File: 180

,41t 000) £0-

I ~~~~~~~~INSTALLATION RESTORATION PROGRAM

REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION/FEASIBILITY STUDY

I ~~~~EIELSON AIR FORCE BASEFAIRBANKS, ALASKA

I. ~ ~~~HARDING LAWSON ASSOCIATES

601 EAST 57TH PLACEI ~ ~~~ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99518

MAY 1989

WORK PLAN

PREPARED FOR:

I ~~~~ALASKAN AIR COMMANDELMENDCRF AFB, ALASKA

UNITED STATES AIR FORCEOCCUPATIONAL & ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH LABORATORYI ~~~TECHNICAL SERVICES DIVISION (USAFOEHL/TS) D R A F TBROOKS AIR FORCE BASE, TEXAS 78235-5501

INSTALLATION RESTORATION PROGRAM

REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION/FEASIBILITY STUDY

WORK PLAN

* ~~~~~~~~~~~~~FOR

EIELSON AIR FORCE BASEFAIRBANKS, ALASKA

MAY 1989

PREPARED BY

I. ~ ~~~~~~~HARDING LAWSON ASSOCIATES601 EAST 57TH PLACE

ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99518

USAF CONTRACT F33615-85-D-4536, DELIVERY ORDER NO. 8

PREPARED FOR

I ~~~~~~~~~~ALASKAN AIR COMMANDELMENDORF AFB, ALASKA

U ~~~~~~~~~~PRELIMINARY REPORT

I ~~~~~~~~USAFOEHI TECHNICAL PROGRAM MANAGERFRANZ SCHMIDT, 1LT, USAF

USAF OCCUPATIONAL & ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH LABORATORY (USAFOEHL)TECHNICAL SERVICES DIVISION (TS)a ~~~~~~~BROOKS AIR FORCE BASE, TEXAS 78235-5501

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I INTRODUCTION

1 ~~~~1.1 Air Force Installation Restoration Program (IRP)1.1.1 Program Origins1.1.2 Program Objectives'I ~ ~~~~~1.1.3 Program Organization1.1.4 Program Documents

1.2 Description of Current IRP Study at Elelson AFBI ~ ~~~~~1.2.1 General Work Plan Objectives1.2.1.1 Field-Related Task Objectives1.2.1.2 Evaluation-Related Task ObjectivesI ~ ~~~~~~1.2.1.3 Feasibility Study-Related Objectives1.2.1.4 Data Quality Objectives

1.2.2 Planning Documents1.2.2.1 Work PlanI . ~ ~~~~~~1.2.2.2 Quality Assurance Project Plan1.2.2.3 Health and Safety Plan

I ~~II SITE BACKGROUND

2.1 History of Base Activities2.1.1 Description of Installation

22 2.1.2 Past Waste Management Practices

22 Site-specific Background Information221 Site 1, Original Base Landfill222 Site 2, Old Base Landfill223 Site 3/9, New Base Landfill/Fire Training AreaI~~ ~ ~~~~.. Site 4, Munitions Disposal Area

2.2.5 Site 5, Old Army Landfill2.2.6 Site 6, Old LandfillI ~ ~~~~~2.2.7 Site 8, Fire Training Area2.2.8 Site 20, Refueling Loop Area2.2.9 Site 29, Drum Burial Site2.2.10 Site 32/32, Sewage Treatment Plant2.2.11 Site 35, Asphalt Area2.2.12 Site 38, POL/Ski Lodge2.2.13 Site 39, Asphalt LakeI ~ ~~~~~2.2.14 Site 41, New Auto Hobby Shop2.2.15 Site 42, Miscellaneous Storage and Disposal Area2.2.16 Site 44, Battery Shop2.2.17 Site 45, Photo Laboratory2.2.18 Site 47, Base Commissary Parking Lot Fuel Spill2.2.19 Site 48, Power Plant Fuel Leak

0057R2I ~~~May 16, 1989 ii i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

2.2.20 Site 49, Building 1300 Fuel Leak2.2.21 Site 50, Blair Lakes

2.2.22 Site 55, Garrison Slough

III ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING3

3.1 Geographic Setting3.1.1 Physiography (Physical Geography)3.1.2 Cultural Geography

3.2 Geology3.2.1 Geologic Setting3.2.2 Bedrock GeologyI3.2.3 Surficial Geology

3.3 Hydrogeology3.3.1 Ground Water

3.3.1.1 Occurrence and Movement3.3.1.2 Ground Water Quality3.3.1.3 Ground Water Uses3.3.1.4 Well and Pump Maintenance3.3.1.5 Well Inventory

3.3.2 Surface WaterU3.3.2.1 Occurrence and Flow3.3.2.2 Surface Water Quality

3.4 Air Quality3.4.1 Ambient Quality3.4.2 Pollution Characterization

3.5 Natural Resources3.5.1 Mineral Resources3.5.2 Environmental ResourcesI

3.6 Cultural Resources33.6.1 Archaeology3.6.2 Human Resources3.6.3 Historical Resources

3.7 Biology and Ecology3.7.1 Communities and Habitats3.7.2 Environmentally Sensitive Areasa3.7.3 Endangered Species3.7.4 Economic Species

0057R2May 16, 1989 iv

3 ~~~~~~~~~~TABLE OF CONTENTS

3.8 Climatology/MeteorologyU ~ ~~~~3.8.1 Precipitation (Seasonal Variation)3.8.2 Temperature (Seasonal Variation)3.8.3 Wind

3.8.4 EvapotranspirationIV PROFILE OF POTENTIAL CONTAMINANTS,

4.1 Contaminant Properties4.1.1 Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)4.1.2 Polynucilear Aromatics (PNAs)I ~ ~~~~~4.1.3 Phenols4.1.4 Dibenzofuran4.1.5 Organochiorine Pesticides4.1.6 Metals

4.2 Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate RequirementsU ~~~~4.3 Pathways and Receptors

3 ~~~~4.4 Environmental/Health Effects

4.5 Data Requirements

5 ~~V SCOPE OF WORK

5.1 Organization of Effort5.1.1 Operable Units

5.1.2 Combined Site Investigations

5.2 General Discussion of Integrated IRP TasksI ~ ~~~~~5.2.1 Field-related Tasks5.2.1.1 Ground-water Field Screening Surveys5.2.1.2 Geophysical SurveysI ~ ~~~~~~~5.2.1.3 Surface Soil Sampling5.2.1.4 Drilling5.2.1.5 Test Borings5.2.1.6 Monitoring Wells5.2.1.7 Water Sampling5.2.1.8 Water Level Surveys5.2.1.9 Test Pitsa ~~~~~~~~5.2.1.10 Drum Disposal Evaluation5.2.1.11 Product Probes

0057R2u ~~May 16, 1989 V

TABLE OF CONTENTS

5.2.2 Site-specific Field Investigation5.2.2.1 Site 1, Original Base Landfill5.2.2.2 Site 2, Old Base LandfillI5.2.2.3 Site 3/9, New Base Landfill/Fire Training Area5.2.2.4 Site 4, Munitions Disposal Area5.2.2.5 Site 5, Old Army Landfill5.2.2.6 Site 6, Old Landfill5.2.2.7 Site 8, Fire Training Area5.2.2.8 Site 20, Refueling Loop Area5.2.2.9 Site 29, Drum Burial Site5.2.2.10 Site 32/32, Sewage Treatment Plant5.2.2.11 Site 35, Asphalt Area5.2.2.12 Site 38, POL/Ski LodgeI5.2.2.13 Site 39, Asphalt Lake5.2.2.14 Site 41, New Auto Hobby Shop5.2.2.15 Site 42, Miscellaneous Storage and Disposal Area5.2.2.16 Site 44, Battery Shop5.2.2.17 Site 45, Photo Laboratory5.2.2.18 Site 47, Base Commissary Parking Lot Fuel Spill5.2.2.19 Site 48, Power Plan fuel Leak5.2.2.20 Site 49, Building 1300 Fuel Leak5.2.2.21 Site 50, Blair Lakes5.2.2.22 Site 55, Garrison SloughI5.2.2.23 North Boundary Wells5.2.2.24 Background Elemental Concentrations

5.3 Integrated IRP Evaluation-related Tasks5.3.1 Data Management5.3.2 Hydrogeologic Assessment5.3.3 Demographic SurveyI5.3.4 Evaluation and Screening of Data5.3.5 Map Preparation5.3.6 Treatability StudiesI5.3.7 Risk Assessments

5.4 Integrated IRP Feasibility Study Tasks5.4.1 Feasibility Study, Phase I

5.4.1.1 Identification of Alternative Remedial Action5.4.1.2 Site Problem Definition and Segregation5.4.1.3 Identification of General Response ActionsI5.4.1.4 Identification and Screening of Technologies and

Process Options5.4.1.5 Development of Alternativesa

5.4.2 Feasibility Study, Phase II5.4.2.1 Screening of Alternatives

0057 R2May 16, 1989 viI

ft ~~~~~~~~~TABLE OF CONTENTS

5.4.3 Feasibility Study, Phase III5.4.3.1 Technical Evaluation of Alternatives5.4.3.2 Exposure Assessment5.4.3.3 Public Health Evaluation of Alternatives5.4.3.4 Environmental Impact EvaluationI ~ ~~~~~~~5.4.3.5 Institutional Requirements Evaluation5.4.3.6 Detail Cost Analysis of Selected Alternatives5.4.3.7 Selection of Recommended Remedial Action

I ~~VI REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

6.1 ReportsI ~ ~~~~6.1.1 R & 0 Status Reports6.1.2 Informal Technical Information Report6.1.3 Installation Restoration Program Reports6.1.4 Decision Documents

Vii SCHEDULE

APPENDICES

* ~~Appendix A Program Documents

Appendix B Potential Exposure Questions

Appendix C Reporting Requirements

* ~~Appendix C-i Outline of R&D Status Report

Appendix C-2 Outline of Informal Technical Information Report

I ~~Appendix C-3 Outline of RI/FS Report

* ~~Appendix C-4 Outline for Decision Document

Appendix 0 References

0057R2U N~~~ay 16, 1989 vi i

3 ~~~~~~~~~~~LIST OF PLATES

Plate 2-1 Regional Location MapPlate 2-2 Site Location Map3 ~~Plate 2-3 Elelson Air Force Base Map

Plate 3-1 Physiographic MapPlate 3-2 General Geography

* ~~Plate 3-3 Typical Geologic Log at Eiel son AFBPlate 3-4 Ground-water Availability in the Vicinity of Elelson AFBPlate 3-5 Sites Under Investigationg ~ ~Plate 3-6 Surface Drainage MapPlate 3-7 Ground-water Elevation MapPlate 3-8 Eielson AFB Floodplains and Wetlands3 ~~~Plate 3-9 Eiel son AFB Cover Type Map

Plate 5-1 Proposed Sampling Plan - Site 1~~~ ~Plate 5-2 Proposed Sampling Plan - Site 2

Plate 5-3 Proposed Sampling Plan - Site 3/9Plate 5-4 Proposed Sampling Plan - Site 4Plate 5-5 Proposed Sampling Plan - Site 5Plate 5-6 Proposed Sampling Plan - Site 6Plate 5-7 Proposed Sampling Plan - SitePlate 5-8 Proposed Sampling Plan - Site 20Plate 5-9 Proposed Sampling Plan - Site 293 ~ ~~Plate 5-10 Proposed Sampling Plan - Site 32/34Plate 5-11 Proposed Sampling Plan - Site 35Plate 5-12 Proposed Sampling Plan - Site 38I ~ ~~Plate 5-13 Proposed Sampling Plan - Site 39Plate 5-14 Proposed Sampling Plan - Site 41Plate 5-15 Proposed Sampling Plan - Site 42Plate 5-16 Proposed Sampling Plan - Site 443~ ~ ~Pae 51 rpsd apigPa ie4Plate 5-17 Proposed Sampling Plan - Site 45Plate 5-18 Proposed Sampling Plan - Site 47Plate 5-19 Proposed Sampling Plan - Site 48I ~ ~~Plate 5-20 Proposed Sampling Plan - Site 49g ~~Plate 5-22 Proposed Sampling Plan - North Boundary Wells

Plate 7-1 Preliminary Project Schedule

0057R2May 16. 1989 V~i i

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2-1 List of Sites Addressed in the 1989 Work Plan

Table 2-2 Summary of Ground-water and Surface-water Parameters withI ~ ~~~~~Concentrations in Excess of ARARs - Site 2

Table 2-3 Summary of Ground-water Parameters with Concentrations in Excess ofI ~ ~~~~~ARARs - Site 3/9

Table 2-4 Summary of Ground-water and Surface-water Parameters withConcentrations in Excess of ARARs - Site 4

Table 2-5 Summary of Surface-water and Ground-water Parameters with3 ~~~~~~Concentrations in Excess of ARARs - Site 5

Table 2-6 Summary of Ground-water and Surface-water Parameters with

Concentrations in Excess of ARARs - Site 6U . ~~Table 2-7 Summary of Ground-water Parameters with Concentration in Excess of

I ~~Table 2-8 Summary of Ground-water and Surface-water Parameters withConcentrations in Excess of ARARs - Site 29

* ~~Table 2-9 Summary of Surface-water and Ground-water Parameters withConcentrations in Excess of ARARs - Site 32/34

3 ~~Table 2-10 Summary of Ground-water Parameters with Concentrations in Excess ofARARs - Site 38

Table 2-11 Summary of Ground-water Parameters with Concentrations in Excess ofU ~ ~~~~~ARARs - Site 39

Table 2-12 Summary of Ground-water Parameters with Concentrations in Excess ofU ~ ~~~~~ARARs - Site 44

Table 2-13 Summary of Ground-water Parameters with Concentrations in Excess ofU ~ ~~~~~ARARs - Site 45

Table 2-14 Summary of Ground-water Parameters with Concentrations in Excess of3 ~~~~~~ARARs - Site 48

Table 2-15 Summary of Ground-water Parameters with Concentrations in Excess ofARARs - Site 49

Table 2-16 Summary of Ground-water Parameters with Concentrations in Excess ofARARs - Site 50

0057R23 ~~~May 16, 1989 ix

LIST OF TABLESJ

Table 3-1 Inventory of Land Use, Elelson AFBI

Table 3-2 Inventory of Land Use, FNSB3

Table 3-3 Area Population and Demographic Data

Table 3-4 Background Concentrations of Various Analytes in Soil near Fairbanks, 3

Alaska

Table 3-5 Background Concentrations of Various Analytes in Sediments near 3Fairbanks, Alaska

Table 3-6 Background Concentrations of Various Analytes in Ground Water near 3Fairbanks, AlaskaU

Table 3-7 Estimated Stream Characteristics, Elelson AFB

Table 3-8 Summary of Surface-Water Resources

Table 3-9 Elelson AFB Wetlands

Table 3-10 Background Concentrations of Various Analytes in Surface Water nearFairbanks, Alaska3

Table 3-11 1986 Air Pollution Emission Inventory, Eielson AFB

Table 3-12 Relative Contribution of Air Pollutants/Sources3

Table 3-13 Forest Resources, Eielson AFB

Table 3-14 Commercial Forest Types, Eielson AFB

Table 3-15 Cultural Resources Near Eielson AFB

Table 3-16 Summary of Wildlife Habitat, Eielson AFB

Table 3-17 Summary of Fisheries Habitat, Eielson AFB3

Table 3-18 Meteorological Data at Eielson AFB

Table 3-19 Wind Data at Fairbanks, AlaskaI

0057R2May 16, 1989 X3

j ~~~~~~~~~~~LIST OF TABLES

Table 4-1 ARARs for Chemicals Found in Ground Water and Surface Water

3 ~~Table 5-1 Field Study Scope, 1989

Table 5-2 1989 Proposed Analytical Program - Ground and Surface Water

3 ~~Table 5-3 1989 Proposed Analytical Program - Soil/Sediment

I~~~~05RI~~~a 6 99x

I I~~~~~~~~~~ INTRODUCTION

1 ~~1.1 Air Force Installation Restoration Program (IRP)

1.1.1 Program OriginsI ~~~~~Historically, the United States Air Force has been involved in a

variety of operations requiring use of toxic and hazardous matetials. The

3 ~~Department of Defense (DOD) Installation Restoration Program (IRP) was

implemented to assess past hazardous waste disposal and spill sites an USAF

5 ~~installations and to develop remedial actions consistent with the National

Contingency Plan (NCP) for those sites that pose a threat to human health,

welfare, or the environment.

The IRP provides the basis for response actions on Air ForceInstallations under the provisions of the Comprehensive EnvironmentalResponse, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as clarified by

RxctieOrder 12316, and amended-by the Superfund Amendments and

5 ~~Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986, and the Resource Conservation and Recovery

Act CRCRA). CERCLA is the primary legislation governing remedial actions at

3 ~~past hazardous waste disposal sites. Far every site that is targeted for

remedial response action under Section 104 of CERCLA, the NCP requires that a

3 ~~detailed Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) be conducted.

1.1.2 Program Objectives3 ~~~~~The objective of the IRP is to identify and fully evaluatesuspected problems at DOD facilities associated with past hazardous material

3 ~~disposal sites; to control past hazardous material disposal sites; to control

the migration of hazardous constituents; and to remediate hazards to health,

welfare, or the environment that may have resulted from past' activities at DOD

facilities. The IRP is designed to assure that identification, confirmation,

quantification, and remedial actions are performed a timely and cost-effective

manner.

0057R33 ~~~May 16, 1989 1

1.1.3 Program OrganizationIn the past, the Air Force operated the IRP under the followingI

four-phase approach:I

Phase I - Installation Assessment/Records Search

The objective of Phase I was to identify and prioritize past disposalsites that pose a hazard to public health or th e environment as a resultof contaminant migration to surface or ground waters, or have an adverseaffect due to persistence in the environment. Decisions concerning theneed for further site investigation or immediate remedial action wereImade during this phase.

Phase II - Confirmation and Ouantlflcation5

In Phase II, contaminant characteristics were defined, and the extent ofcontamination was quantified. Additionally, sites requiring remedialaction in Phase IV were identified, and research requirements wereIdefined for Phase III activity.

Phase III - Technoloav Development

In Phase III, a sound data base upon which to prepare a comprehensiveremedial action plan was developed.5

Phase IV - Remedial Action Plans

Phase IV involved the development and implementation of the remedialIaction plan.

This approach was used as a basis for Elelson Air Force Base studies conductedIthrough 1987.

Recently, the Air Force modified its IRP to be more consistent5with the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) integrated RemedialInvestigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) process. These modifications provide3for conducting a series of remedial field investigations to collect data oncontamination, and conducting sequentially more detailed feasibility studies3to identify and refine applicable remedial alternatives. Using this approach,preliminary remedial alternatives are identified and evaluated as informationon the nature and extent of contamination is obtained. This approach permitsIthe early identification of potential remedial alternatives, contributing to aamore explicit definition of data requirements for subsequent RI activity. Italso provides for more timely implementation of remediation measures.

0057R3May 16. 1989 1-23

1.1.4 Program DocumentsA list of public laws, regulations, presidential documetits,

I ~ ~manuals, handbooks, guidance documents, and journals applicable to this work

can be found in Appendix A.

1.2 Description of Current IRP Study at Elelson AFB3 ~~~~~Based on the findings of previously referenced site visits,

studies, and investigations, this Work Plan has been developed for the IRP for5 ~~work to be performed during 1989. This Work Plan details necessary fieldinvestigations required to more precisely define the types and exte nt of

contaminated media, some of which require remediation, and describes plans forU ~ ~preparation of detailed evaluation of remedial alternatives (FS Phase III), or

preparation of Technical Documents to Support No Further Action.

1.2.1 General Work Plan ObiectivesThis Work Plan has been developed to fulfill a variety of

objectives for the various project sites. General Work Plan objectives are3 ~~outlined in Sections 1.2.1.1 through 1.2.1.3.

1.2.1.1 Field-Related Task Obiectives

I ~ ~~~~This Work-Plan addresses the following general objectives for siteinvestigations:

1 ~ ~ ~~0 Perform detailed investigations at various sites to better assesscontamination sources and limits of contamination, and to address3 ~~~~~the need for site remediation;

* Resolve background levels of various ground-water parameters, such

1 ~~~~~as metals, to determine the need for remediation;* Investigate extent and impact of potential Garrison Slough

contamination on adjacent sites.

As part of accomplishing the field-related objectives, a Quality

Assurance Project Plan, and Health and Safety Plan will be developed to

compliment this Work Plan.

0057R35 ~~May 16, 1989 1-3

1.2.1.2 Evaluation-Related Task ObiectivesThis Work Plan addresses the following general objectives forI

evaluation of field collected data:

Prepare quantitative Risk Assessments (RA) for sites wherecontaminants have been detected, but for which no applicablerelevant and appropriate requirements (ARAR's) have beenestablished;

* Develop specific contaminant profiles for each site to use as a

basis for feasibility study phase activities.

1.2.1.3 Feasibility Study Related ObiectivesIAs applicable to individual sites, this Work Plan addresses the

following general objectives for Feasibility Study preparation, provided that3information obtained during the field investigation fulfills all additional

data needs:

* Develop potential remedial alternatives based on the use of viablealternatives (FS Phase I);

* Screen remedial alternatives (FS Phase II);

* Perform detailed evaluation of remedial alternatives (FS PhaseIII) for all sites requiring remediation; orI

* Prepare Decision Documents to Support Feasibility Study Phase

- findings.

1.2.1.4 Data Quality Objectives

Specific Data Quality Objectives (DQO's) are specified in ChapterV of this Work Plan for each site to identify data requirements and ensuredata of appropriate quality are obtained to adequately support Air Force3decisions during remedial activities.

The OQOs presented in Chapter V are based on the data needs3established in Chapter IV of the Stage 3 RI/FS Report prepared by HLA forEielson AFB. DQOs are developed in three stages. The first stage includes3identification of data users, evaluation of available information, developmentof conceptual models, and specification of RI/FS objectives and decisions.Major elements of the second stage are: identification of data uses, dataqtypes, and data quantity needs; evaluation of sampling/analysis options; and

00571R3May 16, 1989 1-43

reviewing precisian, accuracy, representativeness, completeness, and

I ~~comparability standards. In the third stage, data collection components are

assembled and data collection documentation is developed.

1 ~ ~~~~The three stages of the DQO development process are interactive innature. As additional details regarding the site are discovered, the

3 ~~decisions that will be made during the project are refined. This allows for

further specification of data needs and for design of the data collection

3 ~~program.

1.2.2 Planning DocumentsI ~ ~~~~Three planning documents will be used as a basis for conductingremedial field investigations at Eielson AFB during 1989. These documents are

discussed in the following paragraphs.

1.2.2.1 Work PlnnThis Work Plan provides background data for all sites currently

3 ~~under investigation, and itemizes additional field data needed to facilitate

the analysis of alternative remedial measures. In addition to describing what

data needs still exist, this Work Plan also describes why the data is needed,

and specifically, how the data will be collected.

I ~~1.2.2.2 Oualitv Assurance Project PlanPrior to beginning work pursuant to this Work Plan, HLA will

3 ~~develop a Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP). The purpose of this QAPP is

to detail the Quality Assurance (QA) and Quality Control (QC) procedures

5 ~~needed to ensure that technical data generated during the RI/FS are accurate,

precise, complete, and representative of actual field conditions. QA is

* ~~defined as an integrated program designed for assuring reliability of

monitoring and measurement data. QC is defined as the routine application of

procedures for obtaining prescribed standards of performance in the monitoringI ~ ~and measurement process.It is expected that this QAPP will be similar in form to the QAPPp ~~document prepared for work conducted under the .June 1988 Eielson AFB Work Plan

prepared by HILA.

0057R33 ~~May 16. 1989 1-5

1.2.2.3 Health and Safety PlanIIt will also be necessary to develop a Health and Safety Plan

(HASP) tailored to the objectives of this Work Plan. The HASP document willIprovide general as well as specific information relative to Elelson AFB and tothe individual sites. It will be based on the experience gained during the31988 investigation and will be designed to provide information to HLAemployees and subcontractors on matters pertaining to the health and safety3requirements for 1989 operations. It will provide detailed information onspecific hazards, including chemical, utility, physical, mechanical, andbiological, which are expected to be encountered at each site. It is expected Ithat this HASP will be similar in both form and content to the June 1988 HASPprepared by HLA for previous RI work performed at Eiel son AFB.I

0057R3~~~~~~~~~~May 16, 1989 1-6~ ~ ~ ~ ~

* ~~~~~~~~~II SITE BACKGROUND

2.1 History of Base ActivitiesElelson AFB was originally a satellite installation of Ladd Field

(now Fort Wainwright, a U.S. Army installation). Initial construction of

Elelson AFB began in 1943, with completion in 1944. The field was deactivatedat the end of World War II, and later reopened as a future strategic base.S ~ ~From 1947 to 1954, a major Construction program was implemented to enlarge theBase facilities. Since the early 1960's, the primary mission of Elelson AFB5 ~~has been to provide trained tactical air support forces for air strike controland direct support of ground elements assigned and/or attached to the Alaskan3 ~~Air Command.

2.1.1 Description of InstallationEielson AFB is located in the Tanana River Valley in the interior

of Alaska, approximately 23 miles southeast of Fairbanks. The Base, which is3 ~~located on approximately 19,790 acres of land, is isolated from any majorurban area and is essentially a self-contained community. The regional3 ~~location map for Eielson AFB is shown on Plate 2-1.

3 ~~2.1.2 Past Waste Management PracticesPrior to 1950, the amount of waste generated at Eiel son AFB was

low because industrial operations were minimal. Since 1950, the major AFBI ~ ~industrial operations have included propulsion shops, pneudraulic shops, non-

destructive inspection lines, and vehicle maintenance shops. These industrial3 ~~operations have generated varying quantities of waste oil, fuels, solvents,and cleaners, with a combined total of these wastes averaging between 25,0003 ~~and 40,000 gallons per year. Since 1981, there has been an increase in thescope of the mission for this Base, which has manifested itself in additional3 ~~aircraft. Accordingly, there has been a corresponding increase in maintenanceP ~~activity.

0057R4May 16. 1989 2-1

SITE~~

FAIRB~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~A*AS

BOUNARY -- I -

KP

056

A" '44~

\II\ ] N~~R NG

BLAIR LAKES

FACILITY 740

100 SCALE

65' ~~~~~~~ ~SAEI N MILES

HaringLawonAssciaesRegional Location& Geophysicists Elelson A.P.B. Alaska 2-1 3

DPAW, JOB NUMBE4 APP~OVED RE, SB:

04300,03 7.08 4/89

3 ~~~~~A review of past and present disposal activities indicates thefollowing:

* 1950 to 1972 - Prior to 1955, most Base roads were unpaved. AI ~ ~~~~~large portion of the waste oil generated during this time was usedin oiling the roads. Other waste oil was taken to on-baselandfills, used in fire training exercises, or shipped to FortI ~ ~~~~Wainwright for reclamation and/or used as boiler fuel. A lesseramount may have been discharged into the sanitary sewer system.The Basi did not have a program for waste separation. Therefore,much of the solvents, cleaners, and fuel was mixed with the oiland spread on the roads. Another large portion of the solvents,cleaners, and fuel was used in fire training exercises or taken toI ~ ~~~~the landfill. Some spent solvents and most of the aircraftcleaning material entered the hangar floor drains during the wash-down operations. This material then entered the sanitary sewerwith no pretreatment.

* 1912 to 1978 - Waste materials generated included: waste oils,fuels, solvents, and cleaners. Waste oils were used for roadoiling, transported to a landfill for disposal, or turned over tothe Defense Property Disposal Office (DPDO) at Fort Wainwright forsalvage. Burning of waste oils was halted in approximately 1972.Contaminated JP-4 fuel was mixed with other JP-4 and burned duringfire department training exercises.

3 ~~~~~The majority of spent industrial solvents was mixed with wasteoils and disposed through road oiling, landfill disposal, andsalvaged through the DPDO. Solvents and aircraft cleaningmaterials were still being discharged to the sanitary sewersystem. In 1972, a secondary treatment facility was added to theAFB sewage treatment plant.

3 ~~~~~1978 to Present - Waste materials generated include waste oils,fuels, solvents, and cleaners. Primary disposition of thesematerials is through oiling of roads or salvage through DPDO.Five-thousand gallons a year of waste oil and fuels are allowedfor road oiling. The remaining waste oils are segregated, placedin 55-gallon drums, and transported to the DPDO for salvage.

I ~~~~~Contaminated JP-4 fuel is mixed with clean JP-4 fuel and used forburning during training exercises for the fire department. Wastediesel fuel used for road oiling is included in the 5,000 gallonsI ~ ~~~~mentioned above. Any other contaminated fuels that cannot bereused are treated the same as the waste oil disposition; i.e.,placed in 55-gallon drums and transported to DPDO for salvage.

10 ~~~~~Likewise, spent industrial solvents are segregated and placed into

0057 R43 ~~May 16, 1989 2-2

55-gallon drums and transported to the DPDO to await properdisposal. Some solvents and aircraft cleaning materials continueto be discharged to the sanitary sewage system. This effluentreceives secondary treatment at the Base sewage treatment plant.3

2.2 Site-Specific Background InformationThis Work Plan will address 22 sites or areas of concern, as3

identified in the following sources of information:

* Phasel- Record Search Report;3

* Phase II -Stages 1 and 2 Confirmation/Quantification Reports; -

* Information obtained from base representatives during HLA siteIvisits in September 1987 and February 1988;

* 1988 field investigations performed by HLA; and3

* 1989 Installation Restoration Program, RemedialInvestigation/Feasibility Study.

Table 2-1 lists the 22 sites. All sites are numbered consistentwith the previously identified Phases I and II studies. Plate 2-2 presentsUthe location of these sites on Eielson AFB. One of the sites is Blair Lakes(Site 50), located approximately 25 air miles south-southwest of Eielson AFB.3Plate 2-1 shows the location of the Blair Lakes Facility.

The following sections provide background information for each of3the sites under investigation. This background information consists of sitedescriptions and a general discussion of chemicals encountered at the sites.3

2.2.1 Site 1. Original Base Landfill

Description of Site: Setting and LocationSite I served as the Elelson AFB landfill from approximately 1950

to 1960. The site reportedly received all refuse from the Base, including3household garbage, scrap lumber, scrap metal and construction debris, andempty cans and 55-gallon drums from the flight line industrial shops. Large3quantities of waste oils, spent solvents, paint residues, and paint thinnersaare suspected of having been disposed at this site over a ten-year period.9

0057R4May 16, 1989 2-33

C I. Origial as Landfill 14. E(2. Railroad Fuel1 Spill Area 36. Orue Storage Sits and Asphalt XIingq Are(1950 to 19601 IS. Multiproducit Fuel Llne Spill (Late 196 53 to liid-1970sI1

* 2. Old Base Landfill 96. alogi Fuel tine Spill 37. Dru Storage Site andl Asphalt Mixin1g Area(1960 to 1967) 17. Cahiol Pipeline Spill lI"Id-1970's to Pressent)

* 3. Current Base Landill IS 1. Fuel-Saturated Area. Old Coiler Point C 38. P0L/SKI LIECO(1967 to Pretst) 19. JPA Fuel tine Spill * 39. Asphalt Lake

* 4. Old Arn Landill and Currnot EN Are a 20. Reifuel n; too , Fel-Saturatled Area 40. Power Plant Sludge Pit(1956 to 1959: Late 196' a t Preasedt 21. Road Oi n-u Ryload C 41. Auto lobby Shop

* S. Old AMy Landill 22. Road Oiin-Idutra Drve42. Miscell~aneou Storag ead Disposal Area(9956 to 1959) 23. Road Oilinqlianhu Road 43. Aubestos Site

6 Old Landfill 24. Road 1Ilin. ..ne Iau load C 44. Blatter Shop(1959 to 19631 a 25. (-6 rues TenM Sludge Burial Site C 46. Pisces tab

7. Test Landfill 26. E-b0 Fuel Tank Sludge Burial Site . 46. CC-135 Cras.h Site(1967) a 21. (-1I Fuel Tank Sludqe Biavl Site *I47. CslsayParking Lto

* . OrigInal Ire mO.,epar~t Trainin Area 2$. Fly AMh Oispoiel Site I 48. Powe Plant Fuel Spill(1948 to l9SS) a 29. Dros BurHal site * 49. Bulding 1300

* , 9.urrent F1 oiretearitet Training Area 30. PCI Storage Area. Facility 23391976 to Pressent) 31. KsZ Storage Ara. Facility 3424

10. Pa. take and (-2 POL Storag Area C 32. Sewage Tre.assent Plant Sludge Drying BedsU ~ ~~It. Fuel-Saturate Area 33. Treated Effluent Iniltration Pond NOUTE Blair Laes (Site 501 is12. JP-4 Fuel Spill. Facility 2351 a H4. Seieage Treataeept Plant Slude" 0rying Beds ~ Ohot n on0 this plate.13. t-4 1/2. Dlase1 Fuel] Spill Area * 35. Asphalt miigArea. Asphalt Ors .lp~Sites Inciluded in the Wort Plan

(Early I M', to Late 1960's

-- - - - - - -.. I 1 2 1 .~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-1

33 4II NIN~~~~~~~~~~

I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

is~~~~~~~~~i

-a \4J'-

.51+~~~~~~~~~~-' 217id

* . I -~~~~~e .

* ~~~20 j 2 I 22> (?420 -- I / l's~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I I ~

v--_ _ - ' _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ H / A~~~~~~~~~~~~~ is

2__- 28 27 _ ___ __ I

a ut..~~~~arin awo AsoitsS t oc toNa ~T

04300,03 7.0 8 4/8

Table 2-13

List of Sites Addressed in the 1989 Work Plan

Site Number Description

1 Original Base Landfill2 Old Base Landfill

3/9 New Base Landfill and Fire Training CenterU4 Munitions Disposal Area5 Old Army Landfill6 Old Landfill8 Fire Training Area20 Refueling Loop Area29 Drum Burial Site

32/34 Sewage Treatment PlantI35 Asphalt Area38 POL/Ski Lodge39 Asphalt Lake

42 Miscellaneous Storage and Disposal Area44 Battery Shop345 Photo Laboratory47 Base Connissary Parking Lot Fuel Spill48 Power Plant Fuel Leak49 Building 1300 Fuel LeakI50 Blair Lakes Area55 Garrison Slough

0057R4~~~~~~~~~~May 16, 1989~ ~ ~~~~~

* ~~The primary activities currently conducted at the site and vicinity are

related to recreational fishing and camping by Base personnel and their

families.

Site 1 lies along a bend in Piledriver Slough, west of theRichardson Highway, and approximately 1 mile southwest of Base Operations

I ~~Control Tower. It is accessed off the Richardson Highway by travelling west

along a gravel road ending. at an abandoned bridge abutment. The landfill area

* ~~is reportedly situated along the north and eastern bank of the Slough with an

unmaintained dirt track traversing the length of the site parallel to the

* ~~slough (CH2M Hill, 1982; Dames & Moore, 1985 and 1987). Surficial evidence

indicates the unrnaintained dirt track is subject to flooding during periods of

hig waer.During Phase II, Stages 1 and 2, a total of four soil borings were~~ ~ drilled and one well was installed by Dames & Moore on the south side of Site

1. Specific results for soil and ground-water samples analyzed during these

stages are included in the Phase II, Stage 1 Report, Appendix I, and the Phase3 ~~II, Stage 2 Report, Summary Table, Page 3.

1988 HLA Investigation3 ~~~~~HLA conducted a field investigation at the site from July through

October 1988. Field tasks included drilling two soil borings; installing two

monitoring wells; collecting soil, surface-water and ground-water samples; and

conducting geophysical and soil gas surveys.As observed during the 1988 field investigation, the site is

I ~~covered with moderate to dense second growth vegetation; thick willows areadjacent to Piledriver Slough, and large to small diameter birch, spruce, and

3 ~~balsam trees are present throughout. It is essentially flat, with an

elevation approximately 7 feet higher than the slough. The subsurface is

3 ~~characterized by unconsolidated deposits composed of a surficial sandy layercontaining some silt with abundant plant roots. This layer is immediately

underlain by a sand and gravel layer extending to an unknown depth. Groundp ~~water was encountered in the monitoring wells at approximately 7 feet belowground surface.

0057R43 ~~May 16, 2989 2-4

Approximately 20 drums were found scattered on the surfacethroughout the site area; however, sail vapor survey results, surfaceIgeophysical results, and soil boring Digs showed no evidence of past

landfilling activities. Results of the analytical investigation indicated the Ipresence of total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) in the soil below the AlaskaDepartment of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) 100 mg/kg action level, and3the presence of metals and 1,2-dichloroethane (1,2-DCA) in the ground water,and metals in the surface water. With the exception of manganese, no3parameters were found in excess of ARARs in any of the environmental samplesanalyzed for the 1988 investigation. The concentration of manganese in one

surface-water sample and one ground-water sample exceeded the secondarydrinking water standard of 0.05 mg/l; however, this was believed to be due tonaturally occurring background conditions.I

In January 1989, HLA personnel reviewed recent and historicalaerial photographs on file with the Army Corps of Engineers Office (ElmendorfAFB, Alaska). The photographs, flown in 1949, 1950, 1960, 1963, 1965, andW1986, did not indicate any significant activity in the designated Site I area.3Therefore, based on the results of the investigation and on the aerialphotographs, it is suspected that the area investigated was incorrectly3identified as a site where landfilling had occurred.

2.2.2 Site 2. Old Base LandfillIDescriptlon of Site: Setting and LocationSite 2 was the main landfill for the entire AFB from approximately 5

1960 to 1967. From 1960 to 1964, Base refuse was burned at the site prior toburial. Refuse burning stopped in 1964, but landfilling continued until 1967. 3As for Site 1, this site received household garbage, scrap lumber, scrapmetal, construction debris, and empty cans and drums from the flight line3industrial shops. It reportedly also received waste oils, spent solvents, andpaint thinners and residues (CH2M Hill, 1982). The landfill currently is

inactivye.

0057R4May 16, 1989 2- 53

Site 2 is located at the southeastern end of Bear Lake andsituated between French Creek to the north and the buried Haines-Fairbanksu ~~Multi-Product pipeline to the south. The Alaska Railroad tracks and theGolden Valley Electric Association right of way pass to the west. The site isaccessed by a regularly maintained gravel road off Central Avenue across fromI ~~the Base gas station. Access to the abandoned landfill is unrestricted andBase personnel use the area as an off-road track for bath summer and winter

3 ~~recreational vehicles.This site was investigated by Dames & Moore under the IRP Phase

3 ~~II, Stages 1 and 2. During these stages, four monitoring wells were installedaround the site. Data summary sheets for parameters investigated at this sitecan be found in the Dames & Moore reports referenced under Site 1 above.

The landfill is situated in an area of slight topographic reliefcreated by the elevated gravel road and railroad beds as well as natural lowmounds and terraces adjacent to the low-lying swamplands of Bear Lake and

French Creek. The site is defined by a relatively barren, recently regraded3 ~~mound of landfill cover material that stands approximately 6 feet above thesurrounding terrain. The subsurface is characterized by sand or silty sand3 ~~overlying sandy or silty gravel. Borings performed by Dames & Moore (1987)indicate that soil along the southern portion of the site perimeter is frozen2 to 4 feet below ground surface.

1988 HLA InvestigationHILA conducted a field investigation at the site from July through

1 ~~October 1988. The field tasks performed at the site included collecting watersamples from existing monitoring wells, collecting surface-water and sediment

3 ~~samples, and conducting geophysical and soil gas surveys.The 1988 field investigation and laboratory analytical results

3 ~~indicated that some purgeable halocarbons are present in the ground water atthis site, and may possibly have migrated to French Creek. A summary ofparameters found to have concentrations in excess of ARARs in the surface

10 ~~water and ground water is shown in Table 2-2. 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane wasdetected in one surface-water sample at a concentration in excess of theP ~~Ambient Water Quality Criteria (AWQC) of 0.17 ug/l and in one ground-water

I0057R4I ~~May 16, 1989 2-6

Table 2-23

Summary of Ground-water and Surface-water Parameters withConcentrations in Excess of ARARs - Site 2*

ARAR Sample DesignationIParameter Units Value Type 02MOBW1 O2MOCW1 O2MW9W1 02S01WI

1,1,2,2-Tetrachloro- ~~~~ethane ug/h 0.17 AWQC -- (0.791) -- 0.226

Arsenic, Total mg/i 0.05/ MCL/ (.415) (.072) (.0727) 0.00300.0000022 AWQC

iron, Dissolved mg/i 0.3 MCL 3.7 0.8 8.5 1.1Iron, Total mg/i 0.3 MCL (97-2) (75-.1) (83-.0) 3-.07Manganese, Dissolved mg/i 0.05 MCL 0.9 0.9 1.6 0.6Manganese, Total mg/i 0.05 MCL (15.1) (1.82) (2.51) 0.72

* ~~- All analytical results are not presented on this table. See Table4.1.2-4 in the HIA RI/FS report (1989) for a summary of parametersdetected.I

AWQC - Clean Water Act, Ambient Water Quality CriteriaMCL = Maximum contaminant level

-- - Less than detection limitI(0.791) = ARAR not applicable to analytical values in parentheses1.6 - ARAR exceeded for analytical values underlined

0057R4May 16, 1989

sample. Iron and manganese concentrations in all ground-water and surface-I ~ ~water samples collected at Site 2 exceeded the secondary drinking waterstandards and the arsenic concentrations in the surface water sample exceededI ~ ~the AWQC. However, these metals were believed to be naturally occurring. Theareal extent and range of concentrations of purgeable halocarbons within thelandfilled area, and in ground water and surface water (i.e., French Creek) atthis site, was not established during the 1988 investigation. Also, the

* ~~understanding of contaminant migration pathways was complicated by seasonalchanges in ground-water flow direction.

* ~~2.2.3 Site 3/9. New Base Landfill/Fire Training AreaDescription of Site: Setting and Location

II ~~~~~Site 3/9 occupies an area comprising at least 100 acres just eastof the south end of the runway and north of the northwest portion of the

~~ ~ refueling loop taxiway. Site 3 was used as the main Base landfill from 1967until 1987, and as a major fire department training area from .1955 to 1976.Site 9, used for fire training exercises since 1976, is located within thewest-central portion of the Site 3 landfill area, approximately 1,200 feetnorth of the taxiway refueling loop and 700 feet east of Garrison Slough. For

this investigation, Sites 3 and 9 have been considered the same site (Site3/9). The site is presently used for a variety of purposes includingfirefighting training and practice burns, military exercise encampments,construction equipment parking, disposal of organic-rich soil, refusedisposal, and hardfill disposal (primarily asphalt).

Past and present Base Fire Department chiefs indicate that the3 ~~site has been continually extended over the years. It now includes the entirearea cleared of tree vegetation that lies north of the refueling loop between3 ~~Garrison Slough on the west and the Asbestos Disposal Area on the northeast.,The exercise staging area known locally as "Camp Happy Dump" is includedwithin the central portion of the site. The site is easily accessed from

well-maintained gravel roads off Quarry Road near its intersection with

0057R43 ~~May 16, 1989 2-7

Industrial Drive, and also from Chena Street off the south end of FlightilneAvenue. Physical access to the site is generally unrestricted, althoughI

portions of the site are temporarily restricted during maneuvers and fire

training exercises.IThe site history is complex because of its long use and its dual

purpose. Refuse disposal began in a large flooded gravel pit in the southwest3and central portion of the site. The landfill originally was operated byplacing waste materials in the gravel pit; the refuse was covered with fill on3a daily basis. Waste materials reportedly were dumped into standing water, asthe gravel pit was excavated to below the water table. Once the gravel pitwas filled to capacity, refuse was placed in excavated trenches and covered

daily. Continued trenching expanded the landfill toward the northeast toencompass more than 100 acres. Refuse burning was not part of routineIlandfilling operations; however, Base Fire Chiefs Devon and Rotroff, reportedthat a landfill fire brake out several years ago in the portion of thelandfill near the Asbestos Disposal Area.

The landfill received Base refuse, including household garbage,3scrap lumber, scrap metal, construction debris, concrete slabs, and empty cansand drums from the flight line industrial shops. It reportedly also received3waste ails, spent solvents, and paint residues and thinners. Intervieweesreported that five or six drums of radioactive photographic chemicals from

Detachment 460 were buried at this site during the late 1960s, although noUradiation levels above background were detected in a radiation ground survey

conducted at the site (CH2M Hill, 1982). A B-29 bomber reportedly was dis--posed in the gravel pit in the rnid-1960s.

The fire department training area was initially adjacent to the3gravel pit in the southwestern portion of the landfill, but was relocatedseveral times because of encroaching landfilling. Interviewees reported that3petroleum, oil, and lubricant (POL) wastes, including waste oils, contaminated

fuels, and spent solvents, were transported to the fire training pit andburned during the training exercises (CH2M Hill, 1982) held at least twice pier 3month. Approximately 500 gallons of POL wastes were used during each

00 57 R4May 16. 1989 2-83

exercise. The practice of burning POL wastes during the exercises was haltedin 1972, and from 1972 to 1976, clean JP-4 fuel mixed with approximately 200gallons of less-than-la-percent-water-contaminated JP-4 was used during the

U ~ ~exercises.

Current procedures at the fire training area are to presaturate

the ground with approximately 5,000 gallons of water, apply the starter fuel,

preburn for 30 seconds, then extinguish the fire with 6 percent aqueous film-

3 ~~forming foam. Approximately 500 to 1,000 gallons of clean JP-4 fuel mixedwith up to 200 gallons of less-than-10-percent-water-contaminated JP-4 fuel ispoured onto and around a simulated aircraft for each exercise. A metal

smokehouse used for respirator training is on the north side of the gravelaccess road. On the south side of the road in the west central portion of the

site are a mock-up jet fighter, fuel burning stands, and a wrecked securityvehicle used in practice burning. Fuel for the burn is pumped to the

simulated jet fighter from a standpipe at the edge of the gravel access road.

Fuel used in the burning is delivered in drums. Exercises are conducted at3 ~~least twice per month, but the frequency varies.

This-site was investigated by Dames & Moore under the IRP Phase

II, Stage 1. During this stage, one monitoring well was installed

downgradient of the landfill area. A data summary sheet for the parametersinvestigated at this site can be found in Phase II, Stage 1 Report,I ~ ~Appendix I.

1988 HLA Investigation3 ~~~~~HLA conducted a field investigation at the site from July through

October 1988. Field tasks included drilling soil borings; excavating test3 ~~pits; installingruonitoring wells; collecting soil and ground-water samples;

performing slug tests; and conducting geophysical and soil gas surveys.

As observed during the 1988 field investigation, the site is

generally flat, with the exception of a low mound of recently placed landfillcover material and a large pile of debris (approximately 10 feet high)

primarily consisting of asphalt debris. The landfill cover material is in thenorthwest corner of the site and covers'approximately 15 acres, and theP ~~asphalt is in the middle of the site and covers approximately 1 acre.

005 7R4May 16, 1989 2-9

Improved gravel roads and a few unimproved dirt tracks traverse the site. Offthe traveled areas, the ground surface is irregular and consists of loose sandand gravel. Major portions of the site are barren as the result of constantregrading and vehicle traffic, especially in the central portion of the site .3Therefore, dusty conditions exist over much of the site during dry summerperiods. A mock-up jet for fire training is presently in the barren area in3the west central part of the site. The area used for practice burns is gradedflat; reportedly, a surficial layer of silt was placed in this area to retard3any possible percolation of fuel into the subsoil.

Vegetation at the site is limited to tall grasses and some dense,low to moderately high brush covering the southwestern portion of the site.IAdjacent areas to the north and northeast are covered by mature spruce andbirch forests. The subsurface is characterized by unconsolidated deposits ofIsand and gravelly sand to an unknown depth. Within the area of the old gravelpit, refuse was encountered to a depth of approximately 20 feet. Ground waterwas encountered approximately 10 feet below ground surface.

Analytical data from the 1988 field investigation indicated the3presence of semivolatile organic compounds, metals, and TPH in the soil, andthe presence of purgeable halogenated and aromatic hydrocarbons, naphthalenes,metals, and TPH in the ground water at Site 3/9. The TPH concentration in the I5- to 5.5-foot depth soil sample from one boring located in the Fire TrainingArea exceeded the ADEC action level of 100 mg/kg. A summary of parametersfound to have concentrations in excess of ARARs in the ground water is shownin Table 2-3. Results of the 1988 investigation indicated:3

* The analytical data from two wells, installed in the buried fuelpipeline corridor between the E-.2 and E-4 Areas, detected fuel-related compounds in the ground water; however, insufficientIinformation existed to identify the source.

* The soil vapor survey and ground-water and soil analyticalIinvestigation indicated that the fire training area iscontributing TPH and volatile and semivolatile organic compoundsto the soil and ground water. The chemicals in the ground waterwere present both in and downgradient of the fire training area. aAs the ground water flows to the northwest, the possibility exists

0057R4May 16, 1989 2-10

IC S N en a, 02 5 r-.

o 0 0 .4 NS0,0

C., �I 0� C.� 0I N � - -

o 0' 0 C N tfl

3 - a a . C.,3 0 0 en - -. (0o 0 - - NS0,0

0, 5%. 5 . . F-

* 3 5 5 N - � C- 0 0 0 -en

C.,43 04.1

C,'.- CV, S . . -

- 0 0 N 0' (0 flI (0 0 U' 0 N

CC 0

�04.1St

4- - F- 5 . . . Sno o3 Sn C N 5% (00 "0 C 0 U' 0 N

02 * C4) 0o 0 enX 4)

* - U' t C'� 0, (0 N- . - V03 0 0� 0 0 C 0 N Cc 2 Co 0- 0 5-4.1C enS.. -

(01 N F- S�. 2 0 V4) t Sn'Ta .61 0 10 N enen 6)4)

.0 0St .0 C)C) 4.14.1 - �4.1

- 3 - N - F- St 4)3 5 F- . . . WV

0 0 0 0 N1- 0 5..

0

-

.0 505.. 3 C Sn S4 N C s-3St N 2 d - - CC21 - VS -' 0 2

4)

CS-0 >,'4-. 0�V 3 C Sn - 0 0� 0 C@3 S..C - 0 0� . C -oa 4 - 04)= 0 * - - 0 n� 43350

St - o ci o C(0 - 43 C14 @35 ' C @3o s-ov so

-J -J -J -J -s 0.4- -0 0 tj ci ci ci C) C0. � r S ± a00' 0� - CC-- - -

�--

0� 0 soa, N Sn - en 10 o L....0r.4I I -

0 Sn S C >,

- 0.04)0 - C C 0

0 - - @3 OCS-rLLa, C 4.14.10- 0'''i'll

L& 4 - C) - 4-

CVV 4� 00 4-' 0)@3> V �SC V @3')

V - @3 soE .C4.h X

o V - St.C.-5 4) 0 > C@3@3� '03 034) - @3 5.0 0 �a 0.- 0@3 V 0 > - 0 - CX 04-IC- 0 - V 0 - C so St @3 0 C,C o 0 - �-aSJrC C.2

- V 0�.C SI IS II II II SIC) 4) - V 4) 4)4) . - so V ->5 N - C 0' *... V..

C C L 0 C 0 .J CI to >5- @3 C C so 4) 4-C) Ott3 C C - S - 4- *� �2I Cr

U

for these chemicals to migrate to Garrison Slough, approximately1,000 feet northwest of the fire training area. The extent toIwhich these chemicals have migrated was not established in the1988 investigation.

The analytical investigation also indicated that the landfill wasIcontributing purgeable halocarbons and other volatile organiccompounds to the soil and ground water. However, neither theextent of the chemicals in each medium nor the extent of theIlandfill was established during the 1988 investigation.

The analytical data fromthe wellclusterinstalledaat t thesiteeindicated that dichlorodifluoromethane and vinyl chloride arepresent in the ground water to a depth of at least 60 feet belowground surface. These chemicals could have been introduced intothe ground water from either the landfill and/or the fire trainingarea.

2.2.4 Site 4. Munitions Disposal AreaDescription of Site: Setting and LocationSite 4 is an old Army landfill where general refuse, including

scrap metals and empty containers, was deposited. In addition, the landfillprobably received small quantities of waste oil and spent solvents and mayIhave received small amounts of munitions and spent cartridges for burial. Togain additional information on the site's history, HILA contacted the BaseIHistorian, reviewed old Base maps and survey plans, and interviewed personnelin Base Real Property. These efforts revealed the Army originally used thesite to store ammunition in bunkers, as shown on an old Master Plan of theBase. Currently, the site is an active munitions disposal and explosivesdetonation area.

The site is distant from the highly developed portion of the Base,approximately 3 miles east northeast of the south end of the runway, a mileInorth of the small arms range, and a mile west of the Quarry Hill Ammo Storage

facility. The site is situated on a low bench near the base of Quarry Hill atan elevation approximately 585 feet above MSL, 45 feet above the French Creeklowlands. French Creek passes within 3/4 mile southwest of the site. A large3pond used by moose lies several hundred feet east of the site. The TransaAlaska pipeline and Haines-Fairbanks pipeline pass underground approximately

0057R4

May 18, 1989 2-11

1/3 mile to the southwest. Access is from Quarry Road to Munitions Road, then

I ~~west on a restricted road with a locked gate. Site entry is controlled by theExplosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) Squadron because the site is an active

I ~ ~munitions disposal and explosives detonation area.1988 HIA InvestigationHIA conducted a field investigation at the site from July through

October 1988. Field tasks included drilling soil borings; installingmonitoring wells; collecting soil, ground-water, and surface-water samples;

and conducting a geophysical survey.As observed during the site investigation, the currently active

portions of the site, specifically, the areas used for explosives detonation,the burning kettle (munitions incinerator), and the munitions residue burialI ~ ~site, are graded flat and are either barren or support the growth of lowgrasses. The areas immediately north, south, and east of the burning kettleand munitions residue burial area are swamplands used in the past for drum

disposal and perhaps other landfilling. Several concentrations of old rusted* ~~drums and piles of old steel runway grating were observed in the swampy area.

A small area east of the burning kettle is used for storage and handling of

spent practice bombs. The area peripheral to the active shot holes

(explosives detonation area) is covered with a dense growth of willow brush,spruce, and birch, some of which is clearly second-growth vegetation. Field

* ~~~evidence indicates individual landfill sites exist in this overgrown bushyarea. In addition, several badly broken concrete slabs are present in theovergrown area south of the active shot holes. Portions of this overgrown

area exhibit hummocky terrain, somewhat resembling small explosion craters

and/or showing the effects of frost-heaving soils. The moderately steep bank

that forms the south and southeast site boundary contains hundreds of

apparently empty drums and other'metal debris, including some old deactivated

bombshells and aluminum aircraft wreckage.The subsurface comprises*a sandy gravel surface layer a few feet

thick that becomes saturated with depth, underlain by stiff to medium-stiffsilt that contains abundant fibrous organic material. The silt becomes frozenat depths of 17 to 23 feet below ground surface. Perched shallow ground water

0057R4May 16, 1989 2-12

was encountered at depths ranging from 2 to 4 feet below ground surface.During the 1988 HLA field investigation, the ground water pumped from one ofthe monitoring wells was thick and foamy, looked like beer or tea, and had a

strong sulfur odor.IThe analytical investigation conducted at Site 4 indicated that

TPH, purgeable halocarbans, purgeable aromatics, and semivolatile organiccompounds were present in the soil, ground water, and surface water at thesite. TPH was found in all six sail samples and TPH concentrations exceeded3the 100 mg/kg action level in three of these samples. The purgeablehalocarbons, purgeable aromatics, and semivolatile organic compounds found inthe soil samples either had no ARARs established or were detected at levelsIbelow ARARs. It was suspected that higher concentrations of these compounds

may exist at other locations at the site.IA summary of parameters found to have concentrations in excess of

ARARs in the ground and surface water is shown in Table 2-4. High Sconcentrations of TOS and metals were found in the ground-water and surface-Vwater samples from the site. TDS, iron, manganese, and arsenic were found atconcentrations near or above the drinking water standards, but within therange of concentrations generally found in natural waters in this area. The3concentration of sulfate in a ground-water sample from Well 04M01 exceeded the250 mg/l secondary drinking water standard by nearly 100 mg/l. The presenceof sulfate at this concentration was suspected of being a result of munitionsIdisposal operations conducted at the site.

