Draft Final Feasibility Study Tanaga and Ogliuga Islands, Alaska

Home , Attu Island, Delarof Islands, Gareloi Volcano, Sanak Island, Tanaga Island

AECOM

Prepared for: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Alaska District Contract: W911KB-08-D-0004 Task Order: 0008

Feasibility Study Formerly Used Defense Sites (F10AK022801 and F10AK018002) Tanaga and Ogliuga Islands, Alaska Draft Final

September 2012 F10AK022801_xx.xx_yyyy_a; AECOM Project No.: 60133134 200-1e F10AK018002_xx.xx_yyyy_a; 200-1e

This page intentionally left blank.

DRAFT FINAL FEASIBILITY STUDY FORMERLY USED DEFENSE SITES (F10AK022801 AND F10AK018002) TANAGA AND OGLIUGA ISLANDS, ALASKA

Prepared for:

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Alaska District CEPOA-ESP-FUDS P.O. Box 6898 JBER, Alaska 99506-6898

Contract: W911KB-08-D-0004 Task Order: 0008 AECOM Project No.: 60133134

Prepared by:

AECOM Technical Services, Inc. 1835 South Bragaw Street, Suite 490 Anchorage, AK 99508

______Prepared By Sarah Byam, Engineer

______Reviewed By John Jones, Senior Reviewer

______Reviewed By Mike A. Jones, Task Order Manager

F10AK022801_xx.xx_yyyy_a; September 2012 200-1e F10AK018002_xx.xx_yyyy_a; 200-1e

This page intentionally left blank.

CONTENTS

Acronyms and Abbreviations vii 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Tanaga Island 2 1.2 Ogliuga Island 3 2.0 PREVIOUS STUDIES 9 2.1 Tanaga Island 9 2.1.1 Archaeological Studies 9 2.1.2 Land Ownership Status 9 2.1.3 Areas under Investigation 9 2.1.4 Main Camp Area 10 2.1.5 Barrel Dump Area 14 2.1.6 Airstrip Area 15 2.1.7 Southeast of Airstrip Area 18 2.1.8 North of Airstrip Area 20 2.1.9 Tower Area 22 2.1.10 Pumphouse Area 23 2.1.11 Landfill Area 24 2.1.12 Small Arms Firing Range Area 25 2.2 Ogliuga Island 26 2.2.1 Land Ownership Status 26 2.2.2 Areas Under Investigation 26 2.2.3 Ogliuga Runway Camp Area 26 2.2.4 Ogliuga East Area 28 2.2.5 Ogliuga West Area 28 3.0 IDENTIFICATION OF CHEMICALS OF CONCERN 79 3.1 Background Metals 79 3.2 Arsenic 79 3.3 Methodology for Tanaga and Ogliuga 79 4.0 APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS 85 4.1 Chemical-specific ARARs 86 4.2 Location-specific ARARs 86 4.3 Action-specific ARARs 86 4.4 Cleanup Levels 87 4.4.1 ADEC Method Two Cleanup Level 87 4.4.2 ADEC Method Three Assessment and Cleanup Criteria 87 4.5 Summary of Media and Volumes in Excess of Cleanup Levels 89 5.0 IDENTIFICATION AND SCREENING OF TECHNOLOGIES 101 5.1 Remedial Action Objectives 101 5.2 General Response Actions 101 5.3 Identification of Remedial Technologies 102 5.3.1 Remedial Technologies Applicable to All Site Media 102 5.3.2 Remedial Technologies for Soil/Sediment 102 5.3.3 Remedial Technologies for Groundwater/Surface Water 108 5.4 Screening of Technologies 109 5.4.1 Remoteness and Energy Sources 110 5.4.2 Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge 110 6.0 IDENTIFICATION AND ANALYSIS OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES 115 6.1 Alternative 1 – No Action 115 6.2 Alternative 2 – Institutional Controls and Monitored Natural Attenuation 115

September 2012 iii DRAFT FINAL Draft Final Feasibility Study Tanaga and Ogliuga Island FUDS, AK Contract No. W911KB-08-D-0004 AECOM Project No: 60133134

6.3 Alternative 3 – Hot Spot Removal 115 6.4 Alternative 4 – Landfarming 116 6.5 Alternative 5 – Mobile Burn 116 6.6 Alternative 6 – Complete Removal and Off-site Disposal or Treatment 117 6.7 Alternative 7 – In Situ Chemical Oxidation 117 7.0 COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF REMEDIAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES 123 7.1 Evaluation Criteria 123 7.2 Cost Estimate Methodology 123 7.3 Comparison of Alternatives 123 7.3.1 No Action 123 7.3.2 Monitored Natural Attenuation and Institutional Controls 124 7.3.3 Hot Spot Removal 124 7.3.4 Landfarming 124 7.3.5 Mobile Burn 125 7.3.6 Complete Removal and Off-site Disposal or Treatment 125 7.3.7 In Situ Chemical Oxidation 126 8.0 CONCLUSIONS 131 9.0 REFERENCES 133

APPENDIXES A UVOST Surfer Areas B TOC Calculation C Risk Calculations D Racer WSBs

FIGURES 1-1 General Location of Tanaga and Ogliuga FUDS 5 1-2 Tanaga Island FUDS Investigation Areas 6 1-3 Ogliuga Island FUDS Investigation Areas 7 2-1 Tanaga Main Camp Area Features of Interest 31 2-2 Barrel Dump Area Features of Interest 32 2-3 Tanaga Airstrip Area Features of Interest (northern section) 33 2-4 Tanaga Airstrip Area Features of Interest (southern section) 34 2-5 Tanaga Southeast of Airstrip Area Features of Interest 35 2-6 Tanaga North of Airstrip Area Features of Interest 36 2-7 Tanaga North of Airstrip and Small Arms Firing Range Area Features of Interest 37 2-8 Tanaga Tower Area Features of Interest 38 2-9 Tanaga Pumphouse Area Features of Interest 39 2-10 Ogliuga Runway Area Features of Interest 40 2-11 Ogliuga East Area Features of Interest 41 2-12 Ogliuga West Area Features of Interest 42

September 2012 iv DRAFT FINAL Draft Final Feasibility Study Tanaga and Ogliuga Island FUDS, AK Contract No. W911KB-08-D-0004 AECOM Project No: 60133134

6-1 Alternative 4: Potential Landfarming Cell Placement 119 6-2 Potential Mobile Burn Facility Placement 120

TABLES 2-1 Summary Statistics for Soil Sampling for Main Camp 43 2-2 Summary Statistics for 2009 RI Sediment Sampling for Main Camp 45 2-3 Summary Statistics for 2009 RI Groundwater Sampling for Main Camp 46 2-4 Summary Statistics for 2009 RI Surface Water Sampling for Main Camp 47 2-5 Summary Statistics for Soil Sampling for Barrel Dump 47 2-6 Summary Statistics for 2009 RI Sediment Sampling for Barrel Dump 50 2-7 Summary Statistics for 2009 RI Groundwater Sampling for Barrel Dump 50 2-8 Summary Statistics for 2009 RI Surface Water Sampling for Barrel Dump 51 2-9 Summary Statistics for Soil Sampling for Airstrip 52 2-10 Summary Statistics for 2009 RI Sediment Sampling for Airstrip 53 2-11 Summary Statistics for 2009 RI Surface Water Sampling for Airstrip 54 2-12 Summary Statistics for Soil Sampling for Southeast of Airstrip 54 2-13 Summary Statistics for 2009 RI Sediment for Southeast of Airstrip 56 2-14 Summary Statistics for 2009 RI Groundwater for Southeast of Airstrip 57 2-15 Summary Statistics for 2009 RI Surface Water for Southeast of Airstrip 58 2-16 Summary Statistics for Soil for North of Airstrip 58 2-17 Summary Statistics for 2009 RI Sediment for North of Airstrip 60 2-18 Summary Statistics for 2009 RI Groundwater for North of Airstrip 60 2-19 Summary Statistics for 2009 RI Surface Water for North of Airstrip 61 2-20 Summary Statistics for Soil for Tower 61 2-21 Summary Statistics for 2009 RI Sediment for Tower 62 2-22 Summary Statistics for 2009 RI Groundwater for Tower 63 2-23 Summary Statistics for 2009 RI Surface Water for Tower 63 2-24 Summary Statistics for Soil for Pumphouse 64 2-25 Summary Statistics for 2009 RI Sediment for Pumphouse 65 2-26 Summary Statistics for 2009 RI Groundwater for Pumphouse 66 2-27 Summary Statistics for 2009 RI Surface Water for Pumphouse 67 2-28 Summary Statistics for 2009 RI Soil for Landfill 68 2-29 Summary Statistics for 2009 RI Sediment for Landfill 68 2-30 Summary Statistics for 2009 RI Groundwater for Landfill 69 2-31 Summary Statistics for 2009 RI Surface Water for Landfill 70 2-32 Summary Statistics for Soil for 2009 RI Small Arms Firing Range 70 2-33 Summary Statistics for 2009 RI Sediment for Small Arms Firing Range 71

September 2012 v DRAFT FINAL Draft Final Feasibility Study Tanaga and Ogliuga Island FUDS, AK Contract No. W911KB-08-D-0004 AECOM Project No: 60133134

2-34 Summary Statistics for 2009 RI Surface Water for Small Arms Firing Range 71 2-35 Summary Statistics for Soil for Ogliuga Runway 71 2-36 Summary Statistics for 2009 RI Groundwater for Ogliuga Runway 74 2-37 Summary Statistics for Soil for Ogliuga East 75 2-38 Summary Statistics for Soil for Ogliuga West 77 3-1 Estimated Soil and Sediment Background Threshold Values (BTV) 81 3-2 Summary COCs for Tanaga 83 3-3 Summary COCs for Ogliuga 83 4-1 Preliminary Chemical-Specific ARARs (Tanaga and Ogliuga FUDS) 90 4-2 Preliminary Action-Specific ARARs (Tanaga and Ogliuga FUDS) 90 4-3 Cleanup Levels for Metals and PCBs 90 4-4 TOC and Naturally Occurring Organics in Tanaga and Ogliuga Soils 91 4-5 Comparison of Cleanup Levels from ADEC’s Method Three Calculator for Petroleum Hydrocarbons 93 4-6 Summary of Cancer Risks and Hazard Quotients for Tanaga and Ogliuga 95 4-7 Estimated Volumes of Impacted Soil 95 4-8 Estimated Volumes of Impacted Sediment, Groundwater, and Surface Water 100 5-1 General Response Actions and Remedial Technologies 110 5-2 Screening Evaluation of Remedial Technologies for Soil/Sediment 112 6-1 Alternatives and Total Volumes 121 7-1 Criteria for Detailed Evaluation of Response Action Alternatives 126 7-2 RACER Technologies and Key Assumptions 127 7-3 Comparison of Response Action Alternatives 129

September 2012 vi DRAFT FINAL

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

°C degree Celsius °F degree Fahrenheit µg/L microgram per liter AAC Alaska Administrative Code ADEC Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation AECOM AECOM Technical Services, Inc. AMNWR Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge ANCSA Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act ARAR applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements AST aboveground storage tank BCC-Jacobs JV BC Contractors-Jacobs Joint Venture bgs below ground surface BTEX benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes BTV British Thermal Unit CAA Civil Aeronautics Agency CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 CFR Code of Federal Regulations CL cleanup level COC chemical of concern CON/HTRW containerized, hazardous, toxic, and radioactive waste CWA Clean Water Act CY cubic yard Demo demolition DRO diesel range organics E&E Ecology and Environment, Inc. EPA Environmental Protection Agency, United States FS feasibility study FUDS Formerly Used Defense Site GPS global positioning system GRO gasoline range organics GW groundwater ISO In Situ Chemical Oxidation LIF laser-induced fluorescence LTTD Low temperature thermal desorption MCL maximum contaminant level mg/kg milligram per kilogram MMRP Military Munitions Response Program NAAF Naval Auxiliary Air Facility NCP National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan No. Number NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System PAH polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon PCB polychlorinated biphenyl PCE tetrachloroethene POL petroleum, oil, and lubricant RACER remedial action cost engineering and requirements racon radar beacon RAO remedial action objective RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

September 2012 vii DRAFT FINAL Draft Final Feasibility Study Tanaga and Ogliuga Island FUDS, AK Contract No. W911KB-08-D-0004 AECOM Project No: 60133134

RI remedial investigation RRO residual range organics RSL regional screening level SIM selective ion monitoring SQuiRT Screening Quick Reference Table SVE soil vapor extraction SVOC semivolatile organic compound SWPPP storm water pollution prevention plan TAH total aromatic hydrocarbons TAqH total aqueous hydrocarbons TBC to be considered TOC total organic carbon TPH total petroleum hydrocarbons TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act TWP temporary well point U.S. United States USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service UVOST Ultra-violet Optical Screening Tool VOC volatile organic compound WQCM Water Quality Criteria Manual XRF x-ray fluorescence

September 2012 viii DRAFT FINAL Draft Final Feasibility Study Tanaga and Ogliuga Island FUDS, AK Contract No. W911KB-08-D-0004 AECOM Project No: 60133134

1.0 INTRODUCTION This Feasibility Study (FS) report identifies and evaluates alternatives for the environmental remediation of the Tanaga and Ogliuga Islands Formerly Used Defense Site (FUDS) in Alaska (F10AK022801 and F10AK018002) and is part of the United States (U.S.) Army Corps of Engineers, Alaska District (USACE) Contract W911KB-08-D-0004, Task Order Number (No.) 0008 with AECOM Technical Services, Inc. (AECOM). The Tanaga Island and Ogliuga Island FUDS are located in the Aleutian Islands chain (Figure 1-1, Figure 1-2, and Figure 1-3) and form part of the Aleutians Unit of the Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge (AMNWR).

These facilities were constructed during World War II, to provide for the defense of Alaska and to assist with the recapture of the Japanese occupied islands of Attu and Kiska. Tanaga and Ogliuga Islands were not subject to hostilities. However, both islands were fortified and developed by the U.S. Navy Seabees and operated as emergency and staging airfields attached to the Adak Navy Operations Base. Following the recapture of Kiska, Tanaga was a staging area for bombing raids on Japan. After the war, the facilities were abandoned in place. Since the 1940s, the islands have seen little human presence, and both islands are uninhabited.

The purpose of this FS is to tabulate all previous analytical data, identify, and evaluate remedial alternatives. The FS focuses on remedial alternatives that are suitable for the remote conditions and limited infrastructure. The evaluation of treatment alternatives relies on the knowledge gained from previous studies. The FS focuses on the contaminated media by site.

Previous investigations have been completed by several different federal agencies at the Tanaga and Ogliuga Islands FUDS. Two debris removal and cleanup studies were conducted in the 1970s (USACE 1977, 1979).

Ocean Technology produced a report in 1986 covering seven Aleutian Islands including Tanaga (Ocean Technology Ltd. 1986). This report noted thousands of empty drums, some with diesel and asphalt, along with a number of vehicles and both standing and collapsed buildings. A “fresh” crater, believed to be the result of ammunition disposal, was observed north of the road from the airstrip area to the Main Camp area.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) conducted field investigations in 1988, 1989, and 1990 at various locations within the AMNWR. The investigation focused on contaminants from military operations that may have impacted1 the environment. The executive summary from this report ranked Tanaga as the second-most-contaminated island due to low-level polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) contamination and a petroleum seep.2 The fresh crater (referred to in the 1986 report by Ocean Technology Ltd.) was reported to be the result of a 1983 ammunition demolition effort. During the USFWS field investigations, 48 soil samples, 36 sediment samples, and 6 fish samples were collected for analysis.

Ecology and Environment, Inc. (E&E), working under a contract with the USACE, completed a field investigation and inventory of the Tanaga and Ogliuga Islands FUDS in 1993 (E&E 1993). E&E’s investigation activities were performed between 18 and 20 May 1993. E&E personnel collected 5 surface soil samples from the Ogliuga FUDS and 27 surface soil samples and one product sample from the Tanaga FUDS during the investigation.

1 “impacted” is used as a term for media that is in contact with a contaminant.

2 Petroleum seep was not found by the BC Contractors-Jacobs Joint Venture (BCC-Jacobs JV 2008) or AECOM (AECOM 2009) in subsequent activities at the site. In addition, the author of the USFWS report Wayne Crayton was unable to remember a seep on the site.

September 2012 1 DRAFT FINAL Draft Final Feasibility Study Tanaga and Ogliuga Island FUDS, AK Contract No. W911KB-08-D-0004 AECOM Project No: 60133134

The USACE completed a site investigation in June 1998 at Ogliuga Island (USACE 1999). The objectives of the investigation were to characterize fuel in drums and known soil contamination, and to look for and sample other potential sources of contamination. The 1998 effort confirmed the inventory noted during the 1993 E&E visit.

In 2006, North Wind, Inc. under contract to the USACE, completed a containerized, hazardous, toxic, and radioactive waste (CON/HTRW) pre-removal site assessment for Tanaga Island and Ogliuga Island (Northwind 2006). This assessment summarized previous investigation activities, as well as documented and inventoried current existing conditions on the islands. The site visit did not include the collection of samples for analytical laboratory analysis.

In 2007, BCC-Jacobs JV performed a CON/HTRW Removal Action at the Tanaga and Ogliuga Islands FUDS for the USACE. The removal action included the removal of transformers, contaminated soils, and intact drums with contents, batteries, and aboveground storage tank (AST) contents. A final report (BCC Jacobs 2008) was issued in September 2008.

In association with the BCC-Jacobs JV effort, USACE contracted archaeologists to monitor the Tanaga and Ogliuga Islands FUDS investigation to protect the pre-World War II cultural sites and the World War II site itself. The outcome of this evaluation was reported by USACE in September 2008 (USACE 2008).

In 2009, AECOM performed a remedial investigation (RI) at the Tanaga and Ogliuga Islands FUDS for the USACE (AECOM 2009). The RI included the delineation and evaluation of petroleum, oil, and lubricants (POLs), lead, and PCBs in the following site media: groundwater, surface water, and sediment.

1.1 TANAGA ISLAND Tanaga Island is located in the Andreanof Islands Group. Tanaga is located 65 miles south- southwest of Adak and 1,350 miles southwest of Anchorage. Tanaga Island is a 128,000-acre island.

Currently, the low flat lands of Tanaga Island are often marshy and have numerous lakes and small streams. Sediments are formed from volcanic ash over igneous bedrock. In the project area, the former airfield area is low and flat with numerous lakes. The former camp area, closer to Lash Bay, consists of low sandy hills. A creek passes through the area, reaching Lash Bay. The shoreline generally is lined with high bluffs intersected by small streams. Except for the beach area, the intertidal shoreline is rocky with small islands and emergent rocks offshore. Lash Bay is one of the few points accessible by ship, allowing beach landings.

The presence of Aleut villages was reported by Russian explorers in the 18th century. The island was later used by fox trappers. It was uninhabited by the middle of the 19th century. Tanaga has been under the jurisdiction of the USFWS as part of the Aleutian Islands National Wildlife Reservation since 1913. The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act included Tanaga in the Aleutian Islands Refuge portion of AMNWR and designated all but 774 acres of the island as “wilderness,” indicating a largely pristine natural environment to be managed for purposes of environmental conservation, precluding permanent human activities. Acreage in the southwestern part of the island blighted by abandoned military facilities, equipment, and debris was considered unsuitable for wilderness designation. A contingent from the 45th Battalion of the Navy Seabees began construction of the Tanaga Naval Auxiliary Air Facility (NAAF) on Tanaga Island in September 1943 to be operated as an adjunct to the Adak Navy Operations Base. A 200- by 5,000-foot Marston runway was installed, with two portable lighting units. Five hardstands with revetments were also constructed. A pier and a mooring area were provided to service the patrol craft. The airstrip was ready for use toward the latter part of January 1944 and commissioned on 1 March 1944. Administration was centered in two office buildings, which had a total floor area of 1,560 square feet. Radio installations were in tents, but the direction finder associated with the

September 2012 2 DRAFT FINAL Draft Final Feasibility Study Tanaga and Ogliuga Island FUDS, AK Contract No. W911KB-08-D-0004 AECOM Project No: 60133134

airfield was in a small permanent building. Medical facilities consisted of a 12-bed Quonset hut dispensary. Station maintenance required three buildings. Power was supplied by a 75-kilowatt diesel-electric unit. Water was pumped from a lake to two 3,000-gallon tanks. Sewage disposal was by septic tank, with an outflow to a ravine. More than 2 miles of temporary gravel-surfaced roads were constructed (DON 2009).

The first plane flew out in May 1944. More men were sent to Tanaga NAAF in anticipation of the occupation of Amchitka Island to the west, as the U.S. forces began moving westward along the chain. One year later Tanaga closed. Army troops left in September 1945, and the Navy left 1 month later. Operations on Tanaga in 1944 were limited to shipping supplies. The following improvements were suggested, but never built: a paved runway, additional docks, and connecting roads at Tanaga and Twin Ba. Although the base was abandoned in October 1945, with only a caretaking contingent of Navy personnel remaining to operate the facility as an outlying airfield to Adak, it was not decommissioned until 1951 (USACE 1987). Since that time, visits have been mostly limited to occasional hunters, fishermen, and scientists.

1.2 OGLIUGA ISLAND Ogliuga Island is located in the Delarof Islands Group. Ogliuga is located less than 30 miles west- southwest of Tanaga Island, just east of Amchitka Pass, and 1,380 miles southwest of Anchorage, Alaska. Ogliuga encompasses 2,389 acres and is a low, flat plateau with a maximum elevation of 75 feet above sea level. Ogliuga Island is surrounded by several other small, uninhabited islands (e.g., Skagul and Kavalga islands). The island is covered in tundra vegetation and the coastline is characterized by broad, open bays, beaches, and low bluffs.

The Ogliuga emergency landing field was constructed for the Army entirely by Navy Seabees in July 1943. A 100- by 3,000-foot runway and four 100-foot-square parking areas were constructed, with a surface of steel matting. The only other construction at Ogliuga was a small building for living quarters (DON 2009). However, an early evaluation by USACE (USACE 1977) noted that remains of eight Quonset huts existed, as well as nine vehicles, and two reinforced concrete foundations in the west area and around the Runway Camp. The 2008 Archaeological Report (USACE 2008) reported that the island also was part of the aircraft warning system and had a SCR-270 or a mobile aircraft radar detector (USACE 1987). The flat terrain was ideal since the radar needed to make a 360-degree sweep of the horizon (USACE 1987). The Tanaga airfield was used to supply Ogliuga. Ogliuga Island was abandoned in early 1945 just before Tanaga was closed (USACE 1987).

September 2012 3 DRAFT FINAL Draft Final Feasibility Study Tanaga and Ogliuga Island FUDS, AK Contract No. W911KB-08-D-0004 AECOM Project No: 60133134

This page intentionally left blank.

September 2012 4 DRAFT FINAL Figure 1-1 General Location of

Great Tanaga and Ogliuga FUDS Barrow Arctic Ocean !( Sitkin Bering Sea Island

Canada Tanaga Fairbanks Legend !( Gareloi Island Island Russia !( Major Cities !( Juneau Nome !( Anchorage !( Project Site Ogliuga Town!( of Adak Kanaga Alaska Gulf of Alaska Island Project Island Bering Sea Skagul Site Island Adak International Boundaries INSET A Island Amchitka Pass Ulak Pacific Ocean Pacific Ocean Island Attu Island Amatignak Island

INSET B 0200 400 800 010 20 40 Miles Miles

St. Paul Alaska Peninsula Island

St. George Island Cold Bay

Bering Sea Unimak Island Deer Island

Sanak Island Akutan Island Unalaska Tigalda Island Island Unalga Island Attu Site Location Island Alaid, Nizki, & Chuginadak Shemya Islands Island Image: Gareoli Island B-1, NE, Alaska, Aleutian Islands Topographic Umnak Map compiled in 1954 by the Coast and Geodetic Survey Buldir INSET B Island Projection: Alaska State Plane Zone 10, NAD83, Units in Feet ³ Agattu Island Island Great Kiska Semisopochnoi Sitkin U.S. ARMY CORPS Island Island Tanaga Island Seguam OF ENGINEERS Island Island ALASKA DISTRICT Atka Amlia Island Island DESIGNED BY: Naval Auxiliary Air Facility Tanaga Island, Alaska Adak BB/ftc FUDS Project No. F10AK022801 Kanaga Island Amchitka Island INSET A DRAWN BY: Naval Auxiliary Air Facility Ogliuga Island, Alaska Island EM/ftc FUDS Project No. F10AK018002 Ogliuga 050 100 200 PROJECT NUMBER: Island Miles CHECKED BY: SCALE: As Shown 60133134 RLB/ftc DAT E: SUBMITTED BY: January 2012

Pacific Ocean BB/ftc FILE: Refer to left margin REVISION: 1 Path: T:\USACE_Tanaga\GIS_Docs\Working\Report_FS_SDFSIE\Fig1-12012-09-07.mxd 2795270 2801832 2808393 2814955 2821517

Figure 1-2 Tanaga Island FUDS Investigation Areas Aleut Corporatoin parcel 262467 262467 Legend Native Selected Areas MMRP Investigation Areas Not Including AGEs HTRW Investigation Areas Designated Wilderness

Airstrip Pumphouse 255905 255905 MMRP North of Airstrip Demo

Bombing Range Main Camp Southeast of Airstrip Aleut Corporation parcel

Landfill MMRP Small Arms Firing Range Notes: Demo 1. 10th Investigation Area – In addition, the FUDS-wide power line system was evaluated as an investigation area. Aleut 2. In addition to the shown areas, a tenth investigation area Tower Corporation Barrel Dump consists of the Power Lines, which are found throughout the FUDS. parcel

249343 249343 2750000 2775000 2800000 2825000 2850000 2875000

Aleut Corporation parcel 275000 275000 250000 250000 Notes: 1. For features of interest, the first part of the name corresponds to the name assigned during the 2007 GPS survey conducted Aleut Corporation parcel by BCC-Jacobs; the second part of the name (in parenthesis) represents the name assigned by North Wind during the 2006 225000 225000 GPS survey.

2. Locations identified as "modified locations" were adjusted to 2750000 2775000 2800000 2825000 2850000 2875000 more closely correspond to field sampling sketches. 3. Analytes listed on labels represent all analytes that Inset: Tanaga Island had at least one exceedance of the RI screening level Projection: Alaska State Plane Zone 10, NAD83, Units in Feet on Tanaga Island. 4. Results are reported in mg/kg. 5. Results are compared to the RI screening level. 6. See tables for qualifier definitions. U.S. ARMY CORPS 242782 7. Base Image: Commercial satellite imagery; October 4, 2008. 242782 OF ENGINEERS ALASKA DISTRICT

DESIGNED BY: BB/ftc Naval Auxiliary Air Facility Tanaga FUDS Project No. F10AK022801 DRAWN BY: Tanaga Island, Alaska ³ EM/ftc Mile PROJECT NUMBER: 0 0.5 1 2 CHECKED BY: SCALE: As Shown 60133134 RLB/ftc DAT E: SUBMITTED BY: January 2012 2795270 2801832 2808393 2814955 2821517 BB/ftc FILE: Refer to left margin REVISION: 1 Path: T:\USACE_Tanaga\GIS_Docs\Working\Report_FS_SDFSIE\Fig1-2-2012-09-07.mxd Figure 1-3 Ogliuga Island FUDS Investigation Areas

Legend Parcel conveyed under ANILCA Investigation Area Designated Wilderness

Runway Camp

Aleut Corporation parcel

East West Aleut Corporation parcel

2625000 2650000 2675000 2700000 2725000 275000 275000 250000 250000 225000 225000

Site Location 200000 200000

East 2625000 2650000 2675000 2700000 2725000 Inset: Ogliuga Island Projection: Alaska State Plane Zone 10, NAD83, Units in Feet

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS ALASKA DISTRICT

EM/ftc PROJECT NUMBER: ³ CHECKED BY: SCALE: Miles As Shown 60133134 0 0.5 1 RLB/ftc DAT E: SUBMITTED BY: January 2012

BB/ftc FILE: Refer to left margin REVISION: 1 Path: T:\USACE_Ogliuga\GIS_Docs\Working\Report_FS_SDSFIE\Fig1-3-2012-09-07.mxd This page intentionally left blank Draft Final Feasibility Study Tanaga and Ogliuga Island FUDS, AK Contract No. W911KB-08-D-0004 AECOM Project No: 60133134

2.0 PREVIOUS STUDIES This section summarizes all of the environmental studies completed for both Tanaga and Ogliuga Islands prior to this FS. This summary is intended to provide an overview of the historical sources and nature of contaminants found on the islands.

2.1 TANAGA ISLAND 2.1.1 Archaeological Studies According to the Archaeological Report (USACE 2008), which provides significant detail on the facilities, the USACE in 1987 noted that Tanaga “is reportedly the best preserved example of an Aleutian outpost extant (including typical structures with furnishings), offering the opportunity for research into the material concomitants of daily life in the Aleutians during World War II” (USACE 1987).

Weathering and visitors since the initial surveys in the 1970s (USACE 1977, 1979) have destroyed most of the previously intact buildings, although the equipment and positions of the structures are still present. All but one of the Quonset huts have collapsed and one building still stands at the Civil Aeronautics Agency (CAA) station at the north end of the field. The furnishings that were reported as “impressive” in the 1970s are gone. The recommendations in 1987 were to document the airstrip, hardstands, taxiways, revetments, lighting, the air warning system installation and defensive gun emplacements. They also recommended that the vehicles and construction equipment (including pre-war era construction vehicles) be evaluated by an expert in World War II military vehicles (USACE 1987). The recommendations also stated that the planes reported to have crashed on Tanaga Island also need to be found and documented (USACE 1987).

No parts of the Tanaga FUDS are on the National Register of Historic Places (ADNR 2005), although the archaeological survey conducted concurrently with the 2007 CON/HTRW Removal Action concluded that the FUDS qualifies for inclusion in the register (USACE 2008).

2.1.2 Land Ownership Status The Tanaga Island FUDS is located entirely within the Aleutian Unit of the AMNWR, and is owned by the federal government and administered in accordance with AMNWR objectives. The land manager for the area occupied by the Tanaga FUDS is, therefore, the USFWS. Of the 128,000 acres of Tanaga Island, all except 774 acres are designated as wilderness areas. The 774 acres excluded from the wilderness designation include most (but not all) of the FUDS. Some portions of the site are located within the designated wilderness boundaries. These areas on Tanaga include the North of Airstrip area (both the northern and eastern units) and the Small Arms Firing Range area.

Under the 1971 Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA), the Aleut Corporation represents Alaska Natives in the Aleutians West Coast Resource Service Area. The Aleut Corporation is entitled to select and receive land under several sections of ANCSA in a complex system of entitlement to surface and subsurface estate of lands. On Tanaga, several parcels within 1 mile of the FUDS areas have been conveyed: (1) one parcel on Tanaga Bay north of the FUDS; (2) one parcel on the shore between Lash Bay and the landfill; (3) one parcel on the western coast north of the Tower area; and (4) one parcel on Whip Island in Lash Bay. None of these parcels coincides with areas with suspected sources of contamination (AECOM 2009).

2.1.3 Areas under Investigation The investigation project area is located in the southwest corner of Tanaga Island between Lash and Tanaga Bays. The project area includes nine separate investigation areas, a bombing range, and two Military Munitions Response Program (MMRP) Demo [demolition] areas (Figure 1-2). The nine investigation areas covered by this FS are outlined in red on Figure 1-2:

September 2012 9 DRAFT FINAL Draft Final Feasibility Study Tanaga and Ogliuga Island FUDS, AK Contract No. W911KB-08-D-0004 AECOM Project No: 60133134

 Main Camp  Barrel Dump (two locations)  Airstrip  Southeast of Airstrip  North of Airstrip (three locations)  Tower  Pumphouse (two locations)  Landfill  Small Arms Firing Range

The three areas known as North of Airstrip, Pumphouse, and Barrel Dump were assigned separate names to be consistent with prior nomenclature, but were associated with the same utilization and same contamination. The MMRP Demo areas and the Bombing Range (outlined in black on Figure 1-2) are being evaluated in a separate MMRP FS.

The following sections provide background and general descriptions, summaries of previous removal actions (as applicable), and the nature of contamination for each of the Tanaga Island FUDS areas (see below). The extent of contamination will be estimated in Section 3.0.

2.1.4 Main Camp Area

2.1.4.1 BACKGROUND AND GENERAL DESCRIPTION The Main Camp area on Tanaga Island contained the living quarters for 400 World-War II enlisted men and 35 officers. Living quarters consisted primarily of wood frame tents and several Quonset or Pacific huts located in the northern portion of the Main Camp area. Other buildings at the Main Camp area included a mess hall and kitchen, recreation facilities, dispensary with operating and dental facilities, laundry, latrines, and shower rooms, administration buildings, station maintenance buildings with machine shop and vehicle storage, paint shop, generator building, cold storage with refrigerator boxes, dry storage, construction and maintenance materials storage, and general storage. Located on top of a ridge at the northwest side of the camp were two tanks (one 5,000-gallon steel AST and one 3,000-gallon wood water stave). The NAAF office was located in this area (USACE 2008).

Today, the Main Camp area consists of a single standing Quonset hut, abandoned heavy equipment (e.g., trucks, cranes, etc.), partially rusted drums (empty), a 5,000-gallon water tank, a former septic field, and power poles from a former transmission line system. A stream runs along the north and east perimeter of the Main Camp area flowing from the pump-house lake to Lash Bay Figure 2-1). Other locations are defined as areas with “All detected analytes below the most stringent Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) cleanup level.”

Groundwater elevations ranged from 65.68 feet to 90.67 feet, indicating essentially saturated conditions with no unsaturated zone present. The presence of numerous drainage ditches in this area indicates that water-logged conditions also were a problem at the time of construction. Soil excavations in this area encountered water at a foot or less. The presence of a permanent stream to the east of the Main Camp area and the drainage ditches directed towards the stream, indicate that groundwater flows to this creek.

September 2012 10 DRAFT FINAL Draft Final Feasibility Study Tanaga and Ogliuga Island FUDS, AK Contract No. W911KB-08-D-0004 AECOM Project No: 60133134

2.1.4.2 PREVIOUS REMOVAL The 2007 CON/HTRW Removal Action performed at the Main Camp area by BCC-Jacobs JV in 2007 included removing one 55-gallon drum containing suspected motor oil and associated contaminated soil from the breached drum, nine electric transformers, one audio transformer, one capacitor, and 24 lead-acid batteries and casings from shattered batteries at 11 separate locations (BCC-Jacobs JV 2008).

2.1.4.3 NATURE OF CONTAMINATION The 1993 and 2007–2008 efforts conducted sampling and analysis of soil for metals, PCBs, fuels, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). Detected concentrations are shown in Table 2-1. The 2009 RI sampling and analysis included fuels, metals, PCBs, PAHs, semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs), and VOCs in soils (Table 2-1). In total, there are 17 areas with contaminant concentrations above cleanup levels.

The nine POL impacted areas with contamination in excess of the most stringent ADEC cleanup level include MCO1, MC03, MC05, MC06, MC09 and MC12, MC17, MC19, MC22, and MC24.

