shall be developed for the period of time that the
Army is in control of the real property upon which these
institutional controls will be effective and during the time, if any,
. that the real property may be transferred to another federal agency's
responsibility and control. Such processes and policies will be
developed through joint EPA, ADEC, and Army negotiations. It is
intended that once these implementation processes and policies are in
place, this ROD will be revised to incorporate such implementation
processes and policies;
• The Army shall conduct an annual review of the institutional
controls being implemented by the Army for this site and shall
assess, among other things, the effectiveness of the institutional
controls based on a visual "walk-through" of the areas of the site
where the institutional controls are in effect and a review of the
documents that implement the institutional controls; and
• The Army shall notify EPA and ADEC in the event that Fort
Richardson property is identified as excess to the Army's needs
while hazardous substances remain at or above levels that preclude
unrestricted use, and before actual transfer of land management
responsibilities to another federal agency or department.
7.2 AGENCY REVIEW OF THE SELECTED REMEDY
Tables 5-1 and 5-2 present the RAOs for groundwater and soil, respectively. The goal of this
remedial action is to restore groundwater to its beneficial use. While the long-term goal of the
remedial action is to return all the groundwater within and outside of the source area ("hot spot") to
state and federal MCLs and risk-based criteria, active remediation will be considered complete when
concentrations within the "hot spot" are below remediation goals for three continuous quarters after
remedy shutdown and the plume is not expanding. Based on information obtained during the RI and
on careful analysis of all remedial alternatives, the Army, EPA, and ADEC believe that the selected
remedy will achieve this goal. Groundwater monitoring data will be reviewed regularly to assess the
progress made by the selected remedy toward the cleanup levels, and will continue in the
76
-------
Final August 8, 1997
downgradient portion of the plume until state and federal MCLs are achieved over three consecutive
quarters and until subsequent soil borings show that RAOs are met after remedy shutdown and the
plume is not expanding.
Because the remedy will result in hazardous substances remaining above regulatory levels on site, a
review will be conducted within five years after commencement of the remedial action to ensure that
the remedy continues to provide adequate protection of human health and the environment, and will
continue for five-year increments until the remedy is complete. After five years of implementation, if
monitoring and performance data indicate that the selected remedy and any enhancements to the
remedy are not effectively reducing and controlling contamination at the site, then remedial objectives
may be re-evaluated. As part of this evaluation, a Technical Impracticability (TI) Waiver may be
sought by the Army. The TI Waiver would be granted by EPA if data demonstrate that available
remedial technologies cannot attain the RAOs established in this ROD, based on the complexities of
the contaminants and hydrogeology at Poleline Road.
77
-------
02: JV99C5UV9 71.cdr
Design and Construct HVE
Data Indicates
Groundwater
Restoration
Modify Long Term Objective
(e.g. Tl Waiver)
Monitor Remediation and
Evaluate Performance
Until Objective Obtained
Treatability Study
Enhanced Extraction
Do Not Implement
Enhanced System
O 1997 Ecology and Environment. Inc
Rgure 7-1 REMEDY IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY
POLELINE ROAD DISPOSAL AREA
78
-------
Final August 8, 1997
8.0 STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
The main responsibility of the Army, EPA, and ADEC under their legal CERCLA authority is to
select remedial actions that are protective of human health and the environment. In addition, Section
121 of CERCLA, as amended by 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 extent practica-
ble. The statute also contains a preference for remedies that permanently or significantly reduce the
volume, toxicity, or mobility of hazardous substances through treatment. CERCLA finally requires
that the selected remedial action for each source area must comply with ARARs established under
federal and state environmental laws, unless a waiver is granted.
8.1 PROTECTION OF HUMAN HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT
The selected alternative for OU-B will provide long-term protection of human health and the
environment and satisfy the requirements of Section 121 of CERCLA.
The selected remedy will provide long-term protection of human health and the environment by
removing the contamination from soils and groundwater through installation of an HVE system. The
remedy will eliminate the potential exposure routes and minimize the possibility of contamination
migrating to drinking water sources. Groundwater monitoring/evaluation will be completed to assess
contaminant plume movement and concentrations, and to ensure the effectiveness of the remedy.
Institutional controls will be in place to eliminate the threat of exposure to contaminated soils and
groundwater until cleanup levels are achieved.
No unacceptable short-term risks will be caused by implementation of the remedy.
8.2 COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE
REQUIREMENTS AND TO-BE-CONSIDERED GUIDANCE
The selected remedy for OU-B will comply with all ARARs of federal and state environmental and
public health laws. These requirements include compliance with all the location-, chemical-, and
action-specific ARARs listed below. No waiver of any ARAR is being sought or invoked for any
component of the selected remedy.
8.2.1 Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
An ARAR may be either applicable or relevant and appropriate. Applicable requirements are those
substantive environmental protection standards, criteria, or limitations, promulgated under federal or
state law, that specifically addresses a hazardous substance, remedial action, 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 the requirements' use is well-suited to the particular
79
-------
Final August 8, 1997
site. The three types of ARARs are described below:
• Chemical-specific ARARs usually are 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 usually are technology- or activity-based
requirements for remedial actions; and
• Location-specific ARARs are restrictions placed on the concentration
of hazardous substances or the conduct of activity solely because the
ARARs occur in special locations.
To-be-considered requirements (TBCs) are nonpromulgated federal or state standards or guidance
documents that are to be used on an as-appropriate basis in developing cleanup standards. Because
they are not promulgated or enforceable, TBCs do not have the same status as ARARs and are not
considered required cleanup standards. They generally fall into three categories:
• Health effects information with a high degree of credibility;
• Technical information regarding how to perform or evaluate site
investigations or response actions; and
• State or federal agency policy documents.
8.2.2 Chemical-Specific Requirements
• Federal Safe Drinking Water Act (40 Code of Federal Regulations
[CFR] 141) and Alaska Drinking Water Regulations (18 Alaska
Administrative Code [AAC] 80): The state and federal MCL and
non-zero MCL goals were established under the Safe Drinking
Water Act and are relevant and appropriate for groundwater that is a
potential drinking water source. For the constituents of concern at
OU-B, state and federal MCLs are equal; and
• AWQS (18 AAC 70): Alaska Water Quality Standards for
Protection of Class (1)(A) Water Supply is applicable to the source
area, and Class (1)(B) Water Recreation and Class (1) Aquatic Life
and Wildlife (18 AAC 70) are applicable to surface water. Many of
the constituents of groundwater regulated by AWQS are identical to
state and federal MCLs.
8.23 Location-Specific Requirements
• Clean Water Act Section 404: Section 404 of the Clean Water Act,
80
-------
Final August 8, 1997
. 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 permit. This statute is relevant and appropriate to
the protection of wetlands adjacent to Poleline Road;
• Army Regulation (AR) 200-2 (Environmental Quality),
Environmental Effects of Army Actions: This regulation states
Department of the Army policy, assigns responsibilities, and
establishes procedures for the integration of environmental
considerations into Army planning and decision making in
accordance with 42 United States Code (USC) 4321 et seq.,
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969; the Council on
Environmental Quality regulations of November 29, 1978; and
Executive Order 12114, Environmental Effects Abroad of Major
Federal Actions, January 4, 1979; and
• AR 210-20 (Master Planning for Army Installations): 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.
8.2.4 Action-Specific Requirements
• Federal Clean Air Act (42 USC 7401), as amended, is applicable for
venting contaminated vapors;
• RCRA (42 USC 6939b[b]) states that contaminated groundwater
cannot be injected unless: 1) being done as part of an action under
Section 104 or 106 of CERCLA; 2) the contaminated groundwater is
treated to "substantially reduce" hazardous constituents before
reinjection; and 3) such response action will protect human health
and the environment. The selected remedy employs extraction.
treatment, and reinjection that substantially improve the condition of
the aquifer and meet the substantive intent of this section of RCRA;
• The Safe Drinking Water Act, Underground Injection Control
Program, (40 CFR 144) prohibits the movement of contminated
fluid into underground sources of drinking water. However, the act
makes a provision for reinjection of treated groundwater into the
same aquifer from which it was drawn pursuant to an action under
CERCLA (40 CFR 144.13(c]);
81
-------
Final August 8, 1997
• RCRA (40 CFR 261, 262, 263, 264, and 268): Applicable for
identifying, storing, treating, and disposing of hazardous waste;
• Alaska Wastewater Disposal Regulations (18 AAC 72): Section
72.600 addresses the requirements for engineering plans for
treatment of wastewater (extracted groundwater), and Section 72.900
addresses permit requirements for operation of wastewater treatment
systems; and
• Alaska Air Quality Control Regulations (18 AAC SO): Although on-
site remedial actions do not require permitting, the substance portion
of these regulations must be met for the venting of contaminated
vapors associated with operation of the air stripping and SVE.
8.2.5 Information To-Be-Considered
The following information TBC will be used as a guideline when implementing the selected remedy:
• State of Alaska Petroleum Cleanup Draft Guidance will be used as a
TBC for cleanup of petroleum contamination in soils.
8J COST EFFECTIVENESS
The selected remedy provides an overall effectiveness proportionate to its cost, such that it represents
a reasonable value for the money spent.
8.4 UTILIZATION OF PERMANENT SOLUTIONS AND ALTERNATIVE TREATMENT
TECHNOLOGIES OR RESOURCE RECOVERY TECHNOLOGIES TO THE
MAXIMUM EXTENT PRACTICABLE
The Army, State of Alaska, 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 OU-B. Of those alternatives that protect human health and the environment and
comply with ARARs, the Army, State of Alaska, and EPA have determined that the selected 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.
The selected remedy would use readily available technologies and would be feasible to construct. The
installation of HVE systems will be focused on the areas of highest soil contamination.
HVE in conjunction with air stripping provides a permanent solution by eliminating the source of
contaminants and treating the off-site migration pathway.
82
-------
Final August 8. 1997
8.5 PREFERENCE FOR TREATMENT AS A MAIN ELEMENT
The selected remedy for OU-B satisfies the statutory preference for treatment of soil and groundwater
by utilizing treatment as a main method to permanently reduce the toxicity, mobility, and volume of
contaminated soil and groundwater.
83
-------
Final August 8, 1997
9.0 DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES
The selected remedy for OU-B is the same as the preferred alternative. No changes in the
components of the preferred alternative have been made.
84
-------
Final . August 8, 1997
APPENDIX A
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
85
-------
Fort Richardson, Alaska Administrative Record Index Update, 1997
CO
ON
rage Nuiiilifi-N OH < al No Dale I ilk- ^''i!1'1 Anllmr
(XXXir~o7xXI2 A II 12/31/89 DURP Program Review, Army Description, history, list of contaminants, mode ol Army None C.ivcn
011 A tun* I Inslallalion Resloialion Program, cleanup, status, issues and concerns, milotoncs. and
ITW-D-IM7, Fort Richardson PRE78 lundi"B'" thc Rtx»«vcli Ro.M T.ansmiiter Site.
PCB Spill
I I
(MMKJ3 IXXJ04 A I.I 12/31/89 DHRP Program Review. Army Description, history, list of contaminants, mode of Army None (iiven
oil A Book I Inslallalion Restoration Program. cleanup.status. issues and concerns, milestones, and
WN-D-007 FTW-D-006 and GR-D- '""''slalus °'lhc lwo ^ie Dutn P"s •'' F°rl Richardson.
001. Rrc Burn Pits
(HKKiS (XXX)7 A I.I 7/6/90 DERP Program Review. Army Description, history, list of contaminants, mode of Army None (iiven
(MIA Hook I Installation Restoration Program, cleanup, status, issues and concerns, milestones, and
ITW-D-INI7. l-ort Richardson PRB78 tu"d >lalu> o( "IC R"°«->vc" R";ld '• ••"•sm.ttcr Site.