2.2.5 Site 5. Old Army Landfill

Description of Site: Setting and Location3Site 5 is reportedly an old landfill used by the Army battery

station located at the site from approximately 1956 to 1959. It received3small quantities of waste oil and spent solvents in addition to general refusesuch as scrap metals, empty drums, and containers. Current activity at the

site is limited to rabbit and archery moose hunting by Base personnel.

0057R4May 16, 1989 2-133

Table 2-4

Summiary of Ground-water and Surface-water Parameters withConcentrations in Excess of ARARs - Site 4*

ARAR Sample DesignationI ~ ~~~~~~~~Parameter units Value Type 04M01W1 04MOZW1 04M03W1 04DPWOI 04SO1W1

Arsenic, Dissolved mg/i 0.05/ MCL.! 0.06 0.03 0.009 0.009 0.0070.0000022 AWQC

Arsenic, Total mg/i 0.05/ MCLl (0.0323) (0.107) (0.0229) (0.034) 0.0086

0.0000022 AWQCIron. Dissolved mg/i 0.3 MCL. 7.1 4i8 5.4 5.3 0.3Iron, Total mg/l 0.3 M4CL (342) (341) (15.6) (35.2) 1.68Manganese. Dissolved mg/i 0.05 M4CL 08. 1.0 1.0 0.3

Manganese, Total mg/l 0.05 M4CL (9.14) (8.80) (1.14) (1.49) 0.281Residue, Dissolved mg/i 500 MCL 324 1090 882 840 436Sulfate mg/i 250 M4CL 347.6 41.16 -- 0.607 0.607

* -All analytical results are not presented on this table. See Tables 4.1.4-3 and 4.1.4-4 in the HLA

RI/FS report (1989) for a suimary of parameters detected.

AWQC = Clean Water Act, Ajnbient Water Quality Criteria

MCL - Maximum contaminant level

- =Less than detection limit

(342) = ARAR not applicable to analytical values in parentheses.0 -ARAR exceeded for analytical values underlined

I~~~~05RI~~~~Ma 618

The site is approximately 1.5 miles south-southeast of the southIend of the runway, 2,000 feet east of the Richardson Highway, and is borderedby Garrison Slough to the northeast. The site has unrestricted access off aslightly overgrown gravel road that travels southeast from the end of theIrunway.

1988 HIA InvestigationHLA conducted a field investigation at the site from July through

October 1988. Field tasks included drilling soil borings; installingmonitoring wells; collecting soil, ground-water, and surface-water samples;and conducting geophysical and soil gas surveys.

The site is characterized by very shallow ground water, severallarge ponds, and other wetland areas adjacent to Garrison Slough. The largerponds appear to be abandoned gravel quarries. The site is flat with theIexception of low gravel mounds between ponds that resulted from past quarrymoperations. Tall swamp grasses and willows grow adjacent to and within thewetlands; low brush, spruce, and birch trees are present on dryer ground. TheWsubsurface consists of a variable surface lay er 3to 6feetthick compose d ofsilty sand and gravelly sand overlying gray sandy gravel to an unknown depth.Depth to water was measured at 3to 5feetbelow ground surface.

Field evidence indicates that past landfill activity was confinedto the areas within the abandoned gravel pits, which remain open and were not

covered. Metal drums, munitions crates, sheetrock, canvas, lumber, otherImetal debris, and refuse are visible in the flooded pits. Some drums wereplaced at the edge of Garrison Slough with occasional isolated drums scatteredIabout the periphery of the site. There was no evidence of buried landfill

areas. Several decayed rabbit carcasses were observed during HLA'sinvestigation, and Base environmental personnel were notified. The cause ofdeath was not obvious; the rabbits may have been killed as target practice orthrough natural causes unrelated to the landfill.-

Analytical data from the 1988 field investigation indicated thepresence of TPH and metals in the soil and purgeable halocarbons and metals in Ithe surface and ground water at Site 5. The TPH concentrations in the soil,

0057R4May 16, 1989 2-14

which ranged from 13.5 to 24.0 mg/kg, were below the ADEC proposed action

level of 100 mg/kg. A summary of patameters found to have concentrations inexcess of ARARs in the ground and surface water is shown in Table 2-5.

Trichiorofluorornethane was detected in the eastern-most pond at aconcentration above the AWQC, and chioromethane was detected in ground water

I ~~from Well 05MOI and 05M03. Past disposal activities at the kite weresuspected of being the source of these purgeable halocarbons; however, the

location of the source (if still present) had not been identified, and the

concentrations and distribution of these chemicals in the ground water,surface water, and soil at the site was not well defined in the 1988investigation. A number of metals were detected in the soil and ground water;

however, they were believed to be a result of naturally occurring background

conditions rather than the result of past site activities.A qualitative risk assessment performed for Site 5 during the 1988

investigation identified inhalation of VOCs from soil vapor and surface water,I . ~~ingestion of chemical-laden ground water, and dermal exposure to chemical-laden soils as potential exposure pathways to the chemicals detected at the

site. However, the evaluation of the extent to which the effect to human* ~~health and the environment could be assessed was limited due to the lack of

information available concerning the concentrations and distribution of the

* ~~chemicals at the site.

2.2.6 Site 6. Old Landfill

I ~~~~~Description of Site: Setting and LocationSite 6 served as a secondary landfill from 1959 to 1963. In

general, it received household refuse, empty drums, paint containers, and

various other scrap metals; only small quantities of waste paints, paint

thinners, and spent solvents as drum residuals were thought to be received by

the site.

Site 6 is behind the Carpentry and Paint Shops, just south of a

newly constructed recreational vehicle cold storage facility. The site covers' ~~approximately 10 acres and is bounded to the west by the Golden Valley

0057R43 ~~May 16, 1989 2-15

Table 2-5

Summary of Surface and Ground-water Parameters with

Concentrations in Excess of ARARs - Site 5*

ARAR Sample DesignationIParameter Units Value Type 05MOlWI 05M02WI 05M03W1 05SOlIW

Chloromethane ug/l 0.19 AWQC (1.95) ND (1.61) -

Trichlorofluaromethane ug/l 0.19 AWQC *** - 0.357Iron, Total mg/i 0.3 MCL (95.7) (21.1) (24.5) 1.17IIron, Dissolved mg/l 0.3 MCL 0.1 0.4 0.2 0.08Manganese, Total mg/i 0.05 MCL (2.61) (5.51) (2.78) 0.045Manganese, Dissolved mg/i 0.05 MCL 134.7 2.2 0.05

* ~- All analytical results are not presented on this table. See Table4.1.5-5 in the HLA RI/FS report (1989) for a summary of parameters Sdetected.W

** ~- Concentration of the analyte in the environmental sample was lessthan 10 times that in the equipment blank, and is not consideredrepresentative of actual field conditions.

AWQC - Clean Water Act, Ambient Water Quality CriteriaMCL - Maximum Contaminant LevelI

-- ~- Less than detection limitND =: Not detected by second column analysis(0.791) - ARAR not applicable to analytical values in parenthesesI16 - ARAR exceeded for analytical values underlined

0057R4~~~~~~~~~~~May 16,1989~~~~~~~~

5 ~~Electric Association right of way and to the east by two ponds. Access, whichis unrestricted, is by a gravel road that encircles the new cold storage

faciity. 1988 HLA Investigation

HLA conducted a field investigation at the site from July through3 ~~October 1988. Field tasks included drilling soil borings; installingmonitoring wells; collecting soil, ground-water, and surface-water samples;

I ~~performing a slug and a pump test; and conducting geophysical and soil gassurveys.

3 ~~~~~As observed during the site investigation, the site is generallyflat with a slightly hummocky surface composed of loose sand and silt landfillcover material. The southwestern corner of the site is a shallow depression

formed by a lack of landfill cover material or settling of the landfill refuse~~ ~and debris. Abundant metallic debris is visible through the thin soil cover

material in this depression. Site vegetation consists of tall grass withsparse low brush. The subsurface comprises a 1- to 4-foot-thick layer ofI ~~silty sand overlying sand and gravel. The water level is approximately 6 feetbelow the ground surface.

Results of the 1988 field investigation identified the presence ofTPH in the site soils, and the presence of purgeable halocarbons, purgeablearomatics, and metals in the ground water and surface water at Site 6. TPH

was present in the soil at the perimeters of the landfill area in excess ofthe 100 mg/kg action level established by ADEC. A summary of parameters found3 ~~to have concentrations in excess of ARARs in the ground and surface water isshown in Table 2-6.I ~~~~~The purgeable halocarbons and purgeable aromatic compoundsdetected in ground-water samples at the perimeter of the landfill5 ~~(dichlorodifluoromethane, 1,1-dichloromethane, and benzene) either had noARARs established or were detected at levels below ARARs. It was suspectedthat higher concentrations of these or other compounds exist at other

locations at the site.

00567R4I ~~May 16. 1989 2-16

Table 2-61

Summary of Ground-water and Surface-water Parameters withConcentrations in Excess of ARARs - Site 6*1

ARAR Sample DesignationIParameter Units Value Type O6MOlWI 06M02W1 06M03W1 O6SOJWJ**

Arsenic, Dissolved mg/i 0.05/ MCL/ 0.02 LQ05 0.02 0.002

Iron, Dissolved 0.0000022 AWQC jmg/l 0.30 MCL 2.5 2j 0.3 0.04

Manganese, Total mg/i 0.05 MCL (1.16) (1.90) (2.70) 0.1401

Manganese, Dissolved mg/l 0.05 MCL 0.04 1 6 11 0.1

* - All analytical re sults are not presented on this table. See Tablej4.1.6-6 in the HIA RI/FS report (1989) for a summary of parametersdetected.

* - Surface-water sampleMCL - Maximum contaminant levelIAWQC - Clean Water Act, Ambient Water Quality Criteria

-: Less than detection limit(1.16) - ARAR not applicable to analytical values in parentheses2.17 - ARAR exceeded far analytical values underlined

0057R4May 16, 1989

5 ~~~~~A number of inorganic parameters, including arsenic, iron, andmanganese, were found in the ground-water and surface-water samples at levelsat or above ARARs. However, these parameters were generally found atconcentrations within the range found in natural waters in this area, and werebelieved to be due to background conditions.

2.2.7 Site 8. Fire Training Area3 ~~~~~Description of Site: Setting and LocationSite 8 is an old gravel pit that was used for fire department

5 ~~training exercises from 1948 to 1955; the pit is currently flooded.* ~~Approximately once a week, fire exercises were conducted on simulated wrecked* ~~aircraft in the old gravel pit using approximately 250 gallons of POL waste* ~~material. This waste material included mixed waste oils, contaminated fuels

and spent solvents. Although most of the POL material probably was consumedin the fire, there may have been some percolation of waste material into the

grvlpit area. Between 1955 and 1971, the site was used for aircraft rescue

training exercises, but the training did not involve practice burns as inprevious exercises (CH2M Hill, 1982). The site is along the north side of

* ~~Transmitter Road just west of the Alaska Railroad tracks.* ~~~~~1988 HIA Investigation

HLA conducted a field investigation at the site in September andI ~ ~October 1988. Field work included collecting six sediment samples and onesurface-water sample. As observed during the site investigation, the site is3 ~~generally flat with ground water within a few feet of the ground surface.Thick willows and swamp grass border the pond, with spruce and birch forests3 ~~on adjacent higher ground. The bottom of the pond comprises a presumably thinsoft sediment bottom layer overlying coarser sand and gravel to unknown5 ~~depths. The flooded gravel pit contains a partially submerged B-29 Bomberthat was originally a "Hangar Queen" scavenged for parts. The Bomber, whichis unburned, was not used in the rescue training exercises according to

interviewees. Muskrat or beaver were observed swimming in the pond near theft ~~bomber.

0057R4May 16, 1989 2-17

The analytical investigation conducted at Site 8 indicated that3TPH, organochiorine pesticides, and lead are present in the pond sediments.The distribution of these chemicals with regard to depth in the soils beneaththe pond was not well defined. It was suspected that fire training exercisesIheld at Site 8 were the source of the TPH. The lead may have resulted fromthe burning of leaded motor fuels during fire training exercises or from3naturally-occurring background conditions. The pesticides were suspected ofbeing the result of past DDT spraying for mosquito control.3

A number of inorganic parameters were detected in the surfacewater at the site. With the exception of manganese, which exceeded the3secondary drinking water standard, these parameters were found atconcentrations below ARARs (if established), and with the range of valuesfound in natural waters in the Yukon-Tanana Valley. No data was available onIground-water quality beneath or downgradient of the pond.

A qualitative risk assessment performed at Site 8 identifiedingestion and dermal exposure as potential exposure pathways to the chemicalsVdetected at the site. The evaluation of the extent to which the effects on5human health and the environment could be assessed was limited at the time dueto the lack of information concerning the concentrations and distribution of

chemicals at the site.

2.2.8 Site 20. Refueling Loop AreaDescription of Site: Setting and LocationMost aircraft refueling operations are conducted at Site 20, the3

refueling loop area; the site includes the E-7, E-8, and E-9 refueling padcomplexes. The area is along the northeast and southeast legs of the taxiway5loop off the southeast end of the runway. Special flight line security passesare required for access to E-7, E-8, and E-9 complexes, and a special security3escort is required for access onto the E-9 pad and other secured areas on andadjacent to E-1 and E-8. In addition, during Base exercises, securityrestrictions in the flight line area are generally increased.I

Each refueling pad complex consists of an approximately 16-acreaasphalt pad centered along the taxiway, with several fueling and defueling

005 7R4May 16, 1989 2 -185

£ ~~transfer pipes. A pump house with four buried 50,000-gallon JP-4 fuel storagetanks and delivery lines is located in the sand and gravel area adjacent to

each asphalt pad.This area was investigated by Science Applications International

Corporation (SAIC) in accordance with its Phase IVa Remedial Action Plan

I ~~submitted on July 10, 1987. No monitoring wells were installed in thei~mmediate vicinity of the pump house during SAIC's investigation. In late

July 1987, Liquid Fuels Management began maintenance work on the undergrounddefuel line linking the three fuel outlets at the Golf/Hotel complex to the5 ~~50,000-gallon underground storage tank immediately north of Facility 1315 (the

pump house at E-7)., A 130-foot-long ditch was excavated to a depth of about

15 feet to expose the fuel line. A layer of hydrocarbon approximately 1 footI ~ ~thick was observed floating on the ground water in the ditch.The Air Force notified ADEC of this condition. An effort was made

by the Air Force to remediate the ground-water contamination at the site by

installing three static recovery wells in the leak area. The wells were3 ~~constructed of 48-inch or 24-inch-diameter corrugated metal pipe (CMP) with

torch-slotted perforations. Installation was accomplished by excavating a pit

using a large backhoe, setting the CMP casing in the pit, and then

backfilling. Floating product was encountered during installation of the tworecovery wells closest to the leaking pipe southwest of the fuel pump house.

1 ~ ~No floating product was encountered during installation of the third wellfurther from the leak to the southeast. The system was set up to pump

* ~~primarily from the two wells nearest the leak and discharge the separated

water into the 48-inch-diameter well to the southeast. By February 1988, 885

£ ~~gallons of JP-4 had been recovered from the system before it becamenonfunctional because the pumping wells became filled with silt.

0057R43 ~~May 16. 1989 2-19

1988 HLA InvestigationHLA conducted a field investigation at the site from July through

October 1988. Field tasks included drilling soil borings; installingmonitoring wells; collecting sail and ground-water samples; performing slugatests and a pump test; installing product probes; and conducting a soil gassurvey. 37 -,adE- opee

The entire taxiway loop including the E-,E8anE-copesis flat, with local shallow ravines and swales to acconmmodate surface1drainage. The individual pads are asphalt-covered with the exception of eightinterior gravel islands, some of which contain the fueling and defueling£pipes. 'The areas adjacent to the pads are grass covered and periodicallymowed. The immediate area of the pump houses and buried tanks is generallybarren gravel with some grass. The large area enclosed by the taxiway loopIcontains several ponds with dense willow and birch forests present east ofCargain Road, and tall grass present west of Cargain Road. Subsurface soilconditions encountered show that the unconsolidated sediments become finerWgrained and increase in silt content (especially in the upper soils) beneathIthe eastern portion of the site. Generally, a near-surface layer of fine-silty sand to sand is underlain by more gravelly sand or sandy gravel. Depth3to ground water in the monitoring wells was approximately 7 feet.

Liquid Fuels Management performs yearly maintenance and inspectionof buried tanks and pump houses at each complex. In addition, tank andIdelivery line integrity testing was recently performed at all three complexes.It is HLA's understanding that all the buried tanks and piping at E-7, E-8,and E-9 passed the tests, with the exception of buried piping at the E-9complex. The specific location of the failure at the E-9 complex had not been5determined at the time of our investigation. Earlier in the year, a utilitytrench excavation northeast of the E-9 pump house encountered hydrocarbons3seeping from the soils. An analysis of the ground water below the excavationshowed that it contained two percent oil and 98 percent water. Two main JP-4delivery lines are buried beneath the west shoulder of Cargain Road in theIimmediate area of the utility trench excavation.

0057R4

May 16. 1989 2-20

I ~~~~~During the field investigation, the HLA geologist and projectfield coordinator observdd preliminary tank inspection procedures at the E-8g ~ ~~omplex. Fuel was being transferred from a buried tank into a portable tankusing a pneumatic diaphragm pump. Substantial fuel leakage from the pump orhose fittings was observed and HLA personnel advised the maintenance crew thatI ~~the leak should be repaired. A patchy overgrown bushy area close to the northside of the E-8 pump house exhibited signs of stressed vegetation. It was3 ~~reported to the HLA project field coordinator that when defueling storagetanks are overfilled, the excess fuel is commonly discharged through ventft ~~pipes on the pump house roof tops. Several interviewees reported seeing the'fountain-like" discharge from the vent pipes an several occasions.

Ta date, 20 monitoring wells have been installed at Site 20: 9 by

SAIC and 11 by HLA. The wells are distributed as follows: 10 wells at E-7, 4wells at E-8, and 6 wells at E-9.

A new static recovery well was installed at the E-7 complex inOctober or November 1988. As of January 11, 1989, approximately 1 gallon of

* ~~fuel had been recovered from the new recovery well.Analytical data from the 1988 investigation at Site 20 indicated

the presence of fuel-related chemicals in the ground water and soil near the

fuel pumphauses at the E-7, E-8, and E-9 Complexes. A summary of parametersfound to have concentrations in excess of ARARs in the ground water is shown

in Table 2-7. Problem areas identified at the three complexes at Site 20include floating hydrocarbons and contaminated ground water at the E-73 ~~Complex; contaminated sails and ground water at the E-8 Complex; and floatinghydrocarbons, contaminated soils, and contaminated ground water at the E-93 ~~Complex. The level of understanding concerning the extent and concentrationsof the chemicals at each refueling complex varied due to differences in the3 ~~amount of investigative data obtained at each complex. Results from the 1988investigation are presented below:

At the E-7 Complex, free hydrocarbons were identified in an areaapproximately 200 feet in diameter. The source of the floatinghydrocarbons was believed to be a leak in a subsurface fuel line.

0057R45 N~~ay 16, 1989 2-21

5 I

CO ~ S

o I~~~~~~~~~lp

0 ~ ~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ CjI

0 CI, I (0 Cl, C C~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~0 0

- CJ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~-00~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~>I

4, I%. C ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I C C ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~= C'4 I = 2~~~~~~~~~~~~=

U - I I'.. Q~~~~~~~~~~~ (0 C C ~ ~ 0

C 0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

4, (0 3~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~0 0~~~~~~~~~

0~~~~~~~~~.0 0~~~~~~~

£ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ezntounehleznand xylenes (:;::) were found ingrond ate nerbyanddowngradient from the floating

hydrcaronsat he -7 ompexat concentrations in excess ofARA~. Te dongrdien exentof the BTEX in the ground waterI~ ~ ~ ~ ~~a o endfnd.Svrlsmvltl rai compounds were

detected in ground water at the E-7 Complex. Iron and manganesedetected at levels in excess of ARARs were believed to be due toI ~~~~~naturally occurring background conditions.

* TPH was detected in soil samples at the E-7 Complex, but at levelsbelow the ADEC 100 mg/kg action level. It was suspected thatI ~ ~~~~higher concentrations of TPH are present at other locations atthis fueling complex. VOCs, SVOCs, and PCB-1254 were alsodetected in soil samples.S - ~~~~At the E-8 Complex, HLA installed one monitoring well during the1988 investigation. TPH was detected in both soil samples from theboring at levels in excess of 100 mg/kg, and benzene was detectedI ~ ~~~~in the ground water sample at a concentration nearly 100 times the5 ug/l primary drinking water standard. The source and extent ofthe TPH and VOCs in soils and ground water at the E-8 Complex wasdefined in the 1988 investigation.

* At the E-9 Complex, floating hydrocarbons were found in the HLAmonitoring well near the pumphouse. The extent of the floatingS ~ ~~~~hydrocarbons was not established. The source of this floatinghydrocarbon was suspected of being a leaking buried fuel line3 ~~~~~and/or spillage of jet fuels on the ground.

* TPH, VOCs, and SVOCs were detected in the ground-water at the E-9Compilex.

* VOCs and TPH were detected in soil samples from the E-9 Complex.The detected concentration of TPH in the 5- to 6-foot- depthinterval sample from the boring exceeded the 100 mg/kg action

level.* The quantitative risk assessment (ORA) performed for Site 20U ~ ~~~~identified a possible carcinogenic risk in excess of the

acceptable range established by the EPA to children ages 1 to 6years old for ground water ingestion under plausible maximumconditions. The carcinogenic human health risks calculated forother ingestion and inhalation exposure scenarios were within EPAacceptable levels. Also, the QRA found the non-carcinogenic humanhealth risks were within acceptable EPA levels. The potential

ecological risks and subsequent human health impacts were not

0057R45 ~~May 16, 1989 2-22

quantitatively assessed due to: 1) a lack of availableinformation concerning local wildlife and biota; 2) theirIpotential exposures to site contaminants; and 3) and the potentialfor their consumption by humans.g

2.2.9 Site 29. Drum Burial Site

Description of Site: Setting and LocationSite 29 is an old gravel pit used for the disposal of primarily

empty 55-gallon drums; approximately 400 to 500 empty drums that formerly3contained asphalt emulsions were disposed from 1965 to 1968. The drums werecovered with fill material. It was reported that some of the drums were full, fand that some may have also contained residues of industrial solvents andengine oil. The site is currently used for the disposal of asphalt roadrubble.I

Site 29 is west of Bear Lake along the northeast side of theAlaska Railroad tracks, approximately 1,500 feet south of the TransmitterRoad-railroad crossing. Adjacent to the site on the north is an unnamedsmaller lake. Site access is unrestricted and can be negotiated by two-wheel-drive vehicles.

1988 HIA Investigation3HLA conducted a field investigation at the site from July through

November 1988. Field tasks performed included drilling soil borings;3installing monitoring wells; collecting soil, sediment, surface-water, andground-water samples; performing slug tests; and conducting geophysical and

soil gas surveys.IAs observed during the field investigation, the site is generally

flat, and gently slopes down to the north toward the small unnamed lake.3Subsurface exploration encountered sand and gravel deposits interbedded withsilty layers to the total depth explored. Ground water was encountered3approximately 8 feet below ground surface during installation of themonitoring wells. Very sparse vegetation exists at the site due to recent3drum removal activity prior to the HLA investigation. Most of the burieddrums were uncovered and removed, and the land surface was regraded.

00571R4May 16, 1989 2-23

HLA understands from the Base Natural Resources Department that£ ~ ~plans to dredge gravel from the west side of Bear Lake have been finalized,which will enlarge Bear Lake to include the Site 29 area and the small unnamed

laeto the north. During the site visit of September 1987, a gravel pit was

being excavated to enlarge Bear Lake. The presence of rusted-to relatively3 ~~new 55-gallon drums in the brush and among the trees was observed. The Basehas indicated that no full drums of waste material have been found in this-5 ~~area. Dredging operations will eventually destroy at least two of the threemonitoring wells installed at the site.

Analytical data from the 1988 investigation identified the

presence of SYOCs, benzoic acid, and TPH in the soil, and organic chemicals,TPH, fluoride, TDS, and metals in the ground water. A summary of parametersa ~ ~found to have concentrations in excess of ARARs in the ground and surfacewater is presented in Table 2-8. Results from the 1988 investigation are

presented below:

I. *~~~ The investigation identified an area at Site 29 believed tocontain buried drums, and possibly soil contaminated with theI ~ ~~~~spilled or leaking contents from the drums. Chemical datacharacterizing the drums in this area were not available; however,TPH and benzoic acid were detected in soil samples, and TPH,a ~ ~~~~benzoic acid, benzene, trichloroethene (TCE), and toluene weredetected in a ground-water sample within the suspected drum burialarea. The presence of these organic chemicals was attributed tocontaminant migration from the suspected drum burial area, but itcould also be the result of other past site activities. The soilTPH concentrations at this location exceeded the 100 mg/kg action5 ~~~~~level established by ADEC.

* TPH in excess of the 100 mg/kg action level was found in surfacesoil upgradient of the drum burial area. The surface soil also

contained a number of SVOCs.* Organic chemicals detected in the ground water at Sit e 29 include

1,2-dichloroethane and TCE. TPH was detected in the sediment

sample collected from the pond on site.

0057R4May 16, 1989 2-24

Table 2-8 fSummary of Ground -Water and Surface-Water Parameterswith Concentrations in Excess of ARARs - Site 29*

ARAR Sample DesignationIParameter Units Value Type 29M01WI 29M2W1 29M'13WI 29S01Wl

Iron, Dissolved mg/i 0.3 MCL ILJA j.6 0.06 0.06Iron, Total mg/i 0.3 MCL (80.9) (68.7) (35.9) 0.535Manganese, Dissolved mg/i 0.05 MCL 1Q&6 3.5 2 0 .01Manganese, Total mg/i 0.05 MCL (12.2) (4.87) (4.42) 0.146IResidue, Dissolved mg/i 500 MCI 632 276 208 126Fluoride, Dissolved mg/, 4 MCL 5.833 - --

* - All analytical results are not presented on this table. See Tables4.1.10-4 and 4.1.10-5 in the HLA RI/FS report (1989) for a summary ofparameters detected.

MCL - Maximum contaminant levelI-- - Less than detection limit

- ARAR exceeded for analytical values underlined(80.9) - ARAR not applicable to analytical values in parentheses£

0057R4£May 16, 1989

Inorganic parameters found in ground-water and surface-watersamples at levels above ARARs include TDS, iron, manganese,chromium, and fluoride. The TDS, iron, and manganese werebelieved to occur naturally; however, information had not beenfound concerning background levels for chromium and fluoride toassess potential sources of these parameters.

The QRA performed for Site 29 indicated that the carcinogenicI ~ ~~~~human health risks for inhalation, ingestion, and dermal contactwere below the acceptable ranges established by the EPA, and theredid not appear to be a noncarcinogenic health risk from chronicI ~ ~~~~exposure. Potential ecological risks and subsequent human healthimpacts were not quantitatively assessed due to a lack ofavailable information concerning local wildlife and biota; theirpotential exposures to site contaminants; the potential farbiomagnification in the food chain; and the potential for theirconsumption by humans.

2.2.10 Site 32/34. Sewage Treatment Plant

Description of Site: Setting and Location

I. ~ ~~~~Site 32 (Sewage Treatment Plant Spill Ponds) and Site 34 (SewageTreatment Plant Sludge Drying Beds) are considered one site (Site 32/34) for

the purpose of this investigation. The site is approximately 1,000 feet north

of the intersection of Central and Flightline avenues near the Main Gate to3 Ei~~elson AFB. Site 32 consists of a small spill pond connected to a much

larger spill pond, and lies approximately 600 feet west of Site 34. Access tothe site is provided by a well-maintained gravel road, with access to the backside of the sludge drying beds periodically blocked by dried sludge piled inthis area. Access to the two spill ponds is restricted by an encircling fence

posted with contamination warnings.The sewage treatment plant became operational in 1953, and Site 32

has been in operation since 1970. The primary function of the two spill pondsat the site was to provide contact time for chlorination of primary effluentI ~~from the Sewage Treatment Plant. For over 10 years, these ponds have served asecondary function as diversion ponds for POL spills. During this period (in5 ~~1975), a major spill of an unknown chemical or solvent reportedly was divertedP ~~to the ponds (CH2M Hill, 1982).

0057R4May 16, 1989 2-25

Two separate drying beds on site dewater digested sludge. Theeight original sludge drying beds were constructed in 1953, and were operatedIuntil 1973. Since 1973, digested sludge has also been discharged to a naturaldepression between the digesters and the aeration lagoons. There are noIleachate collection systems associated with either of the sludge drying beds.There is concern that heavy metals, solvents, and other chemicals from findustrial wastewater discharge could enter the sewage treatment plant andultimately end up in the drying beds.3

During Phase II Stages 1 and 2, nine wells were installed, rangingin depth from 13 to 25 feet. Selected soil and ground-water samples wereanalyzed. Specific results for these Stage 1 analyses are presented in Tables £3 and 4 of the "Confirmation/Quantification-stage JN report. Analytical

results for Stage 2 are presented in a table under the "Summary" section ofIthe IRP Phase II, "Confirmation/Quantification-Stage 2" of the report.

1988 HIA Investigation aHLA conducted a field investigation at the site from .July throughV

October 1988. Field tasks comprised drilling soil borings; installing3monitoring wells; collecting soil, sediment, surface-water and ground-watersamples; performing slug tests; and conducting a geophysical survey.

As observed during the field investigation, the spill ponds coverIapproximately 30 acres. The large spill pond, which has a small centralisland, is set back from the roadway-and obscured from view by tall brush and3birch and willow trees. The spill ponds lie approximately 300 feet west ofthe aeration lagoons at the wastewater treatment facility. The site3topography has slight relief due to the raised aeration lagoons and associatedberms, shallow natural depressions and the Garrison Slough lowlands. The3water-surface elevation is several feet below the surrounding gravel banks.

Most of the site is gravel covered, with low grass vegetation on3the berm slopes, along depressions, and on untraveled areas. Birch, spruce,and willow trees lie along Garrison Slough and other adjacent lands.Subsurface exploration conditions encountered a 6- to 8-foot thick layer of5sand or silty sand with an underlying layer of sandy gravel extendingthroughout the depth explored. The upper layer became less silty with

0057 R43May 16. 1989 2-26

increasing depth. The water level was approximately 7 feet below groundsurface at the time of the investigation. The water table fluctuatesseasonally beneath the site, ranging from approximately 4 to 7 feet belowa ~ ~ground surface.

The analytical data from the 1988 investigation indicated the£ ~~presence of organic compounds and metals in the soil, sediment, ground water,and surface water at Site 32. A suummary of parameters found to have3 ~~concentrations in excess of ARARs in the ground and surface water is shown inTable 2-9.

TPH was detected in sediments from Garrison Slough and organic

compounds were detected in soils from the HLA borings. These parameters didnot appear to be related to sewage treatment plant operations. Except for low

concentrations of phthalate esters in the ground water from one well, theconcentrations of organic compounds were below detection limits in monitoringwells upgradient of the plant site. However, treatment plant operationsappeared to be contributing halomethanes to the surface water in the spill3 ~~pond and to the ground water downgradient of the treatment plant site.Halomethanes probably occur primarily as a result of chlorination of theorganic materials present in the treatment plant effluent. The extent of the

halomethane plume and its effect on surface-water quality in Garrison Sloughwas not established in the 1988 investigation.

2.2.11 Site 35. Asphalt Area9 ~~~~~Description of Site: Setting and LocationSite 35, in operation from the early 1950s until the late 1960s,3 ~~was a mixing area for asphalt and a base for road oiling operations. Waste

oils and solvents were mixed with contaminated fuels and then used for roadoiling to control dust. In addition, approximately 200 empty asphalt drums

reportedly were disposed along the banks of Garrison Slough. The site isnorthwest of the intersection of Tenakee Street and Central Avenue,

approximately 1,000 feet south of the Water Treatment Plant. Garrison Sloughadan unnamed pond border the site to the south and west. Access is

3~~~netitd0057R4May 16. 1989 2-27

NU,

CI I I II-

N *1(I, 0

44C

- 44R��I11�I C I

- tO�.-4jI CnIo 0C-, 4)

di Lcv, o. 0.

.NItI�fl� I

v-v . 4)N - . Mv 0cv, - t 0 �0

- - . C4) 0 a44 U

I I --- CO-fl-- InInNCOIn .�0 0 44 3In . * C (0 0 0

o toO . N CK On N . 0

0 N - - 0 0- 0

0C- I .. %4-.1fl cv,

I t*0� .44 *C 0o Cl, *OCtCO

Co I � K0 ox oc'� In 0 CIn

44ev,U C

CLa -

-, I �I��v44I'*.�v t CMvO0(01 S I

C 0� .60 I 52C In o 0.

4)0 60 Mv 0o .N o 0*

'cv, 4)44C C�.. 4)t. In i I -N -0- t

I., - I44C o 00,cflO0 C

Cv, - -o -

C-C - 44

-cv�-Oil - C ep- - CICC0elt 0 44ON - 0 06- t 444) 0 0 I

44 44 0

I ., - t 44 C

N6- Cl) -4) 0 0 AU 0

44 C 4) 4)3 44 I I -- C-M v- 44 44 -I I I o� *t,� *o 0 4)C d I

C 0 Cl, 44 Mv 4) *V 0C rcn 0 4) C

S 0(0 N 0 In 0 3o N

CD .444)4) 0.

-E 2 0

4' s 0 C 3�a, U L.� 0 4)

4400 440r- cv, = C 4)..1

1..N44 C 6-C .� 0ev, C .. 00

6- 44 4, 0.4)4) C

In 44 0 CO -

C -�0.- - . 4) 0 -- 0 4) * - O� C

4)-. I- 4)..4 ...J ..J v-v. C) > C...

I � - -6 C C 4) Ca 10

4) 44 44 >,-44 C C - C

44 �0 . 006fl OiflO C�C � C 44 1N N 4)44-4 >v4) O�CInt0rv�InInv-. L0.... - C44 C-....0 *o� . .0000 44v...C C>EE >.

C 0 0 00 .0 .0 06-CC 4)4) C- 0�0000 440 N 4444 C0 0 - O.CV�4,-� C

0-----------0...0 0� C44 .�C i3 5,44 ����v-vv-vv-* -% 4) 0 C - A I.

�i1iiii I' LCfl�4-0-C44C0..v-v C 0 U 524)-

C - C C - � C - 44 - VCJ O�044 44 X4) 0.4)- - - - 6-C C0

V 44� 0440 4)05 C 4)4) >n..J 4)0 C44 U C 4)

04)- 0 CO - Cr.- 4)V CEO-=06-0 C �0 10444) - 4) 10 44 U� E 0.C OXC -0 > COC C �044 C 4)S.. .20 4)44 Or 0 44 O.U- C...� 0.0

4) 4444 >0-10 0 - CE C 4)4) X 0 0�C44 4)0 - 4444 In - Co--C S.. 4)�

044-0 0 -vv44 �

I II II U U II II II00

C '*-.C Z44V 4)4) U o0. 0 U. C C. - 44CCC C -C OIfl4) 4) 6-) -J Mv Cv-446-00 C CO 0 45 0'...JC) IC Lfl >1

.2 4).C I. CCCL I.. 41 6 �CJS I 0 . CCC��-C)-SS� C * 41, �S0v I44 0K5

1988 HLA InvestigationHLA conducted a field investigation at the site from July through

October 1988. Field tasks performed included drilling sail borings;

installing monitoring wells; collecting soil, surface water, and ground-watersamples; performing slug tests; and conducting geophysical and soil gas

3 ~~surveys.

As observed during the field investigation, the ground surface is

3 ~~compact and generally flat with a slight slope toward the west and southwest.

A grassy bank 5 to 8 feet high borders Garrison Slough and the pond. The5 ~~entire area is grass covered with same patchy barren gravelly areas.Subsurface exploration encountered a gray, silty sand layer overlying gravel.The silty sand layer varies in thickness across the site from 20 feet just

I ~ ~south of the unnamed pond to not present directly east of the pond. Ground~~ ~ water was encountered at a depth of 8 feet during monitoring well

installation, but the water table is expected to fluctuate seasonally, being

highest in the summer.3 ~~~~~At the time of the investigation, the site was well maintained andfree of all drums and other debris. A surface reconnaissance identified a fewareas from which asphalt appeared to be seeping from the soil. Several large

concrete foundation slabs and footing blocks are visible, possibly buriedalong the steep 5- to 8-foot-high bank bordering the pond.

Analytical data from the 1988 investigation indicated the presenceof volatile organic compounds, organochlorine pesticides, TPH, and metals i-n

5 ~~the soil and sediments at the site. Purgeable halocarbons and aromatics and

inorganic analytes were found in the ground and surface water. Results from3 ~~the field investigation are presented below:

* The record search performed by CH2M Hill (1982) and by HILA as partof the 1988 investigation revealed that this site was used forI ~ ~~~~asphalt mixing and as a base for road-oiling operations.Historical aerial photographs of the site obtained by HLA showedtwo shallow excavations possibly associated with asphalt mixingI ~ ~~~~and drum disposal at the site. The geophysical investigationindicated two subsurface features are present in locationsconsistent with the excavations observed on the aerialphotographs. The linear feature oriented northwest-southeast

exhibits trench-like boundaries on the GPR records and the EM data

0057R43 ~~May 16. 1989 2-28

showed anomalies indicative of buried metal along its length. Twosmall asphalt seeps were present on the ground surface in thisarea. Based on these findings, HLA concluded trench disposal ofmetal debris and/or asphalt drums had occurred at Site 35.

* TPH was found in soil samples at concentrations below the 100£mg/kg action level from borings drilled in the anomalous areasidentified by the geophysical survey. Pesticides were found inall of the soil samples analyzed from the site. The DODDconcentration in a surface soil sample was 32.1 mg/kg, which wasone order of magnitude greater than pesticide concentrations foundelsewhere at Site 35 and other sites on Eielson AFB. Lead wasalso detected in this sail sample at higher levels than observedelsewhere on base.

* Benzene was detected at concentrations below the MCL of 5 ug/l in Iall ground-water samples collected from the site. The benzeneconcentration in ground water from the well installed adjacent tothe trench-like feature, was 2.72 ug/l. TCE was also detected in Ithe ground-water sample from this well at a concentration belowthe primary MCL. Ground-water samples from two other wells hadbenzene concentrations of 0.62 and 0.46 ug/l, respectively. These acontaminants are cormmonly associated with asphalt batching and/orSroad-oiling activities and are probably the result of spills fromWpast activities at the site. Higher concentrations of theseparameters may exist elsewhere on the site.

* A number of organic parameters were detected in the surface-waterand sediment samples from Garrison Slough. TCE and benzene wereIdetected in the surface-water sample; benzene was present at aconcentration in excess of the AWQC. TPH and pesticides werepresent in the sediment sample. The TPH concentration of 793mg/kg was consistent with TPH concentrations found in GarrisonISlough sediments elsewhere on Base and was not considered tonecessarily be a result of past activities at the site. Thepesticide concentrations were also typical of levels found inSsoils from other sites and probably result, at least in part, frompast mosquito control measures carried out at the pond.

* The QRA conducted for Site 35 indicated that based on theinformation available to date and for the exposure scenariosassumed in the QRA, the carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic human3health risks for inhalation, ingestion, and dermal contact werewithin acceptable ranges established by the EPA. The potentialecological risks and subsequent human health impacts were notquantitatively assessed due to a lack of available informationIconcerning the wildlife community present at the site; theirpotential exposures to site contaminants; and, their potential forconsumption by humans.

0057R4May 16, 1989 2-29

1 ~~2.2.12 Site 38. POL/Ski Lodge

Description of Site: Setting and LocationThe Site 38 area of investigation includes approximately 200 acres

of south-facing hillside near the Elelson Ski Lodge. Above the ski lodge isj ~~an old fuel tank storage area and a'pit used for contaminated fuel and sludge

disposal from the late 1950s until 1970. Eight 50,000-gallon tanks and anumber of smaller tanks had once been present. Some tanks may have containedaviation fuel, and some may have leaked in the past. Area use at presentincludes downhill and cross-country skiing, winter survival training,I ~ ~snowmobiling, and setting of permitted trapping lines.

The original waste POL pit near the former fuel storage tanks wasI ~ ~50 feet by 50 feet square and adjacent to the E-I POL storage area. Wastematerial reportedly was removed from the pit and the site cleaned up in 1974.Ground-water monitoring data from the ski lodge original water supply welllocated in the lodge basement has indicated BTEX contamination.3 ~~~~~A second well was drilled in October 1986 approximately 200 feetnortheast of the ski lodge in a cleared area; near-surface silt is underlainby Birch Creek Schist to a depth of about 190 feet. Ground water was

encountered approximately 130 feet below ground surface. The water had anoticeable petroleum taste and odor (George Miller, 1988). The BaseI ~ ~engineering office believes that chemicals could have migrated from the POLarea in the Birch Creek Schist through fractures that provide a conduit for£ ~~movement of contaminants into the ground water in the vicinity of the skilodge wells.

j ~~~~~A third well was installed in October 1986 in the flat wetlandarea approximately 1,500 feet southeast of the ski lodge. Low-levelconcentrations of benzene were reported in a ground-water sample in March

1988, but it is uncertain whether this was due to drilling contamination ormigration from the POL area.I ~ ~~~~During a September 1987 site visit to the Base, representatives ofOEHL, the Base, and HLA toured the ski lodge area and the old tank locationsand sludge disposal area above the ski lodge. The tanks reportedly were

0057R4May 16, 1989 2-30

constructed of bolted steel. The original ski lodge well at the base of thehill below the old storage tank area contained in excess of 100 ppb of benzene ain August 1986.

1988 HIA Investigation3HLA conducted a field investigation at the site from July through

November 1988. Field tasks included drilling soil borings; installing3monitoring wells; installing thermistor strings in the monitoring wells;collecting soil and ground-water samples; performing slug tests; and3conducting geophysical and soil gas surveys.

The site exhibits over 300 feet of topographic relief from the

ridge to the bottom; elevations range from 600 feet to 900 feet above MSL.IThe ridge has been cleared of vegetation in the past, but is currently coveredwith dense willow, aspen, and spruce trees as well as other brush. Thehillside is covered by dense native vegetation, primarily birch, spruce, andbalsam (at lower elevations). The ski slope is covered by mowed grass and lowbrush. Concrete foundation rings and/or sand sub-bases for seven old fuelstorage tanks are present along the ridge line partly obscured by the5overgrown brush. Some old steel piping and concrete pipe supports are alsopresent. Subsurface exploration encountered a surface silt layer up toapproximately 30 feet thick overlying deeply weathered, fractured andIintensely foliated Birch Creek Schist, which becomes less weathered withincreasing depth. The schist contains some major fracture planes and shear3zones, as observed in nearby road cuts, with graphite layers occurringpredominantly at greater depths.5

Due to physical access limitations, the investigation focused onapproximately 40 acres along the ridge line, the ski slope area east of thejtank storage area, an area along the utility access road west of the tankstorage area, and along Ski Lodge Road at the bottom of the slope. The ridgeline is accessed by a well-maintained gravel road and an unmaintained dirt3track used by winter recreation vehicles. The roads run along the ridge and

are approximately 350 feet apart.

0057R4May 16, 1989 2-31

Ground water exists beneath the hillside as water-filled fracturesI ~ ~in the schist at depths between 245 and 314 feet below ground surface. At thebase of the hill, ground water was encountered at the base of a more alluvialI ~~sand and silt unit and in weathered schist at approximately 45 feet. The flatlands south of the site are swampy with abundant standing water, suggesting3 ~~that water is perched on top of a shallow permafrost layer. Permafrost wasnot encountered in the HIA drilling; however, the new ski lodge wellI ~~(southeast of the ski lodge) was reported to have penetrated permafrost from 4to 136 feet below ground surface.

Analytical data from the 198S investigation identified the

presence of TPH in site soil and bedrock, and purgeable aromatics,semivolatile organic compounds, metals, and TPH in the ground water. A3 ~~summary of parameters found to have concentrations in excess of ARARs in theground water is shown in Table 2-10. Results of the 1988 field investigationare presented below:

* The ground water from wells downslope of the south end of theformer POL storage area contained purgeable aromatic compounds atI ~ ~~~~concentrations in excess of the ARARs. A ground-water sample fromthe well installed at the north end of the POL storage area alsocontained benzene but at a level less than the primary drinkingI ~ ~~~~water standard. A hydrocarbon fingerprint analysis indicates JP-4fuel is the source of the purgeable aromatic compounds.

Three wells were completed in the bedrock aquifer. Thedistribution of the benzene concentrations in these wellssuggested fuel from the POL storage tanks has migrated down slopeto the west through the fractured bedrock before reaching groundwater.

* Results of the soil vapor survey indicated fuel related compoundsfrom the tanks may be present in the soil at concentrations inexcess of the 100 mg/kg action level. Free product may be presentin the soil and/or at the soil-bedrock interface in sufficientvolume to act as a continuing source. Additional field data willbe required to evaluate the soil as a potential source ofcontamination and the presence of free product at the sail/bedrock

interface.

0057R4May 16. 1989 2-32

Table 2-10

Swunary of Ground-water Parameters with Concentrations

in Excess of ARARs - Site 38*

ARAR Sample Designation3Parameter Units Value Type 38M401W1 38M02W1 38t403W11 38M04W1 38M05Wl 38P01W1

Benzene ug/l 5 I4CL 8688 - 3.77 0.19 14.6 5Xylenes, Total ug/l 440 PMCLG jfQ-------,Iron, Dissolved mg/l 0.3 MCL 0.1 0.2 0.06 0.05 0.09 3.2

Iron, Total mg/i 0.3 M4CL (41.7) (13.6) (0.655) (5.72) (22.5) 5.48 3Manganese, Dissolved mg/l 0.05 MCL 0.02 2.7 0.02 0.02 0.07 2.2

Manganese. Total mg/i 0.05 MCL (0.807) (3.37) (0.0426) (0.132) (0.524) 2..5Q

Dissolved Solids mg/i 500 MCL 448 924 192 120 310 474 3Nitrogen (NO2+NO03) mg/i 10 MCL -- 22.6 4.31 0.421 2.30 -

* - All analytical results are not presented on this table. See Tables 4.1.13-5 and 4.1.13-6 in the HLA RI/ dreport (1989) for a summary of parameters detected.

MCL a Maximum contaminant levelPMCLG a Proposed maximum contaminant level goal

-- Less than detection limit

(41.7) - ARAR not applicable to analytical values in parenthesesS

868 * ARAR exceeded for analytical values underlined

0057R4~~~~~~~~~May 16,1989~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

A qualitative risk assessment performed for Site 38 identifiedinhalation of VOCs from the POL area, ingestion of chemical-ladenground water, and dermal contact with chemical-laden soil aspotential exposure pathways to the chemicals detected at the site.The evaluation of the extent to which the effect to human healthand the environment could be assessed was limited due to the lackof information available concerning the concentrations and3 ~~~~~distribution of the chemicals at the site.

2.2.13 Site 39. Asphalt Lake

Description of Site: Setting and LocationSeveral hundred barrels of asphalt emulsion were disposed atI ~~Site 39 during runway construction at the Base in the late 1940s. The drums

rusted and leaked most of their contents. No activities are presently carriedI ~~out at the site, which lies approximately one mile south of the Eiel son AFBMain Gate across Richardson Highway. Access is by well-maintained gravel

~~ ~ roads that also provide access to local utilities. The site is roughlybounded on the east and west by gravel roads. Access to the interior portion

of the site is limited by the numerous drums piled up, and the presence of

large construction timbers and soft tar covering the ground to a depth ofapproximately 18 inches.

Observations during a September 1987 site visit by HIA personnelindicated that the site is approximately one acre in size and partially3 ~~situated in a shallow depression. The leaked asphalt emulsion generally lieswithin this shallow depression surrounding the large number of drums and

3 ~~barrels and an abandoned car. However, some asphalt has flowed outside thecentral depression and is found to a lesser extent in adjacent brushy areas.No sampling or analyses had been conducted at Site 39 as of September 1987.

1988 HIA InvestigationHLA conducted a field investigation at the site from July through

1 ~~November 1988. Field tasks performed included drilling soil borings;installing monitoring wells; collecting sail and ground-water samples; and3 ~~conducting natural gamma geophysical well logging.

0057R4g ~~May 16, 1989 2-33

The area covered by tar is mostly devoid of vegetation. Theadjacent area is covered by dense growth of birch, spruce, and willow trees,Iwith underlying brush. Large numbers of drums and dilapidated wooden stave

barrels are embedded in relatively deep tar on the ground. SubsurfaceIexploration primarily encountered sand and sandy gravel with a trace of finesinterspersed to a depth of about 1 to 2 feet below ground surface. The sandy3gravels extended throughout the depths explored, and the water levelencountered during drilling ranged from 4 to 10 feet below ground surface.3

In the 1988 investigation, TPH was detected in the soil and groundwater at the sampling locations surrounding the asphalt area. The TPHconcentrations in three of the seven soil samples collected from the siteIexceeded the ADEC action level of 100 mg/kg. In addition, pesticides were

detected in the soils, and purgeable halocarbons were detected in the groundIwater. The distribution of these chemicals in the ground water and soil hasnot been defined. A number of metals were detected in the soil and groundwater; however, they were suspected of being naturally occurring rather than 5the result of past site activities. A summary of parameters found to have3concentrations in excess of ARARs in the ground water is shown in Table 2-11.

A qualitative risk assessment performed for Site 39 identifiedinhalation of VOCs from the asphalt area, ingestion of chemical-laden groundIwater, and dermal contact with asphalt and chemical-laden soils as potentialexposure pathways to the chemicals detected at the site. The evaluation ofthe extent to which the effect to human health and the environment could beassessed was limited at the time due to lack of information available3concerning the concentrations and distribution of the chemicals at the site.

2.2.14 Site 41. New Auto Hobby Shop

Descriptlon of Site: Setting and Location3Site 41, the New Auto Hobby Shop, is located in Building 3360 on

Arctic Avenue just south of Broadway Avenue. An oil/water separator has been

installed inside the building. Water from the separator drains to a leach

0057R4May 16, 1989 2-34g

I ~~~~~~~~~~~Table 2-11

Summary of Ground-water Parameters with Concentrationsg ~~~~~~~~~in Excess of ARARs - Site 39*

I ~~~~~~~~~~~ARAR Sample Designation

Parameter Units Value Type 39M01W1 39M02W1 39M03WI 53M02W1

Iron mg/i 0.3 MCL NA NA NA 0.4

I ~~Manganese mg/i 0.05 MCL NA NA NA 1.7

* ~- All analytical results are not presented on this table. See Table4.1.14-4 in the HLA RI/FS report (1989) for a summary of parametersdetected.

MCL = Maximum Contaminant LevelNA - Not analyzed

-- - Less than detection limit1.6 - ARAR exceeded for analytical values underlined

I~~~~05RI~~~~Ma 618

field; the oil drains to an underground waste all holding tank. The leachfield outside the building to the south has reportedly been overwhelmed byIails caused by lack af servicing of the oil/water separator.

Asphalt-paved parking lots surround Building 3360 on the north and Ieast; the south and west sides are covered by mowed lawn and a railroad bedembankment. A concrete apron and car wash stall are next to the extreme north3end of the building. The Alaska Railroad tracks and Garrison Slough areadjacent to the site to the west.3

1988 HIA InvestigationThis site has not been subjected to any investigation in the IRP

program prior to the field investigation conducted by HLA from July throughOctober 1988. (A different Site 41, Auto Hobby Shop, at a different locationwas investigated in the IRP Records Search, and is currently underIinvestigation by SAIC.) Field tasks performed by HLA at the New Auto HobbyShop comprised drilling soil borings; installing monitoring wells; collecting asoil, sediment, and ground-water samples; performing slug tests; andVconducting a soil gas survey.3

As observed during the field investigation, the ground surface isflat except for the raised railroad tracks and the steep bank down to GarrisonSlough. The subsurface is characterized by gravel and sandy gravel with aItrace of fines just below the ground surface. The water table encounteredduring drilling was approximatelyl7feet below ground surface.I

Observations outside the building show the presence of anunderground holding tank for waste oil with a capacity of approximately 5003gallons. This holding tank contains the oils; the underflow enters a septic

tank near the holding tank. The septic tank drains to a leach pit that is3reportedly clogged because of the backflow of oils into the larger holdingtank. It is likely that the leach pit is as deep as 9 or 10 feet below the3surface. Garrison Slough is approximately 100 yards from the habby shop.Observation of the slough channel revealed an apparent oily seep at one

location downgradient of the leach pit and discoloration that could be aIresult of oils from the leach pit.

0057R4May 16, 1989 2-35

The Elelson AFB Civil Engineering Dependent recently connected the-ischarge to the sanitary sewer, routing it along the west side of theI ~~building. An engineering report (Kalen and Associates, 1988) addressed soilcontamination in the vicinity of the leach field. As a part of Kalen andAssociates' work, six 2-inch-diameter PVC piezometers were installed as3 ~~monitoring wells and six ground-water samples were obtained from the area ofthe leach field. Water samples were analyzed for purgeable aromatics (EPATest Method 602), purgeable halocarbans (EPA Test Method 601)., and oil andgrease (EPA 379-3). Contaminated ground water was noted at the southwest

3 ~~corner of the building in the vicinity of the oil/water separator leach pit.* ~~Significant parameters identified included purgeable halocarbons and

I ~ ~ aoatc.Kalen and Associates (1988) indicated that the leach pitcontamination extended radially approximately 40 feet, because benzeneconcentrations in samples from wells 50 feet south of the leach pit were belowthe detection limit and samples from two wells south of the "clean" wells3 ~~showed elevated levels of benzene and other purgeable aromatics that did notappear to be related to the contamination at the leach field. Kalen andAssociates (1988) indicated that because the source and extent of this

contamination were unknown, a cleanup effort performed in conjunction with theleach field cleanup was not likely to be effective. Kalen recommendedI ~~emphasis be given to cleaning up the soil and ground-water contaminants in thearea surrounding the leach pit and developed several alternatives and cost

3L ~~estimates for cleanup of the area.

1988 HIA Investigation5 ~~~~~The investigation conducted by HLA in 1988 indicated that TPH andlead are present in the surface soils in the vicinity of the leach pit andadjacent to the concrete apron on the north side of the building. At both

locations, TPH concentrations were in excess of the 100 mg/kg action levelestablished by ADEC. It was suspected that past disposal practices at the

maintenance facility have resulted in TPH contamination of the soil, but noinformation was available concerning the depth, extent of, and arealft ~~distribution of TPH the soil along the west side of the facility.