 MC01 (T101) is located on the southern end of the Main Camp area and consists of approximately 12 drums. An Ultra-violet Optical Screening Tool (UVOST) investigation was performed at MC01 (T101) to evaluate potential POL constituents. A total of 11 UVOST probes were completed to evaluate the drum pile, with a maximum laser-induced fluorescence (LIF) response of 75 percent (%). The vertical extent of the impacted soil appears to be limited to 2 feet below ground surface (bgs). Total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH)-diesel range organics (DRO) was detected in one sample above migration to groundwater cleanup level at a concentration of 640 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg).  The MC03 feature includes the remains of a dump truck with partial engine intact and staining noted on soil beneath the front differential. Sample material was primarily saturated sand and gravel with a slight sheen noted on sample material. TPH-DRO was detected in both samples at concentrations above migration to groundwater cleanup levels. Maximum concentration detected was 791 mg/kg. Pyrene, at concentrations below the cleanup levels, was the only PAH detected (0.0669 mg/kg).  Feature MC05 (T98) consisted of an audio transformer, capacitors, and one battery in the south section of the Main Camp area. One rusted truck, approximately six empty, non- galvanized, partial 55-gallon drums, scattered truck parts, and a possible generator also were present. The audio transformer, capacitors, and battery were removed by BCC-Jacobs JV as part of the 2007 removal action. Three UVOST probes were completed to evaluate the small drum pile at the feature. All UVOST probes at MC05 (T98) contained only background fluorescence. There is no indication of POL contamination associated with the drums at the MC05 (T98) site feature. TPH-DRO and TPH-residual range organics (RRO) were detected at maximum concentrations of 3,300 mg/kg (TPH-DRO) and 3,640MH mg/kg (TPH-RRO), both at MC05-SX01. TPH-DRO and -RRO for the other four samples were detected at maximum concentrations of 684 mg/kg (TPH-DRO) and 1,920 mg/kg (TPH-RRO). PCB was detected in only one sample at 0.0385 J (mg/kg). Lead was detected in all five samples at concentrations below cleanup level with a maximum of 104 mg/kg.  Feature MC06 (T102) is located on the western side of the Main Camp area and consists of three small drum piles (15 to 20 drums per pile). Six UVOST probes were positioned in the areas with the highest drum concentrations. With the exception of one probe, all UVOST probes contained only background fluorescence. A potential fuel signature was identified at MC LIF 175 from 0 to 0.25 feet bgs. The POL contamination at MC06 (T102) appears to be limited in extent.  The feature MC09 (T94) was reported by BCC-Jacobs JV as four transformers (most likely with contents) in a collapsed machine shop with scattered engine parts and several partial

September 2012 11 DRAFT FINAL Draft Final Feasibility Study Tanaga and Ogliuga Island FUDS, AK Contract No. W911KB-08-D-0004 AECOM Project No: 60133134

non-galvanized 55-gallon drums found throughout and around the building. BCC-Jacobs JV removed five transformers during 2007 from inside the building (Aroclor 1260 at 6.9JM mg/kg). MC09 and MC12 can be considered as a single zone of potential impact, particularly as sampling could not take place within the building, where the transformers were removed, but in the building perimeter. Sample locations on the south side of MC09 (T94) overlap with feature MC12 (T96C), described as waste oil drums. Concentrations of TPH-DRO and -RRO were detected at elevated levels in both samples, with TPH-RRO exceeding the migration to groundwater soil cleanup level (24,200MH mg/kg) and TPH-DRO exceeding the migration to groundwater soil cleanup level (9,260MH mg/kg). Arsenic was detected above cleanup level with a maximum of 4.22 mg/kg.  The feature MC17 (T92) was reported by BCC-Jacobs JV as one transformer (that may have contents) near a power pole and collapsed hut. BCC-Jacobs JV removed the transformer during the 2007 CON/HTRW Removal Action. TPH-DRO and -RRO above the migration to groundwater soil cleanup levels at maximum concentrations of 4,070 mg/kg (TPH-DRO) and 1,060 mg/kg (TPH-RRO). PCBs (Aroclor 1260) were reported in six samples at concentrations below the soil cleanup level, with the highest concentration (0.0809 mg/kg).  A large area of impacted soil encompassed the MC19 (T89), T90B, T91B features of interest, which include collapsed buildings, a fuel tank, and drums. A total of 75 UVOST probes were completed to delineate the POL contamination associated with these features, with a maximum LIF response of 68%. The POL impacted soil is limited to 6 feet bgs at most probe locations. A hydrocarbon odor and sheen were noted in the shallow soils. Organic constituents detected include TPH-gasoline range organics (GRO), -RRO, several VOCs, 2-methylnaphthalene, and naphthalene all are reported at concentrations below migration to groundwater cleanup levels. TPH-DRO was detected in one sample above migration to groundwater cleanup level at a concentration of 1,880MH mg/kg. Aroclor 1260 was detected at concentrations above the cleanup level at 1.81 mg/kg, presumably associated with the nearby MC18 transformer feature.  Feature MC22 (T88) consists of an empty 150-gallon fuel tank located next to several collapsed buildings in the central portion of the Main Camp area. Six UVOST probes were completed at the MC22 (T88) site feature. With the exception of MC LIF 004, positioned adjacent to the fuel tank, all UVOST probes contained only background fluorescence. One probe had a LIF response of 8% from 2 to 3 feet bgs, indicating POL impacts in soil above migration-to-groundwater cleanup levels exist at this single probe location.  The MC24 (T85) site feature consists of an empty fuel box located on the northern edge of the Main Camp area. A total of 14 UVOST probes were completed to delineate possible POL contamination associated with the fuel box. The maximum LIF was 30%, measured at MCLIF083. The vertical extent of the impacted soil appears to be limited to 5 feet bgs. During the RI, TPH-DRO exceeded soil cleanup levels at 8,580MH mg/kg.

Seven lead impacted areas include MC08, MC10, MC13, MC16, MC21, MC27, and MC29.

 The feature MC08 (T96A) was reported by BCC-Jacobs JV as three broken batteries in a collapsed machine shop. BCC-Jacobs JV removed five intact batteries and one compromised battery during 2007 removal actions. The former battery locations were identified on the wooden floor among debris within the footprint of the collapsed building. Marston matting was located below the wooden platform and debris. During RI, lead concentrations at MC08 (T96A) range from <5 mg/kg to 161 mg/kg, and one sample (MC08- SX01) exceeding the soil cleanup level at a concentration of 1,150 mg/kg.  The feature MC10 (T95) was reported by BCC-Jacobs JV as four broken batteries under a collapsed hut. BCC Jacobs reportedly removed five batteries during the 2007 CON/HTRW Removal Action. The feature is a collapsed building with abundant wood debris immediately surrounding the area. During the RI, lead concentrations at MC10 (T95) range from

September 2012 12 DRAFT FINAL Draft Final Feasibility Study Tanaga and Ogliuga Island FUDS, AK Contract No. W911KB-08-D-0004 AECOM Project No: 60133134

<5 mg/kg to 90.4 mg/kg, below the cleanup level. Volume of soil present is de minimis. Therefore, this site feature will not be discussed further or included in the FS since current field screening and analytical data indicate that contamination is not present above ADEC cleanup levels.  The feature MC13 was reported by BCC-Jacobs JV as a battery carcass, which BCC-Jacobs JV removed in 2007. The feature was identified as two bare spots located immediately west of a collapsed building with abundant wood and metal debris in the area. Lead was detected above the soil cleanup level in six of the eight samples at concentrations ranging from 50 mg/kg to 10,100 mg/kg. Volume of soil present is de minimis. Therefore, this site feature will not be discussed further or included in the FS since current field screening and analytical data indicate that contamination is not present above ADEC cleanup levels.  The feature MC16 (T91A) was reported by BCC-Jacobs JV as three refrigerators with motors, two with cracked batteries. BCC-Jacobs JV removed the two batteries during the 2007 CON/HTRW Removal Action. RI investigation found five refrigerators located adjacent to a large (approximately 6-foot) concrete slab and raised wood-plank floor. During the RI, lead concentrations at MC16 (T91A) range from <5 mg/kg to 137 mg/kg, below the cleanup level. Volume of soil present is de minimis. Therefore, this site feature will not be discussed further or included in the FS since current field screening and analytical data indicate that contamination is not present above ADEC cleanup levels.  The feature MC21 was reported by BCC-Jacobs JV as two batteries. BCC-Jacobs JV removed the batteries during CON/HTRW activities in 2007. The outline (footprint) of a battery is located at the center of a large concrete pad. During the BCC-Jacobs JV, lead concentration was detected above the soil cleanup level (2,320 mg/kg).  The feature MC27 was reported by BCC-Jacobs JV as one battery. BCC-Jacobs JV removed the battery in 2007. The feature is described as a collapsed building heavily covered with debris (wood, metal, water heater, etc.). During the BCC-Jacobs JV Removal Action, lead concentration was detected above the soil cleanup level (658 mg/kg). During the RI, lead concentrations at MC27 range from <5 mg/kg to 154 mg/kg, below the soil cleanup level. Volume of soil present is de minimis. Therefore, this site feature will not be discussed further or included in the FS since current field screening and analytical data indicate that contamination is not present above ADEC cleanup levels.  Feature M29 are two batteries located approximately 50 feet south of MC10. During investigation activities on 4 August 2009, the batteries were found to be mostly intact and overgrown with low-lying tundra grass. Lead concentrations at the center (source) of the grid significantly exceeded the cleanup level at 2,060 mg/kg, but the four exterior samples reported lead concentrations below the cleanup level, ranging from 6 mg/kg to 22 mg/kg.

There is one PCB-impacted area. The feature MC18 (T90A) was reported by BCC-Jacobs JV as three transformers under a fallen electrical pole (one is rusted and two may be intact with contents). BCC- Jacobs JV removed the three transformers during the 2007 CON/HTRW Removal Action. This feature is described as a power pole lying on the ground next to a partially collapsed wooden building with wood and metal debris surrounding the power pole. TPH-DRO and -RRO were reported in all samples, and TPH-DRO concentrations exceeded the soil cleanup level in three samples. TPH-DRO concentrations range from 823 mg/kg to 10,900MH mg/kg. PCBs (Aroclor 1260) were detected in all samples, and concentrations exceeded the cleanup level at seven locations. Sample concentrations exceeded 50 mg/kg in one sample (59.7 mg/kg), and concentrations were elevated above the cleanup level of 1 mg/kg in seven other samples. Concentrations in excess of 50 mg/kg exceed the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) regulated level and TSCA regulations apply to further management of PCB contamination at this feature.

RI sampling and analysis for sediment included fuels, VOCs, PAHs, PCBs, and target metals. Detected concentrations are shown in Table 2-2. Constituents detected in sediment up gradient of

September 2012 13 DRAFT FINAL Draft Final Feasibility Study Tanaga and Ogliuga Island FUDS, AK Contract No. W911KB-08-D-0004 AECOM Project No: 60133134

the camp include DRO and RRO and target metals at concentrations below sediment cleanup levels. Nickel was reported above cleanup levels in the duplicate sample collected from this location at 20.7 mg/kg. Several VOCs also were detected in the duplicate samples, with ethylbenzene, toluene, and total xylenes reported at concentrations above cleanup levels. These constituents were not detected in the original sample; however, detection limits for many constituents are higher due to dilution. PAHs and PCBs were not detected in either sediment sample or corresponding duplicate sample.

RI sampling and analysis for groundwater included fuels, SVOCs, VOCs, PAHs, PCBs, and target metals. Detected concentrations are shown in Table 2-3. Constituents detected in groundwater include benzoic acid, barium, and nickel at concentrations below the RI groundwater cleanup levels.

RI sampling and analysis for surface water included fuels, VOCs, PCBs, and target metals. Detected concentrations are shown in Table 2-4. Barium was the only constituent detected in surface water down gradient of the Main Camp area, and GRO, barium, and selenium were detected in up gradient surface water, all at concentrations below surface water cleanup levels. Trace levels of TPH-GRO and -DRO, along with several target metals (at concentrations below sediment cleanup levels) were detected at the down gradient location with isopropylbenzene detected at an estimated concentration. Table 4-7 provides a summary of the impacts associated with each site feature (also see Appendix A).

2.1.5 Barrel Dump Area 2.1.5.1 BACKGROUND AND GENERAL DESCRIPTION The Barrel Dump area is located immediately northwest of Lash Bay. Portions of the Barrel Dump area are excavated areas of a former sand quarry in a sandy ridge parallel to the beach at Lash Bay. This area was mined for sand to be used as fill over the coarse-rock base of the runway. This area was later used as a storage area for 55-gallon drums of aviation fuel, motor oil, tar, and other petroleum products used at the NAAF and as a disposal area for empty drums. Hundreds of partial 55-gallon drums and drum carcasses (and approximately 100 to 135 intact [mostly empty] drums remain visible above the ground surface. Inspection of each individual drum was not conducted in the RI, as this area has been investigated several times in the past. Descriptions of drums are based on observations from previous investigations. There appear to be a number of drums that are still full or partially full in the area. The Barrel Dump area comprises the following locations:

 The actual location of the dumping area for drums  The flat areas just below the ridge where a roadway as well as smaller sand quarries were present  The area where the main base road reached the beach (and where the encampment for the RI was located)  The Lash Bay shoreline, stretching east past the rock quarry east of the camp site (see Figure 2-2)

Other locations are defined as areas with “All detected analytes below the most stringent ADEC cleanup level.

Groundwater elevations range from 79.1 feet (at the northern edge) to 66.24 feet before adjustment for non-aqueous phase liquid (at the southern edge) suggesting a steepening slope towards Lash Bay, along which groundwater seeps are present. This indicates groundwater flux in this direction. However, two down-gradient beach seeps did not show elevated concentrations of contaminants, suggesting little migration to Lash Bay. In this sandy ridge, unsaturated soils are present in some areas.

September 2012 14 DRAFT FINAL Draft Final Feasibility Study Tanaga and Ogliuga Island FUDS, AK Contract No. W911KB-08-D-0004 AECOM Project No: 60133134

2.1.5.2 PREVIOUS REMOVAL Nine intact drums, six containing POL liquid (suspected aviation fuel, kerosene, or motor oil) and three containing non-POL liquid (suspected water), were removed by BCC-Jacobs JV in 2007 as part of the 2007 CON/HTRW Removal Action. Partial and/or intact drums that were leaking contents also were removed. In addition, approximately 7.5 tons of grossly contaminated material, including tar- and POL-impacted soil, were excavated from the ground surface and removed from the Barrel Dump area (BCC-Jacobs JV 2008).

2.1.5.3 NATURE OF CONTAMINATION Previous investigations in 1993 and 2007-2008 focused on fuels, metals, VOCs, and PAHs in soils. Detected concentrations are shown in Table 2-5. RI sampling and analysis focused on metals, PCBs, SVOCs, VOCs and PAHs in soils. A total of 286 UVOST probes were completed at the Barrel Dump area. Probe depth ranged from 4.9 to 24.5 feet bgs. The surface area of impacted soil is based on contours generated using the Kriging software of Surfer version 8.05. POL impacted soil was identified in every Barrel Dump area with the exception of Barrel Dump Area J. At least 24 distinct areas of POL impacted soil exist at the Barrel Dump area. The primary contaminant identified at the Barrel Dump area is arctic grade diesel. In a few locations, the field crew identified a grease- or tar-like substance emanating from decaying drums. The grease/tar appears to have impacted surface soils only in those immediate locations.

RI sampling and analysis for sediment included fuels, VOCs, PAHs, and metals. Detected concentrations are shown in Table 2-6. Very low levels of TPH-DRO (11.8J mg/kg) and TPH-RRO (57.2 mg/kg) were detected, as well as traces of several PAHs, all at <0.01 mg/kg.

RI sampling and analysis for groundwater included fuels, SVOCs, VOCs, PAHs, PCBs, and metals. Detected concentrations are shown in Table 2-7. Groundwater down gradient, encountered at 7.69 feet bgs, exceeded groundwater cleanup criteria for GRO (5,040MH micrograms per liter [µg/L]), benzene (685 µg/L) and tetrachloroethene (PCE) (8.2J µg/L). In addition, TPH-DRO and several VOCs, including toluene, ethylbenzene, xylenes, and several trimethylated benzenes were detected. A detection (below cleanup level) of cis-1,2-dichloroethene suggests ongoing reductive de- chlorination of the PCE. However, due to sample dilution, VOC detection limits were elevated and potential concentrations of other byproducts may have been missed. Lead also was detected above the cleanup level (37.9 µg/L) in this sample. It may be concluded that migration of lead, PCE and POL constituents is occurring from the Barrel Dump area sources towards Lash Bay. The sources are in the Barrel Dump, i.e., zones H, I, or K, and are related to the observed hits (18.8 µg/L PCE). As no groundwater was collected further down gradient of BDA-WG09, the extent of the plume is not determined and may reach Lash Bay.

RI sampling and analysis for surface water include fuels, VOCs, and metals. Detected concentrations are shown in Table 2-8. No surface water bodies occur in the immediate area. The down slope of the vegetation-covered sandy ridge trends towards the Lash Bay shoreline. Water percolating through the Barrel Dump area flows toward Lash Bay and emerges as seeps. Detected metals were barium and chromium, below cleanup levels.

2.1.6 Airstrip Area 2.1.6.1 BACKGROUND AND GENERAL DESCRIPTION The predominant feature of the Airstrip area (Figure 2-3, Figure 2-4) is the 200-foot by 5,000-foot runway. Other locations are defined as areas with “All detected analytes below the most stringent ADEC cleanup level.” The surface of the runway is constructed of Marston matting, sections of steel mats with rows of holes cut in the matting. The base of the runway consists of rock and boulders removed from the rock quarry along the hill at the Lash Bay beach; and sand excavated from quarries in the sand dunes fronting Lash Bay (the excavations in part became the Barrel Dump area). Five hardstands or aircraft parking aprons also constructed with Marston mats are located

September 2012 15 DRAFT FINAL Draft Final Feasibility Study Tanaga and Ogliuga Island FUDS, AK Contract No. W911KB-08-D-0004 AECOM Project No: 60133134

alongside the runway, three on the west side and two on the east side. Trenches were dug parallel to the east and west sides of the runway as a drainage system.

The Airstrip area lighting system consisted of small wooden boxes containing lights lining the runway in addition to pole-mounted lights. When the Airstrip area was abandoned, military personnel parked several pieces of heavy equipment (i.e., trucks, bulldozers, etc.) on the runway, in addition to placing power poles and 55-gallon drums at various locations on the runway to prevent aircraft from landing on Tanaga Island. Today, the Marston matting is in various stages of decay.

The runway remains littered with heavy equipment (i.e., dump trucks, bulldozers, generators, etc.), rusty and decaying, along with wooden power poles and 55-gallon drums. Partial (empty) 55-gallon drums and drum remnants were observed at various locations alongside the runway. An overgrown trench system trends north-south and parallels both sides of the runway, with several lakes adjacent to the investigation area.

2.1.6.2 PREVIOUS REMOVAL During the 2007 CON/HTRW Removal Action activities, 10 lead batteries were removed from or adjacent to various pieces of heavy equipment on and around the airstrip. Of the 10 batteries, 6 were intact, 3 were structurally compromised, and 1 was shattered on the ground. Two sets of capacitors, originally thought to be small batteries, also were removed (BCC-Jacobs JV 2008).

2.1.6.3 NATURE OF CONTAMINATION Previous investigations focused on lead in soils from 2007-2008. RI sampling and analysis focused on metals, PCBs, PAHs, SVOCs, and VOCs in soils. Detected concentrations are shown in Table 2-9. There were eight impacted areas with the Airstrip exceeding cleanup levels.

Four POL impacted areas include A13, A21, A26, and T42.

 Feature A13 (T14) is a Caterpillar generator with engine, a wet oil pan, wet fuel tank (with a fuel odor), and radiator. Stained soil was noted at this feature. TPH-DRO (755 mg/kg) and TPH-RRO (196 mg/kg) impacts were detected above migration-to-groundwater cleanup levels.  Feature A21 (T5) is a Gardner Denver Compressor with engine and cracked oil pan. Stained soils were observed under the engine during the Con/HTRW. TPH-DRO was reported at a concentration of 8,130 mg/kg, above the migration to groundwater cleanup level (260 mg/kg), and TPH-RRO concentrations exceeded the cleanup level at 32,800 mg/kg.  Feature A26 (T26) is a grader with engine, intact oil pan, rusted fuel tank, radiator, transmission, and one differential. Stained soil was noted at this feature in 2007. Visible staining or signs of petroleum contamination were not observed during the RI. PAHs were not detected in the sample and residual TPH-RRO concentrations detected are below the direct contact cleanup levels. TPH-DRO (348 mg/kg) was detected above migration-to- groundwater cleanup levels.  Between T2 and T3 (north end of the airstrip) and T41 and T42 (south end of the airstrip) there are partial, non-galvanized, empty 55-gallon drums and intact, galvanized, empty 55-gallon drums randomly scattered throughout the airstrip. Seven drum areas were observed along the runway with each area containing one to as many as seven intact to partially intact drums with some areas also containing drum remnants (pieces of drum walls and drum rings), suggesting possibly more drums. A total of 21 intact to partially intact 55-gallon drums were observed. At five of the areas, drums were lined between two parallel treated wood poles approximately 30 feet long. Low levels of TPH-GRO, -DRO, -RRO, and target metals were detected in the majority of the samples. Low concentrations of SVOCs and VOCs were detected, with benzo(a)pyrene exceeding the migration to groundwater

September 2012 16 DRAFT FINAL Draft Final Feasibility Study Tanaga and Ogliuga Island FUDS, AK Contract No. W911KB-08-D-0004 AECOM Project No: 60133134

cleanup level. This benzo(a)pyrene exceedance was qualified as an estimated concentration, biased high due to a quality control outlier, and a result of laboratory quality control issues. The elevated sample was collected adjacent to rusted drums and a power pole that appears to be coated with a tar or creosote. POL residuals are present at some of these barrel locations.

Four lead impacted areas include A03, A10, A14, and A18.

 Feature A03 (T23) is a large Caterpillar bulldozer, which has an engine, intact oil pan, rusted fuel tank, radiator, transmission, two hydraulic oil tanks, and two cracked batteries. There was no stained soil visible at this feature. BCC-Jacobs JV removed the two batteries during the 2007 CON/HTRW Removal Action. During BCC-Jacobs JV Removal Action, lead concentration was detected above the soil cleanup level (57,300 mg/kg). During the RI, lead concentrations in soil at A03 (T23) range from <5 mg/kg to 308 mg/kg. Volume of soil present is de minimis. Therefore, this site feature will not be discussed further or included in the FS since current field screening and analytical data indicate that contamination is not present above ADEC cleanup levels.  Feature A10 (T17) is an Insley Crane with no engine or oil pan, but with transmission, radiator, one cracked battery, and a gear lube tank. Stained soil was noted at this feature in 2007 and the battery during the 2007 CON/HTRW Removal Action. During BCC-Jacobs JV Removal Action, lead concentration was detected above the soil cleanup level (13,600 mg/kg). During the RI, lead concentrations range from 6 mg/kg to 22.6 mg/kg. Volume of soil present is de minimis. Therefore, this site feature will not be discussed further or included in the FS since current field screening and analytical data indicate that contamination is not present above ADEC cleanup levels.  Feature A14 (T13) are the remains of a dump truck with engine, no oil pan, three differentials, transmission, transfer case, and one cracked battery. There was no stained soil visible at this feature. BCC-Jacobs JV removed the battery during the 2007 CON/HTRW Removal Action. During BCC-Jacobs JV Removal Action, lead concentration was detected above the soil cleanup level (54,300 mg/kg). During RI, lead concentrations in soil range from <5 mg/kg to 124 mg/kg. Volume of soil present is de minimis. Therefore, this site feature will not be discussed further or included in the FS since current field screening and analytical data indicate that contamination is not present above ADEC cleanup levels.  Feature A18 (T9) is a dump truck with engine, no oil pan, three differentials, transmission, transfer case, and one cracked battery. Although stained soil was reported at the time of the 2007 CON/HTRW Removal Action, no stained soil visible at this feature during the RI. BCC- Jacobs JV removed the battery during the 2007 CON/HTRW Removal Action. During BCC- Jacobs JV Removal Action, lead concentration was detected above the soil cleanup level (780 mg/kg). During the RI, lead concentrations in soil at A18 (T9) range from <5 mg/kg to 8.7 mg/kg. Volume of soil present is de minimis. Therefore, this site feature will not be discussed further or included in the FS since current field screening and analytical data indicate that contamination is not present above ADEC cleanup levels.

RI sampling and analysis for sediment included ponds and trenches in the Airstrip area. Detected concentrations are shown in Table 2-10. Sediment samples were analyzed for TPH-GRO, - DRO, -RRO, PAHs (by selective ion monitoring [SIM]), VOCs, and target metals. Sediment samples show low levels of TPH-DRO and -RRO in several samples. Most target metals were detected at low levels in each of the sediment samples, with exceedances at only two locations. Arsenic (10.3 mg/kg) and nickel (26.9 mg/kg) exceeded cleanup levels.

RI sampling and analysis for surface water included ponds and trenches in the Airstrip area. Detected concentrations are shown in Table 2-12. The surface water samples were analyzed for TPH-GRO, -DRO, -RRO, SVOCs, VOCs, and target metals. VOC detections were limited to low

September 2012 17 DRAFT FINAL Draft Final Feasibility Study Tanaga and Ogliuga Island FUDS, AK Contract No. W911KB-08-D-0004 AECOM Project No: 60133134

concentrations of acetone (3.70J,QH µg/L to 4.45J,QH µg/L). SVOCs, as well as TPH-GRO, -DRO, and -RRO, were not detected in any sample.

2.1.7 Southeast of Airstrip Area

2.1.7.1 BACKGROUND AND GENERAL DESCRIPTION A garage was located just southeast of the airstrip. Construction equipment, parts, and materials were likely staged in this area, along with drums containing aviation fuel, grease, and other petroleum products. Stacks of Marston matting for construction of the runway also were staged in this area.

A borrow pit was located at the south end of the runway and a second borrow pit was on a hill farther to the southwest. An aerophare (radio beacon) building with associated generator was located at the base of the hill south of the second borrow pit. The aerophare is not contained in the polygon of the Southeast of Airstrip area (Figure 2-5); however, the aerophare and associated generator will be considered as part of the Southeast area. Other locations are defined as areas with “All detected analytes below the most stringent ADEC cleanup level.”

Today, no standing buildings remain, but numerous pieces of heavy equipment are located along the southern portion of the airstrip including bulldozers, a crane, and trucks. Collapsed remnants of the former mechanics shop, pieces of equipment, tires, rusted parts, wood debris, drum remnants, and stacks of rusted Marston matting are present to the southeast. Pieces of shattered battery casings were noted on the ground at several locations. The remains of the aerophare generator building and generator are located farther southwest of the airstrip, beyond the outlines of the two former borrow pits (Figure 2-5).

In this area, groundwater depths range from 0.76 to 3.56 feet bgs. It is not clear in which direction groundwater flows, but groundwater elevations suggests a southwesterly flow.

2.1.7.2 PREVIOUS REMOVAL The 2007 CON/HTRW Removal Action included the removal of 10 lead batteries from several locations on the ground near a collapsed building (assumed to have been the mechanics shop). Several of the batteries were shattered, as well as two batteries removed from heavy equipment and one removed from the aerophare generator south of the airstrip. Approximately 7 tons of grossly contaminated soil and drum carcasses, drums containing POL solids (tars and greases), and three drums (approximately 1 ton) of POL liquids were removed from the Southeast of Airstrip area (BCC- Jacobs JV 2008).

2.1.7.3 NATURE OF CONTAMINATION Previous investigations focused on metals and fuels in soil from 1993 and 2007-2008. RI sampling and analysis focused on metals, PCBs, PAHs, SVOCs, and VOCs in soils. Detected concentrations are shown in Table 2-12. Nine areas have POL and lead exceedances.

Six lead impacted areas include SA04, SA05A, SA05B, SA11, SA24, and SA26.

 Feature SA04 (T109) was a scattered and crushed battery located at the entrance driveway to the former maintenance area; the battery was removed during the 2007 CON/HTRW Removal Action. Lead results ranged from <5 to 25,051QL mg/kg.  Feature SA05A was a battery removed during the 2007 CON/HTRW Removal Action. Adjusted x-ray fluorescence (XRF) lead results show concentrations of 15 B to 3,670 mg/kg.

September 2012 18 DRAFT FINAL Draft Final Feasibility Study Tanaga and Ogliuga Island FUDS, AK Contract No. W911KB-08-D-0004 AECOM Project No: 60133134

 Feature SA05B is a bare gravel area located southeast of the SA18 maintenance shed, where a battery was removed during the 2007 CON/HTRW Removal Action. Lead results ranged from 42 B to 5,094 mg/kg.  Feature SA11 was a battery removed during the 2007 CON/HTRW Removal Action. During BCC-Jacobs JV Removal Action, lead concentration was detected above the soil cleanup level (60,100 mg/kg). RI lead results show concentrations of 8B,QL to 340 mg/kg. Volume of soil present is de minimis. Therefore, this site feature will not be discussed further or included in the FS since current field screening and analytical data indicate that contamination is not present above ADEC cleanup levels.  Feature SA24 (T57A) is a crane with an intact oil pan, a radiator and a rusted fuel tank. There was no stained soil visible, but a cracked battery was removed during the 2007 CON/HTRW Removal Action. The crane is located some distance south of the area around the SA18 maintenance shed, along the road, and adjacent to a bare borrow pit. Lead results show concentrations of 6 to 546 mg/kg.  Feature SA26 (T111) is the location of the generator shed to an aerophare (radio beacon) in the flight path approaching the airstrip from the south. At this location, BCC-Jacobs JV reported during the 2007 CON/HTRW Removal Action (2007) that a generator remained present, as well as several empty drums. Two batteries were removed during the 2007 CON/HTRW Removal Action. During BCC-Jacobs JV Removal Action, lead concentration was detected above the soil cleanup level (16,300 mg/kg). No sampling was conducted during the RI at this feature as soil impacts to areas beyond the platform were not expected.

Three POL impacted areas include SA13, SA18, and SA19-SA23.

 Feature SA13 (T47) consists of approximately 20 drums and some metal debris located in the eastern portion of the Southeast of Airstrip area. A total of 14 UVOST probes were completed to evaluate the drum pile. The vertical extent of the impacted soil appears to be limited to 5 feet bgs. Detected concentrations of GRO, DRO, and RRO, as well as a large number of POL-related VOCs (toluene, ethylbenzene, xylenes, and trimethylated benzenes) and SVOCs (several PAHs) were found in sample confirmation.  Feature SA18 (T53C) is the location of a collapsed maintenance shop, where BCC-Jacobs JV during the 2007 CON/HTRW Removal Action noted several partial and intact non- galvanized 55-gallon drums (approximately eight were leaking a black tar-like substance). As part of the 2007 CON/HTRW Removal Action, BCC-Jacobs JV removed the grease barrels. The location of the former grease drums was apparent due to significant soil staining. UVOST probe SA LIF 038 was positioned within the stained soil. TPH-RRO exceeds the cleanup level (13,800 mg/kg). Several specific constituents of POL, such as trimethylbenzenes and xylenes, were detected. All metals were below cleanup levels.  The SA19 (T51), SA20 (T52), SA21 (T50), SA22 (T49), and SA23 (T48) site features were investigated together. These features consist of approximately 200 scattered drums and small drum piles located along the northern portion of the Southeast of Airstrip area. UVOST probes were positioned in the areas with the highest drum concentrations.  With the exception of SA LIF 013, all UVOST probes contained only background fluorescence. UVOST probe SA LIF 013 was positioned in the center of the stained soil located beneath a single drum and is likely limited in extent and resulted from the release from a single drum.

RI sampling and analysis for sediment in a small, ponded area within the debris field at the Southeast of Airstrip area include TPH-GRO, -DRO, -RRO, SVOCs, VOCs, and target metals. Detected concentrations are shown in Table 2-13; no VOCs were detected. Concentrations of TPH- DRO (9,330MH µg/L) and TPH-RRO (72,200MH µg/L) exceeded the cleanup level for migration to groundwater.

September 2012 19 DRAFT FINAL Draft Final Feasibility Study Tanaga and Ogliuga Island FUDS, AK Contract No. W911KB-08-D-0004 AECOM Project No: 60133134

RI sampling and analysis for groundwater include fuels, SVOCs, VOCs, PAHs, PCBs, and metals. Detected concentrations are shown in Table 2-14. Results confirm significant impacts with TPH-GRO and -DRO in SAA-WG02, substantially exceeding cleanup levels. Total lead in the groundwater (30.3MN µg/L and 59.3MN µg/L) exceeds the cleanup level for migration to groundwater. No other metals exceed these cleanup levels.

RI sampling and analysis for surface water in an small, ponded area within the debris field at the Southeast of Airstrip area include TPH-GRO, -DRO, -RRO, PAHs, VOCs, and target metals. Detected concentrations are shown in Table 2-15. The sediment from the bottom of the ponded area was high in TPH-DRO (2,550 mg/kg) and TPH-RRO (7,440 mg/kg). This exceeds the corresponding migration to groundwater cleanup levels (in the absence of sediment-specific RI cleanup levels). However, PAHs were not detected (although the high TPH-DRO and -RRO caused reporting limits to be raised to about 0.8 mg/kg, well above cleanup levels for many PAHs). A low level of benzene (2.1J µg/L, below cleanup level) and methylene chloride (11.2J µg/L, exceeding the cleanup level) were measured.

2.1.8 North of Airstrip Area

2.1.8.1 BACKGROUND AND GENERAL DESCRIPTION A CAA building and Very High Frequency Omni-range navigation antenna were located beyond the north end of the airstrip (North of Airstrip area). One side of the building was used as living quarters and the other side contained a generator. A 300-gallon fuel tank used to fuel the generator was located just outside the CAA building. A trench was dug around the perimeter of the building to drain water away from the building.

The North of Airstrip investigation area also includes two structures actually located on top of a ridge east of the Main Camp area and adjacent to the Small Arms Firing Range. These were a transmitter hut with antenna array, and a radar beacon (racon) building.

The CAA building is still standing, located in a bog about 1/2 mile north of the airstrip. It remains in relatively good condition with the former generator located inside. There is an empty 300-gallon AST, three partially buried 55-gallon drums, and a 5-gallon metal can located in a small bermed area south of the building. A drainage trench surrounds the perimeter of the building and the AST. The transmitter hut and racon buildings have collapsed, although power poles to these facilities remain (Figure 2-6, Figure 2-7). Other locations are defined as areas with “All detected analytes below the most stringent ADEC cleanup level.”

Groundwater was considered only at the CAA building area (NA4) at the north end. In this area, groundwater was encountered at less than a foot (0.16 to 0.31 feet bgs). Based on the location in a peat bog area, it appears that the groundwater is perched, and if any flux is present, it would be towards the north and Tanaga Bay.

2.1.8.2 PREVIOUS REMOVAL During the 2007 CON/HTRW Removal Action, five transformers were removed from the North of Airstrip area. One electric transformer was removed from inside the generator room of the CAA building, along with 12 smaller audio transformers and a small battery. A second transformer was removed from beneath a power pole outside the building. Two pole transformers were removed from beneath power poles along the ridge near the transmitter hut east of the Main Camp area and a single transformer was removed from the ground between the north end of the runway and the CAA building. This last transformer was noted to have been partially full and leaking (NA2) (BCC-Jacobs JV 2008).

September 2012 20 DRAFT FINAL Draft Final Feasibility Study Tanaga and Ogliuga Island FUDS, AK Contract No. W911KB-08-D-0004 AECOM Project No: 60133134

2.1.8.3 NATURE OF CONTAMINATION Previous investigation focused on fuels, VOCs, PCBs, and metals in soils from 2007-2008. RI sampling and analysis focused on metals, PCBs, PAHs, SVOCs, and VOCs in soils. Detected concentrations are shown in Table 2-16. Three areas of POL impacted soils that exceed cleanup levels.

 Feature of interest NA2 is an open, grass-covered area situated on a rise that slopes gently to the southwest approximately 0.5 mile north of the north end of the runway. In 2007, BCC- Jacobs JV removed one transformer located on the ground in this area. During RI activities performed on 24 July 2009, remnants of a former transformer pole connection and stained soils were noted in a depression in the ground surface at the former transformer location. PCBs and VOCs were not detected in any of the samples collected. TPH-DRO and -RRO concentrations were detected in all samples at low concentrations with the exception in one sample. TPH-DRO concentrations in for the sample and the corresponding duplicate sample from the same location exceed the migration to groundwater cleanup level at 16,600 mg/kg and 14,700MH mg/kg, respectively.  Feature of interest NA4 (T78) is located in a bog area covered with tundra/muskeg vegetation approximately 1 mile north of the airstrip, about 0.5 mile from Tanaga Bay. This feature consists of an intact navigation aid (CAA) building, an empty 300-gallon fuel tank located within a berm at the south end of the building, and approximately five partial, non- galvanized, empty 55-gallon drums. BCC-Jacobs JV removed one transformer, audio transformers, and a battery from within the building, and one transformer next to the building. Detected analytes include one VOC (acetone), one SVOC (benzoic acid), and relatively low levels of TPH-GRO, -DRO, -RRO, and most target metals. None of the detected analytes exceeds the direct contact cleanup levels.  Feature of interest NA5 is located in an open area covered by tundra grass at the top of a ridge east of the Main Camp area and west of the former firing range. Remnants of a wooden structure (Building 41) are located approximately 40 feet to the south. The feature consists of a standing transmission pole identified by global positioning system (GPS) coordinates. BCC-Jacobs JV removed one transformer from the ground at this location in 2007. In one sample with a field duplicate, PCBs (Aroclor 1260) were detected below cleanup levels. The primary sample had 0.200 mg/kg with 0.194 mg/kg as the duplicate. In the same sample, TPH-DRO concentrations exceeded the migration to groundwater cleanup level at 2,620 mg/kg with 3,270 mg/kg as the duplicate.

RI sampling and analysis for sediment include TPH-GRO, -DRO, -RRO, PAHs, PCBs, VOCs, and target metals. Detected concentrations are shown in Table 2-17. Data shows that the associated sediment sample had reported pyrene (0.108J,ML mg/kg) and total PCB (0.434 mg/kg) concentrations above cleanup levels. Elevated concentrations of TPH-DRO (3,730 mg/kg) also were detected (note that there is no sediment cleanup level).

RI sampling and analysis for groundwater utilizing temporary well points include TPH-GRO, - DRO, -RRO, SVOCs, VOCs, and target metals. Detected concentrations are shown in Table 2-18. Data show that two VOCs (acetone and benzene) were detected at low concentrations. Barium and nickel were the only metals detected in groundwater. SVOCs and petroleum hydrocarbons were not detected in groundwater.

RI sampling and analysis for surface water include TPH-GRO, -DRO, -RRO, SVOCs, VOCs, PCBs, and target metals. Detected concentrations are shown in Table 2-19. Lead was the only constituents detected in surface water to exceed cleanup levels.