ITU Spill
(MMXm (KMIIll A II 7/6/90 Dl-RP Program Review, Army Description, history, list of contaminants, mode of Army Nonediven
on A tiuok I Installation Restoration Program. cleanup, status, issues and concerns, milestones, and
WN• 0-007 lrrW I) (HI6 md GR-D- ^""d status of the two Tire burn pits at Fort Richardson
(XII, l-ircliurii Pits
(HHIII (NMM9 A 1.2.3 (I/2-I/K7 R«Misevell Road liaitsmillei Stic lUkgiomid mloinuiioii lor the site t lf.inii|i |>l.m l.u Hie Aicx.mdci Joliiistun Nmic-1 iivi-n
ol i A li,.,11 Cleanup Plan RIM»SCVI-|I Ro;id Transmitter Site tiSAl I) Alia.,
(XKi50 INNN5 A 12.3 4/I5/S8 Sampling Plan lot the Investigation Cieueral guidance for safe comltul while saiiiplin)- * IISAI-I) Alaska NoiuMi
OH A lli»k I til'ITII ( oiil.imin.ili-il S.iil alllie ha/aulims , nut nuii wastes ,u the KIMM v.-ll Ktuvl
K.M-sevch Road, I-oil Kidi.trdson Iransn.itur Sue
1'ransloinier Site
-------
Fort Richardson, Alaska Administrative Record Index Update, 1997
Page Numbers Oil Cat No Date Title ___
" A~ I2l~ 8/2 1/90 Final Roosevelt Road Transinillcr
Abstract
on. A Hook I
Describes monitoring procedures lor sampling, field
Silc, A/E QC Plan. Fort Richardson. measurement, and sample analysis activities to be
Anchorage Alaska performed during the project to obtain delensihle
chemical data
Author
if&IF
Recipient
liddie Brooks
tISAHl) Alaska
t I
IMIUiO :ivi.l Wilh.iiiiN
HSAI-.ll Al.c.k.i
IHl2(»y (Mi33(l A 1.2.3 K/I5AJ2 hrc Training Pits Work Plan. Part II. Part II includes ihc procedures litr dulling ami
OH AM...k I SiiliMiil;iiv|-\|i|oialiunnan. l-'l n.llr»lM.in.rMil>Miil.i.v Miil s:uii|i|>-s
i and l;l liiccly
cj
•-J
I: &
D.ivul Willi.mis
(IS M 11 AL.sk.,
(X)UI (KI.IK5 A 124 972(>/Ku I'liaxc I. ll.i/.iftloiis Waste Sillily No. Cvaliialion of the existence and extent ol cnm.munalion AI'llA
on A n,..k I ^7 26 (111*1 K7. l-v.ilu.ni.m ,.| l:iic relcascil to llie soil .11 ihe Fire Trainiii)! IMs .it I ml
Tiaiiiing I'tlN, I'.nl RicliaidMMi. W.miwii^l.i. l-..it KUM.II.IM.II. .,n,l I ,,n tiuvly
Alaska
Ainiy
(KI386 (MIJ87 A 1.2.4' 6/I5/8H Report i»l the Field Investigation Includes a description of the Roosevelt Road Army
(Hi A llm.k I Conducted at lite Roosevelt Road Transmitter Silc sampling invcsiigaliun undeii;iken IKIIII
ITIi Area APril 26 lh'ou^n Mi|y 4.I98H
Nuiie (liven
(KI38K (XHW A 124 10/15/90 Soil Quality Assessment. Building Presents results of soil quality assessment east ol
otiAH.H.kl Nn ')K6, Foil Richardson. Alaska Building No 986
Shannon & Wi|Mm USALI) Alask.
-------
Fort Richardson, Alaska Administrative Record Index Update, 1997
00
00
Numbers Oil (;ilN» Dale
A 121 -I/I/1'!
00-100 00/10
(HI AlliHiL .'
IM)7II 00X4,
(Ill A Html .'
00848 01038
OU A Hook ~\
1.2.4 5/15/91
Tilli
KiMiNcvcIl Ko.id liaiiMiiilU-i Site
Investigation. Project Report
Environmental Assessuicni and
Finding ul No Significant Impact,
Army Installation Restoration
Program, Roosevelt Road
Transmitter Site, Forl Richardson,
Alaska
Alistrutl
I'lCSCIItS llic IC.Mllls III ,1 silC llmsllL.lllllll IllllllW ll|> III!
Ihc KiMiscvcll Ro.uJ Traiisinillcr Silc .uul consists ul the
licltl iuvcsli(!alMiii and icuicdial ilcM(!ii, ninsiriicliiin
plans and specifications lor remediation ul ITU
contaminaliun were developed based on (his
invcsligaiitin
The EA perlunnetl in accordance with Nlil'A
ilflrriiiiiK-il licit no significant imparts would IMTIII
Irnni Ihc rciiniv.il ami disfxisal ul conianiinalcd suil
lioin the site
Aullior
!•& I:
Kenneth Norlliainei
I IS At-I I Abvl...
1.2.4
2/12/92 Progress Report for the Confirmation
of Fire Training Pils at Forl
Richardson. Fort Wainwright, and
Fort Greely. Alaska
Results of the investigation confirming the presence of US AED Alaska
Fire Training Pits at Fort Richardson. Fort Wainwright.
and Fon Greely
Krtipirol
D.iM.I Willi.mis
IISAl.ll Al.isLa
I I
None (iivcn
IJSA1-I) Alaska
01039 01076 A 12.4 2/26/93 Summary of Fieldwork and Chemical Water and sludge samples were collected from the POL USAED Alaska
OU A Hook 1 Data Report from November 1992 Laboratory dry well to determine the concentrations and
Sampl.ng Elforl. POL Lab Tank. Fort lypei of comaniinaiion present.
Richardson, Alaska
USAED Alaska
01077 01114 A 1.2.4 2/26/93 Summary of Fieldwork and Chemical Summary of fieldwork and chemical daia collected from Delwyn Thomas
01) A Hook J Data Report from November 1992 '"« P°L Laboratory tank. USAED Alaska
Sampling Effort. I'OI. I .ah Tank, hut
Richardson, Alaska
None (liven
01 1 IS 01751
mi \ti,..,kx i\i
124
Site Investigation Project Kepoit fur
| iu- TI.IIIIIII:: I'HS .it I :ui t Ku li.ii.K.iii
.mil 1'iiit (iu'fly. Alaska
MelhiHls lur ami results of invcsligatiuiis <>l I nc
Tiainini: 1'ilv |ii> liiiiin.iiy liiiiii.in ln-.illli h.i/.ic,ls ,uf
cvalnalcil anil icnk
-------
Fort Richardson, Alaska Administrative Record Index Update, 1997
Page Numbers OIJ Cat No Date Title
01752 OI7S4 A 1.2.5 7/7/93 Site Investigation Report lor Fire
on A Huik 5 Training Pits. Review Comments
Abstract
Author
ADEC review comments on the draft site investigation I .oins Howard
repon lor the Fire Training Pits at Fort Richardson and ADEC
Fort Greely.
Recipient
Cristal Fosbrook
DHW
I I
01755 01759 A 1.3.4 9/12/91 Summary of Soil Chemical Data, Summary of fieldwork and sampling results for the POL Delwyn Thomas
on A Hw.l 5 POI. Lab. Fort Richardson. Alaska underground storage lank at POt. Uhoratoiy Building tiSAEO Afc.-ka
No 986
None Given
01760 01767 A 1.6 2/24/88 Installation Restoration Program
on A. Himk s Work Planned lor the Roosevelt
Road Polychlorinaled Itiphenyl
(PCB) Sue on Fori Richardson
00
vO
OI76K OI76U A
on A li.«.L s
1.6 1/19/90 Comments. Kooscvcll Koad
TiaiiMiiilk-i Site OT Plan. Saiiiplin
and An.ilysi> Plan, and SuliMirlacc
l'\|i|oi:ilion Plan
Includes remedial alternatives I'oi the RiHisevuli Road Alexandei Jolmslon I-I'A
Transmitter Site IISAI-I) Alaska
EPA comment* on the work pl.m
Douglas Johnson Kcnnclli Noil
••''A ns\i n,\i.,si.i
01769 01825 A 2.1.3 2/4/91 Oral! Work Plan, Part I. Sampling,
iMi A Itik* s Analysis. A QA/IJT Plan I'or
Pclroli-iiiii I alH.ial..iy. lindihng «*«
(•oil KK|I.III|MIII. Alaska
Sampling, analysis, and QA/QC plans lor determining USAI-D Alaska
s"'1 cnniaminaiirm hy PfM . prcnliirts in ilu- vuinity of
"ll' "sr •" I|K: |inl ' •''""•'l'"y
None (liven
OIK26 OIK9K A 2.1.3 10/15/95 i:mal Approach Document. Remedial Presents the overall approach lor reporting Kl and RA li & I-
Oil A licx.k s Invcsiigaiion/Feasibiliiy Study, OU- rcsulls. and establishes a preliminary framework for
A, Tori Richardson. Alaska po4l Rl atliviiies, including ihe FS and Rcronl ol
Decision
USAI-I) Alaska
-------
Fort Richardson, Alaska Administrative Record Index Update, 1997
Page Numbers OU Cat No Dale Title Abstract Author Kni|>itut
IIIKW 02(124 A 2.I.-1 2/15/90 tnslallulion Kesloraliim Piogiam. Remedialion process andci>nliim.ii<>iy sampling ami WWC I-AIHI)MI
i >l i A Mm.), S Sla|U- I. Site No. 2. KooM-vi-ll Road "'siills l»r Ihi- Rooscvrli Rn.i.l Ti.inxmillri Silr; Volumr
Transmitter sue. hi...! KCIHMI -"' '•• ""•• !"»''i>i'"i5 •'•"! •"'•'iy-''> i'i-" "»" .""'>
stimpling is included
I t
(•2025 02I5S A 2.14 2/15/W) Insiiilhiliim Restoration Program. Soil giisiiivcsiigaiion amiquiiliiaiivc KAof 1-nc WWC I-AI-'H. |>|-||
OU A (,,„!,,, VJ,;|I;L. | site No. ». Tin- Ti.iitimj: 'Iraiuini! I'ils .u l;..n W.iiiiwuglii. l;..n KI.II.M.IMHI. .nut
(121% 02U7 A 214 9/12/91 Summary of Soil Chemical r>;ila. Includes resulls of chemical analyses lor soil samples Dclwyn Tliumas IISAI'D Ahisk.i
nil AII.H.U. l*( II. I.alt. I :oil KiilciltlMiil. Alaska viillwlwl IHMII within ihc IHM. l.ilxii.ilniy vuumy I is Al I > AI.,xL.,
02IH8 1)2360 A 2.1.4 10/30/92 l.aidluw tnvironmental Services, Summary of soil eicavaiion at ihe Roosevelt RoaJ Sterling & Associates USAI-I) Alaska
oiiAU(K>k6 Chemical QC Report, Roosevelt Transmiuer Site Leachfield
Road Transmiuer Site. Phase II. PCB
Remediation
02361 02362 A 2.1.5 4/11/91 Remedial Options of Roosevelt Road Documents approval of Ihe recommended remedial Edwin Ruff David Williams
Oil A Hook 6 Transmitter Site alternative of off-site landfilling of contaminated soil |>EH USAEI) Alaska
from the underground bunker at Roosevelt Road
02163 023M A 2.1.5 11/13/95 Comments. October 1995 Approach Commemson ihe approach document lor ihc OU A I.ouis Howard Kevin (iaidnui
nu A »,»*«, Document for OU-A RI/FS Al)tr <"'w
-------
1
-------
Fort Richardson, Alaska Administrative Record Index Update, 1997
I'agf Numbers OU Cat No Dale Title
Abstract
Author
03030 03032 A 3.13 6/I6/9S Remedial Investigation. OU A (OU- Includes proposed changes lo ihc sampling strategy at William Richards
OH AHO..I, 8 A) Ruff Road Fire Training Area; ihe Ruff Road Fire Training Area F.&h
Proposed Changes lo Sampling
Strategy
20284 20286
OU AUook 1
A 3.1.3 1/8/96 Responses lo Comrnenls on the OU- A response to comments prepared by CHPPM.
A Approach Document
William Richards
E&U
Recipient
fed Rales
IISAIil
I I
Ted Hales
USAI:I> Akiol
vfl
10
0.3033 0)215 A 3.14 K/17/92 I aidl.iw linvironnienl.il Services,
oil A Ho.,1 8 Chemical QC Report. Roosevelt
Road Transmitter Site. IVH
Remediation
Summary of soil sampling and contamination Sterling &
delineation at the Roosevelt Road Tiansmiilei Site
I IS A I: I) Al.isk.i
0321603241 A 3.1.4 7/22/94 RI/I-S Management Plan. OU-A: Review of background information for QUA
ou A Hiiuk 8 Review of Background Informuiion
li&t
led lialcs
IISAI-'I) Al.i.k.i
0.3242 03292 A 3.1.4 8/18/94 RI/I;S Management Plan: OU-A: Preliminary conceptual site models, data t|iialny
nil A Book 8 Conceptual Site Models. Data objectives, and ARARs for OU A
Quality Objectives and Preliminary
Applicable or Relevant and
Appropriate Requirements, Letter
Reports
03293 03306 A 3.1.4 10/4/95 OU-A Soil Stockpile Results/Disposal Results from soil sampling at the POI. Uhoiaiory
OH A llcHik K indicate ihe drill cuttings are clean
I: & I!