0057R43 ~~May 16. 1989 2-36

Purgeable aromatic and purgeable halocarbon compounds weredetected in a ground-water sample approximately 160 feet downgradient (west)of the leach pit. This sample was obtained from a well installed within 50feet of Garrison Slough. As noted previously, work performed by Kalen andIAssociates indicated BTEX compounds are present in the ground water south ofthe leach pit. However, because limited information was available, it is3possible that higher concentrations of these or other compounds exist in thevicinity of the leach pit and/or 'Garrison Slough. Ground-water elevation data3generated indicate these compounds will tend to migrate toward GarrisonSlough. The oily seep observed on the east bank of the slough indicates thatfuel-related compounds are being transported to the slough from the leach pit . I

A qualitative risk assessment performed for Site 41 identifiedinhalation, ingestion, and dermal exposure to chemical-laden soil and surfaceIwater as potential exposure pathways to the chemicals detected at the site.The evaluation of the extent to which the effect to human health and theenvironment could be assessed was limited at the time due to the lack ofinformation available concerning the concentrations and distribution of the3chemicals at the site.

2.2.15 Site 42. Miscellaneous Storage and Disposal AreaIDescription of' Site: Setting and LocationAt Site 42, empty drums and containers reportedly were buried and3

miscellaneous materials and small equipment was stored during the 1960s. Itis possible that small quantities of POL waste, including solvents, might have 3been present in residues in the drums. There is currently no activity at thesite.3

Site 42 is along the north side of Garrison Slough, approximately1,500 feet east of the intersection of Central and Flightline avenues. The3Alaska Railroad tracks lie approximately 400 to 600 feet north and east of thesite. Access is difficult; there are no roads into the site. The easiest

foot access is from Central Avenue and across the Slough on a very temporary

0057R4May 16, 1989 2-37

foot bridge. An overgrown gravel road leads back into the central area of theI ~ ~site where extensive surface regrading is obvious. The overgrown gravel roadextends toward the railroad tracks but apparently does not go through.3 ~~~~~1988 HLA Investigation

HLA conducted a field investigation at the site from July through3 ~~November 1988. Field tasks performed included installing hand-drivendrive-point monitoring wells; collecting sediment, surface-water, and ground-3 ~~water samples; and conducting geophysical and soil gas surveys.

As observed during the field investigation, landfilling appears tohave been concentrated in three main areas and along the perimeter of theI ~ ~site, as evidenced by the exposed drums at several locations. The groundsurface is generally flat with a short downslope to the north and east. Many3 ~~crushed drums are exposed in areas along this slope. Vegetation consists ofsmall-to moderate-size birch and willows with some spotty grass and low brush

~~ ~covering the landfill portion of the site. Adjacent areas contain mostlymature spruce and thick brush. Data extrapolated from the nearest site with

3 ~~drilled wells indicate that the site is underlain by sand and gravel with some* ~~silt present. A seasonally fluctuating water table exists beneath the site.

The water table elevation measured during well sampling was approximately 7I ~ ~feet below ground surface.The data acquired during the 1988 investigation indicated that the3 ~~buried metallic debris may be contributing TPH and/or benzene to the ground

water at the site. The concentration of benzene, at 0.28 ug/l, was below the3 ~~primary drinking water standard of 5 ug/l. TPH was found in two wells at 0.7and 2.6 mg/l, respectively. Neither the areal extent nor the impact of3 ~~landfilling on the ground-water quality at the site was established during the1988 investigation.

1 ~~2.2.16 Site 44. Batte ry ShoeDescription of Site: Setting and LocationI ~~~~~Site 44, Battery Shop, includes the area around Building 1141p ~~between the runway taxiway and Flightline Avenue west of the North Street

intersection. Physical access is good, although some security access

I 0057ayR16 1989 2-38

restrictions apply to the building and areas adjacent to the flightilne. Thebuilding and roadway areas are built up on gravel pads that create low-lyingIdepressions, same of which serve as drainage channels. Overall topographicrelief is approximately 5feet.3

This site was designated by Base personnel for further study.Over the past few years, the ultimate disposal of material that drains fromthe battery shop has been a matter of some concern. Dye studies to determinethe direction of drainage associated with a reported leach field have been 3attempted. HLA conducted a records search through old building plans tolocate or document the existence of a reported dry well or leachfieldassociated with Buildings 1138 and 1141. The sanitary sewer discharge wasIlocated, but no reference to a leachfield or dry well was noted. It isbelieved that the shop discharges to the sanitary sewer system; however, in3the past, discharge may have been directly to a leachfield. More research is

required to further evaluate the existence of an old leach field or dry well.

1988 HIA InvestigationHILA conducted a field investigation at the site from July throughI

October 1988. Field tasks performed included drilling soil borings;installing monitoring wells; collecting soil and ground-water samples; andperforming slug tests. As observed during the field investigation, the ground Iadjacent to Building 1141 is mostly paved on all sides. Approximately halfthe site is covered by pavement, and the rest is mowed grass or gravel alleysIbetween shop buildings. Subsurface exploration encountered silty sands and/or

sandy gravel overlying sandy gravels and gravels. During monitoring well£installation, ground water was encountered approximately 9 feet below ground

surface.3The analytical data from the 1988 investigation at Site 44

indicated the presence of VOCs, SVOC, and TPH in the soil, and the presence of

purgeable halocarbons and BTEX in the ground water. A summary of parametersfound to have concentrations in excess of ARARs in the ground water is shown

in Table 2-12. Results of the 1988 investigation indicated:

0057R4 ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ IMay 16, 1989 2-395

I ~~~~~~~~~~~Table 2-12

Summary of Ground-water Parameters With

Concentrations in Excess of ARARs - Site 44*

U ~~~~~~~~~~~~ARAR Sample Designation

Parameter Units Value Type 44M01W1 44M02W1 44M03W1

Benzene ug/l 5.0 MCL -- 85.9 -

I ~~~~Iron mg/i 0.3 MCL 4.5 11.2 2.9

3 ~~~~Manganese mg/i 0.05 MCL 366.7 4.7

' * ~~- All analytical results are not presented on this table. See Table4.1.17-4 in the HlLA RI/FS report (1989) for a summary of parametersI ~~~~~detected.

MCL - Maximum contaminant level- - Less than detection limit

85.9 - ARAR exceeded for analytical values underlined

I~~~~05RI~~~~Ma 618

The largest number and highest concentrations of SVOCs were foundin the surface-soil sample from Boring 44M03, south of BuildingI1138. TPH concentrations in the surface-soil samples from Boring44M02, which is between two shop buildings, and from Boring 44M03exceeded the 100 mg/kg action level established by ADEC.3

* The purgeablelhalocarbons trans 1,2-dichloroethene, and1,2-dichloroethane were found in ground-water samples from allthree monitoring wells installed at the site. Also, BTEX wasUfound in the sample from Monitoring Well 441402, with benzenedetected at a level in exceks of the 5 ug/l primary MCL. BecauseSVOCs were found in soil samples at this site, it was suspectedIthat SVOCs would also be present in the ground water.

* The source, concentrations, and lateral and vertical distributionof the volatile organic compounds, SVOCs, andTPH in the soils andground water at this site were not well defined in the 1988investigation.3

2.2.17 Site 45. Photo Laboratory

Description of Site: Setting and Location

Site 45 is a small photo laboratory in Building 1183. Photochemicals allegedly have been discharged to a French drain from the photo5

laboratory. No laboratory wastewater or chemical recovery system is currentlyin operation at this site. A work order was submitted to connect the3

facility's discharge system to the sanitary sewer, but it is unclear whetherthis task has been accomplished.

Site 45 is situated around Building 1183 near the main taxiwayalong the west side of Flightline Avenue across from the intersection withDivision Avenue. Mowed grass is present along the east and south sides of the Ibuilding, and large antennae are present at the northeast and south sides.

North of Building 1183 is a large raised gravel pad for a parking lot and new3hanger construction. In fall 1988, building construction in the area

surrounding Building 1183 severely limited access. A new addition was added3

to the west side of Building 1183. Construction will resume in 1989 and

access will remain difficult. A new paved access road will be constructed

along the west side of the building.

0057R4May 16, 1989 2-40

1988 HLA Field InvestigationU ~ ~~~~This site was designated by Base personnel as a site during a sitevisit in September 1987. HLA conducted a field investigation at the site from

3 ~ ~July through November 1988. Field tasks performed included drilling soilborings; installing monitoring wells; collecting sail and ground-water3 ~~samples; and performing slug tests.

As observed during the field investigation, an emergency supply3 ~~water well is approximately 550 feet upgradient of an identified dry well inwhich photographic chemical wastes are discharged. A strong "hydrogensulfide' odor was present in the dry well and a nearby monitoring well.

Subsurface exploration encountered sandy gravel with a small amount of siltysands just below the ground surface. During monitoring well installation,I ~~ground water was encountered approximately 9feet below ground surface.

The 1988 field investigation at Site 45 showed that ground water,downgradient of the dry well adjacent to Building 1183 contains TCE, benzene,

~~ ~ chromium, sulfate, and TDS at concentrations above the ARARs (Table 2-13).5 ~~The areal extent of the plume had not been established. It was suspected thatadditional purgeable halocarbons and purgeable aromatic compounds, which hadnot been identified in the 1988 investigation may be present in the ground

water. Surficial soils at the site contained SVOCs and mercury. The arealextent and concentrations of SYOCs and mercury in the soils at the site wereI ~~unknown, and potential-sources had not been identified.

3 ~~2.2.18 Site 47. Base Commissary Parking Lot Fuel SpillDescrlption of Site: Setting and Location3 ~~~~~Site 47, located at the northeast corner of the intersection of

Central and Broadway avenues, is a parking lot where a fuel-contaminated soilwas identified in 2987. The parking lot is flat and covers approximately

150,000 square feet in front of the Base Commissary, Exchange, and Theater.The Child Care Center lies at the south end of the parking lot..3 ~ ~~~~This site was identified by Base representatives upon discovery ofgS ~~contamination. On October 17, 1987, during a preliminary soil investigationfor the Commissary addition, Dowl Engineer's Borehole B-15 was found to

0057R4May 18, 1989 2-41

Table 2-133

Summary of Ground-water Parameters WithConcentrations in Excess of ARARs - Site 45*

ARAR Sample DesignationParameter Units Value Type 45M401Wl 450PV01** 451402W1 45M03W1 52P03W1I

Trichloroethene ug/h 5.0 MCL 945 NRQ 0.538 217 -

Benzene ug/h 5.0 MCL 7.06 ILI 0.95 2.13 -

Chromium, Dissolved mg/i 0.05 ICL 0.06 0 05 - --

Total Dissolved Solids mg/i 500 MCL 1.120 1.160 42 350 216Sulfates mg/i 250 MCL 568.J $9jj 14.24 30.91 16.08IIron, Dissolved mg/i 0.3 MCL L.5.4Z 1.7 0.04Iron, Total mg/i 0.3 MCL (29.4) (30.3) (102) (69.8) 21.2

Lead. Total mg/i 0.05 MCL -- (0.04) (0.08) (0.02) 0.0877Manganese, Dissolved mg/i 0.05 MCL .11.9 13.7 12513.1 0.2Manganese, Total mg/i 0.05 MCL (3.9) (4.08) (5.10) (2.64) 0.68

* All analytical results are not presented on this table. See Table 4.1.18-4 in the HLA RI/FSI

report (1989) for a summary of parameters detected.

-* Duplicate sampling from Well 45M401

MCL * Maximum contaminant levelIPM4CLG = Proposed Maximum Contaminant Level Goal

-- = Less than detection limit(0.04) * ARAR nat applicable to analytical values in parentheses3945 - ARAR exceeded for analytical values underlinedNRQ a Analysis not required

0057R4May 16, 19893

contain fuel-contaminated sail at a depth of 9 feet. There was no immediatelyI ~~identifiable source or spill history for the fuel contamination; however, alarge above-grade diesel tank is upgradient of the site along the south side3 ~~of Broadway Avenue behind the Base hospital. Additional investigation toevaluate tank inventory records, integrity test results, maintenance records,3 ~~and tank filling procedures, etc., is planned.

1988 HILA Investigation3 ~~~~~HLA conducted a field investigation at the site from July throughOctober 1988. Field tasks performed included drilling soil borings;installing monitoring wells; collecting soil and ground-water samples;I ~ ~performing slug tests; and conducting a soil gas survey.

Subsurface exploration encountered a surficial layer of gravellyI ~~fill 3 to 8 feet thick, underlain by a brown/sandy silt or. a very silty sandlayer that decreases in thickness from the east (approximately 3 to 4 feet)

~~~ ~nd is apparently absent in the western part of the parking lot. Beneath thesilt layer, sand and gravel with some silt are present, becoming more gravelly3 ~~with depth. During monitoring well installation, ground water was encounteredapproximately 11 feet below ground surface.

Site access and monitoring well locations were coordinated with

ongoing and planned construction activities. Several construction projectswere underway during the summer of 1988, including construction of a BurgerI ~~King Restaurant, a covered walkway addition to the Commissary and BaseExchange, and a new addition to the Exchange entrance. The parking lot, an3 ~~active area especially in the summer, is scheduled to be repaved in summer1989.3 ~~~~~Analytical data from the 1988 investigation indicated no organiccompounds were present in ground-water samples from monitoring wells at thissite. Inorganic parameters measured in the ground water were all below their

established ARARs and within the range of anticipated background levels. TPH* ~~was detected in soil samples from all three borings and exceeded the ADEC 1005 ~~mg/kg action level by a factor of nine in Boring 47M02, which is in the

I 0057Ry416 1989 2-42

central portion of the parking lot. This occurrence was consistent with

reports of petroleum saturated soils encountered in this area during thefoundation design investigation.

A qualitative risk assessment conducted for Site 47 identified3inhalation, ingestion, and dermnal exposure as potential, but not primary,exposure pathways to the chemicals detected at the site. The evaluation of3the extent to which human health and the environment could be assessed waslimited because of the lack of information concerning concentrations and

distribution of chemicals at the site.

2.2.19 Site 48. Power Plant Fuel LeakI

Description of Site: Setting and LocationAt Site 48, fuel-contaminated soil was discovered in 1987 at the3

west end of the Base Power Plant. Fuel-saturated soil and strong hydrocarbonodors were encountered during construction activities. One contractor

reported that a shovel full of dirt was ignited and burned. The suspectedsource is one or both lines of an abandoned pipeline (3-inch gasoline and 3-5inch diesel) that runs along Industrial Drive and down Division Street.

Utilidor workers report that the utilidor reeks of fuel near the aboveintersection. The pipeline, located immediately south (just upgradient) ofIthe power plant, connected the bulk fuel storage tanks to the old military

service station. It is not known if the lines were drained and purged whenthey were taken out of service.

The site is around and adjacent to the power plant on Industrial3Avenue between Arctic and Division avenues. The power plant and its

appurtenant facilities cover a large area, and include large stockpiles of3coal and two cooling ponds. The cooling ponds cover approximately 20 acres;the other facilities are spread over approximately 30 acres along the east

side of Industrial Avenue.1988 HLA InvestigationHLA conducted a field investigation at the site from July throughI

October 1988. Field tasks performed included drilling soil borings;excavating test pits; installing monitoring wells; installing free product

005 7R4

May 16. 1989 2-43

probes; collecting sail and ground-water samples; performing slug tests; andI ~ ~conducting a soil gas survey.Subsurface exploration encountered surface fill (where present)I ~~composed of sand and fly ash from the power plant, underlain by a silty sand

or sandy silt layer down to 6 feet. This layer is underlain by sand and5 ~~gravel with trace amounts of silt. During installation of monitoring wells,ground water was encountered approximately 13 feet below ground surface.I ~~~~~Prior to HLA's investigation, the Base contracted George L. MillerConstruction Company to drill and install a 5-inch-diameter steel-casedmonitoring well downgradient of the power plant in the area north of the waterU ~ ~truck fill stand.

Well D, an 18-inch 1,000-gpm Base water supply well installed in1 ~~1953, is approximately 300 feet northeast of one of the excavations where fuelwas observed. The well is 115 feet deep and screened between 95 and 115 feet

~~ ~ below ground surface. Benzene, trichloroethene (TCE), and toluene weredetected in water collected from this well in July 1987. HLA was unable to5 ~~sample Well D during its field work because repairs were being made on thepump and wiring controls. The well was returned to service in December 1988.

Two 20-inch-diameter, 3,000-gpm wells providing ground water for

power plant operations are approximately 500 feet southwest of the power plantin Buildings 6200 and 6201. They are 112 and 118 feet deep, and screened from3 ~~71 to Ill feet and 76 to 116 feet, respectively. These wells were sampledduring HLA's field work.5 ~~~~~Two 10-inch-diameter dewatering wells were installed in 1967 northof the plant, and, were completed with top perforations below the water table.5 ~~Fuel was observed in the wells in June 1987 (SAIC, November 15, 1987). Stronghydrocarbon odors were encountered in the water from two constructiondewatering wells installed at the south end of the plant, and the wells have

since been destroyed. Two dewatering wells were also installed west of theplant for construction of the Ash House, and were removed followingconstruction. Fuel-saturated soil, strong hydrocarbon odors, and some freeproduct were encountered.

0057R4May 16, 1989 2-44

The influence of the three high-capacity wells in proximity to the

power plant needs to be considered in evaluating contaminant migration.ILittle is known about ground-water flow in the vicinity of the power plant,but ground-water flow on the Base is generally to the north-northwest. High-3capacity Base water supply wells relatively nearby may exert some influence onground-water gradients in the vicinity of the power plant. I3

The Base installed a large diameter (10-inch) static recovery wellnear the southwest corner of the power plant in November 1988 (based largely3on HLA's summer fie ld work). As of January 11, 1989, approximately 1 gallonof fuel had been recovered from the well.

Analytical data from the 1988 investigation indicated the presence Uof TPH, VOCs, SVOCs, and PCB-1254 in the soil, and the presence of VOCs,SVOCs, TDS, and metals in the ground water. A surmmary of parameters found to3have concentrations in excess of ARARs in the ground water is presented inTable 2-14. Results of the 1988 field investigation indicated:

* An area near the intersection of Division Street and IndustrialDrive contains free petroleum hydrocarbons (probably arcticdiesel) floating on the shallow ground-water table. Chemicalsaassociated with the free hydrocarbons were detected in soil inthis area and in ground water downgradient from this area. Thesource of the petroleum hydrocarbons was believed to be theIabandoned subsurface fuel lines crossing beneath Industrial Drive.

* Data from product probes installed at the site indicated the freeproduct was present in an area approximately 150 feet long and 50feet wide where the fuel line crosses underneath Industrial Drive.In addition, free product was found in one product probe locatedat the northeast corner of the ash house, approximately 300 feet3northwest of the abandoned fuel lines. The free product at theash house was suspected to have migrated from the free productplume near the abandoned fuel lines when construction dewateringIactivities at the ash house caused a local depression in theground-water table.

* Soil samples containing TPH in excess of 100 mg/kg were found insoils samples collected near the abandoned fuel lines and betweenthe abandoned fuel lines and the ash house. The TPH in the soilsat these locations were believed to be caused by leakage from theIabandoned fuel lines. In addition, TPH in excess of 100 mg/kg was __

detected in soil from the south side of the power plant, well awaySfrom the known areas of free product. The TPH at this location W

0057R4IMay 16, 19R9 2-45

0 0 ~ o

C0.~~~~~~~~~

0~~~~~~~~~~~~~

0- N~~~~~~~~

3 -~~~~~~~~~~~~~

3In I I ~~ x

NN

C4'~00

0 ~ 0

was not believed to be related to the known areas of free product.TPH was also found in the soil at concentrations below the100 mg/kg action level at a location approximately 600 feetnorthwest (downgradient) of the abandoned fuel lines crossing andat a location approximately 400 feet southeast (upgradient) of the3abandoned fuel lines crossing. Potential sources for TPH in thesoils at these locations had not been identified.

Volatile organic compounds were present in the ground water. Thedata collected in the 1988 investigation indicated the plumeextended for a distance of at least 450 feet downgradient of theHLA monitoring well installed south of Industrial Drive and mayIhave reached water Supply Well D. Benzene was detected in theground-water sample from monitoring wells at levels ranging from 5to 260 times the 5 ug/l MCL.3

The inorganic parameters TDS, iron, and manganese were found inthe ground-water sample from one well at concentrations in excessof ARARs. The detected concentrations of these parameters wereIsuspected of being due to naturally occurring backgroundconditions. However, because the TDS concentration in this samplewas approximately two times the concentrations found in samplesfrom the other monitoring wells, it was suspected that theselevels may have been related to the fly ash handling activitiesconducted in this area.

A quantitative risk assessment conducted for Site 48 identified acarcinogenic risk in excess of the acceptable range established bythe EPA to children ages 1 to 6 years old for ground-waterIingestion under plausible maximum conditions. The carcinogenichuman health risks calculated for other ingestion and inhalationexposure scenarios were within acceptable EPA acceptable levels.The ORA also found the non-carcinogenic risks to be withinacceptable EPA levels. It should be noted, however, that theexposure scenarios assumed a maximum exposure of 4 years for theresident population. For longer exposures, the human health risks Uwould increase. Potential ecological risks and subsequent humanhealth impacts were not quantitatively assessed due to a lack ofavailable information concerning local wildlife and biota, theirIpotential exposures to site contaminants, and the potential fortheir consumption by humans.

0057R4May 16, 1989 2-46

2.2.20 Site 49. Building 1300 Fuel LeakDescription of Site: Setting and LocationBuilding 1300, which covers approximately 8 acres, serves as aI ~~temporary combat alert hangar complex (CAC) with its own heating unit,

auxiliary electrical generator, septic system, and water supply. The water3 ~~supply wells are located in Building 1301. A utility roam houses the heatingsystem, the generator, and a 550-gallon above-ground day tank that supplies3 ~~diesel fuel for the generator. The above-ground tank is supplied by two10,000-gallon underground tanks adjacent to the south end of the hangar.

* ~~There is a floo~ drain in the utility room, and four floor drains in the* ~~hangar. The drains in the hangar are connected to the septic system

leachfield on the southwest side of the hangar. Tracer dye studies have not* ~~established that the floor drain in the utility room is linked to the

leachfield.Diesel fuel reportedly has been introduced into the building's

septic system leachfield, presumably through the floor drains in the hangar.3 ~~At least one fuel spill has been reported to the floor drain in the utilityroom by overfilling the day tank. A 5-inch-diameter monitoring well wasinstalled in April 1987 adjacent to the utility room, and up to 1.9 feet of

free product was measured in the well on September 22, 1988.i988 HIA Investigation3 ~~~~~HLA conducted a field investigation at the site from .July through

November 1988. Field tasks included drilling soil borings; installing* ~~monitoring wells; collecting soil and ground-water samples; conducting soil

gas and geophysical surveys; and installing product level probes.3 ~~~~~As observed during the field investigation, the ground surface isgenerally flat, with the hangar and taxiway complex built up on gravel fill 3to 5 feet higher than the surrounding grassy areas. Approximately 2/3 of the

fenced-in area is paved. Up to 18 inches of concrete pavement may be presentbeneath the taxiway and adjacent to the building; radiant heating coils are

* ~~reported to be embedded in the concrete apron adjacent to the hangar.

0057R4May 18, 1989 2-47

Subsurface exploration primarily encountered sandy gravel fill overlayingnative silty sand and sandy gravel. Ground water was encounteredIapproximately 8 feet below ground surface.

Two water wells are located in Building 1301 approximately 6003feet east and upgradient of the compound and the septic system leach field.One is a 12-inch, 1,OOO-gpm fire protection well, and the other is a 6-inch,3150-gpm domestic production well. The fire protection well is 136 feet deepwith a screened interval from approximately 116 to 136 feet. The domestic3production well is 115 feet deep, with a screened interval from approximately110 to 115 feet. The Base Surgeon General's Office reports no contaminationin the production well, although the analytes tested for were not identified .IBoth wells were sampled during this investigation.

In response to concerns by the Air Force and ADEC, the 5-inch-3diameter monitoring well adjacent to the utility room was converted to astatic recovery well by Liquid Fuels Management to help remediate the floatingproduct. As of January 11, 1989, approximately 3 gallons of fuel had beenVrecovered from this well.3

The fenced portion of the complex is strictly guarded by militarysecurity police who have authority to use deadly force. Entry into thecompound requires special flightline authorization, notification of BaseIoperations, and authorization by the CAC commanding officer. At least oneescort provided by the CAC is also required. Preplanning entry and3coordination with the CAC is necessary and even then, long delays are commonprior to gaining access. Any work performed inside the compound is subject to3approval by the CAC Commander, who is uncompromising in performing his primarymission of national security. Any work that may compromise performance of3this mission, such as equipment access inside, in front of, or behind thehangar is not allowed. Building 1300 CAC is scheduled to be deactivated thiswinter when renovations to the Galena CAC are completed and the unit returnsIto its regular base. It is anticipated that security restrictions into theBuilding 1300 area will not be nearly as strict and time consuming in the 19893field season.

0057R4IMay 16. 1989 2-48

3 ~~~~~Analytical data from the 1988 investigation indicated the presenceof TPH, SVOCs, and VOCs in the soil, and the presence of purgeablehalocarbons, purgeable aromatics, SYOCs, and metals in the ground water at

Site 49. A sunwuary of parameters found to have concentrations in excess ofARARs in the ground water is shown in Table 2-15. The 1988 field

* ~~investigation conduc ted at Site 49 indicated:

* Free product is present on the ground-water surface beneath thenorthern half of the Alert Hangar. The free product plumeextended northward for a distance of approximately 300 feet from

* ~~~~~the area of the utility room.

* Fuel-related purgeable and semivolatile organic compounds werepresent in the ground water beneath and dawngradient of the freeproduct. The areal and vertical extent of the dissolved plume wasnot well defined. It is possible that discontinuous permafrostmay limit the depth extent of the plume.

* The purgeable halocarbons TCE and 1,1,1-TCA were detected inground water at the north end of the site. The areal extent ofthe purgeable halocarbons in the ground water had not beenestablished. The source of the purgeable halocarbons was unknown;however, it was not suspected of being related to the free

1 * ~~~~~Trichlorofluoromethane, toluene, and naphthalene were detected inthe ground water in the vicinity of the septic system drain field.It was suspected that the ground water downgradient of the drainU ~ ~~~~field contains higher concentrations of these or other compounds.

* SVOCs and TPH were present in surface sails at the site. TPH* ~~~~~concentrations in surface soils were generally in excess of the

100 mg/kg action level. The SVOCs and TPH in surface soil wereattributable to asphaltic paving at the site.

U * ~~~~TPH was present above the ADEC action level of 100 mg/kg in thesubsurface soils immediately downgradient of the free product.The areal extent of TPH in excess of the ARAR had not been

* ~~~~~established.

* Iron and manganese were found in the ground-water samples atlevels above ARARs. These parameters were present atconcentrations within the range of values found in natural watersin this area and were believed to be due to background conditions.

0057R43 ~~May 16. 1989 2-49

Ua

0. 1%�01 elI 3

'4, *I *1SC',U,

3 I C0 IN0-0,t

3 4 4* - I S 5 30� 0- 0-

0,di4.1U,

'Zr 3I 4 C

C -0,

'C0

4- 03o I 4 4 I0 t I S S(0 U,03o WIt Nx S C.)

Iii

C I 4 4Co

5 5CI. N

U, - - N- C 3 '4 C 4* N -. = -

C.) (3 0C S 4.

dl 0 0�4.

- .0 U

UI � i opC

.C 0

4-4- I0

03 C'� a,C

C4.10 3034,

0 0OIL

1- 0 0.4--

4-��

C 00�

0� 4, I4, dl

- >0 LO) --

4-0-i �4,

�034k C 4,-� C Idi 4, -5-LV� C 4.0

LA-- U'*--�E di

-v 4, 4, 4.100) 04�V 030)

C 4,-v-v- 40N4 0)o >.-icJ >,C 0)

C 03 0 4, �4,CX 3di 'V (0 �Sdi > - CC �C4k03

-C - 0 4,.CE4,- 001 (0 - - X4 04o 03 - C 4,0 W5- .. 00 0 03

II II U II II .. A5- 0, CI Lfl >�

- - 2 *

IU

A qualitative risk assessment conducted for Site 49 identifiedI ~ ~~~~inhalation of VOCs, ingestion of chemical-laden ground water, ordermal contact with chemical-laden soil as potential exposurepathways to the chemicals detected at the site. The evaluation ofI ~ ~~~~the extent to which the effect to human health and the environmentcould be assessed was>!limited due to the lack of informationavailable concerning the concentrations and distribution of the

* ~~~~~chemicals at the site.

2.2.21 -Site 50. Blair LakesDescription of Site: Setting and LocationThe Air Force Blair Lakes Target Range Facility is approximately

30 miles southeast of Eielson AFB. The facility includes portable personnelquarters, operations buildings, a control tower, a vehicle maintenance shop,I ~~generator building, fuel storage facility, and other plywood storageoutbuildings on a central gravel pad area. Aircraft distance target rangesand a gravel quarry are northeast and northwest of the central complex.

helicopter. During winter, however, an ice bridge is built across the Tanana

River, and trucks and 4-wheel-drive vehicles can access the site. At thesite, access is unrestricted on the gravel pad. Areas off the gravel pad are

subject to restrictions based on target practice schedules. Tracked vehiclesare required for travel off the gravel pad and gravel roads.3 ~~~~~The Vehicle Maintenance Building, Dorm 102, is steel-framed with apoured concrete slab floor. The water supply well for the facility is in the3 ~~southeast corner of the building. The well is approximately 15 years old andreportedly has a casing diameter of 6 inches and a depth of 120 feet. Waterii ~~softening and filtration systems are in place. A 300-gallon storage tank forheating fuels used to be present immediately outside the Vehicle Maintenance3 ~~Building just opposite the southeast corner. At least one reported spill ofsignificant volume was reported at this tank. The tank was moved in summer1988 to a new location outside the generator building and approximately 503 ~~feet to the east. Buried fuel lines that connect the day-tank to the fuelstorage facility are within 100 feet of the well casing.

00 57R43 ~~May 16, 1989 2-50

This site was not identified during any previous IRP studies atthe Base. Base personnel designated it as a new site during the September1987 HLA site visit. Several problems present at the Blair Lakes Site are

summarized below.

a Vehicle Maintenance Buildingi Water Well ContaminationA strong taste and odor of petroleum has been reported for theIwater supply well. Free product was observed floating on thewater surface in a monitoring well installed this past summerapproximately 30 to 40 feet from the well.

* Ditch LineThe ditch line at Blair Lakes was excavated in 1986 to lay aconduit from the generator building to an electrical box mountedIsouth of the fuel storage facility. Prior to installing the powerlines, approximately 1/2 inch of diesel fuel was reportedlyfloating on the water in the ditch. The source of the fuel leakI

* Diesel Fuel SpillSeveral years ago, a 1-1/4-inch pipe connecting the main dieselfuel storage area to the day-tanks behind the Vehicle MaintenanceBuilding and generator facility failed, resulting in a fuel spill.Seventy-five gallons was reported to have been spilled, but a moreaccurate estimate is that in excess of 300 gallons were probablyspilled. Soil settling or frost heaving beneath the fuel storagetank was responsible for the pipe failure. The spill was reported Ito ADEC.

* Fuel SpillAt the helicopter defueling and fuel bladder storage area, a small Iwooden shed houses pumping equipment for helicopter defueling.The pad on which the shed is located was visibly stained with fuelin 1987, and some stressed vegetation was observed. Quantities of Ifuel spilled are not available, and it is not known if the spillswere reported.

* Drum Disposal SiteA mixture of full and partially full drums of unknown materialreportedly have been buried innediately west of the main facilitypad. The full areal extent of this site is unknown.

* Other Disposal SitesScrap metal and wood debris reportedly have been buried next toIthe gravel pit. Scrap metal and wood from razed buildings areaalso buried southeast of the sewage lagoon. Significant landfillq

00 57 R4Kay 16, 1989 2-51

disposal of refuse reportedly occurred northwest of the controlU ~ ~~~~tower near the west target foul line and the cleared tree line.Reported amounts of material buried at the site vary from minimal

* ~~~~~~to significant.

1988 HLA InvestigationHLA conducted a field investigation at the site from July through

October 1988. Field tasks included drilling soil borings; installingmonitoring wells; collecting soil and ground-water samples; and conductinggeophysical and soil gas surveys.

The land surface is generally flat with a slight depression to the

South. The ditch line from the generator building to the fuel storagefacility is approximately 10 feet long. Although it has been backfilled,I ~~settlement of the backfill material makes it possible to trace the ditch foralmost its entire length. Subsurface exploration generally encountered sandand gravel with some thin silty interlayers. Floating product was encountered

ina one boring adjacent to the Vehicle Maintenance Building. Ground water was* ~~encountered beneath the site at a depth of approximately 10 feet; water levels

probably fluctuate seasonally.Permafrost was encountered 7 feet below ground surface in one

boring on the gravel pad next to the fuel storage tanks. Permafrost isexpected to be present beneath portions of the gravel pad that are not subjectI ~~to thawing effects from adjacent heated buildings. In the off pad areas,permafrost was not encountered to the depth explored.

Free product and organic chemicals in the soil and ground waterwere found during the 1988 investigation at Site 50. A summary of parametersfound to have concentrations in excess of ARARs in the ground water is shownin Table 2-16. TPH was found in excess of the ADEC action level of 100 mg/kgin 7 of the 12 soil samples collect from the site. A number of possible

source areas at the site which may be contributing to the organic chemicalsdetected in the soil and ground water include the fuel lines, the fuel tanks,

0057R43 ~~May 16, 1989 2-52

Ia

I3 o I '0

C IC II 0

U,

* tvfl "ji a a Io s' �i �In *1

I4�4-

(A I 0 I2!- Co 0

Oc

4-.- In4,C

0 -3 I I U,0 4,0 2!

ct 02ci C01 0'3

0-a- a I to ci U2 2 r I 01 d a U,

In- cv,* (.45- -to - -

- c I I -0.4 0 d ci4, 0.4

a 54, 0 .,' - -- 0 -. .fl (3.0 4,4)4, .C - -

.1 � 3- 4- -. ejI 0' CI toO 4,

o tOl 4 U') 0" z -.1 5-5- 0 4,01 In .4

.4 4,3:-5-5-4, 0.

0. t (� -J � 0)d � - -v4, - - 014.' - >4 C0 CL -I 5- I3 -C

- 4,C 4, U, 0 c� In -V

0 4-4 '4 0 0 C0 - t a C S0 0 >. 0

4,5- - - 01I4� 5-0 01 tO �o 0.�- > C4->4 4-. -1 2>

0 - - - - 00� iz�- �- - - .- Cc -�- ci ci r�n. 01a . . CI 01-43 4, �Ct3

= t--.-n-C 00-

40 0 C 0 - 0101 'a-. 4- 0 '3 4, 4, I01 4, Va 5-

I-U' CC E0V0

>4-.4 4, (3 '3CC)41 I44- -o �q 014,0C4,Cj!OqIqOI*01

0 >, fl� 0-.- ci

ci �0-X04,4.'Lq U4, CZ 4,5-CO o2

4, 4, 'I4, C C CDN 01 C 01 -JC - 0 C 400 CO tt) >44, >4 5- C QS�O I C �

- 4 * S 055 I -

UI

and the areas of buried material. No monitoring wells were placedU ~~downgradient of the areas buried material. The primary emphasis of the 1988investigation was to study the areas with reported fuel spills or suspectedI ~ ~leaking fuel lines.

Although organic compounds were detected in the soil and groundI ~~water throughout the site, the greatest number of hydrocarbon-relatedcompounds were found in the areas between the Tank Farm and the Shop Buildingand west of the Tank Farm near Well 50M05. The data indicated that a surfacespill had occurred near Well 50M05. A leaking fuel line was suspected of

* ~~contributing to the free product and fuel-related chemicals in the soil andground water between the Tank Farm and the Shop Building.

A qualitative risk assessment conducted for Site 50 identifiedI ~ ~that there appear to be risks to human health from inhalation, indirectingestion, and denial exposure to the chemicals at the site. The evaluationof the extent to which the effect to human health and the environment could beassessed was limited due to the lack of information available concerning the

conentatinsand distribution of the chemicals in the soil and ground water

U ~~2.2.22 Site 55. Garrison SloughDescrlption of' Site: Setting and LocationI ~~~~~Garrison Slough is one of several small sloughs or creeks that

pass through the Base to discharge to the Tanana River. Surface drainage atI ~~Eiel son AFB is generally north-northwest, parallel to the river. The U.S.Army Carps of Engineers (COE), Alaska District has estimated the flow rate ofGarrison Slough to be moderate to very low. In general, the slough is aslightly influent stream throughout the Base.

Garrison Slough, which is approximately 3 miles long, enters theBase at the south and travels north-northwest through the developed area ofthe Base (Plate 2-3). The slough discharges to Moose Creek, northwest of the

Base. As shown on Plate 2-3 Garrison Slough is in close proximity to or

00 57 R4May 16. 1989 2-53

:0

-�Z�--. I I ..1 111 III''! I a

- I � ' ,�j.:. -

; �Jg� *1�

I.''. I-'

111111 W�I H till -S

41111fl, I.

�II!v

� K4- V

4 0 U 0 .0r--,�.Jz 0 0

A� ,QN&I/ �-�j;'��

I"

/ I

-� \ F� I t'i'/h-�' - -� V �i

� N

* f 1 1p I'

. / / '/ i'�- /-\4--- 4 P

k (7.,4-'/'r-- < .6' / 1 -

C � -<'c' � r .* I

( -liFt

I, I"+2>- "v--c *

� )- $7�j- -. -

C

' '- "s' N�

�it$ �'

-� I462 * 4 >-L ill - a --

\'� 'I

ix 'TV: I' hi: I

\i< ''

*1 t iV��1..

�7ii>.. - 77�L '�¶4j��s\' Ii

WI.

-'S

C

<4$

) ½?

passes through several sites under investigation by the IRP program.

Furthermore, several sites under investigation by HIA are affected by the

slough, namely Site 49, 20, 3/9, 35, 41, 42, and 32/34.Little information is available on the ambient quality of Base

surface water. However, an oil sheen was detected on Garrison Slough in 1975.

1988 HLA InvestigationHLA conducted field investigations at the Base from July through

October 1988. Field tasks performed included collecting sediment and surface-water samples from Garrison Slough near the Sewage Treatment Plant, Asphalt

3 ~~Area, and Miscellaneous Storage and Disposal Area (Sites 32, 35, and 42), andcollecting- a sediment sample from the slough near the New Auto Hobby Shop

(Sie 4).Analytical data from the 1988 investigations indicated thepO ~~presence of TPH and organochloride pesticides in the sediments of GarrisonSlough. Purgeable hydrocarbons and aromatics were found in the surface water.

Results from the field investigations are presented below.

U ~~~~~TPH was found in the sediment sample collected near the SewageTreatment plant at a concentration of 5,390 mg/kg. Thechloromethane concentration found in the surface water was 10.9ug/h.

TPH and pesticides were present in the sediment sample collectednear the Asphalt Area. The TPH concentration was 793 mg/kg. TCEand benzene were detected in the surface-water sample.

TPH was present in the sediment sample collected near theMiscellaneous Storage and Disposal Area at a concentration of 419mg/kg. Several purgeable halocarbons and benzene were detected in

* ~~~~~the surface-water sample.

* TPH was found in the sediment sample collected near the New AutoHobby Shop at a concentration of 96 mg/kg.

0057R4May 16. 1989 2-54

III ENVIRONMENTAL SETING

This section describes the environmental setting of Eielson AFB,its physiography, cultural geography, geology, hydrogeology, air quality, nat-ural resources, cultural resources, biology and ecology, and meteorology.Major portions of the text presented in this section were excerpted from pre-vious documents prepared as part of the IRP for the Air Force, Alaskan Air

Command, Eielson AFB. These documents include:

* CH2M Hill, 1982. Installation Restoration Program Records Search,Eielson AFB, Alaska;

* Dames & Moore, 1983. Presurvey Report, IRP Phase II, Elelson AFB,I ~ ~~~~Al aska;* Dames & Moore, 1985. Installation Restoration Program, Phase II -

Confirmation/Quantification, Stage 1, Elelson AFB, Alaska;I . *~~~ Dames & Moore, 1987. Installation Restoration Program, Phase II -Confirmation/Quantification, Stage 2, Eielson AFB, Alaska.

* Harding Lawson Associates, 1989. Installation RestorationProgram, Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study, Eielson AFB,Alaska.

I ~~3.1 Geographic Setting

3.1.1 PhysioaraphyEielson AFB is approximately 100 miles south of the Arctic Circle

and 23 miles southeast of Fairbanks, Alaska. The Base encompasses approxi-mately 19,790 acres and is isolated from major urban areas.

The Base is located on the abandoned floodplain of the Tanana

River, approximately 2 miles east of the active channel (Plate' 3-1). TheTanana River is a braided stream formed by the junction of the Chisana andI ~~Nebesna rivers which originate in the higher elevations on the northern slopes' ~~of the Wrangell Mountains near the Canadian border. The Tanana-Kuskokwim Low-land, on which the Tanana River flows, is a smooth glaciofluvial outwash plainoccurring at the foot of the Alaska Range, which lies approximately 100 miles

0057R5May 16, 1989 3- 1

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I%

YUONTAAN

UPLAND

Creek Stuff'~~

7.~ ~ 030,3.848

3 ~~south of Elelson AFB. A portion of the Base lies on the Yukon-Tanana Upland,

an area characterized by rounded ridges with gentle side slopes and broad

undulating divides. All regional drainage is toward the Tanana River, and

hence, northwest into the Yukon River (Dames & Moore, 1987).Base topography is flat and somewhat featureless within the devel-3 ~~oped portion of the Base. Elevations within the developed portion of the base

range from 550 to 525 feet above mean sea level (MSL), sloping downward to the

3 ~~north-northwest. The eastern side of the Base extends into the Yukon-TananaUpland Physiographic Province (Plate 3-1). Elevations in the east are as high

as 1,125 feet above MSL. This portion of the Base is and has been, with theexception of some fuel storage, undeveloped (CH2M Hill, 1982).

I ~~3.1.2 Cultural Geography

3.1.2.1 Land Use

Eielson AFB encompasses 19,190 acres in the Fairbanks North Star3 ~~Borough (FNSB) (Table 3-1). Of this area, approximately 15,835 acres are

forested and 560 acres are lakes or ponds. Improved areas consist of-areas

under facilities (1,744 acres), lawns, airfields, pavement, vehicle parking,

athletic fields, parade and drill grounds, and other improved grounds. The

undeveloped areas include forests, wetlands, lakes, and ponds.

In 1978, the FNSB's municipal entitlement was fixed at 112,000acres. The Land Management Division has sold some acreage, but additional

* ~~lands have been acquired through various purchases and tax foreclosures.Classification of land use in the Borough is presented in Table 3-2 (FNSB

3 ~~Community Research Center, Fall 1988).The Tanana Valley supports livestock, poultry, and crop produc-

tion. Harvested cropland has produced both commercial vegetables and feed

crops (FNSB Community Research Center, Fall 1988).

I ~~3.1.2.2 Demography. Population Density. Age Distribution. Family Income,Education Levelis ~ ~~~~Table 3-3 provides 1985 population data for Eielson AFB, the FNSB,

and the several small communities near Eielson. These latter areas areincluded as a means of comparison and because of their proximity to Eiel son.

0057R5May 16, 1989 3-2

Table 3-1

Inventory of Land Use, Elelson AFB

Classification Acres

Improved Grounds 2,471Semi-improved Grounds 1,180

Undeveloaped Grounds 16.139TOTAL 19,790

Source: USAF, 1987

Table 3-2

Inventor y of Land Use, FNSB, June 1988

Classification Acres

Access/Utility Corridor 4,251IAgriculture 4,426Casual Use of Land 47,714Commercial Use of Land 3,263IExchange 12, 156Flood Control 2,374Forestry 18,513

- Firewood 6,869- Saw wood 4,209

Hazardous Land 784Historical Landmark 519IIndustrial Location 810Mineral Extraction 12,226Natural Resource Extraction 2,722INatural Resource Preserve 1,487Public Land Need 2,737Residential Farmstead 13,215Residential Primary 8,950Recreational Cabin Site 4,579Special Disposal 7,663

Source: FNSB Community Research Center, Fall 1988

TabLe 3-3

Area PopuLation and Demographic Data (1)

CHARACTERISTIC FNSB EIELSON AFB NORTH POLE BIG HORN NOOSE CREEK

Poputation (2) 75,079 5,071 724 360 510

U ~~~~RaciaL Distribution:White 85.4% 84.3% 93.0% 91.9% 87.8%

BLack 5.6% 10.3% 4.3% 0.3% 8.2%

Indian, Eskimo, ALeut 5.5% 0.7% 2.1% 3.6% 0.6%Asian/Pacific IsLander 1.5% 1.1% 0.1% 1.9% 1.6%Other 2.0% 3.5% 0.6% - 2.2% 1.8%

Age Distribution:

Median age 25.8 21.9 24.2 28.1 23.6

Under 18 years of age 31.0% 38.4% 34.1% 33.3% 35.3%

Over 65 years of age 2.4% 0.1% 1.2% 3.6% 2.9%

Income LeveL (househoLd):

Nean $27,534 *17,578 *26,773 $26,864 $27,508

Median $23,647------- -------

AduLt Emptoyment Status (16+) 39,016 3,347 526 244 354

Emptoyed 53.3% 18.9% 65.0% 81.6% 39.0%ProfessionaL/ManageriaL 27.7% 18.1% -- ----Sates/CLericaL 30.8% 48.0% -- ----I ~ ~~~~~BLue CoLLar 26.7% 6.5% -- ----Service 13.8% 24.4% -- ----Farming/Forestry/Fishing 1.0% 2.2% -- ----

Armed Forces 13.2% 59.8% 9.9% 5.7% 23.4%

Not in Labor Force 26.4% 19.4% 20.5% 8.2% 34.7%Unempoyed(2)12520 4645%28

I ~~~~EducationaL Attainment:12 years (HS Graduate) 86.6% 67.4% 59.3% 35.0% 78.5%13-17+ years 22.0% 32.3% 34.8% 42.1% 13.6%I ~ ~~~~Median of years compLeted 12.9----------

OveraLL Vacancy Rate 18% 0% -- ----

Owner/Renter DistributionOwner Occupied 51% 7% 62% 82% 59%3 ~~~~~Ranter Occupied 49% 93% 38% 18% 41%

Number of Househotds 18,357 1,208 249 119 172

Avg. Household Size 2.78 3.67 2.91 3.03 2.97

(1) U.S. Census, 1980, except for popuLation figures for FNSB and EieLson3 ~~~~(2) FNSB Community Research Center. PopuLation figures from 1985 FNSB census.

Communities within a 3-mile radius of the boundary of the installation include 3Moose Creek and same other unincorporated areas of the FNSB. Table 3-3 alsoprovides information on age distribution, income, employment, and education

level (based on the 1980 U.S. Census).

3.1.2.3 SocioeconomicsIElelson AFB is an integral part of the local community, in part

through its economic contribution to the local economy. (The local economyrefers to the Economic Impact Region, and denotes those counties whose popula-tion centers are within a 50-mile radius of the center of the installation.)Elelson's total economic contribution to the local economy exceeds the Base'spayroll and expenditures. Because of the multiplier effect, every dollarspent by Eielson AFB generates $1.90 for the local economy. For 1987, thisIcontribution was approximately $181.9 million. Seven hundred ninety-five jobswere potentially created off Base in the local community in 1987 because ofEielson's presence (USAF, 1988).W

Economic indicators for 1987 showed stabilization and signs ofrecovery for the Fairbanks economy; most of the improvement has occurred inthe past year following the downturn of the preceding two years. New mining3claims filed in the Fairbanks district were up, and civilian unemploymentdecreased. The local housing market remained down, but also showed signs of

stabilizing (FNSB Community Research Center, Fall 1988).

3.2 GeologyI

3.2.1 Geologic Setting3The Tanana-Kuskokwim Lowland is a broad glaciofluvial outwash

plain confined on the south by the Alaska Range and on the north by the Yukon-Tanana Upland. Bedrock is exposed in the upland and consists predominantly ofPrecambrian age quartz-mica Birch Creek Schist, with some Mesozoic intrusives.

The schist is the regional basement rock, the surface of which is characteris-tically uneven and weathered to varying depths.

0057R5May 16. 1989 3 -3

3 ~~~~~The regional consolidated deposits are overlain by substantialaccumulations of unconsolidated Quaternary fluvial and glaciofluvial sedimentsshed from the rising Alaska Range. A thin layer of sandy loam overlies a

thick sequence of sand and gravel. Unconsolidated sediments are approximately200 to 300 feet thick under Elelson AFB. The general geology of the area isU ~~shown on Plate 3-2 (CH2M Hill, 1982).

3.2.1.1 GeomorpholoavThe main developed portion of Eielson AFB lies on the abandoned5 ~~floodplain of the Tanana River. The surface of the floodplain is relatively

smooth and slopes gently downward to the northwest at a gradient of about 6feet per mile. Numerous sloughs meander across the floodplain. The banks of

Garrison Slough, which winds through the developed portion of Elelson AFB,~~ ~ provide topographic relief of about 5 feet. Many small oxbow lakes dot the

floodplain. An oxbow lake is formed when the upstream bank of a meander iseroded through. Anthropogenic features include numerous 5- to 20-acre "pot5 ~~hole" lakes created as a result of gravel mining operations.

The eastern, undeveloped side of the Base extends into the roundedhills of the Yukon-Tanana Upland. In this area, the Birch Creek Schist isclose to or exposed at the ground surface. The Interior of Alaska was notglaciated during the Pleistocene Epoch and subaerial rather than glacial ero-I ~ ~sive processes have predominated in this area. As a result, slopes are man-tled by a mixture of colluvium and loess. The loess, silt-sized soilI ~~deposited by winds during the Pleistocene, tends to stand vertically when cut.North-facing valley walls are generally underlain by permafrost and south-fac-ing valley walls are usually permafrost free. The valleys are occupied bysmall streams that drain westward to the Tanana River.

U ~~3.2.1.2 Seismic HistoryThe Interior of Alaska lies at the northern edge of a vast contin-

uous, seismically-active belt that circumscribes the Pacific Ocean. Most of' ~~this area, which includes Eielson AFB, is classified as Seismic Zone 3 by theU.S. Army Corps of Engineers. About every decade, a shock of Richter magni-tude 7 or greater occurs somewhere in Interior Alaska. The largest magnitude

0057R5

May 16, 1989 3-4

A K EK

A N~~~~~~~~~~~

LFA ILIT c-, Paleozoic Rocks SCALE IN MILESLjJ (predominantly BirchCreek schist ) 2,0 4,0 8.

EI: Quaternary Deposits

Source: CH2MHILL (1982). Modiffed[Z] Mesozoic Intrusives from Pewe. et. &i., (1968

" Harding Lawson Associates Geologic Map2 - t Egineers Geologists

&aeo Eileson A.F.B., Alaska 3-2D)RAWN JOB N4UMBER APPPOVED ~ATE =

04300,03 7.08 4/89

earthquake recorded in Interior Alaska was a 7.75 (Richter scale) quake thatoccurred in the Kantishna area, about 120 miles southwest of Elelson AFB. Themost severe earthquake ever felt in Fairbanks occurred in 1929. The epicenter

of this quake was near the headwaters of the Tatlanika River, about 60 milessouthwest of Elelson AFB.

3.2.2 Bedrock Geology

3.2.2.1 -Stratiaraphic Thickness and Litholocic Descriptions3 ~~~~~The Yukon-Tanana upland is primarily a region of complexlydeformed' metamorphic rocks that have been intruded by Mesozoic (225 to 70 mil-lion years Before Present (B.P.)) and Tertiary (70 to 1 million years B.P.)

igneous rocks (Foster et al., 1973). The stratigraphy of and lithologic rela-~~ ~ tionships between these rocks are poorly understood. In the vicinity of Elel-

son AFB, the predominant bedrock is the Precambrian Age (greater than 600 mil-lion years B.P.) Birch Creek Schist. The dominant rock types include quartz-3 ~~biotite schist and gneiss (Foster et al., 1987). Several types of lode min-eral deposits such as gold (historically the most important) are associated3 ~~with Tertiary and Mesozoic intrusives.

3.2.2.2 Structural GeologyI ~~~~~To date, no detailed mapping of folds, faults, or fractures hasbeen performed in the upland areas of Eielson AFB. Observations made in rock3 ~~cuts, quarries and logs of wells penetrating rock on Eielson AFB indicate thatfracture spacing and orientation are highly variable within the Birch Creek5 ~~Schist.

On a regional basis, the Yukon-Tanana Upland is bound on the northand south by the Titina and Denali fault systems, respectively. Both faultsystems separate the metamorphosed rocks of the Yukon-Tanana Upland from3 ~~unmetamorphosed or relatively unmetamorphosed rocks (Foster et al., 1973).

0057R53 ~~May 16. 1989 3-5

3.2.3 Surficial Geology

3.2.3.1 Unconsolidated Deposits

Underlying the surficial sails at Elelson AFB are interbedded lay-ers of sand and gravel with cobbles up to 8 inches in diameter. The amount ofsilt in these deposits varies, but is generally less than 10 percent. Thedepositional origin of these materials, like the surficial deposits, isglacial outwash and associated alluvial stream deposits. The coarser materialis deposited in the stream bed, and progressively finer material is depositedaway from the channel. These deposits are often reworked and remixed as3stream courses change. The resulting formation is well graded and should actas a good filter for percolating ground water. Although this formation wouldact as a filter for suspended particulate matter, it would have no effect onIorganic or dissolved compounds (CH2M Hill, 1982).-

This deposit is approximately 200 to 300 feet thick in the vicin -ity of Eielson AFB and overlies the Birch Creek Schist. Plate 3-2 illustra tes Vthe general geology exposed at or near the surface (CH2M Hill, 1982), while3Plate 3-3 is a typical geologic log from a well located on Eielson AFB (AlaskaDistrict, Army Carps of Engineers).I

3.2.3.2 Soils

Surficial deposits in the vicinity of Eielson AFB consist primar-ily of sandy and gravelly loam. Most of these materials were deposited byglacial outwash streams originating in the mountains to the south and east.ISoils near main streams are generally gravelly, with permafrost deep orabsent. (Permafrost is any soil exhibiting a temperature below freezing con--tinuously for two or more years.) Those soils located further away from mainstreams are silty and have a shallow occurrence of permafrost. Soils occur--ring in the lowland or developed portion of Eielson AFB consist primarily ofthe Salchaket series, which are predominantly sandy loam underlain by a thick

layer of coarse sand and gravel (CH2M Hill, 1982).

0057R5May 16, 1989 3-63

0 ~~~Gravel7 - : Silt-Topsoil

Staflc Water Sandy Gravel_

Loved 1 1.0 . Sandy Slt~o

z..

30 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~20"

O 4 Sandy Gravel Csn

I~~~~~~~~*Av

CLU- 60~'

GravladSn

3 ~~~~~~~~~~~~!Gravel and Sand

7......

90 $r4Sand and Pebbles

.................. .. Z ieSn

120FneSd

Source: Alaskca Dis~trit Army Corps of Engineers

____Hardlng Lawson Associates Typical Geologic LogWEngineers Geologists

& GeoohsctwsC Eielson A.F.B., Alaska3 3~RAWN JOENUMBE; APPqOVED 3ATERE E

COS. ~~~~04 3 0 003 7.0 8 4/89

No soils survey has been done on Elelson AFB, although the SailConservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, has completed a soilsIsurvey up to the Base boundaries. On the basis of this survey information,

the following soil types are considered likely to occur on Eielson (USAF,IEiel son AFB, 1987).

