TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS .................................................................... v

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................... ES-5

1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 1-5

1.1 PROJECT PURPOSE .................................................................................................. 1-5

1.2 PROJECT OBJECTIVES ............................................................................................. 1-5

1.3 PROJECT APPROACH ............................................................................................... 1-5

1.3.1 Site Organization .................................................................................................... 1-5

1.3.2 SIILRI Implementation .......................................................................................... 1-5

2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION ....................................................................................................... 2-5

2.1 BACKGROUND .......................................................................................................... 2-5

2.2 GEOLOGY AND SOILS .............................................................................................. 2-5

2.3 HYDROLOGY ............................................................................................................. 2-5

2.4 HYDROGEOLOGY ..................................................................................................... 2-5

3.0 SITE EVALUATION CRITERIA .................................................................................... 3-5

3.1 LABORATORY DATA EVALUATION .................................................................... 3-5

3.2 REMEDIATION RECOMMENDATION DEVELOPMENT ..................................... 3-5

4.0 FIELD METHODS ........................................................................................................... 4-1

4.1 UNEXPLODED ORDNANCE CLEARANCES ......................................................... 4-1

4.2 GEOPHYSICAL SURVEYS ........................................................................................ 4-1

4.3 TEST PIT EXCAVATIONS ......................................................................................... 4-1

4.4 SOIL BORINGS ........................................................................................................... 4-1

4.5 SURFACE AND NEAR-SURFACE SAMPLES ......................................................... 4-3

4.6 SOIL SAMPLE COLLECTION ................................................................................... 4-3

4.6.1 Field Screening ....................................................................................................... 4-3

4.6.2 Analytical Sample Collection ................................................................................ 4-3

4.7 SIILRI DEVIATIONS .................................................................................................. 4-3

5.0 TOP PRIORITY SITES .................................................................................................... 5-5

5.1 SITE 73 ......................................................................................................................... 5-5

5.1.1 Site History ............................................................................................................ 5-5

5.1.2 Site Summary ......................................................................................................... 5-5

5.1.3 Remediation Alternatives and Recommendation ................................................... 5-5

Fort Greely Technical Memorandum

DRAFT/Rev. 0 12/11/97

111 AKT -J07 -05M31 0-102-0001


5 .1.4 Cost Estimate ......................................................................................................... 5-5

5.2 SITE 30 ......................................................................................................................... 5-5

5.2.1 Site History ............................................................................................................ 5-5

5.2.2 Site Summary ......................................................................................................... 5-5


5.2.4 Cost Estimate ........................................................................................................ 5-5

5.3 SITE 102 ....................................................................................................................... 5-5

5.3.1 Site History ............................................................................................................ 5-5

5.3.2 Site Summary ......................................................................................................... 5-5


5.3.4 Cost Estimate ......................................................................................................... 5-5

5.4 SITE 92 ......................................................................................................................... 5-5

5.4.1 Site History ............................................................................................................ 5-5

5.4.2 Site Summary ......................................................................................................... 5-5

5 .4.3 Remediation Alternatives and Recommendations ................................................. 5-5

5.4.4 Cost Estimate ......................................................................................................... 5-5

5.5 SITE 57 ......................................................................................................................... 5-5

5.5.1 Site History ............................................................................................................ 5-5

5.5.2 Site Summary ......................................................................................................... 5-5


5.5.4 Cost Estimate ......................................................................................................... 5-5

6.0 PRIORITY AREA 1 SITES .............................................................................................. 6-5

6.1 SITE 52 ......................................................................................................................... 6-5

6.1.1 Site History ............................................................................................................ 6-5

6.1.2 Site Summary ......................................................................................................... 6-5

6.1.3 Remediation Alternatives and Recommendation .................................................. 6-5

6.1.4 Cost Estimate ........................................................................................................ 6-5

6.2 SITE 130 ....................................................................................................................... 6-5

6.2.1 Site History ............................................................................................................ 6-5

6.2.2 Site Summary ......................................................................................................... 6-5


Fort Greely Technical Memorandwn

DRAFT/Rev. 0 12/11197

IV AKT -J07 -05M31 O-J02-000I


6.2.4 Cost Estimate ......................................................................................................... 6-5

6.3 SITE 135 ....................................................................................................................... 6-5

6.3.1 Site History ............................................................................................................ 6-5

6.3.2 Site Summary ......................................................................................................... 6-5


6.3.4 Cost Estimate ......................................................................................................... 6-5


7.1 SITE 53 ......................................................................................................................... 7-5

7.1.1 Site History ............................................................................................................ 7-5

7.1.2 Site Summary ......................................................................................................... 7-5


7.1.4 Cost Estimate ......................................................................................................... 7-5

7.2 SITE 54 ......................................................................................................................... 7-5

7.2.1 Site History ............................................................................................................ 7-5

7.2.2 Site Summary ......................................................................................................... 7-5


7.2.4 Cost Estimate ......................................................................................................... 7-5

7.3 SITE 55 ......................................................................................................................... 7-5

7.3.1 Site History ............................................................................................................ 7-5

7.3.2 Site Summary ......................................................................................................... 7-5


7.3.4 Cost Estimate ......................................................................................................... 7-5


8.1 SITE 101 ....................................................................................................................... 8-5

8.1.1 Site History ............................................................................................................ 8-5

8.1.2 Site Summary ......................................................................................................... 8-5


8.1.4 Cost Estimate ......................................................................................................... 8-5

8.2 SITE 103 ....................................................................................................................... 8-5

8.2.1 Site History ............................................................................................................ 8-5

8.2.2 Site Summary ......................................................................................................... 8-5


DRAFT/Rev. 0 12111/97

v AKT -J07-05M31 0-102-000 I


8.2.3 Remediation Alternatives and Recommendations ................................................. 8-5

8.2.4 Cost Estimate ......................................................................................................... 8-5

8.3 SITE 121 ....................................................................................................................... 8-5

8.3.1 Site History ............................................................................................................ 8-5

8.3.2 Site Summary ......................................................................................................... 8-5


8.3.4 Cost Estimate ......................................................................................................... 8-5


9.1 SITE 79 ......................................................................................................................... 9-5

9.1.1 Site History ............................................................................................................ 9-5

9.1.2 Site Summary ......................................................................................................... 9-5

9 .1.3 Remediation Alternatives and Recommendation ................................................... 9-5

9.1.4 Cost Estimate ......................................................................................................... 9-5

9.2 SITE 80 ......................................................................................................................... 9-5

9.2.1 Site History ............................................................................................................ 9-5

9.2.2 Site Summary ......................................................................................................... 9-5


9.2.4 Cost Estimate ......................................................................................................... 9-5

9.3 SITE 86 ......................................................................................................................... 9-5

9.3.1 Site History ............................................................................................................ 9-5

9.3.2 Site Summary ......................................................................................................... 9-5


9.3.4 Cost Estimate ......................................................................................................... 9-5

9.4 SITE 87 ......................................................................................................................... 9-5

9.4.1 Site History ............................................................................................................ 9-5

9.4.2 Site Summary ......................................................................................................... 9-5


9.4.4 Cost Estimate ......................................................................................................... 9-5

9.5 SITE 88 ......................................................................................................................... 9-5

9.5.1 Site History ............................................................................................................ 9-5

9.5.2 Site Summary ......................................................................................................... 9-5


DRAFT/Rev. 0 12/11/97

Vl AKT -J07 -05M31 O-J02-000 I



9.5.4 Cost Estimate ......................................................................................................... 9-5

9.6 SITE 89 ......................................................................................................................... 9-5

9.6.1 Site History ............................................................................................................ 9-5

9.6.2 Site Summary ......................................................................................................... 9-5


9.6.4 Cost Estimate ......................................................................................................... 9-5

10.0 REPORTING .............................................................................................................. 10-5

11.0 REFERENCES .............................................................................................................. ll-5

Fort Greely Technical Memorandum DRAFT/Rev. 0 12/11/97

Vll AKT -J07-05M31 0-102-000 I

TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION

LIST OF TABLES

Tablt< ES-1 Remediation Cost Estimate

Table ES-2 SIILRI Parcel Summary

Table 1-1 Priority and Category Classification of Completed SIILRI Sites

Table 3-1 Summary of ARARs and Analytical Methods

Table 4-1 Summary ofProject Field Activities

LIST OF FIGURES

PAGE

Figure 1-1 Site Investigation I Limited Remedial Investigation Base Map, Fort Greely, Alaska


DRAFT/Rev. 0 12/11197

V111 AKT-J07-05M31 O-J02-000I

AAC

ADEC

ARARs

ARDL

AST

BCT

bgs

BRAC

BTEX

CDQR

CERCLA

CERFA

CFR

CFU

coc

COPCs

CT&E

cy

DCQCR

DQO

DRO

EBS

EPA

FSP

gm

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

Alaska Administrative Code

Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Applicable and Relevant or Appropriate Requirements

Applied Research And Development Laboratory, Inc.

Aboveground Storage Tank

BRAC Cleanup Team

Below the Ground Surface

Base Realignment and Closure

Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, and Xylenes

Chemical Data Quality Report

Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act

Community Environmental Response Facilitation Act

Code ofFederal Regulations

Colony-Forming Units

Chain-of-Custody

Contaminants ofPotential Concern

CT &E Environmental Services, Inc.

Cubic Yards

Daily Chemical Quality Control Report

Data Quality Objective

Diesel Range Organic Compounds

Environmental Baseline Survey

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Field Sampling Plan

Gram

Fort Greely Technical Memorandum DRAFT/Rev. 0

IX AKT -J07 -05M31 0-102-000 I

12111197

GRO

GPR

HPC

IDW

Jacobs

LRI

ml

MPN

OCH

OCP

ODB

PCB

PID

POL

ppt

ppm

PQL

QA

QAPP

QC

RCRA

ROM

RRO

SAP

SESOIL

sf

SI

Gasoline Range Organic Compounds

Ground Penetrating Radar

Heterotrophic Plate Count

Investigation-Derived Waste

Jacobs Engineering Group Inc.

Limited Remedial Investigation

Milliliter

Most Probable Number

Organochlorinated Herbicide

Organochlorinated Pesticide

Oil-Degrading Bacteria

Polychlorinated Biphenyl

Photoionization Detector

Petroleum, Oil, and Lubricants

Parts Per Trillion

Parts Per Million

Practical Quantitation Limit

Quality Assurance

Quality Assurance Project Plan

Quality Control

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

Rough Order of Magnitude

Residual Range Organic Compounds

Sampling and Analysis Plan

Seasonal Soil Characteristic Model

Square Feet

Site Investigation


DRAFT/Rev. 0

X

12/11/97

AKT -J07 -05M31 0-102-000 I

sow

SVE

svoc

TCLP

TERC

TO

TOC

TSCA

US ACE

USAED

uxo

YES

voc

Scope ofWork

Soil Vapor Extraction

Semi-Volatile Organic Compound

Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure Test

Total Environmental Restoration Contract

Task Order

Total Organic Carbon

Toxic Substances Control Act

U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers

U.S. Army Engineer District, Alaska

Unexploded Ordnance

Vapor Extraction System

Volatile Organic Compound


DRAFT/Rev. 0

Xl

12/11/97

AKT -J07 -05M31 O-J02-000 I


DRAFT/Rev. 0 12/11197

(intentionally blank)

xu AKT-J07-05M310-J02-0001

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This Technical Memorandum summanzes the results of the 1997 Site

Investigation/Limited Remedial Investigation (SVLRI) conducted at Fort Greely, Alaska.

The results of this project are intended to aid the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC)

95 Commission in determining eligibility for parcel reuse by other governmental agencies

or non-federal entities. Accordingly, the purpose of this document is to present a brief

overview of the project, summarize the results, and provide site-specific preliminary

recommendations for additional remediation or no further action. The project was

performed for the U.S. Army Engineer District (USAED), Alaska under the Total

Environmental Restoration Contract (TERC), Contract No. DACA85-95-D-0018, Task

Order 10.

During August and September 1997, a SI and/or LRI was implemented at each of 20

individual parcels within the Fort Greely cantonment area. The field activities were

generally conducted according to the 1997 Fort Greely Work Plan and Work Plan

addenda documents. Based on the data collected, corrective action was recommended for

15 individual sites and no further action were recommended for four sites. In addition,

investigation at site 88 did not exhibit evidence of contamination; however, the area

within the confines of the landfill was not assessed. The corrective action

recommendation for several sites may require revision following the quality control

review process and issuance of the Chemical Data Quality Report (CDQR). It is

important to note that remedial recommendations and associated cost estimates have been

developed using unvalidated data, and may require revision following completion of the

data review process. In addition, the horizontal and/or vertical extent of contamination

was generally not defined during the 1997 field effort. This occurrence was largely due

to the poor correlation between field screening and laboratory concentrations for the less

volatile DRO and RRO constituents. To obtain a cost estimate for these sites,

assumptions were made regarding the extent of contamination. Table ES-1 lists the

rough order of magnitude costs estimated for remediating each site based on the

assumptions described above. Table ES-2 provides a summary of individual parcels

indicating their priority area, site description, COPCs that exceeded ARARs, the

approximate surface area of the site, and the currently known maximum depth of

contamination.


DRAFT/Rev. 0 12/11/97

ES-1 AKT -J07-05M31 0-102-0001

Site No. Priority

30 Top

73 Top

102 Top

92 Top

57 Top

52 1

130 1

135 1

53 2

54 2

55 2

101 3

103 3

121 3

79 4

80 4

86 4

87 4

88 4

89 4

- -- -

Table ES-1 Fort Greely

Site Remediation Cost Estimate

Remedial Option Surface soil removal to 3 feet below grade surface (bgs ), thermal treatment of excavated soils; soil vapor extraction treatment of vadose zone between 3 and 20 feet bgs; contaminant fate and transport modelling of contaminants from 20 feet bgs to water ta

Same as above Excavation and thermal treatment of approximately 400 cubic yards (600 tons) of soil

Excavation and thermal treatment of approximately 30 cubic yards ( 45 tons) of soil

Excavation and thermal treatment of approximately 70 cubic yards (105 tons) of soil; abandon floor drain and piping, dispose of hazardous soils

Excavation and thermal treatment of approximately 80 cubic yards ( 120 tons) of soil

Risk-based evaluation using SESOIL modelling. Requires additional data to be obtained by drilling 2 soil borings to 30 feet bgs, and 1 soil boring to 60 feet bgs.

Analyze existing soil sample for TCLP/lead

No additional action recommended


Risk-based evaluation using SESOIL modelling. Requires additional data by drilling 4 soil borings to 30 feet bgs, and 2 soil borings to 60 feet bgs.