William Richards
K* t;
Ted Hales
IISAI-I
Ted U.ilcs
-------
Fort Richardson, Alaska Administrative Record Index Update, 1997
PaRt Numbers OU Cat No Dale Title Abstract Author
202X7 20642 A 3.1.4 8/15/96 Final Uuselme Human Health and The KA dcierniim* wtelher siic related coiiiaiimiaii.m I-&I-
k'<« Ixologicul Risk Asses.siiH.-nl. OH-A. present al OU-A is a risk lopublic licallli .nul ihc
••»7li,Ki.u l-ort Richardson. Alaska cnvir.innH.-ni
2(1643 21612 A 3.1.4 11/1/96 Final Remedial Investigation Report, Presenis the results of the Rl conducted at OU A from E&b
onABo>.U'M2 OU-A. Fort Richardson. Alaska, May 1995 to October 1995 in accordance with the Oil-
•V7lltxJau- Volume I: Report A Management Plan
Recipient
IISAIiDAIask.i
I I
USAHI) Alaska
(H1D7 (MM)7 A 3.I.S 8/1/94 Cniiiiiicms. RI/I-JJ Management I'lan, ComnicnlsoiHlicOll-A RI/KS ni.iii.igaitciii
()UAH(H,m OU A
l.ouis llowaul
ADtr
Kevin ( i.n.lnci
new
03308 03308 A 3.1.5 8/9/94 Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Review comments on the OU-A management plan. Matthew Wilkening Kevin (iaidner
on A Hook 8 Study. OU A Management Plan, Fort EPA
Richardson. Alaska, Comments
03309 03312 A 3.1.5 9/26/94 Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Review comments on the OU-A management plan
on A Bool H Study Management Plan. Conceptual conceptual site model and ARARs
Site Model and ARARs. Comments
Matthew Wilkenim; Kevin Gardner
EPA |>H\V
03 U 3 0.3314 A 3.1.5 9/26/94 RI/I:S Management Plan: OU-A. Fort Review commcnis on Ihe OU-A inanagemom plan l.ouis Howard Kevin (iardner
oiiAltmikX Ri(.-)iaid\on, Comnicills ADF.C f)|»vv
-------
Fort Richardson, Alaska Administrative Record Index Update, 1997
raj-i- Numbers (HI Cal No Dale Tilfc Ahslrafl _ Author Ki-cipifnl
03315 0.3323 A 1.1.5 10/3/94 RI/FS Management Plan: OU-A- Review comments on the OU-A niuiugcincni plan Louis Howard Kevin (iaulner
ou A Ho,.k 8 ARARs. Fort Richardson, Comments ARARs ADEC DPW
03324 03325 A 1.1.5 10/7/94 Response lo Commenis, RI/FS A response lo ADEC and EPA comments on (he OU-A William Richards Ted Hales
ouAHu..k8 Management Plan, OU-A RI/FS management plan. E&K IISAI-II AI^U
03326 03326 A 3.1.5 II/UV94 Response lo Cominenis, RI/FS Response to ADECs list of ARARs Albert Kraus Louis I Inward
(Hj.AHu.k8 Management Plan, OU-A I)PW Al)li<
03327 03330 A 3.1.5 11/10/94 RI/l-'S Management I'lun: OU-A- Review commems on the OU-A management plan Louis Howard Kevin Gardner
oiJ.AHu.k8 ARARs, Fort Richardson, Comments ARARs ADEC DPW
03331 03339 A 1.1.5 12/2/94 OU A, Remedial Review tuimncms on the OU-A nianagcmunrpliui. Matthew Wilkcim^ Kevin (iauhici
otiAlii«.kH Investigation/Feasibility Study ^.I'A Dl'W
Management Plan, Ouninenls
(HMO 033-10 A H5 2/22/l>f> I Halt hn.il Man.igcmciil I'lau I'm OU- Review OHIIIIKIIIS on ihcOU Aili.ili tm.il ni.in.ii!i-nu-iii Matthew Wilknuii;: KCMII (i.udiici
Oil AII...IH A,C"IIIIIH-llls Pliln |:|>A "I>VV
-------
Fort Richardson, Alaska Administrative Record Index Update, 1997
l'agc Numbers OU Cat No Dale Title Abstract
03341 ~~()334T A ".VI.5 3/2/95 Management Plan: OU A, Fort
on A Hoot s Richardson, Inrbruary
Author
Documents (he approval of the OU A management plan l.ouis Howard
ADKC
Recipient
Kevin Gardner
IM'W
21613 21623 A 315 2/28/96 OU-A Remedial
nu-AUouL 12 Investigation/Feasibility Study;
•97 ii|idair Ecological Risk Assessment;
Measurement Species and
Assessment l:nd Points. Fort
Kicluirilsun, Alaska
21624 21625 A 315 4/19/96 Comments on Draft Kcincili.il
(Hi All,.,L i: Investigation Kc|M.n I'laii. Oil A.
•»7 Upduu- March 1996. Fort Richardson. Alaska
Presents a summary of the ecological cnj points to be William Richards
used for the OU-A Ecological KA The summary was E&li
prepared in response to comments tin the OU-A
Approach Document
Review cmnmcni*.
I OIIIS IlllW.Ild
ADI-C
Tcil Kales
IISAIill Ala>i.i
Kevin ( i.llilllCI
i irw
2l()2(> 2I62K A 315 4/24/96 Comments on Draft (HI A Kcnicdiul Reviewcumnicniy
(Mi A itmii, 12 Investigation. I'lirl Kichardson.
•')7H|Miiiu Alaska
Matthew Wilkcnini: Kevin (l
HPA DI'W
21629 21635 A 3.1.5 5/28/96 Draft OU A Rl Report Comments
(Ml A H,»,k I?
'97 llpdulr
Review Comments.
Arthur Lee
CHWM
Kevin (iarJner
new
216-13 A 31.5 5/10/96 Commenis on Drali Hasclme Risk Review comments
on Ati,k,i i.' AsM-ssnicni, Oil A. Foil Kichardson.
•'»1H|Ht.iu Alaska
Matthew Wilkcnnif; Kevin d'anlner
-------
Fort Richardson, Alaska Administrative Record Index Update, 1997
l»jj-c Nuiul.cn, Ol) CalNo. Halt Tilk-
21644 21644 A 115 6/3/96 Coiniuenls on Draft Human Mcalih
on A Hook i.' and Ecological Risk Assessments.
Ol) A. April 1996. Furl Richardson,
' Alaska
Review comments.
Author
I ..mis How.ml
ADlii:
Kvtipicitl
Kcvlll (iaitlllCI
DI'W
2I(>45 2I64/
Oil Altmil 12
•97 lluduli:
3.1.5 7/2/96 Drall Baseline IIIIKA ami l:K A, OU- Review comments
A, April 1996
Arthur I .00
Army
Kevin (i.ntliici
DI'W
21648 2166(1
OU A U.x.l, I?
•97
3.1.5 10/1/96 Annotated review comments for OU- Document contains E & E's responses to the Army. E&E
A. Draft-Final Remedial EPA- and ADEC's comments on the draft-flnal versions
Investigation and Draft-Final Risk of the Rl afld Human "eallh RA/Ecological RA.
Ted Daks
USAl-l) Alax
21661 21677
Oil A Hook I.'
'97 ll|k 8
2I67K 2IHV7
on MI... i i:
•V7liinl.il.-
A 4.2 6/15/91 Design Analysis for Remediation Summary of the design logic that forms the basis for U&li
Project, Roosevelt Road Transmitter decisions used in preparing the project plans and
42
Site, Fori Richardson, Alaska
1 1/1/96 Fm.il l-casihilily Study, OU A, Ruff
U.i.i.l I iK-Ti.nmiii; AKM. I'.iit
Rith.ihKdii. Al.iska
specifications for the site; the report conlains
information about engineering calculations, economic
considerations, applicable standards ol performance.
project SOW. and design coiisti.tints
Presents .1 summary ol Rl icsulls. csi.ihlislics icnicili.il
a. lion uli|>Tmvs. uli-nlilii-s .i|>|ilu .il'U u-inrtli.il
Ici'linolo^ics. .iml |i|o\i.les .1 ilcl.nlcil .m.ilysis ol
n iik'ili.il .illrin.ilivr-i
USAlil) Alaska
USAIiDAI.isk.i
-------
Fort Richardson, Alaska Administrative Record Index Update, 1997
Abstract
Author
('age Numbers Oil Cat No Date Title
21854 21870 A 4.3 10/23/96 Work Plan No. I, Proposed Plan lor A dralt presentation of cleanup alternatives lor OU-A William Richards
on Aiio..t. 11 OU-A and OU-B and OU-B E*l-
'97 llpdiilc
Ki'ii|iivnl
Chris Roe
21838 21853 A 4.3 1/1/97 Proposed Plan for Remedial Action The proposed plan presents cleanup strategies lor OU-A Army
(Hi A H1)()k 13 • OU-A and OU-B. Fort Richardson. ™*cleanup alternatives for OU B at Fort Richardson
•97 Update Alaska
Public
21871 21885 A
(Ml A llnuk n
•97
4.4 7/18/96 Technical Memorandum. OU-A
Feasibility Sluily, Tusk 2
Presents remedial action objectives, preliminary William Richaids
remediation goals, general response actions. EAI:
technologies and piocess options, and lemcdial .K.IIUII
alternatives lor OU-A based on the Rl and RA reports
Ted Hales
USAlili Ataxt
21886 2189) A 44 7/23/96 Resampling (iron ml water Monitoring An amendment to the OU-A RI/FS Management Plan I'.ml Cnuley
< in A H..J.I 11 Wells liomiis/Fin.iiis .n Null addrcssmi: the ifs.ini|)lin^ <>l live niiimlnimi: urlls l,,i | \ |
•97 |i,Ml;iu- Road l-ire Ttainmn Area, l-orl piilychloimait-d dihL-n/o-p-dioxms/|«ilyehU.rmated
Richardson, Alaska
(lilh.-11/n |i liii.ni> .in.ilyH's at the KKI'I'A
Tcil Hales
HNAI |i \\.,-.\, ,
21892 21892 A 4.5
(111 A Hin.1. II
7/30/96 Comments to Technical Review comments.
Memorandum Feasibility Study, Task
2. Oil A. Fort Uikhaidsiin. Alaska
Louis Howard
AUH.I'
Kevin (Jardncr
nrw
21893 21895 A 45 8/7/96 Comments on OU-A Feasibility
on A Hi>.il. I» Snitly Technical Memorandum
'97 |l|Ml;iU>
Review comments
Matthew WilkemnK Kevm (ianlnei
-------
Fort Richardson, Alaska Administrative Record Index Update, 1997
I'agt Numbers OU Cat No Dale Title
Abstract
2IH96 21X97 A 45 9/16/96 Comments lo Draft Feasibility Sludy. Review comments
i in A n.K.k 11 Oil A. Rulf Road I iic Training Area
'V7
Author
l.ouis Howard
ADIU-
Krtipicnl
Kevin (iardncr
2IK9K 2I9IHI A 4.5 9/3(1/96 Comments to Draft Feasibility Study. Review comment!..
oii.AihN.Mi OU A, Rulf Road l-ire Training Area
•<*7|l|xlulf
M.illlicw Wilkcinil;: Kevin (i.iiiliici
KPA Dl'W
2I9III 21917 A 4.5 11/25/96 Annotated Comments 101 he Final E& E's responses to comments I rum ihe Army. ADtC. William Richards Ted Halo
OIIAII.N.MI l-'casibilily Study Kcpuils.OILA; :md P.PA «m the diali I;S ivpoii t x I- HSAI n Alia.,
>!<• lull Knli.niKiiii. Al.isk.i
vfi
00
2I9IH 21919 A 4.5 11/27/96 Comments to Working Draft No. 2 of Review comments.
oil A H.M* 1.1 Proposed Plan for OU A and OU-B,
•»7 Update Novanbei 4. 1996
Louis Howard Kevin Ciardner
ADEC DPW
21920 21922 A 45 12/6/96 Comments on Proposed Plan lor OU- Review comments
(MlAB.>..kll A and Oil B
'97 Updjk
Matthew Wilkemn>.' Kevin (iuidiiei
EPA Dl'W
J|92< 21923 A 45 12/9/96 C'onuneniN on Proposed Plan for OU- Review comments
«Mi Mt.,,,1, it A .iiidOll II
•tflllMl.ll.
RolK-rl York
Alllly
Kevin (i.iiiluei
I U'\\
-------
Fort Richardson, Alaska Administrative Record Index Update, 1997
Tagc Numbers OIJ Cat No Date Title Abstract
27924~Tl92(T A 4.5 12/10/96 Comments on OU-A FS, OU-B FS. Review commenis
HIi A II...L M nil A/n 1'ropnsctl Plan
Author
Mull McAfee
riii'i-M
Recipient
Kevin Gardner
Orw
I i
21927 21930 A 4.5 12/17/96 Commenis on OU-A and OU-B Review commenis.
on A Hook 13 Proposed Plan
'97 Update
Michael Haradu Kevin Gardner
Army DHW
21931 21934 A 4.5 12/24/96 Comments on OU-A and OU-B Review commenis.
OK A Ho»L n Proposed Plan
•97 llpdme
Mailhew Wilkenmj; Kevin Gardner
EPA |)HW
vO
03365 01366 H II 11/5/90 Fuel Sheer Poleline Road Disposal Discusses investigative efforts ui Poleline Road Crislal Fostmmk None Given
OUHHtMikl Area (PROA) Disposal Area and poiemiul further subsuifate DPW
invesiigaiions
03367 03371 B I.I 10/20/93 Chemical 1-veni in Alaska
on uiiiH.L i
Informanon concerning the distovery of buried Mailhew Nondrop Jin c Lackey
chemical warfare lr;iininy makvials ,n ihc Pod-line Ko.ul Army Aum
l>i.\|ios.il AUM
03372 033X0 B I.I 10/27/93 Safely Concerns lor PKIM Soil Presentation of chemical screening conducted lod.iie Robcri Wieiiliuoie Nune Given
oniiii.>.>k I Slor.i<:e and guidance reg.irdmg ihe tru-nnr.il apirnis Mispcvk-il ,n orw
Ihc Nile (Musi,IK) .iiul Ixwisili'l
-------
Fort Richardson, Alaska Administrative Record Index Update, 1997
I'uge Numbers OIU ( at No Dale Title
1)3381 03460 B 1.2
Oil-It lliHik I
Abstract
Author
8/15/91 Poleline Road Disposal Area,
Remedial Investigation Technical
Plan
Presents ihe sampling design plan and ihc preliminary Robert Chesson
RA plan lor the Poleline Road Disposal Arc.i KSI-"
Recipient
None Given
(13461 03489 B 1.2.4 5/15/94 Reconnaissance Grouml Penetrating Evaluates subsurface conditions ai the I'.ilclmc Ro.id Daniel I.awson
on-li n«* I Radar and Rlectroniai-nciic Induction Disposal Area ai Fori Richardson CKRCI.