* Bradway very fine sandy loam consists of poorly drained soils thatare perennially frozen below a depth of about 2 feet. The watertable fluctuates from the surface~to a depth of several inchesabove the permafrost. Unless this soil is drained, it generallyis saturated during most of the growing season. Runoff is veryslow, and in places, this soil is ponded in spring and early sum-mer. The hazard of erosion is slight. Permeability is moderate. IThis soil commonly supports dense stands of sedges and grasses,but low-growing shrubs and clumps of black spruce grow in a fewplaces.

* Goldstream silt loam consists of poorly drained silt oarns thathave a perennially frozen substratum. In uncleared areas, thezone above the permafrost is always wet. Runoff is slow, and thehazard of erosion is slight. Permeability is moderate in the osilty sediment, but it is restricted by permafrost. The upperlayers are very strongly acidic, but in general became less acidic Iwith depth. The vegetation consists of low shrubs, mosses, andsedge tussocks.

* Sal chaket very fine sandy loam consists of well-drained soils thatfarmed in a medium-textured sediment laid down by water. Runoffis slow. The hazard of water erosion is slight; wind erosion isslight to moderate. Permeability is moderate. The vegetationIconsists mainly of paper birch, scattered stands of balsam poplar,and white spruce.

* Tanana silt loam consists of somewhat poorly drained soils thatformed in silty and very fine sandy sediment laid down by water.Uncleared areas are perennially frozen at a depth of about 30inches below the surface mat of organic material. Runoff is slow;and the hazard of water erosion is slight. Permeability is moder-ate in the unfrozen material. The vegetation is dominantly alder,black spruce, and scattered clumps of aspen, white spruce, andIwillow.

May 16, 1989 3-73

3 ~~~~~~~~~~~Table 3-4

Concentrations of Various Analytes in Soils Near Fairbanks, Alaska

Analyte Median Range Typical Reference

Arsenic, As(bedrock) 30-150 ppm NA Hawkins, 1982

could be as greatas 150 ppm

3 ~~~Arsenic, As(surface,subsurface) 800-4500 ppm 1000 ppm Hawkins, 1982

I - ~~Cadmium, Cd <4-7 ppm Gough, 1983

Cobalt, Co 16-20 ppm Gough, 1983

U. ~ ~~Chrome, Cr 25 -30 ppm Gough, 1983

3 ~~~Iron, Fe NA 5% (by weight) Gough, 1983

* ~~NAs=Not available

3 ~~~~~~~~~~~Table 3-5

Concentrations of Various Analytes in Sediments of the3 ~~~~~~~~~Chena and Tanana Rivers

I ~~~Analyte Median Range Typical Reference

3 ~~~Arsenic, As <40-1400 ppm 400 ppm Hawkins, 1982

Iron, Fe NA very rich Hawkins, 1982

D N~ ~~A - Not available

3.2.3.3 Background Concentrations of Various Analytes in Soil andSedimentsIBackground elemental concentrations in the soil and sediments of

the study area are presented in Tables 3-4 and 3-5 respectively. The tables3are not complete for all elements, but they present a summary of an extensiveliterature search of available information for the Tanana-Yukon Valley. Soiland sediment samples were not collected for background chemical analysesduring the HLA 1988 field investigation on Elelson AFB.

3.3 Hydrogeology

3.3.1 Ground Water

3.3.1.1 Occurrence and Movement

Hydrologic UnitdThe occurrence of ground water in the vicinity of Eielson AFB is

governed by past stream deposition. The geolo gic history and the physia-Igraphic setting of Eielson AFB suggest that the subsurface contains old buriedstream channels of the Tanana River. During glaciated periods in Alaska, itIis assumed that stream flow in the Tanana River was higher, producing greatervelocity that tended to deposit sorted gravel and clean sand. Localizedground-water flow systems may exist as the result of buried stream channels,but regional flow is to the north-northwest. The regional gradient is approx-imately 4 to 6 feet per mile (CH2M Hill, 1982).

The developed portion of the Base is close to the Tanana River andlocal streams, so there is little permafrost underlying the area. There areIfew impeding factors to slow the downward percolation of water or contaminantsto the aquifer. There are no'extensive silt or clay layers, and the low silt5and clay content of the sediments results in low absorption. In general, itis expected that a large volume of water flows through the subsurface of Elel-son AFB and that contaminants will reach the water table quickly and-migrate ___

downgradient with the ground-water flow.

0057R5May 16. 1989 3-8

Aquifer ClassificationI ~ ~~~~The aquifer is classified as a Sale Source Drinking Water Supply.Wells drilled 50 to 250 feet below the ground surface into the aquifer provideI ~ ~the Base with its water supply.

Aaulifer Characteristics3 Ei~~~~~elson AFB is located over a shallow unconfined aquifer. Theaquifer is approximately 250 feet thick at Eielson AFB and probably extendsinto the Precambrian Basement or Bedrock (Birch Creek Schist) that underliesthe area. Information obtained from a 235-foot-deep hole drilled at the Cen-tral Heating and Power Plant indicates the presence of an intermediate siltlayer 20 feet thick ranging from approximately 115 to 135 feet in depth (U.S.Army Corps of Engineers, 1953). The lateral extent, continuity, and hydro-logic influence of this silt layer over the area of the Base is unknown.

The depth to the water table ranges from approximately 5 feet(Dames & Moore, 1985) to as much as 15 feet below ground surface (SAIC, 1987).

I. ~~Dames & Moore (1985) estimates the regional hydraulic gradient to be approxi-3 ~~mately parallel to the ground surface, ranging between 4 to 6 feet/mile. SAIC(1987) estimates the gradient to be approximately 1.2 feet per 1,000 feet (6.3feet/mile) with slightly higher gradients near the existing permanent pumping

wells. The direction of regional ground-water flow is generally north-north-west, parallel to the Tanana River (CH2M Hill, 1982, Dames & Moore, 1985, andI ~~SAIC, 1987). Because zones of discontinuous permafrost are located throughoutthe area, localized ground-water flow patterns can be different from the gen-I ~~eral regional flow patterns. Overall, the hydrogeologic setting is highlyhomogeneous and areally consistent (SAIC, 1987).

Pumping tests performed on a number of the water wells at EielsonAFB have provided information on well productivity but have not provided use-ful information on the hydraulic characteristics, i.e. hydraulic conductivity,

storativity, and transmissivity (Feulner and Williams, 1962). The Base watersupply wells yield 1,000 to 2,000 gallons per minute (gpm) and have specificcapacities between 50 to 400 gpm per foot of drawdown. The aquifer yield' ~~ranges from 6 to 3,000 gpm (Dames & Moore, 1987).

0057R53 ~~May 16, 1989 3-9

Hydraulic conductivities within the sail layers on the Base, down

to a depth of 60 inches are considered moderately high, ranging from 0.003 toI

0.01 centimeters per second (cm/sec) (8.5 feet/day to 28.4 feet/day) (CH2M

Hill, 1982). Dames & Moore (1985) estimates hydraulic conductivities for theaquifer to be approximately 0.1 cm/sec (284 feet/day). Differences in values

between the two reports show the wide variation that can be expected between

soils near the ground surface and those within the aquifer. Field tests onhydraulic conductivities at Elelson AFB also demonstrate the wide variation

that can occur, with values ranging from 50 to 1,200 feet/day. These values

are composites of both horizontal and vertical conductivities because theirderivation involved drawdown at a well where flow enters from both directions.

Morris and Johnson (1967) published values based on a repacked sampling tech-

nique that range from 150 to 450 meters/day (490 to 1,475 feet/day) forcoarse, medium, and fine gravels. Because of the mechanism in which alluvium

is deposited in the floodplain, the horizontal hydraulic conductivity is gen -erally much higher than the vertical conductivity at a given location. ForV

the design of Moose Creek Dam, a ratio of 9 to 1 was used. In determiningstreambed conductance for computing flow into and out of the aquifer, a ratioof 10 to 1 is recommended (USGS, 1987; COE, 198B).3

The areal extent of the aquifer is limited to the broad valley ofthe Tanana River Basin, which is approximately 45 to 50 miles wide at Eielson

AFB (CH2M Hill, 1982). Ground-water availability is shown on Plate 3-4.Major recharge to the aquifer locally is from the Tanana River; however, rain-

fall also enters the aquifer as infiltration through the permeable soil (CH2M3Hill, 1982).

3.3.1.2 Ground-Water Oualltv

Rackground Concentrations of Various Analytes in Ground Water3

Background elemental concentrations in ground water in the study

area are presented in Table 3-6. The table is not complete for all elements,

but it presents a summary of an extensive literature search of availableinformation for the Tanana-Yukon Valley. The table includes data for

0057R5

May 16. 1989 3-103

A;'1

- Well~~~7 Yils ,00t

Less than 200 feet.Z,

L A K E~~~~~~~~~Nt: rudwtr via~it nohr rs ..

9 2;0 8, u~s. Det. of0th Armya eph

FHArdILawsoNotocitGrGroun W tatr Availability inohr ra thet- Engineers Geologists Vicinity ~~~~~~of Elell F sagn rAFB or1,1,1ta 5 01

& Geo~~~hysic Ejelson A.F.B172n A nfaska Biae(Aak)IFrtWirg

-AWVN JOB %UMBER RJ= 4E- R

04300,03 7.0 8 4/89

Table 3-6

Concentrations of Various Analytes in Ground Water Near Fairbanks, Alaska

Analyte Median Range Typical Reference

Arsenic, As 1.0-44 ppb <50 ppb Krumhardt, 198210 ppm Hawkins, 19820-28 ppm Krumhardt, 1979I0.51ppb Krumhardt, 1983

Iron, Fe 0.01-43 ppm 4 ppm Cederstrom, 1962<1-73 ppm Krumhardt, 19820-18 ppm Krumhardt, 19790-50 ppm Krumhardt, 1983

0.02-47 Balding, 1976Manganese, Mn 0.03-4.0 ppm NA Cederstrom, 1962

0.9-1.6 ppm Balding, 1976

Magnesium, Mg 5.1-73 ppm NA Cederstrom, 19652 V0.1-56 ppm; Balding, 1976

Calcium, Ca 16-144 ppm NA Cederstrom, 19621.3-87 ppm Balding, 19763

Potassium, K 2.4-59 ppm NA Cederstrom, 19620.5-23 ppm Balding

Sodium, Na 3.9-157 ppm NA Cederstrom, 19623.1-321 ppm Balding, 1976

Chloride, CI 1-15 ppm Low Cederstrom, 1962 1<1-in 2 ppm Krumhardt, 19820.2-615 ppm Balding, 1976g

Fluoride, F <0.1-1 ppm Cederstrom, 19620.1-19 ppm Balding, 1976

Nitrates, N03 <1-65 ppm 5 ppm Cederstrom, 1962Low Krumhardt, 1982

0-20 ppm Krumhardt, 19790-53 ppm Krumhardt, 1983I0.02-.11 ppm Balding, 1976a

Sulfates, S04 2.7-200 ppm 50 ppm Cederstrom, 19620.5-39 ppm 15 ppm Krumhardt, 1982

0.4-68 ppm Balding, 1976

Table 3-6 Continued

Concentrations of Various Analytes in Ground Water Near Fairbanks, Alaska

Analyte Median Range Typical Reference

Alkalinity, Total 100-500 ppm 300 ppm Cederstrom, 1962100-400 ppm 100 ppm Krumhardt, 1982I ~ ~~~~~~~~72-1400 ppm Krumhardt, 197912-1000 pp Krumhardt, 19833 ~~~~~~~~~14-388 ppm Balding, 1976

Residue, Total 100-3500 ppm 200 ppm Cederstrom, 1962Dissolved Solids 31-393 ppm Balding, 1976

I ~~Specific 200-600 umhos/cm 300 umhos/cm Cederstrom, 1962Conductance 300-500 umhos/cm 350 umhos/cm Krurnhardt, 1982

59-623 umhos/cm Balding, 1976

Temperature 0.5-150C Krumhardt, 1982

pH 6.4-8.6 NA Cederstrom, 19626.4-8.4 NA Krumhardt, 19826.9-9.1 Balding, 1976

* ~~NA-Not available

alkalinity, pH, temperature,and other inorganic parameters. Ground-water sam-pies were not collected for background chemical analyses during th~ HLA 1988field investigation on Elelson AFB.

Ambient OualityWater quality of the shallow aquifer is very good throughout Elel-

son AFB, with the exception of iron content in some wells. However, groundwater is contaminated in some areas, as discussed below.

Contaminated Oual ity'Documented evidence of ground-water contamination problems (Dames

& Moore, 1985; Dames & Moore, 1987) includes the following:

* Water from Well B has been found to contain benzene and lead, bothconstituents of fuel;3

* A hydrocarbon layer, primarily diesel fuel, is present on thewater table in test holes near Facility 3224 (an oil/water separa-tor operated at this site from 1975 to 1980); drn

* A hydrocarbon layer on the water table was found duigconstruc-tion near the old boiler plant in the mid-1970s;3

* A hydrocarbon layer on the water table was found in test holesdrilled in 1972 within the refueling loop;3

* The ground-water quality at the active Base landfill (Site 3) wasfound to be moderately degraded with elevated concentrations oflead and total dissolved solids (TOS);

* Degradation of water quality exists immediately downgradient ofthe spill ponds and drying beds at the wastewater treatment plant; 3

* Elevated levels of arsenic, cadmium, TOC, TOX, specific conduc-tance, oil and grease, trichlorofluoromethane, and petroleumhydrocarbons were found at the inactive base landfill (Site 2) inI1985 and 1987 (the landfill was used from 1960 to 1967).

Ground-water quality reports obtained from the Eielson AFB Bicen-Ivironmental Engineering Services indicate that the water well at the Ski Lodgehas been contaminated with fuel-type constituents for a number of years. A3new water well for the Ski Lodge was recently drilled in a downgradient area,aand low-level contamination has also been detected in this well.

0OS7R5May 16, 1989 3-113

In February 1987, the Alaska Department of Environmental Conserva-tion (ADEC) requested routine quarterly monitoring of all of the Base wellsfor purgeable aromatics. This action was taken because purgeable aromatics

had been detected in the Ski Lodge well, in the Base proper wells, and in thewater distribution system. Results from the monitoring performed in 1988 con-firmed that low levels of purgeable aromatics existed in Base wells B, C, andU along with the petroleum oil lubricant (POL) Well, the CAC Well, and thewell on Engineering Hill. In addition, the well in Building 3384 had lowlevels of toluene and chloroform.

At several sites on the Base, POL has saturated ground surfaces.Signs of vegetative distress are present, which provide indirect evidence ofground-water contamination. Any POL spilled on the ground at the Base hasI ~ ~likely reached the ground water because the soil is very permeable and the

~~ ~ water table is shallow.

3.3.1.3 Ground-Water UsesGround water provides the drinking water supply for Eielson AFB

and for private citizens in the communities near the Base. It also providesthe water for all operations on Base, including industrial, firefighting, and

domestic and household uses.

I ~~3.3.1.4 Well-and Pump MaintenanceThe water wells on Eielson AFB were acid cleaned three years ago.

Iron was detected after the cleaning, indicating a slight corrosion problem.Since none of the wells has had to be shut down, the corrosion problem is notconsidered to be very serious (Cauffman, 1988).

3.3.1.5 Well Inventory

* ~~~~~Production Wells* ~~~~~The water for Eiel son AFB is supplied by wells drilled into the

~~ ~ shallow aquifer. A current list of potable water supply wells with details oftheir construction and is provided in Appendix I of the IRP RI/FS Report (HILA,1989). Eielson derives its main water supply from three primary wells (A, B,

005 7R5iiay 16. 1989 3-12

and D) and two emergency wells (C and 5A). (Well 5A is currently out ofservice.) The water from these wells is treated with excess lime -andIpolymers, recarbonated, and chlorinated. Two other large-capacity wells not

connected to the main water supply system provide a non-potable water sourceIfor boilers at the power plant.

Nine low-capacity wells, which are not connected to the main sys- -tern, serve remote areas of the Base. The water is chlorinated in these wellswith the exception of one well at. Building 1301 where the water is used forfirefighting. Additionally, the water at the Ski Lodge, Engineer's Hill, andBlair Lakes is treated with activated carbon filters and softened.

At this time, the water at the POL Tank Farm, the Ski Lodge, andEngineer's Hill are not consumed due to contamination. The wells in BuildingsT1164 and 1307 are out of service; Building 1307 is now hooked up to the mainIwater supply system.m

An inventory of the water wells within a 3-mile radius of the aEiel son AFB boundary has been completed. Mast of these wells are within theVcommunity of Moose Creek, approximately 1/4 to 1/2 mile north-northwest of the3installation boundaries and hydraulically downgradient of the on-site pollu-tants. An area map locating these wells and details regarding construction of3the wells are presented in Appendix I of the IRP RI/FS Report (HILA, 1989).The information was provided by the Alaska Department of Natural Resources,

Division of Land and Water Management (September 1988). However, thisIinventory should not be considered complete because residents may haveinstalled wells without applying for water rights. The United States3Geological Survey (USGS) was also contacted in an effort to obtain information

on wells within the 3-mile radius. An extensive search of their files failed3to locate logs for any wells within the area.

Monitoring Wells3Dames & Moore and SAIC installed monitoring wells at a number of

sites on Elelson AFB during the IRP Phase II, Stages 1 and 2 activities. Aninventory of the Dames & Moore monitoring wells is presented in Appendix I ofIthe IRP RI/FS Report (HLA, 1989). The sites investigated by Dames & Mooreainclude Sites 1, 2, 3, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 32, 36, 37, and -41. Water elevation and survey information are not available for the SAIC

0057R5May 16, 1989 3-133

monitoring wells; however, the general well locations are known. The sitesI ~ ~investigated by SAIC include Sites 16, 17, 18, 19, 20A, 20B, 20C, 25, 26, 27,

36, and 41. (The SAIC and Dames & Moore Site 41 is not the same site as the

I ~ ~HLA Site 41.) Plate 3-5 shows a map of Eielson AFB indicating the sites under

investigation.

3.3.2 Surface Water

3.3.2.1 Occurrence and Flo

I ~~~~~Drainage Course and Watershed AnalysisThe Tanana River drainage basin is approximately 44,000 square

I ~ ~miles. Surface drainage at Eielson AFB is generally north-northwest, parallelto the Tanana River (also the ru.nway) (Plate 3-6). Several small sloughs orcreeks pass through the Base and discharge to the Tanana River. A slough is

defined as a sluggish channel of water such as a small side channel of ariver. A creek is defined as a surface stream of water normally smaller than

and often tributary to a river. Garrison Slough passes directly through thedeveloped portion of the Base and consists primarily of manmade drainage

ditches that discharge to Moose Creek. French Creek drains the east portionof the lowland side of the Base. Piledriver Slough drains the undeveloped

portion of the Base on the west side of Richardson Highway (CH2M Hill, 1982).

Flow CharacteristicsThe U.S. Geologic Survey (USGS) does not have flow rate informa-

tion for the streams on Eielson AFB (Lamke, 1988). However, the U.S. Army

Corps of Engineers (COE), Alaska District, measured the flow of Piledriver3 ~~Slough and estimated the flows of French Creek, Moose Creek, and Garrison

Slough at various locations.The flow in Piledriver Slough was measured 500 feet upstream of

I ~ ~Bailey Bridge across from the control tower and found to be 34.4 cubic feetft ~~per second (cfs) on September 15, 1987. The estimated flows of the other

0057R5May 16, 1989 3-14

11950 to 19601 Ii. liultiproduct Fuel Li.e Spill LaeI Sst Mi .490 I I* 2. Old Base Landfill 16. lolgas Fuel Lint Spill 37. Orm Storag Site sad Asphalt Milling Area

(1960 to 19671 Il. Canol pipeline Spill lilid-1970s to Pr~eset)* 3. Current Base Landfill lB. Fuel-Satsurate Area., Old Deiler Point . 38. FOL/SXl LWOGE

11967 to Present) 19. JP-4 Fula Line Spill e 39. Asphalt Lkee* 4. Old ArM Landfill and Current E00 Area C 20. Refuel lig Loop Fuel -Satura.ted Area 40. Po.e P1lact Sludge Pit

(1956 to 1959; Late bIO's to Presentl 21. Road Olling-Querry load A 41. Auto Hobby Sine* 5. Old AMt Landfill 22. Road Oil9ingIndustial 0,1, A 42. Hi stallAnson- Stoange and Di sposel Area11956 to 19591 23. Road Oillng44aachu Road 43. Asbestos Site

-6Old Landfill 24. Road Oling,-Grael Haul Road . As. Battery Shop(1959 to 1963) *s 25. (-6 Fuel Tank SI udge Burial Sit. C 45. Photo Lab

7. Test Landfill 26. E-10 Fuel Tank Sludge Burial1 Site * 46. KC-l35 Cras.h SiteI(19671 a 27. E-l1 Fuel Tank Sludge Burial Site C 47. Copissar parting Lot* 8. Original Fire De",parnt Training Area ZS. Fly Ash 01 sposal Si - A 48. Powe Plant Fuel S111l(1948 to 19551 * 29. Ors .1.s ura Site a 49. Building 9300

* 9. Current Fire Departsentt Training Area 30. PC Storageg Area, Facility 23391976 to iresentl 31. KB Storage Area. Facility 3424

10. PMt Lake and E-2 POL Storage Area 32. Saage Trainstal flant Sludnge Drying Beds11 * Fuell-Saturated Area 33. Treated (ff1luent I~jlnM tratlesPnd . NOTE. Bilair Lakes (Site SO) IsI12. JP-4 Fuel Spill.* Facility 2351 a 34. Sewage Treatment Plant Sludge Drying Beds not shond On t"is plate.13. E.4 1/2. Diesel Fuel Spill Area a 35. Asphalt Mi sin Area. Asphalt 0n. Disposal CStsInlddi~s okPa

______________________________________________________ (Early 1950's to Late 1960s) its1c~ed .teWmPa

----- - - -

- -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

_7 - - - -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-i

6 ~ 6 HK

:4 25 -.

2.1

20 22aIt~ IaK ~ -

29./ rt~ 28 272ZS 3023 akm 2 .2-

Engineers GeologistsIes . .& Geophysicists Eielson.- I A..BAls a i

DRAWN JOB ~~UMGER AP~qO vE- FINTI04 0 , 3 I 84 8

I t~~~~~~~~'

* ~~~21 22$

--- 4---- -~rLV EIELSON AF

25' -J

33 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C,., SCA~~~~~~~LE IN MILES

4 6

I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~II~~~~1

II _~~~~2 ,:

HaringLawonAssclaosSurface Drainage Map"Engineers Geologists& Geophysicsts

Elelson A.F.B., Alaska 3-6DRAWN .jOB ,MBER APPROVED DATE REIS

C.1D.S. ~ 0 4 3 00,0 37.0 8 4/89

streams on Base are presented in Table 3-7. In general, French Creek andMoose Creek have moderate flows, while Garrison Slough has moderate to very

lowflos.Because the streams on Elelson eventually flow into the TananaI

River, flow rate information for this river was obtained from the USGS. Ahydrologic information handbook prepared by the USGS indicated that 85 percentof the annual Tanana River discharge comes from the Alaska Range, and theremaining 15 percent comes from the Yukon-Tanana Uplands (Nelson, 1978).Therefore, the primary source of stream flow is from the melting snow and icein the mountains. The flow in the river reaches a maximum during the hot sum-mer months when snowmelt and precipitation are the greatest, and is at a mini-mum during the cold winter months. The mean discharge of the Tanana River at

Fairbanks is about 20,000 cfs.IFloods in the basin have occurred when a sudden rise in tempera-

ture is combined with a warm rain or saturated snow. Generally, major floodsoccur during spring breakup (thaw). The largest recorded flood at Fairbanks,Vwhich occurred in 1967, inundated almost the entire city. During this flood

event, the Tanana River rose to an elevation of approximately 520 feet aboveMSL at Elelson AFB, somewhat lower than runway elevations (540 feet aboveMSL). The flooding potential at Elelson from major streams is low. Localflooding may occur where surface permeabilities are low or water tables are

high (CH2M Hill, 1982).

Stream Classification and Relation to Ground WaterIn general, infiltration from the Tanana River recharges the

ground water in the Eiel son AFB area. The USGS Water Resources Division hasno records of stream characterizations for the streams on Eielson AFB (Lamke,1988). However, a study performed by the COE, Alaska District, on ground-water flow and elevations characterized French Creek, Moose Creek, and Garri-son Slough. The COE found that French Creek has many areas where it is eitheran influent stream or an effluent stream (Plate 3-7). In general, FrenchICreek is an influent stream in the eastern portion of Eielson AFB and anaeffluent stream in the western portion of the Base. Moose Creek is very muchlike French Creek in that it is influent in the northeast section of the Base

0057R5May 16, 1989 3415

I ~~~~~~~~~~~~~MOOSE CR

I~ ~ ~~~CVI NIERNI~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~RNHC

I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~O AKFR

0 4000 8000

scale fe

I Source: U.S. Army Corps ot Engineers. 1988

Hardng Lawson Associates Ground-Water Elevation Map* ~~Ti E~ngineers. Geologists

&GeoohySICIStS Elelson AYF.B., Alaska3 7(PAWN ~CB NJMBEP APPPOVED DATE PEv BE -I c~~~o.5. ~0 4 300,103 7.08 4/8 9

Table 3-7I

Estimated Stream Characteristics, Elelson AFB, August 20, 1987

Width Depth Flow VelocityCreek Location (feet) (feet) Substrate (cfs) (ft/s)

French Quarry 15-20 2-3 rocky, 1-3" 20-30 2-3Creek Road dia. gravel

Garrison Division --- --- sand, some 5-10 1-2Slough Street gravel

Garrison Manchu 8-10 1-2 sand with 5-10 5Slough Road gravel

French Manchu 20 2-3 gravel with 20-30 5-10Creek Road rubble and

rocks

Garrison Transmitter 6-8 2-3 sand, silt, 5 --Slough Road and, organic

matter

Moose Transmitter 15 2-4 sandy 25-30 --Creek RoadI

Piledriver Moose Creek 30-50 4-6 gravel 100-200 3-4Slough -Bluff

Garrison un-named 6-10 1-2 mud and 1-2 <1Slough road muck

Source: Churchill, 1988.

Table 3-8

Summary of Surface Water Resources: Lakes and Major Streams

Surface Water Bodies Size/Length

* ~~~~Lakes: Bear Lake 55 acresGrayling Lake 11 acresHidden Lake 18 acresI ~ ~~~~~~~~~Lily Lake 45 acresMoose Lake 25 acresMullins Pits 25 acresI ~ ~~~~~~~~~Pike Lake 28 acresRainbow Lake 17 acresScout Lake 28 acresTar Kettle Lake 23 acresPOL Lake 18 acresTwin Lakes 12 acres28 Mile Pit 8 acres

Maior Streams: French Creek 7.5 milesGarrison Slough 3 milesMoose Creek I milesPiledriver Slough 1 milesKnokanprover Creek 2.5 miles

Only natural lake on-base; all others are old borrow pits.I ~ ~Source: USAF, 1984

and effluent in the western section. Garrison Slough is slightly influentthroughout the Base. Not enough information was avairable to model PiledriverSlough. These characterizations change throughout the year as the surface

flow and availability of water varies, but exactly how much they change hasInot yet been reported.

Inventory of Surface-water ResourcesTable 3-8 summarizes the surface-water resources found on Base

(USAF, 1984). Eielson AFB contains 13 lakes totalling 313 acres, 54 pondstotalling 265 acres, and 25 miles of freshwater streams. Of the 54 ponds, 63are natural, and the remainder are old borrow pits. One natural pond and 7manmade ponds are larger than 10 acres.

Eielson AFB also contains a number of wetlands and floodplains.IThe locations of these areas are shown on Plate 3-8. The acreage of thewetlands is identified in Table 3-9.

Table 3-9

Elelson AFB Wetlands

Wetland Acreage

A 14 acres marsh; 45 acres lakeB 4C 7ID 89E 12F 8G 23H 19I 72

J ~~~~4 acres marsh; 2 acres pondSource: USAF, 1987.

0057R5May 16, 1989 3-16

0 W ~ -

J~0L Z

* N~~~~NQ

U "2~~~~~~~~~~Eilo A.. Aak

DRWIO'JAER4PC :D7U 7~~~~~~~ 430,3 .848

Wetlands AanddJare caused by subsurface lake or pond waterand 3poor drainage. The other wetlands also have subsurface water caused by poordrainage. Some have year-round standing water, while others contain standingpockets of water only during breakup and early summer.I

3.3.2.2 Surface-Water Oualitv

Ambient OualityLittle information is available on the ambient quality of Base

surface water. Moose Creek is considered a threatened waterbody based onidentified pollutant sources that include land development, petroleum prod-ucts, road construction, urban runoff, and sewage discharge. Similarly, PileDriver Slough is considered threatened based on identified pollution sourcesthat include agriculture, road construction and runoff, landfills, land devel-opment, and septic tanks. a

Specific evidence of surface-water contamination at Eielson AFB Vincludes the following:

* An oil sheen (hydrocarbon layer) has been present on POL Lake dur-ing the summer and spring since at least 1979; and,

* An oil sheen was detected on Garrison Slough in 1975.Background Concentrations of Various Analytes in Surface WaterBackground elemental concentrations in surface water in the study

area are presented in Table 3-10. The table is not complete for all elements,but it presents a summary of an extensive literature search of availableinformation for the Tanana-Yukon Valley. Surface water samples were notcollected for background chemical analyses during the HLA 1988 field investi-gation on Eielson AFB.

3.4 Air OualitvElel son AFB Bloenvironmental Services monitors the air quality on

Base and produces an inventory of discharges each year. The discharges moni -__tored include oxides of nitrogen (NOx), oxides of sulfur CSOx), hydrocarbons(HC), carbon monoxide (CO), and particulates (PA). Table 3-11 contains

0057R5May 16, 1989 3417

3 ~~~~~~~~~~~Table 3-10

Concentrations of Various Analytes in Surface Waters3 ~~~~~~~~~Near Fairbanks, Alaska

3 ~~~Analyte Median Range Typical Reference

Arsenic, As <10-229 ppb <50 ppb Hawkins, 1982

Iron, Fe <0.02-3.2 ppm None Hawkins, 19823 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Balding, 1976

Calcium, Ca 12-54 ppm NA Balding, 1976

Chloride, C1 0.7-5.0 ppm NA Balding, 1976

Fluoride, F <0.1-0.3 ppm NA Balding, 1976

Potassium, K 1.2-2.9 ppm NA Balding, 1976

Magnesium, Mg 2.3-10 ppm NA Balding, 1976

Manganese, Mn <0.01-0.8 NA Balding, 1976

3 ~~~Sodium, Na 1.1-6.0 ppm NA Balding, 1976

Nitrates, N03 0.02-0.52 ppm NA Balding, 1976

Sulfates, S04 10-51 ppm 15 ppm Cederstrom, 1962Balding, 1976

Residue, Total 54-212 ppm NA Balding, 1976I ~ ~~Dissolved Solids

Alkalinity, Total 60-180 ppm 95 ppm Cederstrom, 1962I ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Balding, 1976

pH 6.5-7.1 NA Balding, 1976

Specific 83-319 umhos/cm NA Balding, 1976

Conductance

D N~ ~~A = Not available

Table 3-113

1986 Air Pollution Emission Inventory, Elelson AFB

Pollutant, US Tons/YearSource Category NOx sox HIC co PA3

I. Transportationa. Aircraft 145.3 24.3 315.6 815 20.3Ib. Road Vehicles 87.9 16.6 102.2 1947 15.1(including AGE)

II. Fuel Combustiona. Central Heat & Power Plant -- 533 -- 556 205b. Power Generators 1.85 0.11 1.59 157.2 0.11c. Railroad Operations 0.76 0.12 0.19 1.05 0.05

III. Special Processesa. Fire Training 0.24 0.02 26.4 32.7 7.3b. Fuel Spills -- -- 2.9 -

IV. Evaporation -- -- 50.0 -- --

Subtotals 236 574 499 3509 2483

Total Emissions (US Tons/Year) 5,066

Source: USAF, Bioenvironrnental Engineering Services 1986

3 ~~inventory results for 1986 and includes the source and types of pollutants

found on Base. The annual rate of air pollution from all Base sources was

estimated at just over 5000 tons for 1986.

I ~ ~~~~The relative contribution of each pollutant/source to the total

emissions is shown in Table 3-12. As this table shows, carbon monoxide is the

3 ~~primary contributor to the air pollution on Base. Its effect on air quality

increases greatly during the winter months when temperature inversions occur.

I ~~~~~~~~~~~Table 3-12

3 ~~~~~~Relative Contribution of Air Pollutants/Sources

* ~~~~~~~~~PercentPollutant of Total Major Contributors

Nitrogen Oxides 5 Vehicles, AircraftSulhurOxides 11 Central Heat & Power Plant (CH&PP)

Hydrocarbons 10 Vehicles, AircraftI ~ ~Carbon Monoxide 69 Vehicles, Aircraft, CH&PPParticulates 5 CH&PP

I ~~Source: USAF, Bioenvironmental Engineering Services, 1986

I ~~3.5 Natural ResourcesMuch of the information presented in this section was extracted

directly from the Fish and Wildlife Management Plan, Eielson Air Force Base,

Alaska, January 1984 to December 1988, Third Edition (USAF, 1983) and the For-

3 ~~est Management Plan, Eielson Air Force Base, Alaska, Initial Plan, November

1983 to October 1988 (USAF, 1983).

3 ~~3.5.1 Mineral ResourcesA number of mineral resources have been identified in east-central

I ~~Alaska. Gold, antimony, tungsten, and coal have all been produced to varying

degrees, with gold being the most heavily sought after and produced. Explo-

ration has also provided evidence of platinum deposits, lode tin deposits,

0057RSMay 16. 1989 3-18

uranium deposits, and zinc-lead deposits. Although mining has existed in the3area since the 1890s, exploration for mineral resources began just recently(Foster and others, 1987).

3.5.2 Environmental ResourcesEielson AFB has approximately 15,892 acres of forest land. Table

3-13 identifies the cover type and acreage of these resources, and Plate 3-9identifies the locations of the various cover types.3

Table 3-13

Forest Resources, Elelson AFB1

Cover Type Acreage

Hardwood Forest 2,400dUpland Spruce 1,591Mixed Forest 1,906Lowland Spruce 8,042IBrushland 1,758Marsh 121Grass 43

TOTAL 15,892

Source: USAF, 1983

Approximately 6,025 acres (38 percent) of the forest land is com- -mercially forested. The commercial species are white spruce, Picea alauca;paper birch, Betula oaprifera; balsam poplar, Populus balsamifers; and blackspruce, Picea Mariana. The commercial forest types found on Base are identi-fied in Table 3-14.3

The older white spruce is about 100 to 110 years old and is ingood condition. The older paper birch and balsam poplar forests are 80 to 100years old and deteriorating. Much of the balsam poplar in the white spruce-Ibalsam poplar type forests is sparsely stocked and deteriorating, although the

0057 R5May 16, 1989 3-193

:.r-~~~~~~~~~ ii~~'-

a - .1~' * ' * >.

0 43 00 4 3\ 7.8 8

younger stands are in goad condition. There is a market in the Fairbanks areafor white spruce saw timber, house logs, fuel wood, and for paper birch fuelIwood. There is not much demand for balsam poplar.

About 7,928 acres of the 9,867 acres of noncommercial forest land Iis covered with black spruce and has the potential to support limitedharvesting of Christmas trees.

Table 3-14

Commercial Forest Types, Eielson AFBI

Forest Type Acres

White spruce 1,5911Paper birch 1,571White spruce-paper birch 1,551Balsam poplar 830White spruce-balsam poplar 384Black spruce 4Balsam poplar-black spruce 35Paper birch-black spruce 19

TOTAL 6,0253

Source: USAF, 1983

3.6 Cultural Resources

3.6.1 Archaeology

The only reported archaeological find in the vicinity of Eielson3AFB was a chert flake and a segment from an obsidian microblade. These werefound on the ground surface on the northwest side of a ridge north of ManchuRoad, Fort Wainright. The legal description of the location is provided inITable 3-15 (AHRS, 1988). This location is approximately 1 mile southeast ofthe northern Elelson AFB boundary.3

0057R5May 16. 1989 3-20u

3 ~~~~~~~~~~~Table 3-15

Cultural Resources Near Elelson AFB

Type of3 ~~~Resource Name Description Location

Archaeology None One chert flake and a seg- NWSW, Sec. 32,ment of an obsidian micro- T2S, R4E, FM

3 ~~~Human Twentythree Original wooden bridge over NWSWNW, Sec. 16,Mile Slough arm of Piledriver Slough T3S, R3E, FMBridge, Valdez near its junction withTrail Twentythree Mile Slough on

Yaldez Trail

Human Piledriver Early roadhouse on Valdez NW, Sec* 2, T4S,Roadhouse Trail R3E, FMI. ~~Historical Ben Elelson Commemorative marker for On Elelson AFB,Monument Ben EPel son near Hursey Gate

Possible location (not verified).

3 ~~Source: Alaska Heritage Resources Survey, 1988

3.6.2 Human ResourcesThe original wooden bridge ovbr Piledriver Slough near its junc-I

tion with Twentythree Mile Slough was abandoned in 1940-1941 when the Richard-son Highway was moved to the east (Table 3-15). The bridge is on the ValdezITrail, west of Mile 22 of the Richardson Highway (AHRS, 1988). This bridge i'sapproximately 1 mile west of the western Elelson AFB boundary.3

The Piledriver Roadhouse was located at a former ferry crossing ofthe slough (30 miles southeast of Fairbanks). It was also called the Thir-3tymile Roadhouse prior to 1912 or the Chena Slough Roadhouse. This earlyroadhouse provided accommodations for 35 people along with heated stables for

48 cattle. No remains exist (AHRS, 1988). The site is approximately 2 milessouth of the southern Eielson AFB boundary.

3.6.3 Historical Resources-Only one historical site is known to exist on Eielson AFB. This

is the site of a commemorative marker to Ben Eielson, the Alaskan bush pilot Wafter whom the Base is named.

3.7 Biology and Ecoloavy

3.7.1 Communities and HabitatsSpecies lists of the fish and wildlife (including birds) thatI

occur within a 50-mile radius of Eielson AFB are contained in Appendix I ofthe IRP RI/FS Report (HLA, 1989). Table 3-16 summarizes the wildlife habitatIon Elelson AFB, identifying the wildlife species likely to use a particular

habitat and the acreage of the habitat type.Table 3-17 summarizes the fisheries habitat on Eielson and

identifies the fish species present. Fish are regularly stocked in Eielson3AFB lakes by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game.

3.7.2 Environmentally Sensitive AreasI

The whole Base is an environmentally sensitive area with respectto moose because it is a part of their spring and fall migration route. Mooseare especially sensitive to fences placed in their migration path. Site 39

0057R5

May 16, 1989 3-21

3 ~~~~~~~~~~~~Table 3-16

Summary of Wildlife Habitat, Eielson AFB

Total* ~~~Wildlife Habitat Wildlife Species Acres/Miles

Black spruce Black bear, red squirrel, 8,947 AcresI ~ ~~~~~~~~~marten, spruce grouse, moose

White spruce Spruce grouse, red squirrel, 1,389 Acresmarten, black bear

Birch (diameter 2 inches Raptors, black bear, ruffed 2,968 Acresand greater, 15 to 65 grouse, red squirrelfeet tall)Birch (diameter 1 inch, Moose, snowshoe hare 65 Acres8 to 15 feet tall)

Balsam poplar Beaver, raptors, moose, 1,385 Acres* ~~~~~~~~~~~snowshoe hare

Willow Moose, snowshoe hare 673 Acres

I ~~Old burn (small, white Moose, snowshoe hare 286 Acresspruce & birch, willows)

3 ~~Marsh (some ponded Waterfowl, moose 121 Acreswater)

3 ~~Lakes and ponds Waterfowl, muskrat, beaver 560 Acres

Streams Beaver, mink, muskrat 25 Miles

* ~~Mineral licks Moose 2 areas

Source: USAF 1983

Table 3-17

Summary of Fisheries Habitat, Elelson AFB

Fisheries Acreage Species to Be IHabitat Fish Species Present Miles Managed For

Bear Lake Pike 55 A Undetermined

Grayling Lake Grayling, whitefish, shellfish, 11 A GraylingIburbot, pike, least cisco,

Hiden akelake chub3Hidden LakeGrayling, pike, whitefish, 18 A Grayling

burbot, sucker, lake chub

Lily Lake* None, winter killed and 45 A GraylingIcurrently not stocked

Moose Lake Silver salmon 25 A Silver salmon 3Mullins Pits Pike 25 A Pike

Pike Lake Pike 28 A Pike

Rainbow Lake Pike, whitefish, sucker 17 A Pike

Scout Lake Pike, suckers 28 A Pike

Tar Kettle Lake No fish present 23 A No fish present 3Twin Lakes Pike 12 A Pike

28-Mile Pit Silver salmon 8 A Silver salmon i

French CreekPike, grayling, whitefish 7.5 N All speciesFrench Creekburbot presentI

Garrison Slough Pike, grayling, whitefish, 3 M All speciesburbot presentI

Moose Creek Pike, grayling, whitefish, 1 M All speciesburbot present3

Piledriver Slough Pike, grayling, whitefish 11 M All speciesburbot, salmon present3

Knokanprover Creek Pike, grayling 2.5 M All species a

* Only natural lake on base; all others are old borrow pits. preenSource: USAF, 1983

has proven to be a problem area for moose because it becomes an "asphalt lake"I ~ ~during the warm summer months. This 'lake" has trapped two moose calves along

with a number of waterfowl (Townsend, 1988).

I ~ ~~~~The three major streams on Base, Garrison Slough, French Creek,and Moose Creek, are all sensitive to contamination because they support a

3 ~~variety of aquatic life (Table 3-17). Piledriver Slough is unique because itwas cut off from the Tanana River during construction of the Richardson

3 ~~Highway. The slough now receives clear spring water and supports fish such as

the important recreational species, Arctic Grayling (Thymallus arcticus),which is also found in French Creek. Piledriver Slough has also been stocked

with rainbow trout, making it a popular recreational stream.

1 ~~3.7.3 Endangered SpeciesThe endangered American peregrine falcon, Falcopereorinus anatum,

breeds within a 50-mile radius of the Base. The endangered Arctic peregrine

falonFalcopereorinus tundrius, migrates within a 50-mile radius of the3 ~~Base. A peregrine aerie, within 40 miles of the Base, has been active for the

past four years. The American peregrine falcon and Arctic peregrine falcon do

not reside on Base, but have been observed as transients. Indian paintbrush,

Castillela annua, of the Scrophulariaceae family was designated as rare taxawith undetermined status in Threatened and Endangered Plants of Alaska by

I ~~David F. Murray (1980). Indian paintbrush has been found within a 50-mile

radius of the Base. No specimens of Castillelia annua have been found on Base3 ~~by University of Alaska botanists. Should any of these species become resi-

dent to the Base, consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will be5 ~~initiated (USAF, 1984).

3 ~~3.1.4 Economic SpeciesAs discussed in Section 3.5.2, 38 percent of the forest land is

commercially forested.

0057R53 H~~ay 16, 1989 3-22

3.8 Cl imatology/MeteorologyElelson AFB is located in the continental climatic zone that cov-I

ers Interior Alaska. In general, this zone is characterized by great diurnaland annual temperature variations, low precipitation, and low humidity.I

Alaska is located at a high latitude where the angle of the sun i~comparatively low, especially in the winter. Consequently, very little solarenergy is received during the winter months. Warm winds generated in lowerlatitudes (the westerlies) circulate within the state, counteracting the3deficit and moderating temperatures. Alaska receives the most solar energyduring the summer months when the northern latitude is tilted toward the sun.

However, much of this energy never reaches the surface; it is absorbed orreflected by extensive cloud cover.

3.8.1 PrecipitationAnnual precipitation in this area averages 14 inches, which

includes 72 inches of snow. Average monthly precipitation ranges from 0.5 toW3.5 inches, with the higher precipitation rates occurring during summermonths., Table 3-18 shows average, maximum, and minimum temperatures and theamount of precipitation recorded at Eielson AFB from 1944 through 1984.5

3.8.2 TemperatureClimatic data recorded at Elelson AFB from 1944 through 19841

(Table 3-18) show that average summer temperatures range between 450 and 610F.In the winter, average temperatures are between -140 and 80F. Extreme3temperatures recorded during this time period at Eielson AFB were 930F in June1969 and -640F in January 1971.3

3.8.3 Wind3In general, the wind direction is from the north-northwest, with

greater velocities occurring during the spring and summer months. Wind data

recorded at Fairbanks from 1982 through 1987 (Table 3-19) shows that anIaverage maximum wind of 8 miles per hour (mph) occurs in May and an averageminimum wind of 3 mph occurs in December.

00 57 R5May 16, 1989 3-23

I

uS= � 0% N - C 0 0 0 oenr'NN Lii4>,0

* to Lii 0 e 0 0 0 0 0 '0 0% 0% CliiN N en - - N N t-r-

I. r to N - N I I I N t to In

V

C

4110

0%:: en � 000Cm 0% � 0%

o

-to en0C�en:en000C0�h0C

I5- 1. toenC.nr-,--.-- - 0 0 n4' 0' 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

V- Lii 0 0 0% C�0% , 0 5-.-

IC N r.. C C C �% 0 to N fl I-. 0% Oto

- 0 0 0 0 *N en-N C 0 ten

4-- 0o a 0 0 0�NN�� 0 0 5-en

to Lii 0% 0 N N to 0 N - 50 - C

0 t C C N en - 0% N to 0 *JN.�41 C r.. C U, t - 50 C 0 Iii - N CC

fl 0% ' C Lii N - N to N C en I-1%N - - - - - N

Cen C $0 C - 0 C en N C 0% LiiN C r. r. 0 0 0 - 0% 0% 0 0�.. $0

41 .tfl N en N - N N en �N C* N 0%

0= 0% C r- 0 0 0 0 0 0 N en 0

0 Iii N r en 0 0 0 0 0 M C 50 Or. S.

I- N N - - N -- 410

- C a Iii 0%- I. - N I...hfl CI

-� z:�:::: C $0 N

S0 0

1. - to Otnr-.-enUen-O 1- Lii U, C C 1% C C I- 0 $041 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

000000000000 �0

0% I'. 0% Lii $0 ' 0% to 0%

LIJ * C C C 1. $010 '-to tor-. to0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%- 3.

V V0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5-0 4

00%............................-

CIX U, In r. 0% 0% 0% C C $0 Iii C 410% 0% 0 N N en N C N C 0 Lii Qtfl0% 0

- - C C 0 C r% to C to 4 0 .toIn 0% 0%r'-r.-0 Lao. C e� 0 �U,C In 0 Iii C N - �N

-1.41

* CenCLOto. I-. *.- $0 $0 .C.....................................0% 10 C IC 5. 0 tO 4 5%. 4 5%. >50- I - ri> CflNO;0en N B

5%. C OtoCN.-N>Ln Cc

IS- 3' C 3 4C ., . = '

I

I

3.8.4 Evapotranspiration

The evaporation rate is approximately 14 inches per year. There-Ifore, the net precipitation for the Elelsorn AFB area (mean annual precipita-

tion minus mean annual evaporation) is approximately 0 inches per year.I

Table 3-19

Wind Data for Fairbanks, Alaska*

Average WindMonth Speed (mph)

January 3.8February 4.0IMarch 6.0April 6.8May 8.1June 1.6 eJuly 7.4August 6.5September 6.4IOctober 5.3November 3.1

December 2.9

*Period of Record: 1981-1987.Source: Local Climatological Data, Monthly Summnary, Fairbanks, Alaska.3

00 57 R5May 16, 1989 3-243

IV PROFILE OF POTENTIAL CONTANINANTS

4.1 Contaminant Properties of Groups of Chemicals* ~~~~~A number of groups of chemicals have been found in the soil and

ground water at Eielson AFB, including volatile organic compounds (VOCs),semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs), organochiorine pesticides, and metals.

The SVOCs can beseparated into three groups: polynuclear aromatic compounds(PNs), phenols, and dibenzofuran. Information regarding the properties ofthese groups of chemicals is summarized in the following sections.Contaminant properties that influence the effect of chemical contamination on

receptors are:

Contaminant Concentration - Generally speaking, the moreconcentrated a contaminant is, the more detrimental will be itseffect.

* Toxicity - Chemicals with high toxicity have greater detrimentaleffects'.

* * ~~~~Persistence Factor -Persistent chemicals (ones that exist longerin the environment) have a greater potential for detrimentaleffects.

I * ~~~~Bioaccumulation - Chemicals that bloaccumulate tend to present agreater risk for detrimental effects than those that do notbi oconcentrate.

4.1.1 Vocs

VOCs are generally classified as having intermediate to highmobility. The rate of volatilization from soil and surface waters depends on

I ~~temperature and pressure gradients, and tends to be high. Photooxidation ofVOCs in the atmosphere is expected to occur, based on studies with

trichloroethene (TCE) and tetrachloraethene (PCE). VOCs, in general, tend toadsorb to soils of high organic matter; however, they leach readily intoground water from soil of low organic content. VOCs such as benzene, toluene,D ~~and xylenes typically have a minor potential for bioconcentration inenvironmental organisms. In general, VOCs cause central nervous system

0057R6May 16, 1989 4- 1

depression (headache, dizziness, nausea), if inhaled. Chlorinatedhydrocarbons have been shown to cause kidney and/or liver damage in bathanimals and humans following inhalation or ingestion exposures (EPA, 1988).

4.1.2 Polynuclear Aromatics (PNAs)Little information is available on the environmental fate of PNAs

as a class of compounds. Available information indicates the compounds arestrongly bound to soils and sediments, and are thus immobile in theenvironment. This suggests that wind dispersion of particulates may be animportant transport pathway for this class of compounds. PNAs readily undergomicrobial degradation in soils, with chemical half-lives ranging from lessthan one day to several years (EPA, 1984b). The water solubilities and soilsorption coefficients indicate that these compounds are not expected to beIhighly mobile in soil. Leaching into ground water is not expected to besignificant for PNAs in soil with a high organic carbon content, unless groundSwater is quite shallow.W

Some PNAs such as naphthalene, phenanthrene, anthracene, andfluoranthene may exist in the vapor phase in the atmosphere (Yamasaki et al.,1982). Other PNAs such as benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(a)anthracene, chrysene, andbenzo(g,h,i)perylene should be predominantly sorbed to particulates in theatmosphere. Many of these chemicals may be removed from the atmospherethrough direct or indirect photochemical reactions (EPA, 1984b), and have anIestimated half-life of less than one day. Most PNAs adsorb solar radiationstrongly above approximately 300 nanometers (nm) and therefore may undergoIphotolysis or photooxidation in the atmosphere (Callahan, et al., 1979).

Animal studies indicate that the PNAs may be slightlycarcinogenic, but little information regarding their carcinogenicity ortoxicity is available (Clement, 1985). Several individual PNAs have been3shown to cause photosensitization reactions on the skin following exposure.Acute exposure to naphthalene may cause blood disorders, anemia, kidneyfailure, headache, nausea, and sweating. Fluoranthene, with aIbioconcentration factor of 1150 liters per kilogram, readily bioconcentratesin fish. Benzo(b)fluoranthene and benzo(a)anthracene have been shown to be

0057 R6May 16. 1989 4-23

skin carcinogens to animals following dermal application (ATSDR, 1987f and

1987g). Benzo(a)anthracene has been shdwn to adsorb rapidly to bacterial

cells and would probably bloaccumulate (EPA, 1979).

4.1.3 Phenols* ~~~~~Phenol is highly mobile in aquatic environments and is expected to

be found in the undissociated form in most environments. It is a severe eye

and skin irritant. Chronic exposures to phenol can cause damage to the liver,

kidneys, pancreas, spleen, and can cause edema of the lungs, dermatitis,

headaches, and discoloration of the skin. Acute exposures to phenol may cause

weakness, headache, shock, cyanosis, and damage to the kidneys.

4.1.4 DibenzofuranDibenzofuran is highly immobile, persistent in soil systems, and

highly resistant to chemical and biological degradation. Although it is

expected that dibenzofuran will be concentrated on the surface layer of soil

where the organic matter content is greatest, in the presence of a co-solvent,

dibenzofuran may migrate into a ground-water aquifer. Mobility of

dibenzofuran can also be influenced by the organic content of the soil and the

presence of other competing species in the soil system. The main pathways formigration of furans are wind dispersal of particulates and potential runoff

into surface water. Exposure to furans may cause acne-like skin eruptions,aching muscles, fatigue, headache, and loss of appetite. Abnormal lipidmetabolism and altered liver enzymes accompany oral or inhalation exposure to

furans. Pregnant women exposed to furans have given birth to babies with dark

skin pigmentation.

4.1.5 Oraanochlorine Pesticides

Organochlorine pesticides, which include DDT, DDD, DDE, chlordane,

and others, tend to be persistent and immobile and are thus not expected to

I ~ ~readily migrate to ground water. They instead adsorb to soil and may thus be

transported by wind dispersion or runoff. Many studies have shown that theseD ~~chemicals bioaccumulate in organisms (CHEMLINE, 1988). Acute oral, dermal, or

inhalation exposure to chlordane may affect the central nervous system. As

00 57 R6

May 16, 1989 4-3

DOT is poorly adsorbed through the skin, toxic effects to this pesticide aregenerally seen following ingistion or inhalation. Degradation products of DOT Iin both humans and the environment include DDE and DDD.

4.1.6 MetalsThe fate and transport of metals in the environment is primarily

dependent on the pH, electrode potential (Eh), organic matter content, and, insoil, the mineralogy and cation exchange capacity. The solubility of trace3metals increases with decreasing pH. At neutral to alkaline pH in naturalwaters, the trace metals form strong complexes with hydroxides and carbonates,resulting in relatively insoluble compounds. The metals will also formIcomplexes with ligands and soluble complexes with chloride, when present inhigh concentrations such as those found in the Fairbanks area. The presenceIof metal oxides and hydroxides at concentrations as low as one percent willcontrol the solubility of the trace metals in soils. The metals may beadsorbed to the surface of metal oxides, depending upon the Eh-pH of the soil.VDuring periods of high rainfall, waterlogging of soils may result in anincreased solubility of these metals.