Risk-based evaluation using SESOIL modelling. Requires additional data by drilling 2 soil borings to 30 feet bgs, and 1 soil boring to 60 feet bgs

Two USTs will be removed from the ground, inerted, and cut up for disposal. Approximately 800 cubic yards (1200 tons) of associated contaminated soil will be excavated and thermally treated. SESOIL modelling will be performed

Risk-based evaluation using SESOIL modelling, requires additional data to be obtained by drilling 5 borings to 30 feet bgs, and 1 boring to 60 feet bgs; soil excavation (800 cubic yards, 1200 tons); Bioventing installation

Performance of modelling and Risk Assessment

Excavate soils to 3 feet bgs (approximately 30 cubic yards), dispose of soils as hazardous waste


No additional action recommended Contamination exceeding project ARARs not identified outside of landfill boundaries. Contamination not assessed within landfill boundaries, therefore, a focused geophysical survey, test pits and soil sampling are recommended

Limited Excavation, assume 1 00 cubic yards of soil, to be disposed as a hazardous waste. Perform a Risk Assessment. Additional data are required by drilling 3 soil borings to 30 feet below grade surface (bgs), and 1 soil boring to 60 feet bgs

Prepare SIILRI Report

Prepare Remedial Action Report (All sites)

Cost

$1,625,000

Included Above

$97,000

$19,000

$61,000

$24,000

$54,000

$1,200 --

$83,000

$54,000

$175,000

$930,000

$124,000

$1,069,000

--

$189,000

$575,000

$119,000 $94,000

*TOTAL= $5,293,200 ROM =Rough Order of Magnitude ARARs = Applicable, Relevant, and Appropriate Requirements * Assumes that all sites will be remediated during the same field season

ES-2

PARCEL (CERFA)

73 (6)

30 (5)

102 (7)

92 (7)

57 (7)

52 (6)

130 (6)

135 (7)

53 (7)

54 (7)

55 (7)

101 (6)

103 (7)

121 (7)

79 (7)

80 (7)

86 (7)

87 (7)

88 (7)

89 (7)

ARARs

BTEX

CERFA

COPCs

DRO

GRO

TABLE ES-2 SIILRI PARCEL SUMMARY

PRIORITY DESCRIPTION

AREA

4 Evergreen Road Fuel Spill

4 Robin Road Fuel Spill

4 Evergreen POL Yard

3 Bldg. 100, Drum Storage Area

1 Bldg. 628, Surface Soils/Drum Storage Area

1 Bldg. 627, Drum Stains

1 Bldg. 626 UST

1 Bldg. 612, Dry Well

2 Bldg. 650, PCB Storage

2 Bldg. 675, Laundary AST Vault

2 Bldg. 670, Dry Wells

3 Bldg. 144, UST

3 Bldg. 157, Former Laundry

3 Helicopter Refueling Area

4 Fire Bum Pad

4 Firefighting Bum Pad

4 Aeration Pad (North)

4 Aeration Pad (South)

4 Landfill 4 & 5

4 Refuse Bum Pit

Applicable and Relevant or Appropriate Requirements

Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, Xylenes

Community Environmental Response Facilitation Act

Contaminants ofPotential Concern

Diesel Range Organic Compounds

Gasoline Range Organic Compounds

COPCs EXCEEDING ARARs

DRO, GRO, RRO, BTEX, SVOCs (Naphthalene)

DRO, GRO, RRO, BTEX, SVOCs (Naphthalene)

DRO,GRO,RRO,BTEX

DRO, SVOCs

BTEX, Metals (Arsenic)

DRO

DRO with Qualifiers

Lead

None

None

DRO

DRO

DRO

DRO,RRO

DRO, GRO, RRO, Dioxins/Furans (Within Factor of 2)

Dioxins/Furans

None

None

None

Metals (Lead, Arsenic)

ES-3

ESTIMATED SURFACE AREA MAXIMUM DEPTH (ft)

7,000 sf 70, Max. Concentration at 30

ft Silt Layer

7,500 sf 52, Max. Concentration at 40-

45 ft Silt Layer

10,400 sf >10

200 sf 5

1,000 sf 2

200 sf >5

NA >17

NA >11

NA NA

NA NA

NA .2:22

NA >17

1,500 sf >12

7,200 sf 5.5

500 sf 10 (POL)

>27 (Dioxins/Furans)

300 sf <5

NA NA

NA NA

NA NA

22,500 sf >5.5

NA Not Applicable

RRO Residual Range Organic Compounds

sf Square Feet

SVOCs Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds

VOCs Volatile Organic Compounds

FT Feet

Page 1 Of 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This document summarizes the findings of the Site Investigations (SI) and Limited Remedial

Investigations (LRI) performed at Fort Greely, Alaska. During August and September 1997,

SI and/or LRI field work was conducted at each of 20 individual parcels within the Fort

Greely cantonment area. Based on the observed site conditions and analytical soil sample

results, the environmental condition of each site has received preliminary evaluation and

recommendations for no further action or remediation have been developed. The results of

this project are intended to aid the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) 95 Commission in

determining eligibility for parcel reuse by other governmental agencies or non-federal entities.

The emphasis of the technical memorandum is to present a brief overview of the project,

summarize the results, and specify the recommendations for additional remediation or no

further action. This document includes discussions of the project's purpose and objectives,

site organization, approach methodology, general site description, general field methods,

remedial recommendations, and budgetary cost estimates. Other support documentation,

including discussions of site-specific field activities, laboratory reports, data validation,

quality assurance analysis, chain of custody forms, soil boring and test pit logs, and waste

handling receipts, are not included. In addition, this document does not address disposal of

waste materials generated during the 1997 SULRI field effort.

1.1 PROJECT PURPOSE

As part of the BRAC realignment process, the number of buildings controlled by the U.S.

Army at Fort Greely will decrease from over 200 to about 30. The remaining facilities, as

well as selected undeveloped areas, will be eligible for reuse by other government and non

government entities. To facilitate potential land transfers under the BRAC process, the

BRAC environmental restoration program was implemented to provide information on the

environmental condition of the eligible properties and to initiate cleanup activities. The parcel

evaluations will support the BRAC team's reuse strategy by providing information to

determine appropriate actions to address environmental concerns at each site. The

environmental condition and regulatory status of each site will be used to identify potential

future land uses.


DRAFT/Rev. 0 12/11197

1-1 AKT -J07 -05M31 0-102-000 I

1.2 PROJECT OBJECTIVES

The SIILRI project's overall purpose was satisfied by pursuing the following project

objectives:

• Conduct research to identify past land uses, contaminants of potential concern (COPCs),

and potential COPC sources.

• Verify the presence or absence of site-specific COPCs.

• Establish the lateral and vertical extent of impacted soil.

• Evaluate the site's regulatory status with regard to COPC cleanup standards.

• Obtain the necessary field and laboratory data to evaluate remediation alternatives,

including no further action.

• Recommend site-specific remediation strategies.

• Provide Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) cost estimates for the recommended actions.

Because these objectives were pursued on a site-specific basis, the emphasis of their

application varied. In particular, the primary objectives of SI sites differed from those of the

LRI sites. Limited data regarding the existing conditions were available for the SI sites.

Consequently, the primary objectives for these sites were identifying COPCs and determining

the presence of contamination. In comparison, LRI sites were generally associated with a

previously established set of COPCs and/or suspected sources. The primary objectives for the

LRI sites were therefore focused on verifying the suspected site conditions, determining the

extent of impacted soil, and determining the appropriate remediation alternative.

1.3 PROJECT APPROACH

The project approach was characterized by three general phases. The first phase consisted of

organizing the sequence of site evaluations using a process of classification and prioritization.

The second phase was performing the SI and LRI research and field investigations. The third

phase included data analysis, interpretation, and reporting.

1.3.1 Site Organization

As stated in Section 1.0, the Fort Greely SIILRI project consisted of site evaluations at 20


DRAFT/Rev. 0 12/11197

1-2 AKT -J07-05M31 O-J02-000 1

individual land parcels within the post's main cantonment area. A two-tiered classification

system was used to prioritize the sites and determine the sequence of site investigations. The

first classification addresses the properties' existing environmental condition, whereas the

second classification is used to rank the individual sites according to the probability of reuse.

A list of the individual sites addressed during the 1997 field season is presented in Table 1-1,

and are shown in Figure 1-1.

1.3.1.1 Environmental Condition of Property

Prior to initiation of the Fort Greely SIILRI project, the BRAC Cleanup Team (BCT)

evaluated the "environmental condition" of each parcel to expedite the potential transfer of

property. Using a protocol specified in the Community Environmental Response Facilitation

Act (CERF A), each parcel was placed into one of seven categories. Categories 1 through 4

were assigned to parcels that are presently suitable for transfer. Sites placed in Categories 5

through 7 are not presently suitable for transfer due to existing environmental concerns or

insufficient characterization data. The category assigned to each of the 20 SIILRI sites

investigated during the 1997 field season is listed in Table 1-1.

A summary of available environmental data was compiled by Woodward-Clyde in their 1996

document, "US. Army Base Realignment and Closure 95 Program, Environmental Baseline

Survey Report, Fort Greely, Alaska." This document provided the foundation for the initial

site-specific field work and sampling programs presented in the SIILRI Work Plan.

1.3.1.2 Priority Area Designation

As part of the BRAC reuse strategy, the Delta/Greely Community Coalition was established

as a local reuse authority to evaluate and select potential properties for reuse. Four priority

areas within the Fort Greely cantonment area were established. The top priority area, Priority

Area 1, encompasses the post's central industrial area and contains sites associated with

existing buildings or facilities. In comparison, Priority Area 4 is located around the perimeter

of the cantonment area and consists of undeveloped parcels or structures that have been

demolished. The priority area associated with each SIILRI site is listed in Table 1-1.


DRAFT/Rev. 0 1211!/97

1-3 AKT -J07 -05M31 O-J02-000 1

1.3.1.3 Site Prioritization

The ultimate goal of the SI!LRI is to evaluate the over 100 CERFA Category 5, 6, and 7 sites

within Priority Areas 1 through 4. Due to funding limitations, however, the BCT selected 36

individual sites to be addressed during the 1997 field season.

The environmental condition and priority area designations were the primary tools used to

prioritize the sites and determine the sequence in which the site investigations would be

conducted. As stated in the Work Plan, limited remedial investigations were to be performed

for the Category 5 through 7 sites in Priority Areas 1, 2, and 3. The LRI sites were to be

completed prior to the SI sites, which consisted of Category 7 parcels in Priority Area 4. This

general schedule was modified by the BCT to include a group of five "top priority" sites. The

13 LRI sites and 7 SI sites evaluated during the 1997 field work are listed in Table 1-1 in

descending priority.

1.3.2 SI/LRI Implementation

The site investigation performed at each individual parcel consisted of a site history review,

an initial site evaluation, implementation of a general field strategy, and development of a

site-specific field strategy. Although the LRI and SI investigations had different emphases

with respect to data uses, the same field program was used to conduct both types of site

investigations. The programs' structures were based on a generic field decision framework.

The purpose of the decision process was to prescribe a logical methodology for determining

1) the type, location, and extent of field activities, and 2) the number, location, depth, and

analytical program for soil samples. The framework was designed to emphasize flexibility

such that the field program could be adapted to best suit site-specific conditions.


DRAFT/Rev. 0 12/11197

1-4 AKT -107 -05M31 0-102-0001

TABLE 1-1 1997 Site Investigation and Limited Remedial Investigation

Priority and Category Classification of Completed SI and LRI Sites

Site CERFA Priority No. Site ID Category Buildin.e;ID

TOP PRIORITY SITES

4 (LRI) 30 5 --4 (LRI) 73 6 --4 (SI) 102 7 --

3 (LRI) 92 7 100 1 (LRI) 57 7 628

LRISITES

1 52 6 627 130 6 626 135 7 612

2 53 7 650 54 7 675 55 7 670

3 101 6 144 103 7 157* 121 7 --

SISITES

4 79 7 Bum Pad 80 7 Bum Pad 86 7 Aeration Pad 87 7 Aeration Pad 88 7 --89 7 Bum Pit

* Location of former building

1-5


DRAFT/Rev. 0 12111197


1-6 AKT -J07 -05M31 O-J02-000 1

., I I I I I --------1

I I l --

LEGEND STATUS

IZ'dZl A 1997 SITES COHPLETED 1111111111111!1 B 1997 SITES REMOVED/DELETED l::.:::j C 1997 SITES TO DO IN 1998

RRIORITY AREA BOUNDARIES

--- PRIORITY I -••- PRIORITY 2 -- PRIORITY 3 - - PRIORITY 4

NOTE

I. CERFA ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITION 2. REFER TO SM-IA WASTE PIPELINE MAP

PARCEL PRIORITY DESCRIPTION

73 6 NOTE I 4 EVERGREEN ROAD FUEL SPILL 30 (5) 4 ROBIN ROAD FUEL SPILL 102 (7) 4 EVERGREEN POL YARD 92 (7) 3 BLDG 100 DRUI'I STORAGE AREA 57 (7) I BLDG 628 DRY WELL

52 (6) I BLDG 627 DRutt STRAINS 130 (6) I BLDG 626 UST 135 (7) I BLDG 612 DRY WELL 50 (6) I BLDG 619 51 (5) I BLDG 602 DIESEL SPILL 120 (7) I WASH RACK

53 (7) I 2 BLDG 650 PCB STORAGE 54 (7) I 2 I BLDG 675 LAUNDRY 55 (7) I 2 I BLDG 670 DRY WELLS

101 (6) I 3 I BLDG 144 UST 103 (7) I 3 I BLDG 157 FORtiER LAUNDRY 121 (7) I 3 I HELICOPTER REFUELING AREA

79 (7) 4 FIRE BURN PAD 80 (7) 4 FIREFIGHTER BURN PAD 86 (7) 4 AERATION PAD (NORTH) 87 (7) 4 AERATION PAD (SOUTH) 88 (7) 4 LANDFILL 4 8. 5 89 (7) 4 REFUSE BURN PIT

49 (5) 4 RANSFORI'IERSTORAGE AR£A 113 (7) I POL STORAGE AREA 115 (7) I BLDG 601 UST 74 (5) 4 BLDG 319 FUEL SPILL 76 (5) 4 BLDG 352 FUEL SPILL 77 (6) 4 BLDG 340 UST 78 (7) 4 BLDG 318 PESTICIDE STORAGE 98 (5) 4 BLDG 159 UST 100 (6) 4 BLDG 160 UST 112 (7) 4 FENCED SALVAGE AREA 116 (7) 4 OLD POWER GENERATION F ACIUTY 117 (7) 4 FORtiER DRUI'I STORAGE AREA 118 (7) 4 UNDEVElOPED AREA UST

• = 1997 ALTERNATE SITES

ACTIVITIES STATUS

GEO PITS BORINGS SURFACE

I 9 A 2 6 A 3 A 2 A

I I 3 A

2 I A 2 A

I I A B B B

I 4 I A I I I I I I A I 2 I I 2 A

I I I 2 A I I I 3 I 4 A I I 2 I A

2 4 A 3 A 3 A 3 A

I 3 A 3 A

~;;•

c I A

c c• c• c c• c• c• c c

I c

SITE INVESTIGATION/

LIMITED REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION BASE MAP

FORT GREELY, ALASKA 1000 , ... I

... FEET

97

~ \'Y"z

.lllfus -·

X~

LEGEND STATUS

~ A 1997 SITES COHPlETED llll!llliJ 8 1997 SITES REHOVED/OELETED ~ C 1997 SITES TO DO IN 1998

RRIORITY AREA BO~DARIES

NOTE

PRIORITY I PRIORITY 2 PRIORITY 3 PRIORITY 4

I. CERFA ENVIRONHENTAL CONDITION 2. REFER TO SM-IA WASTE PIPELINE MAP

PARCEL PRIORITY DESCRIPTION

7> 6 NOTE I 4 EVERGREEN ROAD FlEL SPILL ~0 (5) 4 ROBIN ROAD FueL. SPII.L. IOZ 7) 4 EVERGREEN POL YARD 9Z (7) 3 BLDG 100 ORUH STORAGE AREA 57 (7) I BLDG 628 DRY WELL