Surveys of the Poleline Road Site.
Furl Richardson. Alaska
I I
USAI-.ll Alaska
OM'MI 0371(1 1) 124 12/15/94 I'nlehne Road Disposal Area. Draft Work performed and findings ol mvcMi(:,iii<>ii>.ii ihe OHM
Oil IIII...I. I | ni.,1 Ui-|tinl. I'h.isr I \ II Polclnu- Koatl DIN|H»S.I| AICH
IISAI'I) Alask;i
O
O
(137 11 03751 B
on M iiiN>k i
1.4 7/15/90 Poleline Road Disposal Area,
I'xp.mdcd Site Invesligiiiion, l-'orl
Richardson, Alaska, Dialt Accident
Prevention Safely Plan
Site-specific safety plans for the expanded sue
investigation of Fort Richardson.
ESE
ATHAMA
U 1.4
on II limit :
s.il AIC.I.
l-xpandal Site liivcsiiy.iliiin, I'
Richardson, Alaska
I'niviilcs ICMills ill (lie lllvcNliy.iliiin ul si nine ,IUM | SI'
contaminants ,uul i .ilcgon/cs Ihc ii.iiitic ul .my H-|C,IM->
and/or potential threats lo human health and ihi:
environment.
A I MAMA
03%7 0402H B
on it n,.>.k.'
1.4 9/24/91 Poleline Road Disposal Area, Plans for ihe initial investigation ol cniiuuiinaium ai the LSli
Remedial Invc-Miyalion, l;oit Poleline Road source areas lo US>CSN Ihe potential
Richardson, Alaska. Technical Plan lhrL'ali "'tlunun hc'lllh aml I|K: envnoinncm .uul i,>
make fcunnnienijjlums regarding polcnlial l
acliuns
ATHAMA
-------
Fort Richardson, Alaska Administrative Record Index Update, 1997
Page Numbers Oil Cat No Dale Title Abstract ^!^0.r Kciipk-nt
m02l7Tw()5S li 1.4.2 X/X/95 Geophysical Investigation ol the Draft fin.il report summarizing a scries of geophysical CRRHI. OI'W
Oil II liixil ' I'KDA investigations :il me INilclmc Ro.nl Disposal Area
conducted In delineate the locations of siispciltd buiicd
hazardous maicri.ils
I I
0-4056 (M08I B 1.5 8/24/90 Surface Geophysical Invesligalion. Ttaee surface geophysical investigative meihods were ESE None Given
Oil H H,H,k 2 Untied Slaies Army l;orl Richardson «*«1» help deieci Ihc possible presence ol maierials
Fatilily. Anchorage. Alaska and/or "t?Ji:cls burictl'" lhe Callow ^uhsurlace ol the
study urea.
1)10X2 IMOH2 II l.h I2/I4/MV Nnliht.iln.il lo USI-I'A ollhc Weillen ii.HUk. uloF.PA re|!.nilm)! Hie .liMovciy ol Kcimclli N..illi.un. i I )unrl.,s l,,lnis,,,,
(ni.Hlinil2 |>olelme Koad Disposal AICJI a possible past coniaminaiion silc neat I'olelinc Koad liSAIil) Alaska ICA
»—
O
»-•
04083 04083 B 1.6 1/19/90 Review Comments on the Polclinc Review commems on lhe Poleline Road Disposal Area Douglas Johnson Kenneth Norlhamcr
OUBBook2 Road Disposal Site, Expanded Sue expanded site invesiigaiion EHA tis.Atn Ab>i.;,
Invesligalion
040H4 (M085 ' B 1.6 8/24/90 Interview wild Mr. Paul Ro.selund Interview with Paul Roselamj regarding ihc types and Catherine Scot) None Given
Oil II Hot>k 2 locations of chemicals disposed of al Polclino Kn.id. DHW
0408h 040KK B 212 10/3/93 Rapid Response Weekly Report Weekly report lor the Poleline KiuJienim.il action- l.any HuilMin US Al I) Al i>k t
oii|iii..,k.' 9/23W3 through 10/3/93 OHM
-------
Fort Richardson, Alaska Administrative Record Index Update, 1997
l'aKi> Numbers 'Oil fat No Dale Tillc
(MOH9 0-1090 It 212 1(1/17/93 Rapid Response Weekly Report
on ii n.M.I :
Abstract
Weekly report 1011 ho I'ulclinc Ko.iJ icmnv.il :icliuii-
Ill/IO/V.Uhroiigh HVI7/9.T
Aiillnir
I .any Hudson
OHM
Kciipirnl
II.SAhllAlaska
04091 04093 B 2.1.2 10/24/93 Rapid Response Weekly Report
Oil Illlool 2
Weekly report for the Poleline kuad removal atium- | .arry Hudson
8/21/93 through 8/24/93 OHM
IISAhl) Alaska
(M(W4 (MIW5 U 2.1.2 7/23/94 Rapid Response Weekly Report
Oil lllllHlk 2
Weekly report lor the Poleline Ro.id rcimiv.il .iclmii. | .,rry Hudson
7/5W4 Ilirmipli 7/2.W4 OHM
IISAI-I) Al.iska
o
KJ
04096 04(W8 b 2.1.2 7/30/94 Rapid Response Weekly Report
Oil B Hook 2
Weekly report for the Poleline Road removal action- l.arry Hudson
7/23/94 through 7/30/94 OHM
USAI-I) Alaska
04099 04101 B 2.1.2 8/4/94 Rapid Response Weekly Report
01) B bmA 2
Weekly report for the Poleline Road removal action- Larry Hudson
8/1/94 through 8/4/94 " OHM
USAI-D Alaska
til 102 01 Hid Ii 212 K/l l/'-M K.i|inl Kcsjumsc Weekly Kepmi
iin n ii,«,i. J
Weekly report lot (lie Poleline K».ul iciimv.il .Khun
H/'JW llinM^l! K/HAM
I .any llu.lson IISAI I) Alaska
-------
Fort Richardson, Alaska Administrative Record Index Update, 1997
I'uge Numbers OU Lai No Dale Title
011(177)4111 if 21.2 8/20/94 RiijpiJ Response Weekly Report
Abstract
Author Recipient
(Ml H Ho..I, >
Weekly report lot ihc Polelme Ro.ul removal action- | .yrry Hudson
8/15/94 through 8/20/94 OHM
(Ml 12 (Ml 16 B 2.1.2 8/27/94 Rapid Response Weekly Report
(HI•lllliNiL -'
Weekly icpori fur Ihc Poleline Kn.iU removal action- I .arry Hudson
8/22/94 through 8/27/94 (11 IM
USAIil) Alaska
(Ml 17 (Ml20 U 2.12 9/1/94 Rapid Response Weekly Report
OilllH.Hik >
Weekly report for the Poleline Road removal action- Larry Hudson
8/29/94 through 9/1/94 OHM
USAI-I) Alaska
O
U)
(Ml21 (Ml2.1 It 212 9/10/94 Rapid Response Weekly Report
on it iii«.i _'
Weekly report for the Poleline Ro.nl rcinov.il .U.IHUI | .;my
9/7/<)4 Ihroii^li 9/IO/V4 (HIM
USAIiDAI.isk.i
04124 04127 B 2.1.2 9/17/94 Rapid Response Weekly Report
Oil BHo.il.>
Weekly repon for the Poleline Road removal action- Larrv Hudson
9/12/94 through 9/17/94. OHMV MUdSO"
04I2K 04131 U 2.1.2 9/24/'J4 Rapid Response Weekly Report
on n iiiHik j
Weekly report for ihc Poleline Kn.id icinov.il .H.IUMI
9/I9W4 ihrouuh 9/24/94
1 airy Iliidstin
OHM
I IS Al II) Alaska
-------
I'or I Richardson, Alaska Adniinistrulive Uccord Index Update, 1997
Cage Numbers Oil (at No Dale Title Abstract
Author
(14132 (Ml 33 B 2.12 9/29/94 Rapid Response Weekly Report Weekly report for the Poleline Road removal action- l.arry Hudson
Oil II Hook .' 9/26/94 through 9/29/94 OHM
IJSAP.D Alaska
04IM (MIU II 212 ID/HAM Rapid Response Weekly Report
on ii n...I j
Weekly report lor ihc Poleline KO.H! miiov.il .icimn- |.;iny ||m|Min I ISAI.I> Al.isk.i
lfV4/<>4 lliHiiicli HI/M/M II 1.1.. I VI.V'M 1'iilclinc Uci.ul l)is|iusj| AIC.I, Ticltl Woik jil.in Im a-incdi.il jtlivilu x in In- |H-I l.miK-.l .il ilic | ..m y | |||,|MIM
on HtUKiU I&4 Operations Work Plan Poleline Road Disposal Area OHM
IISAI.I) Al.isk.i
-------
Fort Richardson, Alaska Administrative Record Index Update, 1997
Page Numbers Oil Cat No Date Title
Abstract
04824 04X25 0 21.3 5/16/94 Poleline Road GPR Report
Oil H (tool. 1
Summary of excavation plans fur the Pulclmc Road
Disposal Area.
Author
Kevin Gardner
Dl'W
Recipient
Matthew Wi
I-:HA
I t
(MH26 05462 B 2.1.3 5/27/94 Poleline Road Disposal Area. Phase Field opcralions work plan, site speLilk health and Lurry Hudson
on H IK,.* 5 2-Conltnualion of ihe Removal wfc|y Plan: environmemal protection plan, sampling OHM
Action. Project-Work Plan and a";i|ysls Pl:">: antl packaging. ujiispon.iimn. and
storage plan fur the removal action al ilie I'olclnic Koad
Disposal Area
USA1-I) Alaska
05463 05467 B 21.3 9/29/94 Additional Excavation al Poleline
on H iio.ii 5 Road Disposal Area
Modilkalions in the site work anil safely plan for Albert Kruus
additional removal work at the Poleline Road Disposal DPW
Area
None Given
0546805468 B 2.1.5 9/3/93 Projecl Work Plan lor Pulelme Road Approval ol the work plan for the Poleline Road Louis Howunl
OUHbookb Disposal Area, Comments Disposal Area ADEC
.IS JtlllllMIII
05469 05470 B 2.1.5 9/7/93 Project Work Plan. Rapid Response EPA comments on the project work plan lor the
on II li.H.L ii Rcinov.il Ailion. ['olclim- Knail Polcliia- Road Disposal Area
Disposal Area. ('iiiiinii'iils
Matthew Wilkcnin^ Ju.inil.i (iwin
l-'l'A tisAI I) \i.,vi..,
1)5471 05471 U 2.1.5 2/22/94 I'olelme Road Disposal Area Work
i il i H H..,,k << and I U-alih and Satcly I'l.ins,
Cuiniiienls
Review COIIIIIKDIS on Ihe Poleline Road Disposal Aica Louis Howard
work and health and safely plans ,\l )|-c
L'l.ls JollllSOM
I-I'A
-------
Fort Richardson, Alaska Administrative Record Index Update, 1997
I'agc Numbers OU Cat No Date Title Abstract
Author
05472 05474 1) 2.1.5 2/24/94 Poleline Road Disposal Area Work Review comments on the Poleline Road Disposal Area Matthew
on.|in.i.ik ii ami Health and Safely Clans. work and health and safely plans IJ'A
Comments
KciipicMl
Douglas Johnson
M'A
05475 05480 b 2.1.5 3/9/94 Polcline Road Disposal Area Work Review comments on the Polcline Road Disposal Aiea Louis Jackson Teresa Canslci
ou-HHookb. and Health and Safely Plans. work and health and safely plans ANSCM USAI-O Alaska
Comments
05481 054HI li 2.1.5 5/11/94 ReviewCoininenis on Mel.arn Hart's RevicwoimmenisimMcLamlliiiiM.TlT)priH:cssfor Manlicw Wilkcuni): Kcvm (i.u.ln.i
(Mi lllii..t,<> I nw rcni|X.-r;Hiuc riii-ni^il Ilic excavated soils al the Polcline K«i;i.l I>ispnsal Aica i:t-A lil-W
|K:SIII|I||I)M I'ltHCNS (ill till' I'.H
O Soils at I'olclmc Koad
05482 05485 B 2.1.5 5/13/94 Review Comments on the Draft Final Review comments on the Polelme Road Disposal Area Louis Jackson
OU H Hook r, Workplan for the Poleline Road <•«•" '""»' work P1-1" ANSCM
Disposal Area
Teresa Canslei
u.SAI-l )
0548605486 B 2.1.5 2/13/95 Comments. PRDA. Phase I & II,
ou B book 6 Draft Final. January 1995
Comments on the Poleline Road Disposal Area report Louis Howard Kevin Gardner
ADEC l>pw
05487 05489 B 2.1.5 6/17/95 Rapid Response Weekly Report
Oil II MiHit, h
Weekly Report lor (he Poleline Rnad Disposal Area Larry Hudson
removal action. June I through June 17. 1995 OHM
USAIiDAIask.i
-------
Kurt Richardson, Alaska Administrative Record Index Update, 1997
Page Numbers Ol) Cat No Dale Title
Abstract
Author
05440 05491 1) 215 7/1/95 Rapid Response Weekly Report
Oil H Ilixil d
Update of licld activities from June 1910 July 1,1995, Larry Hudson
lor the I'ulclinc Ro.ul Disposal Area removal .iclmn (HIM
Recipient
IISAFD Alaska
05492 055(M B 2.1.5 7/15/95 Response to Comments. Excavation Response to EPA. Army, and ADEC uimmenis on ihc OHM
OUBH.H.kb of the Poleline Road Disposal Area excavation report
USAIU) Alaska
21935 22162 B 2.2
Oil II llii.il. 4
'97 llpduli
8/1/96 Draft EE/CA for the Treatment and An EE/CA to identify objectives of a removal action USAED Alaska
Disposal of Chemical Agent and'° analy/e various alternatives ih.u maybe used to
lilcniificaiiim Sets Rccovcicd Irom *«'"'>lncsc «hjcciive> lor c.)si cricciivcncNs. and
Hie I'RDA. Fort Richardson. Alaska
Niiiic Ciivcn
()5.*)(I5 O.S!>Orj U 23 10/26/93 I'olclinc Road Disposal AIC.I. l-orl Chemical ugciil situation al the I'olclmc K.i.td Di
OlillH.Hiki. Richardson. Alaska Area.