The following metals were detected in the various media sampledacross Eielson AFB: aluminum, antimony, arsenic, barium, beryllium, cadmium,calcium, chromium, cobalt, copper, iron, lead, magnesium, manganese, mercury,

molybdenum, nickel, potassium, sodium, thallium, vanadium, and zinc.IBioaccurnulation may be a significant process in determining the fate of manyof these metals, including cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, nickeland zinc. EPA has classified chromium VI as a known human carcinogen andarsenic, cadmium, and lead as potential carcinogens.3

4.2 Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Reouirements

4.2.1 ARARsEPA considers the following to provide potential ARARs for ambient

concentrations:

Drinking water standard maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) andmaximum contaminant level goals (MCLGs);

0057R6May 16, 198s 4-43

I ~~~~~Federal ambient water quality criteria (which are only applicableto surface water); and

* ~~~~~State environmental standards.

ARARs also can be obtained from performance, design, or action-I ~ ~specific requirements, such as RCRA design and operating requirements and

locational requirements that set restrictions on activities depending on the

I ~ ~site-specific characteristics (EPA, 52 FR 166 32496-99). Where ambient orchemical-specific requirements have not been established, chemical-specific

* ~~advisory levels such as Carcinogenic Patency Factors or Reference Doses can beused to establish chemical-specific, health-based cleanup levels (EPA, 52 FR

166 32496-99).Table 4-1 lists the chemicals that have been found in the ground

p. ~~water or surface water at the sites under investigation by HLA and the ambientor chemical-specific requirements for these substances, where they have been

established. The chemical-specific requirements set health or risk-based

I ~ ~concentration limits or ranges in the various environmental media. Only onesoil ARAR has been established. ADEC has established a target value for TotalPetroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH) at 100 mg/kg (ADEC, Cormack letter, 12/13/88).

4.3 Pathways and Receptors

A pathway consists of a source of chemical release into the

environment, an environmental medium for transport of the chemical (air,

ground water, surface water, and soil), a paint of potential human exposure,and a route of exposure at the receptor (inhalation, ingestion, or dermal

absorption). Surface water, ground water, air, and soil are the media wherechemical contamination may be present, and they may serve as transport media

* ~~for chemical movement from the site to human populations and other receptors.

EPA has defined sensitive populations as those "exhibiting characteristics

* ~~associated with significantly higher probability of developing a condition,ft ~~illness, or other abnormal status." This classification may result fromeither (1) greater sensitivity (e.g., young children, the elderly, or personswith pre-existing disease) or (2) exposure peculiar to that group (e.g.,

residential proximity to the site, workers at the site).

0057R6May 16, 1989 4- 5

TABLE 4-1

ARARS FOR CONTAMINANTS FOUND IN GROUND WATER AND SURFACE WATER

Chemicals ~~MCL 1 MCLG1 PMCL2 PMCLG3 AWQC4Chemicals ~~mg/i mg/i mg/i mg/i

Inorganic ChemicalsI

Aluminum NA5 NAAntimony NA 146 ug/hArsenic 0.05 0.05 2.2 ng/lBarium 1 1.5 NABeryllium NA 3.7 ng/lCadmium 0.010 0.005 NAICalcium NA NAChromium 0.05 0.12 170 mg/iCobalt NA NAICopper 1 1.3 1 mg/iCyanide 0.2 200 ug/1Iron 0.3 NALead 0.05 0.02 50 ug/lMagnesium NA NManganese 0.05 NAMercury 0.002 0.003 142 ng/1Molybdenum NA NANickel NA 13.4 ug/lPotassium NA NASelenium 0.01 0.045 10 ug/lSilver 0.05 50 ug/1Sodium NA NAThallium NA 13 ug/1Vanadium NA NAZinc 5 5 mg/i

Petrol eumHydrocarbons NA NA NA NA NA

Nitrate~as N) 10 10 NAIFluoride 4.0 NAChloride 250 NASulfate 250 NApH 6.5-8.5 pH units NAITotal Dissolved

Solids 500 NA

Organic Chemicals

1,1-DCA NA NA1,1-DCE 7.0 7.0 NA1,2-OCA 5.0 0 0.94 ug/1t-1,2-DCE NA 70 NA0057R6May 16, 1989

* ~~~~~~~~~~TABLE 4-1 CONTINUED

ARARS FOR CONTAMINANTS FOUND IN GROUND WATER AND SURFACE WATER

MCI1 MCLG1 PMCL2 PMCLG3 AWQC4

Chemicals mg/i mg/i mg/i mg/i

I ~~1,1 ,2,2-Trichloroethane 0.17 ug/l2-Methyl

naphthalene NA NA2-Methyl phenol NA NA2,4-Dimethyl

phenol 400 ug/l4-Methyl phenol NA NAAcen aph then e 20 ug/lAnthracene NA NABenzene 5.0 0 0.66 ug/lI ~ ~Benzoic Acid NA NABenzyl Alcohol NA NA

~~ . Chlorobenzene NA 60 488 ug/lChloroethane NA NAChloroform NA 0.19 ug/lp-Dichlorobenzene

75 75 400 ug/lDichlorobenzenes NA 400 ug/l

(total of all isomerspresent)U ~ ~Dibenzofuran NA NA

Diethyl Ether NA NAEthylbenzene NA 680 1.4 mg/iFluoranthene NA 42 ug/lFluorene NA NAHalomethanes NA 0.19 Ug/l

(total of allI ~ ~~present)Including the following compounds or any combination of:

Chl oromethaneDi chlorodi fiuoromethaneTrichlorofiluoromethane

Methyl eneI ~ ~~Chloride NA NANaphthalene NA NAPCE 0 0.8 ug/lPhenanthrene NA NAPhenol NA -3.5 mg/l

0057R6

May 16. 1989

TABLE 4-1 CONTINUEDS

ARARS FOR CONTAMINANTS FOUND IN GROUND WATER AND SURFACE WATER

Chemicals ~~MCL 1 MCLG1 PMCL2 PMCLG3 AWQC4Chemicals ~~mg/i mg/i mg/i mg/i

Phthal ate EstersI- diethylphthalate 350 mg/i- bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthal ate 15 mg/i

- butylbenzylphthalate NAPyrene NA NAPolynuclear Aromatic

Hydrocarbons 2.8 ng/lI(total of all present)TCA 200 200 200 18 mg/iTCE 5.0 0 2.7 ug/1Toluene NA 2000 14.3 mg/iVinyl Chloride 2.0 0 1 2.0 ug/1Xylenes NA 440 NA

1 Maximum Contaminant Levels and Maximum Contaminant Level Goals, The SafeIWater Drinking Act, 52 Federal Register 25690, July 8, 1987; ant the State

2 of Alaska, Drinking Water Regulations, Title 18, Chapter 80, 1982.2 Proposed Maximum Contaminant Levels, 50 Federal Register 46902, NovemberI

13, 1985.3 Proposed Maximum Contaminant Level Goals, 50 Federal Register 46936,

4 November 13, 1985.Clean Water Act, Ambient Water Quality Criteria, 45 Federal Register79318, November 28, 1980. For the protection of human health from thepotential carcinogenic effects of toxic properties of the substanceingested through contaminated water and aquatic organisms. TheIconcentration value given for a potential carcinogen corresponds to a riskof 1O- .

5 List of Abbreviations:NA - not availableTCE - trichloroethylene (ethene)PCE - tetrachloroethylene (ethene)TCA - 1,1,1-trichloroethaneIt-1,2-DCE = trans-1,2-dichloroethylene(ethene)1,1-DCA - 1,1-dichloroethane1,1-DCE - 1,1-dichloroethylene(ethene)I1,2-DCA - 1,2-dichloroethane

0057R6IMay 16. 1989

Possible exposure routes to human populations and/or wildlife by

both direct and indirect contact with these media may include inhalation,

ingestion, and dermal absorption. In general, exposure to chemicals may occur

through one or more of the following potential pathways at a site, althoughnot all of these potential pathways of exposure are important at every site:

I ~ ~ ~~0 Inhalation of fugitive dust emissions;* Inhalation of chemicals volatilized from soils;* Inhalation of chemicals volatilized from surface water;I *~~~~ Inhalation of chemicals volatilized from ground water during

household use;* Ingestion of surface water;I *~~~~ Ingestion of ground water;

* Ingestion of fish or game;* Ingestion of contaminated soil;* Ingestion of plants irrigated with contaminated surface water orI ~ ~~~~ground water;* Dermal absorption resulting from contact with contaminated soils;* Dermal absorption resulting from contact with contaminated surface

water;* Dermal absorption of ground water during household use (e.g.,

bathing, showering).

The nature of the chemicals that are or could be present at

Eielson AFB make it likely that they would exist primarily in the soil, ground

water, and/or surface water. Although some of the chemicals present are

volatile, they probably do not tend to accumulate in the atmosphere because of

their relatively limited quantity and the good atmospheric mixing conditions.If a contaminated site is excavated and more chemicals are exposed to the air,

* ~~workers and observers near the site could be exposed to higher quantities of

airborne contaminants on a short-term basis.

4.4 Environmental/Health Effects

* ~~~~~Prevention of contamination is the best defense against

environmental damage. Accordingly, development of effective prevention plans

* ~~and a code of clean practice will effectively reduce most contamination.

0057 R63 ~~May 16, 1989 4-6

When contamination occurs, environmental damage is usually5inflicted until dilution or remediation decreases the level of pollution belowthe toxic or damaging concentration. Containment, off-site disposal, physicalcleanup, or neutralization of toxicity represent the means to lessen theIeffects where contamination has already occurred.

The time required for recovery from contamination is variable,Idependent on such factors as the general health of the downstream environment,the flow rate of the waterway or flushing rate of the impoundments and3estuaries, persistence of the material, and the seasonal time of the chemicalcontamination. Lakes, impoundments, and estuaries have slow exchange or3flushing rates when compared to free-flowing rivers and streams,Contamination in such contained waterways may result in a longer exposure timefor aquatic organisms and the probability of greater environmental stress.UThe minimization or mitigation of environmental damage and the resultantdenial of beneficial usage of contaminated land or waterway can only be

lessened by a rapid response to the contamination. 6Soil and ground water generally have an even slower flushing rate3

than lakes and impoundments. Therefore, any contamination present in thesemedial tends to persist even longer. Soil have an added problem in that the5partition coefficient of many chemicals causes the chemical to concentrateitself in the soil. Chemicals that are on the surface can often be brokendown by ultraviolet light. Those chemicals that are relatively shallow in the Isoil can be broken down by biological action, but those chemicals that arerelatively deep in the soil tend to remain for extended periods of time.I

4.5 Data Requirements3An organized and well-executed data collection program is critical

to the success of a remedial investigation/feasibility study. The remedialinvestigation is a mechanism for collecting data for site and wastecharacterization, and the feasibility study serves as the mechanism for3development, screening, and detailed evaluation of potential remedialalternatives. The remedial investigation and feasibility study processes areinterdependent processes that are generally conducted concurrently. Data

0057R6May 16, 1989 4-73

3 ~~collected in the remedial investigation influence the development of remedialalternatives in the feasibility study, which in turn affects the data needsand scope of additional field investigations, a primary data collection

I ~ ~mechani sm.Data for each individual site can be collected in several stages,

* ~~with initial data collection efforts usually being limited to developing ageneral understanding of the site. As the site is better characterized,3 ~~subsequent site data collection can be focused on filling data gaps. Thisphased sampling approach encourages identification of key data needs as early3 ~~in the process as possible to ensure that data collection is always directedtoward providing the necessary information for selection of a remedial action.

The data collected for the site characterization or remedialI ~~investigation also are useful in initiation and completion of a risk

assessment of the site. Risk assessments are used to support the evaluationof the no-action alternative by documenting the threats posed by the site

through current and future exposure scenarios. Because these risk assessments3 ~~identify the primary health and environmental threats at the site, they alsoprovide valuable input to the development and evaluation of alternative during

3 ~~the feasibility study.

U~~~~05RU~~~a 6,18 -

a ~~~~~~~~~V SCOPE OF WORK

5.1 organization of Effort

3 ~~~~~HLA will manage and carry out the 1989 IRP investigation at

Elelson AFB. HLA, in coordination with the appropriate base and CEHL

3 ~~personnel, will provide services and, where necessary, use approved

subcontractors to perform all aspects of the project. HLA site

representatives will coordinate between Eielson AFB personnel and HLA's

Anchorage office. The Anchorage office will serve as the base support office

for this project. The Anchorage office will be supported by the Novato,

California corporate office as needed.

3 ~~5.1.1 Identification of Operable Units

For a number of sites, adequate information exists at this time to

~~ ~proceed with the identification and evaluation of alternative remedial

measures to address discrete portions of the problem areas identified at each

site. A part of the entire response action for a site that can function

independently as a unit to decrease a release, threat of release, or pathway

of exposure, is defined in the April 1988 USAFOEHL-YS Handbook as an Operable

Unit (OU). Based on the information presented in the RI/FS Report, GUs havebeen identified at Sites 20, 29, 39, 48, 49, and 50 as follows:

* Site 20 -Refueling Loop AreaOU 20a - The floating hydrocarbons at the E-7 Complex; and3 ~~~~~OU 2Gb - The VOC-contaminated ground water at the E-7 Complex.

* Site 29 - Drum Burial SiteOU 29a - The drums and associated contaminated materials buried

at the site; and,Cu 29b - Soils outside of the suspected drum burial area

containing TPH in excess of 100 mg/kg.

U * ~~~~Site 39 - Asphalt LakeCu 39a - The asphalt emulsion and drums on the ground surface.

I * ~~~~Site 48 -Power Plant Fuel SoillCu 48a - The floating hydrocarbons located near the subsurface

fuel lines and near the ash house; andp ~ ~~~~OU 48b - The VOC contaminated ground water.

0057 RI3 ~~May 16, 1989 5-1

* Site 49 -Building 1300aOU 49a - The floating hydrocarbons located in the vicinity of

Monitoring Well 49M02.

* Site 50 - Blair LakeOU 50a - The floating hydrocarbons located in the vicinity of

Monitoring Well 53M01.UThe identification and evaluation of interim remedial measures for

these OUs are addressed in the FS presented in Chapter V of the RI/FS report.Additional data needs have been identified for a number of the OUs. Fieldactivities proposed for sites at which OUs have been identified are discussed3in Section 5.2 of this Work Plan.

5.1.2 Combined Site InvestigationsIThere are several sites at Eielson AFB which are very similar by

virtue of their function and proximity. For purposes of this investigation,ISites 3 and 9 will be combined. Site 3/9 occupies an area of at least 100acres located just east of the south end of the runway and north of thenorthwest portion of the refueling loop taxiway. Site 3 was used as the mainVBase landfill from 1967 until 1987, and as a major fire department training3area from 1955 to 1976. Site 9, which lies within the Site 3 landfill area,has been used for fire training exercises since 1976.

Sites 32 and 34, the sewage treatment plant spill pond area andIthe sewage treatment plant sludge drying beds, respectively, have also beencombined. These sites comprise the majority of the sewage treatment plantIsite and are immediately adjacent to one another.

5.2 Integrated IRP Field-related Tasks

5.2.1 General DiscussionThe field program developed for this IRP Integrated RI/FS will

include the field related tasks listed below. Each of the these tasks isIdescribed briefly in the following sections. These tasks will be addressed assite-specific elements of this Work Plan in Section 5.2.2.1

0057R1May 16, 1989 5-2

* Ground-water field screening surveys* Geophysical surveys* Surface soil surveys* Test borings* Drilling* Monitoring wells* Water samplinga Water level surveys* Test pits

Disposed drum evaluation* Product probes

3 ~~5.2.1.1 Ground-water Field Screening SurveysGround-water field screening surveys will be used to investigate-

I ~ ~the areal and vertical extent of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in the

ground water at and downgradient of the sites. Representative samples of the

3 ~~ground water will be obtained by driving a hollow probe to a depth of a few

feet below the water table and extracting a ground-water sample with a

~~ ~peristaltic pump. The samples will be screened in the field laboratory for

VOCs. These data will be used to assess VOC concentrations in the ground

water, estimate plume boundaries and establish test boring/monitoring well

locations.

3 ~~5.2.1.2 Geophysical SurveysThe geophysical survey methods proposed for the 1989 IRP

3 ~~investigation include seismic refraction surveys, vertical electrical

soundings (YES), ground penetrating radar (GPR), electromagnetic (EM) methods,

3 ~~and the use of a buried pipe and cable locater.Seismic refraction surveys will be conducted at Sites 38 and 49

1 ~~using a Geometrics 1210F 12 channel signal enhancement seismograph or

equivalent equipment. Geophone spacing will be dependent on the field

conditions and the degree of detail required, but will generally be on the

U ~ ~order of 50 feet. Where permitted, explosives will be used as the energy

source. Alternatively, a sledge hammer and striker plate may be employed.

3 ~~Data from the seismic refraction surveys will be reduced in the field and willP ~~be used to establish test boring/monitoring well locations.

I~~~~05R3 ~~May 16, 1989 5-3

The direct current resistivity method known as vertical electricalasounding (YES) will be used in conjunction with the seismic refraction data toestimate the depth of permafrost and the thickness of the alluvial aquiferwest of the Ski Lodge at Site 38. The YES data will be used in conjunction

with the seismic refraction data to establish the locations for the deep£monitoring wells proposed for this area.

Ground-penetrating radar (GPR) surveys will be conducted using a3Subsurface Interface Radar System manufactured by Geophysical Survey Systems,Inc. Where terrain is relatively flat and accessible by a four-wheel-drive3vehicle, GPR will be used alone or in combination with Geonics Limited ModelEM-31D ground conductivity meter to locate landfill boundaries or dthersubsurface features.£

Soil conductivity will be measured with an EM-31D groundconductivity meter, which has a depth of investigation of 6 meters. SurveyIlines will extend from the anticipated anomalous region to permit theestablishment of the background conductivity of the native terrain. a

GPR and a buried pipe and cable locater (Subtronics RD-400) willbe used at some sites to clear borehole locations of subsurface obstructions.3A combination of high resolution/shallow penetration and intermediateresolution/deep penetration radar antennas will be used. The maximum depth ofpenetration will depend on the subsurface soil conditions. Two GPR scans willbe performed at right angles across the center of each selected boreholelocation. If the depth of penetration of the GPR is not sufficient to detectIpossible metal pipes and utilities, the RD-400 buried pipe and cable locaterwill be used.

5.2.1.3 Surface Soil SamplingISurface soil sampling will be performed to assess the areal

distribution of chemicals in the surface soil at the site. Surface soil3samples will be obtained using a hand sampler equipped with a single 2.5-inch-diameter stainless steel liner. The sampler will be driven to a depth ofapproximately 6 inches and removed to permit retrieval of the soil sample.IThe liner will be removed, capped, and sealed with tape to prevent loss ofamoisture or volatiles. Alternatively, a stainless steel hand trowel will beused to fill a glass sample jar or other appropriate container. The soil

0057 RiMay 16. 1989 5-4

. ~~samples will be transported to the field lab for screening. These data will

be used to establish test boring locations and will be used to select samples

for shipment to the analytical laboratory.

3 ~~5.2.1.4 DrillingThe choice of drilling methods is influenced by two main factors:

3 ~~1) the need to minimize the introduction of foreign material that may

influence the results of chemical analyses; and 2) the need to penetrate

3 ~~diverse geologic materials. All borings will be initiated using hollow-stem

augers and will be extended by this method to auger refusal or to the required

total depth. All boreholes with target depths greater than 50 feet will be

drilled with an air rotary rig.All boreholes will be monitored for organic vapors and explosive

I ~~gases during drilling using either an HNU photoionization meter or a Century

model 128 Organic Vapor Analyzer (OVA) in conjunction with an explosimeter.

~~ ~Readings will be taken with both meters at the top of the borehole during

drilling-and immediately before sampling operations. The readings will be

3 ~~recorded in a field notebook and on the borehole lithologic log. Each soil

sample will be screened with the HNU or OVA; readings will be recorded on the

3 ~~boring logs adjacent to the sample description.

5.2.1.5 Test Borinas

Test borings will be drilled to enable lithologic logging of soil

conditions, collection of subsurface soil samples, and monitoring well

3 ~~construction. A complete lithologic log of conditions encountered during

drilling will be maintained by the geologist or engineer supervising the

3 ~~operation. A borehole log form will be used to record observations. Borehole

log descriptions will be prepared in accordance with ASTM Methods 0-1452,

1 0~~-1586, 0-2487, and D-2488. Soil samples from the drill cuttings or from a

soil sampler will be obtained at selected intervals.

Subsurface soil samples may be collected for lithologic

I ~ ~description, chemical analysis, or physical analysis. Samples to be examinedP ~~only for lithologic description will be collected using either a split-barrel

drive sampler or by collecting cuttings off hollow-stem augers. Soil samples

to be submitted for chemical and physical analysis will be collected with a

0057R13 ~~May 16, 1989 5-5

split-barrel drive sampler. After collection, soil from the sampler will betransferred to appropriate sample containers. The soil boring locations willbe surveyed to provide accurate ground-surface elevations and horizontallocations.

5.2.1.6 Monitoring WellsThe purpose of installing ground-water monitoring wells is to3

facilitate the evaluation of: ground-water quality, patentiametric levels,and.hydrogeologic characteristics of the aquifer(s). To meet investigation3objectives, standard protocols will be adhered to during well design andconstruction.

Monitoring wells will be drilled using a truck- or track-mountedIhollow-stem auger drill rig, and a geologist or engineer will supervise thedrilling and well installation. Monitoring wells will include features suchIas: well casing and screen, silt trap, sand pack of clean inert water-washedsand, thick bentonite pellet seal, volclay two-component grout, and a3-inch-thick concrete pad on the ground surface. The installation will be dcompleted by embedding a pipe with a locking cap into the concrete pad andover the well pipe. Where necessary, monitoring wells will be completed belowground in a concrete utility box equipped with a traffic-rated steel lid. Thewell will be developed by bailing and/or pumping to reduce turbidity.I

The monitoring wells will be surveyed to provide accurate

elevations and horizontal locations. The surveys will be tied to MSL DatumIand will be traceable to a U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey (USCGS) or U.S.Geological Survey (USGS) survey marker.I

5.2.1.7 Water Sampling3Surface and ground water will be sampled for laboratory analysi s.

Surface water samples will be collected by immersing a sample container in thesurface water system to be sampled and filling all of the sample containers.Samples for volatile organics analysis will be filled completely and capped to gexclude any air bubbles from the container. Prior to ground-water sampling, a Udiaphragm pump or Teflon bailer will be used for purging wells that are notaequipped with dedicated pumps. Indicator parameters (temperature,conductivity, and pH) will be monitored during purging to verify complete

0057RI1May 18, 1989 5-63

. ~~purging of the static water in the well. If a submersible pump is used,

records will be made on depth settling of pump, pumping level of water, static

level, gpm, and time pumped. Wells will be purged until a minimum of three

well volumes of water have been displaced and the pH, temperature, specific

conductance, color, and odor of the discharge have stabilized. If a well ispurged dry before three casing volumes have been removed, the sample will be

3 ~~taken after the well has recovered to within 80 percent of the water level

above the bottom of the well prior to purging or after 24 hours, whichever

3 ~~comes first.

5.2.1.8 Water Level Survs£ ~ ~~~~Water levels will be measured using an electric sounder, steel

tape, and/or pressure transducers. The battery powered sounders used will

have firmly or permanently affixed markers and will be properly calibrated.

The steel tape method will be used when required for a quality

~~ ~control check of other methods. Chalked tapes will be lowered slowly into the

well to avoid contact with a possibly wet casing, and separate measurements

3 ~~will be taken until two measurements differ by less than 0.01 foot. Before

purging, all wells will be checked for the presence of oil or films above the

water phase. A water/hydrocarbon-finding paste and, if needed, a clear

acrylic bailer will be used for this purpose.Electronic or pneumatic pressure transducers may be used for

continuous monitoring of water levels over extended periods. Their operation,calibration, maintenance, and storage will be in accordance with

3 ~~manufacturer's specifications. Electronic conditions that could affect

transducer operation will be recorded.

1 ~~5.2.1.9 Test Pits

I ~~~~~Test pits will be excavated at a number of sites where siteconditions may limit drill rig access. The purpose of test pits will be to

enable lithologic logging and sampling of contaminated soil and waste, if

appropriate. Test pits will be excavated using a backhoe.

0057R1I ~~May 16, 1989 5-7

5.2.1.10 Drum Disposal EvaluationA drum disposal evaluation will be performed at those sites where

drums have been disposed. At surface disposal sites, a walk-aroundSreconnaissance will be petformed and an estimate of the number of drumspresent and their condition will be prepared. Drum labels and/or milspecUnumbers will be used to assess drum contents. Representative drums will beopened and their contents classified using a Hazcat field test kit.3R~epresentative drum samples may then be obtained, composited, and transportedto the analytical laboratory.3

5.2.1.11 Product ProbesProduct probes will be installed to assess the areal extent and

thickness of product floating on the water table. The product probes willconsist of a 1-1/2 inch diameter stainless steel well drive pointUapproximately 3 feet long coupled to an appropriate length of riser pipe. Thewell point will be driven to a depth of about 2 feet below the water table ausing the drill rig. Approximately 1 foot of the well point will remain aboveVthe water table to enable product thickness measurements if the water tableIrises. -Product thickness measurements will be made using the techniquesdescribed in Section 5.2.1.8 (Water Level Surveys). The product probes willbe surveyed to provide accurate elevations and horizontal locations. TheIsurveys will be tied to MSL Datum and will be traceable to a USCGS or USGSsurvey marker.I

.5.2.2 Site-specific Field Investigations3Tables 5-1 through 5-3 present site-specific field efforts and

chemical analyses to be conducted for water and soil samples. The plates3presented for each site illustrate past efforts and proposed sampling/tasksfor the current effort. Locations of borings and monitoring wells areIapproximate and may be adjusted to encountered field conditions.

0057R1May 16. 1989 5-83

u~~00 00 ~ 0 IflU 0 ww

00N0 MN NNNO aN NNN N NN N

3 O'~~~~~~~0 0O% 0~ 0 000 00a~

40' 00 00M0 0 0 00000 0 co00 00 00

C~NCO0 00 OOCU 00 0UU

MO~ ~ C 00 MO -NOw $-N0 1.-wN

0 N 0 ~ 000 000 0 00 0000 N NN

00 COCO 000 r-N

N 0 000 00 00000 000 0000

a. 00 eC'O 00 00000 000 00

a' ON CNN 00 00000 NON CoNN

0 u,~~~~~ 000 a~ n~ u, uuu

SW0~~~~~~~~~~~~Li '0 N~~~~- 000 00 00000l O 00 NNNI

2 U~U~ n00 0

00 3~~~~000 0~~~

0 44 ~000

U, ~ ~ 0 10 - N 1 0

an inn ou0 o 0 0 0U'0 N u

a- ~ ~ ~ 1

=~~~~~ 0U (UC 00C NO

w' 0 0 ~0o 00

00 000 0 0 0 0 0 O

iig 00 ~ ~0 0 0 :00

-n 00 000 0%0 O~0 o 00'

n00 Cu, co n0

4 -Go mo o 00

0 CC woo ow moo ~~~00

N OW 000 0~~~~0 000 c

C I r~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

U 00' I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1- -.. - - -% - '- -%~~~~~~~~~~M

5.2.2.1 Site 1. Original Base Landfill

5 ~~~~~Description

Site 1 reportedly served as the Elelson Air Force Base landfill

from 1950 to 1960. Large quantities of waste oils, spent solvents, paint

residues, and paint thinners are suspected of having been disposed of at thissite over the 10-year period. Current site uses include recreational fishing

I ~~and camping by base residents. Results of the 1988 investigation at Site 1

indicated that the location of the site was incorrectly identified as a site

3 ~~where landfilling had occurred.' Additional information about the site may be

found in Chapter 2.0 of this Work Plan.

3 ~~~~~Previous TestingField investigations performed at Site 1 by HILA during 1988

3 ~~included:

* Drilling two soil borings for collection of four soil samples forlaboratory testing;

* Collecting one sediment sample for laboratory testing;5. *~~ ~ Converting two soil borings to ground-water monitoring/test wells;* Collecting three ground-water samples for laboratory testing;3 *~~~~ Collecting one surface-water sample for laboratory testing;* Conducting surface and subsurface geophysical surveys; and

* Conducting a soil gas survey.

Plate 5-1 shows the locations on the site where the 1988 HLA

* ~~testing was performed.

1989 Work Plan Data Ouality Objectives

Additional data needs for this site, as identified in Section

4.1.1.6 of the IRP Report, include:

* Evaluate the contents and condition of drums present at the site

to confirm that potentially hazardous materials are not present.

* Evaluate the range of naturally occurring backgroundI ~ ~~~~concentrations of metals in surface and ground water in theEielson AFB area to assess the significance of the high manganeselevels found at this site.

I * ~~~~Further assess this site and other nearby areas to more accuratelyp ~~~~~identify the location of the original base landfill.

0057 R13 ~~May 16, 1989 5 -9

The field activities reconnended for acquiring these data are akdiscussed in the following paragraphs.

nrmEalainIAn estimate of the number of drums at the site investigated in 1988 andthe contents and condition of the drums will be made to confirm thatpotentially hazardous materials are not present. One day will beIrequired to complete the drum evaluation.Records SearchA two day search of available records and aerial photographs will be3performed to more accurately identify the location of the original baselandfill. A walk-around reconnaissance will then be performed toconfirm the results of the records search.I

Background Concentrations of MetalsThe evaluation of background concentrations of metals is addressed inISection 5.2.2.24 of this Work Plan as a separate task.I

0057RI~~~~~~~~~~~May 16. 1989 5-10~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Turnqff approximately 2.1 mites 01MWIO)

From Elelsori AFE gate. X

011M02

ToRihrdson5 High~~~ ~ ~~~way 0lMV10 *

2to .3 toot cut

I~~~~~~~~NMD

Bridge

LEGEND3 ~ ~ ~ XSIGMNIO ELLCTO

EXISTING MONITOR WELL LOCATION

EXISTING SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENTgspi 29SAMPLE LOCATION

x BURIED AND PARTIALLY BURIED DRUM LOCATION SCALE IN FEET

Harding Lawson Associates Proposed Sampling Plan PLAT

. Engineers, Geologists Site 1, Original Landfill* jj~~&Gepyscit Eielson A.F.8., Alaska 5

5 CRA~~~~~l JO NUMBE APPROVED WE REVSED DATE

04300,037.08 5189

5.2.2.2 Site 2. Old Base Landfill akDescripotionSite 2 was the main Base landfill from approximately 1960 through

1967. Prior to 1964, Base refuse was burned at the site prior to burial . Thesite reportedly received refuse of similar types to that received at Site 1,including waste oils, spent solvents, and paint thinners and residues. Access'to the abandoned landfill is currently unrestricted. It is currently being1used by base residents as a site for operating summer and winter recreationalvehicles. Additional information about the site may be found in Chapter 2.03of this Work Plan.

Previous Testing

Field investigations performed at this site by HLA during 1988Uincluded:

* Conducting a surface geophysical survey; and* Conducting a soil gas survey.* Collecting one surface-water sample for laboratory testing;* Collecting thr ediegondwte sample s for laboratory testing;*Collecting onre seoudimente samples for laboratory testing;

Plate 5-2 shows the locations on the site where the 1988 HLAtesting was performed.

1989 Work Plan Data Quality Objectives3Additional data needs for this site, as identified in Section

4.1.2.6 of the IRP Report, include:3

* Confirm the presence of purgeable halocarbons in ground water andsurface water downgradient of the landfill area.

* Establish background ground-water and surface-water qualityconditions at this site, in order to assess the possible existenceof other source areas.3

* Evaluate the range of naturally occurring backgroundconcentrations of metals in surface Water and ground water in theEielson AFB area, to assess the significance of the high iron and3manganese levels found at this site.

* Further investigate the distribution and concentrations of3purgeable halocarbons within the landfill area and in ground waterand surface water at and near the site.

0057R1May 16. 1989 5-11

The field activities recommended for acquiring these data are

3 ~~presented on Plate 5-2 and discussed in the following paragraphs.

Soil BorinasA total of six soil borings will be drilled to a depth of 10 feet in thelandfilled area. Each baring will be sampled at the surface and at5-foot intervals t-hereafter. A total of 18 soil samples will beobtained from the borings. Each sample will be submitted to the fieldlaboratory for TPH field screening. The TPH field screening data willbe used to select six samples for laboratory analysis.

Ground-water Field Screening SurveyA ground-water field screening survey will be performed to confirm thepresence and assess the distribution and concentrations of purgeablehalocarbons within and around the perimeter of the landfill. A total of2 days of field screening will be performed. During this period,approximately 20 ground-water samples will be obtained and screened inthe field lab for purgeable halocarbons.

5 ~~~~Test Boring/Monitoring Well InstallationBorings will be drilled and monitoring wells installed to assess theground-water quality upgradient of the site and to assess the extent ofpurgeable halocarbons in the ground water at the perimeter of thelandfill. Two borings will be drilled to a depth of 15 feet bgs; onewill be drilled upgradient of the site and one at a location establishedon the basis of the ground-water field screening survey. One soil

sample will be collected from each boring for laboratory analysis.

The borings will be converted to monitoring wells. Each well will bescreened over an interval of 10 feet.

Surface Water SamplingOne surface-water sample will be obtained from Bear Lake (see Plate

5-2). Four surface-water samples will be obtained from French Creek toassess the surface-water quality conditions at the site. Three sampleswill be collected at the proposed locations shown on Plate 5-2 and onesample will be collected at the location sampled during the 1988

investigation.

Chemical Analysis of SoilI ~ ~~~Six samples from the soil borings and two soil samples from the testborings/monitoring wells will be submitted to the laboratory foranalysis. Samples will be analyzed for moisture content, purgeablehalocarbons, purgeable aromatic compounds, semivolatile organiccompounds, and petroleum hydrocarbons.Chemical Analysis of Ground and Surface WaterI ~ ~~~A total of 5 ground-water samples will be obtained, three from existingwells and two from the new wells proposed for the site. Five surface-water samples will be obtained. Alkalinity, specific conductance, pH,p ~ ~~~and temperature will be measured in the field. The water samples willbe analyzed for purgeable halocarbons and purgeable aromatic compounds.

0057R13 tl~~ay 16. 1989 5- 12

Background Concentrations of MetalsThe evaluation of background concentrations of metals is addressed inSection 5.2.2.24 of this Work Plan as a separate task.

0057RI~~~~~~~~~~May 16, 1989 5-13 ~ ~ ~ ~

PROPOSED GROUND WATER3 ~~FIELD SCREENING SURVEY

I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~G .E .R .WI~~~~~~0I~~~~~~~BARLK LSAR

NOTE: Dames and Moore wells W-9, GW-28 and GW-2C were relabeled as 02MW9, 02M06I ~ ~and O2MOC, respectively, in order to make them consistent with HLA's numbering system.

I ~LEGEND

PROPOSED BORING/MONITOR WELL LOCATION

V PROPOSED SURFACE WATER SAMPLE LOCATION

EXISTING SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT M4j0SAMPLE LOCATIONa -S ~~EXISTING MONITOR WELL LOCATIONSCLINFE

W ~~~~Harding Lawson Associates Proposed Sampling PlanPLTEngineers, Geologists Site 2. Old Landfill

* ~ ~ ~~ epyscssEielson A.F.B., Alaska5 25 aOKNn " UBRAPRVDDT REVlSt DATE

04300,037.08 5/89

5.2.2.3 Site 3/9. New Base Landfill/Fire Training AreaDescrioti onSite 3 was used as the main base landfill from 1967 until 1987,

and as a major fire department training area from 1955 to 1976. Site 9 islocated within the Site 3 landfill area, and has been used for fire trainingIexercises since 1976. In the past, these exercises included the spreading andburning of POL waste, including contaminated fuels and spent solvents. CleanJP-4 jet fuel is used for current training exercises.

Contaminants reportedly disposed of at the site in the past3include: waste oils, spent solvents, paint residues and thinners, and a smallamount of radioactive photographic chemicals. The site was also used for

disposal of empty cans and drums from flight line industrial shops. Othercurrent Site 3/9 uses include military exercise encampment, parking ofconstruction equipment, and soil and asphaltic concrete pavement disposalIsite. Access to the site is presently unrestricted. Additional informationabout the site may be found in Chapter 2.0 of this Work Plan.

Previous TestingField investigations performed at this site by HLA during 19883

included:-

* Drilling 10 soil borings and excavating 3 test pits for collection 3of 15 soil samples for laboratory testing;

* Converting 10 soil borings and 1 test pit to ground-watermonitoring/test wells;

* Collecting 10 ground-water samples for laboratory testing;* Performing 5 slug tests;* Conducting surface and subsurface geophysical surveys; and

* Conducting a soil gas survey.

Plate 5-3 shows the locations on the site where the 1988 HLAItesting was performed.

1989 Work Plan Data Ouality ObjectivesIAdditional data needs for this site, as identified in Section

4.1.3.6 of the IRP Report, include:3

* Investigate the extent of the volatile organic compounds in theground water along and downgradient of the pipeline corridor toconfirm the pipelines are the source of these compounds.

0057R 1May 16. 1989 5-14

* Establish the eastern boundary of the landfill and confirm thatlandfilling has taken place along the southern boundary of the

asbestos disposal area.

* Assess the horizontal and vertical extent of the lead and TPH inthe soil at the fire training area in order to provide an estimateof the volume of soil impacted.

* Assess the horizontal and vertical extent of the volatile organic

compounds in the ground water within and downgradient of the site.

* Evaluate the range of naturally occurring backgroundI ~ ~~~~concentrations of metals in soil, surface water, and ground waterin the Eielson AFB area, to assess the significance of the highlead, barium, iron, manganese, and TDS levels found at this site.

The field activities recommended for acquiring these data are

presented on Plate 5-3 and discussed in the following paragraphs.

Geophysi cal SurveysEM and GPR surveys will be conducted to establish the eastern boundaryof the landfill and confirm that landfilling has taken place along thesouthern boundary of the asbestos disposal area. Geophysical surveycoverage of this area will be accomplished by expanding the survey gridestablished at this site during the 1988 investigation. Approximatelyfour days will be required to complete the geophysical survey work inthis area. The areas proposed for geophysical surveys are shown onPlate 5-3.

3 ~~~~Ground-water Field Screening SurveA ground-water field screening survey will be performed in the areashown on Plate 5-3 to assess the areal extent of the hydrocarbon plumein the ground water downgradient of the pipeline corridor and the fire

training area. Ground-water field screening work will also be performedin the fire training area in the vicinity of Well 03M01. A total offour days of field screening will be performed in the heavily wooded£ ~ ~~~area downgradient of the pipeline corridor. During this period,approximately 20 ground-water samples will be obtained and screened inthe field lab for purgeable aromatics. Two days of field screening willbe required in the cleared portion of the combined site to collect andanalyze 20 ground-water samples. These data will be used to establishthe locations for the proposed test borings/monitoring wells.

I ~~~~Soil BoringsA total of 20 soil borings will be drilled to a depth of 10 feet at thefire training area. Each baring will be sampled at the surface and at5-foot intervals thereafter. A total of 60 soil samples will be

obtained from the borings. Each sample will be screened in the fieldusing either the Hnu or OVA and 40 samples will be submitted to thefield laboratory for TPH field screening. The TPH field screening data

will be used to select 10 samples for laboratory analysis.

0057 R-I ~~May 16, 1989 5-15

Test Boring/Monitoring Well InstallationA total of 11 borings will be drilled and monitoring wells installed toassess the extent of volatile organic compounds in the ground waterwithin and downgradient of the combined site. The tentative locationsIfor the test borings/monitoring wells are shown on Plate 5-3. Theborings will be drilled to a depth of 30 feet bgs and converted tomonitoring wells. Borings will be sampled at the surface and atIintervals of 5 feet thereafter. The samples from each boring will bescreened in the field using either the Hnu or the OVA.

Five test borings/monitoring wells will be installed downgradient of thepipeline corridor and the combined site. The locations for thesemonitoring wells will be based on the results of the ground-waterscreening survey. Soil samples from these borings will not be submitted Ito the analytical laboratory.

Four test borings/monitoring wells will be installed within the combinedIsite. A total of 28 soil samples will be collected from these boringsand screened for TPH in the field laboratory. The TPH field screeningdata will be used to select eight samples for laboratory analysis.

Two test borings/monitoring wells will be installed immediately outsideof the landfilled area along the southeast (upgradient) boundary of thecombined site. The locations for these test borings/monitoring wellswill be established using the geophysical survey data. Soil samplesWfrom these borings will not be submitted to the analytical laboratory.Background Concentrations of MetalsThe evaluation of background concentrations of metals is addressed inSection 5.2.2.25 of this Work Plan.3Chemical Analysis of SoilA total of 18 soil samples will be submitted for analysis. Ten soilsamples from the borings in the fire training area will be selected forlaboratory analysis on the basis of the OVA readings made duringIdrilling and the results of the TPH screening performed in the fieldlab. Samples from the fire training area will be analyzed for petroleumhydrocarbons and lead. Eight soil samples from the testIborings/monitoring wells within the landfilled area will be submitted tothe laboratory and analyzed for moisture content, purgeable halocarbons,purgeable aromatic compounds, semivolatile organic compounds, petroleumhydrocarbons, and lead.Chemical Analysis of Ground WaterA total of 21 ground-water samples will be obtained; one sample will bkobtained from each of the 10 existing and 11 proposed monitoring wells,.Alkalinity, specific conductance, pH and temperature will be measuredfor each sample in the field. Each sample will be analyzed forpurgeable halocarbons, purgeable aromatic compounds, polynuclearIaromatic compounds, and lead.

0057R1May 16. 1989 5-161

AS8ESroS7DISPOSAL

AREA

I ~~~PIPELINES CONNE

I PROPOSED ~ ~ ~ PROOS

GROUND~ WAT5 ~~FIELD SCRizENING

I M~~~~~~~~~~~~~l ~~~~~~~~lL

g ~LEGEND

-4PROPOSE0 SORING/MoNwTOR WELL LOCATION-SEXISTING MONITOR WELL LOCATION3 ~~~EXISTING TEST PIT LOCATION 9 52 9 C2

Harding Lawson Associates Praosd amligElaEngineers, Geologists Siteo/9,sew SassLadfll/r riing Area -AT& Geophysicist3

5ie3 3ewBs odff/ieTriigAeEielson A.Fa., Alaska5 3I Ut~~~~~~wn ~Jm NU AU PSw A! tmsob

5/89~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~11111

5.2.2.4 Site 4. Munitions Disposal AreaSDescripDtlon

Site 4 is an old Army landfill where general refuse includingIscrap metals and empty containers was disposed. The landfill probablyreceived small quantities of waste oil and spent solvents and may have3received small amounts of munitions and spent cartridges for burial.Currently, the site is an active munitions disposal and explosives detonation3area. Site entry is restricted by the Explosive Ordinance Disposal (EOD)Squadron.. Additional information about the site may be found in Chapter 2.03of this Work Plan.

Previous Testing

Field investigations performed at this site by HLA during 1988Iincluded:

& Drilling three soil borings for collection of six soil samples forlaboratory testing;

* Converting three soil borings ground-water monitoring/test wells;a Collecting three ground-water samples for laboratory testing; -* Collecting one surface-water sample for laboratory testing; andW* Conducting surface and subsurface geophysical surveys.3

Plate 5-4 shows the locations on the site where the 1988 HlLAtesting was performed.

1989 Work Plan Data Ouality ObjectivesAdditional data needs for this site, as identified in Section

4.1.4.6 of the IRP Report, include:I

* Further investigate the site to assess the distribution andconcentrations of purgeable halocarbons, purgeable aromnatics, andIsemivolatile organic compounds in soil and ground water.

a Establish the magnitude and extent of TPH concentrations in excess3of 100 mg/kg in soil in the vicinity of Wells 04M402 and 04M03.

* Establish the magnitude and extent of TDS and sulfateconcentrations in excess of drinking water standards in theIvicinity of Monitoring Well 04M01.

* Assess the distribution and concentrations of di-N-butylphthalateIand N-nitrosodiphenamine in the sail near Location 04M402.a

a Assess the impact (if any) of Site 4 on surface-water quality inUthe French Creek Lowlands.W

0057RI~~~~~~~~~~May 16, 1989 5 -17

Evaluate the range of naturally-occurring backgroundconcentrations of metals in surface and ground water in the3 ~~~~~Elelson AFB area to assess the significance of the high TOS, iron,manganese, and arsenic levels found at this site.

I ~~~~~The field activities recommended for acquiring these data are

presented on Plate 5-4 and discussed in the following paragraphs.

3 ~~~~Geophysical SurveysEM and GPR surveys will be conducted to establish the extent oftrenching north of Well 04M01 and clear boring locations. The areasproposed for geophysical surveys are shown on Plate 5-4. EM surveycoverage of the area north of Well 04M01 will be accomplished byexpanding the survey grid established at this site during the 1988investigation. One day will be required to complete the geophysicalsurvey work in this area. Two days of GPR work will be required toclear test boring/monitoring well locations.

Soil BoringsSix soil borings will be drilled to a depth of 10 feet in the vicinityof Wells 04M02 and 04M03. Each boring will be sampled at the surfaceand at 5-foot intervals thereafter. A total of 18 soil samples will beobtained from the borings. Each sample will be screened in the fieldusing either the Hnu or OVA and will be submitted to the fieldlaboratory for'TPH field screening. The TPH field screening data will

* ~~~~be used to select six samples for laboratory analysis.

Surface Soil SamplingThree surface soil samples will be obtained in the vicinity of Well3 ~~~~04M02 to assess the distribution and concentration of di-N-butylphthalate and N-nitrosodiphenamine in the surface soil. Thesesamples will be submitted to the laboratory for analysis.

* ~~~~Ground-water Field Screening SurveyA ground-water field screening survey will be performed in the in thearea shown on Plate 5-4 to confirm the existence and establish the arealextent of VOCs in the ground water. Two days of field screening will be

required in the cleared portion of the site to collect 20 ground-watersamples which will be submitted to the field lab for VOC screening.These data will be used to establish the locations for a proposed test

boring/monitoring well.Test Boring/Monitoring Well InstallationBorings will be drilled and monitoring wells installed to assess theI ~ ~~~horizontal extent of chemicals in the ground water downgradient of thissite. The location for one of the monitoring wells will be based on the.results of the ground-water screening survey and shallow soil boringwork. Two of the wells will be located to provide ground-water data onthe downgradient side of the site which lies above the wet landsbordering French Creek. The borings will be drilled to a depth of 20p ~ ~~~feet bgs and converted to monitoring wells. Borings will be sampled atthe surface and at intervals of 5 feet thereafter. The samples from

0057R13 ~~May 16. 1989 5-18

each boring will be screened in the field using the Hnu or OVA. The afield data will be used to select one sample from each boring forlaboratory analysis.

The borings will be converted to monitoring wells. Each well will bescreened over an interval of 10 feet.3Surface-water/Sediment SamplingEight surface-water/sediment samples will be obtained in three areas onor inmediately adjacent to the site. Three samples will be obtainedimmediately south of the munitions disposal area in the vicinity of theIdisposed drums and two samples will be obtained in the boggy area southof the Burning Kettle. Three samples will be obtained in the wetlandsat the base of the slope which forms the southern and eastern siteIborder.Disposed Drum EvaluationThree days will be required to evaluate the approximate number,Icondition, and contents of the drums disposed at the site. Two disposalareas will be evaluated. The first area lies in the eastern portion ofthe site in the vicinity of the munitions residue disposal site and theBurning Kettle. One day will be required to evaluate this area. TwoIdays will be required to assess the drum disposal along the steep slopewhich forms the south border of the site.

Chemical Analysis of Soil/Sediment oSix soil samples from the shallow soil borings, three soil samples fromthe test borings/monitoring wells, three surface-sail samples, and eight Isediment samples will be submitted for analysis. Samples will beselected for laboratory analysis on the basis of the OVA readings andTPH screening performed in the field lab. Samples will be analyzed forUmoisture content, purgeable halocarbons, purgeable aromatic compounds,semivolatile organic compounds, and petroleum hydrocarbons. The soilsamples from the test borings/monitoring wells will be analyzed forphenols, not semivolatile organic compounds.Chemical Anlsso Ground and Surface WaterAtotal of six ground-water samples will be obtained; three from theIexisting wells and three from the proposed wells. Eight surface-watersamples will be obtained. Alkalinity, specific conductance, pH, andtemperature will be measured in the field. The water samples will beanalyzed for purgeable halocarbons, purgeable aromatics, phenols, total

dissolved solids, and common anions.

0057R1May 16, 1989 5-193

U~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~'0S

PROPOSEDGROUND WATER

FIELD SCREENIN

\MUNITIONSU ~ ~~~~RESIDUE

4-PROPOSD BORIN/MONITO WELLOLCATIO

SAMPLE LOCATION ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ONC

(t OBSERVED SURFACEWAE AND PATALYBREDIMENTA92020 40

INCLUDING DRUMS AND SCRAP METAL _______________

EXISTING MONITOR WELL LOCATION SCALE IN FEET

Harding Lawson Associates Proposed Sampling PlanPATEngineers, Geologists Site 4, Munitions Disposal Area 5

z ~~& Geophysicists Eielson A.F.B., Alaska5 43 ~~~~~~~04300.037.08 5/89

5.2.2.5 Site 5. Old Army LandfillDescri ntlion3Site 5 is reportedly an old landfill used by the Army battery

station located at the site from apprdximately 1956 to 1959. It receivedsmall quantities of waste oil and spent solvents in addition to general refuse Isuch as scrap metals, empty drums, and containers. Current activity at thesite is limited to archery moose hunting by Base personnel. The site hasunrestricted kccess. Additional information about the site may be found inChapter 2.0 of this Work Plan.

Previous TestingField investigations performed at this site by HLA during 19883

included:

* Drilling three soil borings for collection of six soil samples for 3laboratory testing;

* Converting three soil borings to ground-water monitoring/testwells;

* Collecting three ground-water samples for laboratory testing;Conducting sufae an usurfac-ae ape ge rlaophsi altsrveys;tandgd

* Collecting oesurface-water su samplce feorhyiclaboratoytstiang;Conducting a soil gas survey.IPlate 5-5 shows the locations on the site where the 1988 HlLA

testing was performed.3

1989 Work Plan Data Quality ObjectivesAdditional data needs for this site, as identified in Section3

4.1.5.6 of the IRP Report, include:

* Confirm the existence of the purgeable halocarbons in the watersat the site as these chemicals are often found in equipment andIlaboratory method blanks;

* Assess the extent of the chemicals in the surface water andIsediments of the ponds that have drums in them;

* Evaluate the drum disposal areas to estimate the number and nature 3of the contents of the drums at the site to provide supportinginformation for the evaluation and implementation of remedialmeasures;3

* Evaluate the range of naturally-occurring backgroundconcentrations of metals in soil, surface and ground water in theEielson AFB area to assess the significance of the iron andmanganese levels in ground water and metals levels in soil.

00 S7R 1May 16, 1989 5 -203

Evaluate the horizontal and vertical extent of permafrost at anddowngradient of the site to provide supporting information for theevaluation and implementation of remedial measures;

Assess usage of the site to determine how many people may3 ~~~~~potentially be exposed to chemicals found on the site.

The field activities recommended for acquiring these data are

presented an Plate 5-5 and discussed in the following paragraphs.

Test PitsTwo test pits will be excavated with a backhoe to evaluate thehorizontal and vertical extent of permafrost downgradient of thesite. The pits will be excavated to refusal on permafrost.

Test Boring/Monitoring Well InstallationOne boring will be drilled and one monitoring well installed toassess the direction of ground-water flow at this site. The wellwill be located to provide ground-water data downgradient of thesite. The boring will be drilled to a depth of 25 feet bgs andconverted to a monitoring well. The well will be screened over aninterval of 10 feet.

Surface Water/Sediment SamolinaI . ~ ~~~~One surface water sample and one sediment sample will be collectedfrom each of the three ponds at the site. These samples will beobtained to evaluate the chemicals in the surface water andsediments in the ponds.

-Surface Soil SurveyOne day will be required to obtain approximately 20 surface soilsamples from the areas of the disposed drums east of the ponds.The surface soils will be screened for TPH in the fieldlaboratory. The field screening data will be used to select four

samples for laboratory analysis.Drum EvaluationAn estimate of the number, contents, and condition of drums on thesite will be made. This evaluation will require two days of fieldwork.

Records SearchA search of available records will be made to assess usage of thesite. These data will be used to establish how many people andthe wildlife that may be expos ed to chemicals found on this site.

One day will be required to complete the records search.Chemical Analysis of Soil/SedimentFour surface soil samples and three sediment samples will be1 ~ ~~~~obtained from the site and submitted for laboratory analysis. Thesurface soil samples will be selected on the basis of TPHscreening performed in the field lab. Samples will be analyzedp ~ ~~~~for moisture content, purgeable halocarbons, purgeable aromaticcompounds, and petroleum hydrocarbons.

0057R 13 ~~May 16, 1989 5-21

Chemical Analysis of Ground and Surface WaterA total of four ground-water sample will be obtained; three fromthe existing wells and one from the proposed well. Three surface-3water samples will be obtained. Alkalinity, specific conductance,pH, and temperature will be measured in the field. The watersamples will be analyzed for purgeable halocarbons and purgeablearomatic compounds.IBackground Concentrations of MetalsThe evaluation of background concentrations of metals is addressed

in Section 5.2.2.24 of this Work Plan as a separate task.

0057RI~~~~~~~~~~~May 16, 1989 5-22~ ~~~~~

oly

~~~~0

JEEP TRAIL

3 0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~5M03It) GRAVEL RA

LEGEND+PROPOSED BORING/MONITOR WELL LOCATION3 + ~~PROPOSED TEST PIT LOCATION

*! PROROSED SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENTSAMPLE LOCATION 20

*PROPOSED SURFACE SOIL SAMPLE LOCATION 90 ! 190 204903 4 ~~EXISTING MONITOR WELL LOCATION SCALE IN FEETP~ ~A EXISTING SURFACE WATER SAMPLE LOCATION