September 2012 21 DRAFT FINAL Draft Final Feasibility Study Tanaga and Ogliuga Island FUDS, AK Contract No. W911KB-08-D-0004 AECOM Project No: 60133134

2.1.9 Tower Area

2.1.9.1 BACKGROUND AND GENERAL DESCRIPTION The Tower area is located at the southwestern end of the island approximately 2 miles from Lash Bay. The radar tower with adjacent quarters consists of several Quonset huts assumed to be radar control buildings and living quarters.

The tower itself still stands and is in good condition. There are remains of several collapsed buildings, two empty 1,000-gallon ASTs, an abandoned truck, a wood-stave tank, and partial (empty) 55-gallon drums and drum remnants at several disposal areas alongside the road leading to the tower from the east. Tower features of interest include the following: truck, two intact 1,000-gallon empty fuel tanks, and 15 to 20 partial 55-gallon drum pile, and 30 partial 55-gallon empty drum pile (Figure 2-8). Other locations are defined as areas with “All detected analytes below the most stringent ADEC cleanup level.”

Two of the three Temporary Well Points (TWPs) in this area encountered groundwater at 1.71 and 2.21 feet bgs. Yields were poor, and one well did not yield sufficient water to sample. Flow direction is unclear, but may be towards the lake to the north of the area.

2.1.9.2 PREVIOUS REMOVAL A 50-gallon day tank and three batteries were removed from the footprint of one of the collapsed buildings as part of the 2007 CON/HTRW Removal Action (BCC-Jacobs JV 2008).

2.1.9.3 NATURE OF CONTAMINATION Previous investigation sampling focused on fuels in soils from 2007-2008. RI sampling and analysis focused on metals, PCBs, PAHs, SVOCs, and VOCs in soils. Detected concentrations are shown in Table 2-20. Four POL impacted areas exceed cleanup levels.

 Feature T2 (T80) consists of two intact 1,000-gallon empty fuel tanks adjacent to a large wooden platform. A rusted truck is located nearby at the west end of the platform in an area of heavy and tall vegetation. Elevated levels of TPH-DRO were reported for two samples, located adjacent to the southernmost AST. Soils at both locations were noted as having a strong hydrocarbon odor and sheen.  Feature T3 (T81) consists of 15 to 20 partial, non-galvanized 55-gallon drums. BCC-Jacobs JV reported that some drums may have content, and there was evidence of releases. Detected analytes include TPH-GRO, -DRO, -RRO, and metals. Reported TPH-DRO concentrations 15,000 to 25,300MH mg/kg exceed the cleanup level. One VOC (1,2,4- trimethylbenzene) and one SVOC (2-methylnaphthalene) also were detected. The vertical extent of impacts is defined by the shallow water table. However, the exact horizontal and vertical extent of impacts is considered a data gap.  Feature T4 (T82) was reported by BCC-Jacobs JV as 10 partial, non-galvanized, empty 55-gallon drums and 15 intact, empty, galvanized 55-gallon drums. Low levels of TPH-DRO, -RRO, and metals were reported in all samples, with elevated levels of TPH-DRO (3,680 mg/kg) detected in one sample.  Feature T8 (T83) was reported by BCC-Jacobs JV as approximately 30 partial, non- galvanized, empty 55-gallon drums and one intact, galvanized, empty 55-gallon drum. TPH- DRO (166,000MH mg/kg) and 2-methylnaphthalene (409MN mg/kg) concentrations in one sample are above the migration to groundwater cleanup levels.

RI sampling and analysis for sediment include TPH-GRO, -DRO, -RRO, SVOCs, VOCs, and target metals. Detected concentrations are shown in Table 2-21. Low levels of TPH-RRO (416 mg/kg),

September 2012 22 DRAFT FINAL Draft Final Feasibility Study Tanaga and Ogliuga Island FUDS, AK Contract No. W911KB-08-D-0004 AECOM Project No: 60133134

TPH-DRO (38.3 mg/kg), and barium (41.3MH mg/kg) were detected. No exceedances of cleanup levels were noted in sediment.

RI sampling and analysis for groundwater include VOCs. Detected concentrations are shown in Table 2-22. Reported concentrations of VOCs are below the cleanup levels.

RI sampling and analysis for surface water include TPH-GRO, -DRO, -RRO, PAHs, VOCs, and target metals. Detected concentrations are shown in Table 2-23. Low level of barium (2.17 mg/kg) was detected. No exceedances of cleanup levels were noted in surface water.

2.1.10 Pumphouse Area

2.1.10.1 BACKGROUND AND GENERAL DESCRIPTION The Pumphouse area includes several separate units: the base water pump house located near a lake at the north end of the area; the main base generator station with five generators located along the road between the Main Camp area and the Airstrip area; and a radio transmitter and flight control tower building atop a hill to the south of the road.

Today, the pump house and the transmitter buildings have collapsed. The generator shed is gone, but the five generators still stand on concrete pads, with power poles and transformer platforms nearby. The area has become saturated and marshy, although a gravel pad is still present under vegetation near the generator shed. An AST is present at the generator building and described in the RI as a fuel box (PH03). Features of interest include the following: generator at collapsed generator hut, fuel box and drums at collapsed pump house, battery near fuel tank, and transformer rack and generator shed (Figure 2-9). Other locations are defined as areas with “All detected analytes below the most stringent ADEC cleanup level.”

The depth to groundwater was measured from TWPs PH1 through PH5/6 and varied from a dry boring to bedrock at 13.5 feet bgs (at PH1 on top of the hill to the south) to 0.62 feet bgs at PH3 adjacent to the lake to the north. In the PH5/6 area, depth to groundwater in the TWPs was not recorded, but the majority of the area appears to have standing water.

2.1.10.2 PREVIOUS REMOVAL The 2007 CON/HTRW Removal Action included the removal of eight transformers, five bolted to the concrete pad at the former generator building and three from beneath and on the elevated platform southeast of the generator building. Approximately 2 tons of PCB impacted soil and organic materials were removed from the base of the concrete pad supporting the five generators. Approximately 175 gallons of suspected diesel fuel were removed from an AST located at the former pump house. One lead battery was removed from the collapsed pump house and one from the collapsed communications building. Sheen was present on the water on top of concrete pad (BCC- Jacobs JV 2008).

2.1.10.3 NATURE OF CONTAMINATION Previous investigation sampling focused on fuels, VOCs, PCBs, PAHs, and metals in soils from 1993 and 2007-2008. RI sampling and analysis focused on metals, PCBs, PAHs, SVOCs, and VOCs in soils. Detected concentrations are shown in Table 2-24. There are four areas impacted with POL and lead exceeding cleanup levels.

Three POL impacted areas include PH1, PH3, and PH5/6.

 Feature PH1 (T108) consists of a collapsed generator hut adjacent to the remains of the airstrip control tower and radio communications building. It is located atop a hill south of the pump house. A generator with engine and intact oil pan (probably with contents) is present

September 2012 23 DRAFT FINAL Draft Final Feasibility Study Tanaga and Ogliuga Island FUDS, AK Contract No. W911KB-08-D-0004 AECOM Project No: 60133134

under a collapsed hut adjacent to the collapsed building. A battery was removed from this location during the 2007 CON/HTRW Removal Action. A total of 11 UVOST probes were placed around the generator hut. Lead results ranged from <5 to 134 mg/kg. No significant impact from the battery is present.  Feature PH3 (T104) is a partially collapsed pump house adjacent to a small lake. The UVOST investigation identified POL impacted soil at the former pump house (maximum LIF response of 23%). Due to the shallow water table, the vertical extent of POL impacted soil at PH3 (T104) is limited to 2 feet bgs.  Feature PH5 (T106B) consists of an elevated transformer rack, which BCC-Jacobs JV reported as having three transformers. One transformer was intact on the rack and two were on the ground below the rack (one intact and one rusted). All three transformers were removed as part of the removal action. Immediately west of the transformer rack, feature PH6 (T106A) is a collapsed generator building with five generators on concrete slabs, five transformer boxes, an empty 100-gallon fuel tank, and several partial, non-galvanized, 55-gallon drums. All five generators had an engine with a rusted oil pan, most likely empty, and a radiator with a rusted pan. Stained soil and hydrocarbon sheens were noted around the concrete pads. Five transformers were removed during the removal action. Only one sample exceeded a cleanup level (TPH-RRO). No other sample exceeded cleanup levels for any analyte. Low levels of PCBs (Aroclor 1254 and 1260) were noted in eight of the samples, but all below cleanup levels.

One area was impacted by lead exceedances. Feature PH4 was a broken battery under a roof near the fuel tank by the pump house. The battery was removed during the 2007 CON/HTRW Removal Action. Lead results show concentrations of 29B,QL to 912 mg/kg.

RI sampling and analysis for sediment include fuels, VOCs, PAHs, PCBs, and metals. Detected concentrations are shown in Table 2-25. Sampling detected some PAHs and an exceedance for nickel, but no other exceedances. PCBs were not detected.

RI sampling and analysis for groundwater include fuels, SVOCs, VOCs, PAHs, PCBs, and metals. Detected concentrations are shown in Table 2-26. Sampling detected low levels of TPH-GRO, toluene, xylenes, and other POL-related hydrocarbons, but all below cleanup levels. No PCBs were detected.

RI sampling and analysis for surface water include fuels, VOCs, PCBs, and metals. Detected concentrations are shown in Table 2-27. An exceedance of surface water cleanup values for PCBs (Aroclor 1254 at 0.453–0.582 µg/L) and lead is present in one sample. No other exceedances of surface water cleanup levels were present.

2.1.11 Landfill Area

2.1.11.1 BACKGROUND AND GENERAL DESCRIPTION A landfill was present to the southwest of the airstrip near the shore on the road to the tower. The exact location of the potential landfill was identified by the Army Geospatial Center or the Topographic Engineering Center via historical photographic analysis.

The landfill was located and identified during the RI by AECOM using geophysics. A stream runs along the west perimeter of the landfill emptying into a bay. The landfill has an undulated surface with metal and other visible debris (e.g., shelves, drums, a small bulldozer, etc.) protruding from the grass-covered surface.

The north side of the landfill is adjacent to the road leading to the tower, the east side abuts a slight ridge, and the south and west sides appear to consist of dirt mounds pushed to the location and sloping to the stream, with a shallow plateau on the south side.

September 2012 24 DRAFT FINAL Draft Final Feasibility Study Tanaga and Ogliuga Island FUDS, AK Contract No. W911KB-08-D-0004 AECOM Project No: 60133134

2.1.11.2 NATURE OF CONTAMINATION RI sampling and analysis focused on metals, PCBs, PAHs, SVOCs, and VOCs in soils (Table 2-28). Analytes detected in soil at the Landfill area include low levels of TPH-RRO and target metals in each sample, with estimated values of TPH-GRO and TPH-DRO at two locations. Two VOCs (4-isopropyltoluene and acetone) and three SVOCs (2,4-dinitrophenol, 4-nitrophenol, and benzoic acid) were reported at estimated values in two samples. All constituent concentrations are below the applicable cleanup levels (except naturally occurring arsenic at LA-SS03). Potential impacts from the landfill would likely be limited to the immediate area of the bulldozer. Based on the perimeter sampling of the landfill, it can be concluded that no leaching of contaminants in the down gradient direction is presently occurring.

RI sampling and analysis for sediment include fuels, VOCs, PAHs, target metals, and PCBs. Detected concentrations are shown in Table 2-29. Low levels of TPH-DRO (19 mg/kg) and TPH- RRO (332 mg/kg) were noted in one sample, and trace levels of several PAHs (<0.01 mg/kg) were noted in another. No PCBs or VOCs were detected. No constituent detected in the sediment exceeds the RI cleanup levels. It is not clear where the trace hydrocarbons derive from, because they do not appear in soil or groundwater adjacent to the creek. They may be related to the bridge debris from the collapsed road bridge just upstream of the landfill.

RI sampling and analysis for groundwater include fuels, SVOCs, VOCs, PCBs, and target metals. Detected concentrations are shown in Table 2-30. Data indicate that there are no impacts to groundwater associated with the former landfill operations.

RI sampling and analysis for surface water include fuels, VOCs, target metals, and PCBs. Detected concentrations are shown in Table 2-31. A stream runs along the west perimeter of the landfill emptying into a bay or cove. Similar to the groundwater sampled at the landfill, no organic constituents were detected in surface water, and metal detections (barium and selenium) are below screening levels and do not appear elevated. There is debris upstream that may be related to the bridge debris from the collapsed road bridge. There is no impact to the stream from the landfill.

2.1.12 Small Arms Firing Range Area

2.1.12.1 BACKGROUND AND GENERAL DESCRIPTION A small arms firing range existed east of the ridge, east of the Main Camp area. The firing range included a 200-yard firing line and a 100-yard firing line made of planking. The target line consisted of a trench with plank flooring, and a drain ditch towards the east. A dirt mound is behind the ditch. A short berm is located at the firing side of the range.

Open land is to the south. Overshooting would reach the eastern side of Lash Bay. Today, all the features of the small arms firing range can still be discerned. This area had not been previously evaluated for impacts (Figure 2-7).

2.1.12.2 NATURE OF CONTAMINATION RI sampling and analysis focused on metals in soils. Detected concentrations are shown in Table 2-32. The only exceedance is for arsenic, which is assumed to be background. No other exceedances were detected.

RI sampling and analysis for sediment include metals. Detected concentrations are shown in Table 2-33. The only exceedance is for arsenic, which is assumed to be background. No other exceedances were detected.

RI sampling and analysis for surface water include metals. Detected concentrations are shown in Table 2-34. No exceedances were detected.

September 2012 25 DRAFT FINAL Draft Final Feasibility Study Tanaga and Ogliuga Island FUDS, AK Contract No. W911KB-08-D-0004 AECOM Project No: 60133134

2.2 OGLIUGA ISLAND 2.2.1 Land Ownership Status Ogliuga has been under the jurisdiction of the USFWS as part of the Aleutian Islands National Wildlife Reservation since 1913. United States military forces never formally acquired real estate on the island; therefore, official disposal of the property by the military has never occurred (USACE 2008).

The Ogliuga Island FUDS are located entirely within the Aleutian Unit of the AMNWR, and are owned by the federal government and administered in accordance with AMNWR objectives. The land manager for the area occupied by the Ogliuga FUDS is therefore the USFWS. On Ogliuga Island, 389 acres corresponding to most of the FUDS were excluded from the overall 2,000 acres of wilderness-designated acreage.

Some portions of the FUDS are located within the designated wilderness boundaries. On Ogliuga, the East and West areas are entirely located in wilderness-designated areas, and some features of interest (empty barrels) in the Runway Camp area also lie within the wilderness boundary.

No parts of the Ogliuga FUDS are on the National Register of Historic Places (ADNR 2005), although the archaeological survey conducted concurrently with the 2007 CON/HTRW Removal Action concluded that the FUDS qualifies for inclusion in the register (USACE 2008). Two parcels of land within the Ogliuga FUDS area have been conveyed to the Aleut Corporation and are located within the East and West areas, respectively.

2.2.2 Areas Under Investigation The FUDS areas on Ogliuga are located in three distinct areas connected by the remnants of a World War II-era roadway encompassing approximately 389 acres, as shown on Figure 1-3.

The following sections summarize previous studies and removal actions and the Nature of Contamination for each of the Ogliuga Island FUDS areas (see below). The extent of contamination will be estimated in Section 3.0.

 Section 2.2.3, Ogliuga Runway Camp Area  Section 2.2.4, Ogliuga East Area  Section 2.2.5, Ogliuga West Area

2.2.3 Ogliuga Runway Camp Area

2.2.3.1 BACKGROUND AND GENERAL DESCRIPTION The Runway Camp Area is located at the north central portion of Ogliuga Island. This area included the 100-foot by 3,000-foot runway constructed of Marston steel matting, four aircraft parking areas, Quonset huts for living quarters, radio communications, and Aircraft Warning Service radar. Several Quonset huts were built in high sod revetments that border a terrace that rims a small bay. A total of six former huts and two generators were located in the Runway area. A radar tower was located at the north end of the Runway Camp Area. Three ammunition sources (R02, R11, and R25) are located in the Runway area: cases of rifle ammunition and caliber bullets.

Today, the remains of the former runway are barely visible and are heavily overgrown with tundra grass. Building debris and remains of the former tower can still be seen. An empty 500-gallon AST and generator are located within a berm or revetment north of the runway. An empty 1,000-gallon AST is located near the edge of a bluff. Several pieces of heavy equipment are abandoned at the northern portion of the camp. Approximately 60 feet north of R21 (J19) there was a partial, 250-gallon empty tank, wood debris, and three partial, non-galvanized, empty 55-gallon drums. Two

September 2012 26 DRAFT FINAL Draft Final Feasibility Study Tanaga and Ogliuga Island FUDS, AK Contract No. W911KB-08-D-0004 AECOM Project No: 60133134

small drum disposal areas were identified one containing approximately 50 to 60 partial 55-gallon drums and one containing approximately 30 to 40 partial drums and scattered drums are present (Figure 2-10). Other locations are defined as areas with “All detected analytes below the most stringent ADEC cleanup level.” Feature R16 (J20A) was described by BCC-Jacobs as an area with a 500-gallon wood stave, cistern, three partial, non-galvanized, empty 55-gallon drums and two empty, galvanized 55-gallon drums, which were welded together. During RI investigation activities, this feature of interest was not located at or near the provided GPS coordinates, and therefore, this area was not sampled.

Groundwater levels were encountered at 1.3 to 2.61 feet bgs. Groundwater gradient is unknown, but there is evidence of groundwater seeps along the low bluffs towards the beach east and west of the area. Recharge was low. There were only two sampling points with water present, so it was not possible to calculate a gradient.

2.2.3.2 PREVIOUS REMOVAL The 2007 CON/HTRW Removal Action performed at the Runway Camp Area by BCC-Jacobs JV included the removal of one intact 55-gallon drum containing grease, three galvanized 55-gallon drums containing suspected aviation fuel, approximately 0.3 tons of POL impacted soil, and three intact lead batteries (BCC-Jacobs JV 2008).

2.2.3.3 NATURE OF CONTAMINATION Previous investigation focused on fuels, PCBs, PAHs, VOCs, pesticides, and metals in soils from 1993, 1998, and 2007-2008 after soil removal. RI sampling and analysis focused on metals, PCBs, PAHs, SVOCs, and VOCs in soils. Detected concentrations are shown in Table 2-35. Seven areas were impacted with POL and lead that exceeded cleanup levels.

Six POL impacted areas include R04, R07, R17, R20, R22, and R23.

 Feature of interest R04 (J12) was reported by BCC-Jacobs JV as six partial, non-galvanized 55-gallon drums (one drum partially full with what appeared to be rusty rainwater, and five empty drums) and an area with spilled grease. According to the BCC-Jacobs JV report, one drum and grossly contaminated soil were removed during the removal action. Little to no vegetation was present in the former drum impressions, with light soil staining at a few locations. BC-Jacobs JV benzene and methylene chloride concentrations in surface soil exceeded the migration to groundwater cleanup level (0.20 mg/kg and 0.067 mg/kg, respectively). TPH-DRO and -RRO concentrations in surface soil exceeded the migration to groundwater cleanup level (13,300MH mg/kg and 81,200 mg/kg, respectively). TPH-RRO concentrations in all samples exceeded the soil cleanup level (8,300 mg/kg) at concentrations ranging from 15,700 mg/kg (R04-SX01) to 81,200 mg/kg (R04-SX05).  Feature of interest R07 (J46) was described during the 2007 CON/HTRW Removal Action as one intact, galvanized, empty 55-gallon drum. Detected analytes exceeds the migration to groundwater cleanup levels for TPH-DRO (5,400 mg/kg).  Feature of interest R17 (J5) was described by BCC-Jacobs JV as a 1,000-gallon, empty AST located on a bluff with a galvanized sink and wood debris approximately 20 feet east of the AST at the base of the bluff. TPH-DRO was the only constituent above migration to groundwater cleanup levels (except for naturally occurring arsenic). TPH-DRO was detected in one of seven samples at 10,700 mg/kg.  Feature of interest R20 (J3) was reported by BCC-Jacobs JV as one intact, galvanized, empty 55-gallon drum. Detected analytes exceeds the migration to groundwater cleanup levels for TPH-DRO (326 mg/kg).

September 2012 27 DRAFT FINAL Draft Final Feasibility Study Tanaga and Ogliuga Island FUDS, AK Contract No. W911KB-08-D-0004 AECOM Project No: 60133134

 Feature R22 (J2A) was described by BCC-Jacobs JV as a tower of four wooden posts with a diagonal wooden beam found at R22 (J2A). Detected analytes exceeds the migration to groundwater cleanup levels for TPH-DRO (314 mg/kg).  Feature R23 (J2B) was reported by BCC-Jacobs as one intact, galvanized 55-gallon drum approximately 25% full, but no stained soil. Detected analytes exceeds the migration to groundwater cleanup levels for TPH-DRO (472 mg/kg).

One lead impacted area was determined. Feature of interest R10 (J8) was described by BCC- Jacobs JV as an empty 500-gallon fuel tank and adjacent generator with engine and radiator. Lead was detected above the soil cleanup level in a sample at a concentration of 1,580ML mg/kg.

RI sampling and analysis for groundwater include fuels, VOCs, and metals. Detected concentrations are shown in Table 2-36. Three VOCs benzene (126 µg/L), methylene chloride (49.6 J µg/L), and PCE (107 µg/L) were detected and present above the corresponding groundwater cleanup levels in one sample from the TWP immediately adjacent to the south side of the empty 500-gallon AST. None of the three VOCs was detected above cleanup levels in the other six soil samples. Lead was detected above the cleanup level (91.9 µg/L).

2.2.4 Ogliuga East Area

2.2.4.1 BACKGROUND AND GENERAL DESCRIPTION The Ogliuga East Area is located on a peninsula at the northeast end of the island. It appears that this area was used as a barrel dump to dispose of empty 55-gallon POL drums. Scattered drum piles persist in the East Area (Figure 2-11). Other locations are defined as areas with “All detected analytes below the most stringent ADEC cleanup level.” A feature of interest in the southeastern side of Ogliuga (Figure 1-3) was reported by BCC-Jacobs JV as one partial non-galvanized empty drum. Due to the remote location far south of the main sector of the East area, and location within the wilderness boundary, this feature of interest in the southeastern area was not investigated due to the lack of access and brief time during the RI on Ogliuga Island.

2.2.4.2 PREVIOUS REMOVAL A total of 89 drums containing POL liquid, suspected to be aviation fuel, were removed during 2007 CON/HTRW Removal Action.

2.2.4.3 NATURE OF CONTAMINATION Previous investigations focused on fuels, PAHs, VOCs, and metals in soils from 1998 and 2007- 2008. RI sampling and analysis focused on metals, PCBs, PAHs, SVOCs, and VOCs in soils for areas of known or suspected releases. Detected concentrations are shown in Table 2-37. During the 2007 CON/HTRW Removal Action, BCC-Jacobs JV identified subdivided the features of interest into four units, designated as E05, E06, E07, and E08. Collectively, these areas consisted of approximately 200 partial, non-galvanized 55-gallon drums (empty) in various stages of decay. Detected analytes exceeds the migration to groundwater cleanup levels for TPH-DRO and -GRO with maximums of 906 and 614 mg/kg. 2,4-Dinitrophenol, 2,4-dinitrotoluene, 3,3-dichlorobenzidine, hexachloro-benzene, and penta-chlorophenol exceed the migration to groundwater cleanup level.

2.2.5 Ogliuga West Area

2.2.5.1 BACKGROUND AND GENERAL DESCRIPTION The Ogliuga West Area included the shoreline access area, with associated buildings and facilities. Twelve former Quonset huts are located in the West area. This area was not investigated in the RI HTRW due to lack of access (Figure 2-12). Other locations are defined as areas with “All detected analytes below the most stringent ADEC cleanup level.”

September 2012 28 DRAFT FINAL Draft Final Feasibility Study Tanaga and Ogliuga Island FUDS, AK Contract No. W911KB-08-D-0004 AECOM Project No: 60133134

Feature W7 (J45) was reported by BCC-Jacobs JV as one grease drum and 0.15 tons of POL impacted soil was removed. Detected analytes exceed the migration to groundwater cleanup levels for benzene at 0.11 mg/kg. Detected analytes exceed the migration to groundwater cleanup levels for benzene and methylene chloride at 0.11 and 0.08 mg/kg, respectively.

Feature W9 (J34) was reported by BCC-Jacobs JV as one grease drum. Detected analytes exceed the migration to groundwater cleanup levels for TPH-DRO and -RRO at 4,000 and 48,000 mg/kg, respectively. Detected analytes exceed the migration to groundwater cleanup levels for methylene chloride at 0.044 mg/kg.

2.2.5.2 PREVIOUS REMOVAL This area was evaluated during the 2007 CON/HTRW Removal Action and included the removal of one intact 55-gallon drum containing grease and two partial 55-gallon drums and POL-impacted soil (approximately 0.15 ton) removed from beneath the drums (BCC-Jacobs JV 2008).

2.2.5.3 NATURE OF CONTAMINATION Previous investigations focused on fuels, PCBs, PAHs, VOCs, and metals in soils from 1998 and 2007-2008 after removal. Detected concentrations are shown in Table 2-38. No sampling was conducted in this area during the RI.

September 2012 29 DRAFT FINAL Draft Final Feasibility Study Tanaga and Ogliuga Island FUDS, AK Contract No. W911KB-08-D-0004 AECOM Project No: 60133134

This page intentionally left blank.

September 2012 30 DRAFT FINAL 2816000 2816500 2817000 2817500

Figure 2-1 MC24 (T85) collapsed latrines and barracks with fuel box Tanaga Main Camp Area MC25 (T86)

collapsed Quonset huts and 150 gallon fuel tank

* * Features of Interest # # !(

MC22 (T88) MC21 debris and 150 gallon fuel tank batteries Legend MC19 (T89)

collapsed building with fuel tank MC20 Features of Interest

empty paint cans * T90B # collapsed generator building *# *# MC27 Fuel Impacted Feature !( battery MC28 MC23 (T87) !( batteries *# water stave and 5000 gallon fuel tank on hill MC18 (T90A) Lead Impacted Feature

254000 transformers 254000 )" * * # !( # PCB Impacted Feature MC26 batteries !(

MC30 !( Other Features

former septic pond location * * # # * * #

)"# !( T91B !( Investigation Areas !( 55 gallon drums

MC16 (T91A)

* * # # collapsed hut with walk

MC15 battery

MC17 (T92) transformer near collapsed hut and power pole

253500 MC14 (T93) 253500 water boiler and 150 gallon fuel tank

MC11 !( battery

MC10 (T95)

battery at collapsed building

* * # #

* * # # # * !( MC29 additional batteries

MC09 (T94) MC13 *# *# !( *#

transformers at collapsed machine shop battery

* * # #

* *

# #

* * # MC06 (T102) # 55 gallon drums

MC12 (T96C) waste oil drums

MC08 (T96A)

batteries at collapsed machine shop

* 253000 * 253000 # T96B # bulldozer in collapsed hut

MC05 (T98) trucks, drums, transformer, and battery MC03 (T99) dump truck Inset: Tanaga Island MC01 (T101) Projection: Alaska State Plane Zone 10, NAD 83, Units in Feet 55 gallon drums

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS ALASKA DISTRICT

DESIGNED BY: Notes: BB/ftc Naval Auxiliary Air Facility Tanaga 1. For features of interest, the first part of the name corresponds FUDS Project No. F10AK022801 to the name assigned during the 2007 GPS survey conducted DRAWN BY: Tanaga Island, Alaska by BCC-Jacobs; the second part of the name (in parenthesis) LJP/ftc represents the name assigned by North Wind during the 2006 ³ PROJECT NUMBER: GPS survey. CHECKED BY: SCALE: As Shown 2. Base Image: Commercial satellite imagery; October 4, 2008. Feet 60133134 0 100 200 400 RLB/ftc DAT E: January 2012 252500 252500 SUBMITTED BY: 2816000 2816500 2817000 2817500 BB/ftc FILE: Refer to left margin REVISION:1 Path: T:\USACE_Tanaga\GIS_Docs\Working\Report_FS_SDFSIE\Fig2-1.mxd AREA B

AREA Q

AREA R

AREA P AREA C

AREA A AREA H

AREA D

AREA G

AREA F

AREA I

AREA L

AREA M

AREA E Legend Fuel Impacted Area

AREA K Maximum LIF (%) 3 - 10%

AREA N 11 - 25% AREA O AREA J 26 - 50% 51 - 100% > 100% Plume Boundary Generated by Software Plume Boundary Inferred by Professional Judgment

NOTES: Figure 2-2 1. Contours are inferred. Data only exists at specific UVOST Barrel Dump Area probe locations. Contours were generated using Surfer Version 8.05 Features of Interest with Kriging as the default gridding method. DESIGNED BY: SCALE: ³ INT As Shown 2. Data from this figure reproduced from USACE DRAWN BY: DATE: Tanaga Island Feet INT Jan. 2012 / Rev: 1 (2010) "2009 Tanaga Petroleum-Oil-Lububricant CHECKED BY: FILE: Naval Auxiliary Air Facility Tanaga U.S. ARMY CORPS 0630 0120INT Refer to left margin Investigation". FUDS Project No. F10AK022801 OF ENGINEERS SUBMITTED BY: PROJECT NUMBER: ALASKA DISTRICT BB/ftc 60133134 Path: T:\USACE_Tanaga\GIS_Docs\Working\Report_FS_SDFSIE\Fig2-2.mxd Path: 2814000 2814200 2814400 2814600 2814800 2815000 2815200 2815400 2815600 2815800

Figure 2-3 Tanaga Airstrip Area Features of Interest (northern section)

255800 #* 255800

A03 (T23) bulldozer Legend

Features of Interest *

# Fuel Impacted Features *# Lead Impacted Features 255600 A25 (T25) 255600 bulldozer !( Other Features (! Investigation Areas

255400 255400

* # * A26 (T26) # grader 255200 255200

A28 (T28) dump truck (! 255000 255000

A30 (T30) dump truck 254800 254800

Inset: Tanaga Island A35 (T35) Projection: Alaska State Plane zone 10, NAD83, Units in Feet 254600 254600 dump truck U.S. ARMY CORPS (! OF ENGINEERS T42

Southwest corner of airstrip ALASKA DISTRICT

* # * # DESIGNED BY: Naval Auxiliary Air Facility Tanaga Notes: BB/ftc 1. For features of interest, the first part of the name corresponds FUDS Project No. F10AK022801 DRAWN BY: to the name assigned during the 2007 GPS survey conducted Tanaga Island, Alaska by BCC-Jacobs; the second part of the name (in parenthesis) LjP/ftc

254400 ³ 254400 PROJECT NUMBER: represents the name assigned by North Wind during the 2006 CHECKED BY: SCALE: GPS survey. Feet As Shown 60133134 2. Base Image: Commercial satellite imagery; October 4, 2008. RLB/ftc 0 100 200 400 DAT E: SUBMITTED BY: January 2012 2814000 2814200 2814400 A40 (T40)2814600 2814800 2815000 2815200 2815400 2815600 2815800 BB/ftc FILE: Refer to left margin REVISION: 1 Path: T:\USACE_Tanaga\GIS_Docs\Working\Report_FS_SDFSIE\Fig2-3.mxd dump truck 2813400 2813600 2813800 2814000 2814200 2814400 2814600 2814800 2815000 2815200 2815400 2815600 2815800 2816000 2816200 2816400 2816600 2816800 2817000 2817200 2817400 2817600 2817800 2818000 258000 258000

A21 (T5) Figure 2-4 * * #

compressor # Tanaga Airstrip Area Features 257800 257800 of Interest (southern section)

A18 (T9) 257600 *# A19 (T8) 257600 Legend dump truck !( Worthington Compressor Engine

Features of Interest

* !( #

257400 A17 (T10) 257400 Fuel Impacted Features generator *# Lead Impacted Features !( Other Features 257200 A14 (T13) 257200

A13 (T14) dump truck

generator *# Investigation Areas * * # # 257000 257000 A11 (T16) electrical trailer !( 256800 256800

A12 (T15) !( generator

256600 A10 (T17) 256600 crane *# A09 (T18) 256400 !( wagon trailer 256400 256200 256200 256000 256000

A03 (T23) bulldozer *# 255800 255800

A25 (T25) bulldozer 255600 !( 255600 A26 (T26)

grader

* * # 255400 # 255400 255200 255200 A28 (T28) !( dump truck 255000 255000 A30 (T30) !( dump truck Inset: Tanaga Island Projection: Alaska State Plane Zone 10, NAD83, Units in Feet 254800 254800

A35 (T35) U.S. ARMY CORPS dump truck T42 OF ENGINEERS Southwest corner 254600 254600 ALASKA DISTRICT

!( of airstrip

* * # # DESIGNED BY: Naval Auxiliary Air Facility Tanaga BB/ftc Notes: FUDS Project No. F10AK022801 A40 (T40) DRAWN BY: 254400 1. For features of interest, the first part of the name corresponds 254400 Tanaga Island, Alaska to the name assigned during the 2007 GPS survey conducted dump truck LjP/ftc by BCC-Jacobs; the second part of the name (in parenthesis) ³ PROJECT NUMBER: represents the name assigned by North Wind during the 2006 CHECKED BY: SCALE: As Shown GPS survey. !( Feet 60133134 2. Base Image: Commercial satellite imagery; October 4, 2008. RLB/ftc DAT E:

254200 0 200 400 800 254200 SUBMITTED BY: January 2012

FILE: Refer to left margin REVISION: 1 Path: T:\USACE_Tanaga\GIS_Docs\Working\Report_FS_SDFSIE\Fig2-4.mxd 2813400 2813600 2813800 2814000 2814200 2814400 2814600 2814800 2815000 2815200 2815400 2815600 2815800 2816000 2816200 2816400 2816600 2816800 2817000 2817200 2817400 2817600 2817800 2818000 BB/ftc 2812000 2812200 2812400 2812600 2812800 2813000 2813200 2813400 2813600 2813800 2814000 2814200 2814400 2814600 2814800 2815000 2815200 2815400

254000 SA18 (T53C) 254000 SA20 (T52) Figure 2-5 collapsed maintenance 55 gallon drums shop and grease drums SA21 (T50) Tanaga 55 gallon drums

SA19 (T51) Southeast of Airstrip Area * * #

SA01 (T43) 55 gallon drums #

253800 253800 * * * bulldozer * # # # # SA22 (T49) Features of Interest 55 gallon drums

SA17 !(

* * #

55 gallon drums #

* * #

# SA15 (T53A) Legend

bulldozer * * #

SA16 !( #

battery 253600 253600 * * #

!(!( !( # Features of Interest * !( SA23 (T48) # SA14 SA02 (T44) 55 gallon drums Fuel Impacted Features battery !( bulldozer *# *# *# *# Lead Impacted Features *# SA04 (T109)

253400 253400 !( battery SA05A Other Features battery SA11 SA13 (T47) battery 55 gallon drums Investigation Areas SA05B SA05C battery battery 253200 253200 253000 253000

SA24 (T57A) crane and battery *# 252800 252800 252600 252600 252400 252400 252200 252200 252000 252000 251800 251800

Inset: Tanaga Island Projection: Alaska State Plane Zone 10, NAD83, Units in Feet 251600 251600 U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS ALASKA DISTRICT

Notes: DESIGNED BY: 251400 251400 Naval Auxiliary Air Facility Tanaga 1. For features of interest, the first part of the name corresponds BB/ftc to the name assigned during the 2007 GPS survey conducted FUDS Project No. F10AK022801 DRAWN BY: by BCC-Jacobs; the second part of the name (in parenthesis) SA26 (T111) ³ Tanaga Island, Alaska represents the name assigned by North Wind during the 2006 generator and drums LjP/ftc GPS survey. Feet PROJECT NUMBER: *# CHECKED BY: SCALE: As Shown 2. Base Image: Commercial satellite imagery; October 4, 2008. 0 150 300 600 60133134

251200 251200 RLB/ftc DAT E: SUBMITTED BY: January 2012

2812000 2812200 2812400 2812600 2812800 2813000 2813200 2813400 2813600 2813800 2814000 2814200 2814400 2814600 2814800 2815000 2815200 2815400 BB/ftc FILE: Refer to left margin REVISION:1 Path: T:\USACE_Tanaga\GIS_Docs\Working\Report_FS_SDFSIE\Fig2-5.mxd 2816000 2816200 2816400 2816600 2816800 2817000 2817200 2817400 2817600 2817800 2818000 2818200 2818400 2818600 2818800 2819000 2819200 2819400

Figure 2-6

Tanaga * * # NA4 (T78) # 262400 intact CAA building, fuel tank, 262400 generator, transformers North of Airstrip Area Features of Interest 262200 262200 Legend

Features of Interest

* #

262000 262000 Fuel Impacted Features !( Other Features Investigation Areas 261800 261800 261600 261600 261400 261400 261200 261200 261000 261000 260800 260800 260600 260600 260400 260400 260200 260200 Inset: Tanaga Island Projection: Alaska State Plane Zone 10, NAD83, Units in Feet