Robert Wrciiinioic John S.in.l.ii
(IS SUM H 2.5
on h H.H.L (.
ltl/7AH Su%|iccl t'lii'imcid Wail. uc Material I iiml.miv Im |)i>KccJuig wild the MM! ifiimv.il .11 Hie I oins (.uk
;,l (•on Ruliaiilson. Ala>ka I'ololiik- Kn.hl DIS|.ON.I| Au-a ANS«M
M'A
05509 055(r9 B 2.5
on H ii....I i.
5/9/94 April 1994 Draft hnal Project
Workplati I'liasc 1 Ciiiilimialion dl
ihc Removal Action I'ulclinc Road
Disposal Sue. OHM I'n.icct No
I-I925RI
Documenls approval of the April 1994 dial! linal |. mils Howard
project woikpl.m ph.isc 2. comininiiinn ol iho rciiiov.il ADI-f
•"•""" •" ''"^'"^ Ro.id Disposal Aic... OHM |'i,,jci I
No
Kevin (iardncr
Dl'W
-------
Fort Richardson, Alaska Administrative Record Index Update, 1997
I'age Numbers OU Cut No Dale Title
Abstract
22163 22183 B 3.1 4/22/96 Technical Memorandum, Remedial Presents draft remedial alternatives for the OU-B FS
CHI H Uwik i Alternatives Development and
• Screening, OU-B. Feasibility Study,
Fort Richardson, Alaska
Author
wwc
Kvtipivnl
DSAF.D Alaska
22184 22185 B 3.1.1 HV22/96 Scope of Work Mud. #3. OU-B FS Scope mutlifkauon to delete production ol KS and None Ciivcn
OH II Hook V addition of air sparging as an alternative for iheOUB
'97 Upduic
FS
Nunu given
O
CO
(155 Ml 05906 I) 3.1.3 3/15/95 Remedial Investigation Management Plans to conduct the Rl lodiaraucri/ciiii: iiiiiurc ami WWC
illi Hll.H.k / I'l.in.dtl II. Ptili'lliir Kn.ul |)|s|his.il (•Mrmiilioiilaiiiinalinii.iihlaiiMNaliM KA.aml
Area. l-«>n K.cliardson. Alaska cv;llm"c lcnli:J'-'1 .i«iciiialivc»
IISAI-.I) Al.isk.i
05907 05939 B 31.3 8/15/95 biological Kisk Approach An approach document for developing ihe OU-B WWC USAF.D Alaska
ou II HIM,18 Document. OU B, PRDA Poleline Road Disposal Area ecological RA
05940 05957 B 3.1.4 6/15/94 Finding ol No Significant Impact and FONSI and EA for the soil removal action at the USALD Alaska None Given
OU B book 8 [invironmental Assessment. Poleline Poleline Road Disposal Area
Road Removal Action. Fort
Richardson, Alaska
115458 05980 B 3.1.4 10/19/94 Existing Data Report: OU-B Reviewof existing data for the Holclmc Road Disposal WWC Teresa Cansler
oil it ItiHii« Keincilial Invcsligaiion Management Area us/vi:i> Alu-k.1
I'lan
-------
Fort Richardson, Alaska Administrative Record Index Update, 1997
I'iijjc Nimilim Oil Ciil No Dull- lillf A list rail Aiillior
OV1HI 059911 II VI 4 11/2/94 ARARs iimlTIK.'s I.ellei Report: OU- Appliiableor relevant, and appnijiiiaie K-,|IIIICIIK-III% WWC
I )l i n iiiK>k H || Remedial Investigation •""' ie|>iilalion> In he nniM.K-ii.il Im lln. I'oK-linc Kn.nl
Management Plan
'IVlfN.I ('.Hisli'l
USAI.I
05991 ()6()2I B 3.1.4 11/2/94 CSM and DQO teller Rcporl: OU-B Concepiual sice models and data quality objectives for WWC
OIJ.H Ho«k 8 Remedial Investigation Management "* Poteline Road Disposal Area
Plan
Teresa Cansler
USAKO Alaska
IKil)25 (Ki032 li 314 12/7/95 Human Health Risk Assessment
(in H iiiHik x Appnufh Dt)ciiiiicni. Oil U
Pljmtcd approuch lor tonduciiiig ilic liiiiii.in lic.ihli KA WWC
for OU H
Kevin (i.uiliici
IH'W
22186 22193 U 3.1.4 1/24/96 Quarter I Groundwaier tlcvation Presents results of first quarter monthly groundwaier Sally Rothwell Andrea l-lconin
(Ml H BookM Report, OU-B Remedial Investigation level measurements ai the Poleline Road Disposal Area wwc liSAElt Ai.»ku
•97
22195 22202 B 3.1.4 4/23/96 Quarler2 Groundwaier Elevation Presents results olsecond quarter monthly ground water Sally Rulhwell Andreu bktmin
OU H Hook 9 Report, OU B Remedial Investigation level measuremems at the Poleline Road Disposal Area WWC USAf.O ,\b,ka
'97 llpdulc
22203 22424 B 3.1.4 9/1/90 l:uiul Remedial Investigation Report. This document summarizes the Kl ;ii ihc t'olcliiie Ko.ul WWC'
on H n.N-ks'Ulo OH II. I'ltlolme K.i.cd Dispos.il Area. Disposiil ArcM .uxl dcsuihcs lh> imMlimlj.li^u-v .uul
•
-------
Fort Richardson, Alaska Administrative Record Index Update, 1997
PaKe Numbers Oil Cal No Dale Title
Abstract
Author
22425 21057 B 3.1.4 9/1/96 Final Remedial Investigation Report, Volume II contain* Rl Report that include field logs, WWC
ou B books 1012 OU-B, Poleline Road Disposal Area, ^ring logs and moniioring well completion logs,
•97 Ilp4.it Fori Richardson. Alaska. Volume II, $urvey dilla' QA rcPl"««- analyiieal data, a Siaiemem of
. , Work un-silc mustard gas screening, geophysical
"•^ surveys and an investigation report, groundwater faie
and transport modeling report, and quarterly
gfoundwaier elevation reports
23058 23398 B 3.1.4 9/1/96 Final Risk Assessment Report, OU- This report contains a Baseline Human Health RA and WWC
OU-B Ho.* 12 B. Poleline Road Disposal Area, Forl Ecological R A for the Poleline Road Disposal Area
•97 Update Richardson. Alaska
Recipient
USAlif) Alaska
USAl-l) Alaska
06033 06033 B
(HI B Honk 8
3.1.5 11/9/94 Lusting Uiicumeiiis Letter Report
OUB Rl Management Plan-
C'oinnieius
Review comment!, on the existing data letter reports for l.ouis Howard Kevin (iaidncr
the Poleline Road Disposal Area. AUEC OPW
06034 06042 B 3.15 11/10/94 ARARs and TBCs, CSM and DQO Review comments on the applicable or relevant and Louis Howard
ou llH.H4.ii Letter Rcpoits. Oil I) Rl appropriated requirements and reputations to he AOF.r
M.iii.iti-iiK-111 Plan, t •.Miiiiiciil.s . .'nsi.l,-..'.l , ...u•.•|itu:il >it,' I.HH|, I .tn.l d.iu .pi.ilil)
ohjCtllVO ICIICI ll-|»llli 1(11 lllC I'llk'lllH Kll.ltl |)|>|MIS.||
AlC.I
Kevin Oardncr
DI'W
06043 06044 B 3.I.S 11/10/94 ARARs and TBCs. CSM and DQO Review comments on the conceptual models, applicable Matthew Wilkening Kevin Gardner
011II Hook 8 Letter Reports. OU-B Rl or relevant and appropriate requirements, and EPA OHW
Manatjcnifnl Plan, Conmicms regulations to he considered lor the Pole-line Road
Disposal Area
OMI47 B 3.1.5 1/6/95 OlMt. Remedial Investigation Draft Review unniiicnli on the management phm lor the I KIMS llow.itil Kevin (MIIJIICI
i.mkK M.in.igL-iiiciil Plan, Co cuts Polclino Road Oi>po»al Aiea. AIH'C ni'W
-------
Fort Richardson, Alaska Administrative Record Index Update, 1997
I'age Numbers Oil Cat No Date Title ___ Abstract Author Recipient
060H5 06096 B 3.1.5 I/I 1/95 Poieline Road, Remedial Review comments on the Polcline Road Disposal Area |;PA Sally Rolhwell
(in it u...k 8 Investigation. Draft l;inal Rl draft linal management plan ' ww(
Management Plan, Comments
I t
06048 06061 B 3.1.5 1/12/95 OU-B, Management Plan lor the Review comments on the management plan for Pulclinc Matthew Wilkenmu Kevin (iardncr
oil H Hook 8 Remedial Investigation, Comments Road Disposal Area r.PA Ki-w
06062 06108 B 3.1.5 2/21/95 Response to Comments. RI Response to agency comments concerning the OU-B Rl Sally Rolhwell Teresa Canslcr
Oil B Bonk 8 Management Plan, OU-B management plan. WWC uSAtDAia^a
06112 II .VIS 3/27/95 Poleline Road, Remedial EPA comments on the Poleline Road I )ispmal Aiea lil'A Kom (i.mlnn
(HiMli.oLK Investigation. Di.illlin.il draft final inanagaiH-iil plan l,cw
Management Plan, Comments
06113 06113 B 3.1.5 9/27/95 Comments, Ecological Risk United States Army Center for Health Promotion and Jack Heller Kevin Gardner
ouBBookH Approach Document, OU-B Preventive Medicine comments on the OU-B ecological CFHPPM DPW
risk approach document.
23399 23403 U 315 1/10/96 Comments on OU-B Approach Comment include review commcms »n the OU D Matthew Wilkenmg Kevin (i.irdnci
()li»n,M,ki2 D.u:iimenl and OU I) Management Management Plan. OU-B Croiindwater Modeling RPA lil-w
,,|a|) Approach Ducumenl. and the Oil-It Itasclino KA
Approach Document
-------
Fort Richardson, Alaska Administrative Record Index Update, 1997
1'aije Numbers OU Cat No Date Title Abstract
23404 23405 B 3 .1.5 1/16/96 Comments, OU-B Eu> Risk
on H Book \2 Approach Document
'97 llpdule
Author
Recipient
Review comments by EPA on OU-B Geological Risk Matthew Wilkcning Kevin Gardner
Approach Document. EPA DHW
2VIIH) 2 MIC* II 1.15 4/ll/*>6 Meciiii): Minnies fur Oil II Minnie* lor ineciing disci
IHJ II II.N.I I > l-c.isil.ilily Slmly Sco|>iii(: Meeting nhjct-livcs lor
-------
Fort Richardson, Alaska Administrative Record Index Update, 1997
Pace Numbers OU
23432 23447 1)
(HI II H.x.l 13
'97 Update
23448 23459 B
OU Bllook 13
'97 llpdalc
23460 23474 B
on H iitiok ii
•97 llpdiilr
23475 234H3 B
(HI H Uo.ik 13
•97 llpdalc
23484 23488 B
Oil Hlli-.l 13
•«7ll|Nlulv
Cut No Dale Title
3. 1 5 5/23/96 Comments on Technical Memo:
Remedial Alternatives Development,
OU-B. Fort Richardson, Alaska
3. 15 5/31/96 Comments on Draft OU B Remedial
Investigation Report and Risk
Assessment Report, Fort Richardson,
Alaska. March 1996
3.1.5 6/19/96 Responses to Comments by Army
CHPI'M. Draft Remedial
Invesiigalion and Risk Assessment
Reports. OH IV Foil Richardson.