Harding Lawson Associates Proposed Sampling PlanPLT* Engineers, Geologists Site 5. Old Army Landfill 5

* ~~~~& Geophysicists Eielson A.F.G.. Alaska -5 ~DRMAO NUMBE PPOEDDT Rmm DATE

04300.037.08 5/89

5.2.2.6 Site 6. Old Landfill

DescriutionSite 6 served as a secondary landfill from 1959 to 1963. OnlyI

small quantities of waste paints, paint thinners, and spent solvents as drumresiduals were thought to be disposed at the site. Site 6 is located behindIthe Carpentry and Paint Shops, just south of a newly constructed recreationalvehicle cold storage facility. Access, which is unrestricted, is by a gravel3road that encircles the new cold storage facility. Additional informationabout the site may be found in Chapter 2.0 of this Work Plan.3

Previous TestingField investigations performed at this site by HLA during 19883

included:-

* Drilling three soil borings for collection of six soil samples for 3laboratory testing;

* Converting three soil borings to ground-water monitoring/testwells;

* Collecting three ground-water samples for laboratory testing;* Collecting one surface-water sample for laboratory testing;d* Performing one slug test;* Performing one pump test;U* Conducting surface and subsurface geophysical surveys; and

* Conducting a soil gas survey.

Plate 5-6 shows the locations on the site where the 1988 HLAtesting was performed.3

1989 Work Plan Data Ouality ObjectivesAdditional data needs for this site, as identified in Section3

4.1.6.6 of the IRP Report, include:

* Investigate the soil within the landfill area for the presence,Idistribution, and concentrations of TPH, purgeable halocarbons,and purgeable aromatic compounds.3

* Evaluate the lateral and vertical extent of TPH concentrations inexcess of 100 mg/kg in soil adjacent to the landfill.

* Confirm the presence of purgeable halocarbons and purgeableIaromatics in ground water at the perimeter of the landfill, and,if confirmed, further investigate the distribution andconcentrations of these parameters.

May 16, 1989 5-233

* Evaluate the range of naturally-occurring backgroundconcentrations of metals in surface water and ground water in the3 ~~~~~Elelson AFB area to assess the significance of the high arsenic,iron, and manganese levels found at this site.

The field activities recommended for acquiring these data are

presented on Plate 5-6 and discussed in the following paragraphs.

Soil BorinasI ~ ~~~A total of 15 soil borings will be drilled to a depth of 6 feet toassess the presence of TPH within the landfill area and to assess the,extent of TPH in the soil surrounding the landfill area. A total ofI ~ ~~~thirty soil samples will obtained from the borings and will be screenedin the field laboratory for TPH. The field screening data will be usedto select six samples for laboratory analysis.

Ground-water Field Screening SurveyA ground-water field screening survey will be performed to confirm thepresence and assess the extent of VOCs in ground water at the perimeterI ~ ~~~of the landfill. These data will be used to establish the locations forthe soil borings/monitoring wells proposed for this site. A total ofthree days of field screening will be performed. During this period,approximately 30 ground-water samples will be obtained and screened inthe field lab for purgeable halocarbons and purgeable aromatics.

Test Boring/Monitoring Well InstallationBorings will be drilled and monitoring wells installed to assess thehorizontal extent of purgeable halocarbons and purgeable aromatics inthe ground water upgradient and downgradient of the site. The locationsfor the test borings/monitoring wells will be based on the results ofI ~ ~~~the ground-water screening survey and shallow soil boring work. Fourborings will be drilled to a depth of 25 feet bgs and converted tomonitoring wells. Each well will be screened over an interval of 10I ~ ~~~feet. One soil sample will be collected from each boring for laboratoryanalysis.Chemical Analysis of SoilI ~ ~~~Six soil samples from the shallow soil borings and four soil samplesfrom the test borings/monitoring wells will be submitted to thelaboratory for analysis. Samples from the shallow borings will beselected for laboratory analysis on the basis of the OVA readings andTPH screening performed in the field lab. Samples will be analyzed formoisture content, purgeable halocarbons, purgeable aromatic compounds,and petroleum hydrocarbons, Additionally, the six soil samples from the

shallow borings will be analyzed for semivolatile organic compounds.Chemical Analysis of Ground WaterA total of seven ground-water samples will be obtained, three from theexisting wells and four from the proposed wells. Alkalinity, specificconductance, pH, and temperature will be measured in the field. Thewater samples will be analyzed for purgeable halocarbons, and purgeable

aromatic compounds.

0057 Ri3 ~~May 16, 1989 5-24

Background Concentrations of MetalsThe evaluation of background concentrations of metals is addressed as aseparate task in Section 5.2.2.24 of this Work Plan.

0057R1~~~~~~~~~~~May 16, 1989 5-25~ ~~~~~

I~~OI

I~~~ODI~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~6~

I.~~~~~~4O

* 6215~~~~~~G PROPSEDGROND ATER

6209K JFIELD SCREENING SURVEY* * /~~~~~~~~~6213

LEGEND+PROPOSED BORING/MONITOR WELL LOCATION 13 90- R *

A6 EXISTING SURFACE WATER SAMPLE LOCATION

Harding Lawson Associates Proposed Sampling Plan PA

Engineers, Geologists St .OdLnfl&Geophysicists SieB l adil5-62 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~Eielson A.F.8., Alaska

BROW JOB NUMMJ AWP*OWD DATE R )DT

04300,037.08 5/89

5.2.2.7 Site 8. Fire Training AreaDescripDtlionSite 8 is an old gravel pit that was used for training exercises

for the fire department from 1948 to 1955. Approximately once a week, fireexercises were conducted on simulated wrecked aircraft in the old gravel pit3using approximately 250 gallons of P01 waste material. The gravel pit iscurrently flooded:, Additional information about the site may be found inChapter 2.0 of the Work Plun.

Previous Testing3Field investigations performed at this site by HLA during 1988

included:3

* Collecting six sediment samples for laboratory testing; and* Collecting one surface-water sample for laboratory testing.

Plate 5-7 shows the locations on the site where the 1988 HLAItesting was performed.

1989 Work Plan Data Ouality ObJectivesAdditional data needs for this site, as identified in Section

4.1.7.6 of the IRP Report, include:

* -Assess the horizontal and vertical extent of TPH, pesticides, andlead in the sediments beneath and soil around the perimeters of3the pond, to provide an estimate of the volume of sail impacted

* Investigate ground water downgradient of the pond for thepresence, distribution, and concentration of purgeable aromaticIand semivolatile compounds and TPH. If found, further investigatethe distribution and concentration of these parameters

* Evaluate the range of naturally-occurring backgroundconcentrations of metals in soil and surface water in the Eiel sonAFB area to assess the significance of lead and manganese levelsin sediment and surface water at this site.

* Assess usage of the site to determine how many people maypotentially be exposed to chemicals found at Site 8.Some of the field activities recommended for this site will3

require drilling soil borings in the sediments of the pond. These activitieswill be performed in the winter (December 1989 to January 1990) when the pond

0057R1May 16, 1989 5-26

is frozen and will support personnel and equipment. The field activitiesrecommended for "summer" and "winter" investigatory programs are presented onPlate 5-7 and are discussed in the following paragraphs.

Summer Program

Surface Soil SurveyFour surface sail samples will be collected around the perimeterof the pond to assess presence and extent of TPH, pesticides, and-lead in the soil.

Test Boring/Monitorlng Well InstallationOne boring will be drilled and a monitoring well installed toassess the presence of TPH and purgeable aromatic and semivolatilecompounds in the ground water. The test boring/monitoring wellwill be located downgradient of the pond. The boring will bedrilled to a depth~of 15 feet bgs.

The boring will be converted to a monitoring well. The well willI ~ ~~~~be screened over an interval of 10 feet.Chemical Analysis of SoilFour surface soil samples will be submitted to the laboratory foranalysis. Samples will be analyzed for moisture content,pesticides and PCBs, petroleum hydrocarbon, and lead.Chemical Analysis of Ground WaterOne ground-water sample will be obtained from the proposedmonitoring well. Alkalinity, specific conductance, pH, and

-temperature will be measured in the field. The water sample willI ~ ~~~~be analyzed for purgeable halocarbons, purgeable aromaticcompounds, semivolatile organic compounds, pesticides and PCB's,arsenic, lead, mercury, ICP metals scan, total dissolved solids,common anions, and nitrogen.Records SearchA search of available records will be made to assess usage of theI ~ ~~~~site. These data will be used to establish how many people andwildlife may potentially be exposed to chemicals found on thissite.

Winter Program

Soil BoringsI ~ ~~~~A total of eight soil borings will be drilled through the pondsediments to a depth of 5 feet. Each boring will be sampled atthe sediment surface and at 5 feet below the sediment surface. Atotal of 16 samples will be collected for laboratory analysis.Chemical Analysis of SedimentSixteen soil samples from the soil borings will be submitted tomiture aontetro pealstiids. SandpCes, petrlbeu hnayzdrforbons,anthmao rator y fortnt analstiids. ape ilb ana C er leu yzdrforbos TPH,lead.

0057R1May 18, 1989 5-27

Backgaround Concentrations of MetalsThe evaluation of background concentrations of metals is addressedas a separate task in Section 5.2.2.24 of this Work Plan.

0057RI~~~~~~~~~~~May 16, 1989 5-28~ ~ ~~~~

I~o

I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~O

I~~~~~~~~~~~~05l8OSI~~~~~~~~~~~~~1

I~~~~~~~~~06l 80SI~~~~~~~~~~080

I~~EGNI.~ ~POOE OIG/OIO ELLCTOI~~~POOE UFCESI APELCTO

4 PROPOSED BORINGMONITO WAPEL 'LOCATION

I ~ ~A EXISTING SURFACE WATER SAMPLE LOCATION SCALE IN FEETo EXISTING SEDIMENT SAMPLE LOCATION

Harding Lawson Associates Proposed Sampling PlanPWEngineers. GeologistsSie ,FreTangAea5

z ~ &GepyicssElelson A.F.B., Alaska5 7I MARNWP JOB NMBER A-PROVO DATE REIUo DATE

04300,037.08 5/89

5.2.2.8 Site 20. Refueling Loop AreaDescripotionSite 20, the refueling loop area, is where the majority of the

aircraft refueling operations are conducted. It includes the E-7, E-8, and E-9 refueling pad complexes. Special flight line security passes are requiredIfor access to E-7, E-8, and E-9 Complexes.

Each refueling pad complex consists of an approximately 16 acreasphalt pad, with several fueling and defueling transfer pipes. A pump housewith four buried 50,000-gallon fuel storage tanks and delivery lines.-islocated adjacent to each asphalt pad.

Tank and delivery line integrity testing recently was performed atall three complexes. It is HLA's understanding that all the buried tanks andpiping at E-7, E-8, and E-9 passed the tests, with the exception of buriedpiping at the E-9 complex. The specific location of the failure at the E-9Icomplex had not been determined at the time of our investigation. Additionalinformation about the site may be found in Chapter 2.0 of this Work Plan.

Previous TestinaField investigations performed at this site by HLA during 1988

included:

* Drilling 11 soil borings for collection of 13 soil samples forlaboratory testing;

* Converting 11 soil borings to ground-water monitoring/test wells;* Collecting 12 ground-water samples for laboratory testing;* Performing 8 slug tests;I* Performing 1 pump test;* Installing 14 product probes;* Conducting subsurface geophysical surveys; andI* Conducting a soil gas survey.

Plate 5-8 shows the locations on the site where the 1988 HLAtesting was performed.

1989 Work Plan Data Ouality ObJectives

Additional data needs for this site, as identified in SectionI4.1.8.6 of the IRP Report, include:

E-7 Complex* Assess the lateral extent of benzene in excess of 5 ug/l in ground ___

water at the E-7 Complex, down-gradient of Monitoring Well 20M09;

0057RI~~~~~~~~~~~May 16. 1989 5-29

E-8 Comolex* Assess the lateral and vertical distribution of TPH atI ~ ~~~~concentrations in excess of 100 mg/kg in soil in the vicinity of

Monitoring Well 20M06 at the E-8 Complex, and if possible identifypotential sources;

I ~~~~~Assess the distribution and concentrations of VOCs in the groundwater at the E-8 Complex, in the vicinity of Monitoring Well20M06, and, if possible, identify potential sources;

E-9 Complex* Evaluate the lateral extent of floating hydrocarbon on the ground

water in the vicinity of Monitoring Well 20M01;

* Assess the distribution and concentrations of TPH, VOCs, and SVOCsin ground water at the E-9 Complex in the vicinity of Monitoring

Well 20M01;* Assess the lateral and vertical distribution of TPH at

concentrations in excess of 100 mg/kg in soil in the vicinity ofU ~~~~~Monitoring Well 20M01 at the E-9 Complex.

The field activities recommended for acquiring these data are

presented on Plate 5-8 and discussed in the following paragraphs.

I ~~~~~E-7 Complex

-Ground-water Field Screening Surve* ~~~~~A ground-water field screening survey will be performed in the

shaded area shown on Plate 5-8 to assess the areal extent of thehydrocarbon plume in the ground water downgradient of Well 20M09.These data will be used to establish the locations for the testborings/monitoring wells proposed for this site. A total of threedays of field screening will be performed. During this period,approximately 30 ground-water samples will be obtained and fieldI ~ ~~~~screened for purgeable aromatic hydrocarbons.Test Boring/Monltoring Well InstallationBorings will be drilled and monitoring wells installed to assessI ~ ~~~~the lateral extent of hydrocarbons in the soil and ground water atthe E-7 Complex. The locations for the test borings/monitoringwells will be based on the results of the ground-water fieldI ~ ~~~~screening survey. Three borings will be drilled tb a depth of 15feet bgs. The borings will be sampled at the surface and atintervals of 5 feet thereafter, and the samples will be screenedin the field using the Hnu or the OVA. Soil samples from theseborings will not be submitted to the laboratory for analyses.

Monitoring wells will be constructed in all three borings. Themonitoring wells will be screened from 5 to 15 feet bgs.

0057R1May 16. 1989 5-30

Chemical Analysis of SoilSSoil samples from the test borings at the E-7 Complex will be notbe submitted to the laboratory for analyses.Chemical Analysis of Ground WaterA total of eleven ground-water samples will be obtained; eightfrom the existing HLA wells, one from SAIC Well 20MA2, and twoIfrom the proposed downgradient wells. Alkalinity, specificconductance, pH, and temperature will be measured in the field.The water samples will be analyzed for purgeable aromaticcompounds, petroleum hydrocarbons, ICP metals scan, and commonI

E-8 Comolex

Soil BorinasShallow soil borings will be drilled and sampled in the vicinityof Monitoring Well 20M06 to assess the areal and vertical extentof hydrocarbon in the soil at the site. A total of 12 boringswill be drilled to the water table--a depth of about 6 feet bgs.Borings will be sampled at the surface and at 2-foot intervalsthereafter. Three samples from each boring will be analyzed inIthe field lab for TPH. Samples will be selected for fieldanalysis based on OVA readings and visual observations. The TPHfield screening data will be used to select six samples forlaboratory analysis.Ground-water Field Screening SurveyA ground-water field screening survey will be performed in theIshaded area shown on Plate 5-8 to assess the areal extent of the

-hydrocarbon plume in the ground water in the vicinity of Well20M06. These data will be used to establish the locations for thetest borings/monitoring wells and product probes proposed for thissite. A total of four days of field screening will be performed.During this period, approximately 40 ground-water samples will beobtained and field screened for purgeable aromatic hydrocarbons.Product Probe InstallationFifteen product probes will be installed to assess the arealextent and thickness of floating product (if present) at the E-8IComplex. The locations for the initial product probes will bebased on the results of the ground-water field screening survey.Subsequent product probe locations will be based on productIthickness measurements made in the initial probes. Base operationrules require that product probes installed next to the taxiway becompleted below ground.Test Boring/Monitoring Well InstallationBorings will be drilled and monitoring wells installed to assessthe lateral extent of hydrocarbons in the soil and ground water at Ithe E-B Complex. The locations for the test borings/monitoring awells will be based on the results of the ground-water fieldscreening survey and data from the product probes. Seven boringswill be drilled to a depth of 15 feet bgs. The borings will be

0057R1

May 16, 1989 5-31

sampled at the surface and at intervals of 5 feet thereafter andthe samples will be screened in the field using the Hnu or theOVA. One soil sample from each baring will be submitted to thelaboratory for analyses.

Monitoring wells will be constructed in all seven borings. TheI ~ ~~~~monitoring wells will be screened from 5 to 15 feet bgs. Baseoperation rules require that monitoring wells installed next tothe taxiway be completed below ground.

Chemical Analysis of SoilA total of six soil samples from the shallow soil borings andseven soil samples from the test borings/monitoring wells will beI ~ ~~~~submitted for analysis. Samples will be selected for laboratoryanalysis on the basis of the OVA readings and TPH field analysis.Samples will be analyzed for moisture content, polynucleararomatic compounds, phenols, and petroleum hydrocarbons.

Chemical Analysis of Ground WaterA total of eight ground-water samples will be obtained.U ~ ~~~~Alkalinity, specific conductance, pH, and temperature, will bemeasured in the field. The water samples will be analyzed forpurgeable aromatic compounds, polynuclear aromatic compounds,phenols, petroleum hydrocarbons, ICP metals scan, and commonanions.

E-9 Complex

Soil BorinasShallow soil borings will be drilled and sampled in the vicinityI ~ ~~~~of monitoring well 20M01 to assess the areal and vertical extentof hydrocarbon in the soil at the site. Twelve borings will bedrilled to the water table--a depth of about 7 feet bgs. Boringswill be sampled at the surface and at 2-foot intervals thereafter.Three samples from each boring will be analyzed in the field labfor TPH. Samples will be selected for field analysis based on OVAreadings and visual observations. The TPH field screening data

will be used to select six samples for laboratory analysis.Ground-water Field Screenina SurveyA ground-water field screening survey will be performed in theshaded area shown on Plate 5-8 to assess the areal extent of thehydrocarbon plume in the ground water in the vicinity of Well20M01. These data will be used to establish the locations for theI ~ ~~~~test borings/monitoring wells and product probes proposed for thissite. Three days of field screening will be performed. Duringthis period, approximately 30 ground-water samples will beI ~ ~~~~obtained and field screened for purgeable aromatic hydrocarbons.Product Probe InstallationFifteen product probes will be installed to assess the arealextent and thickness of floating product in the vicinity of well20M01. The locations for the initial product probes will be basedon the results of the ground-water field screening survey.

0057R1May 16, 1989 5-32

Subsequent product probe locations will be based on productathickness measurements made in the initial probes. Base operationrules require that product probes installed next to the taxiway becompleted below ground in this area.Test Boring/Monitoring Well InstallationBorings will be drilled and monitoring wells installed to assessIthe lateral extent of hydrocarbons in the soil and ground water atthe E-9 Complex. The locations for the test borings/monitoringwells will be based on the results of the ground-water fieldscreening survey and data from the product probes. Five boringsIwill be drilled to a depth of 15 feet bgs. The borings will besampled at the surface and at intervals of 5 feet thereafter andthe samples will be screened in the field using the Hnu or theIOVA. One soil sample from each boring will be submitted to thelaboratory for analyses.g

Monitoring wells will be constructed in all five borings and willbe screened from 5 to 15 feet bgs. Base operation rules requirethat monitoring wells installed next to the taxiway be completedbelow ground.IChemical Analysis of SoilA total of six soil samples from the shallow soil borings and fivesoil samples from the test borings/monitoring wells will beWsubmitted for. analysis. Samples will be selected for laboratoryWanalysis on the basis of the OVA readings and TPH field analysis.Samples will be analyzed for moisture content, purgeableIhalocarbons, purgeable aromatic compounds, polynuclear aromatic

-hydrocarbons, phenols, and petroleum hydrocarbon.Chemical Analysis of Ground WaterAtotal of eight ground-water samples will be obtained.

Alkalinity, specific conductance, pH, and temperature, will bemeasured in the field. The water samples will be analyzed forIpurgeable halocarbons, purgeable aromatic compounds, polynucleararomatic hydrocarbons, phenols, petroleum hydrocarbons, ICP metalsscan, and cannon anions.3

0057R1May 16, 1989 5-333

U~~~~~~~~~~FEI~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~N

PROPOSEDGROUND WATER\3 ~FIELD SCREENING

I 54M~~~~01 -PUMP TEST

I (2 }~~~~~~~~~~~~0 OBSERVATIONNY ~ ~ ~~~4 WELLS

LEGENDI + ~~PROPOSED BORING/MONITOR WELL LOCATION

*PROPOSED SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT OSAMPLE LOCATION 20 g~9I -4 ~~EXISTING MONrTOR WELL LOCATION

a 8~~e EXISTING MONITOR WELL LOCATION SCALE IN FEET

W ~~~~Harding Lawson Associates Proposed Sampling PlanPLTEngineers, Geologists Site 20, Refueling Loop Area -& Geophysicists Eielson A.F.8., Alaska -

I C~RANn .Joe NM" APPROVE DATE RISUED DATE04300,037.08 58

5.2.2.9 Site 29. Drum Burial SiteDescripDti onSite 29 is an old gravel pit used for the disposal of primarily

empty 55-gallon drums; approximately 400 to 500 empty drums that formerlycontained asphalt emulsions were disposed from 1965 to 1968. The drums wereIcovered with fill material. It was reported that some of the drums were full,and that some may have also contained residues of industrial solvents and3engine oil. The site is currently used for the disposal of asphalt roadrubble. Site access is unrestricted and can be negotiated by two-wheel-drive3vehicles.

HILA understands from the Base Natural Resources Department thatIplans to dredge gravel from the west side of Bear Lake have been finalized,which will enlarge Bear Lake to include the Site 29 area and the small unnamedlake to the north. The dredging operations will eventually destroy at leastUtwo of the three monitoring wells installed at the site. Additionalinformation about the site may be found in Chapter 2.0 of this Work Plan.

Previous Testing aField investigations performed at this site by HLA during 1988

included:

* Drilling three soil borings for collection of six soil samples for Ilaboratory testing;

* Collecting one sediment sample for laboratory testing;Converting three soil borings to ground-water monitoring/testIweCllecigtregon-wtrsmlsfrlaoaoytsig

* Collecting onre srurfac-water samples for laboratory testing;* Performing one slug test;I

* Conducting surface and subsurface geophysical surveys; and* Conducting a soil gas survey.3

Plate 5-9 shows the locations on the site where the 1988 HLAtesting was performed.

1989 Work Plan Data Oualltv ObJectivesAdditional data needs for this site, as identified in Section5

4.1.10.6 of the IRP Report, include:

0057RIMay 16, 1989 5-343

* Confirm the presence of buried drums at the site; evaluate thecondition and contents of the of the drums; and, assess the volumeI ~ ~~~~and chemical characteristics of contaminated soil associated withthe drums.

3 * ~~~~Assess the lateral and vertical distribution of TPH atconcentrations above 100 mg/kg in soil at the site.

* Assess ground-water quality in the area north of the northernmosthigh amplitude EM anomaly to confirm that downgradientground-water quality has not been significantly impacted by the1 ~~~~~suspected drum burial area.

* Assess the chemical characteristics of the TPH found in pondsediments at Site 29 and the associated risks to human health andthe environment.

* Evaluate the range of naturally occurring backgroundconcentrations of inorganic chemicals in surface and ground waterI ~ ~~~~in the Eielson AFB area, to assess the significance of the highTDS, iron, manganese, chromium, and fluoride levels found at thissite.

* Evaluate the distribution and concentration of 1,2-dichloroethaneU. ~ ~~~~and TCE in ground water upgradient of Monitoring Wells 29M02 and29M03 to identify potential sources and to verify that theconcentrations of these contaminants present at the site do notpose a significant health risk.

I * ~~~~Evaluate the distribution and concentration of SVOCs in surfacesoil in the vicinity of Boring 29M03, and verify that theconcentrations of these contaminants present at the site do not5 ~~~~~pose a significant health risk.

* Assess site usage to establish potential receptor populations andthe number of people potentially exposed to the chemicals at Site29 including seasonal usage patterns (e.g. summer swimming andwinter hunting).

I ~~~~~The field activities recommended for acquiring these data are

presented on Plate 5-9 and discussed in the following paragraphs.

I ~~~~~~Geophysi cal SurveysA GPR survey will be conducted to better define the margins ofthe drum disposal area in the vicinity of Well 29M01 and clearboring locations. The area proposed for geophysical surveys areshown on Plate 5-9. GPR survey coverage of this area will beaccomplished by adding fill-in lines to the survey gridestablished at this site during the 1988 investigation. Two days0 ~ ~~~~of GPR work will be required to clear test boring/monitoring welllocations and estimate the depth to the disposed metal.

0057R15 ~~May 16. 1989 5-35

Surface-Soil Screening SurveyTwo days will be required to obtain approximately 40 surface-soilsamples from the site. The surface soils will be screened for TPHin the field laboratory. The TPH field screening data will beIused to establish the locations for 12 soil borings and selectsamples for shipment to the analytical laboratory. Four of thesurface-soil samples from the vicinity of Well 29M03 will beIsubmitted to the analytical laboratory for SYOC analyses.

Soil BorinasA total of 12 soil borings will be drilled to the water table (5to 1 feet bgs). Each boring will be sampled at the surface and at2-foot intervals thereafter. A total of approximately 30 soilsamples will be obtained from the borings. Each sample will beIscreened in the field laboratory for TPH. The TPH field screeningdata will be used to select six samples for laboratory analysis.

Ground-water Field Screening SurveyA ground-water field screening survey will be performed in thearea shown on Plate 5-9 to assess the areal extent of VOCs in theground water north of the northernmost EM anomaly and upgradientIof Wells 29M.12 and 29M03. A total of three days of fieldscreening will be performed. During this period, approximately 30ground-water samples will be obtained and screened in the fieldlab for VOCs. These data will be used to establish the locationsfor the proposed test borings/monitoring wells.VTest Boring/Monitoring Well Installation3Three borings will be drilled and monitoring wells installed toassess the extent of VOCs in the ground water at the site. Thelocations for the test borings/monitoring wells will be based onthe results of the ground-water field screening survey. OneIboring each will be located; downgradient of the northernmost EManomaly; downgradient of the low-amplitude EN anomalous area northof Well 29M01; and, in the potential halocarbon source area southof Wells 29M.12 and 29M03. The borings will be drilled to a depthIof 15 feet bgs and the samples will be screened in the field usingthe Hnu or the OVA. Three soil samples from these borings will besubmitted to the laboratory for analyses.Monitoring wells will be constructed in all three borings. Themonitoring wells will be screened from 5 to 15 feet bgs.ISediment SamplesTwo sediment samples will be obtained from the pond immediatelynorth of the site. The samples will be submitted to theanalytical laboratory for analyses to establish the chemicalcharacteristics of the TPH present.

Records SearchTwo days will be required to search base records in an attempt toassess site usage. These data will be used to better definepotential receptor populations and the number of peoplepotentially exposed to chemicals at the site.

0057R1May 16, 1989 5-361

Background Concentrations of MetalsThe evaluation of background concentrations of metals is addressedin Section 5.2.2.24 of this Work Plan.

Chemical Analysis of SoilA total of 15 soil and sediment samples will be submitted farU ~ ~~~~analysis. Six soil samples from the shallow soil borings, foursurface-sail samples, and two sediment samples will be selectedfor laboratory analysis on the basis of the results of the TPHscreening performed in the field lab and will be analyzed farmoisture content, semivolatile organic compounds, and petroleumhydrocarbons. Three soil samples from the test borings/monitoringwells will be selected on the basis of the OVA readings madeU ~ ~~~~during drilling and submitted to the laboratory and analyzed formoisture content, purgeable halocarbons, purgeable aromaticcompounds, semivolatile organic compounds, and petroleumU ~ ~~~~hydrocarbons.

Chemical Analysis of Ground waterAtotal of six ground-water samples will be obtained; one sample

will be obtained from each of the three existing and threeproposed monitoring wells. Alkalinity, specific conductance, pH,and temperature will be measured for each sample in the field.Each sample will be analyzed for purgeable halocarbons, purgeable

aromatic compounds, and semivolatile organic compounds.

I~~~~05RI~~~a 6 9953

BEAR LAKEIPROPOSED GROUND WATER

FIELD SCREENING SURVEY

AREA OF HIGH AMPLITUDE

AREA OF LOW AMPLITUDEIN-PHASE ANOMALY

PROPOSED GEOPHYSICAL SURVEYa" HAINES-FAIRSANKS

MULTI-PRODUCT PIPELINEI(BURIED) APPROX.

LEG ENDE

0PROPOSED SEDIMENT SAMPLE LOCATIONI

-SEXISTING MONffOR WELL LOCATION ;Q '=M~ 9EXISTING SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT SCALEF IN FEETSAMPLE LOCATIONE ~Harding Lawson Associates Proposed Sampling Plan

Engineers, Geologists& Geophysicists Site 29, Drum Burial Area5 9

2 ~ ~ ~ ~ =NURE~ieson A.F.8.. Alaska3

04300,037.08 5/89

5.2.2.10 Site 32/34. Sewage Treatment Plant

5 ~~~~~Descripotion

Site 32, (Sewage Treatment Plant Spill Ponds) and Site 34 (Sewage

Treatment Plant Sludge Drying Beds) are considered one site (Site 32/34) for

the purpose of this investigation. Site 32 consists of a small spill pondconnected to a much larger spill pond, and lies approximately 600 feet west of

I ~~Site 34. Access to the two spill ponds is restricted by an encircling fenceposted with contamination warnings.

3 ~~~~~The sewage treatment plant became operational in 1953, and thespill pond has been in operation since 1970. The primary function of the two

* ~~spill ponds at the site was to provide contact time for chlorination of

p~rimary effluent from the Sewage Treatment Plant. For over 10 years, these

3 ~~ponds have served a secondary function as diversion ponds for POL spills.

Additional information about the site may be found in Chapter 2.0 of this Work

Plan.Previous Testing

I. ~ ~~~~Field investigations performed at this site by HLA during 1988included:

* -Drilling 2 soil borings for collection of 4 soil samples forI ~ ~~~~laboratory testing;* Collecting 2 sediment samples for laboratory testing;* Converting 2 soil borings to ground-water monitoring/test wells;3 * ~~~~Collecting 10 ground-water samples for laboratory testing;* Collecting 2 surface-water samples for laboratory testing;* Performing 2 slug tests; and* Conducting surface and subsurface geophysical surveys.

I testing wasPlate 5-10 shows the locations on the site where the 1988 HLA

tesingwasperformed.

1989 Work Plan Data Ouality ObjectivesI ~~~~~Additional data needs for this site, is identified in Section4.1.11.6 of the IRP Report, include:

I *~~~~ Assess the horizontal extent of the halomethane concentrations inground water downgradient of Well 32M0C and the surface water ofGarrison Slough.

* Assess the possible migration of the purgeable halocarbons fromg ~~~~~the spill pond.

0057R13 ~~May 16, 1989 5-38

* Evaluate the range of naturally occurring backgroundconcentrations of metals in surface and ground water in theEielson AFB area to assess the significance of the high iron,manganese, and chromium levels found at this site.

* Investigate Garrison Slough upgradient from the Sewage TreatmentIPlant to evaluate the distribution and concentrations of TPH inthe sediments, and identify possible sources.3

The field activities recommended for acquiring these data arepresented on Plate 5-10 and discussed in the following paragraphs.I

Ground-water Field ScreeningA ground-water field screening survey will be performed to assessthe areal extent of the purgeable halocarbons in the ground water Idowngradient of Well 32M0C. These data will be used to establishthe locations for the soil boring/monitoring well proposed forthis site. One day of field screening will be performed. Duringthis period, approximately 10 ground-water samples will beIobtained and screened in the field lab for purgeable halocarbons.

Test Boring/Monitoring Well Installation aOne boring will be drilled to a depth of 15 feet bgs and convertedto a monitori~ng well to assess the horizontal extent of purgeableWhalocarbons in the ground water downgradient of Well 32M0C. Thelocation for the test boring/monitoring well will be based on theUresults of the ground-water screening survey. The well will be

-screened over an interval of 10 feet.

Surface-Water SamplingSurface-water sampling location 32S02, which is in Garrison Sloughupgradient of the site, will be resampled. One surface-water andsample will be obtained from Garrison Slough downgradient of theIsite. These samples will be collected to evaluate the extent ofpurgeable halocarbons in the slough.Chemical Analysis of Ground and Surface WaterUA total of four ground-water samples will be obtained, three fromexisting Wells 32M0C, 321402, and 32M0D, and one from the proposedmonitoring well. Two surface-water samples will be obtained.IAlkalinity, specific conductance, pH, and temperature will bemeasured in the field. The water samples will be analyzed forpurgeable halocarbons.Background Concentrations of MetalsThe evaluation of background concentrations of metals is addressed

as a separate task in Section 5.2.2.24 of this Work Plan.5

0057R1May 16, 1989 5-393

Garrison SlouahtThe sediments of Garrison Slough will be addressed in SectionI ~ ~~~~5.2.2.22 of this Work Plan where the slough is being treated as asite. Field activities proposed to assess the levels anddistribution of chemicals in the sediments of the slough are3 ~~~~~addressed in Section 5.2.2.22.

I~~~~05RI~~~a 6 9954

PROPOSED GROUND WATERFIELD SCREENING SURVEYWAT

2SO1~~~~

32M0E 3

R/w CL. EXTENDED 32MO2U

MRANSM~rnER ROAD3

LEGEND+ PROPOSED BORING/MONITOR WELL LOCATION(tPROPOSED SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENTI

4EXISTING MONITOR WELL LOCATION *77 2..5. 1715EXISTING SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT 0 1~7SAMPLE LOCATION SCALE IN FEET

-&EXISTING MONITOR WELL, LOCATIONE ~Harding Lawson Associates Proposed Sampling PlanEngineers, Geologists Site 32/34. Sewage Treatment Plant Area5 i0& Geophysicists Eielson A.F.8 * Alaska 5- 0

OMWN JOB NUM8ER APPROVED DATE EISMn DATE04300.037 08 5/89

5.2.2.11 Site 35. Asphalt Area

3 ~~~~~Description

Site 35, in operation from the early 50's until the late 1960's,

was used as a mixing area for asphalt and a base for road oiling operations.

Waste oils and solvents were mixed with contaminated fuels and then used forroad oiling to control dust. In addition, approximately 200 empty asphalt

I ~~drums reportedly were disposed along the banks of Garrison Slough. Access to

the site is unrestricted. Additional information about the site may be found

3 ~~in Chapter 2.0 of this Work Plan.Previous Testing

I ~~~~~Field investigations performed at this site by HLA during 1988included:

£ ~ ~ ~~0 Drilling three soil borings for collection of six soil samples forlaboratory testing;

* Collecting one sediment sample for laboratory testing;* Converting three soil borings to ground-water monitoring/test

wells;I. *~~~ Collecting three ground-water samples for laboratory testing;* Collecting one surface-water sample for laboratory testing;* Performing one slug test;* Conducting surface and subsurface geophysical surveys; and

* Conducting a soil gas survey.

Plate 5-11 shows the locations on the site where the 1988 HLA

testing was performed.1989 Work Plan Data Ouality ObJectives3 ~~~~~Additional data needs for this site, as identified in Section

4.1.12.6 of the IRP Report, include:

3 *~~~~ Confirm the presence of buried drums at the site. If drums arefound, evaluate their condition and contents, and assess thevolume and chemical characteristics of contaminated soil3 ~~~~~associated with the drums.

* Investigate the presence of purgeable organic compounds in groundwater in the vicinity of Well 35M402 to confirm that downgradientI ~ ~~~~ground water has not been significantly impacted by the suspecteddrum burial area.

0057R13 ~~May 16, 1989 5-41

* Assess the areal extent and concentrations of lead and pesticidesain the surface soil in the vicinity of Boring 35M01 and verifythat the concentrations of these chemicals present at the site do5not pose a significant health risk.

* Further investigate Garrison Slough to assess the levels anddistribution of organic compounds in the water and sediment andIevaluate potential bioconcentration in aquatic and terrestrialorganisms.u

Assess usage of the site to determine potential receptorpopulations and the number of people potentially exposed to thechemicals found at the site.3

The field activities recommended for acquiring these data arepresented on Plate 5-11 and discussed in the following paragraphs.I

Geophysical SurveyA GPR survey will be conducted to better establish the locationsof the buried material at the site. The area proposed for theSgeophysical survey is shown on Plate 5-11. One day will berequired to complete the GPR work in this area.

Surface Soil SamplingFive surface soil samples will be collected to verify theexistence and concentrations of lead and PCBs in the surface soilin the vicinity of Well 35M01. All samples will be analyzed byIthe laboratory for lead, PCBs, and pesticides.

Soil Borings1A total of 10 soil borings will be drilled to a depth ofapproximately 10 feet to assess the extent of TPH in the soil.Each boring will be sampled at the surface depths of 5 and 10feet. All 30 samples will be screened in the field laboratory for ITPH. The TPH field screening data will be used to select 4samples for laboratory analysis.

Ground-water Field Screening SurveyA ground-water field screening survey will be performed in thearea near Well 35M02 to confirm the existence and establish theareal extent of VOCs in the ground water. One day of field£screening will be required to collect 10 ground-water sampleswhich will be submitted to the field lab for VOC screening. Thesedata will be used to establish the locations for the proposed testborings/monitoring wells.Test Boring/Monitoring Well InstallationBorings will be drilled and monitoring wells installed to assessthe horizontal extent of chemicals in the ground water upgradientand downgradient of the suspected drum burial area. The locationafor the monitoring well dowragradient of the drum burial area willbe based on the results of the ground-water screening survey. The

0057R 1May 16. 1989 5-42

other monitoring well will be placed upgradient of the drum burialarea. The borings will be drilled to a depth of 30 feet bgs andconverted to monitoring wells. Each well will be screened over aninterval of 10 feet.

Chemical Analysis of SoilFour sail samples from the shallow soil borings, and five surfacesoil samples will be submitted for analysis. The samples from theshallow soil borings will be selected for laboratory analysis onthe basis of the OVA readings and TPH screening performed in thefield lab. Samples will be analyzed for moisture content,semivolatile organic compounds, pesticides and PCBs, and lead.

Chemical Analysis of Ground Water 1 eotie;trefoI ~ ~~~~A total of five ground-water samples wil beotid; hrefmthe existing wells and two from the proposed wells. Alkalinity,specific conductance, pH, and temperature, will be measured in theI ~ ~~~~field. The water samples will be analyzed for purgeablehalocarbons, purgeable aromatic compounds, pesticides and PCBs,lead, ICP metals scan, and common anions.

Records SearchA search of available records will be made to assess usage of thesite. These data will be used to establish how many people maypotentially be exposed to chemicals found on this site.

Garrison SloughGarrison Slough is being treated as a site in this Work Plan.Field activities proposed to assess the levels and distribution ofI ~~~~~chemicals in the water and sediments of Garrison Slough is

-addressed in Section 5.2.2.22 of this Work Plan.

5~~~~05R

3 ~~May 15. 1989 5-43

35SOI~~~~~~~

C4,9~~~~~

LEGEND3PROPOSED BORING/MONITOR WELL LOCATION 9 37.375 Iq 0

-&EXISTING MONITOR WELL LOCATION 4

EXISTING SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT SCALE IN FEETIE ~Harding Lawson Associate Proposed Sampling PlanEngineers. Geologists Site .35, Asphalt Mixing Area

2 ~~& Geophysicists Eielson A.F.8., Aiasko 5 1ORAN4 AG skE A-POVED DATE REVSD D

04300.037.08 5/89

5.2.2.12 Site 38. P01/Ski Lodge

5 ~~~~~DescripDtion

The Site 38 area of investigation includes approximately 200 acres

I ~~~o south-facing hillside near the Elelson Ski Lodge. Above the ski lodge is

anold fuel tank storage area and a pit used for contaminated fuel and sludge

disposal from the late 1950's until 1970. The area once had eight tanks of

3 ~~approximately 50,000-gallon capacity and a number of smaller tanks. Some of

the tanks may have contained aviation fuel, and some may have leaked in the

5 ~~past. The area currently is used for several activities at present that

include downhill and cross-country skiing, winter survival training,5 ~~snowmobiling, and permitted trapping lines. Additional information about the

site may be found in Chapter 2.0 of this Work Plan.Previous Testing

Field investigations performed at this site by HLA during 1988

included:

I. * ~~~~Drilling five soil borings for collection of eight soil samplesfor laboratory testing;

* Converting five soil borings to ground-water monitoring/testwells;

* Collecting six ground-water samples for laboratory testing;* -Performing one slug test;

Conducting subsurface geophysical surveys; and* Conducting a soil gas survey.

I ~~~~~Plate 5-12 shows the locations on the site where the 1988 HILAtesting was performed.

1989 Work Plan Data Oualitv ObjectivesAdditional data needs for this site, as identified in SectionI ~ ~4.1.13.6 of the IRP Report, include:

* Evaluate the extent of the purgeable aromatic compounds in theI ~ ~~~~ground water west of the Ski Lodge and assess the degree ofhydraulic connectivity between the bedrock and alluvial aquifers.

* Confirm the presence of fuel related compounds in the soil beneatheach of the former tank subbases. If confirmed, establish theareal and vertical extent of the soil containing TPH in excess ofthe 100 mg/kg action level in order to provide an estimate of thevolume of soil to be remediated.

0057R15 il~~ay 16. 1989 5-44

* Assess the presence of free product in the soil and at thesoil/bedrock interface beneath each of the former tank subbases.if free product is found, establish its' areal extent andthickness in order to provide an estimate of the volume of productto be remediated.

' Establish thelocation ofthe septicsystemdrain field servingIthe Ski Lodge with respect to Well 38M02 and confirm that theelevated levels of nitrate and dissolved solids in ground waterfrom this well result from waste water disposal to the drainUfield.

* Evaluate the range of naturally occurring backgroundconcentrations of metals in the ground water in the Eiel son AFBarea to assess the significance of the elevated iron, manganese,nitrate and dissolved solids levels at this site.5

* Assess usage of the site to determine how many people maypotentially be exposed to chemicals found on Site 38.5

The field activities recommended for acquiring these data arepresented on Plate 5-12 and discussed in the following paragraphs.

Geon~hysical SurveyBoth seismic refraction and DC resistivity geophysical surveytechniques will be employed. A total of approximately 13,000Ilineal feet of seismic refraction survey lines will be performed

- in two areas. Three thousand lineal feet of data will be obtainedalong two lines in the area immediately west of the Ski Lodge to5provide stratigraphic data on the relationship between the bedrockand alluvial aquifer systems. One vertical electrical sounding(YES) will be made at the end of each seismic refraction line torefine the estimate of the depth to the base of the permafrost inIthis area. The results of this work will be used to establish thelocations of two deep monitoring wells west of the Ski Lodge.3

Approximately 10,000 linear feet of data will be obtained in thearea of the former POL storage tanks. These data will be used toprepare a map of the bedrock surface. The map, in turn, will beIused to identify depressions in the bedrock surface that may beacting as collection sumps for free product and will be used toestablish test boring/monitoring well locations. Fourteen dayswill be required to complete the geophysical survey work proposedI

Test Boring/Monitoring Well InstallationBorings will be drilled and monitoring wells installed to assessthe areal and vertical extent of hydrocarbons in the soil in theaformer P01 storage tank area. A total of 24 borings averaging 50feet in depth will be drilled to bedrock in the former tank area. WOne boring will be drilled in the center of each tank subbase. Thelocations for the remaining sixteen borings will be establishedt

0057R1May 16, 1989 5-451

using the seismic refraction survey data and will be chosen toprovide an assessment of the soil conditions beneath the tankbottom areas. Borings will be sampled at the surface and at5-foot intervals thereafter. All samples from each boring will bescreened in the field lab for TPH. Selected samples will beshipped to the laboratory for analysis as described below. Eightof the borings in this area will be converted to monitoring wells.The monitoring wells will be screened over a 10-foot interval.

3 ~~~~~One monitoring well will be installed to a depth of 50 feet in thevicinity of the septic system serving the Ski Lodge. This wellwill be screened over the interval 40 to 50 feet bgs. The ground-water sample from this well will be analyzed to confirm that theelevated levels of nitrates and dissolved solids in ground waterfrom Well 38M02 result from waste water disposal to thej ~~~~~drainfield.

Two monitoring wells will be installed to a nominal depth of 250feet bgs west of the Ski Lodge. The locations for these wellsI ~ ~~~~will be based on the results of the seismic refraction and VESgeophysical surveys described above. Data from these wells willbe used to assess the degree of connectivity between the bedrockand alluvial aquifers. We anticipate the well closest to the SkiLodge will be completed in the bedrock aquifer. The other wellI. ~ ~~~~will be completed in the alluvial aquifer. Borings for thesewells will be drilled using the air-rotary drilling techniqueemployed for the 1988 investigation and the monitoring wells willbe completed. We anticipate up to 150 feet of permafrost will

-overlie the aquifer(s) in this area.

The monitoring wells west of the Ski Lodge will be protected fromfreezing by pressurizing the well casing with compressed air todepress the water level in the well below the bottom of theI ~ ~~~~permafrost zone. In addition, a PTFE clad heat tape will beinstalled inside the well casing to facilitate thawing of the wellshould freezing occur. The heat tapes will be decontaminatedI ~ ~~~~using procedures set forth in the QAPP prior to installation. Athermistor string will be installed in each of the two deep wellsto provide reliable ground temperature data. The thermistorstring will be installed on the outside of the well casing andwill be decontaminated prior to installation using procedures setforth in the QAPP. Ground temperature data will be used to

* ~~~~~establish the vertical extent of the permafrost.m ~~~~~Chemical Analysis of Soil

A total of 32 soil samples from the test boring/monitoring wellsinstalled in the former POL storage tank area will be submitted1 ~ ~~~~for analysis. Samples will be selected for laboratory analysis onthe basis of the OVA readings made during drilling and the resultsof the TPH screening performed in the field lab. Samples will be

0057R13 ~~May 16, 1989 5-46

analyzed for moisture content and petroleum hydrocarbons. The asoil samples from the eight test borings converted to monitoringwells in the former tank area will be analyzed for purgeablearomatic compounds.Chemical Analysis of Ground WaterAtotal of 17 ground-water samples will be obtained; one sampleI

will be obtained from each of the five existing monitoring wells;one sample will be obtained from Well 8626 which currently servesthe Ski Lodge; and each of the 11 new wells proposed for this sitewill be sampled. Alkalinity, specific conductance, pH andItemperature will be measured for each sample in the field. Eachsample will be analyzed for purgeable aromatic compounds,polynuclear aromatic compounds, and phenols. Additionally, the£eight newly installed wells in the former tank area will besampled for petroleum hydrocarbon analysis. In addition, samplesfrom Well 38M402 and the well adjacent to the septic system drainfield will be analyzed for total dissolved solids, common anionsI

Records Search3A search of available records will be made to assess usage of thesite. These data wtill be used to establish how many people maypotentially be exposed to chemicals found on this site.ThB vlaino ackground concentrations of metals i drseThD vlaino ackground Concentrations of Metals i drseas a separate task in Section 5.2.2.24 of this Work Plan.5

0057RI~~~~~~~~~May 16, 1989 5-47~ ~ ~ ~ ~

10,000 L.F. OF SEISMIC REFRACTION SURVEYAND LOCATIONS OF 24 SOIL BORINGS AND8 MONITORING WELLS

I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~KI -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~F

I.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~5

a ~~~~~~~~~~~3,000 L.F. OF SEISMIC REFRACTION DATAAND FOUR yES SURVEYS

PROPOSED BORING/MONITOR WELL LOCATION __90_9____0_____________

EXISTING MONITOR WELL LOCATION SCALE IN FEET' A ~~EXISTING PRODUCTION WELL LOCATION

Harding Lawson Associates Proposed Sampling Plan W

Engineers, Geologists Site 38. POL/Ski Lodge 5&E Geophysicists Elelson A.F.8., Alaska 5 1

MANN AG INJMUE $PPOVO DATE ReoDATE

04300,037.08 5/89

5.2.2.13 Site 39. Asphalt LakeIDescriptlionSeveral hundred barrels of asphalt emulsion were disposed at

Site 39 during the construction of the runways at Eielson AFB in the lateI1940's. The drums rusted and leaked the majority of their contents. Theleaked asphalt emulsion covers approximately one acre. There is currently no3activity carried on at the site. Access is by well maintained gravel roadsthat also provide access to local utilities. Additional information about the 3site may be found in Chapter 2.0 of this Work Plan.

Previous Testing5Field investigations performed at this site by HLA during 1988

included:3

* Drilling four soil borings for collection of seven soil samplesfor laboratory testing;

* Converting four soil borings to ground-water monitoring/test

Collecting four ground-water samples for laboratory testing; andd* Conducting subsurface geophysical surveys.I

Plate 5-13 shows the locations on the site where the 1988 HLA5testing was performed.

1989 Work Plan Data Ouality Obiectives

Additional data needs for this site, as identified in SectionI4.1.14.6 of the IRP Report, include:

* Assess the horizontal and vertical extent of TPH and pesticides inthe soil beneath and around the perimeter of the asphalt area inorder to provide an estimate of the volume of soil impacted;3

* Assess the horizontal extent of the volatile organic compounds inthe ground water within and downgradient of the site.3

* Assess the number and condition of the drums at the site and thevolume of asphaltic emulsion present to provide supportinginformation for the evaluation and implementation of remedial3measures;

* Evaluate the water quality of the surface-water bodiesdowngradient of this site to assess potential off-site impacts.

0057R1

May 16, 1989 5-485

* Evaluate the range of naturally-occurring backgroundconcentrations of metals in soil, surface water, and ground waterin the Elelson AFB area to assess the significance of the highmanganese and iron levels found at this site.

3 ~~~~~Some of the field activities recommended for this site will

require working in the asphalt-covered portion of the site. Experience gained

3 ~~during the 1988 investigation at this site indicates the asphalt is very soft

and viscous during the sunner months (July through September) and will not

3 ~~provide adequate support for personnel or equipment. Consequently, those

activities to be carried out in the asphalt covered area will be performed in

late fall or early winter (November to December 1989) when the asphalt surface

will support personnel and equipment. The field activities recommended for"summer" and "winter" investigatory programs are presented on Plate 5-13 and3 ~~are discussed in the following paragraphs.

Summer Program

Surface-Soil1 SurveYI. ~ ~~~~One day will be required to obtain approximately 20 surface-soilsamples around the perimeter of the asphalt area. The surfacesoils will be screened for TPH in the field laboratory. The TPHfield screening data will be used to establish the locations for

-10 soil borings.