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS 260000 NA1 (T4) !( 260000 55 gallon drums at wooden platform ALASKA DISTRICT

DESIGNED BY: * * # Notes: # Naval Auxiliary Air Facility Tanaga 1. For features of interest, the first part of the name corresponds BB/ftc to the name assigned during the 2007 GPS survey conducted FUDS Project No. F10AK022801 DRAWN BY: by BCC-Jacobs; the second part of the name (in parenthesis) 259800 259800 Tanaga Island, Alaska represents the name assigned by North Wind during the 2006 ³ LJP/ftc GPS survey. NA2 PROJECT NUMBER: CHECKED BY: SCALE: 2. Base Image: Commercial satellite imagery; October 4, 2008. transformer Feet As Shown 60133134 0 150 300 600 RLB/ftc DAT E: SUBMITTED BY: January 2012 2816000 2816200 2816400 2816600 2816800 2817000 2817200 2817400 2817600 2817800 2818000 2818200 2818400 2818600 2818800 2819000 2819200 2819400 BB/ftc FILE: Refer to left margin REVISION: 1 Path: T:\USACE_Tanaga\GIS_Docs\Working\Report_FS_SDFSIE\Fig2-6.mxd 2818000 2818200 2818400 2818600 2818800 2819000 2819200 2819400 2819600 2819800 2820000 2820200

253800 253800 Figure 2-7 Tanaga North of Airstrip and Small Arms Firing Range Area Features of Interest

253600 253600 Legend

Features of Interest *

NA3 # Fuel Impacted Features transformer !( Other Features

253400 !( 253400 Investigation Areas

FR01 200-yard firing line 253200 253200 !(

NA5

transformer

* * # # 253000 253000

FR02 100-yard firing line !( 252800 252800

FR03 Firing range target pit area

!( 252600 252600 252400 252400

Inset: Tanaga Island Projection: Alaska State Plane Zone 10, NAD83, Units in Feet 252200 252200

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS ALASKA DISTRICT

252000 252000 DRAWN BY: by BCC-Jacobs; the second part of the name (in parenthesis) ³ Tanaga Island, Alaska represents the name assigned by North Wind during the 2006 LJP/ftc GPS survey. PROJECT NUMBER: Feet CHECKED BY: SCALE: 2. Base Image: Commercial satellite imagery; October 4, 2008. As Shown 60133134 0 100 200 400 RLB/ftc DAT E: SUBMITTED BY: January 2012 2818000 2818200 2818400 2818600 2818800 2819000 2819200 2819400 2819600 2819800 2820000 2820200 BB/ftc FILE: Refer to left margin REVISION: 1 Path: T:\USACE_Tanaga\GIS_Docs\Working\Report_FS_SDFSIE\Fig2-7.mxd 2804800 2805000 2805200 2805400 2805600 2805800 2806000 2806200 2806400 2806600 2806800 2807000

Figure 2-8 Tanaga

250800 250800 Tower Area Features of Interest

Legend

250600 250600 Features of Interest *

# Fuel Impacted Features !( Other Features Investigation Areas 250400 250400

T2 (T80) truck and two 1000 gallon fuel tanks 250200 250200

T4 (T82)

* * # # 55 gallon drums

* * # # T7

250000 !( batteries 250000 * * # #

T1 (T79)

intact 55 gallon drum !( T3 (T81)

55 gallon drums

* * # # T8 (T83) 55 gallon drums 249800 249800 249600 249600 249400 249400

Inset: Tanaga Island Projection: Alaska State Plane Zone 10, NAD83, Units in Feet

U.S. ARMY CORPS

249200 249200 OF ENGINEERS ALASKA DISTRICT Notes: DESIGNED BY: 1. For features of interest, the first part of the name corresponds Naval Auxiliary Air Facility Tanaga to the name assigned during the 2007 GPS survey conducted BB/ftc by BCC-Jacobs; the second part of the name (in parenthesis) FUDS Project No. F10AK022801 DRAWN BY: represents the name assigned by North Wind during the 2006 Tanaga Island, Alaska GPS survey. LJP/ftc ³ PROJECT NUMBER: 2. Base Image: Commercial satellite imagery; October 4, 2008. CHECKED BY: SCALE: Feet As Shown 60133134 249000 249000 RLB/ftc 0 100 200 400 DAT E: SUBMITTED BY: January 2012

2804800 2805000 2805200 2805400 2805600 2805800 2806000 2806200 2806400 2806600 2806800 2807000 FILE: REVISION: 1 Path: T:\USACE_Tanaga\GIS_Docs\Working\Report_FS_SDFSIE\Fig2-8.mxd BB/ftc Refer to left margin 2814200 2814400 2814600 2814800 2815000 2815200 2815400 2815600 2815800 2816000

Figure 2-9 Tanaga Pumphouse Area Features of Interest PH3 (T104) 255400 255400 fuel box and drums at collapsed pump house !( Legend PH7 (T107)

fuel box PH4 Features of Interest

* battery near fuel tank #

* * # *# # Fuel Impacted Features *# Lead Impacted Features

255200 255200 !( Other Features Investigation Areas

PH6 (T106A)

* * * * # # # transformer rack and generator shed # 255000 255000

PH5 (T106B) transformer rack and generator shed 254800 254800 254600 254600 254400 254400

254200 254200 Inset: Tanaga Island PH1 (T108) Projection: Alaska State Plane Zone 10, NAD83, Units in Feet generator at collapsed generator hut U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS ALASKA DISTRICT Notes: DESIGNED BY: 1. For features of interest, the first part of the name corresponds Naval Auxiliary Air Facility Tanaga to the name assigned during the 2007 GPS survey conducted BB/ftc

by BCC-Jacobs; the second part of the name (in parenthesis) FUDS Project No. F10AK022801

254000 254000 DRAWN BY:

* * # represents the name assigned by North Wind during the 2006 ³ # Tanaga Island, Alaska GPS survey. LJP/ftc 2. Base Image: Commercial satellite imagery; October 4, 2008. Feet PROJECT NUMBER: CHECKED BY: SCALE: As Shown 60133134 0 100 200 400 RLB/ftc DAT E: SUBMITTED BY: January 2012 2814200 2814400 2814600 2814800 2815000 2815200 2815400 2815600 2815800 2816000 BB/ftc FILE: Refer to left margin REVISION: 1 Path: T:\USACE_Tanaga\GIS_Docs\Working\Report_FS_SDFSIE\Fig2-9.mxd 2676000 2677000 2678000 2679000 2680000 2681000

Figure 2-10 Ogliuga Runway Area Features of Interest 235000 235000 Legend

Features of Interest *

# Fuel Impacted Features R23 (J2B) R22 (J2A) 55 gallon drums

wooden posts and drums *# Lead Impacted Features

* * # # !(

R18 (J4) Other Features

55 gallon drums

* * # # Investigation Area

R20 (J3)

R19 (J1) 55 gallon drums

55 gallon drums

* * # #

234000 !( 234000 !( R17 (J5) 1000 gallon fuel tank

R09 (J9) * * #

# !( 55 gallon drums

R10 (J8) R15 (J18) 500 gallon fuel tank 55 gallon drum !( R08 (J10)

Track vehicle with !( * * # straight six engine, # transmission, radiator, *# and differential.

R24 (J10) !( R16 (J20A)

* * # 55 gallon drums # !( 500-gal wood stave, cistern, three partial R21 (J19) non-galvanized empty 55 gallon drums 55-gal drums and two R07 (J46) empty galvanized 55- 55 gallon drums gal drums welded together. 233000 !( 233000 R06 (J15) !( 55 gallon drums !(

!( R12 (J7)

* * # # generator, tractor and trailers R14 (J17) generator and 55 gallon drums !( R05 (J14) 55 gallon drums 232000 232000 R03 (J13) 55 gallon drums R04 (J12) 55 gallon drums

Inset: Ogliuga Island Projection: Alaska State Plane Zone 10, NAD83, Units in Feet

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS ALASKA DISTRICT Notes: DESIGNED BY: 1. For features of interest, the first part of the name corresponds Naval Auxiliary Air Facility Ogliuga to the name assigned during the 2007 GPS survey conducted BB/ftc 231000 by BCC-Jacobs; the second part of the name (in parenthesis) 231000 FUDS Project No. F10AK018002 DRAWN BY: represents the name assigned by North Wind during the 2006 Ogliuga Island, Alaska GPS survey. LjP/ftc ³ PROJECT NUMBER: 2. Base Image: Commercial satellite imagery; October 4, 2008. CHECKED BY: SCALE: Feet As Shown 60133134 RLB/ftc 0 250 500 1,000 DAT E: SUBMITTED BY: January 2012

2676000 2677000 2678000 2679000 2680000 2681000 REVISION: R1 BB/ftc FILE: Refer to left margin 1 Path: T:\USACE_Ogliuga\GIS_Docs\Working\Report_FS_SDSFIE\Fig2-10.mxd Possibly best beach to land a barge - sandy, very few rocks, and some kelp. Beach length is approximately 100 yards and the high water mark is approximately three feet. The walk from this beach to the airstrip is the easiest walk on the island. 2684000 2685000 2686000

Figure 2-11 Ogliuga East Area Features of Interest

Legend

Features of Interest *

# Fuel Impacted Features !( Other Features

232000 232000 Investigation Area

E06 (J29) 55 gallon drums

E05 (J29) E07 (J29) 55 gallon drums !( 55 gallon drums

E08 (J29) E09 (J30)

55 gallon drums 55 gallon drums

* * # #

!( E10 (J27) 55 gallon drums

Note: See Overview figure for unlabeled individual locations.

E04 (J26A) Wrecked landing craft/ 231000 231000 55 gallon drums !(

E11 (J28) 55 gallon drums Inset: Ogliuga Island Projection: Alaska State Plane Zone 10, NAD83, Units in Feet

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS ALASKA DISTRICT Notes: DESIGNED BY: 1. For features of interest, the first part of the name corresponds Naval Auxiliary Air Facility Ogliuga to the name assigned during the 2007 GPS survey conducted BB/ftc by BCC-Jacobs; the second part of the name (in parenthesis) FUDS Project No. F10AK018002 DRAWN BY: represents the name assigned by North Wind during the 2006 Ogliuga Island, Alaska GPS survey. LjP/ftc 2. Base Image: Commercial satellite imagery; October 4, 2008. ³ PROJECT NUMBER: CHECKED BY: SCALE: Feet As Shown 60133134 RLB/ftc 0 150 300 600 DAT E: SUBMITTED BY: January 2012

2684000 2685000 2686000 BB/ftc FILE: Refer to left margin REVISION: 1 Path: T:\USACE_Ogliuga\GIS_Docs\Working\Report_FS_SDSFIE\Fig2-11.mxd 2670000 2671000 2672000 2673000 2674000

Figure 2-12 Ogliuga West Area Features of Interest

231000 To Runway 231000 Camp Area Legend W14 (J38A)

Features of Interest

W12 (J36) * ") # ") R6 Fuel Impacted Features J34 !( J38B ") ") !( ") Other Features W11 (J32) W01 (J39)

") ") W13 (J37) Proposed Sample Locations

") W10 (J33) * * # # W09 ") Surface Soil Sampling W02 (J40) ") ") ") W05 (J42) !( ") Feature of Interest Not Proposed for Sampling J41B R5 ") W06 (J43) !( !( !( R3 W03 (J41A) !( W04 (J44) 230000 230000 R4 !( ") J45

* * # # W07 229000 229000

Inset: Ogliuga Island

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS ALASKA DISTRICT Notes: 1. For features of interest, the first part of the name corresponds to the name assigned during the 2007 GPS survey conducted DESIGNED BY: by BCC-Jacobs; the second part of the name (in parenthesis) ³ QM/anc Proposed Sampling Locations represents the name assigned by North Wind during the 2006 DRAWN BY: 228000 GPS survey. Feet 228000 West Area 2. Base Image: Commercial satellite imagery; July 9, 2008. 400 200 0 400 CBB/ftc PROJECT NUMBER: CHECKED BY: SCALE: As Shown 09000451 INT PAGE DAT E: SUBMITTED BY: January 2012 NUMBER :

2670000 2671000 2672000 2673000 2674000 FILE: Refer to left margin

Path: T:\USACE_Ogliuga\GIS_Docs\Working\Report_FS_SDSFIE\Fig2-12.mxd INT Draft Final Feasibility Study Tanaga and Ogliuga Island FUDS, AK Contract No. W911KB-08-D-0004 AECOM Project No: 60133134

Table 2-1: Summary Statistics for Soil Sampling for Main Camp Total Minimum Maximum Lowest Number Number Number Detected Detected Cleanup of Above of Concentration Concentration Chemical Analyte Level a Samples CL Detects (mg/kg) (mg/kg) Flag(s) b 2007-2008 BCC-Jacobs JV (AK101, AK102, AK103) TPH-DRO 260 5 5 5 760 16,000 JTE- TPH-RRO 9700 4 1 3 300 19,000 JTE- 2009 RI (AK101, AK102, AK103) TPH-GRO 230 10 0 4 3.23 104 J, MH, Dup TPH-DRO 260 70 44 67 14.0 10,900 J, MN, MH,Dup TPH-RRO 9,700 70 7 70 9.47 24,200 J, MN, MH,B, Dup 2009 RI (SW8270D) 2,4-Dinitrophenol 0.54 10 1 1 7.40 7.40 J, Dup N-Nitroso-diphenylamine 15 10 0 2 0.823 1.96 J, Dup 2007-2008 BCC-Jacobs JV (SW8260B) 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 23 5 0 1 0.0049 0.0049 J 4-Isopropyltoluene - 5 - 1 0.0075 0.0075 J Methylene Chloride 0.016 5 1 2 0.013 0.017 J n-Butylbenzene 15 5 0 1 0.0088 0.0088 J sec-Butylbenzene 12 5 0 1 0.0066 0.0066 J Toluene 6.5 5 0 1 0.0096 0.0096 J 2009 RI (SW8260B) 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 23 18 0 3 0.0183 4.66 J, Dup 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 23 18 0 2 0.226 3.49 Dup 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 0.64 18 0 1 0.0741 0.0741 J, Dup 4-Isopropyltoluene - 18 - 6 0.0221 1.55 J, Dup Isopropylbenzene 51 18 0 3 0.0172 0.931 J, Dup n-Butylbenzene 15 18 0 5 0.0172 0.950 J, Dup n-Propylbenzene 15 18 0 2 0.290 0.442 Dup sec-Butylbenzene 12 18 0 4 0.0120 0.687 J, Dup 2007-2008 BCC-Jacobs JV (SW8260B, 8270SIM) 2-Methylnaphthalene 6.1 1 0 1 0.029 0.029 JTE- Acenaphthene 180 1 0 1 0.0027 0.0027 JTE- Anthracene 3,000 1 0 1 0.018 0.018 JTE- Benzo(a)-anthracene 3.6 1 0 1 0.010 0.010 JTE- Chrysene 360 1 0 1 0.026 0.026 JTE- Fluoranthene 1,400 1 0 1 0.023 0.023 JTE- Fluorene 220 1 0 1 0.022 0.022 JTE- Naphthalene 20 6 0 2 0.0028 0.0093 J, JTE- Phenanthrene 3,000 1 0 1 0.097 0.097 JTE- Pyrene 1,000 1 0 1 0.039 0.039 JTE- 2009 RI (SW8270D, 8270DSIM) 2-Methylnaphthalene 6.1 12 1 2 3.67 19.0 QL, Dup Anthracene 3,000 12 0 1 2.01 2.01 QL, Dup Fluorene 220 12 0 1 1.57 1.57 QL, Dup Naphthalene 20 12 0 1 1.06 1.06 J, QL, Dup Phenanthrene 3,000 12 0 1 2.15 2.15 QL, Dup

September 2012 43 DRAFT FINAL Draft Final Feasibility Study Tanaga and Ogliuga Island FUDS, AK Contract No. W911KB-08-D-0004 AECOM Project No: 60133134

Total Minimum Maximum Lowest Number Number Number Detected Detected Cleanup of Above of Concentration Concentration Chemical Analyte Level a Samples CL Detects (mg/kg) (mg/kg) Flag(s) b Pyrene 1,000 12 0 1 0.0699 0.0699 J,QL, Dup 1993 E&E (EPA Method 8080) Aroclor 1260 1 3 3 3 350 1,500 Dup 2007-2008 BCC-Jacobs JV (SW8082) Aroclor 1254 1 6 0 1 0.039 0.039 J Aroclor 1260 1 6 2 5 0 56 JM-, J Aroclor 1262 1 6 0 1 0.19 0.19 2009 RI (SW8260B) Aroclor 1260 1 68 9 27 0.0171 59.7 J, Dup 1993 E&E (EPA Method 6010, 7000 series) Arsenic 3.7 6 4 4 24 57 Barium 1,100 6 0 6 24 57 Chromium 25 6 1 4 2.2 26 Lead 400 6 3 6 2.6 230,000 Mercury 1.4 6 0 2 0.20 0.20 Silver 11.2 6 0 1 3.7 3.7 2007-2008 BCC-Jacobs JV (SW6020, SW7471A) Arsenic 3.7 1 1 1 4.11 4.11 Barium 1,100 1 0 1 28.4 28.4 Cadmium 5 1 0 1 0.35 0.35 Chromium 25 1 0 1 11.3 11.3 Lead 400 12 7 12 10 83,300 Nickel 86 1 0 1 8.84 8.84 Silver 11.2 1 0 1 0.027 0.027 J Vanadium 580 1 0 1 50.1 50.1 J 2009 RI (SW6020, SW7470A, SW7471B) Arsenic 3.7 10 5 7 1.61 7.78 J, Dup Barium 1,100 10 0 10 21.8 328 Dup Chromium 5 10 7 10 3.35 78.2 Dup Lead (lab confirmation) 400 33 6 33 1.09 10,100 Dup Lead (adjusted XRF) 400 71 10 45 8.00 4,375 B, Dup Mercury 1.4 10 0 1 0.120 0.120 J, Dup Nickel 86 10 0 10 3.97 22.4 Dup Selenium 3.4 10 0 7 0.458 2.56 J, Dup Silver 11.2 10 0 4 0.0640 0.325 J, Dup Vanadium 580 10 0 10 47.0 127 MH, Dup E&E based on soil samples 93TAN014SL, -015SL, -016SL, 17SL, -018SL, -019SL, -020SL, -021SL, -022SL. B Blank contamination: Analyte was detected in the associated blank at a comparable concentration. CL cleanup levels Dup Field duplicate E&E Ecology and the Environment J estimated concentration below the practical quantitation limit (PQL) but above/equal to the method detection limit (MDL). JM- The result was an estimated value because the analyte failed recovery criteria in the MS or MSD sample or both. The MS sample recoveries were only evaluated if the spike concentration exceeded the native sample. Concentration by a factor of 2 or greater than a factor of 2 (biased low).

September 2012 44 DRAFT FINAL Draft Final Feasibility Study Tanaga and Ogliuga Island FUDS, AK Contract No. W911KB-08-D-0004 AECOM Project No: 60133134

JM+ The result was an estimated value because the analyte failed recovery criteria in the MS or MSD sample or both. The MS sample recoveries were only evaluated if the spike concentration exceeded the native sample concentration by a factor of 2 or greater than a factor of 2 (biased high). JTE- Sample cooler temperature upon receipt at the laboratory was outside the range of 4+/-2 degrees Celsius [°C]) (biased low) MH Analyte result is considered an estimated value, biased high, due to matrix effects. MN Analyte result is considered an estimated value due to matrix effects; direction of bias is undetermined. QL estimated concentration, biased low, due to quality control outlier. UJ Not detected above reported sample quantitation limit. a Cleanup Levels Table B-1 and B-2, Over 40-inch zone, Alaska 18 AAC 75 Oil and Other Hazardous Substances Pollution Control (ADEC 2012). Cleanup Levels for POLs are based on Method Two. b Chemical flag(s) within dataset are identified.\

Table 2-2: Summary Statistics for 2009 RI Sediment Sampling for Main Camp Minimum Maximum Total Number Number Detected Detected Cleanup Number of Above of Concentration Concentration Chemical Analyte Level a Samples CL Detects (mg/kg) (mg/kg) Flag(s) b Fuels (AK101, AK102, AK103) TPH-GRO 230 4 - 1 1.72 1.72 J, MH, Dup TPH-DRO 260 4 - 2 26.7 29.8 J, Dup TPH-RRO 9,700 4 - 4 11.8 205 B, J, Dup VOCs (SW8260B) 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 23 4 - 1 0.112 0.112 Dup 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 23 4 - 1 0.0532 0.0532 J, Dup 4-Isopropyltoluene - 4 - 1 0.0297 0.0297 J, Dup Ethylbenzene 0.03 4 1 1 0.112 0.112 DL*, Dup Isopropylbenzene 51 4 - 2 0.0214 2.50 J, MN, Dup Toluene 0.01 4 1 1 0.201 0.201 DL*, Dup Xylenes (total) 0.13 4 1 1 0.682 0.682 DL*, Dup PAHs (SW8270DSIM) No detects PCBs (SW8260B) No detects Metals (SW6020, SW7470A, SW7471B) Arsenic 5.9 4 0 4 1.67 1.84 J, Dup Barium 130.1 4 0 4 57.9 82.7 Dup Cadmium 0.596 4 0 1 0.229 0.229 J, Dup Chromium 37.3 4 0 4 5.19 8.52 Dup Lead 35 4 0 4 1.12 6.87 Dup Nickel 18 4 1 4 12.9 20.7 Dup Selenium 3.4 4 - 2 0.389 1.02 J, Dup Vanadium 580 4 - 4 70.2 98.5 MH, Dup B Blank contamination: Analyte was detected in the associated blank at a comparable concentration DL* non-detected concentration exceeds screening level Dup Field duplicate J estimated concentration below the PQL but above/equal to the MDL MH Analyte result is considered an estimated value, biased high, due to matrix effects. MN Analyte result is considered an estimated value due to matrix effects; direction of bias is undetermined. NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration a NOAA SQuiRTs (Buchman 2008), per ADEC (2004, 2009) recommended values. Where SQuiRTs not available, used ADEC Method 2 most stringent cleanup level. b Chemical flag(s) within dataset are identified.

September 2012 45 DRAFT FINAL Draft Final Feasibility Study Tanaga and Ogliuga Island FUDS, AK Contract No. W911KB-08-D-0004 AECOM Project No: 60133134

Table 2-3: Summary Statistics for 2009 RI Groundwater Sampling for Main Camp Minimum Maximum Total Number Number Detected Detected Cleanup Number of Above of Concentration Concentration Chemical Analyte Level a Samples CL Detects (µg/L) (µg/L) Flag(s) b Fuels (AK101, AK102, AK103) TPH-GRO 1,500 11 0 4 34.5 172 J, Dup SVOCs (SW8270D) Benzoic acid 150,000 11 0 2 28.6 33.3 J, Dup VOCs (SW8260B) 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 1,800 11 0 3 1.35 35.5 Dup 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 1,800 11 0 2 10.0 16.2 Dup 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 75 11 0 2 0.220 0.750 J, Dup 4-Isopropyltoluene - 11 - 3 0.890 11.60 J, Dup Acetone 33,000 11 0 1 3.42 3.42 J, QH, Dup Chloro-benzene 100 11 0 1 0.220 0.220 J, Dup Ethylbenzene 700 11 0 1 0.490 0.490 J, Dup Isopropylbenzene 3,700 11 0 2 0.870 2.93 J, Dup n-Butylbenzene 370 11 0 1 3.42 3.42 Dup n-Propy-benzene 370 11 0 2 1.85 5.06 Dup sec-Butylbenzene 370 11 0 2 1.89 2.22 Dup tert-Butylbenzene 370 11 0 1 0.380 0.380 J, Dup Xylenes (total) 10,000 11 0 1 4.43 4.43 Dup PAHs (SW8270D, 8270DSIM) 2-Methylnaphthalene 150 11 0 2 16.5 19.9 Dup Naphthalene 730 11 0 1 3.52 3.52 Dup PCBs (SW8260B) Aroclor 1260 0.5 11 0 1 0.207 0.207 Dup Metals (SW6020, SW7470A, SW7471B) Arsenic 10 11 0 6 1.51 6.58 Dup Barium 2,000 11 0 11 3.08 29.6 Dup Lead 15 11 0 3 0.410 1.21 J, Dup Nickel 100 11 0 10 0.764 3.16 J, Dup Selenium 50 11 0 2 0.649 0.686 J, Dup DL* Non-detected concentration exceeds cleanup level J Estimated concentration below the PQL but above/equal to the MDL QH Analyte result is considered an estimated value, biased high, due to quality control outlier. Dup Field duplicate a Cleanup Levels Table C, 18 AAC 75 Oil and Other Hazardous Substances Pollution Control ADEC 2008a) and EPA Regional Screening Level Table (RSL) Master December 2009 (EPA 2009) b Chemical flag(s) within dataset are identified.

September 2012 46 DRAFT FINAL Draft Final Feasibility Study Tanaga and Ogliuga Island FUDS, AK Contract No. W911KB-08-D-0004 AECOM Project No: 60133134

Table 2-4: Summary Statistics for 2009 RI Surface Water Sampling for Main Camp Total Cleanup Number of Number Number of Minimum Detected Maximum Detected Chemical Analyte Level a* Samples Above CL Detects Concentration (µg/L) Concentration (µg/L) Flag(s) b Fuels (AK101, AK102, AK103) TPH-RRO 1,100 2 0 1 377 377 B, J VOCs (SW8260B) No detects PCBs (SW8260B) No detects Metals (SW6020, SW7470A, SW7471B) Barium 2,000 2 0 2 5.86 7.78 Selenium 5 2 0 1 1.02 1.02 TAH and TAqH Totals TAH 10 2 - - 3.70 3.70 TAqH 15 2 - - 92.1 93.8 B Blank contamination: Analyte was detected in the associated blank at a comparable concentration DL* non-detected concentration exceeds screening level J estimated concentration below the PQO but above/equal to the MDL RSL Regional screening level TAH Total aromatic hydrocarbons TAqH Total aqueous hydrocarbons a Method 2 Cleanup Levels Table C, 18 AAC 75 Oil and Other Hazardous Substances Pollution Control ADEC 2008a). EPA RSL Table Master December 2009 (EPA 2009). Alaska Water Quality Criteria Manual (WQCM) for Toxic and Other Deleterious Organic and Inorganic Substances ADEC 2008a). Where surface water screening levels are not available, the groundwater screening level serves as the default screening level. The lower of the surface water and groundwater level was applied. For hardness dependent metals a hardness of 100 mg/L as CaCO3 assumed. Alaska WQCM ADEC 2008a) value for human water and fish ingestion, where lower than corresponding GW level. b Chemical flag(s) within dataset are identified. * Screening level for TAH and TAqH.

Table 2-5: Summary Statistics for Soil Sampling for Barrel Dump Total Minimum Maximum Lowest Number Number Number Detected Detected Cleanup of Above of Concentration Concentration Chemical Analyte Level a Samples CL Detects (mg/kg) (mg/kg) Flag(s) b Fuels E&E 1993 (COE Modified Method 8015) Bunker C 12 9 84,000 220,000 J Diesel No. 2 12 3 42,000 85,000 U,J 2007-2008 BCC-Jacobs JV (AK101, AK102, AK103) TPH-GRO 230 4 0 3 34 59 TPH-DRO 260 7 5 7 2.8 32,000 J,B,JTE-,JS- TPH-RRO 9,700 7 1 7 4.4 30,000 J,JTE- 2009 RI (AK101, AK102, AK103) TPH-GRO 230 8 2 6 2.78 2,610 J,ML TPH-DRO 260 10 7 8 96.1 3,490 TPH-RRO 9,700 10 1 9 15.0 2,030 J SVOCs 2009 RI (SW8270D) 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol 67 8 0 1 0.443 0.443 2,4,6-Trichloro-phenol 1.4 8 0 1 0.366 0.366

September 2012 47 DRAFT FINAL Draft Final Feasibility Study Tanaga and Ogliuga Island FUDS, AK Contract No. W911KB-08-D-0004 AECOM Project No: 60133134

Total Minimum Maximum Lowest Number Number Number Detected Detected Cleanup of Above of Concentration Concentration Chemical Analyte Level a Samples CL Detects (mg/kg) (mg/kg) Flag(s) b 2,4-Dimethyl-phenol 8.8 8 0 1 0.181 0.181 J 2,4-Dinitrophenol 0.54 8 1 1 1.45 1.45 J 2,4-Dinitrotoluene 0.0093 8 1 1 0.433 0.433 2,6-Dinitrotoluene 0.0094 8 1 1 0.296 0.296 J 2-Nitrophenol - 8 - 1 0.112 0.112 J 3,3-Dichlorobenzidine 0.19 8 1 1 0.243 0.243 J 3-Nitroaniline - 8 - 1 0.209 0.209 J 4,6-Dinitro-2- 6.1 8 0 1 0.957 0.957 J methylphenol 4-Chloro-3-methylphenol - 8 - 1 0.244 0.244 J 4-Nitrophenol - 8 - 1 0.451 0.451 J Benzoic acid 410 8 0 1 2.20 2.20 Bis(2- 13 8 0 2 0.304 0.307 J ethylhexyl)phthalate Isophorone 3.1 8 0 1 0.868 0.868 N-Nitroso-diphenylamine 15 8 0 1 0.684 0.684 J Penta-chlorophenol 0.047 8 1 1 0.804 0.804 J VOCs 2007-2008 BCC-Jacobs JV (SW8260B) 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 23 3 0 2 0.60 0.65 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 23 3 0 2 0.45 0.56 4-Isopropyltoluene - 3 - 2 0.35 0.44 Ethylbenzene 6.9 3 0 2 0.0052 0.0058 Isopropylbenzene 51 3 0 2 0.043 0.044 Methylene Chloride 0.016 3 1 1 0.016 0.016 J n-Butylbenzene 12 3 0 2 0.60 0.83 n-Propylbenzene 12 3 0 2 0.077 0.091 J sec-Butylbenzene 12 3 0 2 0.15 0.20 tert-Butylbenzene 12 3 0 2 0.03 0.03 J Xylenes (m,p) 63 3 0 2 0.018 0.02 J 2009 RI (SW8260B) 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 23 8 1 3 0.0869 96.7 MH, MN 1,2-Dibromoethane 0.0054 8 2 2 2.13 9.32 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 23 8 1 3 0.0414 40.3 MH 4-Isopropyltoluene - 8 - 3 0.0862 1.09 J Benzene 0.025 8 3 3 0.0463 69.2 MH, MN Ethylbenzene 6.9 8 2 3 0.0370 50.4 Isopropylbenzene 51 8 0 2 0.194 1.77 n-Butylbenzene 15 8 0 2 0.130 1.18 n-Propylbenzene 15 8 0 2 0.991 6.03 sec-Butylbenzene 12 8 0 1 0.612 0.612 Toluene 6.5 8 2 3 0.228 293 MH, MN Xylenes (total) 63 8 1 3 0.311 391 MH, MN

September 2012 48 DRAFT FINAL Draft Final Feasibility Study Tanaga and Ogliuga Island FUDS, AK Contract No. W911KB-08-D-0004 AECOM Project No: 60133134

Total Minimum Maximum Lowest Number Number Number Detected Detected Cleanup of Above of Concentration Concentration Chemical Analyte Level a Samples CL Detects (mg/kg) (mg/kg) Flag(s) b PAHs 2007-2008 BCC-Jacobs JV (SW8260B, 8270SIM) 2-Methylnaphthalene 6.1 3 0 3 0.08 1.40 JS+,JM+,JTE- Acenaphthene 180 3 0 2 0.22 0.45 JS+,JM+,JTE- Anthracene 3000 3 0 2 0.53 1.20 J,JS+,JM-,JTE- Benzo(a)-anthracene 3.6 3 0 1 0.0070 0.0070 J,JS+,JTE- Benzo(a)-pyrene 0.4 3 1 2 0.0032 0.42 J,JS+,JTE- Benzo(b)-fluoranthene 4 3 0 2 0.0045 0.29 J,JS+,JTE- Benzo(g,h,i)-perylene 1100 3 0 2 0.0032 0.21 J,JS+,JTE- Chrysene 360 3 0 3 0.0081 0.80 J,JS+,JTE- Dibenzo(a,h)-anthracene 0.4 3 0 2 0.0023 0.074 J,JS+,JTE- Fluoranthene 1400 3 0 3 0.033 0.21 JS+,JTE- Fluorene 220 3 0 2 0.73 1.6 J,JS+,JM+,JTE- Indeno(1,2,3-cd)-pyrene 4 3 0 2 0.0038 0.140 J,JS+,JTE- Naphthalene 20 6 0 4 0.021 0.92 J,JS+,JM-,JTE- Phenanthrene 3000 3 0 2 1.1 2.8 JS+,JM-,JTE- Pyrene 1000 3 0 3 0.043 2.0 JS+,JTE- 2009 RI (SW8260B, 8270SIM) 2-Methylnaphthalene 1000 8 0 3 0.732 5.91 Metals 1993 E&E (EPA Method 6010, 7000 series) Arsenic 3.7 3 2 3 3.60 15.3 Barium 1,100 3 0 3 15 19 Chromium 25 3 0 3 7.1 9.1 Lead 400 3 0 3 3.2 9.2 2007-2008 BCC-Jacobs JV (SW6020, SW7471A) Arsenic 3.7 1 0 1 3.33 3.33 Barium 1,100 1 0 1 26.4 26.4 Cadmium 5 1 0 1 0.053 0.053 Chromium 25 1 0 1 5.54 5.54 Lead 400 1 0 1 11.9 11.9 Nickel 86 1 0 1 7.82 7.82 Vanadium 580 1 0 1 45.8 45.8 2009 RI (SW6020, SW7471A) Arsenic 3.7 8 6 8 3.47 6.7 Lead (lab confirmation) 400 8 0 8 0.891 14.1 Based on soil samples 93TAN002SL, -003SL, -004SL, -005SL, -006SL, -007SL, -008SL, -009SL, -010SL, -011SL, -012SL, - 013SL B The analyte was detected in the method blank or the trip blank above the MDL, and the concentration in the sample did not exceed the blank concentration by a factor of 5 (factor of 10 for common volatile laboratory contaminants acetone and methylene chloride) J The analyte was positively identified, but the associated result was less than the PQL but greater than or equal to the MDL. JM- The result was an estimated value because the analyte failed recovery criteria in the MS or MSD sample or both. The MS sample recoveries were only evaluated if the spike concentration exceeded the native sample. Concentration by a factor of 2 or greater than a factor of 2 (biased low).

September 2012 49 DRAFT FINAL Draft Final Feasibility Study Tanaga and Ogliuga Island FUDS, AK Contract No. W911KB-08-D-0004 AECOM Project No: 60133134

JM+ The result was an estimated value because the analyte failed recovery criteria in the MS or MSD sample or both. The MS sample recoveries were only evaluated if the spike concentration exceeded the native sample concentration by a factor of 2 or greater than a factor of 2 (biased high). JS- The result was an estimated value because at least one surrogate failed recovery criteria for that sample (biased low) JS+ The result was an estimated value because at least one surrogate failed recovery criteria for that sample (biased high) JTE- Sample cooler temperature upon receipt at the laboratory was outside the range of 4+/-2 °C (biased low) MH Analyte result is considered an estimated value, biased high, due to matrix effects. MN Analyte result is considered an estimated value due to matrix effects; direction of bias is undetermined. U Not detected above reported sample quantitation limit. a Cleanup Levels Table B-1 and B-2, Over 40-inch zone, Alaska 18 AAC 75 Oil and Other Hazardous Substances Pollution Control (ADEC 2012). Cleanup Levels for POLs are based on Method Two. b Chemical flag(s) within dataset are identified.

Table 2-6: Summary Statistics for 2009 RI Sediment Sampling for Barrel Dump Minimum Maximum Total Number Number Detected Detected Cleanup Number of Above of Concentration Concentration Chemical Analyte Level a Samples CL Detects (mg/kg) (mg/kg) Flag(s) b Fuels (AK101, AK102, AK103) TPH-DRO 260 1 - 1 11.8 11.8 J TPH-RRO 9,700 1 - 1 57.2 57.2 VOCs (SW8260B) No detects PAHs (SW8270DSIM) Anthracene 0.0469 1 0 1 0.00250 0.00250 J Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 0.00622 1 0 1 0.00279 0.00279 B, J Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 0.01732 1 1 1 0.00324 0.00324 B, J Metals (SW6020, SW7470A, SW7471B) Arsenic 5.9 1 0 1 3.15 3.15 Barium 130.1 1 0 1 92.2 92.2 Chromium 37.3 1 0 1 6.29 6.29 Lead 35 1 0 1 1.52 1.52 Nickel 18 1 0 1 11.7 11.7 Selenium 3.4 1 - 1 0.497 0.497 J Vanadium 580 1 - 1 70.5 70.5 B Blank contamination: Analyte was detected in the associated blank at a comparable concentration DL* Non-detected concentration exceeds screening level J Estimated concentration below the PQ) but above/equal to the MDL a NOAA SQuiRTs (Buchman 2008), per ADEC (2004, 2009) recommended values. Where SQuiRTs not available, used ADEC Method 2 most stringent cleanup level. b Chemical flag(s) within dataset are identified.