Alaska
3.1.5 7/18/96 Analytical Results, Poleline Ruad
Stockpile, Fort Richardson. Alaska
3 .IT" 10/4/96 Comments on OU B Draft Final Rl,
Draft Final RA. Draft Final FS
Abstract Author
Commcnis include revised list ol ARAR* ihat should be I .ouis Howard
considered ADtr
Review comments Arthur Lee
CHPI'M
Response to comments. WWC
A memorandum characterizing (he sampling effort to Delwyn Thomas
determine whether remediation is required of a 403- Anny
cubic yard stockpile at Poleline Road The chlorinated
solvent concentrations were below the site cleanup
levels.
Review comments. Arthur 1 .ee
Ctll'I'M
Recipient
Kevin (iardner
IM'W
1 1
Kevin (iardner
I>PW
USAI-I) Alaska
Aiulrca likuimi
IISAI-.I) Al.ixL.1
Kevin (iaidnci
ni'w
23489 23491 B 3.1.5 10/8/96 Response to comment. Draft Response to ADbC and USAtD Alaska Cominems
on H it,.ik n Treatahihty Study Wink Plan, OU-B
•97 llpdulc
WWC
None Ciwen
-------
w
Fort Richardson, Alaska Administrative Record Index Update, 1997
Page Numbers OH Cat No Dale Title Abstract
Author
Recipient
^3492 23506 B 3.1.5 10/9/96 Comments on the OU-B Technical Review comments on Ihe soil vapor extraction and air Matthew Wilkemm; Kevin Gardner
on H H,»k I \ Memo. Treatabilily Study Workplan M«"l?'nt? technical memorandum EPA Dl-W
•V7ll|KhiU-
23507 23519 B 3.2 10/8/96 Final Work Plan Technical Presents the lie-Id procedures for conducting an au,uiler WWC
out) Book 13 Memorandum, Treaiabilily Study, pump lest and groundwater sampling for intrinsic
•»7 lipduu Pump Test and Intrinsic Remediation re"**1'3'0" parameters
Parameters, OU-B. Fort Richardson,
Alaska
2352023532 B 32 10/30/96 Final Work Plan Addendum. The OU-B draft FS identified a number ol remedial WWC
on iui,>,k H Tical.ihihly Slihly Work Plan. Soil alleinativi-v This Technical Mn|i"i.iiitliiiiidis»iiss.'silic
•17 l.,»l»i,- Vii|«.r lixir.ulM.ii an.) An Spair.inil Mtl l"""'l'""is '"' »«mli.,lm,: •• «'•' va|M,i ,-»l,.«n.,n
aiul ,iii s|>.ii|;iti|; |iilnl irsl .111 It I II
USAhlJ Alaska
IISAI-I) Alaska
23533 23533 B 33 10/1/96 Comments on OU-B Treatability Review comments.
oil B Book 13 Study Workplan, Sept 23, 1996
•¥7 UudulC
Louis Howard
ADEC
Kevin Gardner
DPW
23534 23566 B 4.2 6/17/96 Second Technical Memorandum, This document presents a detailed analysis of
OH B Book 13 Detailed Analysis of Alternatives, alternatives for the OU-B FS The remedial action
•97 Update OU-B. FS. Fort Richardson. Alaska objectives »«further-refined from Technical
Memorandum No I and are restated in ihis dociiincni.
WWC
USALD Alaska
23567 23791 B 4.2 1/1/97 Final Feasibility Study Report, OU- Presents remedial action objectives and alternatives lor WWC
oiiHHiHikn H, Pole-line Road Disposal Area cleanup
USALD Alaska
-------
Fort Richardson, Alaska Administrative Record Index Update, 1997
I'agc Number-, OU Cat No Dale Tille Abstract
Author
21854 21870 B 43 10/23/96 Work Plan No. 1. Proposed Plan for . A draft presemaiion of cleanup aliernaiives for QUA William Richards
«)|I-AII...MI _ OUAamlOUli amlOli B p.xi:
•V7 |l|Mlalc
Recipient
Chris Roe
23792 23798 B 4.5 1/10/96 Commcnls. OU-D Management Plan, Review comments
ou B Uouk 14 OU B Approach Document
•97 l)pdnle
Maithew Widening Kevin Garilner
EPA Dpw
23799 23802 B 4.5 5/23/96 Comments on OU-B Technical
OU B Hunk 14 Memorandum, Feasibility Study
'97 Update
Review comments.
Matthew Wilkening Kevin Gardner
EPA DHW
23803 23818 B 45 5/23/96 Comments, Technical Memorandum, Review comments and list of ARARs
OU B Hool M OU .B Remedial Aliernaiives
'97 Update Development, OU-B, May 1996
Louis Howard
AMEC
Kevin (!ardner
ni-\\
23819 23827 0 45 6/24/% Ctuiuiicitls on Technical
on H Huok14 Meimirandum No. I, OU li
'97 li|idair Feasibility Study
Review tonimcms submitted by AI )!•('. liPA. .mil
USAKD Alaska
Audio.i l-liiimn
Army
Kl'VIII (i.lllllK-|
Dl'W
23828 23861 B 4.5 6/24/96 Respunses to Comments on Resonse 10 comments submitted hy ADEC. EPA, and WWC
oliHM.u.kM ' TciliriK.il Mciiiiii.indiini No I.OU USAF.D Alaska
'V7 Updjii li 1-cjMhilily Study. I-oil Kichardson.
Al.iska
Andrea lilcu
-------
Fort Richardson, Alaska Administrative Record Index Update, 1997
I'ageNiimbi-rs OU^CatNo Dale Title __
sf 21862" ll~ 4.5 6/25/96 Comments on Technical
Abstract
Author
•97 li|»diiic
Responses to EPA, ADEC, and Army comments on I .oiiis Howard
Memorandum (»2 OU-II Detailed Technical Memorandum. No I. OtJ-B Feasibility ADEC
Analysis of Alternatives Slud*-F"" ""hardson. Alaska
Recipient
Kevin Oardnci
IIHW
23863 23866 B 4.5 7/22/96 Teleconference Minutes, OU-B A meeting discussing the comments to the Second WWC
ou H Book 14 Feasibility Study, Fort Richardson Technical Memorandum. OU-B FS. Fort Richardson.
Alaska.
Andrea hlcomn
I IS AH > Alaska
2Mil 23878 li 4.5 H/7/% RcNfHWsc to Comiiienis on Technical A response to comments from Ihe Aimy. I:PA. AOI-C. Scott Kciulall Aiulica hlioi
(ililili.N.k 14 Memorandum No. 2, OU-Uh'S and DPW WWC IISAI D Al.isk.i
23H79 23883 B 45 8/26/96 Comments on OU-B FS Report
(HI HHo.il 14
'V7 llpdalc
Review comments
Matthew Wilkenm); Kevin Gardner
EPA DI'W
23884 23886 B 45 8/29/96 Comments on OU B Drall l-inal Rl, Review comments
ou B Hook 14 RA, and KS Reports
l.iniis llow.nd
ADEC
Kevin (iauluct
DPW
23887 23890 B 4.5 9/19/96 Review Conference Minutes, Draft Comments on ihe draft FS Report. OUB, Fort
on M H.H.k 14 Feasibility Study, OU-B. Fort Richardson. Alaska were discussed
'V7li|idjir Richardson, Alaska
WWC
Andrea lilconin
I IS A ED Alaska
-------
Fort Richardson, Alaska Administrative Record Index Update, 1997
Vafft Numbers OU CalNw Dale Title __
2WI 2? ll|idute Plan Ailtlendum
Scott Kendall
wwc
Andrcu lilcimin
23902 23917 B 4.5 11/25/96 Annotated Comments In the Final t AE's responses to comments from the Army. ADliC. William Riclur.ls
ouBHookH Feasibility Study Reports. OU-A; and EPA on the draft FS report E&E
'97 Update Fori Richardson. Alaska
led (talcs
USAI-
21918 21919 B 45 11/27/96 Comments to Working Draft No 2 of Review comments.
OU A Ho.A 11 Pro|H>sed Plan for OU A and OU-B.
•97 Update November 4. 1996
Louis Howard
At>ec
Kevin (iarilncr
21920 21922 B 4.5
OU AUool 13
'97 Update
12/6/96 Comments on Proposed Plan for OU- Review comments
AundOU B
Matthew Wilkcnmj; Kevin Ciardner
EPA l>pw
Jl'>23 1W
1)11 A lllH'l
U 4.5 12/9/96 r«iiitnicnlMin l'tu|uiscd I'l.m lot Oil- Reviewi-nniniem>.
A ami OU II
Aiiny
KiMII ( i.ililiii'i
DI'W
-------
Fort Richardson, Alaska Administrative Record Index Update, 1997
I'agt Number, OIJ Cat No Dale Title Abstract
21924 21926 U 45 12/10/96 Comments on OU AI-S, OUB FS. Review commems
ou A Book 13 OU A/B Proposed Plan
'97 Update
Author
Mall McAlec
CHPPM
Kevin Gardner
DPW
21927 21930 B
OU A Book 13
'97 ll|tdulc
4.5 12/17/96 Commems on OU-A and OU-B
Proposed Plan
Review commems.
Michael Haradu
Aimy
Kevin Gardner
DPW
oo
23918 23921
OUB Book 14
•97 Updale
U 45 12/24/96 Comments on OU-A and OU-U
Proposed Plan
Kcvicw comments.
Matthew WilkciiMi(> Kevin (i.mlnci
EPA
1)6114 06119 B 10.1 6/15/94 Polelme Road Questions Irimi the
on ii II.N.I K AMC|I«>I;I(:C Daily NCWN
Qucsiitins and responses aboul the Puleline Rii.uJ
Sieve Rineliarl
AIK|ICII;I|-.- Dully N,
I' \( I
06120 06120 B 10.3 6/8/94 Public Notice for an Environmental Public notice for an EA for the removal of contaminated Army
()l) B Book 8 Assessment for removal of material from the Poleline Road Disposal Area
contaminated material from Poleline
Road Disposal Area
None. Given
(Ki|2l (KilJI Ii III) (./IM/V5 I'ulilK. NnlKC. I'KDA. I.I./CA
Oil Illlitok H
IISAI-.O Al.isK.i jiuhlic iMilKc MI|II ilnif. |Hili|u iimnl ('Inn ^ ( .mil linn y
on lhccii(;inccnni;cvuliialnin/cic,l .in.ily-,is (I-I-/CA) Im I'AO
cleaning cuniainin.iled soil cxcavaied Irmn ilic I'olclinc
Road Di^pobjl Area.
(iivi ii
-------
Fort Richardson, Alaska Administrative Record Index Update, 1997
I'agt Numbers Oil Cat No Dale Till*
Abstract
Author
06122 (16123 B 10.6 11/13/89 Poleline Road Chemical Disposal Background information aboul the Poleline Road
ou-HUoui* Area Disposal Area.
Paul Sleukc, Jr.
Anny
Recipient
None Given
1)6124 06127 I) 10.6 2/6/90 Update on l-ajslc River l-lals/l'olclinc Includes a description nf the initial i.k'iililn.iii.in i.l llic |-idwin Kill I
n
Sheel
William (iil.xswrllfl
new
06128 06129 B 10.6 2/8/90 Army Investigating Possible Old Background and plans for the Poleline Road Disposal Army
OH B Book H Chemical Disposal Site Area.
None Given
06130 06131 U 106 6/30/90 l:nrt Kichardson'-, Poleline Koad
on II li.-l. H Disposal Area llxpandi-il Nile
Invesligalion
Buckgrinind and action taken at I'olcliiii: Ko.ul.
Slcvcii liird
IKD
Nolle (ilVi-ll
06132 06132 B 10.6 10/2/93 Metal Tubes Found at Chemical
OU B Book 8 Disposal Site .
Presents information aboul two metal tubes discovered PAO
during removal of deconuuninaiion products at the
Poleline Ro;id Disposal Area.
None Given
06133 06134 B 10.6 10/4/93 Mcl.ilTulx.-b friini Disposal Site to be Di*puMiiun 01 two metal cylinder untovcicJai the |>A()
on H I H Slnrc-il on Post Pnlelinc Road Disposal Area
None (iivcn
-------
Fort Richardson, Alaska Administrative Record Index Update, 1997
Page Numbers OU Cat No Date Title Abstract Author Recipient
06135 06139 B 10.6 10/6/93 Information P«per: Poleline Road Current informaiion regarding the Polcline Road DPW Army
OUHHuok* Disposal Area Disposal Area remediation project
06156 116.157 li 10.6 5/I.V94 Information Paper on the Poleline i-cltcr to I'unk Muikowski with attached Inhumation (ienr|:e Viikalis Don
(Hi II Ho* H Koatl Disposal Area, I-'nil '"'I*' Oveivicwol Poleline Ko.nl Disposal Aira Ain.y Us ||..,,M ,.i
Kiclrirdson Alaska history, retail actions, and Ititiire Kl clloiis. Kti>ifs>:iii.iii\^
06140 06153 B ^10.6 5/13/94 Information Paper on the Poleline Lewer to Ted Sleveiu with attached Information Paper George Vakalis TedStevens
OUBBmikb Road Disposal Area. Forl Overview of Poleline Road Disposal Area history, Arniy US Senate
Richardson, Alaska recenl aclloni' "^ fulufe Rl efforls
06154 06155 B 10.6 5/13/94 Informaiion Paper on the Poleline Letter to Don Young with attached Informaiion Paper. George Vakalis Frank Murkowski
on B Hot* H Road Disposal Area, Forl Overview of Poleline Road Disposal Area history. Amiy
Richardson. Alaska recem tcl'on$-and fulure Rl efforl$
06I5B 06159 B 10.6 5/26/94 Eagle River Closure Update Closure of portions of Eagle River because of Army Nmtc Given
Oil H iimii H rcinctli.ilitm at ihe Poleline RIKH! l)is|x>s;il Arc;i.