5Z 6 I BLDG 627 0Rutt STRAINS 1~0 (6) I BLDG 626 UST 135 (7) I BLDG 612 DRY WELL 50 6 I BLDG 619 51 (5) I BLDG 602 DIESEL SPILL IZO (7) I WASH RACK

53 (7) z BLDG 650 PCB STORAGE 54 (7) z BLDG 675 LAUNDRY 55 7) z BLDG 670 DRY WEUS

101 (6) 3 BLDG 144 UST 10~ (7) 3 BLDG 157 FORt1ER LA .... DRY IZI 7) 3 HEUCOPTER REFUEUNG AREA

79 7 4 FIRE BURN PAD 80 (7) 4 FIREFIGHTER BURN PAD 86 (7) 4 AERATION PAD (NORTH) 87 (7) 4 AI!!RAT!Ofl PAD (SOIJTH) B 7 4 LANDFILL C. 5

89 (7) 4 REFUSE BURN PIT

RANSFORr'IER TORAGE A 11;5 7 I POL STORAGE AREA 115 7 I BLDG 601 UST 74 (5) 4 BLDG 319 FUEL SPILL 76 (5) 4 BLDG ;552 FUEL SPILl. 77 6 4 BLDG 340 UST 78 7 4 BLDG 318 PESTICIDE STORAGE 98 (5) 4 BLDG 159 liST 100 (6 4 BLDG 160 UST 112 (7 4 FENCED SALVAGE AREA 116 (7) 4 OLD POWER GetERATION FACIUT'I' 117(7) 4 FOFIHEA DAUH STORAGE AREA liB (7) 4 UNDEVELOPED AREA UST

• = 1997 AL TERHATE SITES

ACTIVITIES STATUS

GEO PITS BORINGS St.RFACE

I 9 z 6 A ~ A z A

I I ~ A

z I A z A

I I A B B B

4 A I I I A z z A

I z A I ~ 4 A

z A

z 4 A 3 A ~ A ~ A

I 3 A 3 A

c I A

c c• c• c c· c• c• c c

I c

~N SITE INVESTIGATION/

LIMITED REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION BASE MAP &--- ~ID!Gi

FORT GREELY, ALASKA

fEET


DRAFT/Rev. 0 12/11/97


1-8 AKT -107 -05M31 0-102-0001

2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION

2.1 BACKGROUND

Fort Greely is located in interior Alaska, approximately 110 miles southeast of Fairbanks and

five miles south of Delta Junction. The post encompasses an area of approximately 640,000

acres, although the main cantonment area is limited to about 1,830 acres. Presently, the base

serves as a cold weather training and testing facility for the U.S. Army.

2.2 GEOLOGY AND SOILS

Fort Greely is located within the Delta River outwash plain and is generally characterized by

flat to gently rolling topography with bottom land forests and wetlands. The main cantonment

area is located on a low alluvial terrace in a region dominated by alluvial fans, moraines, and

river floodplains. Soil conditions and classifications were provided for each site in the

corresponding test pit and/or soil boring logs.

2.3 HYDROLOGY

Fort Greely's main cantonment area is defined to the north and east by Jarvis Creek. The

creek is a tributary of Delta River, which is oriented parallel to the Richardson Highway and

flows to the north. Both rivers are fed by glacial meltwater, and are augmented in the summer

months by rainfall and surface runoff. Other creeks and lakes are scattered throughout the

base, but are not located within the main cantonment area.

2.4 HYDROGEOLOGY

Groundwater in the Fort Greely region exists in perched water zones and in an underlying

unconfined aquifer. During the 1997 SIILRI field effort, soil borings were extended to a

maximum depth of 70 feet bgs. Perched water was not encountered in the soil borings or test

pits completed as part of this project. According to a 1991 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

report "Groundwater Monitoring Network, Fort Greely, Alaska," the groundwater depth

ranges from 175 to 215 feet bgs, and can exhibit seasonal variations of up to 50 feet.

Historically, the hydraulic gradient slopes to the northeast.


DRAFT/Rev. 0 12/11197

2-1 AKT-J07-05M310-J02-0001


DRAFT/Rev. 0 12/11/97


2-2 AKT -J07 -05M31 O-J02-000 1

3.0 SITE EVALUATION CRITERIA

Each site was individually evaluated usmg a four-step process: 1) identify site-specific

COPCs, 2) conduct field investigations to determine the presence and extent of the COPCs in

the subsurface, 3) compare the analytical sample results to applicable standards, and 4)

develop a remedial action recommendation. An overview of the SIILRI field methods is

provided in Section 4.0 of this document. The following subsections discuss the methods and

assumptions in evaluating laboratory data and developing remedial recommendations.

3.1 LABORATORY DATA EVALUATION

Laboratory data were used to verify field observations, determine the presence of site-specific

COPCs, and evaluate the site's regulatory status. For this project, applicable and relevant or

appropriate requirements (ARARs) include matrix and risk-based standards that are set forth

in state and federal regulations. A list of analyses performed, along with the applicable

ARAR standard(s), is provided in Table 3-1. In general, it is assumed that the EPA's soil

screening guidelines and the proposed ADEC risk-based standards take precedence over the

existing ADEC matrix cleanup guidelines.

The validity of the site-specific recommendations is dependent on the quality of laboratory

data. The recommendations presented in this document are based on an incomplete data set,

and may require revision following completion of the data quality review process.

3.2 REMEDIATION RECOMMENDATION DEVELOPMENT

Site-specific recommendations for additional remediation or no further action are provided in

Sections 5.0 through 9.0. If the reported COPC concentrations are below the listed standard

for all of the site-specific analytes, then no further action may be necessary at that site. If

contamination is documented above the applicable cleanup standards, the available data are

used to recommend an integrated remediation approach. The recommended strategies

generally include one or more of the following elements: no further action, selective

excavation, bioventing, vapor extraction, thermal processing, model-based leachability

studies, and various risk assessment applications.

Fort Greely Technical Memorandwn DRAFT/Rev. 0 12/11197

3-1 AKT -J07-05M31 0-102-0001

Source

POL

Fuel releases, former USTs, and and dry wells associated with diesel, gasoline, waste oil, and unknown POL product

Hazardous Materials

Potential solvent or chemical releases from ASTs, dry wells, drain lines, or other sources associated with former laundry facilities, vehicle shops, battery storage, and miscellaneous storage and disposal facilities

Miscellaneous

2

4

6

7

9

10

11

TABLE3-l

1997 Site Investigation and Limited Remedial Investigation

Summary of ARARs and Analytical Methods

Cleanuo Standards (ppm) Target Analyte ADEC 2 ADEC 3 EPA 4 RCRA 5

Benzene 0.1 0.01 I 290 0.03 10 Toluene - 3.9 I 20,300 12 -

Ethyl benzene - 3.4 I 10,100 13 -Xylene - 55 I 203,000 190 -

TotalBTEX 10 - - -GRO 50 250 I 1,250 - -DRO 100 250 I 12,500 - -RRO 2,000 2, 780 I 22,200 - -

SVOCs BG css css css• VOCs BG css 7 css 4 css 8

RCRAMetals As - 2 29 100 Ba - 1,100 1,600 2,000 Cd - 5 8 20 Cr - 25 38 100 Pb - - 400 100 Hg - 1.4 2 4 Ag - 20 34 100 Se - 3.4 5 20

OCP/PCB - - css• -PCBs - - css 4 -

TSCA 6

--

------

----

-----

10 10

Dioxins - - css - 4 X 10"'"

Soil Parameters: VOC - Volatile Organic Compounds BTEX- Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, and Xylene GRO - Gasoline Range Organic compounds DRO -Diesel Range Organic compounds RRO - Residual Range Organic compounds SVOC - Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds PCB -Polychlorinated Biphenyls OCH - Organochlorinated Herbicides OCP/PCB - Organochlorinated Pesticides/Polychlorinated Biphenyls RCRA Metals - 8 Metals

Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, Category A cleanup standards, as referenced in the July 1991 "Interim Guidance for Non-UST Contaminated soil Cleanup Levels," and 18 AAC 78 regulations for Underground Storage Tanks. "BG' designation indicates cleanup level is background

Draft ADEC 18 AAC 75, "Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Control Regulations, Cleanup Standards," December 1996. Dual designations, indicated by x/y, signify range of risk-based cleanup standards. The applicable risk category must be determined on a site-specific basis. Listed metals concentrations reflect the most stringent standard.

EPA's July 1996 "Soil Screening Guiudance: Technical Background Document."

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act regulations, as listed in Section 261.30. Listed values are calculated using the listed TCLP standard multiplied by a 20x dilution factor to obtain an equivalent non-TCLP concentration. COPC concentrations associated with USTs are exempt from these RCRA standards.

Toxic Substances Control Act,

Compound-Specific Standards are listed for individual SVOC, VOC, and metals constituents in Table AI of the draft ADEC 18 AAC 75 regulations.

Compound-Specific Standards are listed for individual SVOC and VOC constituents in RCRA 261.30, Table 1.

OCP analyses were run for as part of the disposal characterization suite for potential mixed waste. Herbicides and pesticides were not COPC at the project sites.

Total PCB concentrations Jess than 10 ppm do not require additional action. Concentrations between 10- 49 ppm can be disposed at approved in-state facilities. Soils containing greater than 49 ppm must be disposed as hazardous waste.

Dioxin standard is for 2,3, 7,8 TCDD equivalent. Concentrations reported by the laboratory must be converted to this standard.

3-2

The determination of an appropriate remedial alternative is developed using the following

criteria:

• Vertical and lateral extent of contamination;

• The chemical nature of the contaminants;

• Observed soil properties; and

• Cost.

The final recommendation will balance the criteria of anticipated remedial action

effectiveness, implementation feasibility, and cost.

Each site-specific remediation recommendation 1s accompanied by a rough order of

magnitude (ROM) cost estimate. These estimates are based on currently available

information concerning the nature, magnitude, and distribution of contaminants. As

additional data are collected, modifications to the remedial strategies may result in changes in

the costs.


DRAFT/Rev. 0 12/11197

3-3 AKT -J07 -05M31 O-J02-000 1


DRAFT/Rev. 0 12/11/97


3-4 AKT -107 -OSM31 0-102-000 I

4.0 FIELD METHODS

The 1997 Fort Greely SIILRI field program consisted of unexploded ordnance clearances,

geophysical surveys, test pit excavations, soil borings, and soil sampling. This section

summarizes the implementation of each field activity. The location number, total depth, and

soil samples associated with each type of field activity are listed in Table 4-1.

4.1 UNEXPLODED ORDNANCE CLEARANCES

Unexploded ordnance (UXO) clearances were completed at two sites. The UXO clearances at

Sites 115 and 118 were completed prior to the geophysical survey and other field activities.

4.2 GEOPHYSICAL SURVEYS

Geophysical surveys were conducted at eight individual sites to identify subsurface features

that may have impacted the surrounding soil. The surveys at LRI Sites 54, 55, 57, 103, and

135 were completed to identify known or suspected dry wells and drain lines. In comparison,

the surveys at SI Sites 88, 115, and 118 were intended to locate former dumps or landfills.

4.3 TEST PIT EXCAVATIONS

A total of 33 test pits were excavated at 14 individual sites. The location and depth of each

test pit was determined in the field using the field activity decision matrix. In general, test

pits were extended to a total depth of 5 feet bgs, although several pits were advanced to a

depth of 10 feet bgs.

4.4 SOIL BORINGS

Soil borings were drilled at 12 individual sites to evaluate subsurface soil conditions. The 44

boreholes distributed among these parcels varied in depth, according to the type of

information desired. Shallow boreholes, ranging from 10 to 30 feet in depth, were used to

investigate the presence of dry wells and other suspected subsurface contaminant sources.

Shallow borings were also used to delineate the horizontal extent of impacted soil. Deeper

boreholes were advanced up to 70 feet bgs to delineate the vertical extent of contamination.


DRAFT/Rev. 0 12/11197

4-1 AKT-107 -05M31 0-102-000\

TABLE4-l 1997 Site Investigation and Limited Remedial Investigation

Summary of Project Field Activities

Field Activity

Geophysical Survey

Test Pit Excavations

Soil Borings Background LRI/SI Sites

Near-Surface Samples 5

Number of Soil Samples Total Cumulative

Number 1•2 Depth(ft) Analtyical 3 QA/QC 4

8 NA 0 0

33 169 54 8

5 33 7 0 44 1,197 70 10

8 NA 8 0

The total number of each field item does not include the original work conducted at Sites 92, 57, and 55. Due to laboratory error, the field work at these sites had to be readroinistered.

2 One field item was tallied for locations where multiple test pits or boreholes were completed due to refusal or other installation difficulties.

3 The number of analytical samples reflects only those samples tested for site-specific COPCs. TOC and plate count tests are not included.

4 Assumes each QC and QA sample pair constitutes a single QA/QC entry.

5 Reference to discrete samples only, such as those collected at Sites 52, 53, and 57. Does not include samples collected as part of

boreholes or test pit excavations.

4-2

4.5 SURFACE AND NEAR-SURFACE SAMPLES

Eight surface and near-surface samples were collected from three individual sites.

4.6 SOIL SAMPLE COLLECTION

4.6.1 Field Screening

Field screening was used to provide a real-time indication of potential COPC contamination;

direct additional field work, including delineation of the contaminant plume; evaluate the

suitability of drill cuttings and excavated soil as backfill material; and facilitated selection of

samples for laboratory analysis. The screening process consisted of two components: a

sensory assessment using visual and olfactory indicators, and a headspace measurement of

volatile components.

4.6.2 Analytical Sample Collection

Analytical samples were collected from soil borings and test pits. For each site, selected

samples were submitted for laboratory analysis based on field screening and site-specific

objectives. The data generated by the soil sample analyses were used to determine the

presence and maximum concentration of COPCs, and to delineate the extent of impacted soil.

4.7 SIILRI DEVIATIONS

Eighteen LRI sites and twelve Sl sites are listed in Table 5-1 of the site-specific Fort Greely

Work Plan. During 1997, field work was conducted at 13 LRI sites and 7 SI sites. Of the

remaining 16 sites, 13 were not completed due to funding constraints. In addition, three LRI

sites will likely be removed from the SIILRI program, for the reasons listed below.

• Site 50 was mistakenly included in the Environmental Baseline Survey Report (EBS), and

an evaluation is not required at this site.

• Site 51 may be eligible for no further action. Verification is forthcoming from the ADEC.

• Research indicates that the wash rack at Site 120 was never built, and further evaluation at

this site is not required.

Fort Greely Technical Memorandwn DRAFT/Rev. 0 12/11/97

4-3 AKT -107 -05M31 0-102-00cil

~art Greely Technical Memorandum

DRAFT/Rev. 0 12111/97


4-4 AKT -J07-05M31 0-JOZ-000 I

5.0 TOP PRIORITY SITES

The top priority parcels include Sites 73, 30, 102, 92, and 57. The findings for these sites are

presented in the following subsections.