Table 2-7: Summary Statistics for 2009 RI Groundwater Sampling for Barrel Dump Minimum Maximum Total Number Number Detected Detected Cleanup Number of Above of Concentration Concentration Chemical Analyte Level a Samples CL Detects (µg/L) (µg/L) Flag(s) b Fuels (AK101, AK102, AK103) TPH-DRO 2,200 8 0 1 325 325 J, QL TPH-GRO 1,500 8 1 3 47 5,040 J, MH SVOCs (SW8270D) 3,4-Methylphenol 1,800 8 0 1 9.84 9.84 J

September 2012 50 DRAFT FINAL Draft Final Feasibility Study Tanaga and Ogliuga Island FUDS, AK Contract No. W911KB-08-D-0004 AECOM Project No: 60133134

Minimum Maximum Total Number Number Detected Detected Cleanup Number of Above of Concentration Concentration Chemical Analyte Level a Samples CL Detects (µg/L) (µg/L) Flag(s) b VOCs (SW8260B) 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 1,800 8 0 1 82.5 82.5 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 1,800 8 0 1 121 121 Benzene 5 8 1 3 0.140 685 J cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 70 8 0 1 5.10 5.10 J Ethylbenzene 700 8 0 1 95.1 95.1 Isopropylbenzene 3,700 8 0 1 451 451 Methylene chloride 5 8 1 1 15.6 15.6 J, DL* n-Propy-benzene 370 8 0 1 17.5 17.5 sec-Butylbenzene 370 8 0 1 5.10 5.10 tert-Butylbenzene 370 8 0 1 11.8 11.8 Tetrachloroethene 0.5 8 2 3 0.460 18.8 J, DL* Toluene 1,000 8 0 2 41.4 43.8 Xylenes (total) 10,000 8 0 1 483 483 PAHs (SW8270D, 8270DSIM) No detects PCBs (SW8260B) No detects Metals (SW6020, SW7470A, SW7471B) Arsenic 10 8 0 1 7.87 7.87 Barium 2,000 8 0 6 2.85 12.3 J Lead 15 8 1 2 1.2 37.9 Nickel 100 8 0 7 0.701 2.29 J Selenium 50 8 0 2 1.02 1.02 J DL* non-detected concentration exceeds cleanup level J Estimated concentration below the PQL but above/equal to the MDL MH Analyte result is considered an estimated value, biased high, due to matrix effects. QL estimated concentration, biased low, due to quality control outlier. a Cleanup Levels Table C, 18 AAC 75 Oil and Other Hazardous Substances Pollution Control ADEC 2008a) and EPA RSL Table Master December 2009 (EPA 2009) b Chemical flag(s) within dataset are identified.

Table 2-8: Summary Statistics for 2009 RI Surface Water Sampling for Barrel Dump Minimum Maximum Total Number Number Detected Detected Cleanup Number of Above of Concentration Concentration Chemical Analyte Level a* Samples CL Detects (µg/L) (µg/L) Flag(s) b Fuels (AK101, AK102, AK103) No detects VOCs (SW8260B) No detects Metals (SW6020, SW7470A, SW7471B) Barium 2,000 2 0 2 6.15 6.23 Dup Chromium 86.2 2 0 1 1.21 1.21 J, Dup TAH and TAqH Totals TAH 10 2 - - 3.7 3.7

September 2012 51 DRAFT FINAL Draft Final Feasibility Study Tanaga and Ogliuga Island FUDS, AK Contract No. W911KB-08-D-0004 AECOM Project No: 60133134

Minimum Maximum Total Number Number Detected Detected Cleanup Number of Above of Concentration Concentration Chemical Analyte Level a* Samples CL Detects (µg/L) (µg/L) Flag(s) b TAqH 15 2 - - 88.7 96.35 J Estimated concentration below the PQL but above/equal to the MDL QL Estimated concentration, biased low, due to quality control outlier. Dup Field duplicate a Method 2 Cleanup Levels Table C, 18 AAC 75 Oil and Other Hazardous Substances Pollution Control ADEC 2008a). EPA RSL Table Master December 2009 (EPA 2009). Alaska WQCM for Toxic and Other Deleterious Organic and Inorganic Substances ADEC 2008a). Where surface water screening levels are not available, the groundwater screening level serves as the default screening level. The lower of the surface water and groundwater level was applied. For hardness dependent metals a hardness of 100 mg/L as CaCO3 assumed. Alaska WQCM ADEC 2008a) value for human water and fish ingestion, where lower than corresponding GW level. b Chemical flag(s) within dataset are identified. * Screening level for TAH and TAqH.

Table 2-9: Summary Statistics for Soil Sampling for Airstrip Total Minimum Maximum Lowest Number Number Number Detected Detected Cleanup of Above of Concentration Concentration Chemical Analyte Level a Samples CL Detects (mg/kg) (mg/kg) Flag(s) b Fuels 2009 RI (AK101, AK102, AK103) TPH-GRO 230 6 0 3 0.964 0.984 B, J TPH-DRO 260 20 3 19 11.8 8,130 B, J TPH-RRO 9,700 20 1 20 12.7 32,800 B, J SVOCs 2009 RI (SW8270D) 2,4-Dinitro-phenol 0.54 8 1 1 1.29 1.29 J 4-Nitrophenol - 8 - 1 0.480 0.480 J VOCs 2009 RI (SW8260B) 1,2,4-Trimethyl-benzene 23 6 0 1 0.125 0.125 1,3,5-Trimethyl-benzene 23 6 0 1 0.0460 0.0460 J Ethylbenzene 6.9 6 0 1 0.0256 0.0256 J Isopropylbenzene 51 6 0 1 0.0122 0.0122 Toluene 6.5 6 0 1 0.0283 0.0283 J Xylenes (total) 63 6 0 1 0.134 0.134 PAHs 2009 RI (SW8270D, 8270DSIM) Benzo(a)-anthracene 3.6 20 0 1 1.20 1.20 QH, DL* Benzo(a)-pyrene 0.4 20 1 2 0.130 1.01 J, QH, DL* Benzo(b)-fluoranthene 4 20 0 2 0.582 2.43 DL* Benzo(g,h,i)-perylene 1,100 20 0 1 0.638 0.638 Benzo(k)-fluoranthene 40 20 0 2 0.181 0.830 J, QH Chrysene 360 20 0 1 1.74 1.74 Fluoranthene 1,400 20 0 2 3.22 3.90 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)-pyrene 4 20 0 1 0.584 0.584 QH, DL* Phenanthrene 3,000 20 0 2 0.135 1.65 J, QH Pyrene 1,000 20 0 2 1.97 3.36

September 2012 52 DRAFT FINAL Draft Final Feasibility Study Tanaga and Ogliuga Island FUDS, AK Contract No. W911KB-08-D-0004 AECOM Project No: 60133134

Total Minimum Maximum Lowest Number Number Number Detected Detected Cleanup of Above of Concentration Concentration Chemical Analyte Level a Samples CL Detects (mg/kg) (mg/kg) Flag(s) b Metals 2007-2008 BCC-Jacobs JV (SW6020, SW7471A) Lead 400 4 4 4 780 57,300 2009 RI (SW6020, SW7470A, SW7471B) Arsenic 3.7 6 5 6 3.41 6.37 Barium 1,100 6 0 6 14.6 27.9 Chromium 25 6 0 6 6.70 20.1 Lead (lab confirmation) 400 16 0 16 1.41 308 Lead (adjusted XRF) 400 50 0 26 6.00 72.0 Nickel 86 6 0 6 11.9 22.2 Selenium 3.4 6 0 1 0.369 0.369 J Silver 11.2 6 0 1 0.0383 0.0383 J Vanadium 580 6 0 6 38.7 60.9 B Blank contamination: Analyte was detected in the associated blank at a comparable concentration DL* Non-detected concentration exceeds screening level J Estimated concentration below the PQL but above/equal to the MDL. MH Analyte result is considered an estimated value, biased high, due to matrix effects. MN Analyte result is considered an estimated value due to matrix effects; direction of bias is undetermined. QH Analyte result is considered an estimated value, biased high, due to quality control outlier. a Cleanup Levels Table B-1 and B-2, Over 40-inch zone, Alaska 18 AAC 75 Oil and Other Hazardous Substances Pollution Control (ADEC 2012). Cleanup Levels for POLs are based on Method Two. b Chemical flag(s) within dataset are identified.

Table 2-10: Summary Statistics for 2009 RI Sediment Sampling for Airstrip Minimum Maximum Total Number Number Detected Detected Cleanup Number of Above of Concentration Concentration Chemical Analyte Level a Samples CL Detects (mg/kg) (mg/kg) Flag(s) b Fuels (AK101, AK102, AK103) TPH-DRO 260 6 - 2 22.5 33.7 J TPH-RRO 9,700 6 - 6 77.1 161 B VOCs (SW8260B) 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 23 6 - 1 0.0236 0.0236 J 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 23 6 - 1 0.0171 0.0171 J 4-Isopropyltoluene - 6 - 1 0.0137 0.0137 J Isopropylbenzene 51 6 - 1 0.0355 0.0355 J PAHs (SW8270DSIM) Benzo(b)fluoranthene 4 6 - 1 0.00624 0.00624 J Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 0.57 6 0 1 0.00214 0.00214 J Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.0272 6 0 1 0.00216 0.00216 J Chrysene 0.0571 6 0 1 0.00255 0.00255 J Fluoranthene 0.111 6 0 2 0.00460 0.00546 J Pyrene 0.053 6 0 2 0.00327 0.00361 J Metals (SW6020, SW7470A, SW7471B) Arsenic 5.9 6 1 6 3.83 10.3 J Barium 130.1 6 0 6 37.8 82.1 Chromium 37.3 6 0 6 11.1 20.3

September 2012 53 DRAFT FINAL Draft Final Feasibility Study Tanaga and Ogliuga Island FUDS, AK Contract No. W911KB-08-D-0004 AECOM Project No: 60133134

Minimum Maximum Total Number Number Detected Detected Cleanup Number of Above of Concentration Concentration Chemical Analyte Level a Samples CL Detects (mg/kg) (mg/kg) Flag(s) b Lead 35 6 1 6 21.2 40.2 Nickel 18 6 1 6 14.3 26.9 Selenium 3.4 6 - 2 0.485 0.678 J Vanadium 580 6 - 6 65.7 102 MH B Blank contamination: Analyte was detected in the associated blank at a comparable concentration J Estimated concentration below the PQL but above/equal to the MDL. MH Analyte result is considered an estimated value, biased high, due to matrix effects. a NOAA SQuiRTs (Buchman 2008), per ADEC (2004, 2009) recommended values. Where SQuiRTs not available, used ADEC Method 2 most stringent cleanup level. b Chemical flag(s) within dataset are identified.

Table 2-11: Summary Statistics for 2009 RI Surface Water Sampling for Airstrip Total Cleanup Number of Number Number of Minimum Detected Maximum Detected Chemical Analyte Level1* Samples Above CL Detects Concentration (µg/L) Concentration (µg/L) Flag(s)2 Fuels (AK101, AK102, AK103) No detects VOCs (SW8260B) Acetone 33,000 10 0 2 3.70 4.45 J, QH, Dup Benzene 5 10 0 1 0.120 0.120 J, Dup Metals (SW6020, SW7470A, SW7471B) Barium 2,000 10 0 10 1.04 17.2 J, Dup Lead 3.2 10 0 1 0.332 0.332 J, Dup Nickel 4.1 10 0 0 0.679 0.679 J, Dup Selenium 5 10 0 2 0.751 1.12 J, Dup TAH and TAqH Totals TAH 10 8 - - 3.5 3.7 J TAqH 15 8 - - 88.4 96.35 J Estimated concentration below the PQL but above/equal to the MDL. QH Analyte result is considered an estimated value, biased high, due to quality control outlier. QL Estimated concentration, biased low, due to quality control outlier. a Method 2 Cleanup Levels Table C, 18 AAC 75 Oil and Other Hazardous Substances Pollution Control ADEC 2008a). EPA Regional Screening Level Table (RSL) Master December 2009 (EPA 2009). Alaska WQCM for Toxic and Other Deleterious Organic and Inorganic Substances ADEC 2008a). Where surface water screening levels are not available, the groundwater screening level serves as the default screening level. The lower of the surface water and groundwater level was applied. For hardness dependent metals a hardness of 100 mg/L as CaCO3 assumed. Alaska WQCM ADEC 2008a) value for human water and fish ingestion, where lower than corresponding GW level. b Chemical flag(s) within dataset are identified. * Screening level for TAH and TAqH.

Table 2-12: Summary Statistics for Soil Sampling for Southeast of Airstrip Total Minimum Maximum Lowest Number Number Number Detected Detected Cleanup of Above Above Concentration Concentration Chemical Analyte Level a Samples CL CL (mg/kg) (mg/kg) Flag(s) b Fuels 2007-2008 BCC-Jacobs JV (AK101, AK102, AK103) TPH-GRO 230 1 0 1 5.6 5.6 J, JS- TPH-DRO 260 1 1 1 23,000 23,000 JTE-

September 2012 54 DRAFT FINAL Draft Final Feasibility Study Tanaga and Ogliuga Island FUDS, AK Contract No. W911KB-08-D-0004 AECOM Project No: 60133134

Total Minimum Maximum Lowest Number Number Number Detected Detected Cleanup of Above Above Concentration Concentration Chemical Analyte Level a Samples CL CL (mg/kg) (mg/kg) Flag(s) b TPH-RRO 9,700 1 1 1 150,000 150,000 JTE- 2009 RI (AK101, AK102, AK103) TPH-GRO 230 8 1 6 2.62 617 J, MH, Dup TPH-DRO 260 26 11 25 13.3 9,530 J, ML, MH, Dup TPH-RRO 9,700 26 2 26 98.5 38,100 MN, MH, Dup SVOCs 2009 RI (SW8270D) Isophorone 3.1 9 0 1 1.20 1.20 ML, Dup VOCs 2009 RI (SW8260B) 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 23 10 0 7 0.0430 10.8 J, ML, Dup 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 23 10 0 7 0.0137 4.71 J, ML, Dup 2-Chlorotoluene 1,600 10 0 1 0.603 0.603 ML, Dup 4-Chlorotoluene 5,500 10 0 1 0.234 0.234 J, ML, Dup 4-Isopropyltoluene - 10 - 5 0.0120 0.746 J, ML, Dup Acetone 88 10 0 1 0.391 0.391 ML, Dup Benzene 0.025 10 2 3 0.241 0.609 Dup Ethylbenzene 6.9 10 1 5 0.0180 7.42 J, ML, Dup Isopropylbenzene 51 10 2 7 0.168 189 MN, ML, Dup Methylene chloride 0.016 10 3 3 0.0652 0.330 J, ML, Dup n-Butylbenzene 15 10 0 3 0.209 0.373 J, MN, ML, Dup n-Propylbenzene 15 10 0 4 0.120 1.44 J, ML, Dup sec-Butylbenzene 12 10 0 4 0.305 1.37 ML, Dup tert-Butylbenzene 12 10 0 3 0.251 1.17 J, Dup Toluene 6.5 10 2 4 0.0283 13.4 J, ML, Dup Xylenes (total) 63 10 0 5 0.116 51.1 J, ML, Dup PAHs 2009 RI (SW8270D, 8270DSIM) 2-Methylnaphthalene 6.1 11 1 3 1.78 8.22 ML, Dup Anthracene 3,000 11 0 1 0.147 0.147 J, ML, Dup Fluorene 220 11 0 1 0.422 0.422 ML, Dup Naphthalene 20 11 0 3 1.50 2.93 ML, Dup Phenanthrene 3,000 11 0 1 0.165 0.165 J, ML, Dup Metals 1993 E&E (EPA Method 6010, 7000 series) Arsenic 3.7 3 3 3 32.6 46.0 Barium 1,100 3 0 3 18.1 28.0 Chromium 25 3 0 3 7.40 9.10 Lead 400 3 3 3 16,300 160,000 Silver 11.2 3 0 1 0.72 0.72 2007-2008 BCC-Jacobs JV (SW6020, SW7471A) Arsenic 3.7 2 2 2 3.76 4.78 Barium 1,100 2 0 2 30.2 31.4 Cadmium 5 2 0 2 0.072 0.101

September 2012 55 DRAFT FINAL Draft Final Feasibility Study Tanaga and Ogliuga Island FUDS, AK Contract No. W911KB-08-D-0004 AECOM Project No: 60133134

Total Minimum Maximum Lowest Number Number Number Detected Detected Cleanup of Above Above Concentration Concentration Chemical Analyte Level a Samples CL CL (mg/kg) (mg/kg) Flag(s) b Chromium 25 2 0 2 7.39 10.70 Lead 400 14 9 14 4.23 60,100 JD Nickel 86 2 0 2 8.17 15.2 Silver 11.2 2 0 2 0.027 0.033 J Vanadium 580 2 0 2 32.9 58.6 2009 RI (SW6020, SW7470A, SW7471B) Arsenic 3.7 8 2 8 1.52 5.06 J, Dup Barium 1,100 8 0 8 21.6 60.8 Dup Cadmium 5 8 0 1 0.105 0.105 J, Dup Chromium 25 8 0 8 4.54 15.5 MN, Dup Lead (lab confirmation) 400 29 6 29 1.8 162,000 Dup Lead (adjusted XRF) 400 56 13 44 8.00 25,051 B, QL, Dup Mercury 1.4 8 0 1 0.0271 0.0271 J, Dup Nickel 86 8 0 8 5.31 15.1 Dup Selenium 3.4 8 0 5 0.256 1.73 J, Dup Vanadium 580 8 0 8 54.7 112 MH, Dup E&E based on soil samples 93TAN026SL, -027SL, -028SL. B Blank contamination: Analyte was detected in the associated blank at a comparable concentration Dup Field duplicate J Estimated concentration below the PQL but above/equal to the MDL JD Estimated value because the primary and field duplicate failed one or more precision criteria. JS- The result was an estimated value because at least one surrogate failed recovery criteria for that sample (biased low) JTE- Sample cooler temperature upon receipt at the laboratory was outside the range of 4+/-2 °C (biased low) MH Analyte result is considered an estimated value, biased high, due to matrix effects. ML Analyte result is considered an estimated value, biased low, due to matrix effects. MN Analyte result is considered an estimated value due to matrix effects; direction of bias is undetermined. QH Analyte result is considered an estimated value, biased high, due to quality control outlier. QL Estimated concentration, biased low, due to quality control outlier. UJ Not detected above reported sample quantitation limit. a Cleanup Levels Table B-1 and B-2, Over 40-inch zone, Alaska 18 AAC 75 Oil and Other Hazardous Substances Pollution Control (ADEC 2012). Cleanup Levels for POLs are based on Method Two. b Chemical flag(s) within dataset are identified.

Table 2-13: Summary Statistics for 2009 RI Sediment for Southeast of Airstrip Total Minimum Detected Maximum Detected Cleanup Number of Number Number of Concentration Concentration Chemical Analyte Level1 Samples Above CL Detects (mg/kg) (mg/kg) Flag(s)2 Fuels (AK101, AK102, AK103) TPH-DRO 260 1 - 1 9,330 9,330 MH TPH-RRO 9700 1 - 1 72,200 72,200 MH VOCs (SW8260B) No detects PAHs (SW8270DSIM) No detects Metals (SW6020, SW7470A, SW7471B) Arsenic 5.9 1 0 1 3.40 3.40 Barium 130.1 1 0 1 64.8 64.8 Chromium 37.3 1 0 1 6.96 6.96

September 2012 56 DRAFT FINAL Draft Final Feasibility Study Tanaga and Ogliuga Island FUDS, AK Contract No. W911KB-08-D-0004 AECOM Project No: 60133134

Total Minimum Detected Maximum Detected Cleanup Number of Number Number of Concentration Concentration Chemical Analyte Level1 Samples Above CL Detects (mg/kg) (mg/kg) Flag(s)2 Lead 35 1 0 1 7.55 7.55 Nickel 18 1 0 1 11.4 11.4 Vanadium 580 1 - 1 53.6 53.6 DL* Non-detected concentration exceeds screening level MH Analyte result is considered an estimated value, biased high, due to matrix effects. ML Analyte result is considered an estimated value, biased low, due to matrix effects. a NOAA SQuiRTs (Buchman 2008), per ADEC (2004, 2009) recommended values. Where SQuiRTs not available, used ADEC Method 2 most stringent cleanup level. b Chemical flag(s) within dataset are identified.

Table 2-14: Summary Statistics for 2009 RI Groundwater for Southeast of Airstrip Minimum Maximum Total Number Number Detected Detected Cleanup Number of Above of Concentration Concentration Chemical Analyte Level a Samples CL Detects (µg/L) (µg/L) Flag(s) b Fuels (AK101, AK102, AK103) TPH-GRO 1,500 5 2 4 53.8 16,200 J, Dup TPH-DRO 2,200 5 2 3 820 6,310 Dup TPH-RRO 1,100 5 0 1 376 376 J, Dup SVOCs (SW8270D) 2,4-Dimethylphenol 730 5 0 1 29.2 29.2 QL, Dup 3,4-Methylphenol 1,800 5 0 1 7.90 7.90 J, Dup VOCs (SW8260B) 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 1,800 5 0 4 3.26 225 Dup 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 1,800 5 0 4 1.01 91.7 Dup 2-Chlorotoluene 730 5 0 1 6.04 6.04 Dup 4-Chlorotoluene 2,600 5 0 1 2.43 2.43 Dup 4-Isopropyltoluene - 5 - 4 1.09 9.60 J, Dup Acetone 33,000 5 0 2 5.99 20.1 J, QH, Dup Benzene 5 5 3 4 0.170 158 J, Dup Dichlorodifluoromethane 7,300 5 0 4 0.390 6.10 J, Dup Ethylbenzene 700 5 0 4 0.470 521 J, MN, Dup Isopropylbenzene 3,700 5 2 5 0.320 3,770 Dup n-Butylbenzene 370 5 0 1 0.600 0.6 J, Dup n-Propy-benzene 370 5 0 3 2.42 19.6 Dup sec-Butylbenzene 370 5 0 4 0.330 11.0 J, Dup tert-Butylbenzene 370 5 0 3 1.25 14.1 Dup Toluene 1,000 5 0 3 3.03 926 Dup Xylenes (total) 10,000 5 0 4 3.20 3,040 Dup PAHs (SW8270D, 8270DSIM) 2-Methylnaphthalene 150 5 0 1 3.82 3.82 J, Dup Naphthalene 730 5 0 1 8.62 8.62 J, Dup PCBs (SW8260B) No detects Metals (SW6020, SW7470A, SW7471B) Arsenic 10 5 0 2 1.82 4.41 J, Dup

September 2012 57 DRAFT FINAL Draft Final Feasibility Study Tanaga and Ogliuga Island FUDS, AK Contract No. W911KB-08-D-0004 AECOM Project No: 60133134

Minimum Maximum Total Number Number Detected Detected Cleanup Number of Above of Concentration Concentration Chemical Analyte Level a Samples CL Detects (µg/L) (µg/L) Flag(s) b Barium 2,000 5 0 5 3.11 62.3 MN, Dup Lead 15 5 2 4 1.84 59.3 MN, Dup Nickel 100 5 0 4 1.23 6.43 J, Dup Selenium 50 5 0 1 2.61 2.61 Dup DL* Non-detected concentration exceeds cleanup level Dup Field duplicate J Estimated concentration below the PQL but above/equal to the MDL MN Analyte result is considered an estimated value due to matrix effects; direction of bias is undetermined. QH Analyte result is considered an estimated value, biased high, due to quality control outlier. QL Estimated concentration, biased low, due to quality control outlier. a Cleanup Levels Table C, 18 AAC 75 Oil and Other Hazardous Substances Pollution Control ADEC 2008a) and EPA RSL Table Master December 2009 (EPA 2009). b Chemical flag(s) within dataset are identified.

Table 2-15: Summary Statistics for 2009 RI Surface Water for Southeast of Airstrip Maximum Total Number Number Minimum Detected Detected Cleanup Number of Above of Concentration Concentration Chemical Analyte Level a* Samples CL Detects (µg/L) (µg/L) Flag(s) b Fuels (AK101, AK102, AK103) TPH-DRO 1,500 1 1 1 2,550 2,550 TPH-RRO 1,100 1 1 1 7,440 7,440 VOCs (SW8260B) Benzene 5 1 0 1 2.10 2.10 J Methylenechloride 5 1 1 1 11.2 11.2 J Metals (SW6020, SW7470A, SW7471B) Barium 2,000 1 0 1 22.5 22.5 Lead 3.2 1 0 1 1.33 1.33 Nickel 4.1 1 0 1 0.666 0.666 J TAH and TAqH Totals TAH 10 1 - - 35 35 J TAqH 15 1 - - 127.7 127.7 J Estimated concentration below the PQL but above/equal to the MDL. a Method 2 Cleanup Levels Table C, 18 AAC 75 Oil and Other Hazardous Substances Pollution Control ADEC 2008a). EPA RSL Table Master December 2009 (EPA 2009). Alaska WQCM for Toxic and Other Deleterious Organic and Inorganic Substances ADEC 2008a). Where surface water screening levels are not available, the groundwater screening level serves as the default screening level. The lower of the surface water and groundwater level was applied. For hardness dependent metals a hardness of 100 mg/L as CaCO3 assumed. Alaska WQCM ADEC 2008a) value for human water and fish ingestion, where lower than corresponding GW level. b Chemical flag(s) within dataset are identified. * Screening level for TAH and TAqH.

Table 2-16: Summary Statistics for Soil for North of Airstrip Total Minimum Maximum Lowest Number Number Number Detected Detected Cleanup of Above of Concentration Concentration Chemical Analyte Level1 Samples CL Detects (mg/kg) (mg/kg) Flag(s)2 Fuels 2007-2008 BCC-Jacobs JV (AK101, AK102, AK103) TPH-DRO 260 2 2 2 39,000 82,000 JS+

September 2012 58 DRAFT FINAL Draft Final Feasibility Study Tanaga and Ogliuga Island FUDS, AK Contract No. W911KB-08-D-0004 AECOM Project No: 60133134

Total Minimum Maximum Lowest Number Number Number Detected Detected Cleanup of Above of Concentration Concentration Chemical Analyte Level1 Samples CL Detects (mg/kg) (mg/kg) Flag(s)2 TPH-RRO 9,700 2 2 2 11,000 12,000 2009 RI (AK101, AK102, AK103) TPH-GRO 230 13 0 5 2.12 3.11 B, J, ML, Dup TPH-DRO 260 81 4 73 9.69 16600 B, J, MH, Dup TPH-RRO 9,700 81 0 81 33.0 2,960 J, MN, Dup SVOCs 2009 RI (SW8270D) 2,4-Dinitrophenol 0.54 13 1 1 1.90 1.90 J, Dup Benzoic acid 410 13 0 5 2.14 2.33 J, Dup VOCs 2007-2008 BCC-Jacobs JV (SW8260B) Methylene Chloride 0.016 2 0 1 0.013 0.013 J 2009 RI (SW8260B) 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 23 22 0 1 0.133 0.133 ML, Dup Acetone 88 22 0 1 0.739 0.739 ML, Dup Xylenes (total) 63 22 0 1 0.154 0.154 J, ML, Dup PCBs 2007-2008 BCC-Jacobs JV (SW8082) Aroclor 1260 1 5 0 5 0.12 0.86 2009 RI (SW8260B) Aroclor 1260 1 68 0 2 0.194 0.200 Dup Metals 2009 RI (SW6020, SW7470A, SW7471B) Arsenic 3.7 13 0 5 0.559 1.74 J, Dup Barium 1,100 13 0 13 27.1 80.6 MH, Dup Chromium 25 10 0 10 1.82 5.57 Dup Lead (lab confirmation) 400 13 0 13 1.19 86.4 Dup Mercury 1.4 13 0 1 0.0215 0.0215 J, Dup Nickel 86 13 0 13 4.56 15.5 Dup Selenium 3.4 13 0 13 0.471 1.60 J, Dup Silver 11.2 13 0 6 0.0530 0.0825 J, Dup Vanadium 580 13 0 13 53.7 134 Dup B Blank contamination: Analyte was detected in the associated blank at a comparable concentration Dup Field Duplicate J Estimated concentration below the PQL but above/equal to the MDL. MH Analyte result is considered an estimated value, biased high, due to matrix effects. ML Analyte result is considered an estimated value, biased low, due to matrix effects. MN Analyte result is considered an estimated value due to matrix effects; direction of bias is undetermined. JS+ The result was an estimated value because at least one surrogate failed recovery criteria for that sample (biased high) a Cleanup Levels Table B-1 and B-2, Over 40-inch zone, Alaska 18 AAC 75 Oil and Other Hazardous Substances Pollution Control (ADEC 2012). Cleanup Levels for POLs are based on Method Two. b Chemical flag(s) within dataset are identified.

September 2012 59 DRAFT FINAL Draft Final Feasibility Study Tanaga and Ogliuga Island FUDS, AK Contract No. W911KB-08-D-0004 AECOM Project No: 60133134

Table 2-17: Summary Statistics for 2009 RI Sediment for North of Airstrip Total Minimum Maximum Number Number Number Detected Detected Cleanup of Above of Concentration Concentration Chemical Analyte Level a Samples CL Detects (mg/kg) (mg/kg) Flag(s) b Fuels (AK101, AK102, AK103) TPH-DRO 260 1 - 1 3,730 3,730 J TPH-RRO 9,700 1 - 1 436 436 VOCs (SW8260B) No detects PAHs (SW8270DSIM) Pyrene 0.053 1 1 1 0.108 0.108 J, ML PCBs (SW8260B) Aroclor 1260 1 1 0 1 0.434 0.434 Metals (SW6020, SW7470A, SW7471B) Arsenic 5.9 1 0 1 1.70 1.70 Barium 130.1 1 0 1 21.2 21.2 Chromium 37.3 1 0 1 7.16 7.16 Lead 35 1 0 1 2.90 2.90 Nickel 18 1 0 1 12.7 12.7 Vanadium 580 1 - 1 63.6 63.6 DL* Non-detected concentration exceeds screening level J Estimated concentration below the PQL but above/equal to the MDL ML Analyte result is considered an estimated value, biased low, due to matrix effects. R Analyte result is rejected (severe nonconformance) – result is not usable. Data are presented for reference only. a NOAA SQuiRTs (Buchman 2008), per ADEC (2004, 2009) recommended values. Where SQuiRTs not available, used ADEC Method 2 most stringent cleanup level. b Chemical flag(s) within dataset are identified.

Table 2-18: Summary Statistics for 2009 RI Groundwater for North of Airstrip Total Minimum Maximum Number Number Number Detected Detected Cleanup of Above of Concentration Concentration Chemical Analyte Level a Samples CL Detects (µg/L) (µg/L) Flag(s) b Fuels (AK101, AK102, AK103) No detects SVOCs (SW8270D) No detects VOCs (SW8260B) Acetone 33,000 3 0 1 3.62 3.62 J,QH Benzene 5 3 0 1 0.12 0.12 J PAHs (SW8270D, 8270DSIM) No detects Metals (SW6020, SW7470A, SW7471B) Barium 2,000 2 0 2 16.0 17.7 Nickel 100 2 0 2 1.07 1.30 J DL* Non-detected concentration exceeds cleanup level J Estimated concentration below the PQL but above/equal to the MDL QH Analyte result is considered an estimated value, biased high, due to quality control outlier. a Cleanup Levels Table C, 18 AAC 75 Oil and Other Hazardous Substances Pollution Control ADEC 2008a) and EPA RSL Table Master December 2009 (EPA 2009) b Chemical flag(s) within dataset are identified.

September 2012 60 DRAFT FINAL Draft Final Feasibility Study Tanaga and Ogliuga Island FUDS, AK Contract No. W911KB-08-D-0004 AECOM Project No: 60133134

Table 2-19: Summary Statistics for 2009 RI Surface Water for North of Airstrip Total Minimum Maximum Number Number Number Detected Detected Cleanup of Above of Concentration Concentration Analyte Level a* Samples CL Detects (µg/L) (µg/L) Chemical Flag(s) b Fuels (AK101, AK102, AK103) No detects VOCs (SW8260B) No detects PCBs (SW8260B) No detects Metals (SW6020, SW7470A, SW7471B) Barium 2,000 1 0 1 11.0 11.0 J Lead 3.2 1 1 1 4.58 4.58 J TAH and TAqH Totals TAH 10 1 - - 3.7 3.7 TAqH 15 1 - - 97.2 97.2 J Estimated concentration below the PQL but above/equal to the MDL. a Method 2 Cleanup Levels Table C, 18 AAC 75 Oil and Other Hazardous Substances Pollution Control ADEC 2008a). EPA RSL Table Master December 2009 (EPA 2009). Alaska WQCM for Toxic and Other Deleterious Organic and Inorganic Substances ADEC 2008a). Where surface water screening levels are not available, the groundwater screening level serves as the default screening level. The lower of the surface water and groundwater level was applied. For hardness dependent metals a hardness of 100 mg/L as CaCO3 assumed. Alaska WQCM ADEC 2008a) value for human water and fish ingestion, where lower than corresponding GW level. b Chemical flag(s) within dataset are identified. * Screening level for TAH and TAqH.

Table 2-20: Summary Statistics for Soil for Tower Total Minimum Maximum Lowest Number Number Number Detected Detected Cleanup of Above of Concentration Concentration Chemical Analyte Level a Samples CL Detects (mg/kg) (mg/kg) Flag(s) b Fuels 2007-2008 BCC-Jacobs JV (AK101, AK102, AK103) TPH-DRO 260 1 0 1 9.3 9.3 J TPH-RRO 9,700 1 0 1 160 160 2009 RI (AK101, AK102, AK103) TPH-GRO 230 19 9 1.31 53.8 J, ML, MH, Dup TPH-DRO 260 19 19 17.1 166,000 J, MH, Dup TPH-RRO 9,700 19 19 77.5 7,400 Dup VOCs 2009 RI (SW8260B) 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 23 19 0 2 0.0295 6.72 J, ML, Dup 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 23 19 0 1 1.94 1.94 ML, Dup 4-Isopropyltoluene - 19 - 1 0.389 0.389 ML, Dup Acetone 88 19 0 1 0.272 0.272 J, ML, Dup Ethylbenzene 6.9 19 0 1 0.701 0.701 ML, Dup Isopropylbenzene 51 19 0 1 0.413 0.413 ML, Dup n-Butylbenzene 15 19 0 1 0.283 0.283 ML, Dup n-Propylbenzene 15 19 0 1 0.579 0.579 ML, Dup sec-Butylbenzene 12 19 0 1 0.281 0.281 ML, Dup

September 2012 61 DRAFT FINAL Draft Final Feasibility Study Tanaga and Ogliuga Island FUDS, AK Contract No. W911KB-08-D-0004 AECOM Project No: 60133134

Total Minimum Maximum Lowest Number Number Number Detected Detected Cleanup of Above of Concentration Concentration Chemical Analyte Level a Samples CL Detects (mg/kg) (mg/kg) Flag(s) b tert-Butylbenzene 12 19 0 1 0.102 0.102 ML, Dup Toluene 6.5 19 0 1 0.476 0.476 ML, Dup Xylenes (total) 63 19 0 1 6.41 6.41 ML, Dup PAHs 2009 RI (SW8270D, 8270DSIM) 2-Methyl-naphthalene 6.1 19 1 2 1.23 409 J, MN, Dup Acenaphthylene 180 19 0 1 12.7 12.7 MN, Dup Naphthalene 20 19 1 1 112 112 MN, Dup Phenanthrene 3,000 19 0 1 76.6 76.6 MN, Dup Metals 2009 RI (SW6020, SW7470A, SW7471B) Arsenic 3.7 19 0 14 0.566 3.63 J, Dup Barium 1,100 19 0 19 24.6 72.9 Dup Cadmium 5 19 0 6 0.134 0.761 J, Dup Chromium 25 19 0 19 3.04 14.1 Dup Lead (lab confirmation) 400 21 0 21 1.65 219 Dup Lead (adjusted XRF) 400 8 0 3 11.0 18.0 B, QL, Dup Mercury 1.4 19 0 10 0.0309 0.0609 J, Dup Nickel 86 19 0 19 7.72 27.9 Dup Selenium 3.4 19 0 19 0.307 1.22 J, Dup Vanadium 580 19 0 19 69 171 Dup B- Blank contamination Dup Field Duplicate J Estimated concentration below the PQL but above/equal to the MDL. MH Analyte result is considered an estimated value, biased high, due to matrix effects. ML Analyte result is considered an estimated value, biased low, due to matrix effects. MN Analyte result is considered an estimated value due to matrix effects; direction of bias is undetermined. QL Quality issue, biased low a Cleanup Levels Table B-1 and B-2, Over 40-inch zone, Alaska 18 AAC 75 Oil and Other Hazardous Substances Pollution Control (ADEC 2012). Cleanup Levels for POLs are based on Method Two. b Chemical flag(s) within dataset are identified.