Sail BarinasA total of 10 soil borings will be drilled to a depth of 10 feet.Each boring will be sampled at the surface and at 5-foot intervalsI ~ ~~~~thereafter. A total of 30 soil samples will be obtained from theborings. Each sample will be screened in the field laboratory forTPH. The TPH field screening data will be used to select 10

* ~~~~~samples for laboratory analysis.

Ground-water Field Screening SurveiA ground-water field screening survey will be performed in theheavily wooded area north of the asphalt (shaded area shown onPlate 5-13) to assess the areal extent of the hydrocarbon plume inthe ground water downgradient of the asphalt-covered area. These

3 ~~~~~data will be used to establish the locations for the soil* ~~~~~borings/monitoring wells proposed for this site. A total of two

days of field screening will be performed. During this period,approximately 10 ground-water samples will be obtained andI ~ ~~~~screened in the field lab for purgeable halocarbons.Test Boring/Monitoring Well InstallationBorings will be drilled and monitoring wells installed to assess

to ~~~~~the horizontal extent of purgeable halocarbons in the ground waterdowngradient of this site. The locations for the testborings/monitoring wells will be based on the results of the

0057RI3 ~~May 16, 1989 5-49

ground-water screening survey and shallow soil boring work. Two aborings will be drilled to a depth of 15 feet bgs and converted tomonitoring wells. Each well will be screened over an interval of10 feet.Drum and Asohalt Volume EvaluationAn estimate of the number of drums at the site and the volume ofIthe asphalt present will be made. The asphalt will be probed at anumber of locations to provide an estimate of its volume. One daywill be required to complete the drum count and asphalt probing.3

Surface Water/Sediment SamplingOne surface-water and one sediment sample will be obtained fromthe lake located approximately 1000 feet downgradient of the site.Chemical Analysis of Soil/SedimentTen soil samples from the shallow soil borings and one sedimentsample will be submitted for analysis. Soil samples will beselected for laboratory analysis on the basis of the OVA readingsIand TPH screening performed in the field lab. Samples will beanalyzed for moisture content, semivolatile organic compounds,pesticides and PCBs, and petroleum hydrocarbons.IChemical Analysis of Ground and Surface WateraA total of six ground-water samples will be obtained, four fromthe existing wells and two from the proposed downgradient welsOne surface-water sample will be obtained. Alkalinity, speciiconductance, pH, and temperature will be measured in the field.The water samples will be analyzed for purgeable halocarbons,Ipesticides and PCBs, ICP metals scan, and anions.Background Concentrations of MetalsThe evaluation of background concentrations of metals is addressed Ias a separate task in Section 5.2.2.24 of this Work Plan.

Winter ProgramSoil BorinasA total of six soil borings will be drilled through the asphalt to3a depth of 10 feet. Each boring will be sampled immediatelybeneath the asphalt and at 2-foot intervals thereafter. A totalof 18 soil samples will be obtained from the borings. Each samplewill be screened in the field using the OVA. The field screening Idata will be used to select six samples for laboratory analysis.Test Boring/Monitoring Well InstallationOne boring will be drilled and converted to a monitoring well toIassess the vertical extent of TPH in the soil and theconcentration of purgeable halocarbons in the ground water beneaththe asphalt. The location for the test boring/monitoring wellIwill be based on the results of the six shallow soil borings. Theaboring will be drilled to a depth of 15 feet bgs and will be

0057R1May 16, 1989 5-503

sampled immediately beneath the asphalt and at an interval of 5feet thereafter. The samples from the baring will be screened inthe field using the OVA. All three samples from this baring willbe submitted for laboratory analysis.

The boring will be converted to a monitoring well. The well willI ~ ~~~~be screened over an interval of 10 feet.

Chemical Analysis of Soil/SedimentSix soil samples from the shallow soil borings and three soilsamples from the test boring/monitoring well will be submitted foranalysis. Samples will be analyzed for moisture content,semivolatile organic compounds, and pesticides and PCBs.

Chemical Analysis of Ground and Surface WaterOne ground-water sample will be obtained. Alkalinity, specific5 ~~~~~conductance, pH, and temperature, will be measured in the field.The water sample will be analyzed for purgeable halocarbons,semivolatile organic compounds, pesticides and PCBs, ICP metals3 ~~~~~scan, and anions.

I~~~~05RI~~~My1, 995

NEW RICHARDSON HIGHWAY

Turnoff approximately 0.7 milesfrom Elelson AFB gate

SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT SAMPLEWILL BE OBTAINED FROM LAKE APPROXIMATELY1000 FEET DOWNGRADIENT OF SITE5

AREA OF WINTIINVESTIGATIO

039mol~~~

LEGEND ~~~~~~~~~~~190 9 BID 90 290 4 04 PROPOSED BORIING/MONITOR WELL LOCATION-. EXISTING MONITOR WELL LOCATION SCALE IN FEETE ~Harding Lawson Associates Proposed Sampling Plan

Engineers, Geologists&Geophysicists Site 39, Asphalt Lake 52 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~Elelson A.FKB., Alaska 5 1

DRAWN JOB wea APPOVED DATE REVSE DAT!E04300,037.08 5/89

5.2.2.14 Site 41. New Auto Hobby Shop

3 ~~~~~DescripDtlion

Site 41, the New Auto Hobby Shop, is located in Building 3360 on

Arctic Avenue just south of Broadway Avenue. An oil/water separator is

installed inside the building. Water from the oil/water separator drains to aleach field, while the oil drains to an underground waste oil holding tank.I ~~The leach field outside the building to the south has reportedly been

overwhelmed by oils due to infrequent servicing of the oil/water separator.

3 ~~Additional information about the site may be found in Chapter 2.0 of this Work

Plan.3 ~~~~~Previous TestingField investigations performed at this site by HLA during 1988

3 ~~included:

* Drilling two soil borings for collection of two soil samples forlaboratory testing;

* Collecting two sediment samples for laboratory testing;3. *~~ ~ Converting two soil borings to ground-water monitoring/test wells;* Collecting two ground-water samples for laboratory testing;3 * ~~~~~Performing one slug test;

Conducting subsurface geophysical surveys; and*Conducting a soil gas survey.

Plate 5-14 shows the locations on the site where the 1988 HILA

3 ~~testing was performed.1989 Work Plan Data Ouality Objectives

Additional data needs for this site, as identified in Section

4.1.15.6 of the IRP Report, include:

3 * ~~~~Assess the horizontal and vertical extent of TPH, lead, andsemivolatile compounds in the soil surrounding the leach pit andalong the west side of Building 3360 to provide an estimate of the3 ~~~~~volume of soil impacted.

* Assess the horizontal extent and concentration of purgeablearomatics and purgeable halocarbons in ground water south and west

of the leach pit.* Confirm the presence of the oily seep on the east bank of Garrison

Slough and, if confirmed, evaluate the concentrations of TPH and

organic compounds present in water from the seep.

0057R13 ~~May 16. 1989 5-52

Characterize the water and sediment of Garrison Slough up and asloungh.denof the site to assess the site's impact on the3

The field activities recommended for acquiring these data arepresented on Plate 5-14 and discussed in the following paragraphs.

Surface-Soil SurvyOne day will be required to obtain approximately 20 surface-soilsamples in the vicinity of the leach pit. The surface-soilIsamples will be screened for TPH in the field laboratory. Threesurface soil samples will be submitted to the analyticallaboratory to assess presence, extent, and concentration of TPH,lead, and SVOCs in the sail.

Soil BoringsA total of 10 soil borings will be drilled to a depth ofIapproximately 7 feet to assess the horizontal and vertical extentof TPH, lead, and SYOCs in the soil surrounding the leachpit andalong the west side of Building 3360. Each boring will be sampled Iat the surface and at 1.5-foot intervals thereafter (4 samples perboring). A total of 40 soil samples will be obtained from theborings. Each sample will be screened in the field laboratory forTPH. The TPH field screening data will be used to select 10samples for laboratory analysis.Ground-Water Field ScreeningA ground-water field screening survey will be performed to assessthe horizontal extent of purgeable aromatics and purgeable

-halocarbons in ground water south and west of the leach pit.These data will be used to establish the locations for the soilIborings/monitoring wells proposed for this site. A total of twodays of field screening will be performed. During this period,approximately 20 ground-water samples will be obtained andIscreened in the field laboratory for purgeable halocarbons andpurgeable aromatics.Test Boring/Monitoring Well InstallationIBorings will be drilled and monitoring wells installed to assessthe horizontal extent of purgeable aromatics and purgeablehalocarbans in the ground water south and west of the leach pit.The locations for the test borings/monitoring wells will be based Ion the results of the ground-water screening survey and shallowsoil boring work. Three borings will be drilled to a depth of 153feet bgs. One soil sample will be collected from each boring forlaboratory analysis. The borings will be converted to monitoringwells. Each well will be screened over an interval of 10 feet.

Surface Water/Sediment SamplingOne surface-water and one sediment sample will be collected fromGarrison Slough at the point where the oily seep is observed toconfirm the presence of the seep and to evaluate theconcentrations of TPH and organic compounds in the slough that maybe a result of the seep. In addition to these samples, one

0057R 1May 16, 1989 5-533

surface-water sample and one sediment sample will be collectedfrom Garrison Slough upgradient and downgradient of the site toI ~ ~~~~assess the site's impact on the slough.Chemical Analysis of Soil/SedimentTen soil samples from the shallow soil borings, three surface-soilI ~ ~~~~samples, three soil samples from the test borings/monitoringwells, and three sediment samples will be submitted to thelaboratory for analysis. Samples will be analyzed for moisture

- content, polynuclear aromatic compounds, and lead. Additionally,the three soil samples from the test borings/monitoring wells andthe three sediment samples will be analyzed for purgeable

I ~~~~~halocarbons and purgeable aromatic compounds.Chemical Analysis of Ground and Surface WaterA total of five ground-water samples will be obtained, two fromexisting wells and three from the proposed monitoring wells.Three surface-water samples will be collected from GarrisonSlough. Alkalinity, specific conductance, pH, and temperaturewill be measured in the field. The water samples will be analyzedfor purgeable halocarbons, purgeable aromatic compounds,polynuclear aromatic compounds, lead, and ICP metals scan.

I~~~~05RI~~~a 6 9955

41~~~~~~~~~

GAR I SLOUGH 01~ ~ ~

PROPOED GOUNDWATI5267 5268~~ILDSCEEIG URELEGEND~~~~~~~~~~-4j~- ROPOSD BORNG/MOITOR ELL LCATIO

It PROPOSED SURFACE PROPOSEDAGROUNDIWATE

SAMPLE LOCATION _____________

-SEXISTING MONrTOR WELL LOCATION SCALE IN FEETI

oEXISTING SEDIMENT SAMPLE LOCATION

Harding Lawson Associates Proposed Sampling Plan

Engineers. Geologists Site 41, New Auto Hobby Shop 5&Geophysicists Eielson A.F.8., Alaska 3-

O-W Joe iNuso SWRMOT ffoDT

04300,037.08 5/89

1 ~~5.2.2.15 Site 42. Miscellaneous Storage and Disposal AreaDescripDtioan

At Site 42, which was used during the 1960's, empty drums andm ~~containers reportedly were buried, and miscellaneous materials and small* ~~equipment was stored. It is possible that small quantities of POL waste,

including solvents, might have been present in the drums' residues. There is

3 ~~currently no activity at the site. Site access is difficult since there areno roads into the site. Additional information about the site may be found in

* ~~Chapter 2.0 of this Work Plan.

Previous Testing

inclded: Field investigations performed at this site by HLA during 1988

* Collecting one sediment sample for laboratory testing;* Installing three hand-driven sand paint ground-water monitoring

wells;* Collecting three ground-water samples for laboratory testing;

Collecting one surface-water sample for laboratory testing;* Conducting surface geophysical surveys; and

* Conducting a soil gas survey.I ~ ~~~~Plate 5-15 shows the locations on the site where the 1988 HLAtesting was performed.

1989 Work Plan Data Quality ObJectives

Additional data needs for this site, as identified in Section

3 ~~4.1.16.6 of the IRP Report, include:

a Delineate the site boundaries and identify other areas of buriedU ~ ~~~~metal (if any).

* Assess the lateral and vertical distribution of metals and organic3 ~~~~~chemicals in the soil at the site.

* Evaluate ground-water quality downgradient of the areas of buried3 ~~~~~metal and also upgradient of the site.

* Confi rm the existence and assess the condition of buried drums inthe areas of buried metal to evaluate the potential for acontinuing source of soil and ground-water contamination and toprovide supporting information for the evaluation andimplementation of remedial measures.

0057R103 ~~May 16, 1989 5-55

* Further investigate Garrison Slough to assess the levels andIdistribution of organic compounds in the water and sediments.

The field activities recommended for acquiring these data areIpresented on Plate 5-15 and discussed in the following paragraphs.

Geophys ical SurvesAn EM and GPR survey will be conducted to better define the extent ofthe drum disposal areal and clear boring locations. The area proposedfor the geophysical surveys are shown on Plate 5-15. EM and GPR surveycoverage of this area will be accomplished by establishing a survey gridat this site. Two days of EM survey work will be required to betterdefine the disposal areas. One day of GPR work will be required toclear test boring/monitoring well locations and to estimate the depth to Ithe disposed metal.Surface Soil SurveyOne day will be required to obtain approximately 20 surface soil samplesat the site. The surface soil samples will be screened for TPH in thefield laboratory. The field screening data will be used to establish3the locations for six soil borings and to select three surface soilSsamples for laboratory analysis.W

Soil BorinasA total of six soil borings will be drilled to a depth of seven feet to Iassess the lateral and vertical extent of TPH and organic chemicals inthe soil. Each boring will be sampled at the surface and at two-footintervals thereafter. A total of 18 soil samples will be obtained fromIthe borings. Each sample will be screened in the field laboratory forTPH and VOCs. The field screening data will be used to select sixsamples for laboratory analysis.3Test Boring/Monitoring Well InstallationBorings will be drilled and monitoring wells installed to evaluate theground-water quality downgradient of the areas of buried metal and alsoIupgradient of the site. The locations of the test borings/monitoring.wells will be based on the results of the geophysical survey. Fourborings will be drilled, three downgradient of the areas of buriedmaterial and one upgradient of the site, to a depth of 15 feet bgs andIconverted to monitoring wells. Each well will be screened over aninterval of 10 feet. One soil sample from each of the borings locateddowngradient of the site will be submitted to the analytical laboratory.Chemical Analysis of SoilThree surface soil samples, six samples from the shallow soil boringsand three samples from test borings/monitoring wells will be submittedIto the laboratory for analysis. Samples from the shallow borings andathe surface-soil samples will be selected for laboratory analysis on thebasis of TPH screening performed in the field lab. Samples will beanalyzed for moisture content, purgeable halocarbons, purgeable aromaticcompounds, semivolatile organic compounds, and ICP metals scan.

0057R1OMay 16, 1989 5-563

I ~ ~~~Chemical Analysis of Ground HaterA total of seven ground-water samples will be obtained, three from theexisting wells and four from the proposed wells. Alkalinity, specificconductance, pH, and temperature will be measured in the field. TheI ~ ~~~water samples will be analyzed for purgeable aromatic compounds,semivolatile organic compounds, and ICP metals scan.

Garrison SloughI ~ ~~~Garrison Slough is being treated as a site in this Work Plan. Fieldactivities proposed to assess the levels and distribution of chemicalsin the water and sediments in Garrison Slough is addressed in Section3 ~~~~5.2.2.22 of this Work Plan.

I~~~~~071I~~~a 6 9955

BEAR LAKE G. V. E.A. R.0. W.3

ct2M~202

AREA C

42S0

LEGEND~~~~~~~~~~~

LEG PEN 3OATO

E ~Harding Lawson Associates Proposed Sampling PlanEngineers, Geologists St 2 iclaeu trg

& Geophysicists Sitelo A.2 .Micelanosk Soa geand Disposal Area

MAWN JO NMJ14f APPAIMO WEilMM QE U04300,037.08 5189

5.2..16 ite44. Battery Shop

Site 44, Battery Shop, includes the area around Building 1141

loctedbetween the runway taxiway and Flightilne Avenue west of the NorthStetintersection. Over the past few years, there have been several

concrnsregarding the ultimate disposal of material that drains from the

bateryshop. Physical access to the site is good, although some securityacesrestrictions apply to the building and areas adjacent to the

* ~ ~ lghln.Additional information about the site may be found in Chapter 2.0ofthis WokPlan.

Previous Testing

Field investigations performed at this site by HLA during 1988included:

* Drilling three soil borings for collection of four soil samplesfor laboratory testing;A * ~~~~Converting three soil borings to ground-water monitoring/testwells;

* Collecting three ground-water samples for laboratory testing;* Performing one slug test; and* Conducting subsurface geophysical surveys.

3 ~~~~~Plate 5-16 shows the locations on the site where the 1988 HILAtesting was performed.

1989 Work Plan Data Ouality ObjectivesAdditional data needs for this site, as identified in Section

4.1.17.6 of the IRP Report, include:

* Confirm the presence of purgeable halocarbons and purgeablearomatics in soil at the site and, if confirmed, furtherI ~ ~~~~investigate the distribution and concentrations of theseparameters.

* Investigate the soil within the site area for the lateral andvertical extent and concentrations of semivolatile organic

* Evaluate the lateral and vertical extent of TPH concentrations inexcess of 100 mg/kg in soil in the site area.

00 57R 10

May 16. 1989 5-58

* Assess the distribution of BTEX in ground water in the vicinity of 3Monitoring Well 44M02, and evaluate potential on-site sources.

* Assess the distribution and concentrations of purgeablehalocarbons in ground water upgradient of the site in order toIevaluate the possible existence of off-site sources.

* Evaluate ground-water quality at this site with respect to thepossible presence of SYOCs.I

* Evaluate the range of naturally occurring backgroundconcentrations of metals in surface water and ground water in theEielson AFB area to assess the significance of the high iron andmanganese levels found at this site.

The field activities reconmmended for acquiring these data arepresented on Plate 5-16 and discussed in the following paragraphs.3

Records SearchOne day will be required to perform a records search to identify thepresence and location of a dry well or leach pit at Building 1141. If adry well or leach pit is not identified, the discharge lines thatItransport waste water from the battery shop will be located (if theyexist).

Geophys ical SurveyA GPR survey will be conducted to assess the existence, location, andapproximate dimensions of a dry well or leach pit near Building 1141.If a dry well or leach pit is identified, the GPR data will be used toIhelp establish the location of upgradient and downgradient testborings/monitoring wells. One day will be required to complete the GPRsurvey.__ __

Surface Soil ScreeningOne day will be required to obtain approximately 20 surface soil samplesfrom the site to assess the extent of TPH in the soil. All surface soil Isamples will be screened in the field laboratory for TPH. The fieldscreening data will be used to establish the locations for 10 soil

borings.Soil BorinosA total of 10 soil borings will be drilled to a depth of approximately 9feet bgs to assess the presence and extent of VOCs, TPH, and SVOCs inIthe soil at the site. Each boring will be sampled at the surface and at5-foot intervals thereafter. A total of 30 samples will be obtainedfrom the borings. Each sample will be screened in the field laboratory3for TPH. The field screening data will be used to select 10 samples forlaboratory analysis and to locate test borings/monitoring wells.

0057R1OMay 16, 1989 5-593

Ground-Water Field Screening SurveYA ground-water field screening survey will be performed in the vicinityof Well 44M402 and upgradient of the site to assess the horizontal extentof VOCs in the ground water. These data will be used to establish theU ~ ~~~location for the test borings/monitoring wells proposed for this area.Two days of field screening will be performed at the site. During thisperiod, approximately 20 ground-water samples will be obtained and fieldscreened for VOCs.

Test Boring/Monitoring Well InstallationA total of five test borings/monitoring wells are proposed for the site.Two borings will be drilled and monitoring wells installed to assess theextent of VOCs in the ground water in the vicinity of Well 44M02. Thelocation for the test borings/monitoring wells will be based on theresults of the ground-water field screening survey and on the shallowI ~ ~~~soil borings. The borings will be drilled to a depth of 20 feet bgs andconverted to monitoring wells. Each well will be screened over aninterval of 10 feet. Soil samples from these borings will not be

submitted to the analytical laboratory.Two borings will be drilled and monitoring wells installed to assess thepresence of chemicals in ground water in the vicinity of Building 1141.The location for the test borings/monitoring wells will be based on theresults of the geophysical survey and on shallow soil borings. Theborings will be drilled to a depth of 20 feet bgs and converted tomonitoring wells. The wells will be screened from 10 to 20 feet bgs.Two soil samples will be obtained from each boring for laboratoryanalysis. The depth at which the samples will be collected will bebased on results of the HNu or OVA field screening.One boring will be drilled and a monitoring well installed to assess thepresence and source of purgeable halocarbons in ground water upgradientof the site. The boring will be drilled to a depth of 20 feet bgs andconverted to a monitoring well. The well will be screened from 10 to 20feet bgs. Two soil samples will be obtained from the boring forI ~ ~~~laboratory analysis. The depth at which the samples will be collectedwill be based on results of the HNu or OVA field screening.Background Concentrations of Metals

The evaluation of background concentrations of metals is addressed as aseparate task in Section 5.2.2.24 of this Work Plan.Chemical Analysis of SoilI ~ ~~~A total of 10 soil samples from the shallow soil borings and six soilsamples from three of the test boring/monitoring wells located nearBuilding 1141 will be submitted to the laboratory for analysis.I ~ ~~~Samples from the shallow soil borings will be selected for laboratoryanalysis based on the OVA readings and TPH field analysis. Samples willbe analyzed for moisture content, purgeable halocarbons, purgeablearomatic compounds, polynuclear aromatic compounds, petroleum

hydrocarbons, and lead.

0057R103 ~~May 18, 1989 5-60

Chemical Analysis of Ground WaterA total of eight ground-water samples will be obtained; three fromexisting monitoring wells and five from proposed monitoring wells.Alkalinity, specific conductance, pH, and temperature will be measuredin the field. The water samples will be analyzed for purgeableIhalocarbons, purgeable aromatic compounds, polynuclear aromaticcompounds, lead, ICP metals scan, total dissolved solids, and anions.

0057RI'UMay 16, 1989 5-61~ ~ ~~~~

FLIGH TUNE AVE

-00 ~44M01 ~0014

1140

-~~~ ~HANGAR

PROPOSED GROUND WATERI V ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~FIELD SCREENING SURVEY

Igo 9 SP 190 2940I 4- ~PROPOSED BORING/MONITOR WELL LOCATIONSCLINFE

4EXISTING MONITOR WELL LOCATIONSCLINFE

Hcarding Lawson Associates Proposed Sampling PlanPLTW flTW"I Engineers, Geologists St 4 atr hp5

z ~ &GepyicssEielson A.F.S., Alaska 5 1

04300.037.08 5/89

5.2.2.17 Site 45. Photo Laboratory

DescriptionSite 45 is a small photo laboratory located in Building 1183.

Photo chemicals have been discharged to a dry well from the photo laboratory.There currently is no laboratory wastewater or chemical recovery processsystem in operation at this site. Additional information about the site maybe found in Chapter 2.0 of this Work Plan.

Previous TestingField investigations performed at this site by HLA during 1988

included:

* Drilling three soil borings for collection of four soil samplesfor laboratory testing;

* Converting three soil borings to ground-water monitoring/testwells;

* Collecting three ground-water samples for laboratory testing;* Performing one slug test; andI* Conducting subsurface geophysical surveys.

Plate 5-17 shows the locations on the site where the 1988 HLAtesting was performed.

1989 Work Plan Data Ouality ObjectivesAdditional data needs for this site, as identified in Section

4.1.18.6 of the IRP Report, include:I

* Confirm the presence and concentrations of purgeabl'e halocarbonsand mercury in ground water at water supply Well C, and ifconfirmed, evaluate the extent and concentrations of theseparameters and identify potential sources.

* Confirm the presence and concentrations of purgeable halocarbonsIand purgeable aromatic compounds in ground water at MonitoringWell 45M01.

* Assess the distribution and concentrations of purgeablehalocarbons, purgeable aromatic compounds, chromium, sulfate, andTOS in ground water downgradient of Monitoring Well 45M01.

* Evaluate the range of naturally occurring backgroundconcentrations of metals in soil and ground water in the Elelson aAFB area to assess the significance of the high iron, manganese,lead, mercury, and chromium levels found in some of the samplesWfrom this site.

0057R10May 16. 1989 5-62

I Evaluate potential sources of the SVOCs found in surficial sail atBorings 45M402 and 45M03 and assess the potential risks associatedwith these compounds in soil.

Assess the distribution and concentration of mercury in soil inthe vicinity of Boring 45M403, and evaluate potential sources.

The field activities recommended for acquiring these data arepresented on Plate 5-17 and discussed in the following paragraphs.

Surface Soil SurveyI ~ ~~~Approximately 15 surface soil samples from the vicinity of Wells 45M02and 45M03 will be obtained to assess the presence and extent of VOCs-SVOCs and mercury in the soil. All surface sail samples will be sent tothe laboratory for analysis.

Ground-water Field Screening SurveyAground-water field screening survey will be performed at the site toconfirm the existence and establish the areal extent of VOCs in theground water downgradient of Well 45M01. Two days of field screeningI. ~ ~~will be required to collect 20 ground-water samples which will besubmitted to the field laboratory for VOC screening. These data will beused to establish the locations for proposed test boring/monitoringwells.Test Boring/Monitoring Well InstallationThree borings will be drilled and monitoring wells installed to assessthe horizontal extent of chemicals in the ground water downgradient ofI ~ ~~~Well 45M01. The location for the monitoring wells will be based on theresults of the ground-water screening survey. The borings will bedrilled to a depth of 20 feet bgs and converted to monitoring wells.Each well will be screened over an interval of 10 feet. Soil samplesfrom the test borings will not be submitted to the laboratory foranalysis.

Background Concentrations of MetalsThe evaluation of background concentrations of metals is addressed as aseparate task in Section 5.2.2.24 of this Work Plan.Chemical Analysis of SoilFifteen surface soil samples will be submitted to the laboratory foranalysis. Samples will be analyzed for moisture content, purgeablehalocarbons, purgeable aromatic compounds, polynuclear aromaticcompounds, and mercury.

00 57 R10May 16, 1989 5-63

Chemical Analysis of Ground WaterA total of seven ground-water samples will be obtained; three from theIexisting wells, three from the proposed wells, and one from ProductionWell C. Alkalinity, specific conductance, pH, and temperature will bemeasured in the field. The water samples will be analyzed for purgeablehalocarbons, purgeable aromatic compounds, phenols, mercury, chromium,Htotal dissolved solids, and anions.

0057RIO~~~~~~~~~~May 16, 1989 5-64~ ~ ~~~~

I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~CMEI~~~~~~~~~~~~~~DMI~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

WELC

PROPOSED GROUND WATERFIELD SCREENING SURVEY

LEGEND i9o 9gBP 19 290 490I ~~~PROPOSED BORING/MONITOR WELL LOCATION SCALE IN FEETEXISTING MONITOR WELL LOCATION

Harding Lawson Associates Proposed Sampling PlanPLTW flT~~1 Engineers, Geologists Site 45. Photo Laboratory 5

& Geophysicists Eielson A.F.8., Alaska 5 1IRW JOBn wjsae APPROVE DATE AMbqf DAuT

04300,037.08 5/89

5.2.2.18 Site 47. Base Commissary Parking Lot Fuel Spill

Site 47 is a paved parking lot where fuel-contaminated sail wasidentified in 1987. The parking lot is flat and covers approximately 150,000square feet in front of the Base Commissary, Exchange, and Theater.

On October 17, 1987, during a preliminary soil investigation forthe Commissary addition, DOWI Engineer's Borehole 8-15 was found to containfuel contaminated soil at a depth of 9 feet. There was no immediatelyidentifiable source or spill history for the fuel contamination; however, alarge above-grade diesel tank is situated upgradient from the site along thesouth side of Broadway Avenue behind the Base hospital. Additionalinformation about the site may be found in Chapter 2.0 of this Work Plan.

Previous Testinginclded: Field investigations performed at this site by HLA during 1988

* Drilling three soil borings for collection of four soil samplesfor laboratory testing;

* Converting three soil borings to ground-water monitoring/test-wells;

* Collecting three ground-water samples for laboratory testing;* Performing one slug test;* Conducting subsurface geophysical surveys; and* Conducting a soil gas survey.

Plate 5-18 shows the locations on the site where the 1988 HLAtesting was performed.I

1989 Work Plan Data Ouality ObiectivesAdditional data needs for this site, as identified in Section

4.1.20.6 of the IRP Report, include:

* Evaluate the areal and vertical extent of soil TPH concentrationsIin excess of 100 mg/kg in the vicinity of Boring 47M02 and, ifpossible, identify the source.

* Assess the magnitude and extent of soil TPH concentrations in thevicinity of Borings 47M01 and 47M03 to confirm that TPHconcentrations in soil do not exceed 100 mg/kg. If TPHconcentrations in excess of 100 mg/kg are found, establish the 0areal and vertical extent of the area impacted.

0057R10May 16, 1989 5-65

I ~~~~~Investigate ground water in the vicinity of Wells 47M01, 47M02,and 4M3for the presence, distribution, and concentration of

* ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ugal aromatic and semivolatile compounds. If found, furtherinvstiatethe distribution and concentration of these

U ~~~~~The field activities recommended for acquiring these data arepresented on Plate 5-18 and discussed in the following paragraphs.

Soil BorinasA total of nine sail borings will be drilled near Well 47M02 to evaluatethe areal and vertical extent of soil TPH concentrations. Six soilborings will be drilled in the area between Wells 47M01 and 47M03 toI ~ ~~~assess the magnitude and extent of soil TPH concentrations in this area.All of the soil borings will be drilled to a depth of approximately 10feet bgs. Each boring will be sampled immediately below the asphalt andI ~ ~~~at five-foot intervals thereafter. A total of 45 samples will beobtained from the borings. Each sample will be screened in the fieldlaboratory for TPH. The TPH field screening data will be used to select15 samples for laboratory analysis.Ground-Water Field Screening SurveyA ground-water field screening survey will be performed at the site toa ~ ~~~assess the presence, distribution, and concentration of purgeablearomatic compounds in the ground water. These data will be used toestablish the locations for the test borings/monitoring wells proposedfor the site. One day of field screening will be performed. DuringI ~ ~~~this period, approximately 10 ground-water samples will be obtained andscreened in the field lab for purgeable aromatic compounds.Test Boring/Monitoring Well InstallationI ~ ~~~Borings will be drilled and monitoring wells installed to assess thepresence and horizontal extent of purgeable aromatics in the groundwater at the site. The locations for the test borings/monitoring wellsI ~ ~~~will be based on the results of the ground-water screening survey andshallow boring work. Two borings will be drilled to a depth of 20 feetbgs and converted to monitoring wells. Each well will be screened overI ~ ~~~an interval of 10 feet. One soil sample will be collected from eachboring for laboratory analysis.Chemical Analysis of SoilI ~ ~~~Fifteen soil samples from the shallow soil borings and two soil samplesfrom the test boring/monitoring wells will be submitted to thelaboratory for analysis. Samples from the shallow soil borings will beselected for laboratory analysis on the basis of the OVA readings andTPH screening performed in the field lab. Samples will be analyzed formoisture content, semivolatile organic compounds, and petroleumhydrocarbons. Additionally the soil samples from the testborings/monitoring wells will be analyzed for purgeable aromaticcompounds.

0057R105 ~~May 16, 1989 5-66

Chemical Analysis of Ground WaterA total of five ground-water samples will be obtained, three from theIexisting wells and two from the proposed monitoring wells. Alkalinity,specific conductance, pH, and temperature will be measured in the field.The water samples will be analyzed for purgeable aromatic andIsemivolatile organic compounds and ICP metals scan.

0057R10~~~~~~~~~~May 16, 1989 5-67 ~~~

I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I~~MI

THETER3307M ___

____ CRED ITI - ~~~~UNION3340

I ~~CHAPEL3307

BOWLINGALLEY

LEGEND '9 ~ io 20490

-- PROPOSED BORING/MONITOR WELL LOCATIONSCLINFE4 EXISTING MONITOR WELL LOCATIONSCLINFE

Harding Lawson Associates Proposed Sampling PlanPLTEngineers, GeoloEgisosA.ts. Alsk& e Geo logsi ists Site 47, Ease Commissary Parking Lot Fuel Spill 5 1

3 S A NMjME APPROVE DATE REWWS CATE04300,0370Oa 5/89

5.2.2.19 Site 48. Power Plant Fuel Leak5

DescripDtioflnAt Site 48, fuel-contaminated soil was discovered in 1987 at the

west end of the Base Power Plant. The site is situated around and adjacent tothe power plant located on Industrial Avenue between Arctic Avenue andDivision Avenue. The power plant and its appurtenant facilities cover a large Iarea, and include large stockpiles of coal and two large cooling ponds. Three

high-capacity wells are located within a one/half mile radius of the site;3these wells may be influencing the migration of the contaminants present at

the site. Additional information about the site may be found in Chapter 2.0

of this Work Plan.Previous Testing

Field investigations performed at this site by HLA during 1988included:

* Drilling 7 soil borings and excavating 3 test pits for collectionof 14 soil samples for laboratory testing;a

* Converting 7 soil borings to ground-water monitoring/test wells; -* Collecting 9 ground-water samples for laboratory testing;* Installing 15 product probes;* -Performing 2 slug tests;* Conducting subsurface geophysical surveys; and* Conducting a soil gas survey.

Plate 5-19 shows the locations on the site where the 1988 HILAtesting was performed.

1989 Work Plan Data Ouality Ob~iectlvesAdditional data needs for this site, as identified in Section

4.1.21.6 of the IRP Report, include:I

* Assess the lateral extent of free product on the ground water in

the vicinity of Product Probe 48PP28, near the ash house;* Assess the lateral and vertical distribution of TPH in excess of

100 mg/kg in soil in the vicinity of the identified areas of free

product;

0057R10May 16, 1989 5-68

* Assess the lateral and vertical distribution and concentrations ofS ~ ~~~~TPH in soil near Monitoring Wells 48M02 and 48M03, and Test Pit48TP03 in order to identify potential sources; and to verify thatsoil TPH concentrations in these areas do not exceed the 100 mg/kg

action level;

* Evaluate ground-water quality in areas upgradient of MonitoringWell 48M01 to assess the possible existence of additional sourcesfor the VOCs and SVOCs detected in this investigation;

* Assess the lateral and vertical distribution of benzene atconcentrations in excess of 5 ug/l in ground water downgradient ofMonitoring Well 48M405;

3 * ~~~~Assess the significance of the high TOS, iron, and manganeselevels found in Monitoring Well 53M03 with respect to backgroundconditions and other potential sources.

I * ~~~~Evaluate the impacts of the contamination at Site 48 on localwildlife and biota, and assess the risks associated with these

* ~~~~~impacts to human health and the environment;

The field activities recommended for acquiring these data are

presented on Plate 5-19 and discussed in the following paragraphs.Geophys ical SurveyA GPR survey will be conducted to clear the borehole locations for theI ~ ~~~proposed soil borings and monitoring wells. Three days will be requiredto perform this task.

Soil BorinasSoil borings will be drilled throughout the site to assess the extent ofTPH in the soil. Four areas in particular will be addressed: 1) theareas where free product has been identified, including the vicinity ofS ~ ~~~Wells 48M01, 53M403, 48TP02, and 48TP04; 2) Well 481402; 3) Well 48M403;and 4) Test Pit 48TP03. Soil borings will be drilled in each area asfollows:

I ~~~~~~Area 1: 12 soil boringsArea 2: 4 soil boringsArea 3: 4 soil borings

Area 4: 4 soil boringsAll soil borings locations will be cleared with a GPR survey and will bedrilled to a depth of approximately 15 feet bgs. Each boring will besampled at the surface and at 5-foot depth intervals thereafter. Atotal of 96 samples will be obtai-ned from the borings. Each sample willbe screened in the field laboratory for TPH. The TPH field screening

data will be used to select 24 samples for laboratory analysis.

0057R103 ~~~May 16, 1989 5-69

Ground-Water Field Screening SurveyA ground-water field screening survey will be performed to assess the3ground-water quality in the areas upgradient of Monitoring Well 48M01.These data will be used to establish the location for the testboring/monitoring well proposed for this area. One day of fieldscreening will be performed in this area. During this period,approximately 10 ground-water samples will be obtained and fieldscreened for volatile aromatic hydrocarbons.3

An additional ground-water field screening survey will be performed toassess the extent of benzene in the ground water downgradient of Well48M05. These data will be used to establish the location for the testIborings/monitoring wells proposed for this area. One day of fieldscreening will be performed in this area. During this period,approximately 10 ground-water samples will be obtained and fieldIscreened for volatile aromatic compounds.

A total of two days will be required to perform the ground-water fieldscreening surveys described above.ITest Borina/Monitorina Well InstallationOne boring will be drilled and a monitoring well installed to assess theground-water quality upgradierit of Well 48M01. The location for thetest boring/monitoring well will be based on the results of theground-water field screening survey. One boring will be drilledupgradient of Well 48M401 to a depth of 25 feet bgs and converted to a *

-monitoring well. The well will be screened from 15 to 25 feet bgs.Sail-samples from this boring will not be submitted to the analyticallaboratory.5

Borings will be drilled and monitoring wells installed to assess thelateral and vertical distribution of benzene in ground waterdowngradient of Well 48M405. A well cluster, consisting of three testIborings/monitoring wells, will be drilled approximately 50 to 100 feetdowngradient of Well D. The borings will be drilled to 25, 60, and 105feet bgs and converted to monitoring wells. The wells will be screenedgover a 10-foot interval. Soil samples from these borings will not besubmitted to the analytical laboratory.

Product Probe InstallationSix product probes will be installed to assess the areal extent andthickness of floating product in the vicinity of Product Probe 48PP28,near the ash house.Records SearchA search of available records will be made to assess usage of the siteand to establish how many people and the wildlife that may potentiallyIbe exposed to chemicals found on this site.

Background Concentrations of MetalsThe evaluation of background concentrations of metals is addressed as a

separate task in Section 5.2.2.24 of this Work Plan.

0057 RIOMay 16, 1989 5-703

Chemical Analysis of SoilI ~ ~~~A total of 24 soil samples from the shallow soil borings will besubmitted to the laboratory for analysis. Samples will be selected forlaboratory analysis based on the OVA readings and TPH field analysis.Samples will be analyzed for moisture content and petroleum

Chemical Analysis of Ground WaterA total of 12 ground-water samples will be obtained; seven from existingmonitoring wells, four from proposed monitoring wells, and one fromProduction Well D. Alkalinity, specific conductance, pH, andS ~ ~~~temperature will be measured in the field. The water samples will beanalyzed for purgeable aromatic compounds, polynuclear aromaticcompounds, phenols, petroleum hydrocarbons, ICP metals scan, and anions.

I~~~~071I. ~ ~ ay1,19957

WELL NO 2

*~~~~~~CA IEPROPSEDGROND ATEFIEL SCEENIG SRVE

6205~~~~~~48MO2~~~~

RAL HEATING

MONITORING093411K406

I 7i_

0

5~~~~~~~

LEGEND34PROPOSED BORING/MONITOR WELL LOCATION

4EXISTING MONITOR WELL LOCATION 190 9 9.0 290 490EXISTING TEST PIT LOCATIONSCLINFE

eEXISTING MONITOR WELL LOCATION

Harding Lawson Associates Proposed Sampling PlanEngineers, Geologists Site 48, Power Plant Fuel LeakLi.LJ & Geophysicists EesnAFB.Aak

DRAMM AG~~~~~o miMSER APRlOVED W~E DATEE

04300.037.08 5/89

3 ~~5.2.2.20 Site 49. Building 1300 Fuel LeakDescripDtionBuilding 1300, which covers approximately eight acres, serves as a

temporary Combat Alert Hangar Complex (CAC) with its own heating unit,auxiliary electrical generator, septic system and water supply.U ~~~~~Diesel fuel and/or solvents reportedly have been introduced intothe building's septic system leach field presumably through the floor drains3 ~~in the hangar. Hydrocarbon was found floating on the water table at the siteduring the 1988 investigation.3 ~~~~~Entry into the compound requires special flightline authorization,notification of base operations, and authorization by the CAC commandingofficer. Additional information about the site may be found in Chapter 2.0 of

this Work Plan.Previous Testing

I ~~~~~Field investigations performed at this site by HILA during 1988S ~~included:

* Drilling five soil borings for collection of nine soil samples forlaboratory testing;

* Converting five soil borings to ground-water monitoring/test3 ~ ~~~~~wells;* Collecting seven ground-water samples for laboratory testing;* Installing five product probes;

0 ~Conducting subsurface geophysical surveys; and* Conducting a soil gas survey.

S ~~~~~Plate 5-20 shows the locations on the site where the 1988 HLAtesting was performed.

1989 Work Plan Data Oualltv ObjiectivesAdditional data needs for this site, as identified in Section3 ~~4.1.22.6 of the IRP Report, include:

* Investigate the lateral extent of the product plume to provideI ~ ~~~~supporting information for evaluation and implementation ofremedial measures.

0057RIO3 N~~ay 16, 1989 5-72

* Assess the horizontal extent of the purgeable and semivolatilecompounds in the ground water to provide supporting informationSfor evaluation and implementation of remedial measures. Ifpossible, identify the source of the purgeable halocarboncompounds.U

* Confirm the presence and areal extent of permafrost at anddowngradient of the site to evaluate its impact on the verticalmigration of the purgeable and semivolatile compounds in groundwater.

* Evaluate the areal extent of soil TPH concentrations in excess of 3100 mg/kg downgradient of the product plume to provide an estimateof the volume of soil impacted.£

* Investigate ground water in the vicinity of Well 49M01 to confirmthat concentrations of purgeable compounds do not exceed ARARs.If concentrations in excess of ARARs are found, establish theareal extent of the area impacted.

* Evaluate the range of naturally-occurring backgroundconcentrations of metals in soil and ground water to assess theIsignificance of the high iron and manganese levels found in groundwater at this site.

The field activities recommended for acquiring these data arepresented on Plate 5-20 and discussed in the following paragraphs.3

Geoohysical SurveyApproximately 1,000 linear feet of seismic refraction survey work willbe performed in the area at the north end of the CAC hanger (Plate 5-20). These data will be used to assess the depth to and areal extent of Ipermafrost in this area. One day will be required to complete theseismic refraction survey.

Product Probe InstallationFive product probes will be installed downgradient of Well 49M402 toassess the areal extent and thickness of floating product at the site.The location of the product probes will be based on data from existingImonitoring wells and product probes.

Soil BorinasTwo soil borings will be drilled near the south end of the runway toIconfirm the depth to permafrost as indicated by the seismic refractiondata. No soil samples will be collected from these soil borings.3

Six soil borings will be drilled to approximately 7 feet bgs to assessthe horizontal and vertical extent of TPH in the soil in the vicinity ofthe downgradient edge of the product plume. Data obtained from theproduct probes will be used to establish the soil boring locations. Twosoil samples will be collected from each boring based on the field

0057R10May 16, 1989 54733

screening with the Hnu or OVA. A total of 12 samples will be obtainedfrom the borings. Each sample-will be screened in the field laboratoryfor TPH. The TPH field screening data will be used to select sixsamples for laboratory analysis.Ground-Water Field Screening SurveyA ground-water field screening survey will be performed in the areashown on Plate 5-20 to assess the horizontal extent of VOCs in theU ~ ~~~ground water dawngradient of Well 491402. These data will be used toestablish the location for the test borings/monitoring wells proposedfor this area. Two days of field screening will be performed in thisI ~ ~~~area. During this period, approximately 20 ground-water samples will beobtained and field screened for VOCs.

An additional ground-water field screening survey will be performed toassess the extent of VOCs in the ground water in the vicinity of Well49M401. These data will be used to establish the location for the testboring/monitoring well proposed for this area. One day of fieldI ~ ~~~screening will be performed in this area. During this period,approximately 10 ground-water samples will be obtained and fieldscreened for VOCs.

I ~~~~A total of three days will be required to complete the ground-waterfield screening surveys described above.a ~ ~~~Test Boring/Monitoring Well InstallationBorings will be drilled and monitoring wells installed to assess theground-water quality downgradient of Well 49M02. The location for thetest borings/monitoring wells will be based on the results of theI ~ ~~~ground-water field screening survey. Two borings will be drilleddawngradient of Well 49M402 to a depth of 25 feet bgs and converted tomonitoring wells. The wells will be screened from 15 to 25 feet bgs.I ~ ~~~Soil samples from these borings will not be submitted to the analyticallaboratory.

One boring will be drilled and a monitoring well installed to assess theI ~ ~~~extent of VOCs in ground water in the vicinity of Well 49M401. Thelocation for the test boring/monitoring well will be based on theresults of the ground-water field screening survey. The boring will beU ~ ~~~drilled to a depth of 25 feet bgs and converted to a monitoring well.The well will be screened from 15 to 25 feet bgs. Soil samples fromthis boring will not be submitted to the analytical laboratory.Surface-Soil SamplingThree surface-soil samples will be at the site to assess the presenceand extent of SVOCs in the soil. All surface soil samples will be sentI ~ ~~~to the laboratory for analysis.Background Concentrations of MetalsThe evaluation of background concentrations of metals is addressed as aseparate task in Section 5.2.2.24 of this Work Plan.

0057R1O3 ~~May 16, 1989 5-74

Chemical Analysis of SoilA total of six sail -samples from the shallow soil borings and threesurface-sail samples will be submitted to the laboratory for analysis.Samples from the shallow soil borings will be selected for laboratoryanalysis based on the OVA readings and TPH field analysis. Samples will Ibe analyzed for moisture content and petroleum hydrocarbons.

Chemical Analysis of Ground WaterIA total of eight ground-water samples will be obtained; five fromexisting monitoring wells and three from proposed monitoring wells.Alkalinity, specific conductance, pH, and temperature will be measuredin the field. The water samples will be analyzed for purgeable Ihalocarbons, purgeable aromatic compounds, polynuclear aromaticcompounds, petroleum hydrocarbons, ICP metals scan and common anions.

0057R10~~~~~~~~May 16, 1989 5-75 ~ ~ ~ ~

~15

0 ~ ~~~AP~IAEAELETN

5 B~~~~~~~~~~~~~UILDING 1301-

S~~~~OOE

WATER POPSEDGRUNEWTE

3 ~~~~~~~~~~FIELD SCREENING SURVEY

I ~LEGEND

'4PROPOSED BORING/MONiTOR WELL LOCATION g5 s.s337 14 93 4 ~~EXISTING MONITOR WELL LOCATION0EXISTING MONITOR WELL LOCATION SCALE IN FEET

Na ~~~~~~Harding Lawson Associates Proposed Sampling PlanPLT~~ PIW'~~I Engineers, Geologists Site 49, Building 1.300 Fuel Leak 52

z ~~& Geophysicists Eielson A.F.8., Alaska 5 2I~~~~R Joe NUBE APOMR ~ DAEREM DT04300,037.08 5/89

5.2.2.21 Site 50. Blair Lakes

DescripotionThe Air Force Blair Lakes Range Facility is located approximately

30 miles southeast of Eielson AFB. The facility includes personnel quarters,operations buildings, a control tower, a vehicle maintenance shop, generator

building, fuel storage facility, and other plywodd storage out buildings5

located on a central gravel pad area.

During most of the year, the facility can only be reached byI

helicopter. However, during the winter, an ice bridge is built across the

Tanana River, and trucks and 4-wheel drive vehicles can access the site. At3

the site, access is unrestricted on the gravel pad. Additional information

about the site may be found in Chapter 2.0 of this Work Plan.

Previous TestingField investigations performed at this site by HLA during 1988

included:3

* Drilling 6 soil borings for collection of 12 soil samples forlaboratory testing;

* Converting 5 soil borings to ground-water monitoring/test wells;* -Collecting 6 ground-water samples for laboratory testing;

Conducting surface geophysical surveys; andS* Conducting a soil gas survey.

Plate 5-21 shows the locations on the site where the 1988 HLAI

testing was performed.

1989 Work Plan Data Ouality ObjectivesAdditional data needs for this site, as identified in Section

4.1.23.6 of the IRP Report, include:3

* Confirm the presence of buried drums in Areas A through 0 andevaluate the condition and contents of the drums. Assess thevolume and chemical characteristics of contaminated soil (if any)associated with the drums.

* Assess ground-water quality adjacent toAreas Athrough Dto3evaluate potential impacts to ground-water quality resulting fromthe suspected drum burial areas.U

0057R10May 16, 1989 5 -76I

Assess the horizontal and vertical extent of the fuel-relatedchemicals in the soil and ground water near the Tank Farm and theVehicle Maintenance Building, in order to provide a better£ ~~~~~estimate of the volume of those media requiring remediation.