5.1 SITE 73

5.1.1 Site History

Site 73 is located along the former POL distribution pipeline, approximately 300 feet south of

the intersection between Evergreen Road and 64th A venue. The environmental concern at this

site is a former diesel fuel release from the POL pipeline. The release occurred in January

1982 from a ruptured above-ground POL distribution pipe. Reports indicate up to 44,000

gallons of fuel sprayed out of the pressurized pipe and onto the surrounding trees and snow.

Following the release, an unknown quantity of fuel was recovered. An unknown volume of

impacted soil was removed in the spring of 1982. The pipeline has not been used since 1983

and was subsequently removed from the Site 73 vicinity.

5.1.2 Site Summary

Nine soil borings and one test pit were implemented to evaluate the former diesel fuel release.

Field observations and laboratory analyses verified the presence of impacted near-surface and

subsurface soil. Results indicate two strata of interest. The first stratum consists of sandy

gravel that extends from the surface to about 30 feet bgs, and the second is comprised of a

siltier soil that extends downward from 30 feet bgs to at least 70 feet bgs. The former diesel

fuel release likely migrated vertically through the first stratum, then spread laterally over the

less permeable underlying layer.

Soil samples recovered between 1.5 and 25 feet bgs contained COPC concentrations ranging

from 10 ppm to 2,000 ppm GRO, 270 ppm to 4,550 ppm DRO, less than 1,000 ppm to 3,110

ppm RRO, non-detectable to 1 ppm benzene, non-detectable to 197 ppm total BTEX, and

non-detectable to 3.8 ppm total SVOCs. Higher concentrations were measured in samples

collected at or below the transition from a sandy gravel to a less permeable silty gravel.

COPC concentrations in this interval consisted of 86 ppm to 7,600 ppm GRO, 18 ppm to

26,000 ppm DRO, less than 140 ppm to greater than 6,000 ppm RRO, non-detectable to 5

ppm benzene, non-detectable to 491 ppm total BTEX, and non-detectable to 281 ppm total


DRAFT/Rev. 0 12111197

5-1 AKT -107 -05M31 0-102-000 I

SVOCs. Of the 5 individual SVOC constituents detected, only the maximum concentration of

100 ppm naphthalene exceeds risk-based ARARs.

Although concentrations generally decreased with depth, elevated DRO concentrations were

observed to at least 52 feet bgs, and elevated GRO concentrations were reported in a sample

collected 70 feet bgs. The lateral extent of contamination was not thoroughly defined.

Impacted soil between the surface and 25 feet bgs appears to be confined to the region

extending directly beneath the surface exposed to the diesel fuel release. At locations further

north, south and east of the release location, impacted soil may be limited to depths greater

than 25 feet bgs. The pattern of DRO concentrations measured west of the suspected fuel

release location indicated a second potential source.

Based on the LRl field investigation, COPC concentrations exceed applicable standards and

additional remediation is likely required to achieve a no further action status. The

recommended remediation approach consists of three components: excavate near-surface soil,

install a shallow vapor extraction system (VES), and model the vertical COPC migration. The

estimated cost of remediation of sites 30 and 73 (grouped together because of similar

conditions) is $1,625,000.

5.1.3 Remediation Alternatives and Recommendation

The contamination at this site is comprised of a mix of petroleum hydrocarbons, including

DRO, GRO, RRO, BTEX, and SVOCs. A comprehensive remediation approach must be

designed to address the site-specific COPCs and subsurface conditions. In particular, the

selected alternative for Site 73 must address both volatile and non-volatile hydrocarbons.

The recalcitrant DRO and RRO compounds degrade at a slower rate than the more volatile

GRO and BTEX compounds. For this reason, coupled with the high concentrations and deep

vertical penetration, intrinsic bioremediation is not a practical or cost-effective method of

remediation at this site. Alternatively, the recommended remediation approach for this site

consists of three distinct components. Each component addresses the COPCs present at a

target depth interval.

The first component is selective excavation. The impacted surface soil will be excavated to a

maximum depth of three feet bgs. Removal of this soil is intended to reduce the potential

exposure to COPC through soil contact and ingestion. The excavated soil will require

additional treatment prior to disposal. The most cost-effective treatment method is thermal


DRAFT/Rev. 0 12/11197

5-2 AKT ·107 -05M31 0-102-000 I

treatment. Alternatively, a managed biocell may be constructed for this purpose.

The second component includes installment of a YES. This technology is intended to treat the

impacted soil located at depths shallower than 20 to 30 feet bgs. A network of vertical pipes

will be installed throughout the impacted area. A blower will be used to extract air from

selected pipes, with others used to provide a conduit of air through the subsurface. This

treatment method will be designed to physically remove volatile COPCs and to enhance

aerobic degradation of non-volatile COPCs.

The third remediation component consists of risk-based modeling. A vertical migration

model, such as the Seasonal Soil Characteristic Model (SESOIL), will be used to evaluate the

potential impact of the existing COPC concentrations on the underlying water table. Much of

the necessary soil data to implement this modeling, including grain size analysis and total

organic carbon, was collected during the 1997 LRI.

The second and third remediation methods may require additional data as part of the system

design process. An effective YES design will be predicated on an understanding of the lateral

and vertical extent of contamination. The analytical soil data collected during the 1997 LRI

was sufficient to estimate the vertical extent of contamination, but does not define the lateral

extent. Additional soil borings may therefore be necessary. Furthermore, completion of the

modeling effort may entail the installation and sampling of one or more groundwater

monitoring wells.

5.1.4 Cost Estimate

Because of the similarity of contaminant conditions and selected remedial alternatives, the

costs for remediation of Site 73 have been combined with those to remediate Site 30. The

ROM cost estimate for remediation of Sites 30 and 73 is based on the following assumptions:

• Surface soil will be removed from 0-3 feet bgs and replaced with clean soils. Excavated

soils will be thermally remediated off site.

• The volume of contaminated soils requiring excavation is 1,240 in-place cubic yards (cy),

or about 1,860 tons. This quantity reflects the combined totals of Sites 30 and 73. For

Site 73, the volume is 720 in-place cy (1,080 tons).

Fort Greely Technical Memorandum DRAFT/Rev. 0 12/11197

5-3 AKT-J07 -05M31 0-102-000 I

• A four-person crew will require 5 days for mobilization/demobilization, and excavation

will require 7 days to complete.

• VES remediation will be focused on the soils from 3 to 20 feet bgs. The cost estimate

includes provisions for design, installation, and start up of system.

• Installation of 14 active VES wells and 28 passive intake wells is assumed.

• Two VES modules with emission controls will be required.

• Contaminant fate and transport modeling will be performed to evaluate the potential for

contaminants to reach groundwater.

• Installation and sampling of four groundwater monitoring wells at Sites 30 and 73 will be

performed to provide data for use in conjunction with the modeling effort.

• The excavation will be backfilled with locally-available fill material.

Based on these assumptions, the ROM cost estimate for remediation of Sites 30 and 73 is

$1,625,000. A considerable cost savings will be realized if the installation and sampling of

monitoring wells is not required.


DRAFT/Rev. 0 12/11197

5-4 AKT -107 -05M31 0-102-000 I

5.2 SITE 30

5.2.1 Site History

Site 30 is located within a power line right-of-way that cuts through an undeveloped area one

quarter mile west of Robin Road. The environmental concern at this site is a former diesel

fuel release from the POL pipeline. According to USAED documents, between 52,000 and

133,000 gallons of product were released from a ruptured pipeline in December 1982. The

fuel spread over the snow-covered surface approximately 325 feet to the east and 50 feet to

the west of the release location. Soil borings drilled within one week of the release discovery

indicated that the fuel had penetrated at least 50 feet bgs. In January 1983, impacted soil was

removed to a depth of3 to 4 feet in an approximately 7,500 square foot area.

5.2.2 Site Summary

Six soil borings and two test pits were implemented to evaluate the impact of the former fuel

release. Field screening and laboratory results verified the presence of impacted soil in both

the near-surface and subsurface soil. Similar to Site 73, the COPC migration through the

subsurface was comprised of two primary mechanisms. First, the released diesel product

migrated vertically from the exposed surface soil, with a relatively small lateral component.

Second, the product apparently spread laterally over a less permeable layer about 45 feet bgs.

Near-surface contamination, within the top five feet bgs, was observed in soil that was

directly exposed during the 1982 release incident. Based on USAED documents and the LRI

results, the former release spread over an estimated area of 14,000 square feet. In the

immediate vicinity of the former fuel release, elevated COPC concentrations were observed

throughout the soil column, to a depth of at least 52 feet bgs. The maximum levels were

generally observed within 12 feet below the transition to a silty gravel at 45 feet bgs.

Reported COPC concentrations included 170 ppm to 1,200 ppm GRO, 2,500 ppm to 101,000

ppm DRO, less than 5,800 ppm to 8,020 ppm RRO, non-detectable to 0.66 ppm benzene,

0.439 ppm to 513 ppm total BTEX, and 6.68 ppm to 102 ppm total SVOCs.

Borings positioned up to 200 feet from the release location indicate that product may have

spread laterally over a stratum of silty gravel encountered about 45 feet bgs. Samples

recovered from these borings exhibit relatively low COPC concentrations between 10 feet and

32 feet bgs. In contrast, maximum concentrations of200 ppm GRO, 46,100 ppm DRO, 8,040


DRAFT/Rev. 0 12/11/97

5-5 AK.T-J07-05M310-J02-000I

ppm RRO, 17.7 ppm total BTEX, and 59 ppm total SVOCs continue to be measured in

samples collected at or below the transition to a lower permeability soil. The lateral extent of

impacted soil at this depth was not determined.

Based on the LRI field investigation, COPC concentrations at Site 30 exceed applicable

standards and additional remediation is likely required to achieve a no further action status.

The recommended remediation approach consists of three components: excavate near-surface

soil, install a shallow vapor extraction system (VES), and model the vertical COPC migration.

The estimated cost to remediate Sites 30 and 73 is $1,625,000.


The contamination at this site consists largely of recalcitrant DRO and RRO compounds that

degrade at a slower rate than the more volatile GRO and BTEX compounds. The nature and

extent of impacted soil at this site is similar to conditions at Site 73. The remediation

alternatives and recommended actions for Site 30 are reflected in the discussion presented in

Section 5.1.3.

5.2.4 Cost Estimate

The costs and assumptions associated with implementing the remediation program described

above were grouped together with the costs for remediating Site 73, and are described in

Section 5.1.5.


DRAFT/Rev. 0 12111/97

5-6 AKT -J07 -05M31 O-J02-0001

5.3 SITE 102

5.3.1 Site History

Site 102 is a fenced parcel located west of 64th A venue in the old post area. According to the

EBS, this area was formerly used to store unspecified POL. In July 1997, the site was not in

use and was clear of structures and debris. Surface stains of varying sizes were present

throughout the site, which had a measured area of about 10,400 square feet. Unlike the other

four top priority sites, Site 102 is designated as a SI site.

5.3.2 Site Summary

The six largest stained areas, exhibiting surface areas ranging from 5 square feet (sf) to 1 00 sf,

were considered for further evaluation. Test pits were excavated at the three largest areas.

Impacted soil was identified at each of the three stained areas evaluated. Reported COPC

concentrations consisted of non-detectable to 1,100 ppm GRO, non-detectable to 429,000

ppm DRO, less than 110 ppm to 337,000 ppm RRO, non-detectable to 0.64 ppm benzene, and

non-detectable to 40.83 ppm total BTEX. Five SVOC constituents were also detected, with a

maximum total SVOC concentration of 100.9 ppm. The highest concentrations were

generally measured in the samples recovered within 1.5 feet bgs. Impacted soil was observed

to depths ranging from less than 5 feet bgs to greater than 10 feet bgs. Although the lateral

extent of contamination was not explicitly defined, impacted soil appeared to be confined to

the visibly stained areas.

Based on the SI field investigation, COPC concentrations exceed applicable standards and

additional remediation is likely required to achieve a no further action status. The

recommended remedial action consists of selective excavation at the stained areas. The

estimated cost of this option is $97,000.


Remedial alternatives for the near-surface contamination documented at Site 102 include

intrinsic remediation, excavation, and in-situ treatment. Because the heavier petroleum

hydrocarbon constituents measured at this site are not readily biodegradable, intrinsic

remediation is not a practical treatment method for achieving cleanup standards. For this


DRAFT/Rev. 0 12111197

5-7 AKT-J07 -05M31 0-102-000 I

reason, an in-situ treatment system may also have mixed results, and is not likely a cost

effective solution for this site. The recommended remedial approach is to excavate the

individual surface stains. Because the impacted soil appears to be contained within the top 15

feet bgs, removal of the stained areas can be accomplished using a backhoe. Following

removal of the impacted soil, confirmation samples would be collected from each excavation

to document the condition of the remaining undisturbed soil.

Selective excavation of impacted soil will generate an estimated 400 cy of impacted material.

This estimate assumes excavation depths of 10 to 15 feet at six discrete stained areas. The

lateral extent of contamination is assumed to be contained within the estimated surface stain

areas.

Soils excavated from the surface stains may require on-site stockpiling pending receipt of

characterization sample results. Based on these results, disposal may be accomplished

through land spreading, placement in a managed biocell, or thermal treatment. The relative

cost of the disposal options will depend on the quantity of impacted soil generated, the nature

of the potential contamination, and the availability of treatment technologies. In general,

thermal treatment is the most cost-effective alternative for the Fort Greely parcels.

5.3.4 Cost Estimate

The ROM cost estimate for implementing the recommended remedial technology at Site 102

is based on the following assumptions:

• Soil contamination requiring removal extends from the surface to a maximum depth of 15

feet bgs, and is within the lateral extent of the surface staining.

• The volume of soil that will require excavation and treatment is 400 cy, including the

existing stockpiles.

• The excavated soil will be thermally treated off site.


• The work is performed during the same mobilization and demobilization as Sites 30 and

73 (no additional mobilization and demobilization costs will apply).


DRAFT/Rev. 0 12/11/97

5-8 AKT -107 -05M31 0-102-000 I

) • Excavation work will require two days to complete.

• Fifteen confirmation soil samples will be collected and analyzed for DRO/RRO,

GRO/BTEX, and SVOCs.

Based on these assumptions, the ROM estimated cost for remediation of Site 102 is $97,000.


5-9 AK.T -J07 -05M31 0-JOZ-000 1

I


DRAFT/Rev. 0 12/11/97


5-10 AKT -J07-05M31 0-JOZ-000 I

5.4 SITE 92

5.4.1 Site History

Site 92 is a former hazardous waste storage area located approximately 70 feet due south of

Building 100. According to USAED documents (CH2M Hill, 1992) this area was used to

store aircraft fuel samples, waste oil, and hydraulic fluids.

5.4.2 Site Summary

Two test pits were positioned within the approximately 50 square-foot former storage area.

No surface stains or distressed vegetation were evident.

Field screening did not indicate the presence of COPCs in the surface and subsurface soil.