Table 2-21: Summary Statistics for 2009 RI Sediment for Tower Total Minimum Maximum Number Number Number Detected Detected Cleanup of Above of Concentration Concentration Chemical Analyte Level a Samples CL Detects (mg/kg) (mg/kg) Flag(s) b Fuels (AK101, AK102, AK103) TPH-DRO 260 1 - 1 38.3 38.3 TPH-RRO 9,700 1 - 1 416 416 VOCs (SW8260B) No detects PAHs (SW8270DSIM) No detects Metals (SW6020, SW7470A, SW7471B) Barium 130.1 1 0 1 41.3 41.3 MH Chromium 37.3 1 0 1 6.10 6.10

September 2012 62 DRAFT FINAL Draft Final Feasibility Study Tanaga and Ogliuga Island FUDS, AK Contract No. W911KB-08-D-0004 AECOM Project No: 60133134

Total Minimum Maximum Number Number Number Detected Detected Cleanup of Above of Concentration Concentration Chemical Analyte Level a Samples CL Detects (mg/kg) (mg/kg) Flag(s) b Lead 35 1 0 1 1.07 1.07 Nickel 18 1 0 1 15.3 15.3 Selenium 3.4 1 1 0.466 0.466 J Vanadium 580 1 - 1 90.2 90.2 CL cleanup levels DL* Non-detected concentration exceeds screening level J Estimated concentration below the PQL but above/equal to the MD) MH - Analyte result is considered an estimated value, biased high, due to matrix effects. a NOAA SQuiRTs (Buchman 2008), per ADEC (2004, 2009) recommended values. Where SQuiRTs not available, used ADEC Method 2 most stringent cleanup level. b Chemical flag(s) within dataset are identified.

Table 2-22: Summary Statistics for 2009 RI Groundwater for Tower Minimum Maximum Total Number Number Detected Detected Cleanup Number of Above of Concentration Concentration Chemical Analyte Level1 Samples CL Detects (µg/L) (µg/L) Flag(s)2 VOCs (SW8260B) 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 1,800 2 0 1 3.36 3.36 2-Butanone 22,000 2 0 1 3.48 3.48 J, QH 4-Isopropyltoluene - 2 - 1 0.590 0.590 J Acetone 33,000 2 0 2 14.1 15.0 Benzene 5 2 0 1 0.170 0.170 J cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 70 2 0 1 1.10 1.10 Ethylbenzene 700 2 0 1 0.520 0.520 J Isopropylbenzene 3,700 2 0 1 0.350 0.350 J n-Butylbenzene 370 2 0 1 0.400 0.400 J n-Propy-benzene 370 2 0 1 0.520 0.520 J Xylenes (total) 10,000 2 0 1 1.76 1.76 J DL* Non-detected concentration exceeds screening level J Estimated concentration below the PQL but above/equal to the MDL. QH Analyte result is considered an estimated value, biased high, due to quality control outlier. a Cleanup Levels Table C, 18 AAC 75 Oil and Other Hazardous Substances Pollution Control ADEC 2008a) and EPA RSL Table Master December 2009 (EPA 2009) b Chemical flag(s) within dataset are identified.

Table 2-23: Summary Statistics for 2009 RI Surface Water for Tower Minimum Maximum Total Number Number Detected Detected Cleanup Number of Above of Concentration Concentration Chemical Analyte Level1* Samples CL Detects (µg/L) (µg/L) Flag(s)2 Fuels (AK101, AK102, AK103) No detects VOCs (SW8260B) No detects Metals (SW6020, SW7470A, SW7471B) Barium 2,000 1 0 1 2.17 2.17 J

September 2012 63 DRAFT FINAL Draft Final Feasibility Study Tanaga and Ogliuga Island FUDS, AK Contract No. W911KB-08-D-0004 AECOM Project No: 60133134

Minimum Maximum Total Number Number Detected Detected Cleanup Number of Above of Concentration Concentration Chemical Analyte Level1* Samples CL Detects (µg/L) (µg/L) Flag(s)2 TAH and TAqH Totals TAH 10 1 - - 3.70 3.70 TAqH 15 1 - - 93.0 93.0 J Estimated concentration below the PQL but above/equal to the MDL. a Method 2 Cleanup Levels Table C, 18 AAC 75 Oil and Other Hazardous Substances Pollution Control ADEC 2008a). EPA RSL Table Master December 2009 EPA 2009). Alaska WQCM for Toxic and Other Deleterious Organic and Inorganic Substances ADEC 2008a). Where surface water screening levels are not available, the groundwater screening level serves as the default screening level. The lower of the surface water and groundwater level was applied. For hardness dependent metals a hardness of 100 mg/L as CaCO3 assumed. Alaska WQCM ADEC 2008a) value for human water and fish ingestion, where lower than corresponding GW level. b Chemical flag(s) within dataset are identified. * Screening level for TAH and TAqH.

Table 2-24: Summary Statistics for Soil for Pumphouse Minimum Maximum Lowest Total Number Number Detected Detected Cleanup Number of Above of Concentration Concentration Chemical Analyte Level a Samples CL Detects (mg/kg) (mg/kg) Flag(s) b Fuels 2007-2008 BCC-Jacobs JV (AK101, AK102, AK103) TPH-DRO 260 4 3 4 220 290,000 TPH-RRO 9,700 4 3 4 21,000 23,000 2009 RI (AK101, AK102, AK103) TPH-GRO 230 5 0 2 2.88 5.09 J, ML, Dup TPH-DRO 260 59 10 47 9.23 10,700 J, MH, ML, MN, Dup TPH-RRO 9,700 59 1 59 18.9 18,900 J, B, MH, MN, ML, Dup VOCs 2007-2008 BCC-Jacobs JV (SW8260B) 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 23 3 0 1 0.0085 0.0085 Methylene Chloride 0.016 3 0 2 0.014 0.014 PAHs 2007-2008 BCC-Jacobs JV (SW8260B, 8270SIM) Naphthalene 20 3 0 2 0.017 0.040 PCBs 1993 E&E (EPA Method 8080) Aroclor 1260 1 3 3 3 18 34 Metals 2007-2008 BCC-Jacobs JV (SW8082) Aroclor 1254 1 3 2 2 22 25 Aroclor 1260 1 3 1 1 81 81 Aroclor 1268 1 3 2 2 5.0 5.4 2009 RI (SW8260B) Aroclor 1254 1 59 0 6 0.0794 0.441 Dup Aroclor 1260 1 59 0 2 0.264 0.330 Dup

September 2012 64 DRAFT FINAL Draft Final Feasibility Study Tanaga and Ogliuga Island FUDS, AK Contract No. W911KB-08-D-0004 AECOM Project No: 60133134

Minimum Maximum Lowest Total Number Number Detected Detected Cleanup Number of Above of Concentration Concentration Chemical Analyte Level a Samples CL Detects (mg/kg) (mg/kg) Flag(s) b 2007-2008 BCC-Jacobs JV (SW6020, SW7471A) Arsenic 3.7 1 0 1 14.1 14.1 Barium 1,100 1 0 1 406 406 Cadmium 5 1 1 1 19.6 19.6 Chromium 25 1 1 1 192 192 Lead 400 2 2 2 1,520 2,590 Mercury 1.4 1 0 1 0.082 0.082 Nickel 86 1 0 1 65.2 65.2 Selenium 3.4 1 0 1 1.9 1.9 J Silver 11.2 1 0 1 0.332 0.332 2009 RI (SW6020, SW7470A, SW7471B) Arsenic 3.7 5 2 5 1.20 5.58 J, Dup Barium 1,100 5 0 5 25.2 38.2 Dup Chromium 25 5 0 5 3.44 6.60 Dup Lead (lab confirmation) 400 7 1 7 1.99 912 MN, Dup Lead (adjusted XRF) 400 10 2 9 14.0 712 B, QL, Dup Nickel 86 5 0 5 3.68 9.91 MN, Dup Selenium 3.4 5 0 3 1.70 2.63 Dup Vanadium 580 5 0 5 47.8 123 MH, Dup E&E based on soil samples 93TAN023SL, -024SL, -025SL. B Blank contamination: Analyte was detected in the associated blank at a comparable concentration B- Blank contamination Dup Field duplicate J Estimated concentration below the PQL but above/equal to the MDL. MH Analyte result is considered an estimated value, biased high, due to matrix effects. ML Analyte result is considered an estimated value, biased low, due to matrix effects. MN Analyte result is considered an estimated value due to matrix effects; direction of bias is undetermined. QL- Quality issue, biased low a Cleanup Levels Table B-1 and B-2, Over 40-inch zone, Alaska 18 AAC 75 Oil and Other Hazardous Substances Pollution Control (ADEC 2012). Cleanup Levels for POLs are based on Method Two. b Chemical flag(s) within dataset are identified.

Table 2-25: Summary Statistics for 2009 RI Sediment for Pumphouse Minimum Maximum Total Number Number Detected Detected Cleanup Number of Above of Concentration Concentration Chemical Analyte Level a Samples CL Detects (mg/kg) (mg/kg) Flag(s) b Fuels (AK101, AK102, AK103) TPH-DRO 260 2 - 2 111 158 J TPH-RRO 9,700 2 - 2 369 424 VOCs (SW8260B) No detects PAHs (SW8270DSIM) 2-Methylnaphthalene 6.1 2 - 1 0.00746 0.00746 J Acenaphthene 0.00671 2 1 1 0.0112 0.0112 Acenaphthylene 0.00587 2 1 1 0.00880 0.00880 Anthracene 0.0469 2 0 1 0.0153 0.0153

September 2012 65 DRAFT FINAL Draft Final Feasibility Study Tanaga and Ogliuga Island FUDS, AK Contract No. W911KB-08-D-0004 AECOM Project No: 60133134

Minimum Maximum Total Number Number Detected Detected Cleanup Number of Above of Concentration Concentration Chemical Analyte Level a Samples CL Detects (mg/kg) (mg/kg) Flag(s) b Benzo(a)anthracene 0.0317 2 0 2 0.00413 0.0634 J Benzo(a)pyrene 0.0319 2 0 2 0.00597 0.0779 J Benzo(b)fluoranthene 4 2 - 2 0.0166 0.170 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 0.57 2 0 1 0.0529 0.0529 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.0272 2 1 2 0.00610 0.0315 J Chrysene 0.0571 2 1 2 0.00660 0.00972 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 0.00622 2 1 2 0.00596 0.0186 J Fluoranthene 0.111 2 0 2 0.00508 0.0598 J Fluorene 0.0212 2 0 1 0.00290 0.00290 J Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 0.01732 2 2 2 0.00842 0.0536 J Naphthalene 0.0346 2 1 1 0.222 0.222 Phenanthrene 0.0419 2 0 1 0.0140 0.0140 Pyrene 0.053 2 1 2 0.00495 0.0571 J PCBs (SW8260B) No detects Metals (SW6020, SW7470A, SW7471B) Arsenic 5.9 2 0 2 2.46 3.31 Barium 130.1 2 0 2 38.7 47.6 MH Cadmium 0.596 2 0 1 0.122 0.122 J Chromium 37.3 2 0 2 6.41 8.48 Lead 35 2 0 2 3.36 32.4 Nickel 18 2 1 2 12.3 18.3 Selenium 3.4 2 - 2 0.385 0.47 J Vanadium 580 2 - 2 61 76.1 DL* Non-detected concentration exceeds screening level J Estimated concentration below the PQL but above/equal to the MDL. MH Analyte result is considered an estimated value, biased high, due to matrix effects. a NOAA SQuiRTs (Buchman 2008), per ADEC (2004, 2009) recommended values. Where SQuiRTs not available, used ADEC Method 2 most stringent cleanup level. b Chemical flag(s) within dataset are identified.

Table 2-26: Summary Statistics for 2009 RI Groundwater for Pumphouse Minimum Maximum Total Number Number Detected Detected Cleanup Number of Above of Concentration Concentration Chemical Analyte Level a Samples CL Detects (µg/L) (µg/L) Flag(s) b Fuels (AK101, AK102, AK103) TPH-GRO 1,500 2 0 2 47.1 54.0 J, Dup SVOCs (SW8270D) Benzoic acid 150,000 2 0 1 28.3 28.3 J, Dup VOCs (SW8260B) 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 1,800 2 0 1 1.31 1.31 Dup 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 1,800 2 0 1 0.460 0.460 J, Dup 4-Isopropyltoluene - 2 - 1 0.830 0.830 J, Dup Acetone 33,000 2 0 1 5.28 5.28 J, QH, Dup n-Butylbenzene 370 2 0 1 0.430 0.430 J, Dup

September 2012 66 DRAFT FINAL Draft Final Feasibility Study Tanaga and Ogliuga Island FUDS, AK Contract No. W911KB-08-D-0004 AECOM Project No: 60133134

Minimum Maximum Total Number Number Detected Detected Cleanup Number of Above of Concentration Concentration Chemical Analyte Level a Samples CL Detects (µg/L) (µg/L) Flag(s) b n-Propy-benzene 370 2 0 1 0.390 0.390 J, Dup Toluene 1,000 2 0 1 0.640 0.640 J, Dup Xylenes (total) 10,000 2 0 1 1.88 1.88 J, Dup PAHs (SW8270D, 8270DSIM) No detects PCBs (SW8260B) No detects Metals (SW6020, SW7470A, SW7471B) Arsenic 10 2 0 2 1.68 4.84 J, Dup Barium 2000 2 0 2 11.9 12.6 Dup Lead (lab confirmation) 15 2 0 2 0.66 1.85 J, Dup Nickel 100 2 0 2 1.86 2.52 J, Dup DL* Non-detected concentration exceeds cleanup level Dup Field duplicate J Estimated concentration below the PQL but above/equal to the MDL. QH Analyte result is considered an estimated value, biased high, due to quality control outlier. a Cleanup Levels Table C, 18 AAC 75 Oil and Other Hazardous Substances Pollution Control ADEC 2008a) and EPA RSL Table Master December 2009 (EPA 2009) b Chemical flag(s) within dataset are identified.

Table 2-27: Summary Statistics for 2009 RI Surface Water for Pumphouse Minimum Maximum Total Number Number Detected Detected Cleanup Number of Above of Concentration Concentration Chemical Analyte Level a* Samples CL Detects (µg/L) (µg/L) Flag(s) b Fuels (AK101, AK102, AK103) No detects VOCs (SW8260B) No detects PCBs (SW8260B) Aroclor 1254 2,000 5 0 2 0.453 0.582 DL*, Dup Metals (SW6020, SW7470A, SW7471B) Barium 2,000 5 0 5 1.3 28.1 J, Dup Lead 3.2 5 1 2 2.42 3.55 MN, Dup Nickel 4.1 5 0 2 0.824 0.907 J, Dup Selenium 5 5 0 1 0.843 0.843 J, Dup TAH and TAqH Totals TAH 10 5 - - 3.7 3.7 TAqH 15 5 - - 90.4 100.6 DL* Non-detected concentration exceeds screening level Dup Field Duplicate J Estimated concentration below the PQL but above/equal to the MDL. MN Analyte result is considered an estimated value due to matrix effects; direction of bias is undetermined. a Method 2 Cleanup Levels Table C, 18 AAC 75 Oil and Other Hazardous Substances Pollution Control (ADEC 2008a). EPA RSL Table Master December 2009 (EPA 2009). Alaska WQCM for Toxic and Other Deleterious Organic and Inorganic Substances (ADEC 2008a). Where surface water screening levels are not available, the groundwater screening level serves as the default screening level. The lower of the surface water and groundwater level was applied. For hardness dependent metals a hardness of 100 mg/L as CaCO3 assumed. Alaska WQCM (ADEC 2008a) value for human water and fish ingestion, where lower than corresponding GW level. b Chemical flag(s) within dataset are identified. * Screening level for TAH and TAqH.

September 2012 67 DRAFT FINAL Draft Final Feasibility Study Tanaga and Ogliuga Island FUDS, AK Contract No. W911KB-08-D-0004 AECOM Project No: 60133134

Table 2-28: Summary Statistics for 2009 RI Soil for Landfill Minimum Maximum Lowest Total Number Number Detected Detected Cleanup Number of Above of Concentration Concentration Chemical Analyte Level a Samples CL Detects (mg/kg) (mg/kg) Flag(s) b Fuels (AK101, AK102, AK103) TPH-GRO 230 9 0 1 0.939 0.939 J, Dup TPH-DRO 260 9 0 1 16.3 16.3 J, Dup TPH-RRO 9,700 9 0 9 20.3 95.3 J, Dup SVOCs (SW8270D) 2,4-Dinitrophenol 0.54 9 1 1 1.28 1.28 J, Dup 4-Nitrophenol - 9 - 2 0.474 0.809 J, Dup Benzoic acid 410 9 0 1 1.32 1.32 J, Dup VOCs (SW8260B) 4-Isopropyltoluene - 9 - 1 0.0200 0.0200 J, Dup Acetone 88 9 0 1 0.794 0.794 J, Dup Metals (SW6020, SW7470A, SW7471B) Arsenic 3.7 9 1 9 2.12 4.55 Dup Barium 1,100 9 0 9 15.4 35.1 Dup Cadmium 5 9 0 1 0.317 0.317 Dup Chromium 25 9 0 9 5.40 9.33 Dup Lead (lab confirmation) 400 9 0 9 0.954 35.8 Dup Mercury 1.4 9 0 2 0.0336 0.0589 J, Dup Nickel 86 9 0 9 11.8 21.1 Dup Selenium 3.4 9 0 3 0.170 0.561 J, Dup Silver 11.2 9 0 1 0.0646 0.0646 J, Dup Vanadium 580 9 0 9 54.9 75.0 Dup Dup Field duplicate J Estimated concentration below the PQL but above/equal to the MDL a Cleanup Levels Table B-1 and B-2, Over 40-inch zone, Alaska 18 AAC 75 Oil and Other Hazardous Substances Pollution Control (ADEC 2012). Cleanup Levels for POLs are based on Method Two. b Chemical flag(s) within dataset are identified.

Table 2-29: Summary Statistics for 2009 RI Sediment for Landfill Total Minimum Maximum Number Number Number Detected Detected Cleanup of Above of Concentration Concentration Chemical Analyte Level a Samples CL Detects (mg/kg) (mg/kg) Flag(s) b Fuels (AK101, AK102, AK103) TPH-DRO 260 3 - 1 19.1 19.1 J, Dup TPH-RRO 9,700 3 - 3 9.49 322 J, Dup VOCs (SW8260B) No detects PAHs (SW8270DSIM) Anthracene 0.0469 3 0 1 0.00199 0.00199 J, Dup Benzo(a)anthracene 0.0317 3 0 1 0.00195 0.00195 J, Dup Benzo(a)pyrene 0.0319 3 1 2 0.00286 0.00418 J, QH, Dup Benzo(b)fluoranthene 4 3 - 2 0.00545 0.00646 J, QH, Dup Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 0.57 3 0 2 0.00207 0.00356 J, QH, Dup Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.0272 3 0 1 0.00206 0.00206 J, QH, Dup

September 2012 68 DRAFT FINAL Draft Final Feasibility Study Tanaga and Ogliuga Island FUDS, AK Contract No. W911KB-08-D-0004 AECOM Project No: 60133134

Total Minimum Maximum Number Number Number Detected Detected Cleanup of Above of Concentration Concentration Chemical Analyte Level a Samples CL Detects (mg/kg) (mg/kg) Flag(s) b Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 0.00622 3 0 2 0.00240 0.00340 B, J, QH, Dup Fluoranthene 0.111 3 0 1 0.00332 0.00332 J, Dup Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 0.1732 3 2 2 0.00344 0.00402 B, J, QH, Dup Pyrene 0.053 3 0 1 0.00233 0.00233 J, Dup PCBs (SW8260B) No detects Metals (SW6020, SW7470A, SW7471B) Arsenic 5.9 3 0 3 0.725 1.23 J, Dup Barium 130.1 3 0 3 43.7 47.1 MH, Dup Chromium 37.3 3 0 3 5.73 9.20 MH, Dup Lead 35 3 0 3 0.852 1.35 Dup Nickel 18 3 0 3 13.1 16.9 Dup Selenium 3.4 3 - 2 0.264 0.741 J, Dup Vanadium 580 3 - 3 68.6 151 Dup B Blank contamination: Analyte was detected in the associated blank at a comparable concentration DL* Non-detected concentration exceeds screening level Dup Field duplicate J Estimated concentration below the PQL but above/equal to the MDL. MH Analyte result is considered an estimated value, biased high, due to matrix effects. QH Analyte result is considered an estimated value, biased high, due to quality control outlier. a NOAA SQuiRTs (Buchman 2008), per ADEC (2004, 2009) recommended values. Where SQuiRTs not available, used ADEC Method 2 most stringent cleanup level. b Chemical flag(s) within dataset are identified.

Table 2-30: Summary Statistics for 2009 RI Groundwater for Landfill Total Minimum Maximum Number Number Number Detected Detected Cleanup of Above of Concentration Concentration Chemical Analyte Level a Samples CL Detects (µg/L) (µg/L) Flag(s) b Fuels (AK101, AK102, AK103) No detects SVOCs (SW8270D) No detects VOCs (SW8260B) No detects PAHs (SW8270D, 8270DSIM) No detects PCBs (SW8260B) No detects Metals (SW6020, SW7470A, SW7471B) Barium 2,000 4 0 4 2.79 7.51 J Chromium 100 4 0 1 1.71 1.71 J Lead (lab confirmation) 15 4 0 1 0.375 0.375 J Nickel 100 4 0 2 2.29 2.33 Vanadium 260 4 0 1 18.1 18.1 J DL* Non-detected concentration exceeds cleanup level J estimated concentration below the PQL but above/equal to the MDL.

September 2012 69 DRAFT FINAL Draft Final Feasibility Study Tanaga and Ogliuga Island FUDS, AK Contract No. W911KB-08-D-0004 AECOM Project No: 60133134

a Cleanup Levels Table C, 18 AAC 75 Oil and Other Hazardous Substances Pollution Control (ADEC 2008a) and EPA RSL Table Master December 2009 (EPA 2009) b Chemical flag(s) within dataset are identified.

Table 2-31: Summary Statistics for 2009 RI Surface Water for Landfill Total Minimum Maximum Number Number Number Detected Detected Cleanup of Above of Concentration Concentration Chemical Analyte Level a Samples CL Detects (µg/L) (µg/L) Flag(s) b Fuels (AK101, AK102, AK103) TPH-GRO 2,200 2 0 1 34.2 34.2 J VOCs (SW8260B) No detects PCBs (SW8260B) No detects Metals (SW6020, SW7470A, SW7471B) Barium 2,000 2 2 2 4.8 5.16 Selenium 5 2 0 1 1.45 1.45 J TAH and TAqH Totals TAH 10 2 - - 3.7 3.7 TAqH 15 2 - - 97.2 97.75 DL* Non-detected concentration exceeds screening level J Estimated concentration below the PQL but above/equal to the MDL. a Method 2 Cleanup Levels Table C, 18 AAC 75 Oil and Other Hazardous Substances Pollution Control (ADEC 2008a). EPA RSL Table Master December 2009 (EPA 2009). Alaska WQCM for Toxic and Other Deleterious Organic and Inorganic Substances (ADEC 2008a). Where surface water screening levels are not available, the groundwater screening level serves as the default screening level. The lower of the surface water and groundwater level was applied. For hardness dependent metals a hardness of 100 mg/L as CaCO3 assumed. Alaska WQCM (ADEC 2008a) value for human water and fish ingestion, where lower than corresponding GW level. b Chemical flag(s) within dataset are identified. * Screening level for TAH and TAqH.

Table 2-32: Summary Statistics for Soil for 2009 RI Small Arms Firing Range Minimum Maximum Lowest Total Number Number Detected Detected Cleanup Number of Above of Concentration Concentration Chemical Analyte Level1 Samples CL Detects (mg/kg) (mg/kg) Flag(s)2 Metals (SW6020, SW7470A, SW7471B) Arsenic 3.7 4 1 2 0.602 4.78 J, Dup Barium 1,100 4 0 4 22.7 73.1 MH, Dup Chromium 25 4 0 4 3.07 5.79 Dup Lead (lab confirmation) 400 13 0 13 1.45 2.40 Dup Lead (adjusted XRF) 400 40 0 3 10.0 26.0 B, Dup Mercury 1.4 4 0 1 0.0249 0.0249 J, Dup Nickel 86 4 0 4 8.04 18.9 Dup Selenium 3.4 4 0 3 0.460 0.867 J, Dup Vanadium 580 4 0 4 50.6 177 Dup B- Blank contamination Dup Field Duplicate J Estimated concentration below the PQL but above/equal to the MDL. MH Analyte result is considered an estimated value, biased high, due to matrix effects. a Cleanup Levels Table B-1 and B-2, Over 40-inch zone, Alaska 18 AAC 75 Oil and Other Hazardous Substances Pollution Control (ADEC 2012). Cleanup Levels for POLs are based on Method Two. b Chemical flag(s) within dataset are identified.

September 2012 70 DRAFT FINAL Draft Final Feasibility Study Tanaga and Ogliuga Island FUDS, AK Contract No. W911KB-08-D-0004 AECOM Project No: 60133134

Table 2-33: Summary Statistics for 2009 RI Sediment for Small Arms Firing Range Minimum Maximum Total Number Number Detected Detected Cleanup Number of Above of Concentration Concentration Chemical Analyte Level a Samples CL Detects (mg/kg) (mg/kg) Flag(s) b Metals (SW6020, SW7470A, SW7471B) Arsenic 5.9 2 2 2 12.5 12.8 Dup Barium 130.1 2 0 2 89.3 95.2 Dup Chromium 37.3 2 0 2 2.30 2.34 J, Dup Lead 35 2 0 2 1.98 2.17 Dup Nickel 18 2 0 2 4.70 5.56 Dup Selenium 3.4 2 - 2 1.47 2.91 J, Dup Vanadium 580 2 - 2 27.1 30.2 Dup DL* Non-detected concentration exceeds screening level Dup Field duplicate J Estimated concentration below the PQL but above/equal to the MDL. a NOAA SQuiRTs (Buchman 2008), per ADEC (2004, 2009) recommended values. Where SQuiRTs not available, used ADEC Method 2 most stringent cleanup level. b Chemical flag(s) within dataset are identified.

Table 2-34: Summary Statistics for 2009 RI Surface Water for Small Arms Firing Range Minimum Maximum Total Number Number Detected Detected Cleanup Number of Above of Concentration Concentration Chemical Analyte Level1 Samples CL Detects (µg/L) (µg/L) Flag(s)2 Metals (SW6020, SW7470A, SW7471B) Barium 2,000 2 0 2 38.4 40.4 Dup Selenium 50 2 0 2 3.70 4.55 J, Dup DL* Non-detected concentration exceeds screening level Dup Field duplicate J Estimated concentration below the PQL) but above/equal to the MDL. a Method 2 Cleanup Levels Table C, 18 AAC 75 Oil and Other Hazardous Substances Pollution Control (ADEC 2008a). EPA RSL Table Master December 2009 (EPA 2009). Alaska Water WQCM for Toxic and Other Deleterious Organic and Inorganic Substances (ADEC 2008a). Where surface water screening levels are not available, the groundwater screening level serves as the default screening level The lower of the surface water and groundwater level was applied. For hardness dependent metals a hardness of 100 mg/L as CaCO3 assumed. Alaska WQCM (ADEC 2008a) value for human water and fish ingestion, where lower than corresponding GW level. b Chemical flag(s) within dataset are identified.

Table 2-35: Summary Statistics for Soil for Ogliuga Runway Minimum Maximum Lowest Total Number Number Detected Detected Cleanup Number of Above of Concentration Concentration Chemical Analyte Level a Samples CL Detects (mg/kg) (mg/kg) Flag(s) b Fuels 1993 E&E (COE Modified Method 8015) Bunker C 3 3 86,000 200,000 J 1998 USACE (AK101, AK102, AK103) TPH-GRO 230 2 0 2 1.1 1.4 TPH-DRO 260 5 1 5 20 13,000 TPH-RRO 9,700 5 1 5 75 55,000 B, J 2007-2008 BCC-Jacobs JV (AK101, AK102, AK103) TPH-DRO 260 2 1 1 8,700 8,700

September 2012 71 DRAFT FINAL Draft Final Feasibility Study Tanaga and Ogliuga Island FUDS, AK Contract No. W911KB-08-D-0004 AECOM Project No: 60133134

Minimum Maximum Lowest Total Number Number Detected Detected Cleanup Number of Above of Concentration Concentration Chemical Analyte Level a Samples CL Detects (mg/kg) (mg/kg) Flag(s) b TPH-RRO 9,700 2 1 2 4.1 57,000 J 2009 RI (AK101, AK102, AK103) TPH-GRO 230 42 0 20 1.35 70.8 B, J, ML, Dup TPH-DRO 260 47 15 46 12.6 13,300 B, J, MH, MN, QL, Dup TPH-RRO 9,700 47 6 47 30.0 81,200 B, MH,MN, Dup SVOCs 2009 RI (SW8270D) 2,4-Dinitrophenol 0.54 42 1 1 1.72 1.72 J, DL*, ML, QL, Dup Benzoic acid 410 42 0 12 1.21 23.1 J, ML, QL, Dup VOCs 1998 USACE (SW8021B) No detects 2007-2008 BCC-Jacobs JV (SW8260B) Acetone 88 1 0 1 1.0 1.0 J Benzene 0.025 1 0 1 0.020 0.020 J,B Methylene Chloride 0.016 1 1 1 0.067 0.067 J,B 2009 RI (SW8260B) 1,2,4- 23 42 0 2 0.0628 3.54 J, MH, ML, Trimethylbenzene MN, QL, Dup 1,3,5- 23 42 0 2 0.134 1.2 MH, ML, MN, Trimethylbenzene QL, Dup 2-Butanone 59 42 0 1 1.58 1.58 ML, MN,QL, Dup 4-Isopropyltoluene - 42 - 2 0.209 0.448 MH, ML, MN, QL, Dup Acetone 88 42 0 1 4.77 4.77 ML, MN, QL, Dup Benzene 0.025 42 1 1 0.0728 0.0728 ML, MN, QL, Dup Ethylbenzene 6.9 42 0 2 0.0301 0.0765 J, MH, ML, MN, QL, Dup Isopropylbenzene 51 42 0 1 0.173 0.173 J, MH, ML, MN, QL, Dup Methylene chloride 0.016 42 1 1 0.375 0.375 MH, ML, MN, QH, Dup n-Butylbenzene 15 42 0 1 0.766 0.766 MH, ML, MN, QH, Dup n-Propylbenzene 15 42 0 1 0.344 0.344 MH, ML, MN, QH, Dup Toluene 6.5 42 0 2 0.151 0.191 B, ML, MN, QL, Dup Xylenes (total) 63 42 0 3 0.100 0.734 J, MH, ML, MN, QL, Dup

September 2012 72 DRAFT FINAL Draft Final Feasibility Study Tanaga and Ogliuga Island FUDS, AK Contract No. W911KB-08-D-0004 AECOM Project No: 60133134

Minimum Maximum Lowest Total Number Number Detected Detected Cleanup Number of Above of Concentration Concentration Chemical Analyte Level a Samples CL Detects (mg/kg) (mg/kg) Flag(s) b PAHs 1998 USACE (SW8270C) 2-Methylnaphthalene 6.1 5 0 4 0.017 0.80 J Benzo(a)-anthracene 3.6 5 0 1 0.015 0.015 Benzo(a)-pyrene 0.4 5 0 1 0.015 0.015 Benzo(b)-fluoranthene 4 5 0 1 0.015 0.015 Chrysene 360 5 0 1 0.021 0.021 Fluoranthene 1,400 5 0 1 0.026 0.026 Naphthalene 20 5 0 3 0.33 1.4 Phenanthrene 3,000 5 0 1 0.041 0.041 Pyrene 1,000 5 0 1 0.039 0.039 2009 RI (SW8270D, 8270DSIM) 2-Methylnaphthalene 6.1 42 1 2 2.38 11.7 J, QL, Dup Anthracene 3,000 42 0 2 2.07 3.07 J, QH, QL, Dup Fluorene 220 42 0 1 1.74 1.74 QL, Dup Naphthalene 20 42 0 1 2.13 2.13 QL, Dup Phenanthrene 3,000 42 0 2 2.28 3.16 J, QL, Dup Pesticides 1998 USACE (SW8081A) No detects PCBs 1993 E&E (EPA Method 8080) No detects 1998 USACE (SW8082) No detects Metals 1998 USACE (SW6060, SW7471) Barium 1,100 5 0 5 8.7 150 Cadmium 5 5 1 1 55 55 J Chromium 25 5 1 1 95 95 J Lead 400 5 1 4 19 14,000 J Mercury 1.4 5 1 3 0.14 1.6 J Nickel 86 5 0 1 64 64 J Vanadium 580 5 0 5 3.7 38 2007-2008 BCC-Jacobs JV (SW6020, SW7471A) Arsenic 3.7 1 0 1 1.01 1.01 J Barium 1,100 1 0 1 51.1 51.1 Cadmium 5 1 0 1 0.273 0.273 Chromium 25 1 0 1 1.52 1.52 Lead 400 3 2 3 1.9 8,200 Mercury 1.4 1 0 1 0.049 0.049 Nickel 86 1 0 1 4.66 4.66 Selenium 3.4 1 0 1 0.90 0.90 J

September 2012 73 DRAFT FINAL Draft Final Feasibility Study Tanaga and Ogliuga Island FUDS, AK Contract No. W911KB-08-D-0004 AECOM Project No: 60133134

Minimum Maximum Lowest Total Number Number Detected Detected Cleanup Number of Above of Concentration Concentration Chemical Analyte Level a Samples CL Detects (mg/kg) (mg/kg) Flag(s) b Silver 11.2 1 0 1 0.030 0.030 J Vanadium 580 1 0 1 31 31 2009 RI (SW6020, SW7470A, SW7471B) Arsenic 3.7 42 5 42 0.466 17.9 J, Dup Barium 1,100 42 0 42 6.90 194 Dup Cadmium 5 42 0 15 0.156 4.17 J, Dup Chromium 25 42 1 42 0.467 34.2 MN, Dup Lead (lab confirmation) 400 43 1 43 1.24 1,580 ML, Dup Lead (adjusted XRF) 400 5 0 4 11.0 52.0 B, QN, Dup Mercury 1.4 42 0 23 0.0176 0.198 J, Dup Nickel 86 42 0 42 0.834 55.3 ML, Dup Selenium 3.4 42 0 42 0.194 3.18 J, Dup Silver 11.2 42 0 15 0.058 2.20 J, Dup Vanadium 580 42 0 42 7.88 211 MH, Dup E&E based on soil samples 93OGL001SL, -002SL, -003SL ACE based on soil sample 98OGLI08SL, -09SL, -10SL, -11SL, -12SL, -13SSL, -14SL. B The analyte was detected in the method blank or the trip blank above the MDL, and the concentration in the sample did not exceed the blank concentration by a factor of 5 (factor of 10 for common volatile laboratory contaminants acetone and methylene chloride) DL* Non-detected concentration exceeds cleanup level Dup Field Duplicate J The analyte was positively identified, but the associated result was less than the PQL but greater than or equal to the MDL. J Estimated concentration below the practical quantitation limit (PQL) but above/equal to the method detection limit (MDL) MH Analyte result is considered an estimated value, biased high, due to matrix effects. ML Analyte result is considered an estimated value, biased low, due to matrix effects. MN Analyte result is considered an estimated value due to matrix effects; direction of bias is undetermined. QH Analyte result is considered an estimated value, biased high, due to quality control outlier. QL Estimated concentration, biased low, due to quality control outlier. QN Quality issue, bias cannot be determined a Cleanup Levels Table B-1 and B-2, Over 40-inch zone, Alaska 18 AAC 75 Oil and Other Hazardous Substances Pollution Control (ADEC 2012). Cleanup Levels for POLs are based on Method Two. b Chemical flag(s) within dataset are identified.

Table 2-36: Summary Statistics for 2009 RI Groundwater for Ogliuga Runway Minimum Maximum Total Number Number Detected Detected Cleanup Number of Above of Concentration Concentration Chemical Analyte Level a Samples CL Detects (µg/L) (µg/L) Flag(s) b Fuels (AK101, AK102, AK103) TPH-GRO 1,500 2 0 1 1,040 1,040 MH TPH-DRO 2,200 2 0 1 287 287 J TPH-RRO 1,100 2 0 2 221 1,010 J VOCs (SW8260B) 1,2,4- 1,800 2 0 1 10.2 10.2 J Trimethylbenzene Acetone 33,000 2 0 1 6.9 6.9 J, QH Benzene 5 2 1 2 0.2 126 J Ethylbenzene 700 2 0 1 10.6 10.6 J

September 2012 74 DRAFT FINAL Draft Final Feasibility Study Tanaga and Ogliuga Island FUDS, AK Contract No. W911KB-08-D-0004 AECOM Project No: 60133134

Minimum Maximum Total Number Number Detected Detected Cleanup Number of Above of Concentration Concentration Chemical Analyte Level a Samples CL Detects (µg/L) (µg/L) Flag(s) b Methylene chloride 5 2 1 1 49.6 49.6 J Tetrachloroethene 0.5 2 1 1 107 107 DL* Toluene 1,000 2 0 1 106 106 Xylenes (total) 10,000 2 0 1 54.8 54.8 Metals (SW6020, SW7470A, SW7471B) Barium 2,000 2 0 2 38.4 73.7 Lead 15 2 1 2 5.77 91.9 Nickel 100 2 0 2 3.62 6.58 J Selenium 50 2 0 1 0.739 0.739 J DL* Non-detected concentration exceeds cleanup level J Estimated concentration below the PQL but above/equal to the MDL. MH Analyte result is considered an estimated value, biased high, due to matrix effects. QH Analyte result is considered an estimated value, biased high, due to quality control outlier. a Cleanup Levels Table C, 18 AAC 75 Oil and Other Hazardous Substances Pollution Control (ADEC 2008a) and EPA RSL Table Master December 2009 (EPA 2009). b Chemical flag(s) within dataset are identified.