06160 06161 B 10.6 6/15/95 Poleline Road Disposal Area, For! Public comment announcement for the Poleline RoaU Army None Given
ou B B.«k 8 Richardson. Alaska Fact Sheet Disposal Area removal plan
-------
Final August 8. 1997
APPENDIX B
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
121
-------
Final August 8, 1997
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY FOR THE RECORD OF DECISION FOR
REMEDIAL ACTION AT OPERABLE UNIT A AND OPERABLE UNIT B
FORT RICHARDSON, ALASKA
OVERVIEW
U.S. Army Alaska (the Army), the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC), collectively referred to as the Agencies,
distributed a Proposed Plan for remedial action at Operable Unit A (OU-A) and OU-8, Fort
Richardson, Alaska. OU-A comprises three source areas: the Roosevelt Road Transmitter Site
Leachfield; Ruff Road Fire Training Area; and Building 986 Petroleum, Oil, and Lubricant
Laboratory Dry Well. OU-B consists of one site: the Poleline Road Disposal Area (Poleline Road).
The Proposed Plan identified preferred remedial alternatives for Poleline Road, the only site in OU-B.
The three source areas in OU-A were not considered for remedial action in the Proposed Plan. The
Army, EPA, and ADEC have determined that the sites included within OU-A will be addressed under
the conditions of the State-Fort Richardson Environmental Restoration Agreement (Two-Party
Agreement) between the Army and ADEC.
The major components of the remedial alternative for Poleline Road are:
• High-vacuum extraction of the chlorinated-solvent-contaminated "hot
spot";
• Sitewide institutional controls;
• Natural attenuation of contaminants; and
• Long-term' ground water monitoring.
Two formal comments regarding the Proposed Plan for the OU-B remedial action were received
during the public comment period; these comments are summarized and presented in this
Responsiveness Summary.
BACKGROUND OF COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT
The public was encouraged to participate in the selection of the final remedies for OU-A and OU-B
during a public comment period from January 20 to February 18, 1997. The Fort Richardson
Proposed Plan for Remedial Action at Operable Unit A and Operable Unit B presents six options
considered by the Agencies to address contamination in soil and groundwater at OU-B. The Proposed
Plan was released to the public on January 18, 1997, and copies were sent to all known interested
parties, including elected officials and concerned citizens. Informational Fact Sheets, prepared
quarterly since June 1995, provided information about the Army's entire cleanup program at Fort
Richardson and were mailed to the addresses on the same mailing list.
122
-------
Final August 8. 1997
The Proposed Plan summarizes available information regarding the OUs. Additional materials were
placed into three information repositories: the University of Alaska Anchorage Consortium Library,
Alaska Resources Library, and Fort Richardson 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 724 on Fort Richardson. 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 Richardson project manager; by calling a toll-free telephone number to
record a comment; or by attending and commenting at a public meeting conducted on January 29,
1997, at the Russian Jack Chalet in Anchorage.
Basewide community relations activities conducted for Fort Richardson, which include OU-A and
OU-B, have included:
• December 1994—Community interviews with local officials and
interested parties;
• April 1995—Preparation of die Community Relations Plan;
• June 1995—Distribution of an informational Fact Sheet covering all
OUs at Fort Richardson;
• June 29, 1995—An informational public meeting covering all OUs;
• October 1995—Distribution of an informational Fact Sheet covering
all OUs at Fort Richardson;
• January 1996— Distribution of an informational Fact Sheet covering
all OUs at Fort Richardson;
• March 1996—Establishment of information repositories at the
University of Alaska Anchorage Consortium Library, Alaska
Resources Library, and Fort Richardson Post Library, and the
Administrative Record at Building 724 on Fort Richardson;
• March 14, 1996—An informational public meeting covering all
OUs;
• April 1996—Distribution of an informational Fact Sheet covering all
OUs at Fort Richardson;
• July 1996—Distribution of an informational Fact Sheet covering all
OUs at Fort Richardson; and
123
-------
Final August 8, 1997
• October 1996—Distribution of an informational Fact Sheet covering
all OUs at Fort Richardson.
Community relations activities specifically conducted for OU-A and OU-B included:
• January 17, 19, 22, 24, and 26, 1997—Display advertisement
announcing the public comment period in the Anchorage Daily
News',
• January 23, 1997—Display advertisement announcing the public
comment period and public meeting in the Alaska Star;
• January 25, 26, 27, 28, and 29, 1997—Display advertisement
announcing the public meeting in the Anchorage Daily News;
• January 20, 1997—Distribution of the Proposed Plan for final
remedial action at OU-A and OU-B;
• January 20 to February 18, 1997—Thirty-day public comment
period. No extension was requested;
• January 20 to February 18, 1997—Toll-free telephone number for
citizens to provide comments during the public comment period.
The toll-free telephone number was advertised in the Proposed Plan
and the newspaper display advertisement that announced the public
comment period; and
• January 29, 1997—Public meeting at the Russian Jack Chalet to
provide information, a forum for questions and answers, and an
opportunity for public comment regarding OU-A and OU-B.
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD AND
AGENCY RESPONSES
The public comment period on the Proposed Plan for remedial action at OU-A and OU-B was from
January 20 to February 18, 1997. Two comments were received during the public comment period:
one comment was mailed to the Army, and the second comment was recorded on the toll-free
telephone line. These comments are summarized below.
1. Public Comment: A letter was received from a community member during the public
comment period. The author indicates that after careful review of the Proposed Plan, he wants
to be on the record as concurring with the Agencies' preferred alternative for OU-B.
Agency Response: The Agencies appreciate input from community members.
124
-------
Final August 8, 1997
2. Public Comment: The comment received on the toll-free telephone line acknowledged that the
Proposed Plan was "nicely done" and that the presentation of the alternatives and discussion of
the selection of the preferred alternative were "well supported, very well argued." However,
the caller believes that although Alternative 6 will cost less than Alternative 4, Alternative 4
will "deal with the kind of contamination to the degree that it needs to be dealt with."
Agency Response: The Agencies appreciate input from community members. The National
Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan Groundwater Protection Strategy
requires that current and potential future use of groundwater be considered in remedy selection,
and that groundwater resources be protected and restored if necessary and practicable. During
a rigorous evaluation of remedial alternatives, the Agencies carefully weighed all of the factors
that influence the selection of a preferred alternative. Cost effectiveness, risk to human health
and the environment, and compliance with state and federal water quality statutes were the key
considerations used to evaluate the six alternatives. At the conclusion of the evaluation process,
Alternative 6 was determined to provide the most effective balance of the three criteria listed
above. The preferred alternative will be implemented in a phased approach because of the
complexity of the contaminant characteristics and the hydrogeology at the site. The actual
length of time necessary to remediate the "hot spot" and the groundwater plume depends largely
on the success of each phase. However, because there is no current or projected use of the
groundwater anticipated during the period of remediation required for Alternative 6, the
potentially shorter time frame required for remediation under Alternative 4 does not provide
additional protection.
125
-------
Final August 8, 1997
APPENDIX C
FORT RICHARDSON
OPERABLE UNIT B SOURCE AREA
BASELINE COST ESTIMATES FOR REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES
126
-------
ESTIMATED COSTS - ALTERNATIVE 2
NATURAL ATTENUATION
ITEM
UNIT COST
UNIT QUANTITY COST
I. CAPITAL COSTS
Additional Monitoring Well Installation
TOTAL CAPITAL REQUIREMENTS
II. ANNUAL O&M COSTS
S^O.OOO well 2 S80.000
S80.000
Grouadwater Monitoring
Sampling Labor S60
Sampling Analysis-VOCs (17 wells * 10% dupl) SI 80
Sampling Analysis'" (9 wells "• 10% dupl) S360
Sampling Analysis'" (9 wells * 10% dupl) SU5
Supervision SI 00
Data Evaluation and Reporting S85
Supplies and Materials S600
TOTAL ANNUAL O&M COSTS
TOTAL O&M COSTS (for 30 years)
TOTAL CAPITAL AND O&M COSTS
CONTINGENCY (30% ol Total Capital and O&M Costs)
SUBTOTAL (Total Capital »nd O&M Com »nd Contingency)
USAGE SIOH (8% Total Capital and O&M Costs and Contingency)
TOTAL ESTIMATED PROGRAM COSTS'"
hr 40 S2.400
sample 19 S3.420
sample 10 S3. 600
sample 10 S1.450
hr 40 $4.000
hr 160 $13.600
Is 1 $600
$29,070
SST2.100
$952,100
$285.630
$1437.730
$99.018
S1JOO.OOO
NOTES:
'" Analysis for parameters which can indicate biodegradation ot'chlorinated solvents ie.g.. NO,-nitrogen. NH,-nitrogen.
total Kjeldahl nitrogen, total phosphorus. SO., soluble iron, methane, ethane, ethenei
<]) Bacteria enumeranon
'" Escalation costs are not included
127
-------
ESTIMATED COSTS - ALTERNATIVE 3
CONTAINMENT
ITEM
i. CAPITAL COSTS
CAPITAL DIRECT COSTS
A. Preparation Work/Mob & Dtraob
Mobilization & Demobilization
Additional Monitoring Well installation
Site Preparation (Clearing et Grubbing)
B. Soil/Bentonite Slurry Wall
Excavate Trench
Backfill Trench - Placement of Slurry
C. Multi-Layer Cap
Synthetic Cap Material
Cap Placement
Sand and Gravel Placement
Grading
Drainage
TOTAL DIRECT COSTS (TOO
CAPITAL INDIRECT COSTS
A. Contractor's Overhead and Profit (50% TDC)
B. Engineering Design (25% TOO
C. Design Studies (30% TDC)
D. Health and Safety (5% TDC >
TOTAL INDIRECT COSTS
TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS (Total Direct Cotti + Total Indirect Coal*)
II. ANNUAL O&M COSTS
A. Cap Maintenance
Maintenance (8 hr/month fa '.2 months)
B. Groandwater Monitoring
Sampling Labor
Sampling Analysis (17 Monitoring wells ••• 10% dupl)
Supervision
Data Evaluation and Renomr.g
Supplies and Materials
TOTAL ANNUAL O&M COSTS
TOTAL O&M COSTS (for 30 yean)
TOTAL CAPITAL AND OA.M costs
CONTINGENCY (30% of Totai Csoiial and O&M Costs)
SUBTOTAL (Total Capital and O&M Costs and Contingency)
USAGE SIOH (S% Total Capital ana O&M Costs and Contingency)
TOTAL ESTIMATED PROGRAM COSTS1"
UNIT COST UNIT QUANTITY
-
SI 20.000 LS 1
$40.000 well 2
SI. 785 acre 3.0
S2.67 sf 13.000
$3.20 sf 13.000
$2.70 sy 8.400
SI. 35 sy 8.400
SI 6 cy 5.600
$1.00 sy 8.400
$5,000 LS 1
$100 hr 96
$60 hr 40
$180 sample 19
$100 hr 40
$85 hr 120
$600 Is 1
COST
$120.000
$80.000
$5.355
$34.710
$41.600
$22.680
$11.340
$89.600
$8.400
$5.000
$418.685
$209.343
SI 04.671
$125.606
S20.934
S460.554
$879.239
$9.600
$2.400
$3.420
$4.000
SI 0.200
$600
$30.220
S906.600
$1.785.839
S535.752
$2 J 2 1.590
S185.'2T
$2.500.000
Escalation costs are not incmdec
128
-------
ESTIMATED COSTS • ALTERNATIVE 4
""INTERCEPTION TRENCH. AIR STRIPPING. AMD SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION
ITEM
t'MTCOST
UNIT QL'VNTTTY
COST
I. CAPITAL COSTS
CAPITAL DIRECT COSTS
A. Prtpariooi Work/Mob & Demob
Mobilization & Demobilization
Addibonal Monitoring Well InsulUbon
Bamer Wall Excavation (between wetlands A disposal areas)
3uner Wall Installation (between wetlandi A diiposil areast
Site Preparation (Cleanag A Grubbing)
B. Soil Vapor Extraction
Extraction Well Installation < HOPE. 20* length)
Extraction Well Installation (HDPE. 4O' length)
Blower/Motor Systems (reel, knockout tank & iniKunenuooa)
Piping (HDPE)
Insulation for Piping and Equipment
Pump (from knockout tanks to air snipper)
HDPE Liner
Vapor Extraction System installation .