Laboratory analyses, however, confirmed the presence of DRO, SVOC, BTEX, VOC, and

metals constituents in the soil samples. Reported COPC concentrations for the four sampling

locations included 17 ppm to 150 ppm DRO, non-detectable to 38.52 ppm total SVOCs, non

detectable to 0.69 ppm total BTEX, non-detectable to 0.0022 ppm chloroform, and non

detectable GRO and RRO. With the exception of lead and cadmium, metals concentrations

were within the background levels established for this project. The maximum concentrations

of 65.8 ppm lead and 0.89 ppm cadmium exceed the highest background levels by factors of

6.7 and 2.3, respectively.

One near-surface soil sample contained concentrations of five SVOC constituents that exceed

risk-based ARARs. In addition, the maximum DRO concentration in a second sample

exceeds the ADEC Category A soil matrix cleanup guideline. Both samples were collected

within 1 foot bgs. All other COPC concentrations were below the applicable standards.

Because field screening did not indicate the presence of COPCs, the lateral extent of impacted

soil was not defined.

Based on the LRI field investigation, COPC concentrations exceed applicable standards and

additional remediation may be required to achieve a no further action status. The

recommended remedial strategy consists of selective excavation or development of site

specific risk-based standards, depending on the volume of impacted soil. Additional

characterization sampling can be used to delineate the extent of contamination and estimate


5-11 AKT -J07 -05M31 O-J02-000 1

the volume of impacted soil. Assuming selective excavation is conducted, the estimated cost

to remediate Site 92 is $19,000.

5.4.3 Remediation Alternatives and Recommendations

Remediation at Site 92, should address elevated SVOC concentrations in the near-surface soil.

Assessing the remediation options at this time is difficult, however, due to data gaps regarding

the lateral extent of contamination and data quality issues.

Because the impacted soil does not appear to extend deeper than 5 feet bgs, appropriate

remediation options include selective excavation and development of site-specific risk-based

standards. The final method selection should be based on the volume of potentially impacted

soil. In general, risk assessment applications become increasingly attractive as a direct

proportion to the volume of impacted soil. The basis for determining risk -based standards is

presented in the proposed ADEC 18 AAC 75 regulations. If remediation includes excavation,

impacted soil should be disposed using thermal processing.

Additional characterization sampling is a critical component of this site's integrated

remediation strategy. Characterization sample results will be used to delineate the lateral

extent of impacted soil and otherwise support the final remediation method selection. Sample

locations will be determined using field screening methods. Four soil samples should be

sufficient to characterize the area.

5.4.4 Cost Estimate

Because the lateral extent of contamination has not been defined at this site, it is assumed that

contamination extends to a maximum 15-foot. The cost estimate for remediation of site 92 is

based on the following additional assumptions:

• Four samples will be collected and analyzed to determine the appropriate remediation

action.

• For the purposes of this discussion, it is assumed that selective excavation is required to

achieve project ARARs at Site 92.

• Soil excavation is conducted to a depth of 4 feet bgs, resulting m removal of


DRAFT/Rev. 0 12/11/97

5-12 AKT -J07 -05M31 0-102-000 I

approximately 30 cy, or 45 tons, of soil.


• Contaminated soils will be thermally treated off site.

• Seven confirmation and QC/QA soil samples will be collected and analyzed for SVOCs.

• Excavation activity will take one day to complete.

• The work will be performed in conjunction with remediation at Sites 30 and 73.

Therefore, no additional mobilization or demobilization costs will apply.

Based on these assumptions, the ROM estimated cost for remediation of Site 92 is $19,000.


DRAFT/Rev. 0 12/11/97

5-13 AKT -107 -05M31 0-102-0001


DRAFT/Rev. 0 12/11197


5-14 AKT -107 -05M31 0-102-0001

5.5 SITE 57

5.5.1 Site History

Site 57 consists of a dry well and former drum storage area at Building 628. Building 628

was initially constructed as a boat shop, and served that capacity until approximately 1996.

Between 1996 and 1997, the structure was used as a general vehicle maintenance and storage

facility. The LRl was directed at evaluating the environmental impact from two former

practices: disposal of solvents and waste POL in a dry well, and storage of solvents and POL

in drums along the structure's north exterior wall. It was reported that solvents are no longer

used on the premises.

5.5.2 Site Summary

Field activities conducted as part of the Site 57 LRl include a geophysical survey, drilling

three soil borings, collecting soil samples, and field screening.

The geophysical survey verified a magnetic anomaly in the suspected dry well location. A

soil boring was drilled adjacent to the dry well to evaluate the surrounding soil conditions.

Results of the soil sample analyses indicated the presence ofBTEX, GRO, DRO, RRO, VOC,

SVOC, and metal constituents in the soil samples. Soil samples associated with the dry well

evaluation contained maximum concentrations of 16 ppm DRO, 0.5 ppm total BTEX, 0.026

ppm total OCP, 0.14 ppm total SVOCs, and non-detectable GRO, RRO, and PCBs. These

concentrations are below applicable ARARs.

In comparison, surface soil samples contained COPC concentrations of non-detectable to 12

ppm GRO, 46 ppm to 85 ppm DRO, non-detectable to 120 ppm RRO, 0.71 ppm to 11.62 ppm

total BTEX, 0.0049 ppm chloroform, and 6.55 ppm to 7.78 ppm total SVOCs. The

concentrations of the SVOC constituent benzo(a)pyrene in two of the three surface samples

exceed the most stringent risk-based ADEC standard. In addition, the 47.8 ppm arsenic

measured in the third sample exceeds the maximum background level by a factor of 2, and is

greater than the corresponding ADEC and EPA risk-based standards.

Based on the Site 57 LRl, COPC concentrations exceed risk-based ARARs and additional

remediation may be required to achieve a no further action status. The recommended


DRAFT/Rev. 0 12/11197

5-15 AKT -107 -05M31 0-102-000 I

remedial action consists of selective excavation along the north side of Building 628. The

estimated cost ofthis option is $61,000.


Remediation at Site 57 should address elevated SVOC and arsenic concentrations in the

surface soils located directly north of the existing structure. Based on the anticipated volume

of impacted soil and the proximity of the potentially impacted soil to the site's surface,

selective excavation is likely the best remedial solution with respect to feasibility,

effectiveness, and cost. Modeling is not appropriate for soil contaminated by either arsenic or

SVOCs since measured concentrations exceed the standards for both migration to

groundwater and soil ingestion exposure pathways.

Because soils containing arsenic and SVOCs are deposed separately, two distinct excavations

are required. The first excavation should be initiated by removing visibly discolored soil

located north of Building 628. This excavation should have a minimum depth of 1 foot, and

should be advanced to remove soil that exhibits indications of contamination. Excavated soil

that is potentially impacted with SVOCs can be disposed by thermal treatment. In contrast,

thermal processing will not reduce concentrations of arsenic or other metals in the impacted

soil. Alternatively, this soil should be disposed of at a landfill or other appropriate land

application method. At the conclusion of excavating activities, confirmation soil sampling

should be conducted at each excavation area in accordance with applicable ADEC regulations.

Because the present field effort did not delineate the lateral and vertical extent of

contamination, additional sample collection is an important component in the integrated

remediation strategy. These samples should be collected prior to implementation of remedial

activities, such that the data can be used to justify the selected methods for this site. The

recommended selective excavation alternative may not be appropriate for large volumes of

impacted soil, extensive vertical contamination, or if the data validation process indicates that

existing data are not useable.

Based on the laboratory results for the soil borings, no additional remediation work is

recommended for subsurface soils in the dry well vicinity. It is recommended, however, that

the dry well and all associated drain lines be permanently sealed.


DRAFT/Rev. 0 12/11/97

5-16 AK.T -J07-05M31 0-102-0001

5.5.4 Cost Estimate

The ROM cost estimate for remediation of Site 57 includes the following assumptions:

• Additional characterization samples will include six surface samples and two subsurface

samples. Two test pits will be required to collect the subsurface samples at depths of 5

and 10 feet bgs.

• The area of contaminated soils requiring excavation is approximately 960 square feet.

• Soils will be excavated to an average depth of 2 feet bgs, resulting in a volume of

approximately 70 cy, or 105 tons, of excavated soil.


• Seven confirmation and QC/QA soil samples will be collected and analyzed for SVOCs

and arsenic.

• The excavation and additional investigation will require two days to complete.

• Excavated soil potentially contaminated with SVOCs only will be treated off site using

thermal processing. Excavated soil containing elevated arsenic levels only will be

disposed at a landfill or other appropriate facility.

• The work will be performed in conjunction with remediation at Sites 30 and 73.

Therefore, no additional mobilization or demobilization costs will apply.

Based on these assumptions, the ROM cost estimate for remediation of Site 57 is $61,000.


DRAFT/Rev. 0 12/11/97

5-17 AK.T -J07-05M31 O-J02-0001


DRAFT/Rev. 0 12/11/97


5-18 AKT-J07-05M31 O-J02-0001

6.0 PRIORITY AREA 1 SITES

Priority Area 1 parcels that were evaluated in 1997 include Sites 52, 130, and 135. The LRI

findings for these sites are summarized in the following subsections.

6.1 SITE 52

6.1.1 Site History

Site 52 is a former waste storage area located east of Building 627. The wastes, which

included POL, acetone, damaged lead-acid batteries, empty aerosol cans, and antifreeze, were

stored on a single row of pallets placed in the southeast comer of the fenced yard. In July

1997, no indications of past storage practices were evident in the specified location.

6.1.2 Site Summary

Two test pits and one surface sample were excavated/collected to evaluate potential releases

from drums, damaged batteries, and other waste containers.

No indications of contamination were observed during the field activities. Laboratory

analyses, however, confirmed the presence of GRO, DRO, RRO, BTEX, VOC, and lead

constituents in the soil samples. Reported concentrations included non-detectable to 3.8 ppm

GRO, non-detectable to 465 ppm DRO, non-detectable to 920 ppm RRO, non-detectable to

0.0038 ppm chloroform, non-detectable to 0.019 ppm total BTEX, 6.76 ppm to 16.2 ppm

lead, and non-detectable SVOCs. One sample also contained 0.011 ppm methylene chloride.

The soil from three of the five sampling locations contained DRO concentrations that exceed

one or more of the project's ARARs. All other COPC concentrations were below the

applicable standards or were believed to be attributable to laboratory contamination. Because

field screening did not indicate the presence of COPCs, the extent of impacted soil was not

defined.

Based on the LRI field investigation, surface and subsurface soils at this site may be impacted

with POL. Appropriate remediation methods include selective excavation and/or a risk-based

site evaluation. The best alternative for this will be determined after the extent of impacted

soil has been defined. Assuming that the excavation option is selected, the estimated cost to

remediate this site is $24,000.

ort Greely Technical Memorandwn

DRAFT/Rev. 0 12/11197

6-1 AKT-J07-05M3LO-J02-000L


Remediation at Site 52, if warranted, will be designed to treat soils impacted with DRO.

Based on the expectation that impacted soil is contained within ten feet bgs, excavation and

thermal treatment is a practical and cost effective method of remediating this site. Assuming

that the impacted soil encompasses a lateral area of 200 square feet and does not extend

deeper than 10 feet bgs, this approach will generate less than 80 cy of potentially impacted

soil. Additional characterization efforts to delineate lateral and vertical extents of impacted

soil may facilitate a more accurate calculation of the required excavation volume.

A risk-based evaluation may be a viable alternative to active remediation. If the ADEC's

proposed 18 AAC 75 regulations are followed, the site conditions and DRO concentrations

can be reviewed to determine the appropriate risk-based standard for this site. This effort

would include limited modeling to verify that the existing concentrations do not pose a threat

to the underlying water table, thereby eliminating the soil-to-groundwater migration pathway.

Because the present DRO concentrations are below the second-most stringent standard, active

remediation would not be required at Site 52. Note that the application of this approach will

require a departure from the existing ADEC matrix category method of determining the

appropriate cleanup levels.

6.1.4 Cost Estimate

Remediation at Site 52 will likely require either excavation of impacted soil or a limited

modeling effort. Based on the estimated volume of potentially impacted soil, the two

methods' costs are anticipated to be comparable. For the purposes of this document, only the

excavation costs are presented. The following assumptions were used to develop the Site 52

remediation cost estimate.

• Soil excavation is required to a depth of 10 feet bgs over an area of approximately 200

square feet. The excavation will generate 80 cy, or 120 tons, of impacted material.


• The soils will be thermally remediated off site.

• Seven confirmation and QC/QA soil samples will be collected and analyzed for DRO.


DRAFT/Rev. 0 12/11/97

6-2 AKT -J07-05M31 0-102-000 I

• Excavation will require one day to complete and will be performed in conjunction with

work at Sites 30 and 73.

Based on these assumptions, the ROM cost for Site 52 remediation is $24,000.

ort Greely Technical Memorandum DRAFT/Rev. 0 12/11/97

6-3 AKT -J07 -05M31 O-J02-000 1

art Greely Technical Memorandum

DRAFT/Rev. 0 12111/97


6-4 AKT -J07-05M31 O-J02-0001

6.2 SITE 130

6.2.1 Site History

Site 130 is a former underground storage tank (UST) excavation at Building 626. The date of

tank installation was not determined, although it is known that Building 626 was constructed

in 1978. Activities conducted within the structure have historically generated waste oil,

antifreeze, and solvents. An oil drain line was previously used to dispose oil and solvents into

a 300 gallon UST formerly located south of the building. The UST was reportedly removed

prior to 1988.

6.2.2 Site Summary

The LRI at Site 130 was directed at evaluating the soils in the vicinity of the former waste oil

UST. Field activities included drilling two soil borings, collecting analytical soil samples,

and field screening.


analyses, however, confirmed the presence ofDRO, RRO, VOC, and metal constituents in the

soil samples. Reported COPC concentrations included 230 ppm to 640 ppm DRO, 300 ppm

to 1,100 ppm RRO, 5.8 ppm to 170 ppm methylene chloride, and non-detectable GRO and

PCBs. One sample contained detectable BTEX, with a reported concentration of 0.71 ppm

total BTEX. The measured metals concentrations are consistent with background levels, with

the exception of cadmium. One sample contained 1.09 ppm cadmium, approximately 2.8

times the highest measured background concentration.

Based on the LRI field investigation, subsurface soils impacted with POL constituents are

present at this site. Soil samples recovered from each location contained DRO concentrations

that exceed one or more of the project's ARARs. All other COPC concentrations were below

the applicable standards or were believed to be attributable to laboratory contamination.

Because field screening did not indicate the presence of COPCs, the lateral extent of impacted

soil was not defined.

A risk-based site evaluation (SESOIL Modeling) is recommended to determine the

appropriate risk-based standards for the site, and to determine whether active remediation is

required to achieve a no further action status. Additional investigation activities are necessary


DRAFT/Rev. 0 12/11197

6-5 AKT-J07-05M310-J02-0001

to define parameters to be used in the risk-based evaluation. If required, the recommended

remedial action consists of installing an in-situ bioventing system. The estimated cost for

performance of additional investigation and SESOIL modeling is $54,000.


Remediation at Site 130 should address elevated DRO concentrations in subsurface soils

located south of the building structure, in the former waste oil UST excavation. Due to the

depth of impacted soil and the location of the affected area adjacent to Building 626, selective

excavation does not appear to be a practical remediation solution. An in-situ treatment system

to enhance intrinsic remediation may therefore be the best technology for this site. A

bioventing system would increase natural degradation rates by aerating the subsurface soil.