Table 2-37: Summary Statistics for Soil for Ogliuga East Minimum Maximum Lowest Total Number Number Detected Detected Cleanup Number of Above of Concentration Concentration Chemical Analyte Level a Samples CL Detects (mg/kg) (mg/kg) Flag(s) b Fuels 1998 USACE (AK101, AK102, AK103) TPH-GRO 230 3 0 3 2.3 11.0 TPH-DRO 260 3 3 3 2,500 79,000 J TPH-RRO 9700 3 0 3 890 9,200 B, J 2007-2008 BCC-Jacobs JV (AK101, AK102, AK103) TPH-GRO 230 2 0 2 1.4 22 J TPH-DRO 260 2 0 1 69 69 TPH-RRO 9700 2 0 2 9.3 860 J 2009 RI (AK101, AK102, AK103) TPH-GRO 230 33 2 10 2.6 614 J, MN, ML, R, Dup TPH-DRO 260 33 4 14 19.3 906 J, QL, Dup TPH-RRO 9700 33 0 33 12.0 657 J, QL, Dup SVOCs 2009 RI (SW8270D) 2,4-Dinitrophenol 0.54 33 1 1 1.59 1.59 J, QL, Dup 2,4-Dinitrotoluene 0.0093 33 1 1 0.277 0.277 J, QL, Dup 3,3-Dichlorobenzidine 0.19 33 1 1 0.259 0.259 J, QL, Dup 4,6-Dinitro-2- 6.1 33 0 1 0.968 0.968 J, QL, DL*, methylphenol Dup 4-Nitrophenol - 33 - 2 0.456 0.586 J, QL, Dup Benzoic acid 410 33 0 4 1.53 4.11 J, QL, Dup Bis(2- 13 33 0 1 0.318 0.318 J, QL, Dup ethylhexyl)phthalate

September 2012 75 DRAFT FINAL Draft Final Feasibility Study Tanaga and Ogliuga Island FUDS, AK Contract No. W911KB-08-D-0004 AECOM Project No: 60133134

Minimum Maximum Lowest Total Number Number Detected Detected Cleanup Number of Above of Concentration Concentration Chemical Analyte Level a Samples CL Detects (mg/kg) (mg/kg) Flag(s) b Hexachloro-benzene 0.047 33 1 1 0.171 0.171 J, QL, Dup Penta-chlorophenol 0.047 33 1 1 0.846 0.846 J, QL, Dup VOCs 1998 USACE (SW8021B) Toluene 6.5 3 0 1 0.034 0.034 J 2009 RI (SW8260B) 1,2,4- 23 33 0 4 0.0634 6.39 ML, MN, Dup Trimethylbenzene 1,3,5- 23 33 0 4 0.0511 2.87 J, ML, MN, Trimethylbenzene Dup 4-Isopropyltoluene - 33 - 2 0.228 0.276 ML, MN, Dup Ethylbenzene 6.9 33 0 2 1.05 2.01 ML, MN, Dup Isopropylbenzene 51 33 0 3 0.066 0.864 J, ML, MN, Dup n-Propylbenzene 15 33 0 2 0.462 0.762 ML, MN, Dup sec-Butylbenzene 12 33 0 2 0.102 0.155 ML, MN, Dup Toluene 6.5 33 0 1 0.149 0.149 J, ML, MN, Dup Xylenes (total) 63 33 0 3 0.33 15.8 J, ML, MN, Dup PAHs 1998 USACE (SW8270C) 2-Methylnaphthalene 6.1 2 0 2 0.610 0.980 Naphthalene 20 2 0 2 1.3 1.4 2009 RI (SW8270D, 8270DSIM) Chrysene 360 33 0 1 0.243 0.243 J, QL, Dup Pesticides 1998 USACE (SW8081A) No detects PCBs 1998 USACE (SW8082) No detects Metals 1998 USACE (SW6060, SW7471) Barium 1,100 3 0 3 5.7 8.0 Cadmium 5 3 2 2 7.8 13 J Chromium 25 3 0 2 2.2 2.2 J Lead 400 3 0 3 22 190 J Vanadium 580 3 0 3 12 14 J 2009 RI (SW6020, SW7470A, SW7471B) Arsenic 3.7 33 0 20 0.402 3.11 Dup Barium 1,100 33 0 33 5.98 44.0 Dup Cadmium 5 33 0 20 0.0816 2.05 J, Dup Chromium 25 33 0 32 0.299 6.99 J, MN, Dup Lead (lab confirmation) 400 33 0 33 0.460 287 J, MN, Dup

September 2012 76 DRAFT FINAL Draft Final Feasibility Study Tanaga and Ogliuga Island FUDS, AK Contract No. W911KB-08-D-0004 AECOM Project No: 60133134

Minimum Maximum Lowest Total Number Number Detected Detected Cleanup Number of Above of Concentration Concentration Chemical Analyte Level a Samples CL Detects (mg/kg) (mg/kg) Flag(s) b Mercury 1.4 33 0 10 0.0542 0.135 J, MN, ML, Dup Nickel 86 33 0 33 0.616 4.75 Dup Selenium 3.4 33 0 15 0.174 3.11 J, Dup Silver 11.2 33 0 2 0.0818 0.110 J, Dup Vanadium 580 33 0 33 6.19 102 MH, Dup USACE based on soil samples 98OGLI03SL, -04SL, -05SL, -06SL. B Blank contamination DL* Non-detected concentration exceeds cleanup level Dup Field duplicate J Estimated concentration below the PQL but above/equal to the MDL. MH Analyte result is considered an estimated value, biased high, due to matrix effects. ML Analyte result is considered an estimated value, biased low, due to matrix effects. MN Analyte result is considered an estimated value due to matrix effects; direction of bias is undetermined. QL Quality issue, biased low R Analyte result is rejected (severe nonconformance) – result is not usable. Data are presented for reference only. a Cleanup Levels Table B-1 and B-2, Over 40-inch zone, Alaska 18 AAC 75 Oil and Other Hazardous Substances Pollution Control (ADEC 2012). Cleanup Levels for POLs are based on Method Two. b Chemical flag(s) within dataset are identified.

Table 2-38: Summary Statistics for Soil for Ogliuga West Minimum Maximum Lowest Total Number Number Detected Detected Cleanup Number of Above of Concentration Concentration Chemical Analyte Level a Samples CL Detects (mg/kg) (mg/kg) Flag(s) b Fuels 1998 USACE (AK102, AK101, AK103) TPH-GRO 230 1 0 1 4.7 4.7 TPH-DRO 260 1 0 1 78 78 J TPH-RRO 9700 1 0 1 1,000 1,000 J 2007-2008 BCC-Jacobs JV (AK101, AK102, AK103) TPH-DRO 260 3 1 3 120 4,000 TPH-RRO 9700 3 1 3 570 48,000 JM- VOCs 1998 USACE (SW8021B) No detects 2007-2008 BCC-Jacobs JV (SW8260B) 2-Chlorotoluene 1600 3 0 1 0.034 0.034 J Benzene 0.025 3 3 3 0.012 0.110 J,B Methylene Chloride 0.016 3 3 3 0.044 0.080 J,B Toluene 6.5 3 0 2 0.031 0.088 J,B PAHs 1998 USACE (SW8270C) 2-Methylnaphthalene 6.1 1 0 1 0.330 0.330 Naphthalene 3.1 1 0 1 0.550 0.550 2007-2008 BCC-Jacobs JV (SW8260B, 8270SIM) Fluoranthene 1400 3 0 1 0.33 0.33 J,JS+

September 2012 77 DRAFT FINAL Draft Final Feasibility Study Tanaga and Ogliuga Island FUDS, AK Contract No. W911KB-08-D-0004 AECOM Project No: 60133134

Minimum Maximum Lowest Total Number Number Detected Detected Cleanup Number of Above of Concentration Concentration Chemical Analyte Level a Samples CL Detects (mg/kg) (mg/kg) Flag(s) b Pesticides 1998 USACE (SW8081A) No detects PCBs 1998 USACE (SW8082) Aroclor 1260 1 4 0 1 0.70 0.70 Metals 1998 USACE (SW6060, SW7471) Barium 1,100 4 0 4 21 56 Chromium 25 4 1 2 20 31 J Lead 400 4 0 3 50 81 J Mercury 1.4 4 0 4 0.37 0.55 Vanadium 580 4 0 4 16 430 J 2007-2008 BCC-Jacobs JV (SW6020, SW7471A) Arsenic 3.7 2 2 2 6.68 6.71 Barium 1,100 2 0 2 22.5 41.6 Cadmium 5 2 0 2 0.41 0.903 Chromium 25 2 0 2 2.57 5.8 Lead 400 2 0 2 7.46 26.2 Mercury 1.4 2 0 2 0.015 0.021 Nickel 86 2 0 2 4.58 6.74 Silver 11.2 2 0 1 0.034 0.034 Vanadium 580 2 0 2 9.87 10.7 USACE based on soil sample 98OGLI16SL, -17SL, -18Sl, -19SL, -20SL. J Estimated concentration below the PQL but above/equal to the MDL B Blank contamination: Analyte was detected in the associated blank at a comparable concentration JM- The result was an estimated value because the analyte failed recovery criteria in the MS or MSD sample or both. The MS sample recoveries were only evaluated if the spike concentration exceeded the native sample. Concentration by a factor of 2 or greater than a factor of 2 (biased low). JS+ The result was an estimated value because at least one surrogate failed recovery criteria for that sample (biased high) JS- The result was an estimated value because at least one surrogate failed recovery criteria for that sample (biased low) a Cleanup Levels Table B-1 and B-2, Over 40-inch zone, Alaska 18 AAC 75 Oil and Other Hazardous Substances Pollution Control (ADEC 2012). Cleanup Levels for POLs are based on Method Two. b Chemical flag(s) within dataset are identified.

September 2012 78 DRAFT FINAL Draft Final Feasibility Study Tanaga and Ogliuga Island FUDS, AK Contract No. W911KB-08-D-0004 AECOM Project No: 60133134

3.0 IDENTIFICATION OF CHEMICALS OF CONCERN 3.1 BACKGROUND METALS To evaluate whether detected concentrations of metals are consistent with or exceed background, preliminary background threshold values (BTV) were calculated from data sets derived using the quantile evaluation method (Cal/EPA 1997; U.S. Navy 2003). This method identifies the population of samples consistent with natural background by establishing a BTV on this population using the recommended approach in ProUCL (EPA 2009).

Sampling covered selected metals only: antimony, barium, copper lead, mercury, zinc, and strontium. Antimony, zinc, and strontium are not on the HTRW analytical list, but are reported here for completeness. A background value is also presented for arsenic. However, naturally occurring arsenic will be discussed further in Section 3.2.

Results of the soil and sediment background evaluation are shown in Table 3-1. BTV could be calculated for most metals with the exception of silver and cadmium in sediment, due to very low detection frequency. The reporting limit is considered the BTV in such cases. In some cases, notably for arsenic in Tanaga soil, all data are normally distributed without any outliers, and can therefore be considered naturally occurring with high confidence. In other cases, statistical outliers are present, or the data shows an inflection point suggesting multiple populations. BTVs were calculated once the outliers were removed and the data set split at the inflection point. As shown in Table 3-1, except in the case for arsenic, the BTV in no case approaches or exceeds the applicable screening levels.

3.2 ARSENIC Arsenic is a naturally occurring metal in Alaska. It is often found in concentrations above regulatory cleanup levels. These concentrations are typically referred to as “background.” In the Technical Memorandum dated March 2009 and titled “Arsenic in Soil” (ADEC 2009a), which addresses how arsenic should be evaluated on a site-specific basis at sites with natural arsenic concentrations in excess of the applicable limits. The guidance allows for the situation where arsenic may be considered naturally occurring if a site has no known or suspected anthropogenic sources, in which case cleanup and/or institutional controls will not typically be required.

For the Tanaga and Ogliuga FUDS, arsenic should not be considered anthropogenic because the activities conducted during the time of operations includes no known sources of arsenic. Arsenic will not be considered as a contaminant of potential concern, and will not be discussed further in the nature and extent discussion.

3.3 METHODOLOGY FOR TANAGA AND OGLIUGA The term chemical of concern (COC) is applied to those compounds associated with past military activity that exceed the most stringent reference values. Specified features and areas at the various investigation areas of each island were evaluated for the following analytes: XRF lead, TPH-DRO, - GRO, -RRO, VOC, SVOC (or PAHs), PCBs, and target metals. Not all analytes were evaluated in all locations, rather the scope of work specified analytes for each feature depending on the source.

Any analyte that met one of the following criteria was designated as a COC and was noted in the COC tables:

 Exceeded the ADEC Method Two migration to groundwater contact cleanup level in the “Above 40-inch” zone  Exceeded the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Screening Quick Reference Tables as recommended by ADEC (2004, 2009b)

September 2012 79 DRAFT FINAL Draft Final Feasibility Study Tanaga and Ogliuga Island FUDS, AK Contract No. W911KB-08-D-0004 AECOM Project No: 60133134

 Exceeded the Cleanup Levels Table C, 18 AAC 75 Oil and Other Hazardous Substances Pollution Control (AAC 2008)  Exceeded the lower of the Alaska WQC or the groundwater cleanup level

The remedial alternatives of the Tanaga and Ogliuga Island FUDS will be developed to address the COCs for each of the impacted media. Table 3-2 summarizes soil, sediment, groundwater, and surface water COCs from Tanaga. Table 3-3 summarizes soil, sediment, groundwater, and surface water COCs for Ogliuga.

September 2012 80 DRAFT FINAL Draft Final Feasibility Study Tanaga and Ogliuga Island FUDS, AK Contract No. W911KB-08-D-0004 AECOM Project No: 60133134

Table 3-1: Estimated Soil and Sediment Background Threshold Values (BTV) Tanaga Soil Tanaga Sediment Ogliuga Soil Cleanup Levels Comment Investiga- Sample Removed Distri- BTV Sample Size Removed Distri- BTV Sample Removed Distri- BTV Soil Sediment Metal tion Size data** bution mg/kg data** bution mg/kg Size data** bution mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg Antimony MMRP 59 (22% Inflection N 0.031 22 (45% ND) 2 outliers LN 0.16 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. ND) point Arsenic HTRW 72 (22% None N 5.4 17 (5.9% ND) 2 outliers N 4.1 69 (20% Inflection LN 3 3.7 5.9 BTV > SL, but ND) ND) point naturally occurring per Section 4-5 Barium both 131 (0% 2 outliers N 74.8 39 (0% ND) None LN 125 69 (0% ND) Inflection LN 31.9 16600 130.1 ND) point Cadmium HTRW 72 (89% Inflection N 0.27 17 (88% ND) Cannot be n.a. <0.4 69 (58% Inflection N 0.46 65 0.596 Sediment Cd ND) point calc ND) point too few detects Chromium HTRW 72 (0% ND) Inflection N 8.4 17 (0% ND) 3 outliers N 9.8 69 (1.5% Inflection N 1.7 250 37.3 Ogliuga soil point ND) point Cr likely underestimated Copper MMRP 59 (0% ND) 3 outliers LN 134 22 (0% ND) 1 outlier N 103 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Lead both 193 Inflection LN 3.4 39 (0% ND) inflection N 2.8 70 (0% Inflection N 6.4 400 35 (0%ND*) point point ND)* point Mercury both 131 (42% Inflection N 0.068 39 (44% ND) inflection LN 0.055 69 (57% 1 outlier N 0.1 25 0.174 ND) point point ND) Nickel HTRW 72 (0% ND) None N 21.6 17 (0% ND) 1 outlier N 20.5 69 (0% ND) Inflection N 2.4 1700 18 Ogliuga Ni point soil likely underestimated, Selenium HTRW 72 (30% 3 outliers N 1.3 17 (41% ND) 1 outlier N 0.8 69 (29% None LN 2.2 410 none ND) ND) Silver HTRW 72 (86% Inflection N 0.088 17 (100% ND) Cannot be n.a.

September 2012 81 DRAFT FINAL Draft Final Feasibility Study Tanaga and Ogliuga Island FUDS, AK Contract No. W911KB-08-D-0004 AECOM Project No: 60133134

Tanaga Soil Tanaga Sediment Ogliuga Soil Cleanup Levels Comment Investiga- Sample Removed Distri- BTV Sample Size Removed Distri- BTV Sample Removed Distri- BTV Soil Sediment Metal tion Size data** bution mg/kg data** bution mg/kg Size data** bution mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg Vanadium HTRW 72 (0% ND) None LN 145.4 17 (0% ND) 1 outlier N 101 69 (0% ND) Inflection N 14.7 580 none Ogliuga soil point complex - estimate is low Zinc MMRP 59 (0% ND) Inflection N 33.6 17 (0% ND) inflection N 31.7 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. point point N parametric, normally distributed LN parametric, lognormally distributed BTV Background threshold value, based on Kaqplan Meier (KM) 95% UPL (t) for nonparametric distributions n.a. not applicable or available ND non-detected * Lead values do not include XRF results ** Per quantile method, statistical outliers are removed, or the distribution is split at the inflection point and the lower tail of the data considered the naturally occurring population

September 2012 82 DRAFT FINAL Draft Final Feasibility Study Tanaga and Ogliuga Island FUDS, AK Contract No. W911KB-08-D-0004 AECOM Project No: 60133134

Table 3-2: Summary COCs for Tanaga Soil Sediment Groundwater Surface Water POL TPH-DRO TPH-DRO* TPH-DRO TPH-DRO TPH-GRO TPH-RRO* TPH-GRO TPH-RRO TPH-RRO SVOCs 3,3-Dichlorobenzidine 2,4-Dinitrophenol N-Nitroso-diphenylamine Penta-chlorophenol VOCs Benzene Ethylbenzene Benzene Methylenechloride Ethylbenzene Toluene Isopropylbenzene 1,2-Dibromoethane Xylenes Methylene chloride Isopropylbenzene Tetrachloroethene Methylene chloride Xylenes Toluene 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene PAHs Benzo(a)-pyrene Acenaphthene 2-Methylnaphthalene Acenaphthylene Naphthalene Benzo(a)anthracene Benzo(a)pyrene Benzo(k)fluoranthene Chrysene Dibenz(a,h)anthracene Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene Naphthalene Pyrene PCBs Aroclor 1260 Metals Cadmium Lead Lead Lead Chromium Nickel Lead * There are no cleanup levels in sediment for these analytes, but elevated concentrations were noted in one sample.

Table 3-3: Summary COCs for Ogliuga Soil Groundwater POL TPH-DRO TPH-GRO TPH-RRO SVOCs 2,4-Dinitrophenol 2,4-Dinitrotoluene 3,3-Dichlorobenzidine Hexachloro-benzene Penta-chlorophenol VOCs Benzene Benzene Methylene Chloride Methylene chloride Tetrachloroethene

September 2012 83 DRAFT FINAL Draft Final Feasibility Study Tanaga and Ogliuga Island FUDS, AK Contract No. W911KB-08-D-0004 AECOM Project No: 60133134

Soil Groundwater PAHs 2-Methylnaphthalene Metals Chromium Lead Lead

September 2012 84 DRAFT FINAL Draft Final Feasibility Study Tanaga and Ogliuga Island FUDS, AK Contract No. W911KB-08-D-0004 AECOM Project No: 60133134

4.0 APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS Applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs) are the regulatory requirements that provide guidance, policies, or procedures “to be considered” for the Tanaga and Ogliuga Island FUDS FS. In addition to meeting ARARs, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) requires that remedial actions protect human health and the environment. For chemicals with no established ARARs such the POLs, cleanup requirements may be based on acceptable risk requiring action. The ADEC POL cleanup levels are risk-based and can be used to determine when an unacceptable POL risk exists. Remedial actions must meet or exceed any state or federal standards, requirements, criteria, or limitations that are determined to be legally ARARs.

An ARAR may be either applicable or relevant and appropriate. The initial step is to determine the applicability of a requirement. According to 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 300.400(g), applicable requirements are federal or state cleanup standards that apply to a specific hazardous substance, pollutant, contaminant, remedial action, location, or other circumstance found at a site. Relevant and appropriate requirements are cleanup standards that are not specifically legally applicable to the site, but do address problems or situations sufficiently similar to the circumstances of the release or to the contemplated remedial action, that they can be considered both relevant and appropriate to use at the site.

The relevant and appropriate determination is more flexible. Professional judgment may determine that compliance with only portions of the requirement are necessary; however, if a requirement is determined to be relevant and appropriate, it has the same weight as an applicable requirement.

A requirement is determined to be relevant and appropriate warrants compliance to the same degree that it would if it were applicable. Moreover, remedial actions must comply with a relevant and appropriate requirement that is more stringent than an applicable requirement. For example, if a federal standard is applicable, while a more stringent state standard is relevant and appropriate, the more stringent state standard will govern. However, discretion is allowed in determining relevance and appropriateness. It is possible for portions of a requirement to be considered relevant and appropriate and others to be dismissed as irrelevant or inappropriate.

The guidelines for determining which requirements are appropriate after relevance has been determined are somewhat flexible. The USACE and the state may consider the type of remedial actions contemplated, the hazardous substances present, the waste characteristics, the physical characteristics of the site, and other factors. Only the substantive requirements of ARARs need to be followed, because CERCLA procedural and administrative requirements provide safeguards similar to those provided under other laws. As a result, permits are not required for CERCLA cleanups that are conducted on site.

In addition to legally binding laws and regulations, many federal and state environmental and public health programs also have criteria, advisories, guidance, and proposed standards that are not legally binding but may provide useful remediation information or recommended procedures. These documents are evaluated, along with ARARs, to establish protective cleanup levels and to help identify remedial action alternatives. If no ARARs address a particular chemical or situation, or if existing ARARs do not provide adequate protection of human health and the environment, advisories, criteria, or guidelines are to be considered in setting cleanup standards. Collectively, ARARs, to be considered, and risk assessment screening criteria are used to determine the appropriate remediation goals for a site.

September 2012 85 DRAFT FINAL Draft Final Feasibility Study Tanaga and Ogliuga Island FUDS, AK Contract No. W911KB-08-D-0004 AECOM Project No: 60133134

CERCLA Section 121(d)(4) provides for possible waiver of ARARs under the following six circumstances:

 The remedial action selected is only part of a total remedial action and the final remedy will attain the ARAR upon its completion.  Compliance with the ARAR will result in greater risk to human health and the environment than other alternatives.  Compliance with the ARAR is technically impossible from an engineering perspective.  An alternative remedial action will attain an equivalent standard of performance through the use of another method of approach.  The ARAR is a state requirement that is not applied consistently (or demonstrated the intention to apply consistently) at other remedial actions within state.  Compliance with the ARAR will not provide a balance between protecting human health and the environment and the availability of funds for response at other sites.

ARARs are divided into three primary categories: chemical-specific, location-specific, and action- specific. Each category is defined and further described in the following three sections.

4.1 CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC ARARS Chemical-specific ARARs include those requirements that regulate the release to, or presence in, the environment for materials possessing certain chemical or physical characteristics or containing specified chemical compounds. These requirements generally set health- or risk-based concentration limits or discharge limitations for specific chemicals. When a specific chemical is subject to more than one discharge or exposure limit, the more stringent of the requirements is used (Table 4-1).

Concentrations of regulated chemicals or substances often form the basis of regulatory compliance and enforcement actions, risk assessments, sampling and analysis programs, and development and evaluation of remedial action alternatives. Based on comparative differences between federal and state enforced compliance and site chemical concentrations, the allowable or unacceptable risk potential for human and environmental receptors can be determined. These potentials or risk-based concentrations are then used to develop and evaluate remedial action alternatives.

The potential chemical-specific ARARs were identified based on the COCs and detected chemicals observed during previous studies and the remedial investigation. Chemical-specific ARARs were considered in relation to the risk-based screening concentrations derived for the COCs.

4.2 LOCATION-SPECIFIC ARARS Location-specific ARARs are those requirements that relate to the geographical position or physical condition of the site. These requirements may limit the type of remedial action that can be implemented or may impose additional constraints on some remedial alternatives.

4.3 ACTION-SPECIFIC ARARS Action-specific ARARs are requirements that define acceptable treatment and disposal procedures. These ARARs generally set performance, design, or other similar action-specific controls or restrictions on particular kinds of activities. These requirements are activated by the particular remedial actions selected to accomplish a remedy. The action-specific requirements do not in themselves determine the remedial alternative; rather, they indicate how, or to what level, a selected alternative must be achieved (Table 4-2).

September 2012 86 DRAFT FINAL Draft Final Feasibility Study Tanaga and Ogliuga Island FUDS, AK Contract No. W911KB-08-D-0004 AECOM Project No: 60133134

The designation of a waste as “dangerous” or “hazardous” will affect the manner in which the waste is regulated, and ultimately, how the waste is handled, treated, and disposed of. A substance from a CERCLA hazardous waste site is not automatically designated “hazardous” under hazardous waste regulations. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) regulations (40 CFR, Part 261) and the State of Alaska Regulations (18 Alaska Administrative Code [AAC], Chapters 60, 62, and 75) are the identified statutes for the identification, handling, and management of hazardous wastes. Any potential remedial action that generates waste will be subject to the requirements of these action- specific ARARs.

4.4 CLEANUP LEVELS ADEC provides guidance on four methods for evaluation of site-related contaminants under 18 AAC 75, ranging from simple lookup tables (ADEC 2012) to full human health and ecological assessments. Methods One and Two use ADEC lookup tables with cleanup concentrations that are based on very conservative assumptions regarding potential exposure and harm. Alternatively, Methods Three and Four are based on actual risk calculations that incorporate exposure assumptions more indicative of site conditions. Cleanup levels for the metals and PCBs are shown in Table 4-3. Method Three will be used for petroleum hydrocarbons.

4.4.1 ADEC Method Two Cleanup Level Soil results were compared to 1/10th the most stringent direct contact or inhalation ADEC Table B1 cleanup levels or the migration-to-groundwater cleanup levels to determine COCs. Groundwater results were compared to the ADEC Table C cleanup levels.

4.4.2 ADEC Method Three Assessment and Cleanup Criteria This section presents alternative cleanup levels for soil and groundwater at the Tanaga and Ogliuga Island FUDS based on Table B1 and B2 of 18 AAC 75.341 in accordance with ADEC Method 3. These alternative cleanup levels are based on actual soil data from the Tanaga and Ogliuga Islands FUDS areas.

The objective of ADEC Method Three is to allow the use of cleanup levels based on actual soil parameters and an approved fate and transport model while ensuring that the alternative cleanup levels are still protective of human health.

For the Method Three evaluation of Tanaga and Ogliuga Island FUDS soil analytical data, a web- based Method Three Calculator developed by ADEC was employed (ADEC 2008b). The five steps involved in operation of the Method Three Calculator are as follows.

 Step 1 – In this step, the site must be categorized with respect to the appropriate climatic zone based on average rainfall. Tanaga and Ogliuga Island FUDS receive greater than 40 inches of annual rainfall; therefore, the Over 40-inch Zone was selected. In addition, the site must be categorized with respect to potential exposure based on current/future land use. The ADEC Method Three calculator has two options: residual or commercial/industrial. Per 18 AAC 75.990[105],"residential land use" includes property restricted to residential use by a legally enforceable zoning ordinance or specific deed restriction; vacant land that is not zoned or deed-restricted for commercial or industrial land use will be considered residential unless demonstrated otherwise. The Tanaga and Ogliuga sites are part of the Maritime Wildlife Refuge and/or Wilderness Area. Therefore, the current and future use of the Tanaga and Ogliuga Islands was presumed to be residential.  Step 2 – In this step, the maximum concentrations for each detected chemical were entered. Some chemicals detected in soil were not listed in the Method Three Calculator; therefore, detected chemicals that were not listed in the Method Three Calculator were included in the evaluation by entering their applicable physical and toxicological alternate chemical.

September 2012 87 DRAFT FINAL Draft Final Feasibility Study Tanaga and Ogliuga Island FUDS, AK Contract No. W911KB-08-D-0004 AECOM Project No: 60133134

Chemicals that are under further review or lack data were assigned reference doses by structural surrogate in the same chemical family.  Step 3 – Method Three allows the use of site-specific soil data to estimate certain aspects of exposure via fate and transport pathways for each chemical. The specific empirical soil parameter of organic carbon content came from data from soil samples collected at each of the sites during the RI (Table 4-4). For the determination, four (4) TOC sample requirement for the calculation of Method Three cleanup levels are required. However, there are not sufficient samples to calculate a site-specific cleanup level for each site. Thus, the following procedure will be utilized: – There are two distinct groups of TOC samples on Tanaga Island: low (0.164-0.731%) and moderate (2–4%). The average of the lower range of TOC sample is 0.375% with the lowest value being 0.164%. The average of the 2–4% range of TOC samples is 2.95% with the lowest value being 2.01%. The average for all Tanaga TOC samples is 1.66%. However, to be conservative, the lower range average of TOC samples is proposed for the Method Three cleanup level determination (0.375%). Also, because Ogliuga only has two available TOC samples, the lower Tanaga TOC cleanup level will be used for Ogliuga. The ADEC default values were used for bulk density, porosity, and moisture content (see Appendix B).  Step 4 – Up to three individual alternative cleanup levels are provided for each detected chemical in the Method Three Calculator. For soil, direct contact and outdoor inhalation will be used (Table 4-5). The three levels that are calculated are based on separate exposure pathways: ingestion, inhalation, and migration to groundwater. Typically, the migration to groundwater is the most restrictive, and ADEC recommends consideration of the lowest of the three cleanup level values as the accepted cleanup level.  Step 5 – The final functions performed by the Method Three Calculator are numeric estimations of non-carcinogenic and carcinogenic risk by combining exposure with toxicity. The summation of the risk is estimated for each detected chemical with the exception of bulk fractions of petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH-GRO, -DRO, -RRO). The applicable results are based on a residential scenario. Table 4-6 provides a summary of results of Step 5 (see Appendix C). The following sites exceed the threshold value for non-carcinogenic risk and the target value for carcinogenic risk:

– The sum of the non-carcinogenic risk for the ADEC hazard index threshold value is 1.0. The sum of the direct contact non-carcinogenic risk for surface soil is above 1.0 at the Main Camp and Tower areas of Tanaga Island, and the Ogliuga Runway Camp area of Ogliuga Island. The sum of the inhalation non-carcinogenic risk for surface soil is above 1.0 at the Barrel Dump area on Tanaga Island. – The sum of the carcinogenic risk for the ADEC lifetime cancer risks target value is 1 × 10–5. The site carcinogenic risk sum for direct contact is above 1 × 10–5 at the Main Camp, Airstrip, Southeast of Airstrip, Pumphouse, and Landfill areas on Tanaga Island, and the Ogliuga Runway Camp, Ogliuga East, and Ogliuga West areas on Ogliuga Island. The site carcinogenic risk sum for direct contact and inhalation is above 1 × 10-5 at the Barrel Dump area on Tanaga Island. The site carcinogenic risk sum for inhalation is above 1 × 10–5 at Tower Area on Tanaga Island. The ADEC Method Three Calculator (ADEC 2008b) currently does not include risk calculations for bulk petroleum hydrocarbons, although it does provide cleanup levels for these compounds. The maximum detected concentrations at the Tanaga Island Main Camp, Barrel Dump, Airstrip, Southeast of Airstrip, North of Airstrip, Tower, and Pumphouse areas, and the Ogliuga Island Runway Camp and Ogliuga West areas exceed the ADEC maximum allowable concentration for TPH-DRO, -GRO, or -RRO.

September 2012 88 DRAFT FINAL Draft Final Feasibility Study Tanaga and Ogliuga Island FUDS, AK Contract No. W911KB-08-D-0004 AECOM Project No: 60133134

4.5 SUMMARY OF MEDIA AND VOLUMES IN EXCESS OF CLEANUP LEVELS Table 4-7 presents the preliminary estimates for volumes of soil impacted by POL, lead, PCB, or other sources at Tanaga and Ogliuga Island FUDS.

Sediment, groundwater, and surface water impacts are presented in Table 4-8, but no estimates of affected volumes are feasible based on existing information. The remediation of the soil will be considered the removal of the source of contaminants.

September 2012 89 DRAFT FINAL Draft Final Feasibility Study Tanaga and Ogliuga Island FUDS, AK Contract No. W911KB-08-D-0004 AECOM Project No: 60133134

Table 4-1: Preliminary Chemical-Specific ARARs (Tanaga and Ogliuga FUDS) Regulation / Requirements Citation Comments MCLs for organics 40 CFR This section establishes MCLs for organics concentrations in 141.61 context of community water supply systems. The MCLs for organics match the prescriptive groundwater cleanup levels at 18 AAC 75.345 Table C. The MCL concentration for PCE is exceeded for Ogliuga. TSCA – These regulations specifically 40 CFR PCBs have been detected at the site. Therefore, this regulation regulates PCB products. 761 is applicable. MCL maximum contaminant level

Table 4-2: Preliminary Action-Specific ARARs (Tanaga and Ogliuga FUDS) Regulation / Requirements Citation Comments CWA (Section 402 –NPDES Site 40 CFR If the remediation activity will cause soil disturbance of greater Construction Storm Water General Permit) – 122 than one acre, a SWPPP must be prepared. The substantive EPA [co-enforced by ADEC] has issued a requirements of the construction general permit are relevant and national storm water general permit appropriate instead of applicable as the construction general governing storm water discharge for sites permit authorizations are limited. Also, the permit waiver where the area of surface soil disturbance provisions of CERLA would not make the CWA directly applicable. will greater than one acre. The SWPPP would need to address hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminant discharges not necessarily authorized by the CGP. Air Emission Standards for Process Vents 40 CFR If remedial actions include excavation or pump and treat methods, and Equipment Leaks – These regulations 264 Parts these will be ARARs. The remedial action involves excavation and define the treatment and control AA and removal of materials. This regulation is applicable. requirements for potential sources of air BB contamination due to remedial actions that include excavation or pump and treat methods. TSCA – These regulations specifically 40 CFR PCBs have been detected at the site. Therefore, this regulation is regulate PCB products. 761 applicable. CGP Construction General Permit CWA Clean Water Act NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System SWPPP storm water pollution prevention plan

Table 4-3: Cleanup Levels for Metals and PCBs Soil Cleanup Levels GW Surface Carcino- Direct Inhalation Migration Sediment Cleanup Water CAS genic Contact (mg/kg) to GW Screening Level Screening Number Analyte (c/nc) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) Level (mg/kg) a (µg/L) Level (µg/L) Metals 7440-43-9 Cadmium c 65 — 5 0.596 5 0.27 7440-47-3 Chromium nc 250 — 25 37.3 100 86.2 7440-92-1 Lead c 400 — — 35 15 3.2 7440-02-0 Nickel nc 1,700 — 86 18 100 4.1 PCBs 11096-82-5 Aroclor 1260 c 1 — — — 0.5 0.014 c carcinogenic CAS Chemical Abstracts Service GW groundwater nc noncarcinogenic a Sediment screening values from NOAA Sediment Quick Reference Tables (SQuiRT)

September 2012 90 DRAFT FINAL Draft Final Feasibility Study Tanaga and Ogliuga Island FUDS, AK Contract No. W911KB-08-D-0004 AECOM Project No: 60133134

Table 4-4: TOC and Naturally Occurring Organics in Tanaga and Ogliuga Soils Sample ID TOC Avg (%) Soil Classification a Main Camp MCB-SS01 3.59 ML MCB-SS02 2.3 ML Barrel Dump BDB-SS01 2.01 SM BDB-SS02 0.164 SP Airstrip AB-SS01 2.83 ML AB-SS02 2.76 ML Southeast of Airstrip SAB-SS01 0.227 SP SAB-SS02 0.731 SP North of Airstrip NAB-SS01 3.24 PT NAB-SS02 4.23 SP Tower TB-SS01 2.06 ML TB-SS02 2.83 ML Pumphouse PHB-SS01 2.64 SM PHB-SS02 3.3 ML PHB-DS01 2.69 SM PHB-DS02 3.38 ML Landfill LB-SS01 3.47 SP LB-SS02 3.43 SP Small Arms Firing Range FRB-SS01 2.22 ML Ogliuga Runway RB-SS01 5.64 PT Ogliuga East EB-SS01 16.5 PT/SP ASTM ASTM International ML inorganic silt and very fine sands PT peat SM silty sand SP poorly graded sands with few fines TOC total organic carbon a Soil classification are based on visual observations, not ASTM testing.