Electrical
C. Groindwaier Extractfost and Treatment
Biopolymer Trench Excavauon
Collection Trench Installation i w< pining)
Pump (from collection trenches to equalization tank)
Equalization Tank
Piping (HDPE)
. Water Heating Units
Air Healing Units
Air Stripping Unit (iacl. blower)
Treatment Building
Insolation for Piping and Equipment
Storage Tank
Infiltration System (incL piping, (itnnga. niters, ermoen)
Infiltnooo Piping Preparation (punch holes in pipe*, install finings, etc.i
lofiltraoon Piping Bedding
IntUmooa Piping Installation
GW Collection & Air Snipping System Installation
Electrical
TOTAL DIRECT COSTS (TDO
CAPITAL INDIRECT COSTS
A. Contractors Overhead and Profit (50% TDO
B. Engineering Design (25% TDC)
C. Design Sadies <2S% TOO
D. Health aad Safety (3V. TOO
TOTAL INDIRECT COSTS
TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS (Total Direct Coin * Total Indirect Costa)
II. ANNUAL OAM COSTS
A. SoU Viper Extract*** Unit O*M (S y«»nl
Operations Labor (8 hr/wk «u 52 wksl
Supervision Labor (4 htfwk tg 52 wks)
Electrical Power
Maintenance (8 hr/month ty '2 months)
B. Air Sdrippimg Uait O&M (30 yearat
Operaoons Labor (J hr/wk w 52 wks)
Supervision Labor 14 hr/wk ;g) 52 wks)
Electrical Power
Treatment Performance (I water (ample/month (g) 12 moninsl
Maintenance 18 hr/month 12 months i
SI 30.000
S40.000
S2.67
$3.20
SI.7S5
SI. 500
53.000
S26.742
S13.65
S4.68S
$500
$4.05
511.713
$4.685
$3.23
$3.88
S2.600
$12^00
S2.70
SJ424
58.506
$18.683
59S
$500
$4.166
$12.200
SI4J70
S3.J9J
$21
$20
$19.273
$5.269
LS
well
sf
if
acre
well
well
LS
If
LS
puinp
sy
LS
LS
if
sf
pump
oak
If
each
each
unit
sf
pump
LS
fftlfr
LS
LS
cy
if
LS
LS
I
.3.000
:.ooo
:.i
:o
:o
:.4oo
!
I
^270
N.OOO
54.000
7
i
1.400
1
1
1
:oo
^
i
!
1
1
4O
500
1
1
$130.000
$80.000
$34.710
$41.600
$5.534
$30.000
$60.000
$26.742
$19.110
54.685
$1.000
$17.294
$11.713
54.685
5175.500
$209.520
$18.200
$12.200
$3.780
S2.524
$8.506
$18.683
$19.000
$1.000
$4.166
512.200
$14.370
$3.593
$840
$IO.OOO
$19.273
S5.269
$60
$100
$16.000
5100
$60
$100
$14.000
$180
$100
hr
hr
LS
hr
hr
hr
LS
sample
hr
416
96
416
:os
i
12
36
$1.009.697
$502.848
5251.424
$251.424
530.171
SI. 035.86*
S2.04I.364
524.960
520.800
$16.000
$9.600
$24.960
$20.800
$14.000
$2.160
$9.600
129
-------
ESTIMATED COSTS - ALTERNATIVE 4
INTERCEPTION TRENCH. AIR STRIPPING. AND SOU. VAPOR EXTRACTION
ITEM
C. Graudwaor MeiitociBf (30 )r«*n)
Sunpuag Ubor (4O hrfycar)
Simpiiof Analysu ( 1 7 Moniumaf wells - 1 0% dupl)
Supervision
Data Evaluation and Rcponaf
Suppbta and MaBrials
TOTAL O*M COSTS (30 yran)
TOTAL CAPITAL AMD O*M COSTS
CONTINGENCY (35% of Total Capital and OAM Costs)
SUBTOTAL (Total Capital aad OAM Ceita aid CaMtafncri
USAGE SIOH {8V. Total Capital and O4M Cons and Coannfncy)
TOTAL ESTIMATED PROGRAM COSTS1"
UNIT COST UNIT QUANTITY COST
S60 hr 40 52.400
SI SO sample 19 S3 .420
$100 hr 40 S4.000
SI5 hr 120 J 10.2 00
MOO l> 1 S600
S3.12UOOO
SS.UUM
S1.S06.I91
M.M9.44Z
SJS7JS7
n^oo.ooo
NOTES:
''' Eicalaoon coiu are not included
130
-------
ESTIMATED COSTS - ALTERNATIVE 5
AIR SPARGING-AND SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION OF "HOT SPOT" AND NATURAL ATTENUATION
ITEM
UNIT COST UNIT QUANTITY
COST
i. CAPITAL COSTS
CAPITAL DIRECT COSTS
A. Preparation Work/Mob A Demob
Mobilization & Demobilization
Additional Monitoring Well Installation
Barrier Wall Excavation (between wetland! & disposal areas)
Barrier Wall Installation (between wetlands & disposal areas)
Site Preparation (Clearing & Grubbing)
B. Soil Vapor Extraction
Extraction Well Installation (HOPE. 20' length)
Blower/Motor System (incl. knockout tank & instrumentation)
Piping (4- HOPE)
Insulation for Piping and Equipment
Pump (from knockout tanks to discharge)
HOPE Liner
Vapor Extraction System Installation
Elecmcal
C. Air Sparging
Sparging Well Installation (PVC. 42' length)
Compressor/Motor Systems (incl. instrumentation)
Piping (2" PVC)
Insulation tor Piping and Equipment
Air Sparging System Installation
Elecmcal
Treatment Building
TOTAL DIRECT COSTS (TOO
CAPITAL INDIRECT COSTS
A. Contractor's Overhead and Profit (50% TDC)
B. Engineering Design (23% TDC)
C. Design Studies (25% TDC)
D. Health and Safety (3% TDC)
TOTAL INDIRECT COSTS
TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS (Total Direct Costs + Total Indirect Costs*
II. ANNUAL OiM COSTS
A. Treatment System O&M (years I to 5)
Operations Labor (8 hivwk @ 52 wks)
Supervision Labor (8 hr/wk @ 52 wks)
Elecmcal Power (SVE)
Elecmcal Power (Air Sparging)
Elecmcal Power (Treatment Building heating, lighting, etc.)
Maintenance (8 hr/month @ 12 months)
B. Treatment System O&M (yean 6 to 30)
Operations Labor (8 hr/month @ 12 months)
Supervision Labor (8 hr/month @ 12 months)
Elecmcal Power i SVE)
Elecmcal Power (Air Sparging)
Elecmcal Power i Treatment Building heaong, lighting, etc.)
Maintenance 18 hr/month @ 12 months)
C. Grouodwater Monitoring (30 years)
Sampling Labor (40 hr'year)
Sampling Analysis - VOCs (17 wells * 10% dupl)
SI 30.000
$40.000
$2.67
S3. 20
SI, 785
SI .3 00
$13,400
SI3.65
S2J91
1500
S4.05
S6.478
S2J91
$2.650
$60,000
$9.20
$12.360
$45.933
$22.966
$95
LS
well
sf
sf
acre
well
LS
If
LS
pump
sy
LS
LS
well
LS
If
LS
LS
LS
sf
1
2
13.000
13.000
1.4
:o
1
880
1
1
4,270
1
!
80
1
(.920
I
1
1
200
SI 30.000
S 80.000
S34.710
54 1.600
S2.499
S30.000
SI 3.400
512.012
S2J91
S500
SI 7.294
S6.478
S2.591
S2 1 2.000
S60.000
$17.664
SI 2.3 60
S45.933
S22.966
SI 9.000
$763.598
S381.T99
SI 90.899
SI 90.899
S22.908
$786306
$1.550.103
Sampling Analysis f9 wells •"
Sampling Analysis " '9 wells «
Supervision
Data Evaluation and Reporting
Supplies and Materials
10% dupl)
10% dupl)
$60
$100
$5.500
$20.900
SI .200
$100
$60
$100
$1.400
$5.250
$1700
$100
$60
$180
$360
SI45
$100
S85
S600
hr
hr
LS
LS
LS
hr
hr
hr
LS
LS
LS
hr
hr
sample
sample
sample
hr
hr
Is
416
416
1
1
1
96
96
96
1
1
I
96
40
19
10
10
40
160
1
S24.960
S4 1.600
S5JOO
S20.900
S1.200
S9.600
S5.760
$9.600
SI. 400
S5.2JO
SI .200
S9.600
S2.400
S3.420
$3.600
SI. 450
S4.000
SI 3.600
$600
131
-------
ESTIMATED COSTS - ALTERNATIVE 5
AIR SPARGING AND SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION OF "HOT SPOT" A.ND NATURAL ATTENUATION
ITEM UNIT COST UNIT QUANTITY COST
TOTAL O&M COSTS (30 yc*n) SUI 1.150
TOTAL CAPITAL AND O&M COSTS $3.761053
CONTINGENCY (35% of Tool Capital and O&M Cora) SI J 16,439
SUBTOTAL (Total Capful aid O&M Com and Contingency) S5.077.692
USAGE SIOH (8% Total Capital and O&M Costs and Contingency) $406.215
TOTAL ESTIMATED PROGRAM COSTS"' $5.500.000
NOTES:
''' Escalation costs are not included
'" Analysis for parameters which can indicate biodegndanon of chlorinated solvents (e.g.. S'O.-nitrogen, NO.-nitrogen,
NH,-nitrogen, total Kjeldahl nitrogen, total phosphorus. SO4. soluble iron, methane, ethane. Athene, sulfide. TOC. BOD )
'" Bactena enumeration
132
-------
ESTIMATED COSTS - ALTERNATIVE 6
SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION OF "HOT SPOT"
ITEM
UNIT COST UNIT QUANTITY
COST
I. CAPITAL COSTS
CAPITAL DIRECT COSTS
A. Preparation Work/Mob & Demob
Mobilization & Demobilization
Additional Monitoring Well Installation
Site Preparation (Clearing it Grubbing,)
B. Soil Vapor Extraction
Extraction Well Installation < HOPE. 40' length)
Blower/Motor System (inci. knockout tank & instrumentation)
Piping (4- HOPE)
Insulation for Piping and Equipment
Pump (from knockout tanks to discharge)
HOPE Liner
Vapor Extraction System Installation
Electrical
C. Ground water Treatment
Equalization Tank
Piping (HOPE!
Water Heating Units
Air Heating Units
Air Stripping Unit (incl. blower)
Treatment Building
Infiltration System (mcl. piping, fimngs. filters, emitters)
Infiltration Piping Preparation I punch holes in pipes, install finings,
Infiltration Piping Bedding
Infiltration Piping Installation
$130,000
$40.000
$1.785
$3.000
$26.500
$13.63
$3.483
$500
$4.05
$8.706
$3.483
$12.200
$2.70
$2.524
$8.506
SI 8.683
S95
SI4J70
$3.593
$21
S20
LS
well
acre
well
LS
If
LS
pump
sy
LS
LS
tank
If
each
each
unit
sf
LS
LS
cy
if
I
2
1.4
10
1
500
1
3
2.100
1
1
1
1.400
1
1
1
200
1
1
40
500
$130.000
$80.000
$2.499
$30.000
S26JOO
$6.825
$3.483
$1.500
$8.505
58.706
$3.483
$12.200
$3.780
$2.524
$8.506
S18.683
$19.000
$14.370
$3.593
$840
$10.000
TOTAL DIRECT COSTS (TDC)
CAPITAL INDIRECT COSTS
A. Contractor's Overhead and Profit (50% TDC)
B. Engineering Design (25V. TDC)
C. Design Studies (25% TDC)
D. Health and Safety (3% TDC)
TOTAL INDIRECT COSTS
TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS (Toui Direct Com * Total Indirect Costs)
II. ANNUAL O&M COSTS
A. Treatment System O&M (yean I to 5)
Operations Labor (8 hr/wk
Supervision Labor (8 hr/wk (at 52 wkst
Electrical Power (SVE)
Electrical Power (Treatment Building neanng, lighting, etc.)
Maintenance (8 hr/month (* 12 months)
B. Treatment System OAM (years 6 to 30)
Operations Labor (8 hr/month (at 12 months)
Supervision Labor(8 hr/month
-------
ESTIMATED COSTS - ALTERNATIVE 6
SOIL VAfOR EXTRACTION OF "HOT SPOT-
ITEM
UNIT COST UNIT QUANTITY
COST
TOTAL O&M COSTS (30 yean)
TOTAL CAPITAL AND O&M COSTS
CONTINGENCY (35% of Total Capital and O&M Costs)
SUBTOTAL (Total Capital and O&M Casts aad Coatioteacy)
USAGE SIOH (8% Total Capital and O&M Costs aad Contingency)
TOTAL ESTIMATED PROGRAM COSTS'"
$1.975.400
$2,777.241
S972.034
$3,749.276
$299.942
$4.000.000
NOTES:
''' Escaianon costs are not included
'" Anaiysis for parameters which can indicate biodegradaaon of chlorinated solvents (e.g.. NO,-nrtrogen, NO.-mtrogen,
NH,•nitrogen, total Kjeldahl nitrogen, total phosphorus. SO4, soluble iron, methane, ethane, ethene, sulfide. TOC, BOD )
'" Bacteria enumeration
134
------- |