Due to the recalcitrant nature of DRO compounds, however, an in-situ treatment method

likely will require at least 5 years to achieve the desired concentration reduction.

A risk-based evaluation may also be pursued as an alternative to active remediation. Using

the ADEC's proposed 18 AAC 75 regulations, subsurface conditions and DRO concentrations

at Site 130 can be reviewed to determine the appropriate risk-based standard. This effort

would entail limited modeling to verify that the existing concentrations do not pose a threat to

the underlying water table, thereby eliminating the soil-to-groundwater migration pathway.


remediation may not be required at Site 130. Note that the application of this approach will



Collection of additional data is an important component of either a risk-based or active

treatment remediation strategy. In particular, soil sampling is necessary to define the extent of

lateral and vertical contamination. These data will be used to determine the relative cost

effectiveness of the two proposed remediation methods, and to design a potential in-situ

treatment system. Furthermore, if characterization sample results indicate that the extent of

impacted soil is limited, the feasibility of remediation using selective excavation may be

reassessed.


DRAFT/Rev. 0 12/11/97

6-6 AKT -J07 -05M31 0-JOZ-000 1

6.2.4 Cost Estimate

It is assumed that additional investigation and a risk-based evaluation is a more cost-effective

and feasible remediation approach than bioventing. The following assumptions were used to

develop the Site 130 remediation cost estimate.

• Two borings drilled to 30 feet bgs and one boring drilled to 60 feet bgs will be sufficient

to characterize the vertical and horizontal extent ofDRO contamination.

• Eleven soil samples and QC/QA samples will be collected and selectively analyzed for

DRO, total organic carbon (TOC), heterotrophic plate count (HPC), oil-degrading bacteria

(ODB), and grain size.

• A SESOIL model will be performed.

• Drilling work will take three days to complete and will be performed in conjunction with

remediation at Sites 30 and 73 so that additional mobilization and demobilization costs do

not apply.

Based on these assumptions, the ROM estimated cost for Site 130 remediation is $54,000.

ort Greely Technical Memorandum

DRAFT/Rev. 0 12/11/97

6-7 AKT -J07 -05M31 O-J02-000I

ort Greely Technical Memorandum DRAFT/Rev. 0 12/11/97


6-8 AK.T -J07-05M31 0-102-000 l

6.3 SITE 135

6.3.1 Site History

Site 135 consists of a dry well associated with Building 612. A 1953 as-built drawing shows

the position of a battery storage room near the building's southeast comer. A drain line

pictured in the center of the battery storage room extends due east to an unknown location

outside the structure's east wall.

6.3.2 Site Summary

Field activities conducted as part of the Site 135 LRI included a geophysical survey, drilling

one soil boring, collecting soil samples, and field screening.

The geophysical survey identified a magnetic anomaly about 6 feet due east of Building 612.

A soil boring was drilled adjacent to this location to verify the presence of the dry well and to

evaluate subsurface soil conditions. During drilling, the dry well was exposed along the

borehole's sidewall. Based on the curvature of the exposed concrete, the soil boring was

positioned inside the well.

No indications of contamination were observed during the drilling and sampling activities.

Laboratory analyses, however, confirmed the presence of individual VOC constituents and

lead in the subsurface soil. The two samples recovered from the soil borings contained

concentrations of up to 0.0057 ppm methylene chloride, 0.0044 ppm chloroform, and 0.016

ppm toluene. These levels are below corresponding ARARs. In comparison, the reported

lead concentrations of 324 ppm and 212 ppm conform to the EPA risk-based standards, but

potentially exceed the applicable RCRA standard. Because field screening did not indicate

the presence of COPCs, the lateral and vertical extent of impacted soil were not defined.

Based on the LRI field investigation, additional remediation may be required at Site 135. A

TCLP lead analysis of lead is being performed to determine if concentrations exceed the

RCRA standard. Depending on the anticipated future site use, treatment of subsurface soil

containing a hazardous substance will require a risk assessment or excavation and disposal as

a hazardous waste. The estimated cost for the TCLP analysis is $1,200.


DRAFT/Rev. 0 12/11/97

6-9 AKT -J07 -05M31 0-102-000 I


Remediation at Site 135, if warranted, should address elevated lead concentrations in the

subsurface soil. The appropriate action is dependent on the intended future site use and the

soil's regulatory status. To determine the regulatory status, a TCLP lead analysis was

requested for an existing sample. Results of this test have not been received.

The in-place soil does not exceed ARARs, even if the leachable lead concentration exceeds

the RCRA standard. If the subsurface soils are not disturbed, then no further action is

required at this site. Depending on the TCLP results, the subsurface soils may be classified as

hazardous waste if excavated. Hazardous wastes generated through excavation must be

disposed at an approved hazardous waste processing facility.

In this context, institutional controls are recommended for Site 135. Because the lead

concentrations would exceed RCRA standards, and not risk-based ARARs, a risk assessment

is not appropriate for this site. The institutional control will facilitate a conditional no further

action status. Impacted soil that is excavated at a later date would require the appropriate

disposal.

6.3.4 Cost Estimate

The cost for the TCLP analysis recommended above is approximately $1,200. This figure

includes coordination with the laboratory and evaluation of the results. If a hazardous waste

is generated through excavation, disposal costs will be about $3,000 percy of material.

art Greely Technical Memorandum DRAFT/Rev. 0 12/11/97

6-10 AKT -J07-05M31 0-102-0001


Priority Area 2 parcels that were evaluated in 1997 include Sites 53, 54, and 55. The LRI

findings at these sites are summarized in the following subsections.

7.1 SITE 53

7.1.1 Site History

Site 53 is located at Building 650. A drum of PCB-containing oil was reportedly stored on

site in 1978, and used to lubricate arts and crafts machinery inside Building 650.

In July 1997, no visual evidence of impacted soil or distressed vegetation was observed

outside the building. Similarly, no oil stains or evidence of oil use was apparent within the

structure's arts and crafts shop. It was reported that oil had formerly been used to lubricate a

rock-cutting saw. The shop's one saw was removed in 1993. Since 1993, the shop's interior

has been remodeled and painted. Based on this information, the wipe samples were removed

from the field program.

7.1.2 Site Summary

Four surface samples were collected at site 53 to evaluate the potential presence of PCBs in

the soil. No indications of contamination were observed during the field activities.

Laboratory analyses confirmed that PCB constituents were not detectable in the soil samples.

However, each sample contained detectable OCP constituents, with measured concentrations

ranging from 0.018 ppm to 0.198 ppm total OCPs. The reported concentrations for each of

the six discrete OCP constituents are below the project's ARARs. Based on the LRI field

investigation, surface soils are not impacted with PCBs and no further action is recommended

for the site.


Based on the LRI field investigation, COPC concentrations do not exceed applicable

standards. No additional characterization or corrective action activities are recommended for

Site 53.

Fort Greely Technical Memoraandwn

DRAFT/Rev. 0 12/11/97

7-1 AKT -J07-05M31 0-102-000 I

7.1.4 Cost Estimate

The remediation cost estimate for Site 53 is $0.

Fort Greely Technical Memoraandum

DRAFT/Rev. 0 12/11/97

7-2 AKT -J07-05M31 0-102-000 I

7.2 SITE 54

7.2.1 Site History

Site 54 consists of a former aboveground storage tank (AST) vault and dry well at Building

675. Building 675 has historically been used as a dry cleaning facility. A 1962 as-built

plumbing drawing depicts a dry well near the building's northeast comer, approximately 10

feet east of the mechanical room. The top of the well is shown approximately 7 feet beneath

grade.

The plumbing diagram indicates that a solvent interceptor in the building drains to a "dirty

solvent tank," which is assumed to be the dirty solvent tank formerly located in the AST vault.

Drawings dated April and November 1970 show planned renovations to the solvent tank

vault, which extended to a depth of 9 feet bgs. These renovations were reportedly

implemented in the early 1970s, and consisted of replacing three ASTs with two 750-gallon

ASTs. The tanks were removed prior to completion of the EBS in 1996. In July 1997, no

evidence of the vault was observed.

7.2.2 Site Summary

Field activities conducted as part of the Site 54 LRI include excavating one test pit, drilling

two soil borings, collecting analytical soil samples, and field screening to evaluate the

subsurface soils surrounding the former AST vault. Due to utility conflicts, the planned

geophysical survey and other activities to evaluate the dry well were not performed.

No indications of contamination were observed during the field effort. Laboratory analyses

did indicate the presence of VOC constituents in the three analytical soil samples, with

maximum reported concentrations of 0.0037 ppm toluene, 0.0038 ppm chloroform, 0.0047

ppm trichloroethene, and 0.0039 ppm total tetrachloroethanes. These concentrations are

below the corresponding ADEC and EPA risk-based ARARs. Therefore, no additional

characterization or corrective action is recommended for the AST vault.

Fort Greely Technical Memoraandwn DRAFT/Rev. 0 12/11/97

7-3 AKT -J07 -05M31 O-J02-000 1


Based on the LRI field investigation, site-specific COPC concentrations do not exceed

applicable ARARs. No additional characterization or corrective action activities are

recommended for Site 54.

7 .2.4 Cost Estimate



DRAFT/Rev. 0 12/11/97

7-4 AKT -J07 -05M31 0-102-0001

7.3 SITE 55

7.3.1 Site History

Site 55 is located at Building 670, a vehicle maintenance and heavy equipment shop. The LRI

effort for Site 55 was conducted to evaluate three dry wells associated with the facility and oil

stains within the building.

A 1968 dry well as-built drawing depicts a single dry well system located directly east of

Building 670. A 2-inch pipe connects a floor drain to the dry well, which is positioned 11 feet

due east ofthe building, at a depth of 11 feet bgs. The well is constructed from two perforated

oil drums with the bottoms out. Based on the size of a standard 55-gallon drum, the well is

assumed to have a total length of 6 feet, with the base positioned 17 feet bgs. The floor drain

was not observed in Building 670.

A second dry well is shown in a 1972 valve box construction plan. As pictured, a dry well

was incorporated into the design to drain water that accumulated in the base of a concrete

basin. The position of the valve box and associated dry well was verified during the LRI. A

sump pump was positioned within the well, with a discharge pipe terminating directly outside

the structure's north wall.

7.3.2 Site Summary

Field activities conducted as part of the Site 55 LRI included a geophysical survey, excavating

a test pit, drilling soil borings, collecting soil samples, and field screening.

The geophysical survey was conducted at the east and west ends of Building 670. The

suspected well near the building's east end was verified 20 feet from the structure's wall. In

addition, the survey indicated the presence of a second well 18 feet directly west of the

structure. The geophysical survey did not address the third well, which was observed inside

Building 670.


analyses, however, confirmed the presence ofDRO, RRO, and BTEX constituents in the soil

samples. Soil samples associated with the interior dry well's pump discharge pipe contained

maximum COPC concentrations of 17 ppm DRO, 0.075 ppm toluene, 0.45 ppm ethylbenzene,


DRAFT/Rev. 0 12/11197

7-5 AK.T -J07 -05M31 O-J02-000 I

and non-detectable GRO and SVOCs. These concentrations are below the corresponding

ARARs.

In comparison, the samples recovered adjacent to the exterior dry wells contained COPC

concentrations of 250 ppm to 530 ppm DRO, 380 ppm to 720 ppm RRO, 0.26 ppm to 0.48

ppm ethylbenzene, and non-detectable GRO and SVOCs. These DRO concentrations exceed

the most stringent ADEC standards, based on both soil matrix cleanup guidelines and

proposed risk-based regulations. The remaining COPC concentrations are below the

applicable standards or are assumed to be attributable to laboratory contamination. In

addition, each project sample contained metals concentrations that were within the range of

background levels established for this site. Because field screening did not indicate the

presence of COPCs, the lateral and vertical extent of impacted soil was not defined.

Based on the LRI field investigation, subsurface soils impacted with POL constituents are

present at this site. A risk-based site evaluation is recommended to determine the appropriate

standards for the site, and to determine whether active remediation is required to achieve a no

further action status. If required, the recommended remedial action consists of installing an

in-situ bioventing system. The estimated cost of additional investigation and a risk-based site

evaluation (SESOIL) is $83,000.


Remediation at Site 55 should address elevated DRO concentrations in the subsurface near

two dry wells. At a minimum, the impacted soil in each area extends between the interval of

10 feet and 22 feet bgs. Due to the depth of impacted soil and the location of the affected area

adjacent to Building 670, selective excavation is an impractical and expensive remediation

solution. An in-situ treatment system to enhance intrinsic remediation may be the best

technology for this site. A bioventing system can be used to aerate the soil and increase

natural degradation rates. Due to the recalcitrant nature of DRO compounds, an in-situ

treatment method likely will require at least 5 years to achieve the desired concentration

reduction.



at Site 55 can be reviewed to determine the appropriate risk-based standard. This effort would

entail limited modeling to verify that the existing concentrations do not pose a threat to the


DRAFT/Rev. 0 12/11197

7-6 AKT -J07 -05M31 0-102-000 I

underlying water table, thereby eliminating the soil-to-groundwater migration pathway.


remediation may not be required at Site 55. Note that the application of this approach will




treatment remediation strategy for this site. In particular, soil sampling is necessary to define

the extent of lateral and vertical contamination. These data will be used to determine the

relative cost-effectiveness of the two proposed remediation methods, and to design a potential

in-situ treatment system. If additional characterization sampling indicates that the extent of


reassessed.

7.3.4 Cost Estimate

It is assumed that additional investigation and risk-based evaluation will be more cost

effective and feasible than bioventing. The following assumptions have been used to develop

the cost for this remediation method.

• Four borings drilled to 30 feet bgs and two borings drilled to 60 feet bgs will be sufficient

to characterize the vertical and horizontal extent ofDRO contamination.

• Nineteen soil samples and QC/QA samples will be collected and selectively analyzed for

DRO, TOC, HPC, ODB, and grain size.


• Drilling work will require six days to complete and will be performed in conjunction with

remediation at Sites 30 and 73 so that additional mobilization and demobilization costs do

not apply.



DRAFT/Rev. 0 12/11/97

7-7 AKT -107 -05M31 0-102-000 I


DRAFT/Rev. 0 12/11197


7-8 AKT-J07-05M310-J02-0001


Priority Area 3 parcels that were evaluated in 1997 include Sites 101, 103, and 121. The LRl

findings for each site are summarized in the following subsections.

8.1 SITE 101

8.1.1 Site History

Site 101 is a former UST excavation. The 1,000-gallon UST was installed in January 1964 to

store heating oil for Building 144. A leak in the distribution line was reportedly discovered in

1995 during a tank removal and replacement project. The soils surrounding the former UST

were not evaluated at the time of removal.

8.1.2 Site Summary

Field activities conducted as part of the Site 101 LRl included excavating one test pit, drilling

two soil borings, collecting analytical soil samples, and field screening. The test pit was

excavated to evaluate soil conditions beneath the distribution piping, and the soil borings were

drilled in the former tank excavation to evaluate subsurface conditions beneath the former

UST.


analyses, however, confirmed the presence of GRO, DRO, RRO, BTEX, and VOC

constituents in the soil samples. Reported COPC concentrations include non-detectable to 11

ppm GRO, 120 ppm to 560 ppm DRO, 87 ppm to 1,300 ppm RRO, 0.25 ppm to 0.59 ppm

total BTEX, and non-detectable SVOCs. In addition, the one sample analyzed for VOCs

contained 1.3 ppm methylene chloride with no other detectable VOC constituents.