* Assess the areal extent and thickness of the free product in thevicinity of Well 50MOl to provide supporting information for the

* ~~~~~evaluation and implementation of remedial measures.

* Assess the extent of the TPH in the surface soil near Wells 50M013 ~~~~~~and 5OMO5.

* Evaluate the range of naturally-occurring backgroundconcentrations of metals in soil and ground water in the BlairI ~ ~~~~Lakes Range area to assess the significance of the high iron andmanganese levels found at this site.

3 ~~~~~The field activities recommended for acquiring these data arepresented on Plate 5-21 and discussed in the following paragraphs.

Geophysical SurveyI ~ ~~~A GPR survey will be conducted to better define the margins of thesubsurface disposal areas. The four areas proposed for geophysicala ~ ~~~surveys are shown on Plate 5-21. GPR survey coverage of these areaswill be accomplished by establishing survey grids at each potentialdisposal site. Two days of GPR work will be required to clear testboring/monitoring well locations and to estimate the depth to thedisposed metal.Surface Soil Screening SurveyOne day will be required to obtain approximately 20 surface-soil samplesin the vicinity of Wells 50MOI and 5OMO5. The surface soil will bescreened for TPH in the field laboratory. The TPH field screening datawill be used to establish the locations for 10 soil borings and selectI ~ ~~~samples for shipment to the analytical laboratory. Six of the surface-soil samples will be submitted to the analytical laboratory for SVOCg ~~~~analyses.

Sail BorinasA total of 10 soil borings will be drilled to the water table (7 to 10

~~1 ~~feet bgs). Each boring will be sampled at the surface and at 2-footintervals thereafter. A total of approximately 30 soil samples will beobtained from the borings. Each sample will be screened in the fieldlaboratory for TPH. The TPH field screening data will be used to select10 samples for laboratory analysis.Ground-Water Field Screening SurveyA ground-water field screening survey will be performed in the areasshown on Plate 5-21 to assess the areal extent of VOCs in the groundwater in the vicinity of the four subsurface disposal sites and the Tank

0057RI03 ~~May 16, 1989 5-77

Farm-Vehicle Maintenance Building areas. A total of four days of fielddscreening will be performed. During this period, approximately 20Sground-water samples will be obtained and screened in the field lab forVOCs. These data will be used to establish the locations for the

proposed test borings/monitoring wells.

Product Probe InstallationSix product probes will be installed to assess the areal extent andthickness of floating product in the vicinity of Well 50MOl. Thelocations for the initial product probes will be based on the results .ofthe ground-water field screening survey. Subsequent product probelocations will be based on product thickness measurements made in theinitial probes. Product probes installed between the VehicleMaintenance Building and the Tank Farm will be completed below ground.

Test Boring/Monitoring Well InstallationFour borings will be drilled and monitoring wells installed to assessthe extent of fuel-related compounds in the ground water at the site .The locations for the test borings/monitoring wells will be based on theresults of the ground-water field screening survey. The borings will bedrilled to a depth of 15 feet bgs and the samples will be screened inthe field using the Hnu or the OVA. Four soil samples from theseborings will be submitted to the laboratory far analyses.

Monitoring wells will be constructed in all four borings. Theamonitoring wells will be screened from 5 to 15 feet bgs.

Backiround Concentrations of MetalsThe evaluation of background concentrations of metals is addressed inISection 5.2.2.24 of this Work Plan.

Chemical Analysis of SoilIA total of 20 soil samples will be submitted for analysis. Ten soilsamples from the soil borings, four soil samples from the testborings/monitoring wells, and six surface soil samples will be selected Sfor laboratory analysis on the basis of the results of the TPH screeningperformed in the field laboratory and will be analyzed for moisturecontent and petroleum hydrocarons. In addition, the four soil samplesfrom the test borings/monitoring wells will be analyzed for purgeablehalocarbons, purgeable aromatic compounds, polynuclear aromatichydrocarbons, and phenols. The ten soil samples from the soil borings

will also be analyzed for polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons and phenols.

Chemical Analysis of Ground WaterA total of nine ground water samples will be obtained; one sample willbe obtained from each of the five existing and four proposed monitoringwells. Alkalinity, specific conductance, pH, and temperature will bemeasured for each sample in the field. Each sample will be analyzed forpurgeable halocarbons, purgeable aromatic compounds, polynuclearUaromatic compounds, phenols, and petroleum hydrocarbons.

0057R10

May 16, 1989 5-783

PROPOSED GROUND WATERI~~~~~~~~~~~~~~FEDSREIGSRE

I~~~~~~~~~~~reI~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

LOCATIONS OF ANAMLouSCrgIN-PHASE EM SIGNAL INDCATIV3 ~~~~OF BURIED METAL ia

I ~LEGEND

4PROPOSED BORING/MONITOR WELL LOCATION I a 9 Sp 190 29401 S- ~~EXISTING MONITOR WELL LOCATION SCALE IN FEET®EXISTING SOIL BORING LOCATION

Harding Lawson Associates Proposed Sampling Plan KTEngineers, Geologists Site 50, Blair Lakes Facility5- 1

& GeophysicistsEielson A.F.B.. Alaska 5 2ORMM JOB wimem AP~~~~~~~PROVEO OAT! REY41O DATE

04300,0.37.08 5/89

5.2.2.22 Site 55. Garrison Slough fDescripotionWGarrison Slough passes through the developed portion of the Base

and consists primarily of man-made drainage ditches that discharge to MooseCreek. As shown on Plate 2-3, the slough enters the Base at the south end and

travels north-northwest. Although little information is available on the

ambient quality of Base surface water, an oil sheen was detected on Garrison

Slough in 1975. It is in close proximity to or passes through several sites3

under investigation by the IRP program. A number of these site under

investigation by HLA include Sites 49, 20, 3/9, 35, 41, 42, and 32/34.3

Sediment samples collected from the slough at Sites 35, 41, 42, and 32/34 have

been found to contain petroleum hydrocarbons generally above 100 mg/kg.

Surface-water samples from the slough at Sites 35 and 42 contained variouspurgeable halocarbons and benzene and the surface-water sample from Site 32/34

contained chioromethane.Previous TestingNo previous testing has been performed at Garrison Slough as a a

unique site; however, a number of environmental samples were collected from it

during the 1988 investigation conducted by HILA at Sites 32/34, 35, 41, and 42.3

The environmental samples collected from the slough included:

* One sediment and one surface-water sample at Site 32/34;* One sediment and one surface-water sample at Site 35;* One sediment sample at Site 41; and* One sediment and one surface-water sample at Site 42.5

1989 Work Plan Data Quality ObJectives

Additional data needs for Garrison Slough, as identified in5

Section IV of the 1989 IRP Report, include investigating the slough to

evaluate the concentration, distribution, and possible source(s) of3

contaminants in the sediment and surface water.

The field activities recommended for acquiring these data areI

presented on Plate 2-3 and discussed in the following paragraphs.

00 57 R10

May 16, 1989 5-793

Surface-water/Sediment SamplingEleven surface-water samples and eleven sediment samples will becollected from the slough at the locations shown on Plate 2-3. Eachsediment and surface-water sample will be composited along transectsacross the slough; one aliquot each will be collected from the two banksand the center of the slough.

Chemical Analysis of SedimentA total of 11 sediment samples will be submitted to the laboratory foranalysis. Samples will be analyzed for moisture content, purgeablehalocarbons, purgeable aromatic compounds, semivolatile organicI ~ ~~~compounds, pesticides and PCBs, petroleum hydrocarbons, and ICP metalsscan.Chemical Analysis of Surface WaterA total of 11 surface-water samples will be obtained from the slough andsubmitted to the laboratory for analysis. Alkalinity, specificconductance, pH, and temperature, will be measured in the field. TheI ~ ~~~water samples will be analyzed for purgeable halocarbons and purgeablearomatic compounds, semivolatile organic compounds, pesticides and PCBs,ICP metals scan, total dissolved solids, common anions, and nitrogen.

5.2.2.23 North Boundary WellsTo evaluate the potential for off-base migration of contaminants,

six wells located on or near the north boundary of Eielson AFB are beingmonitored.- One of these wells is located within the limits of Site 32, whichI ~ ~was discussed in Section 5.2.2.10. Testing conducted on this well was alsoincluded in Section 5.2.2.10. The remaining five wells are separate from theI ~~sites currently under investigation.

Previous Testing3 ~~~~~Field investigations performed during 1988 by HLA at these fivewells, shown on Plate 5-22, included collecting one ground-water sample from5 ~~each well for laboratory analysis. During September/October 1987, similartesting was performed on these wells.

1989 Work Plan Data Oualitv Objectives

The field activities recommended for the North Boundary Wellsinclude collecting additional ground-water samples from each north boundaryI ~~well to assess the chemical migration trends. Five ground-water samples willbe collected from the wells. Alkalinity, specific conductance, pH, and

~~ ~ temperature will be measured in the field. The water samples will be analyzed

0057g1b3 ~~May 16, 1989 5-80

COLEN VALEYELE. SSKRAW_

J ~ 481 ZWA - 4 ( ~W 8 4

00101CONTAC

B~~~Bg~~~~~~~~~~

LEGEND3EXISTING MONITOR WELL LOCATION SCALE IN FEET

Harding Lawson Associates Proposed Sampling Plan

Engineers, Geologists- -

GeophysicistsNorth Boundary Wells 6& Geophysicists ~~~Eielson A.F.B., Alaska-I

DMA4 JOB H~MSE APPROVED DATE REMSD C

04300,037.08 5/89

3 ~~for purgeable halacarbons, purgeable aromatic compounds, semivolatile organiccompounds, arsenic, lead, mercury, ICP metals scan, total dissolved solids,3 ~~common anions, and nitrogen.

5.2.2.24 Background Elemental ConcentrationsI ~~~~~The range of naturally-occurring background concentrations is notavailable in the literature for all elements detected in the media sampled at3 ~~Eielson AFB. In order to assess the significance of the elements aridconcentrations detected, testing of metals in soils, sediments, ground water,3 ~~and surface water in the Eielson AFB area is recommended by HLA.

Previous TestingSamples were not collected on Eielson AFB for background chemical

analyses during the 1988 field investigation. Available information regardingbackground elemental concentrations in soil, sediment, ground water, andI ~~surface water of the study area is presented in Chapter II of the 1989 IRPreport. That discussion summarized an extensive literature search forbackground elemental concentrations in the Tanana-Yukon Valley.

The following metals were detected in the various media sampledI ~~across Eielson AFB: aluminum, antimony, arsenic, barium, beryllium, cadmium,calcium, chromium, cobalt, copper, iron, lead, magnesium, manganese, mercury,1 ~~molybdenum, nickel, potassium, sodium, thallium, vanadium, and zinc. Thedetected concentrations of arsenic, iron, manganese, magnesium, calcium,potassium, and sodium are generally within the expected ranges of background3 ~ ~concentrations for these elements. Concentrations of aluminum, chromium,lead, and mercury are elevated and usually exceed established drinking water5 ~~standards (drinking water standards have not been established for aluminum).However, no information is available in the literature on naturally-occurringI ~~background concentrations for these metals. The naturally high concentrationsof other metals in the study area appear to indicate that the high3 ~~concentrations of aluminum, chromium, lead, and mercury are naturally-occurring conditions.

0057R10I N~~ay 16. 1989 5-81

1989 Work Plan Data Duality Objiectives3

Additional sampling and analysis at Elelson is necessary to

establish a better understanding of background conditions so that the impact

of the investigated sites to the environment can be accurately assessed.

The field activities recommended for acquiring these data are

discussed in the following paragraphs. The locations for these activitiesI

will be established in the field in consultation with Eielson AFB personnel.

Our objective will be to pick sample locations in areas sbuth (upgradient) of3

the developed portion of the base that have not been impacted by base

activities. A field reconnaissance of the tentative sites will be made prior3

to finalizing site selection.

Test Boring/Monitoring Well InstallationBorings will be drilled and monitoring wells installed to assess thenaturally-occurring background concentrations of metals in soil andmetals and other inorganic analytes in ground water. Six borings willbe drilled to a depth of 20 feet bgs and converted to monitoring wells .3Each well will be screened over an interval of 10 feet. Two soilsamples will be collected from each boring for laboratory analysis.

Surface-Water/Sediment Sampl ingSix surface-water and six sediment samples will be collected fromsurface water bodies in the study area upgradient of sites underinvestigation by HLA or other Air Force consultants. The samples willIbe collected to assess the naturally-occurring background concentrationsof metals in sediment and metals and other inorganic analytes in surfacewater.3

Chemical Analysis of Soil/SedimentTwelve soil samples from the test borings/monitoring wells and sixsediment samples will be submitted to the laboratory for analysis.Samples will be analyzed for moisture content, mercury, and ICP metalsscan.I

Chemical Analysis of Ground and Surface WaterSix ground-water samples and six surface-water samples will be submittedto the laboratory for analysis. Samples will be analyzed for arsenic,Ilead, mercury, ICP metals scan, total dissolved solids, common anions,and nitrogen.

0057R1OMay 16, 1989 5-821

.4 Oco I a orao OlIr, Ino 0w C'NO. WI0 WI' N No0nN4 0 0 00.c o

- N - N r r r r In .- w If- - N 0

0

u - r

Co o ocoo IInn 0000I0'*WI WI0 000.-Or)4 m 000000 0 00C '00

0-

-S 0 ON 2mO4 o mnmo ocoofi anO N O 00 0 *

0

U L OIOO0 Irl If000N 0 00 IrIO r l 000 00 000 .In O004' ~ NIf C0. .4- N.

INMIW K NJ0

O - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Ofl~~lvilvilvi 0cot-nfltn fl'0040N fllvi~lvi CZO a fO bO

-- - 0 N- - - - - - - - - - -r)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - -- - - - - --' 0

-% 0 000Uw fll mu0O0 fl000 00 u 00INI.0~ WI NW

TO c4.' n M I N 0 0 n 0 I0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ IO O L O O t~', 0

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- N N ' N - - - -S C'-'M N 0 0 0 a 0 0 ,0 a , 0 0 0

>, -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Ci fl 0 00 a000 a onfla 00 a000000 COCO iO nOa00 0 0 N

a0 L~

0 0 ~ ~~~~ 0.01.10 TY'M0 *m

0 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ 0000000 00000I, "~c 10 00m 0 0 fO C

0~ ~ ~ IVZ I L S

WI-~~~~~~~~~~~~~R

0-.1*. rN ra N

3 ~~5.3 Integrated IRP Evaluation-Related Tasks

3 ~~5.3.1 Data ManagementSpecific data management procedures will be followed during the

IRP investigation to ensure the quality and integrity of data collected. TheI ~ ~IRP Information Management System (IRPIMS) will be used as a guideline forachieving, analyzing, manipulating, interpreting, and reporting data. HLA3 ~~will database geologic, hydrogeologic, well and boring characteristics, andchemical analytical results on an IBM 286 PC or equivalent computer system,3 ~~using the Lotus 1-2-3 spreadsheet format; These data will be coded tominimize potential data gaps and to expedite data entry time.3 ~~~~~As required by the IRP, HILA shall provide all technical data tothe USAFOEHL/TS Technical Program Manager.

1 ~~5.3.2 Hydrogeoloplc AssessmentHydrogealogic data collected during previous IRP investigationsS ~~will be reevaluated and re-assessed based on data collected as part of the

current IRP investigation. The purpose of these assessments is to: 1) define3 ~~subsurface geology (soil and rock materials); 2) identify saturated andunsaturated zones at each investigation site; and, 3) verify previously

£ ~~estimated ground-water flow paths and flow rates. Hydrogeologic assessmentsW ~~will be made from data collected from the following sources:

I ~ ~ ~~0 Literature reviews and previous investigations at IRP sites on thebase;

* Shallow and deep soil borings (samples to be collected fromI ~ ~~~~split-spoon samples and/or augers);

* Installation of monitoring wells (water level measurements will betaken to estimate the potentiometric surface(s), if ground wateris encountered);

* *~~~~ Well development (production rates will be recorded duringdevelopment of monitoring wells that have encountered groundwater).

0057R10I ~~May 16, 1989 5-83

Aquifer tests will not be performed as part of the 1989 fieldinvestigation. Hydrogeologic assessments based on the above investigatory

techniques shall include updating the following items as necessary:3

a Narrative descriptions of local soil and geology;

* Geologic cross sections (if applicable);

* Narrative descriptions of the ground-water characteristics fromprevious work and the incorporation of results from earlierIinvestigations; and

* Base-wide potentiometric maps based on water level measurementstaken from new and existing monitoring wells.I

5.3.3 Demographic Survey3As part previous IRP investigations, a demographic survey of the

area within a 3-mile radius of Eielson AFB was conducted. Information3

obtained during this demographic survey included:

* Types of land use;S* Approximate population within a 3-mile radius of the Elelson AFB

- site boundary;* Distribution of population densities and proximity to IRP sites;£* Distribution of age groups;* Range of family incomes;

Range of educational levels;I* Socioeconomics; and* Status of public health and welfare.

Information sources included the IRP Phase I report (CH2M Hill1982); IRP Stage 1 and 2 report (Dames & Moore 1985 and 1987); federal and3state geological agency reports; academic, municipal and county reports; andavailable aerial photographs. Results of this demographic survey are3

discussed in Chapter 2 of the IRP Report for Eielson AFB. Should supplemental

information concerning local demographics become available during performance

of work under the Work Plan, it will be incorporated as appropriate.

00 57R 10May 16, 1989 5-843

3 ~~5.3.4 Evaluation and Screening of DataData will be reviewed-to verify that it meets the specifications

described in the QAPP which will be developed as an element of this Work Plan.

Specifically, all baring logs and well completion details will be reviewed foraccuracy and completeness. Field measurements will be performed (e.g., waterI ~ ~levels) more than once to establish reliability of readings.Chains-of-Custody (C of Cs) will be reviewed for completeness and will be3 ~~checked to verify that samples were properly coded and logged. C of Cs will-also be reviewed to make sure that samples were analyzed within each of their3 ~~recommended holding times as specified in the QAPP.

All data will be evaluated and screened to make sure that their

accuracy is within acceptable limits. Questionable data will be identified

and qualified. HLA will perform a field QA audit to observe drilling and wellinstallation operations and sampling methods. Corrective actions to eliminate

unsatisfactory data will be handled on a case-by-case basis.

' ~~5.3.5 Map PreparationThe preparation of appropriate maps during Integrated RI/FS

3 ~~investigations will be determined from relevant available data. Datagenerated from Integrated RI/FS work will be consistent with the IRP Statement

3 ~~of Work. Construction of maps shall be based on the following criteria:

* Sufficient data exists to construct accurate maps conforming to3 ~~~~~~IRP format;

* The construction of a map will provide valuable assistance to the* ~~~~~report reviewers; and

* The construction of a map will aid in presenting, interpreting,and/or assessing data.

In addition to maps, the figures and plates used in the IRP report

3 ~~will conform to the IRP format.

0057RXO3 ~~May 16, 1989 5-85

5.3.6 Treatability StudiesTreatabilify studies are performed when more specific information

is required regarding waste behavior in an environment and the performancecapabilities of feasible technologies in order to select and implement theImost appropriate remedial action alternatives. During our Integrated RI/FSeffort, we will screen available technologies based on site conditions, waste icharacteristics and technical requirements to eliminate treatments that areinapplicable or not feasible.3

5.3.7 Risk AssessmentA quantitative risk assessment (QRA) evaluates potential adverse3

effects to public health and the environment in the absence of remedialaction, and if applicable, assesses the extent of remediation necessary far3the protection of human health and the environment. It can quantify therisk(s) and assist in developing a planned, appropriately scoped remediation3program. QRAs include the following sections, which correspond to steps inthe public health evaluation process:

* Indicator Chemicals Selection;* -Exposure Assessment;* Risk Characterization; and* Results.

The QRAs are consistent with the guidelines established by EPA in3its guidance documents for health risk assessments (EPA, 1986 and 1988).

Indicator Chemical Selection3The following information is considered in QRAs to identify

chemicals of concern: 1) media in which chemicals were analyzed; 2)3concentrations of detected chemicals; 3) naturally-occurring backgroundlevels; and 4) chemical/physical properties, persistence, environmentalimpacts and the migration potential of the chemicals. Indicator chemicalsIhaving concentration and toxicological properties representative of thepotential risks relevant to the site were selected by assigning detected3chemicals an indicator score and ranking them (method described in Appendix L

0057RI0May 16. 1989 5-863

" ~~of the HLA RI/FS report (1989). The selection process is modified if sitespecific considerations demand other approaches, as suggested by the SuperfundPublic Health Evaluation Manual (SPHEM) (EPA, 1986).

Exposure AssessmentEach QRA describes potential receptor populations specific to eachI ~~site, fate and transport of chemicals detected at the site, and potential

exposure pathways for each environmental media. Processes affecting fate and3 ~~transport combine to result in a reduction of chemical concentration in water,soil and air. The half-life is the time required for the concentration of a3 ~~specific compound to be reduced by one-half as a result of all processes thatremove or destroy that chemical.

Risk Characterization

Based-on the selected indicator chemicals and the exposureassessment, this section quantitatively evaluates the potential risks posed by

the indicator chemicals associated with each site. It presents a description* ~~of calculations used to determine chemical concentrations for each exposure

route and the intake assumptions for each potential exposure pathway. Theresults of calculations quantifying potential health risks from worst case and3 ~~typical and plausible maximum exposures are discussed. Models and formulasused to calculate exposure route concentrations in air are presented inAppendix L of the HLA RI/FS report (1988). These include calculations for theI ~ ~emission rate and atmospheric dispersion and downwind concentration.

Exposure route concentrations are used in dose calculations usingI ~~site-specific exposure scenario assumptions to estimate potentialnoncarcinogenic and carcinogenic risks.

I ~~~~~Noncarcinocenic RisksA chronic hazard index (CHI) calculated for the ingestion andinhalation exposure pathways to determine potentialnoncarcinogenic health risks. The CHI is the ritio of projectedU ~~~~~intake at the exposure point to an established reference dose oracceptable daily intake (AIC) for each indicator chemical. If thecalculated CHI is greater that 1.0, a health risk from chronicexposure may exist.

Carcinogenic RisksThe carcinogenic risk is calculated from the dose multiplied bythe Carcinogenic Potency Factor (CPF). The CPF is a valueestablished by EPA (EPA, 1986) for most potential carcinogens and

0057R103 ~~May 16, 1989 5-87

known carcinogens, and it generally is based on laboratory animalor epidemiological studies. The calculated carcinogenic riskIvalues from potential exposure to indicator chemicals are comparedto the acceptable ri k range established by EPA; values within a

range of 10- to 1O- are considered "acceptable."

Risks to terrestrial and aquatic wildlife from contamination could

potentially occur through several scenarios: runoff to downgradient surfacewaters and bioconcentration, biomagnification, or bioaccumulation in the food

chain; exposure to terrestrial organisms via direct contact with or ingestionof contaminated soil, water, or vegetation; and/or impacts to predator species.from ingestion of contaminated prey. Information needed to quantify the1potential impacts to terrestrial and aquatic wildlife may include information

on the aquatic and terrestrial species in the downgradient lake and stream3communities; the presence of sport fish and habits of fishermen in the area,if any; the contaminant absorption uptake, biodegradation, transformation and3

excretion in the species of concern; and a full characterization of thecontaminants present in the soil, surface water, and sediments at and

immediately downgradient from the site.

5.4 Integrated IRP Feasibility Study Tasks£

The FS portion of the RI/FS program represents a three-phaseprocess, during which remedial processes are identified and evaluated in steps3

to ultimately arrive at the most cost effective alternative which accomplishesremedial objectives. The elements of each phase of the FS are identified5

bel ow:

Feasibility Study Phase I:3

* Alternative remedial actions for each site are defined.

* Site problems are defined, based on remedial investigations,and site background.

* Site problems are segregatedintoappropriate tetechno logycategories.

* General response actions are defined.

0057R10May 16. 1989 5-883

Applicable technologies and process options are identified* ~~~~~~~and screened.

3 ~~~~~~~Remedial action alternatives are developed.

Feasibility Study Phase II:

3 ~~~~~~~Remedial action alternatives are screened.

Feasibility Study Phase III:

3 ~~~~~~~Detailed analyses are performed on remaining alternatives toidentify the most cost-effective alternative for3 ~~~~~~~implementation.

Based on investigations which have already been completed, the

3 ~~sites presently under RI/FS at Eiel son Air Force Base are in various stages ofcompletion. The objective of this Work Plan is to fill data gaps which have

* ~~become apparent based on analysis of data collected as part of previous RIactivities, such that the FS process for each site under investigation may be

carried through the third and final phase.

The following paragraphs address the typical FS process.

3 ~~5.4.1 Feasibility Study Phase I

3 ~~5.4.1.1 Identification of Alternative Remedial ActionsThe first step in the FS process is to define alternative remedial

3 ~~actions for each site. The following remedial actions or objectives will be

used as a basis for this project:

3 ~ ~ ~~0 No action* Alternatives that do not attain ARARs* Alternatives that attain ARARs* Alternatives that exceed ARARs

* Alternatives for off-site treatment and/or disposal

00 57R 103 fl~~ay 16, 1989 5489

Once these remedial actions have been established, existing siteproblems are defined based on evaluation of Remedial Investigation (RI) datawhich has been collected. This data includes site background information,previous studies, and initial RI activities. Once defined, these siteIproblems are divided into a variety of technology categories, including:

* Air pollution* Surface-water contamination* Ground-water contamination* Soil contaminationI* Concentrated wastes (drums, lagoons, etc.)* Contaminated water supply

* Contaminated seWer systems

It is important to note that a specific site problem may affect more than one3of these technology categories.

5.4.1.3 Identification of General Response ActionsOnce individual site problems have been defined and categorized,

general response actions are identified for each technology category. Typical Wgeneral response actions include:

* No action* Institutional' Containment3* Collection* Treatment* Removal

* Discharge

5.4.1.4 Identification and Screening of Technologies and Process OptionsIEach technology category is further subdivided into specific

technologies and process options which represent the basis for appropriate3remedial actions. Identified technologies are then screened to eliminateinapplicable and infeasible technologies based upon site conditions, waste3characteristics, and technical requirements. Special consideration is givento those technologies that permanently contain, immobilize, destroy, or3recycle contaminants, and technologies that promote energy recovery. Strong

0057R10Mlay 16, 1989 5-903

3 ~~consideration will also be given to technologies with a proven record ofsuccess. At this point in the process, technologies are not eliminated fromfurther consideration based strictly on their estimated costs.

If appropriate, technologies and process options are grouped intoOperable Units (OU) which represent a discrete part of the entire response

I ~~action that decreases a release, threat of release, or pathway of exposure.

3 ~~5.4.1.5 Development of AlternativesThe final step in Phase I of the FS is to develop remedial3 ~~alternatives based upon the technologies remaining after the initial

screening, for further analysis.

1 ~~5.4.2 Feasibility Study Phase 11

3 ~~5.4.2.1 Screening of AlternativesThe next step in the FS process is the screening of remedialS ~~alternatives developed at the end of Phase I. These remedial alternatives are

screened to eliminate those that are clearly infeasible or inappropriate,3 ~~prior to utidertaking detailed evaluation of the remaining alternatives inPhase III. Factors considered in the screening process include:

I ~~~~~Public Health/Environmental Impacts:

Adverse effects on the environment or public health and welfarewill result in elimination of an alternative from furtherconsideration.

3 ~~~~~Technical Feasibility:

Technologies that may prove extremely difficult to implement willnot achieve the remedial objectives in a reasonable time period,or will rely upon unproven technology should be eliminated or

3 C~~~~~ost:ed

Those alternatives having costs which are significantly in excessof equally effective alternatives are eliminated. Cost analyseswill be performed only on those alternatives which do not

adversely affect the environment or public health and welfare.

00 57R 103 ~~May 16, 1989 5-91

I 1~~~~~~~~

5.4.3 Feasibility Study Phase IIIThe final phase of the feasibility study is the detailed analysis U

of alternatives remaining after the initial screening performed in Phase II.

This detailed analysis consists of a number of steps which are discussed inthe following paragraphs.

5.4.3.1 Technical Evaluation of AlternativesA technical analysis will be performed to evaluate each remaining3

alternative with respect to its anticipated performance, reliability,implementability, and safety. This technical analysis will include:3

* Evaluation of each alternative's ability to perform its intendedfunction, including its anticipated useful life;3

* Discussion concerning alternative's compliances with ARARs;

* Discussion ofspecial site orwasteconditionsth thmyafetm afetperformance;

* Evaluation of operation, maintenance and monitoring requirements;

* Analysis of the need for off-site facilities, including their-compliance with existing and proposed RCRA and EPA programs;3

* Analysis of temporary contaminant storage requirements, off-sitedisposal needs, and transportation requirements;

* Discussion concerning treatment methods, with respect toIpermanence of treatment, resource recovery, and destruction ofwastes;3

* Discussion of safety requirements during implementation;

* Discussion of the potential for phasing the implementation3process;

* Discussion of the relative ease of installation, and the timerequired to achieve the desired level of response;I

5.4.3.2 Exposure AssessmentThe information used to define the type of action likely to be

taken at a site and the level of detail required for the exposure assessmentis of particular importance. Sites involving contamination that has not

00 57 R10May 16, 1989 5-923

3 ~~migrated much beyond the source generally calls for less stringent controlmeasures. Sites that have evidence of contaminant migration will have morestringent control and cleanup requirements than sites where only source

control remedial measures are being evaluated, a qualitative assessment of thepotential public health, welfare, and environmental affects will be made. AtI ~~a minimum, a qualitative exposure analysis will be made to evaluate the types,amounts, and concentrations of chemicals at the site, their toxic effects, the3 ~~proximity of target populations, the likelihood of chemical release andmigration3 ~~~~~The objective of an exposure assessment is to estimate thefrequency, magnitude, and duration of human and environmental exposure totoxic chemical contaminants released from a site. Among the tasks required in

this assessment are:

3 ~~~~~Identification of chemicals present at the site;

* Identification of points of potential exposure and exposurepathways;

* Characterization of populations potentially at risk; and

3 * ~~~~Estimation at key exposure points the environmental concentrationsof each indicator chemical.

3 ~~~~~Appendix B provides a complete list of questions that should beanswered in an exposure assessment.

5.4.3.3 Public Health Evaluation of Alternatives3 ~~~~~A detailed public health evaluation is performed on eachalternative undergoing a-detailed analysis. Each alternative will be assessedin terms of the -extent to which it mitigates long-term exposure to residual

contamination and protects public health both during and after completion ofthe remedial action. The no action alternative will serve as a baseline forU ~~this analysis.

0057iR105 ~~May 16, 1989 5-93

5.4.3.4 Environmental Impact Evaluation drEnvironmental impact evaluation is a major element in the detailed

analysis of alternatives. To assure that a given response is appropriate, an

assessment will be made of each alternative to determine whether or not itwill effectively mitigate and/or minimize damage to the environment. This

environmental assessment will focus on the site problems and potential

pathways of contamination.

The environmental assessment will address the effects of each

remedial alternative under consideration, including long- and short-term

effects. The level of detail in the environmental assessment will depend on3

the degree of actual or potential damage to the environment. Factors-

considered in determining the detail required include the following: effectsa

on environmentally sensitive areas, violation of environmental standards,U

short- and long-term effects, and irreversible commitment of resources.

Findings will be presented to allow the comparison ofI

alternatives. The evaluation will discuss both primary and secondary effects

on the remedial action. The residual contamination predicted for differentalternatives will be compared to existing criteria and standards, and theassessment criteria will be adapted to actual site conditions.3

5.4.3.5 Institutional Requirements Evaluation

The institutional effects such as federal, state, and localI

standards will be evaluated on the design, operation, and timing of each

alternative. In general, it is expected that regulatory programs under the3

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), the Safe Drinking Water Act

(SDWA), and the federal Clean Water Act (CWA) will have the broadest3applications to remedial actions. All other applicable health and

environmental standards will be identified.3

Permits are required for many environmental activities. Each

installation is required to obtain its own permits. The permits which may be

required (but not limited to) are the following:

Injection into an underground formation requires and Underground mInjection Control Permit.V

00 57R 10

May 16, 1989 5-943

* ~~~~~Transportation of hazardous waste to an off-site treatment,* ~~~~~storage, or disposal facility (TSDF) requires a RCRA TSDF permit.

* Discharge of pollutants or contaminants from a point source intoU.S. waters requires a National Pollutant Discharge EliminationSystem Permit (NPDES) pursuant to CWA Section 402.

* Disposal, treatment, or destruction of hazardous waste at seaI ~ ~~~~requires permits under the Marine Protection Research andSanctuaries Act (MPRSA).

* * ~~~~Discharge of pollutants into a publicly owned treatment works(P0TW) may require a local POTW permit.

3 ~~~~~Emissions of pollutants to the air may require a prevention ofsignificant deterioration (PSD) permit as required by the CleanAir Act (CAA).

5.4.3.6 Detailed Cost Analysis of Selected Alternatives* ~~~~~The final element of the detailed analysis of alternatives is the

preparation of cost estimates. For comparison purposes, these estimates

should be converted to equivalent present worth values. Costs should also be

presented on a cash-flow basis. Finally, the sensitivity of these costestimates to changes in key assumptions should also be discussed.

The total cost of an alternative includes the capital cost ofinstallation, and continuing operation and maintenance cost. These elements

* ~~are discussed in detail in the following paragraphs.

Capital Costs3 ~~~~~Capital costs consist of direct and indirect costs. Direct costsinclude expenditures for the equipment, labor, and materials necessary to

3 ~~install remedial actions. Indirect costs include expenditures for

engineering, financial, and other services not part of actual installationactivities but required to complete the installation of remedial alternatives.

U ~ ~Capital costs that must be increased in future years as part of the remedialaction alternative will be identified and noted for the year in which they

3 ~~will occur. It is particularly important to emphasize out year capital costs

in the summary of alternatives and to examine the impact of alternative

~~ ~discount rates in the sensitivity analysis. These will be critical factors in

0057R103 ~~May 15, 1989 5-95

making trade-offs between capital intensive technologies (includingalternative treatment and destruction technologies) and nan-capital intensivetechnologies (such as pump and treatment systems).

* Direct Capital Costs may include:

Construction costs: costs of materials, labor (including fringeIbenefits and worker's compensation), and equipment required toinstall a remedial action.

Equipment costs: costs of remedial action and service equipmentnecessary to enact the remedy; these materials remain until thesite remedy is complete.3

Relocation expenses: costs of temporary or permanentaccommodations for affected nearby residents.

Disposal costs: costs of transporting and disposing of wastematerials, such as drums and contaminated soil.

* Indirect Capital Costs May Include:I

Engineering expenses: costs of administration, design,aconstruction supervision, drafting, and testing of remedial actionalternatives.

Legal fees and license or permit costs, start up and shakedown3costs and contingency allowances.

Operation and Maintenance CostsUOperation and maintenance costs are post-construction costs

necessary to ensure continued effectiveness of a remedial action. The work3plan will consider the following operation and maintenance cost components:

* Operating labor costs (wages, salaries, and training), maintenance 3materials and labor costs, auxiliary materials and energy,sampling costs, laboratory fees, and professional fees for whichthe need can be predicted.

* Administrative costs, insurance, taxes, and licensing costs,

maintenance reserve and contingency funds.

* Rehabilitation costs and other costs (items that do not fit any ofthe above categories).U

00 57 R 0May 16. W89 5-963

Sources of Cost InformationIn estimating costs, site-specific factors identified in the

remedial investigation and the development of remedial action alternatives are

considered. The sources for these estimates are discussed below.

* ~~~~~Vendor Estimates

Based on detailed site and design information, equipment vendorsand construction companies can provide site-specific remedialI ~ ~~~~action construction and equipment cost estimates. Equipmentvendors can provide information on their equipment's servicerequirements. Equipment specifications often provide informationI ~ ~~~~on auxiliary materials and energy usage costs. Recommendedmaintenance schedules can provide a good indication of annualcosts, although they are often estimated as percentages of capital

* ~~~~~~costs.

Estimates for Projects

U ~~~~~Estimates for similar projects or, preferably, actual experiencewith such projects, are good sources of cost information. Costsmay also be estimated using standard guides such as the "MeansGuide' and the "Dodge Guide" and the various remedial guidesdeveloped by the EPA.

1 ~~5.4.3.7 Selection of Reconmmended Remedial ActionThe final step is FS Phase III is the evaluation of data generated

* ~~from the detailed analysis to determine the most cost effective alternative

which accomplishes remedial objectives, and is consistent with desired public3 ~~health, environmental, technical, and institutional parameters.Recommending a remedial action cannot be carried out by applying a3 ~~deterministic decision rule. The decision maker, armed with the necessary

information, must evaluate relevant and applicable standards, appropriatecriteria or guidance, health and environmental concerns, technological

reliability, cost, and other appropriate factors associated with eachalternative. These factors must be evaluated and specific circumstances at a

* ~~site taken into account during their evaluation.The summary of alternatives is the key step in comparing the

alternatives so that a cost effective remedy can be selected. Viable

altratvswill be arrayed in a summary, and will give primary consideration

0057R103 ~~May 16. 1989 5-97

to the remedies that attain or exceed applicable or relevant public health andenvironmental standards. A remedy will then be selected that attains or3exceeds applicable standards unless one of the specific circumstances

discussed below is determined to exist by the decision maker.

The feasibility study efforts may consider, and modify if necessary,criteria that were not developed for the specific application underconsideration. For example, Federal Water Quality Criteria are based onthe consumption of two liters of water and 6.5 grams of fish per day.If these criteria are used for ground-water remedies, an adjustment will Ibe made to consider consumption of water only.

* If disposal of hazardous substances off-site is part of the selected3response, the plan will ensure that any off-site facility selected isacceptable under the appropriate policy applicable to this installation.

* The plan may select a remedial action that includes both source control land management of migration response actions consistent with theappropriate policy.3

* The plan may select an on-site alternative that does not attainapplicable or relevant standards, recognizing that a consideration in amaking this determination is the extent to which the standard wasintended to apply to the specific circumstances present at this site.

* Wheni the specific circumstances preclude the selection of a remedy thatattains standards, the plan will select the alternative that mostclosely approaches the level of protection provided by the applicable orrelevant standard after considering the reasons for not meeting thatstandard. If the State desires the selection of a remedial actionIincorporating State standards more stringent than Federal standards, theplan may select that remedy.

The following information, at a minimum, will be provided for each

remedial alternative:3

* Present worth of total costs: the net present value of capital andoperating and maintenance costs will be presented.

* Health information: for the no action alternative, a quantitativestatement including an estimated range of maximum individual risks willbe provided. For source control options, a quantitative risk assessment Iwill not be required. For management of migration measures, aquantitative risk assessment, including an estimated range of maximum3individual risks, will be required. i

00 57R 10May 16, 1989 5-983

* Environmental effects: to simplify the evaluation, only the mostimportant effects will be summarized. Reference will be made tosupplemental information in a separate table, if necessary.

I * ~~~Technical aspects of the alternative: this information may stronglyinfluence the selection of a remedial alter native,_and it is importantto describe carefully the technical advantages and disadvantages ofalternatives. Such information generally is based on the professionalopinion of engineers familiar with the site and with the technologiescomprising the alternatives.

I * ~~~Information on the extent to which alternatives meet the technicalrequirements and environmental standards of appropriate environmentalregulations: this information will be arrayed so that differencesI ~ ~~~between the alternatives, in terms of how they satisfy such standards,are readily apparent. The kinds of standards applicable at the site mayinclude (1) RCRA design and operating standards, (2) drinking water3 ~~~~standards, and (3) environmental discharge standards.

* Information on community effects: the types of information that will beprovided include (1) the extent to which implementing an alternativewould disrupt the community (e.g., traffic, temporary health risks, andrelocation) and (2) the likely public reaction.

* Information on remedies involving removal of materials for off-sitedisposal: this information will document compliance with EPA policy onselecting off-site EPA approved facilities for disposal of materials3 ~~~~fromfCERCLA sites.

* Other factors: this category of information will include institutionalfactors that may inhibit implementing a remedial alternative and other

important site-specific factors.

I~~~~~07II~~~a 6 9959

VI REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

6.1 Reports

Reports to be submitted will be classified into four (4)categories, given their purpose and type of information presented therein.3 ~~These four categories are: R&D Status Reports, Informal Technical InformationReports, the Installation Restoration Program Report, and Decision Documents.3 ~~Following is a description of the documentation to be presented for eachreport type.

6.1.1 R&D Status ReportsR&D Status Reports will be prepared by the Project Leader/Program

Manager on a monthly basis to describe the technical and financial progress ofthe project. The purpose of the R&D Status Report is to inform the Technical

* ~~Program Manager of the progress of the project and to justify the man-hoursbilled during the reporting period.S ~ ~~~~In general, the report will address site activity; progress todate; completion status, relative to target completion dates; problems

* ~~encountered and actions undertaken to rectify them; future scheduleactivities; and other pertinent information. The report will include graphic

* ~~and tabular presentations to best illustrate the specific information beingpresented. Any deviation from the proposed work plan, as well as anexplanation for such action, will also be included. The report will bedetailed as necessary to completely present the work performed, as specifiedin the cost of services report. A specific outline of information to bepresented in monthly reports is included in Appendix C-i. When appropriate,preliminary drafts of technical report chapters will be included with monthly

* ~~reports.

6.1.2 Informal Technical Information ReportsI ~ ~~~~The Informal Technical Information Reports (ITIRs) will be~~ ~employed to present all data obtained and used for interpreting findings

leading to recommendations far the project.

0057R73 ~~May 15, 1989 6-1I

Specifically, ITIRs will be used as a means of presenting summary

data in the following applications.

'Todocument theremedial alternative development process,including the decision rationale (FS Phase I);

* To document the initial screening process (FS Phase II) forremedial alternatives developed during FS Phase I;I

* To describe the analysis procedures, results, and conclusionsdeveloped during the FS Phase III detailed analysis ofI

Pertinent data related to sampling and quality control will beU

included with ITIRs as appropriate. In general, these data would include:

test results, quality assurance/quality control, methods of analysis,

descriptive statistics, and other aspects will be addressed. Appendix C-2

details specifically the items to be presented. Tabular as well as graphic

means will be used to best illustrate the data and calculations. Required

formats will be employed where applicable.

6.1.3 - Installation Restoration Program Reports

The Installation Restoration Program (IRP) Report represents a

comprehensive document which will be prepared to fully document the RI/FS

process. The IRP Report, to be prepared under this Work Plan, will complement 3the 1989 IRP Report for the 22 sites presently under investigation at Eielson

AFB by addressing data needs identified in that report. The information3

required to fulfill these data needs represents the subject of the remedial

investigation work addressed in this Work Plan.3

The ultimate goal of the IRP Report is to delineate the economical

and feasible means of performing site remediation work that is in the best

interests of the Air Force and the public health, safety, and welfare. Theremedial investigation is the data collection mechanism for the feasibility

study process.

The collected data will be reported and used to analyze the

feasibility of different remedial alternatives. Should any additional data

gaps become apparent during analysis of field data collected under this Work

0057R7May 15, 1989 6-2

Plan, they will be identified for additional site investigation. Emphasiswill be placed on focusing the data in the report toward resolving the issues

* ~~that will determine the adequacy and design characteristics of the remedialalternatives.

The report will compile a site description, history, and

I ~ ~chronology of significant events. Data will be reported on hazardous wastesources, migration pathways, and potential receptors. A site description willI ~~be given, including location, size, ownership, topography, geologic history,and other pertinent details.

* ~~~~~The varietie's and quantities of hazardous wastes disposed of atthe site will be reported. Records of disposal practices and operatingprocedures at the site will be identified, as well as the location of thewastes on site, waste haulers, and waste generators.

The report will include a summary of existing site-specific and

regional information to identify subsurface, surface, atmospheric, and* ~~possibly biotic migration pathways. Of particular concern will be information

about geology, hydrogeology, hydrology, meteorology, and air, water, andbiologic inventories. Evidence of soil, water, air, or biotic contaminationwill be documented.

The potential effects of hazardous substances will be reportedrelative to the danger they pose to public health, welfare, or theenvironment. Impacts will be evaluated in terms of the source, migration,pathways, and receptors. Remedial actions, immediate removals, and plannedI ~ ~removals will be proposed where they are required to prevent or mitigateimmediate and/or significant risks to life, health, or the environment.I ~~~~~The IRP Report will integrate all existing site and wastecharacteristics into the remedial alternative development process (FSPhase I), screening of remedial alternatives (FS Phase II), and the detailedanalysis of the screened remedial alternatives (FS Phase III). Ultimately theIRP Report will form the basis for preparation of the appropriate DecisionDocument for each site under investigation.

A detailed outline of the IRP Report is presented in Appendix C-3.

0057R7

May 15. 1989 6-3

6.1.4 Decision DocumentsThe purpose of a Decision Document is to present, in a summary

format, the Air Farce's rationale for selecting a particular remedial action

alternative, including the selection of a No-Further Action alternative, andto formally document that selection by ensuring appropriate Air Force, state ,and federal agency coordination and concurrence. Decision Documents fall into

two categories, as discussed below:

' Technical Documents to Support No Further Action" are preparedKfor those sites where results of the investigation indicate thatno significant threat to human health and welfare or the

environment exists.* "Technical Documents to Support a Remedial Action Alternative" are

prepared for those IRP sites where the available data permitsIdetailed screening of remedial alternative actions and selectionof a recommended alternative. A Decision Document is prepared tosupport the selection process.

A detailed outline for a Decision document is shown in

Appendix C-4.a

0057R7~~~~~~~~~~~May 15, 1989 6-4~~~~~~

VII SCHEDULE

Scheduling of field activities is critical. Intrusive work must

I ~ ~be accomplished between the spring thaw in May and the onset of the hard frost

in September. Plate 7-1 presents a preliminary schedule of project activities

* ~~that allows for completion of field work within the above time frame.

I~~~~05RI~~~a 6 997

is09

60~~~_

80 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

L t0

90 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .

L E co__ _ _ _ _ _coC.

VE 0~~~~~~~~~~~I*. a

cc ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~MCC <OE LL~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~t Li

06 C~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~6Z <~~~~~~~~ E-

8Z _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

C ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~L -C/,S <

ZZ >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I Z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

61 0 .

ST _ _ _ _ _

of ~ ~ ~ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ -S0_________________ _____________ - m~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~LI L

_ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _4

91 _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ oof _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

M 0 0 mom~~~~~~~~~~~~~~* 'M1C

3 ~~~~~~~~~~~APPENDIX A

PROGRAN DOCUMENTS

1. Public Laws

I ~~~~UNITED STATES CODE

PL 96-510 Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensa-I ~ ~~~~~~~~~tion, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980

PL 9g-499 Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act

(SARA) of 1986

2. Regulations

CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS

40 CFR 136.3e, Required Containers, Preservation Techniques,Table II and Holding Times

40 CFR 136, Methods for Organic Chemical Analysis ofAppendix A Municipal and Industrial Wastewater

40 CFR 136, Definition and Procedure for the DeterminationII ~~~~Appendix B of the Method Detection Limit

40 CFR 136 Inductively Coupled Plasma-Atomic EmissionII ~~~~Appendix C Spectrometric Method for Trace Element Analysis

of Water and Wastes Method 200.7

40 CFR 300.61 - National Contingency PlanI ~ ~~~300.71 (Subpart F)

FEDERAL REGISTER

Vol. 51, No. 114, Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure13 June 1986 (TCLP)

3. Presidential Documents

* ~~~~EXECUTIVE ORDERS

EO 12088 Federal Compliance with Pollution Control Stan-dards (13 October 1978)

EQ 12580 Superfund Implementation (23 January 1987)

M0y057R198 A-OMayR16 198 - DRAFT

4. Manual sI

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

EPA-330/9-SI-002 NEIC Manual far Ground-water/Subsurface Investi-gations at Hazardous Waste Sites

Superfund Exposure Assessment Manual (January11986)

EPA-540/1-86-060 Superfund Public Health Evaluation ManualI(October 1986)

EPA-600/4-79-020 Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and3Wastes (1983)

SW-846 Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, ThirdEdition (1986)I

AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR TESTING AND MATERIALS3

D-1452 Soil Investigation and Sampling by Auger Boring

0-1586 Penetration Test and Split-barrel Sampling ofSoils

D-2487 Unified Sail Classification System5

0-2488 Recommended Practices for Visual-Manual Descrip-tion of Soils3

Annual Book of ASTM Section 11, Water and Environmental TechnologyStandards

5. Handbooks

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCYI

EPA-600/4-82-029 Handbook for Sampling and Sample Preservation ofWater and Wastewater (1982)I

0057R11May 16, 1989 A-23

6. Guidance Documents

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

I ~~~~EPA-540/G-85-002 Guidance on Remedial Investigations under CERCLA

g ~~~~EPA-540/G-85-003 Guidance on Feasibility Studies Under CERCLA

7. Journals

I ~~~~ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY

Vol. 55, Pages 2210-2218, Principles of Environmental Analysis, December

1983

I~~~~~071I~~~a 6,18 -

I ~~~~~~~~~~~APPENDIX B

3 ~~~~~~~~~POTENTIAL EXPOSURE QUESTIONS

5 ~~1. Chemical Identification

* What chemicals are known or suspected to have been disposed at the* ~~~~~~site?

* What quantities of each chemical were disposed?

£ *~~~~ How were they disposed (bulk dumping, drums, bulk storage)?

* Which chemicals are now in the environment (air, land, surface3 ~~~~~water, ground water)?

* What are the ambient levels of these chemicals in the air, ground3 ~~~~~water, surface water, and soil?

* What conditions or events could affect contamination levels on-and off-site?S *~~~~ What chemicals can be used as indicators of the overall risk at

-the site?

* ~~2. Surrounding Population

* ~~~~~Describe the population surrounding the site.

- How many people are potentially exposed?- Who are they (specifically high risk groups, e.g., children,

the elderly, or the ill)?I ~~~~- Where isthe population located relative to the site?- Is the area mainly for residence or business?- What type of access is there to the site?

What normal activities might be affected by contamination(e.g., farming by contaminated soil)?

3 * ~~~~What, if any, health-related complaints have been received? Havethese been documented or proven to be related to the site?

I . ~~3. Potential Exposure Routes

* Unavoidable on-site exposure (residences, etc.)- How are people exposed?- What are the routes of exposure (through inhalation, the

skin, or ingestion)?

0057R143 ~~May 16, 1989 8-1 DRAFT

-To what levels are they exposed (use monitoring data andmodeling if appropriate)?I

- How many people are exposed at these levels (i.e., througheach pathway)?

Voluntary on-site exposure

- How many people are exposed?- What are the routes of exposure (through inhalation, theI

skin, or ingestion)?- To what chemicals are people exposed?- To what levels are they exposed (use monitoring data andI

modeling if appropriate)?- How many people are exposed at these levels (i.e., through

each pathway)?I- Can this exposure be prevented?

* Off-site exposure (actual and potential)3

- What environmental routes much chemicals take for exposure?- How likely are these routes of exposure?- When is exposure expected to occur?1

- How are people exposed (through inhalation, the skin, oringestion)?

- To what chemicals are people exposed?- To what levels are they exposed (use monitoring data and

modeling if appropriate)?- How many people are exposed at these levels (i.e., through

each pathway)?* Other non-waste-related exposures

- Is the population, or are segments of the population,exposed to any of these chemicals from other routes, e.g.,in the workplace?U

- Are the ambient environmental levels of any of the chemicalsknown?

- Are they suspected to be abnormally high for any reason?3

4. The Effect of Not Taking Action

* Technical Issues

- What will happen if not action is taken (e.g., lagoonfailure, aquifer contamination, drum failure, aircontamination)?

- What chemicals will be of concern?

0057R14May 16, 1989 B-2

U~~~~~~xoueIse3 Exposur- Watexpsuewill result from not taking action?

- Wlexoueincrease indefinitely?U ~~~~~- Will exouerise and then fall? Over what time?- What is the predicted range of eventual contamination and

exposure?

U~~~~071I~~~a 6,18 -

S ~~~~~~~~~~~APPENDIX C

3 ~~~~~~~~~REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

Appendix C-i Outline of R&D Status Report (Monthly Report)

Appendix C-2 Outline of Information Technical Information Report (ITIR)

D ~~Appendix C-3 Outline of Installation Restoration Program (IRP) Report

Appendix C-4 Outline of Decision Documents

U~~~~~RF

3 ~~~~~~~~~~~APPENDIX C-I

TYPICAL R&D STATUS REPORT CONTENTS

Monthly Status Report Elements:,

I ~~~~~Identification of site and activity;

3 ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 Status of work at the site and progress to date;

* Percentage of completion and schedule status;'3 *~~~~ Difficulties encountered during the reporting period;

* Actions being taken to rectify problems;

* *~~~~ Activities planned for the next month;

3 *~~~~ Preliminary drafts of technical report chapters, if appropriate.

a.~~~05RI~~~a 6 18 -

3 ~~~~~~~~~~~APPENDIX C-2

GENERAL OUTLINE FOR INFORMAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (ITIR)

I ~~ITIR FOR ANALYTICAL DATA

3 ~~Laboratory Test Results for Each Sample Analyzed

a. Reporting Units:

3 ~~~~~ug/L (organics in water samples)* mg/L (inorganics in water samples)* mg/kg (soils, sediments, and solid waste matrices)

U ~~b. Numerical Results for All:

* First-column gas chromatographic analysesU * ~~~~Second-column gas chromatographic analyses

g GA/~OOC Summary Repoart

a. Analytical Test Results for Laboratory QA/QC Samples:

(Identify QC samples to the applicable analytical batch/sample set.)

* Method blanks* -Check samples* Surrogate spike recoveries* Duplicates* Matrix spikes

* Matrix spike duplicates, etc.b. List of Laboratory QA/QC Control Limits

* ~~C. Glossary of Terms and Symbols

* ~~d. Discussion of Analytical Problems and Corrective Actions Taken

Cross Reference

* ~~a. Table Showing:

* Laboratory sample numbers* Field numbersU * ~~~~Sampling site/location:

* Site number* Well number* Borehole number

* Pge number(s) in the ITIR where the laboratory report(s) can befound

0057R9May 16. 1989 C-2 - I

b. Format: See Table G-1, "Sample Identification Cross Reference,'"Sect~on~ a of. USAFOEHL/TS Handbook, Version 2.0, dated April 1988.

Methods

a. Table Showing:

* Methods usedI*Method detection and quantitation limits achieved

b. Format: These data will be reported in the format shown in Table G-2,5"Analytical Detection and Quantitation Limits," Section 3 of USAFOEHL/TSHandbook, Version 2.0, dated April 1988.

Holding Times

a. Table Showing the Dates and Times, if Applicable, of Sample:5

* Collection* Extraction (if applicable)

* Analysi's

b. Format: Holding times shall be reported in the format specified inTable G-3, "Summary of Extraction and Analysis Dates," Section 3 of 6USAFOEHL/TS Handbook, Version 2.0, dated April 1988.

Chain-of-Custody Forms Which Show:3

a. Date of Sample Collection

b. Date Received by Laboratory3

C. Custody Transfer Signatures

-1 ~~ ~6

0057R9May 16, 1989 C-2 -2

3 ~~~~~~~~~~~APPENDIX C-3

OUTLINE OF INSTALLATION RESTORATION PROGRAM (IRP) REPORT

Report Cover

* ~~Title Page

Disclaimer

3 ~~Report Documentation Page (OD Form 1473)

Pref ace

I ~~Table of Contents

g ~~List of Figures and Plates

List of Tables

I ~~Executive Summary

* ~~1.0 Introduction

2.0 Environmental Setting

3.0 Field Investigation Program -

4.0 Results and Significance of Findings

5.0 Alternative Remedial Measures

6.0 Recommendations

I ~~Bibliography (including list of scientific references and personalcommunications)

I ~~Appendices

A. Glossary of Definitions, Nomenclature, and Units of MeasureB. Copy of Task Descriptions/Statement of Work (SOW)

I. ~~C. Well Data and Lithologic Logs, including:

1. Well design and well completion information2. Drilling logs3. Lithologic descriptions of rock units penetrated

0057R9I N~~ay 16, 1989 C-3 - 1

IV DATA ANALYSIS/RISK ASSESSMENT3

4.1 Soils

4.2 Ground Water

4.3 Surface Water

4.4 AirI

4.5 Summary3

V SELECTED ACTION

5.1 Alternatives Evaluation35.1.1 Discuss all alternatives considered and reasons for not

selecting (include no-further action alternatives

5.2 Consistency with Environmental LawsI5.2.1 Discuss how a no-further action alternative complies with

applicable or relevant and appropriate (federal and state)

requirements (ARAR's)VI REGULATORY AGENCY/PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

6.1 Discuss coordination with regulatory agencies and how theirconcerns have been handled

6.2 Briefly describe the level of community involvement and nature ofIsupport or concern and how they have been addressed

6.3 Responses to all Public CommentsI

00 57 RMay 16. 1989 C-4 - 2

3 ~~~~~~~~~~~APPENDIX 0

REFERENCES

U ~ ~ACS (American Chemical Society), 1983b. Fate of Chemicals in the Environment:Symposium Series #225.

ADNR (Alaska Department of Natural Resources), 1988. Land and Water Manage-ment, Water Rights Designations, Anchorage, Alaska.

Alaska Heritage Resource Survey, 1988. Site Descriptions, Anchorage, Alaska.

State of Alaska, 1982. Drinking Water Regulations, Title 18, Chapter 80.

American Public Health Association, 1985. Standard Methods for the Examina-tion of Water and Wastewater, 16th Edition.

Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center (AEIDC), 1986. Alaska Cli-mate Summaries, Alaska Climate Center Technical Note No. 3: University of'Alaska.

ATSDR (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry), 1987a. Draft Toxi-cological Profile for Benzenie.ft ~~ATSDR (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry), 1987b. Draft Toxi-cological Ptofile for Methylene Chloride.

ATSDR (Agency far Toxic Substances and Disease Registry), 1987c. Draft Toxi-cological Profile for Benzo (A) Pyrene.

ATSDR (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry), 1987d. Draft Toxi-cological Profile for Chromium.

ATSDR (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry), 1987e. Draft Toxi-cological Profile for Cadmium, U.S. Public Health Service, November..

ATSDR (Agenvy for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry), 1987f. Draft Toxi-U ~ ~~cological Profile for Benz(a)anthracene.

ATSDR (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry), 1987g. Draft Toxi-cological Profile for Benzo(b)fluoranthene.

ATSDR (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry), 1988a. Toxicologi-3 ~~~cal Profile for Lead.

ATSDR (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry), 1988b. Draft Toxi-cological Profile for Trichloroethylene.

Balding, G.O., 1976. Water Availability, Quality, and Use in Alaska, U.S.Geological Survey, Open-File Report, 76-513.D RF00 57 R12May 16, 1989 1D RF

Burgher,- Btlepr M., and Zieger, W., 1987. Remedial Action Costing

Procedures-Monualh 'U.S;-tnvironmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio,EPA/600/8-87-049.

CailahAn,. M..A,~, leta3&, 1979. Water-Related Environmental Fate of 129 Prior- -ity Pollutantsb-E:"VolsL -II, Office of Water Planning and Standards, Officeof Water and Waste Management, Washington, D.C., EPA 440/4-79-029.3

C asirett and Doul's Toxicology, Third Edition.

Cauffman, Ken, 1988. -fielson AFB, personal communication.

Cederttromr, QegfinJohn4rlS62. Ground-water Resources of the Fairbanks Area,Alaska: Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 1590, Washington D.C.,U. S: SPP.

CHEM4LINE Oatabaset ,1988. -~DDT, Chemical and Physical Properties.

Church~-l1, Alan, 1988. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Hydrology Section,* Afihoragt,, Alaska, personal communication.

SNZflM 9VT1ir, 1982. Installation Restoration Programs Records Search, EielsonA-8, Ai~sa-k. 4~

ClqIntAiAsspciat~s, Inc.;41985. Chemical, Physical, and Biological Properties*f nVCofi*Qun4s Present at->Hazardaus Waste Sites, Prepared by EPA.

Corii~k, Richard, 1988. personal commnunication to Colonel Nelson L. Lovegren, UE1elism'" AF8z- M.aska;Qepartment of Environmental Conservation.

Dames, & Moore,' 1987. Installation Restoration Program, Phase II - Confirma-Ition/Quantification, Stage 2, Eielson AFB, Alaska.

-pamks Moore, 1985., ,Installation Restoration Program, Phase II - Confirma-r~,~tlon'Quantlf4Cat4onisSt4gtc 1.;,Eteisdn AFB, Alaska.I

-Dames'.& Moore,,1983. Presurvey Report, IRP Phase Ila, Elelson AFB, Alaska.

Eielson AFB, 1988. FY87 Economic Resource Impact Statement, Eielson AFB,Aloka.-

§ PA;. 1989r, £ntegrated'Risk~Inforgiktionl System (IRIS) Database.

EPA, 1988. Superfund Exposure Assessment Manual: Office of Emergency andr'~R~me4AalD)ReepohsiQ OSWERCDirectiveS;9285.51 1, March, 1988.

EPA, 1987a. Toluene Health Advisory: Office of Drinking Water.f~~~,EPA, 1987b. Health' Advisoryrfor Xylenps,, Office of Drinking Water.

0057R12May 16. 1989 2

3 ~~EPA, 1987c. Health Advisory for Ethylbenzene, Office of Drinking Water.

EPA, 1987d. Exposure Factors Handbook:-,'Office of Health and EnvironmentalAssessment, Prepared by Versar, Inc.,September, 1987.'

EPA, 1987e. The Safe Water Drinking Act, MaiiMum Contaminant, Levels and Maxi-mum Contaminate Level Goals, 52 Federal Register 25690.. - -

I ~ ~~EPA, 1987f. Federal Register, Volume 52-166 -324-96-99.

EPA, 1986a. Superfund Public Health Evaluation Manual: Office of EmergencyI ~ ~~and Remedial Response, EPA/540/1-96/060, Octoblr, 1986.,,-'EPA, 1986b. Test Methods for Evaluation of SSJ id.Walte, Pkysical/chemic~atI ~ ~~Methods, SW-846, Third Edition. 2

EPA, 1985a. Handbook, Remedial Action at Waste Disposal Sites ('rev'ised):U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office afResearch-and De ,velopment,Cincinnati, Ohio, EPA/625/6-85-006.

-

EPA, 1985b. Proposed Maximum Contaminant Level Gaals4 150Feideral Regi ster46936.ft ~~EPA, 1985c. Proposed Maximum Contaminant Levels, 50 Federal RegistsaK.46902.

EPA, 1984a. Health Effects Assessment for-Lead: Office'of ResoarchtandDevelopment, Office of Health and Environmental Assessmdint,ŽG-inciA#tati, OH,September, EPA/540/1-86/055.

-

EPA, 1984b. Health Effects Assessment of Polvcyclic Aromitic Hydrdcat-bons(PAH): Office of Research and Development, Office of Health And EAviton-mental Assessment, Cincinnati, OH, September, 1984, EPA/540/1-86/013.

EPA, 1984c. Health Effects Assessment for DOT, PB8S-134376. '

EPA, 1983. Methods for ChemicaliAnalypisiof-Watei.and~,uits3600/4-79-020.

2'

I ~~~EPA, 1980. Clean Water Act, Ambient Water Quality' Crite*r'ia,' -46)' edera1' Reg i s-ter 7931t8<P/79379dt.ardp~f~

I~ ~ ~P,17.WtrRltdEvrnetlFt f19Pirt Pollutants,Volme I: ffce f Wte-,PaonngahdStadads;Offteof'WAst& -Water

EPA, 1977. Air Quality CriteriaeforLaaed-tr`(Y .f1ce of Research and Ddvelop-ment, Washington, D.C., EPA/600/8-77/017.

Fairbanks North Star Borough, 1983. 1980 Census FNSB, Vol. 1, Population andHousing Characteristics: 4Community ResiarclCehter; Speciar'Report'No. 10.

0057R12May 16, 1989 3

Fairbanks North Star Borough, 1983. 1980 Census FNSB, Vol. 2, Social and Eco-

nomic thoiracteristics:, Conunity Research Center, Special Report No. 11.

Fairbinks' Nortfh Star Borough, 1988. Community Research Center, CommunityRes earch Quarterly, Fairbanks, Alaska, Vol. XI, No. 3.

F'qpe A.J]., 4np{Williams, .J.R., 1962. Data on Wells in the Elelson Air-Force Base Area, Alaska: U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Sur-

vey, Water Resources Division, Ground-Water Branch.

Foj~x~TL.,K~eith, T.C., and Menzie, W.D, 1987. Geology of East-CentralAlaska U.S. Depar tment of the Interior, Geological Survey, Open-FileIReport 87-188.

~Fost tg,(fder', FJ,R.,Forbes, R.B., and Brabb, E.E., 1973. Regionaldeology ofbuo-Ta'hana Upland Alaska, in Arctic Geology: American Associ - -

ation of Petroleum Geologists Memoir, No. 19, p. 388-395.- 2'~~'(

.Friedmian, He~r&, ,1989. Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation-IAnchorage'ADEC, personal Communication.

Go~g,- d~~alsd'Seversonh R.C., 1983. Chemical Analyses of Native Soil and3

OVg''t ation ~amples,'Capps Coal Field, Alaska: U.S. Geological Survey,

Opent-File Report 83-246.

GreenbergAE'fu'sl, R.R., Clesceri, L.S., and Franson, M.A., eds.,1985. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, Six-~teenth.Editio~Ws~~o PCpeae jointly by the American PublicFH~al'th'Assbciition, Aerneican Water Works Association, and Water Pollution

Control Federation.

Harding Lawson Associates, 19§9. ~Installation Restoration Program, RemedialIInvestigation/Feasibility Study, Eielson AFB, Alaska.

H.ai~ihg -L -sb&o~"A bs'c'laiheks, I9~ l RI/FS Stage 3, Analytical Results of',~~othBqun4ary,,W9UlS4!opling..I

Hawkins, Daniel B., and others, 1982. Arsenic in the Water, Soil, Bedrock,:t And-Pl{4ts of,)theEster.,9ome Area of Alaska: Institute of Water Resources, IUnivertity~ of Alaska, Fairbinks, Alaska.

Jobs.g'p n) ,.,ptA ~ n ttsM9§ Arspnic, Nitrate, Iron, and Hardness inI'tr~~jnd W ate, rbAqk~s' Area74fis~ pS Geological Survey, Open-File

Report, 78-1034'.'

Kalh d ssociaies".~w"rns it ~in Building 3360: ProjectINumber EIE 87-'0b61,. Fiiafrnks A~ iska.

lkrumhardt',AndrearP 1983. Arsenic_;4Mitrate Itpn, and Hardness in GroundSWater, Chena Hot Springs Road, Steele Creekc Road, and Gilmore Trail Areas,Fairbanks, Alaska, U.S. Geological Survey, Open-File Report, 82-356.

0057R12May 16, 1989 4,.

I ~~~Krumhardt, Andrea P., 1982. Hydrologic Information for Lan'd'lse-7 Pl annilng,Badger Road Area, Fairbanks, Alaska: U.S. Geological Survey, WaterResources Investigations, 82-4097.'-

Krumhardt, Andrea P., 1979. Arsenic, Nitrate, Iron, and Hardness in GroundWater, Chena Ridge Vicinity, Fairbanks, Alaska: U.S.iG~ological Sufrvey,Open-File Report, 80-49. -

Lamke, Robert, December, 1988. U.S. Department of the Interior, GeologicalSurvey, Water Resources Division, Anchorage, Alask;, petsonal-'communica-tion. ¾-

Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory, 1979. Results of Elemental Analyses ofWater and Waterborne Sediment Samples from the Fairb'an-ks,,N.TMS-ouidti~leAlaska: University of California. ge

Neely, W. B., and G. E. Blau (ed.), 1987. Environmental Exposure from Chemi-I ~ ~~cals, Volume 1, Chemical Rubber Company, Boca Raton, Fiaorid't.

Nelson, Gordon, 1978. Hydrologic Information for Land-Use Planning, FairbanksI ~ ~~Vicinity, Alaska: U.S. Department of the,lne -!,~lgclSrd~Open-File Report 78-959, Anchorage, Alakk. '" ti

Peluso, Thomas, 1989. Eielson Air Force BsPlmigDpartrnent, personalU ~~~communication.--}-

Townsend, A1, 1988. State of Alaska Fish and' Gam-e;, Fairbanks, pertloh4 3commu-I ~ ~~nication.

USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers), Alaska District, Hydrology Section,I - ~ ~1988. Ground-Water Flow Patterns, Eielsoh Air Fol-ce Base, Alaska. -

USAF (U.S. Air Force), 1988. Economip,?esoprce Impact Statement F 96

H ~~~USAF, 1987. Land Management Plan',Elielso-ir:t-cti~""!Asi,,At eision, June 1987 to May 1992. AtP*c le/IasiTrdRv

USAF, Bioenvironmental Engineering ,evl~s 198r,:ir1bltonEltInventory.

USAF, 1986b. Outdoor Recreati on M6gpn 1a~ i- a i bce tdI ~ ~~Alaska, Second Revision, January 1986 to bcsB<9.

USAF, 1984. Fish and Wildlife Management Plan, Eiejsan Air Farce.Base,-I ~~~Alaska, Third Revisiofi Janu~iry 1984;t6 becembet''~z -

USAF, 1983. Forest Management Plant EielsonAir, Force Base, Alaska,,Initj'alPlan, November 1983 to'October 1988.'- ' '

0057R12M-ay 16, 1989 5

USAf0EHL-TS, 198%8 Version 2, Handbook to Support the Integrated InstallationRestoration-Program (IRP), Brooks AFB, Texas, April 1988.I

U.S. Department -of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, 1g77. Ground Watery(jbpial, A Water Resources Technical Publication, First Edition.

YamasakigN-.'~ et Al., 1982. Effects of Amibient Temperature on Aspects of Air-borne Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons: Environmental Science and Technol-

<ogy, Vol. 16: 189-194.

0057R12~~~~~~~~~~May 16. 1989 6~~~~~~~