The DRO concentration in each of the seven samples collected beneath the former UST and

distribution line exceed the ADEC's most stringent soil matrix cleanup standards. Six of the

reported concentrations also exceed the most stringent proposed ADEC risk-based standard.

The other COPC concentrations are below the applicable standards or are assumed to be

attributable to laboratory contamination.


DRAFT/Rev. 0 12/11197

8-1 AKT -J07 -05M31 0-102-000 I

A risk-based site evaluation is recommended to determine the appropriate risk-based

standards for the site, and to determine whether active remediation is required to achieve a no

further action status. If required, the recommended remedial action consists of installing an

in-situ bioventing system. For cost-estimating purposes, the more likely and less expensive

alternative of additional assessment and limited risk-based modeling is assumed to be

sufficient. The estimated cost of this option is $54,000.


Remediation at Site 101 should address impacted soil located beneath the former heating oil

UST and associated piping. Due to the depth of impacted soil, selective excavation does not

appear to be a practical remediation solution. An in-situ treatment system to enhance intrinsic

remediation may be the best technology for this site. A bioventing system serves to aerate the

subsurface soil and increase natural degradation. Due to the recalcitrant nature of DRO

compounds, however, an in-situ treatment method likely will require at least 5 years to

achieve the desired concentration reduction.




would entail limited modelling 'to verify that the existing concentrations do not pose a threat



remediation may not be required at this site. Note that the application of this approach will




treatment remediation strategy for this site. In particular, soil sampling is necessary to define

the extent of lateral and vertical contamination. These data will be used to determine the

relative cost-effectiveness ofthe two proposed remediation methods, and to design a potential

in-situ treatment system. If additional characterization sampling indicates that the extent of


reassessed.

Fort Greely Technical Memorandwn DRAFT/Rev. 0 12/11197

8-2 AKT -107 -05M31 0-102-000 1

8.1.4 Cost Estimate

It is assumed that additional investigation and a risk-based evaluation for this site is a more

cost-effective and feasible remediation method than bioventing. The following assumptions

have been used to develop the Site 101 cost estimate.

• Two borings drilled to 30 feet bgs and one boring drilled to 60 feet bgs will be sufficient

to characterize the vertical and horizontal extent of DRO contamination.

• Eleven soil samples and QC/QA samples will be collected and selectively analyzed for

DRO, TOC, HPC, ODB, and grain size.


• The drilling work will require three day to complete and will be performed in conjunction

with the remediation at Site 30 and 73, therefore, no additional mobilization or

demobilization costs will apply.



DRAFT/Rev. 0 12/11197

8-3 AKT -J07 -05M31 O-J02-000I



8-4 AKT -J07 -05M31 O-J02-000 I

8.2 SITE 103

8.2.1 Site History

Site 103 is located on the parcel formerly occupied by Building 157, a laundry and dry

cleaning facility. In July 1997, the site was observed to be flat and generally clear of debris.

A standpipe was noted at a location that appeared to correspond with the former building's

east wall.

8.2.2 Site Summary

Field activities conducted as part of the Site 103 LRI included a geophysical survey,

excavating three test pits, drilling four soil borings, collecting analytical soil samples, and

field screening. While drilling the fourth soil boring, one of the USTs was inadvertently

punctured, and an unknown volume of product was released to the subsurface soil.

The invasive field activities were conducted to evaluate potential contaminant sources

identified by the geophysical survey. Three distinct areas were assessed using test pits and

soil borings. Buried items encountered at the three locations included a section of concrete

foundation and two USTs. To evaluate the soils surrounding the USTs, samples were

recovered from the borings at depths within 5 feet below the suspected UST bottoms.

Laboratory analyses indicated that the three samples contained COPC concentrations of 530

ppm to 2,700 ppm DRO, less than 1,250 ppm to 1,950 ppm RRO, non-detectable to 20 ppm

GRO, 0.26 ppm to 0.32 ppm ethylbenzene, non-detectable to 0.49 ppm xylenes, 0.25 to 0.36

ppm total VOCs, and non-detectable PCBs. These results are not affected by the 1997

product release, as the samples were collected prior to the tank puncture. Each sample was

also tested for RCRA metals. Measured concentrations for each metal except barium were

within the range of background levels. The maximum reported barium concentration of 319

ppm exceeds the highest background concentration by a factor of3.

Based on the analytical results, the subsurface soils at Site 103 contain concentrations of DRO

that exceed one or more of the project ARARs. A two-stage remediation approach is

recommended to address the impacted soils. First, the two USTs should be removed and

closed in accordance with applicable ADEC regulations. If residual contamination remains

following the UST removals, a risk-based site evaluation or in-situ bioventing remediation


DRAFT/Rev. 0 12/11197

8-5 AKT-J07-05M31 O-J02-000I

system may be required to achieve a no further action status. The estimated cost of this option

is $175,000.

8.2.3 Remediation Alternatives and Recommendations

Remediation at Site 103 should address elevated DRO concentrations in the subsurface soils

associated with two USTs. A two-step process is recommended to achieve site cleanup. The

first step is to remove the USTs and perform a closure assessment in accordance with ADEC

regulations. To the extent practical, impacted soil should be removed and disposed using

thermal processing. A minimum of two confirmation soil samples should be collected from

each tank excavation.

The second step should be based on the confirmation sample results. If necessary, additional

remediation efforts may be required to address residual DRO in the tank excavations.

Methods to achieve cleanup may include bioventing and/or a risk-based evaluation. A

bioventing system serves to aerate the subsurface soil and increase natural degradation. Due

to the recalcitrant nature of DRO compounds, however, an in-situ treatment method likely

will require at least 5 years to achieve the desired concentration reduction.




would entail limited modelling to verify that the existing concentrations do not pose a threat



remediation may not be required at this site. Note that the application of this approach will



It is emphasized that the 1997 field effort did not define the extent of contamination. If field

observations during the tank removals indicate extensive subsurface contamination, an effort

should be made at that time to delineate the impacted soil's lateral and vertical dimensions.


DRAFT/Rev. 0 12/11/97

8-6 AKT -J07 -05M31 0-102-000 I

8.2.4 Cost Estimate

The ROM cost estimate for remediation of Site 103 includes the following assumptions:

• The two USTs will be removed from the ground, inerted and cut up for disposal as scrap.

• Both USTs are empty.

• Soil excavation will extend to 15 feet bgs over an area of approximately 1500 square feet.

Therefore, a total of approximately 800 cy of soil will require removal.

• Impacted soil that is excavated during the tank removals will be treated off site using

thermal processing.

• Twelve soil samples and QC/QA samples will be collected and selectively analyzed for

DROIRRO, TOC, HPC, ODB, and grain size.

• Local fill material will be available.

• A SESOIL Model will be prepared.

• All work will be performed in conjunction with remediation at Sites 30 and 73, so that

additional mobilization and demobilization costs will not apply. The UST removal and

excavation work will require three days to complete.



DRAFT/Rev. 0 !2/11197

8-7 AKT-J07-05M310-J02-000 I


DRAFT/Rev. 0 12/11/97


8-8 AKT -J07 -05M31 O-J02-000 I

8.3 SITE 121

8.3.1 Site History

Site 121 is a former helicopter fueling pad located adjacent to Allen Air Field. At least two

spill events have been documented at this site. In January 1981, approximately 200 gallons of

JP-4 fuel were discharged to the paved surface, spreading over an area of approximately 7,200

square feet. A smaller spill occurred in November 1981, when 15 to 20 gallons of JP-4 fuel

were released to the surface. Cleanup efforts following the releases were limited to removing

product from the surface and washing the pavement. Surface stains or other signs of the

former fuel releases were not evident in July 1997.

8.3.2 Site Summary

The field activities for the Site 121 LRI consisted of excavating two test pits, collecting soil

samples, and field screening.

Field screening did not indicate the presence of COPCs in the two test pits. Laboratory

analyses, however, indicated that the soil contained DRO, RRO, and BTEX constituents.

Reported COPC concentrations included 600 ppm to 6,600 ppm DRO, 830 ppm to 4,450 ppm

RRO, 0.21 ppm to 0.26 ppm ethylbenzene, and non-detectable GRO and SVOCs. The results

for DRO and RRO exceed both the ADEC Category A cleanup guideline and the most

stringent proposed ADEC risk-based standard. Furthermore, the incidence of elevated

concentrations indicate that impacted soil extends from the surface to at least 5.5 feet bgs.

Additional efforts to define the lateral and vertical extent of contamination were not

conducted.

Based on the LRI field investigation, remediation is likely required to achieve a no further

action status at Site 121. The recommended remedial action consists of selective excavation

followed by active remediation or a risk-based site evaluation, if necessary. The estimated

cost of this option is $930,000.


Remediation at Site 121 should address elevated DRO concentrations in the surface and

subsurface soils. A three-step process is recommended to accomplish cleanup standards. The


DRAFT/Rev. 0 12/11/97

8-9 AKT -107 -05M31 0-102-000 I

first step consists of sampling to delineate the extent of contamination. Five soil borings,

placed radially outward from the LRI test pits, should be sufficient to characterize the site.

Second, selective excavation should be implemented to remove impacted surface soil and

reduce exposure through soil contact or ingestion. At a minimum, the excavation should

extend to a uniform depth of 3 feet bgs. Depending on the characterization results, the

excavation may be advanced to a greater depth to completely remove the impacted material.

The recommended disposal method for the impacted soil is thermal processing.

Third, the appropriate action to address impacted subsurface soil will be determined and

implemented. If impacted soil extends below 10 feet bgs, excavation may be an impractical

or cost-prohibitive method of completing site cleanup. In this situation, the excavation effort

may be supplemented by an in-situ remediation technique or a risk-based site evaluation. If

active remediation is selected, bioventing is the recommended technology to treat the non

volatile DRO and RRO compounds. A bioventing system would increase natural degradation

rates by aerating the subsurface soil. Due to the recalcitrant nature of DRO and RRO

compounds, however, bioventing will likely require at least 5 years to achieve the desired

concentration reduction.

Alternatively, a risk-based evaluation may eliminate the need for active remediation. In

accordance with the ADEC's proposed 18 AAC 75 regulations, the subsurface conditions and

COPC concentrations at Site 121 can be reviewed to determine the appropriate risk-based

standard. This effort would entail limited modelling to verify that the existing concentrations

do not pose a threat to the underlying water table, thereby eliminating the soil-to-groundwater

exposure pathway.

8.3.4 Cost Estimate

The estimated cost for additional characterization, selective excavation of impacted soil, and

installation of a bioventing system is $930,000. This estimate is based on the following

assumptions:

• Soil excavation will extend to 3 feet bgs over an area of 7200 square feet. Therefore, a

total of approximately 800 cy of soil will be excavated.

• Impacted soil removed from the excavation will be disposed using thermal processing.


DRAFT/Rev. 0 12/11197

8-10 AKT -107 -05M31 0-102-000 I

• Four soil borings will be drilled to 300-feet bgs and one soil boring will be drilled to 60

feet bgs.

• Sixteen soil samples and QC/QA samples will be collected and selectively analyzed for

DROIRRO, TOC, HPC, ODB, and grain size.

• SVE remediation will be focused on the soils from 3 to 20 feet bgs. The cost estimate

includes provisions for design, installation, and start-up of system.

• Installation of 12 active SVE wells and 24 passive intake wells will be required.

• Two SVE modules with emission controls will be require.

• Local fill material will be available.


additional mobilization and demobilization costs will not apply.


DRAFT/Rev. 0 12/11197

8-11 AKT -J07 -05M3l 0:102-000 l


DRAFT/Rev. 0 12/11197


8-12 AKT-J07-05M31 0-102-000 I


Priority Area 4 parcels that were evaluated in 1997 include Sites 79, 80, and 86 through 89.

The SI findings for these sites are summarized in the following subsections.

9.1 SITE 79

9.1.1 Site History

Site 79 has been used as a firefighting training area. Between 1985 and 1990, POL and

solvents were reportedly used as fuel for the training exercises. Containment and disposal of

the ignition source(s) and combustion by-products were not specified. In July 1997, the site

was observed to be unpaved. Surface soils that lacked vegetation were used to identify the

areas oflikely use and/or potential COPC release.

9.1.2 Site Summary

Field activities conducted as part of the Site 79 SI included excavating two test pits, drilling

five soil borings, collecting analytical soil samples, and field screening.

Field screening indicated contamination in the surface and subsurface soil. Laboratory results

confirmed the presence of POL constituents in the near-surface soil, and BTEX, dioxin, and

furan constituents throughout the soil column to 27 feet bgs. Samples collected from 13

discrete locations contained total BTEX concentrations ranging from 0.22 ppm to 1.5 ppm,

and total dioxin and furan concentrations ranging from 8.96 parts per trillion (ppt) to 249 ppt.

The dioxin and furan results indicate increasing concentrations with depth, as the highest

levels were measured in a sample collected 25 to 27 feet bgs. Detectable concentrations of

other POL constituents were limited to near-surface samples collected from a single test pit.

Two samples contained GRO concentrations of 6.4 ppm and 150 ppm. The second of these

samples also contained 2,200 ppm DRO and 2,800 ppm RRO. Non-detectable DRO, RRO,

GRO, and SVOCs were reported for each of the remaining samples.

Because concentrations of POL and dioxin and furans exceed applicable standards, additional

remediation may be required to achieve a no further action status. The recommended

remedial action consists of conducting a risk assessment. The estimated cost of this option is

$124,000.


DRAFT/Rev. 0 12/11197

9-1 AKT-107 -05M31 0-102-000 I


Remediation at Site 79 should address elevated DRO, RRO, GRO, and dioxin concentrations

in the surface and subsurface soil. Although the POL contamination appears to be limited in

volume, excavation is not a cost-effective remediation alternative. Due to the dioxin,

excavated soil may require storage or disposal in accordance with TSCA regulations. In-situ

remediation techniques may be ineffective, due to the recalcitrant nature of the POL

constituents and the depth of the dioxin contamination.

The recommended remediation approach for this site is to perform a risk assessment. A tier I

assessment will be used to compare the measured concentrations to the appropriate risk-based

screening levels. Based on the screening process, modelling and other tier II and III risk

assessment activities will be performed. For the purposes of this document, it is assumed that

a full risk assessment is required to achieve a no further action status for Site 79.

9.1.4 Cost Estimate

The estimated cost to perform site modeling and tier II and III risk assessment activities is

$124,000.


9-2 AKT-J07-05M31 O-J02-000I

9.2 SITE 80

9.2.1 Site History

Site 80 consists of a concrete pad located in the Butternut Road firefighting training area. The

pad has reportedly been used to bum vehicles and other large objects. The pad has

deteriorated and cracks have exposed the underlying surface. A concrete berm extends along

the pad's north and south edges. No visible stains were evident on the pad, which had a

measured area of about 2,500 square feet.

9.2.2 Site Summary

Three test pits were excavated along the concrete pad's perimeter to evaluate potential impact

to the surface and subsurface soil. Although field screening did not indicate contamination,

laboratory analyses confirmed the presence of DRO, GRO, BTEX, SVOC, dioxin, and furan

constituents in the test pit soil samples. Concentrations of POL constituents included non

detectable to 3.75 ppm total BTEX, non-detectable to 3.47 ppm total SVOCs, non-detectable

to 18 ppm GRO, non-detectable to 74 ppm DRO, and non-detectable RRO. In addition, five

of the six project samples contained detectable dioxins and furans, with total concentrations

ranging from 0.58 ppt to 3,726 ppt The total dioxin and furan concentration in one sample

exceeds the applicable risk-based standard. All other COPC concentrations were below the

project ARARs.

Because dioxin and furan concentrations exceed applicable standards, additional remediation

may be required to achieve a no further action status. The recommended action for this site is

to excavate impacted surface soil. The estimated cost for this method is $1,069,000.


Remediation at Site 80 should address elevated dioxin concentrations in the near-surface

subsurface soil. Appropriate remediation approaches include risk assessment and excavation.

As the volume of impacted soil increases, risk assessment becomes more cost-efficient. For

the estimated volume of impacted soil ~t this site, risk assessment is cost-efficient, relative to

excavation. Due to the potential exposure pathway caused by soil contact and/or ingestion,

impacted surface soils may require excavation, regardless of whether a risk assessment is

performed. If the elevated dioxin concentrations are confined to the near-surface soil, as


DRAFT/Rev. 0 12/11197

9-3 AKT -J07 -05M31 0-JOZ-000 I

expected, selective excavation may be sufficient to completely remediate the site. All

excavated soil will have to be containerized and placed in an approved storage facility or

disposed off-site in accordance with applicable TSCA regulations.

9.2.4 Cost Estimate

The estimated cost to remediate Site 80 is $1,069,000. This estimate is based on the

assumption that the top three feet of soil in the impacted area are excavated and a risk

assessment is not performed. Additional assumptions used to develop the cost estimate are

listed below.

• Two days are required to excavate approximately 30 cy of soil and place the soil in 90

drums.

• A facility with an approved permit to treat and dispose of the dioxin/furan-impacted soil

will be available at the time of excavation, so that additional storage costs are not incurred.

• Soil disposal at the approved facility costs $21,000 percy.

• Six project and QC/QA samples will be selectively analyzed for dioxins/furans, SVOCs,

BTEX, TOC, HPC, ODB, and grain size.

A reduction in cost may be realized by conducting additional characterization sampling prior

to excavating. Sample results can be used to define the limits of contaminated soil and

minimize the volume of waste soil. In addition, less expensive storage and/or disposal

methods may be feasible.


DRAFT/Rev. 0 12/11197

9-4 AKT -J07 -05M31 0-JOZ-000 I

9.3 SITE 86

9.3.1 Site History

Site 86 consists of a concrete aeration pad located north of Evergreen Road. The pad has

reportedly been used since 1982 to aerate soils impacted with POL. In July 1997, the pad's

area was measured to be about 2,200 square feet. A concrete berm was observed on the

northwest, northeast, and southwest sides of the pad.

9.3.2 Site Summary

Test pits were used to evaluate the surface and subsurface soils around the aeration pad's

perimeter. Three test pits were located based on field screening and suspected water runoff

patterns.

GRO, DRO, RRO, SVOC, and BTEX constituents were detected in one or more of the project

samples. Reported concentrations ranged from non-detectable to 9.2 ppm GRO, non

detectable to 54 ppm DRO, non-detectable to 170 ppm RRO, 0.27 ppm to 0.51 ppm

ethylbenzene, and non-detectable to 0.36 ppm benzoic acid. None of the measured COPC

concentrations exceed project ARARs.

Based on the SI field investigation, no additional assessment or remediation activities are

required at Site 86.


The SI field investigation indicated that the surface and near-surface soils contain detectable

POL constituents. Based on a comparison of the reported concentrations with project

ARARs, additional remediation is not warranted. No further action is recommend for Site 86.

9.3.4 Cost Estimate



9-5 AKT -J07 -05M31 0-102-0001



9-6 AKT -107 -05M31 0-102-0001

9.4 SITE 87

9.4.1 Site History

Site 87 is a concrete aeration pad located south of Evergreen Road. The pad has reportedly

been used since 1982 to aerate soils impacted with POL. In July 1997, the pad's area was

measured to be about 2,300 square feet. A concrete berm was observed around the pad's

perimeter, but only extended along 2.5 of the 4 sides. The pad's south side and half of the

north side are not bermed to permit precipitation to run off the concrete. No evidence of

surface stains, distressed vegetation, or other indications of contamination were observed.

9.4.2 Site Summary

Three test pits were excavated along the concrete pad's perimeter to evaluate potential impact

to the surface and subsurface soil. The test pits were located based on field screening and

suspected surface water runoff patterns.

Field screening did not indicate contamination in the Site 87 soils. Laboratory analyses

confirmed the presence ofDRO, SVOC, and BTEX constituents in one or more of the project

samples. Reported COPC concentrations consisted of non-detectable to 21 ppm DRO, non

detectable to 0.51 ppm ethylbenzene, non-detectable to 0.51 ppm total SVOCs, and non

detectable GRO and RRO. None of the measured COPC concentrations exceed matrix or

risk-based ARARs.

Based on the SI field investigation, no additional assessment or remediation activities are

required at Site 87.


The SI field investigation indicated that the surface and near-surface soils contain detectable

POL constituents. Based on a comparison of the reported concentrations with project

ARARs, additional remediation is not warranted. No further action is recommended for Site

87.


9-7 AKT -J07 -05M31 0-102-000 I

9.4.4 Cost Estimate



DRAFT/Rev. 0 12111/97

9-8 AKT -J07 -05M31 O-J02-000 I

9.5 SITE 88

9.5.1 Site History

Site 88 is located on the parcel formerly occupied by Landfills 4 and 5. The landfills were

used in the 1960s to bury sanitary waste, metal, and ashes. The parcel presently serves as a

picnic area and skeet shooting range. No evidence of surface stains, distressed vegetation, or

other indications of contamination was observed.

9.5.2 Site Summary

Field work conducted as part of the Site 88 SI included a geophysical study, drilling soil

borings, collecting soil samples, and conducting field screening.

Results of the geophysical survey indicated 15 discrete magnetic anomalies at Site 88. Of

these, four were consistent with the presence of buried trenches, pits, and a large ferrous metal

mass. Based on these results, five soil borings were distributed in three areas outside the

suspected landfill trenches. Soil conditions observed during drilling verified that the borings

were placed in native material and did not penetrate former landfill deposits.

Laboratory results indicate that each soil sample recovered from the boreholes contained

pesticides, with concentrations of total OCPs ranging from 0.002 ppm to 0.015 ppm. In

addition, one sample contained 0.011 ppm chloroform and 79.1 ppt total dioxins and furans,

and one sample contained 4.6 ppm GRO. Non-detectable concentrations of DRO, RRO,

SVOCs, and PCBs were reported for each sample. The samples' metals concentrations were

generally within the range of background concentrations established for this project. The 149

ppm barium and 0.51 ppm selenium in one sample exceed the maximum background levels

by factors of about 1.4 and 3.2, respectively. None of the COPC concentrations exceed

project ARARs.

Based on field observations and analytical sample results, the subsurface soils in the vicinity

of the soil borings are not impacted with the site-specific COPCs. The soils likely to exhibit

the highest concentrations were not sampled, however, due to the placement of soil borings

outside the boundaries of the suspected landfills. Because the interior of the landfilled areas

was not evaluated, the present level of effort may not be sufficient to completely characterize


DRAFT/Rev. 0 12111/97

9-9 AKT -J07 -05M31 0-JOZ-000 I

the site. Additional investigation, including geophysical surveys and excavating test pits, is

recommended for Site 88. The estimated cost to complete these activities is $189,000.


The SI field investigation indicated that the landfills have not caused ubiquitous

contamination in the parcel's subsurface. Additional investigation is warranted to identify the

landfills' contents. The recommended approach consists of additional geophysical work and

excavating and sampling test pits. The geophysical survey should be based on the results of

the existing data, but be directed at greater resolution in the landfill areas. In addition to

magnetometer and electromagnetic instruments, a ground penetrating radar (GPR) should be

used during the survey.

9.5.4 Cost Estimate

The estimated cost for conducting additional investigations at Site 88 is $189,000. This

estimate is based on the following assumptions:

• The geophysical study will consist of magnetometer, electromagnetic detector, and GPR

surveys in each ofthree suspected landfill areas.

• Test pit excavations will require 20 hours.

• Impacted soil removed from the excavations will be disposed using thermal processing.

• 30 soil samples and QC/QA samples will be collected and selectively analyzed for

GRO/BTEX, DRO/RRO, VOCs, SVOCs, metals, PCBs/Pesticides, and dioxins.


additional mobilization and demobilization costs will not apply.


DRAFT/Rev. 0 12/11197

9-10 AKT -J07 -05M31 O-J02-000 1

9.6 SITE 89

9.6.1 Site History

Site 89 is an active burn pit. Materials disposed in the pit reportedly include paint, sludge

from oil water separators, contaminated soils and sorbents, and aerosol cans. Two incinerator

units were present at the site in July 1997. The south incinerator was active, and the north

incinerator was not in service.

9.6.2 Site Summary

Field activities conducted as part of the Site 89 SI included excavating three test pits,

collecting analytical soil samples, and field screening. One test pit was placed in the loading

area of each incinerator. The third test pit was positioned in a depression located 90 feet to

110 feet from the incinerator units.

Laboratory results confirmed the presence of DRO, RRO, VOCs, and metals in the surface

and subsurface soil. Reported COPC concentrations associated with the incinerator loading

areas include non-detectable to 26 ppm DRO, and non-detectable RRO, SVOCs, and VOCs.

Metals concentrations in these samples are within the range of background levels.

The two samples from the third test pit contained COPC concentrations of 36 ppm and 59

ppm DRO, 140 ppm and 1,200 ppm RRO, 0.019 ppm and 0.032 ppm total VOCs, and non

detectable SVOCs. These concentrations are below applicable ADEC matrix and risk-based

standards. In comparison, the reported concentrations for three of eight metals exceed one or

more project ARARs. Ranges of concentrations include 25.1 ppm to 43.3 ppm arsenic, 91.4

ppm to 95.6 ppm chromium, and 2,6500 ppm to 15,200 ppm lead. The lead concentrations

may exceed both risk-based standards and the RCRA standard for hazardous waste

characterization.

Based on the Site 89 SI, remediation is likely required to achieve a no further action status.

The recommended action consists of conducting a TCLP analysis for selected samples, and

excavating impacted surface soil. Remedial options for the subsurface soil will be determined

during the surface soil removal effort. Assuming that a risk assessment is performed to

address subsurface contamination, the total estimated cost to remediate Site 89 is $575,000.


DRAFT/Rev. 0 12/11197

9-11 AKT -J07 -05M31 0-102-0001


A three-step remediation approach is recommended for this site. First, additional site

characterization data should be collected. A TCLP analysis has been requested for the

samples containing elevated lead concentrations. Additional soil samples should also be

obtained to delineate the boundary of impacted soil.

Assuming that the TCLP concentrations exceed the RCRA standard, the second step consists

of selective excavation. Excavation is likely the only acceptable method of addressing

impacted surface soil at this site. The excavated soil will be containerized and transported

off-site for disposal as a hazardous waste.

Based on the results of the first two steps, the third action is additional excavation or

conducting a risk assessment. If site characterization indicates a limited volume of impacted

soil, then excavation and disposal as a hazardous waste may be a practical and cost-effective

method to achieve site cleanup. For impacted soil volumes larger than about 20 cy, risk

assessment is a relatively cost-effective remediation alternative.

9.6.4 Cost Estimate

It is assumed that the extent of contaminated subsurface soils is greater than 20 cy, and that a

risk assessment will be performed. The following additional assumptions also apply:

• 100 cy of impacted surface soil is excavated and disposed as a hazardous waste.

• Additional data will be required to complete the risk assessment. To gather these data,

three soil borings drilled to 30 feet bgs and one soil boring to 60 feet bgs will be required.

• 13 soil and QC/QA samples will be collected and analyzed for the RCRA metals. In

addition, dioxins and furans should be included in the analytical program because of the

abundance of debris detected at the site and the presence of the incinerators.

• The drilling work will be performed in conjunction with the remedial activities at Sites 30

and 73; therefore, additional mobilization and demobilization costs will not apply.



DRAFT/Rev. 0 12/11/97

9-12 AK.T -J07 -05M31 0-102-0001

10.0 REPORTING

This Technical Memorandum was prepared with the objective of providing a brief overview

of the field activities that occurred during the 1997 SIILRI program. A comprehensive report

presenting all of the data and discussing data quality and usability, along with refined

recommendations for remedial options, where necessary, will be prepared. The report will

include site maps and tables presenting data for comparison to ARARs. The estimated cost

for preparation of a comprehensive SIILRI report is $119,000 as shown in Table ES-1.

Upon completion of implementation of the remediation technologies recommended for each

site, a Remedial Action Report will be prepared. This report will describe the design and

operation of the remedial technologies, and will include waste manifests where appropriate.

The estimated cost for preparation of a comprehensive Remedial Action Report covering all

of the sites discussed in this Technical Memorandum is $94,000 as shown in Table ES-1.


DRAFT/Rev. 0 12111/97

10-1 AKT -J07 -05M31 O-J02-0001


DRAFT/Rev. 0 12/11/97


10-2 AKT -107 -05M31 0-102-0001

11.0 REFERENCES

Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC). 1995a (November 3). 18 AAC

78 Underground Storage Tanks. Juneau, Alaska.

Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC). 1995b (September 22).

Underground Storage Tank Procedures Manual, Guidance for Remediation of

Petroleum-Contaminated Soil and Water and Standard Sampling Procedures. Juneau,

Alaska.

Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC). 1991 (July 17). Interim

Guidance for the Cleanup and Remediation of Non-UST Contaminated Soils and

Groundwater. Juneau, Alaska.

CH2M Hill. 1992 (December). Preliminary Assessment, Fort Greely, Alaska.

ENSR. 1996 (July). UST Inventory and Management Report, Volume IV, Forts Richardson,

Wainwright, and Greely, Alaska.

U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers (USAED). 1994 (3 September). Requirements for the

Preparation of Sampling and Analysis Plans. Interim Final. EM 200-1-3.

U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers (USAED). 1991. Groundwater Monitoring Network, Fort

Greely, Alaska.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAED). 1981 (29 January) Disposition Form- Initial and

Final Fuel Spill Incident Report. AFZT-FE-G.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAED). 1981 (18 November) Disposition Form- Report

of Pollution Incident. AFZT -FE-G.

Woodward-Clyde. 1997 (February 14). U.S. Army Base Realignment and Closure 95

Program, Sampling and Analysis Recommendations, Fort Greely, Alaska. Denver,

Colorado


DRAFT/Rev. 0 12/11/97

11-1 AKT -J07 -05M31 0-JOZ-000 1



11-2 AKT -J07 -05M31 O-J02-000 I

technical memorandum site investigation limited...

Documents