September 2012 91 DRAFT FINAL Draft Final Feasibility Study Tanaga and Ogliuga Island FUDS, AK Contract No. W911KB-08-D-0004 AECOM Project No: 60133134

This page intentionally left blank.

September 2012 92 DRAFT FINAL Table 4-5: Comparison of Cleanup Levels from ADEC’s Method Three Calculator for Petroleum Hydrocarbons

North of Ogliuga Ogliuga ADEC Method Three Cleanup Levels (mg/kg)* Main Camp Barrel Dump Airstrip SE of Airstrip Airstrip Tower Pumphouse Landfill Runway Ogliuga East West Analyte Direct Contact Inhalation Groundwater Maximum Detected (mg/kg) a Fuels TPH-DRO 8,300 28,500 830 10,900 3,490.0 8,130 9,530 16,600 166,000 10,700 16.3 13,300 906 4,000 TPH-GRO 33,200 4,800 860 104 2,610 0.984 617 3.11 53.8 5.09 0.939 70.8 614 - TPH-RRO 8,300 22,200 36,300 24,200 2,030 32,800 38,100 2,960 7,400 18,900 95.3 81,200 648 48,000 PAHs 2-Methylnaphthalene 230 1,100 68 19 5.91 8.22 409 11.7 Benzo(a)-pyrene 0.4 7.8 1.01 Naphthalene 1,100 40 68 1.06 2.92 112 2.13 SVOCs 2,4-Dinitrophenol 130 1.5 7.4 1.45 1.29 1.9 1.28 1.72 1.59 2,4-Dinitrotoluene 7.2 0.026 0.433 0.277 3,3-Dichlorobenzidine 9.2 0.71 0.243 0.259 Hexachloro-benzene 2.6 2.1 0.17 0.171 N-Nitroso-diphenylamine 610 53 1.96 0.684 Penta-chlorophenol 32 0.17 0.804 0.846 VOCs 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 4,100 67 70 4.66 96.7 0.125 10.8 0.133 6.72 3.54 6.39 1,2-Dibromoethane 3.4 0.6 0.00024 9.32 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 4,100 67 70 3.49 40.3 0.046 3.49 1.94 1.2 2.87 Benzene 120 13 0.055 69.2 0.609 0.0728 0.11 Ethylbenzene 8,300 140 20 50.4 0.0256 7.42 0.701 0.0765 2.01 Isopropylbenzene 8,300 3,000 160 0.931 1.77 0.0122 189 0.413 0.173 0.864 Methylene chloride 520 21 0.25 0.33 0.375 0.08 Toluene 660 25,300 16 293 0.0283 13.4 0.476 0.191 0.149 0.088

*Direct contact cleanup levels will be considered for Hot Spot Removal. Migration to groundwater cleanup levels will be considered for the other alternatives. aGray shading for exceedance of most stringent cleanup level. This page intentionally left blank Draft Final Feasibility Study Tanaga and Ogliuga Island FUDS, AK Contract No. W911KB-08-D-0004 AECOM Project No: 60133134

Table 4-6: Summary of Cancer Risks and Hazard Quotients for Tanaga and Ogliuga Residential Cleanup Levels Direct Contact Inhalation Analyte Cancer Risk Hazard Quotient Cancer Risk Hazard Quotient Main Camp 3.E–04 1 9.E–08 0.06 Barrel Dump 2.E–03 0.9 8.E–05 1 Airstrip 5.E–05 0.5 7.E–10 0.001 Southeast of Airstrip 1.E–05 0.6 2.E–06 0.5 North of Airstrip 6.E–06 0.4 0.E+00 0.002 Tower 1.E–05 2 1.E–05 0.5 Pumphouse 2.E–05 0.5 0.E+00 0 Landfill 1.E–05 0.4 0.E+00 0.05 Ogliuga Runway 5.E–05 1.6 2.E–07 0.04 Ogliuga East 1.E–05 0.4 1.E–07 0.04 Ogliuga West 2.E–05 0.4 2.E–07 0.004

Table 4-7: Estimated Volumes of Impacted Soil Estimated Volume (yd3) Cleanup Levels Remediation Contaminates Cleanup Hot Spot Feature of Interest of Concern Level2 Removal Basis Evaluation MC01(T101)* POL 141 5 Estimated Groundwater not impacted. Data does not from exceed TPH-DRO or TPH-RRO direct UVOST contact RI SLs. Concentrations of DRO data 604 to 1,880 MH mg/kg consistent with UVOST. MC06(T102)* POL 691 0 Estimated No confirmation data from this area. from Estimated 50 ft x 50 ft x 0.5 (triangle) = UVOST 1,250 sq. ft. data MC08(T96A) Lead 3 Surface soil XRF grid, impacts fully delineated. Estimated 78 sq. ft. x 1 ft deep = 2.88 cu. yds. MC09 POL see MC12 below The DRO impacts recorded in this area likely associated with the POL impacts at MC12 and not with the transformer location. Volume included in MC12 estimate. MC12(T96C)* POL 939 275 Estimated Soil boring data confirms as elevated from (exceeding migration to groundwater and UVOST direct contact cleanup levels). data Groundwater data with detections of POL related analytes, but below cleanup levels. TPH-DRO and TPH-RRO exceedances of direct contact SL present in soil borings. MC13 Lead 5 Surface soil XRF grid, impacts delimited east and west and inferred radius (5 ft) north and south. Not fully delineated: may be underestimated. Estimated 126 sq. ft. x 1 ft deep = 4.67 cu. yds. MC18(T90A) POL 4 3 DRO impacts delimited within a PCB grid. Estimated 56 sq. ft x 1 ft deep = 2.1 cu. yds.

September 2012 95 DRAFT FINAL Draft Final Feasibility Study Tanaga and Ogliuga Island FUDS, AK Contract No. W911KB-08-D-0004 AECOM Project No: 60133134

Estimated Volume (yd3) Cleanup Levels Remediation Contaminates Cleanup Hot Spot Feature of Interest of Concern Level2 Removal Basis Evaluation MC18(T90A) PCB 11 5 PCB impacts not fully delineated to the east. PCBs exceed 50 mg/kg locally. Estimated 144 sq. ft x 1 ft deep = 5.3 cu. yds. Note: sample MCA-S09 in adjacent area MC19 also has Aroclor 1260 (1.81 mg/kg) in excess of screening levels. This location is presumably part of the same MC18 source, and tied into the larger MC19 UVOST identified impact area. MC19(T89)* POL 800 25 Estimated No confirmation soil data from this area. from Adjacent to PCB source MC18. Soil UVOST confirmation data confirms as elevated, data and also contains Aroclor 1260. Several POL related constituents (plus Aroclor 1260) detected in groundwater, but all below cleanup levels. PCBs associated with adjacent MC18 source. MC21 Lead 1 Estimated Sampling grid eliminated in RI. Location from BCC on intact concrete slab with thin layer of JE data soil. Estimated 20 sq. ft x 1 in deep = 0.06 cu. yds. MC22(T88)* POL 11 0 Estimated No confirmation data from this area. from Estimated surface area of 20 sq. ft. UVOST data MC24(T85)* POL 49 0 Estimated Soil boring data confirms as elevated from (exceeding migration to groundwater but UVOST also direct contact cleanup levels). data UVOST result may underestimate extent based on soil confirmation samples. Groundwater data with detections of POL related analytes, but below cleanup levels. DRO exceedances of direct contact SL present in soil boring. Total volume greater than estimated via UVOST. MC29 Lead 2 Surface soil XRF grid, impacts fully delineated. Estimated 50 sq. ft x 1 ft deep = 1.9 cu. yds Area A* POL 199 0 Estimated No confirmation data from this area. from UVOST data. Area B* POL 51 0 Estimated No confirmation data from this area. from Estimated surface area of 100 sq. ft. UVOST data. Area C* POL 40 0 Estimated No confirmation data from this area. from UVOST data. Area D* POL 367 20 Estimated Confirmation data indicates DRO at from 286 mg/kg and RRO at 2,030 mg/kg, UVOST indicating minor exceedances of migration data. cleanup levels, but not direct contact cleanup levels. Underlying groundwater shows no TPH-GRO, -DRO, or -RRO.

September 2012 96 DRAFT FINAL Draft Final Feasibility Study Tanaga and Ogliuga Island FUDS, AK Contract No. W911KB-08-D-0004 AECOM Project No: 60133134

Estimated Volume (yd3) Cleanup Levels Remediation Contaminates Cleanup Hot Spot Feature of Interest of Concern Level2 Removal Basis Evaluation Area E* POL 467 210 Estimated Confirmation data indicates TPH-DRO at from 1,990 to 2,490 mg/kg (but little TPH- UVOST RRO), indicating exceedances of data. migration cleanup levels but not direct contact cleanup levels. GRO and 1,2- dibromoethane exceed migration and direct contact cleanup levels. Several other VOCs and SVOCs exceed migration cleanup levels. Underlying groundwater contains LNAPL. UVOST volume estimate therefore may be an overestimate. Area F* POL 109 65 Estimated No confirmation data from this area. from UVOST data. Area G* POL 962 20 Estimated No confirmation data from this area. from UVOST data. Area H* POL 11 0 Estimated No confirmation data from this area. from Estimated surface area of 20 sq. ft for UVOST three UVOST points. data. Area I* POL see Area G 55 Estimated Confirmation data indicates DRO at 1740 from mg/kg, indicating exceedances of UVOST migration cleanup levels but not POL data. related constituents. --> Volume estimate likely overestimated for POL related constituents, but other constituents are present at low levels. Area K* POL 11 0 Estimated No confirmation data from this area. from Estimated surface area of 20 sq. ft for UVOST three UVOST points. data. Area L* POL 348 10 Estimated No confirmation data from this area. from UVOST data. Area M* POL 50 0 Estimated No confirmation data from this area. from UVOST data. Area N* POL 109 35 Estimated No confirmation data from this area. from UVOST data. Area O* POL 192 25 Estimated No confirmation data from this area. from UVOST data. Area P* POL 544 80 Estimated Confirmation data indicates TPH-DRO at from 3,490 mg/kg, indicating exceedances of UVOST migration cleanup levels but not direct data. contact SLs. Underlying GW has traces of TPH-GRO but no TPH-DRO. -->Volume estimate likely overestimated.

September 2012 97 DRAFT FINAL Draft Final Feasibility Study Tanaga and Ogliuga Island FUDS, AK Contract No. W911KB-08-D-0004 AECOM Project No: 60133134

Estimated Volume (yd3) Cleanup Levels Remediation Contaminates Cleanup Hot Spot Feature of Interest of Concern Level2 Removal Basis Evaluation Area R* POL 11 0 Estimated Confirmation data collected at the edge of from the impact zone indicates DRO at UVOST 278 mg/kg, barely exceeding the migration data. cleanup level. Underlying GW has no detected POL constituents -->Volume estimate likely overestimated. A21(T5) POL 1 1 Based on limited surface soil sampling and extent of visible staining: mod-high confidence. Estimated 16 sq. ft x 1 ft deep = 0.59 cu. yds. COC is TPH-RRO. T42-SS04 POL 0 5 Based on limited soil sampling and footprint of the drum area: mod confidence. Estimated 120 sq. ft x 1 ft deep = 4.4 cu. yds. COC is benzo(a)pyrene. SA04(T109) Lead 6 Delimited by surface soil XRF grid samples. Not bounded to the east: may be an underestimate. Estimated 156 sq. ft x 1 ft deep = 5.78 cu. yds SA05A Lead 2 Surface soil XRF grid, impacts fully delimited. Estimated 36 sq. ft x 1 ft deep = 1.3 cu. yds SA05B Lead 1 Not fully delineated in all directions. May be an underestimate. Estimated 24 sq. ft x 1 ft deep = 0.89 cu. yds SA13(T47)* POL 328 30 Estimated Soil boring data SAA-SU02 and SU03 from confirm as elevated (exceeding migration UVOST to groundwater cleanup levels). data Groundwater data SAA-WG02 confirms as impacted by POL related constituents. SA18(T53C)* POL 1133 510 Estimated Soil boring data SAA-SU04 confirm as from elevated (exceeding migration to UVOST groundwater and direct contact cleanup data levels). Groundwater data SAA-04 has traces of POL related constituents (RRO) but below groundwater cleanup level. SA19(T51), SA20(T52) POL 29 0 Estimated Soil boring data SAA-SU01 and SU03 SA21(T50), SA22(T49) from confirm as slightly exceeding migration to SA23(T48)* UVOST groundwater cleanup levels. Groundwater data data SAA-WG01 does not appear to be impacted by POL related constituents. SA24(T57A) Lead 1 Surface soil XRF grid, impacts fully delimited. Estimated 25 sq. ft x 1 ft deep = 0.93 cu. yds SA26 Lead 1 Estimated Sampling grid eliminated in RI. Location from BCC on intact concrete slab with thin layer of JE data soil. Estimated 20 sq. ft x 1 in deep = 0.06 cu. yds. NA02 POL 7 5 No PCB exceedances. Exceedance within a PCB grid, impacts fully delineated. Estimated 64 sq. ft x 2 ft deep = 4.7 cu. yds. COC is DRO.

September 2012 98 DRAFT FINAL Draft Final Feasibility Study Tanaga and Ogliuga Island FUDS, AK Contract No. W911KB-08-D-0004 AECOM Project No: 60133134

Estimated Volume (yd3) Cleanup Levels Remediation Contaminates Cleanup Hot Spot Feature of Interest of Concern Level2 Removal Basis Evaluation T2(T80) POL 2 1 Based on limited surface soil sampling, stained soils, and diameter of AST. Estimated 25 sq. ft x 1 ft deep = 0.93 cu. yds. COC is DRO. T3(T81) POL 13 9 Based on limited surface soil sampling and footprint of drum disposal area. Estimated 114 sq. ft x 2 ft deep = 8.4 cu. yds. COC is DRO. T8(T83) POL 4 3 Based on limited surface soil sampling and footprint of drum. Estimated 40 sq. ft x 2 ft deep = 3 cu. yds. COCs are TPH-DRO and 2-methylnaphthalene. PH1(T108) POL 96 10 Estimated Confirmation data indicates TPH-DRO at from 10,700 mg/kg, exceeding migration and UVOST direct contact cleanup levels. This is a dry data zone, so no GW present --> Volume estimate likely reasonable, but no groundwater is present here. PH3(T104) POL 35 0 Estimated Confirmation data indicates TPH-DRO at from 35 to 510 mg/kg, barely exceeding the UVOST migration cleanup level. GW has traces of data GRO but no DRO, and is less than 3 feet deep --> Volume estimate likely overestimated. PH4 Lead 2 Delimited east by grid samples, bound to the north by debris, and inferred south and west (3 ft). Estimated 39 sq. ft x 1 ft deep = 1.4 cu. yds. PH5(T106B)/PH6(T106A) POL 22 11 No PCB exceedances. Delimited exceedance within a PCB grid, impacts fully delineated adjacent to pad. Estimated 300 sq. ft x 1 ft deep = 11.1 cu. yds. COC is TPH-RRO. E-06, E-07, E-08, E-09 POL 1 1 Estimated COCs are TPH-DRO and -RRO. from 1998 USACE W07(J45) POL 5 0 Estimated Based on limited surface soil sampling from BCC and footprint of drums. Estimated 120 sq. JE data ft x 2 ft deep = 4.4 cu. yds. COC is benzene. W09(J34) POL 3 2 Estimated Based on limited surface soil sampling from BCC and footprint of drum. Estimated 25 sq. ft x JE data 2 ft deep = 1.85 cu. yds. COCs are TPH- DRO and -RRO. R04(J12) POL 13 5 Based on limited surface soil sampling and footprint of drums. Estimated 120 sq. ft x 2 ft deep = 4.4 cu. yds. May be an underestimate due to incomplete delineation. COCs are TPH-DRO and - RRO. R10(J8) Lead, PCE 4 Delineation grid samples east and south and inferred step-out (4 ft) inside berm. Not fully delineated: may be an underestimate. Estimated 48 sq. ft x 2 ft deep = 3.6 cu. yds. PCE in groundwater.

September 2012 99 DRAFT FINAL Draft Final Feasibility Study Tanaga and Ogliuga Island FUDS, AK Contract No. W911KB-08-D-0004 AECOM Project No: 60133134

Estimated Volume (yd3) Cleanup Levels Remediation Contaminates Cleanup Hot Spot Feature of Interest of Concern Level2 Removal Basis Evaluation R17(J5) POL 4 3 Based on limited surface and subsurface soil sampling, diameter of AST, and distance to bluff. Estimated 16 sq. ft x 5 ft deep = 3 cu. yds. COC is TPH-DRO.

Table 4-8: Estimated Volumes of Impacted Sediment, Groundwater, and Surface Water

Feature of Area Interest Constituents of Concern Basis Main Camp SD02 VOCs (xylene, toluene Upper end of creek, as it enters Main Camp area. Impacts and ethylbenzene), nickel not noted at lower end of creek. Source unclear. Airstrip AA-SD02 Nickel Drainage ditch, highly vegetated AA-SD03 Lead Drainage ditch, highly vegetated Southeast of SAA-SD01 TPH-DRO, -RRO Not a true body of water. This is a depression left from drum Airstrip removal. Associated with groundwater from nearby sources. North of NA4 Pyrene, Aroclor 1254 Very small drainage ditch around building, 1 ft wide x 1-2 Airstrip feet deep Pumphouse PHA-SD03 11 PAHs Along shoreline of lake near pump house. Extent of impact into lake not known. Exceedance of conservative threshold effect SQG only. Barrel Dump Area I Methylene chloride, Groundwater flows towards Lash Bay (presumed connected tetrachloroethene with downgradient location WG09 below). Source unclear. Extent of plume undefined. Area E Free phase product Groundwater flows towards Lash Bay. Daylights as seepages along beach, which do not present exceedances. Downgradient extent of plume defined. Source of NAPL not defined. Downgradient TPH-GRO, benzene, Location presumed connected with Area I sources in Barrel (BDA-WG09) tetrachloroethene, lead Dump. Not bounded downgradient towards Lash Bay. Part of larger undelimied plume with undefined source of PCE. Southeast of SAA-WG02 TPH-GRO, -DRO, Source presumed to be drums on surface. Downgradient Airstrip benzene, lead flow (to the southwest) undefined, and plume is unbounded. Ogliuga RA-WG03/WG04 Benzene, methylene Presumed localized impacts near sources. Source Runway Camp chloride, PCE, lead undefined. Flow undefined> may be towards south (inland) or towards beach to northwest. Extent of plume unbounded. Pumphouse PHA-WS04 Aroclor 1254, lead Affected waterbody is drainage ditch, slow flow, approximately 3-5 feet wide, and 3 feet deep North of NAA-WS01 Lead Affected waterbody is a small, stagnant, ditch surrounding Airstrip CAA building

September 2012 100 DRAFT FINAL Draft Final Feasibility Study Tanaga and Ogliuga Island FUDS, AK Contract No. W911KB-08-D-0004 AECOM Project No: 60133134

5.0 IDENTIFICATION AND SCREENING OF TECHNOLOGIES The remedial action objectives (RAOs), general response actions, estimated volumes, ARARs, and potential technologies and process options for contaminated media at the Tanaga and Ogliuga Island FUDS are presented in the following sections.

5.1 REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES Remediation of surface and subsurface soils and groundwater are anticipated based on the COCs identified.

The following specific RAOs for the Tanaga and Ogliuga Islands FUDS areas are based on 18 AAC 75, 18 AAC 70, and 40 CFR 761:

 Remove petroleum hydrocarbons from surface and subsurface soil at specific areas in order to minimize further migration of hazardous substances from unsaturated soils to saturated soils and possibly groundwater. Target concentration is the Method Three cleanup level for migration to groundwater and direct contact.  Remove metals and PCBs from surface and subsurface soil in specific areas in order to minimize potential ingestion or inhalation specific health risks. Target concentration for metals is the direct contact cleanup level. Target concentration for PCBs is 1 mg/kg for direct contact.  Incorporate current site controls and anticipate future land use considerations to address direct contact exposures.

Remedial action at the Tanaga and Ogliuga Island FUDS will be designed to reduce risk to below the ADEC acceptable risk level for carcinogens; satisfy ARARs; provide protection from non-carcinogens of concern; and address significant environmental factors such as leaching of contaminants from soil to groundwater and solvent migration within groundwater.

In addition, the remedial action will not remediate conditions that are the result of background or ubiquitous conditions.

Removal goals were established at levels that are consistent with ARARs, which are considered protective of human health and the environment.

5.2 GENERAL RESPONSE ACTIONS General response actions are those actions that will satisfy the RAOs. General response actions are general approaches to remedial actions and include active and passive measures to reduce site concentrations or exposure. Active measures may include removal, treatment, or isolation of the contaminated media. Passive measures rely on natural processes to reduce the toxicity, mobility, or volume of the source of contamination. Screening the general response actions streamlines the FS process by focusing on a set of viable alternatives for detailed evaluation. General response actions that may achieve the RAOs, singularly or in combination, are listed below and in Table 5-1.

Potential general response actions for the Tanaga and Ogliuga Island FUDS areas are as follows:

 No Action  Monitored Natural Attenuation  Institutional Controls  Immobilization  Containment

September 2012 101 DRAFT FINAL Draft Final Feasibility Study Tanaga and Ogliuga Island FUDS, AK Contract No. W911KB-08-D-0004 AECOM Project No: 60133134

 Disposal  Treatment  Removal

5.3 IDENTIFICATION OF REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES The remedial technologies identified in this section fall within the general purpose actions, which may be applicable to surface soil, subsurface soil, and groundwater. After identification, remedial technologies are screened for further consideration based on effectiveness, implementability, and cost. A summary of these technologies is given in Sections 5.3.1, 5.3.2, and 5.3.3.

5.3.1 Remedial Technologies Applicable to All Site Media The discussion of the following remedial technologies is applicable for all media at the affected sites.

5.3.1.1 NO ACTION A no action alternative is included as a baseline reflecting current conditions without any cleanup effort. This alternative is used for comparison to each of the other alternatives and does not include any type of monitoring or institutional controls. No cost would be associated with this alternative. The no action alternative is not considered sufficient to meet the remedial action objectives.

5.3.1.2 MONITORED NATURAL ATTENUATION Natural subsurface processes (such as aerobic and anaerobic biodegradation, adsorption, volatilization, dehalogenation, and chemical reactions with subsurface materials) are used to reduce contaminant concentrations to acceptable levels. Data from field sites, laboratory studies, and research sites have demonstrated that this “natural attenuation” can significantly limit the migration of contaminants resulting from releases of petroleum hydrocarbons. Biodegradation by indigenous subsurface microorganisms appears to be one of the primary mechanisms for natural attenuation.

Data requirements for site-specific evaluation of the viability of this technology, beyond the Nature of Contamination, consist mainly of indicators of the use of electron acceptors in aerobic and anaerobic biodegradation (i.e., concentrations of oxygen, nitrate, sulfate, and ferrous/ferric iron). Other useful data would include microbial plate counts and pH. Identification of sensitive receptors and contaminant migration pathways are critical to determining whether natural attenuation will be an acceptable remedy. Treatability studies are not applicable to this technology.

5.3.1.3 INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS Institutional controls are intended to limit threats to human health by restricting access and land use for contaminated areas. Institutional controls may include the following: groundwater monitoring to evaluate the migration of contaminants onto or away from the site or to a discharge point; physical restraints such as fencing, barriers, and posting signs; and deed restrictions or special zoning that limit land access and use. Institutional controls do not limit contaminant migration or limit exposure to ecological receptors, so it does not generally meet the remedial objectives.

5.3.2 Remedial Technologies for Soil/Sediment

5.3.2.1 IMMOBILIZATION: SOLIDIFICATION OR STABILIZATION Solidification or stabilization physically binds or encloses contaminants with a stabilized mass or chemical reaction to reduce mobility or encapsulate. The target contaminant group for ex situ solidification or stabilization is inorganics, including radionuclides. Most solidification/stabilization technologies have limited effectiveness against organics and pesticides, except molten glass, which destroys most organic contaminants. Application of the solidification or stabilization is determined by the amount and type of waste and the size of the contaminated area.

September 2012 102 DRAFT FINAL Draft Final Feasibility Study Tanaga and Ogliuga Island FUDS, AK Contract No. W911KB-08-D-0004 AECOM Project No: 60133134

Solidification/stabilization is limited in applicability and effectiveness for the following reasons:

 Environmental conditions may affect the long-term immobilization of contaminants.  Some processes result in the significant increase in volume.  Certain wastes are incompatible with different processes.  Organics are generally not immobilized.  Long-term effectiveness has not been demonstrated for many contaminant or process combinations.  Solidification or stabilization matrices can be subject to distortion due to freeze-thaw cycles. They may also be inappropriate in areas subject to earthquakes.  Solidification or stabilization does not treat the contamination; therefore, long-term liability associated with potential releases must be considered.

Nine technologies are proven ex situ methods: bituminization, emulsified asphalt, modified sulfur cement, polyethylene extrusion, Portland cement, radioactive waste solidification, sludge stabilization, soluble phosphates, and molten glass. Each involves the mixing the contaminated material and a reagent that immobilizes and reduces the toxicity of the hazardous constituents.

Data requirements include soil parameters such as particle size, Atterberg limits, moisture content, metal concentrations, sulfate content, organic content, density, permeability, unconfined compressive strength, leachability, microstructure analysis, and physical and chemical durability. Solidification or stabilization matrices can be subject to distortion due to freeze-thaw cycles. They may also be inappropriate in areas subject to earthquakes. Solidification or stabilization does not treat the contamination; therefore, long-term liability associated with potential releases must be considered. Treatability studies would likely be required to determine soil characteristics and site conditions.

5.3.2.2 ON-SITE TREATMENT: PHYTOREMEDIATION Phytoremediation is a treatment that utilizes plants to remove, transfer, stabilize, and destroy contaminants either organic or inorganic in soil and sediment. This technology is applicable for metals, pesticides, solvents, explosives, crude oil, PAHs, and landfill leachates. Plants store metals in their roots and filter them from wastewater. Once the contaminants are contained, the plants and their roots can be harvested. Poplar trees are the most commonly used flora in phytoremediation because they are fast growing and can survive in a broad range of climates. Relative to other plant species, poplar trees can draw large amounts of water passing through soil or directly from an aquifer. This may draw greater amounts of dissolved pollutants from contaminated media and reduce the amount of water that may pass through soil or an aquifer, thereby reducing the amount of contaminant flushed though or out of the soil or aquifer.

Phytoremediation is limited in applicability and effectiveness for the following reasons:

 High concentrations of hazardous materials can be toxic to plants.  Growth of the plants is dependent on a location’s soil conditions, weather extremes, and seasonal variance.  Phytoremediation may take years and may not prevent COCs from mobilizing to groundwater and bioaccumulating in animals.  Introduction of a new plant species to a locale could result in an invasive species.  Treatment depth is dependent on the plant root growth, which is limited in shallow soils.

September 2012 103 DRAFT FINAL Draft Final Feasibility Study Tanaga and Ogliuga Island FUDS, AK Contract No. W911KB-08-D-0004 AECOM Project No: 60133134

Data requirements include soil particle size distribution, moisture content, nature of the ground surface, concentrations of total carbon content, depth to groundwater, seasonal groundwater elevation fluctuations, reductive oxygen concentrations, root growth, and root structure. Phytoremediation is still in the demonstration stage; therefore, treatability studies would likely be required.

5.3.2.3 ON-SITE TREATMENT: INCINERATION Incineration is a generally applicable technology for treating organic compounds and is a presumptive remedy for treating petroleum and VOCs in soil. Incineration reduces the concentration of organic and some inorganic compounds by oxidation or pyrolysis at temperatures of up to 3,000 degrees Fahrenheit (°F). Constituents that are not destroyed, such as metals and salts, are entrained in the gas stream or remain in the treated soil. The process generates flue gas, wastewater (i.e., utilization of a wet scrubber system), treated soil as bottom ash or slag, and fly ash streams. Air pollution control systems are designed to control emissions of particulate, acid gases, and oxides of nitrogen and sulfur. The treated soil, principally the bottom ash, will retain those compounds that are not destroyed, volatilized, or otherwise driven off by the heat of incineration. In some cases, the treated soil may exhibit hazardous characteristics (e.g., high levels of leachable metals), necessitating disposal as a hazardous waste or further treatment before ultimate disposal.

Incineration is limited in applicability and effectiveness for the following reasons:

 Specific feed-size and materials-handling requirements can impact applicability and cost.  Presence of metals and salt that are volatile at high temperatures may affect performance.  Metals that are volatile at high temperatures (including lead, mercury, and arsenic) could combine with flue gases or in bottom ash and, therefore, have to be removed prior to incineration.  Metals can react with other elements in the feed stream, such as chlorine and sulfur, forming more volatile and toxic compounds than the original species.  Sodium and potassium can attack the brick lining and form a sticky particulate that fouls heat transfer surfaces.

Incineration may be conducted at a permitted off-site incinerator, or a mobile incinerator could be brought on site. No incinerators in Alaska are permitted to incinerate RCRA-regulated hazardous waste; therefore, soil that is hazardous waste would need to be transported to an out-of-state incinerator. Four incinerator technologies are proven and available in transportable models: rotary kiln, fluidized bed combustor, circulating bed combustor, and infrared conveyer.

These technologies have demonstrated the capability to achieve 99.99% or greater destruction removal efficiency of organic constituents in previous remediation projects with adequate control of air emissions.

A rotary kiln is a slowly rotating, refractory-lined cylinder that is mounted at a slight incline from the horizontal. Soil would enter at the high end of the kiln and be exposed to heat by the rotation of the kiln. Contaminants would be vaporized and combusted in high-temperature air. The rotation of the kiln would move incinerated soil to the lower end of the kiln where it would be removed. Rotary kilns usually have a secondary combustion chamber located downstream from the kiln to ensure complete combustion of volatized components.

A fluidized bed combustion unit would consist of a column containing soil to be incinerated, which is referred to as the bed, and the empty space above the bed, which is referred to as freeboard. Air driven by a blower enters the bottom to fluidize the bed. A burner heats the unit. Air passage through

September 2012 104 DRAFT FINAL Draft Final Feasibility Study Tanaga and Ogliuga Island FUDS, AK Contract No. W911KB-08-D-0004 AECOM Project No: 60133134

the bed provides oxygen for combustion and promotes rapid and uniform mixing of the soil. The freeboard provides additional time for combustion of organic constituents.

A circulating bed combustion unit is a continuous process similar to the fluidized bed. By recirculating particulates that pass through the top of the combustion unit, more complete combustion can occur. The more complete combustion can result in lower quantities of emissions and lower operating temperatures.

An infrared combustion unit uses a specialized conveyor to pass soil through an infrared heating chamber. Exhaust gases pass through a secondary chamber where they are burner with an auxiliary fuel-fired burner.

Required data for evaluating the feasibility of incineration include the following: soil particle size distribution; moisture content; pH; British Thermal Unit content; and concentrations of halogenated organic compounds, heavy metals, and organic phosphorus compounds. Treatability studies are not likely applicable to incineration. A test burn to demonstrate adequate destruction and removal efficiency may be required. The limited availability of fuel on site is a limitation for this technology.

5.3.2.4 ON-SITE TREATMENT: LOW TEMPERATURE THERMAL DESORPTION Low temperature thermal desorption (LTTD) is an ex situ treatment process generally applicable to organic compounds in which the contaminated media are heated and constituents are driven off through volatilization. LTTD is a presumptive remedy for VOCs in soil. Temperatures for LTTD range from 300°F to 1,000°F. Volatilized materials are either collected using condensers, scrubbers, or adsorbers, or are destroyed in an afterburner or catalytic control device.

Systems that collect the volatilized constituents produce a waste stream that must be managed. Some residual organic constituents may remain in the treated soil. Conditions that can negatively impact the viability of this technology for treating soil include high clay content and high moisture content.

Individual metals may be treated depending on the metal and its form. Similar to incineration, some highly volatile metal complexes may be vaporized and collected by the control system. Lower volatility metal complexes will remain in the soil.

The low temperatures of LTTD may chemically transform chlorinated organic compounds such as PCBs to more toxic compounds.

LTTD is limited in applicability and effectiveness for the following reasons:

 Specific feed-size and materials-handling can impact the applicability and cost.  Dewatering may be necessary to achieve acceptable soil moisture levels.  Highly abrasive feed potentially can damage the processor unit.

The critical design parameters for LTTD include required temperatures, retention times, and gas phase control. Required data for evaluating the feasibility of LTTD include soil particle size distribution; moisture content; pH; and concentrations of the total organic content, organic compounds, and heavy metals. Treatability studies for LTTD usually employ a muffle furnace test to evaluate the effects of varying temperatures and retention times, and the nature of process residuals and their handling characteristics. The availability of fuel on site is a limitation for this technology; however, fuel could be transported.

September 2012 105 DRAFT FINAL Draft Final Feasibility Study Tanaga and Ogliuga Island FUDS, AK Contract No. W911KB-08-D-0004 AECOM Project No: 60133134

5.3.2.5 CONTAINMENT: LANDFILL A landfill is the placement of the contaminated soil, sediment, or sludge into lined beds, sometimes with capping. Landfilling is a traditional remedial action for organic materials. Soils can be mixed with bulking agents and organic amendments such as wood chips, hay, manure, and vegetative wastes to assist aeration. A landfill usually has a low permeability barrier laid on the bottom, which retards migration of leachate, and its toxic constituents to the underlying aquifers and nearby water bodies. The liner is typically a layer of clay with a minimum required thickness and maximum allowable hydraulic conductivity, which is overlaid with a high-density polyethylene geo-membrane.

Landfills are limited in applicability and effectiveness for the following reasons:

 A large amount of space is required.  Uncontrolled release of VOCs can occur during the excavation of soils.  Heavy metals are not treated and can be toxic to microorganisms.

Data requirements include soil particle size distribution, moisture content, pH, concentrations of the total organic content, surface geological features, subsurface geological and hydrogeological features, soil temperature, precipitation, wind velocity and direction, water availability, atmospheric temperature, permeability, space availability for treatment, and microorganisms. Contaminant type, soil type, and total organic content are primary cost drivers. Treatability studies are generally not conducted.

5.3.2.6 ON-SITE TREATMENT: LANDFARMING Landfarming is landfill treatment with the addition of periodic tilling or turning to aerate the waste. To optimize the rate of contaminant degradation, soil conditions are carefully controlled. Actions such as moisture control through irrigation, aeration through soil rotation, pH through the addition of lime, and other amendments such as nutrients and soil bulking agents are performed. Landfarming is most successful in treating petroleum hydrocarbons, especially lighter, more volatile hydrocarbons such as gasoline. The efficiency of landfarming is determined by the type and concentration of contaminants, soil type moisture, temperature, application frequency, waste loading rates, volatilization, and aeration.

Landfarming is limited in applicability and effectiveness for the following reasons:

 Length of time to complete remediation is dependent on the conditions affecting biological degradation of contaminants such as temperature and moisture.  Biodegradation does not occur for inorganic contaminants.  Tilling and other handling operations can create fugitive dust.  A large amount of space is required.  Runoff collection facilities must be constructed and monitored.

Data requirements include soil particle size distribution, moisture content, pH, concentrations of the total organic content, surface geological features, subsurface geological and hydrogeological features, soil temperature, precipitation, wind velocity and direction, water availability, atmospheric temperature, permeability, and microorganisms. Treatability studies are generally not conducted.

5.3.2.7 CONTAINMENT: CAPPING Capping soil with a low permeability material, such as clay or a synthetic liner, can minimize infiltration of precipitation, isolate receptors from contact with contaminated soil, and reduce the mobility of contaminants. The technology may be applicable in areas of surficial soil contamination

September 2012 106 DRAFT FINAL Draft Final Feasibility Study Tanaga and Ogliuga Island FUDS, AK Contract No. W911KB-08-D-0004 AECOM Project No: 60133134

that are well above the high groundwater table. Single-layer and multi-layered caps can be constructed with materials such as impervious soil, clay, synthetic membranes, asphalt, and concrete. Site grading may be required to manage storm water and runoff.

Single-layer caps have limited applications and are generally used as a temporary measure. Single- layer caps are typically constructed of asphalt or concrete pavement, or possibly clay. Periodic application of surface treatments for asphalt and concrete caps often improve their life and effectiveness. Asphalt tends to weather more rapidly than concrete, resulting in greater maintenance requirements.

Multi-layer caps are more commonly used because they have longer lives than single-layer caps. Multi-layer caps are typically constructed with layers of clay and/or low permeability soil separated by an impermeable synthetic membrane. The caps are typically covered with soil and vegetation.

Capping is limited in applicability and effectiveness for the following reasons:

 Caps can be subject to distortion due to freeze-thaw cycles.  They may also be inappropriate in areas subject to earthquakes.  Capping does not treat the contamination; therefore, long-term liability associated with potential releases must be considered.

Data requirements include depth to groundwater and seasonal groundwater elevation fluctuations. An advantage of paved caps is the possibility of using the paved areas for other uses. Treatability studies are generally not conducted.

5.3.2.8 ON-SITE TREATMENT: SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION Soil vapor extraction (SVE) is an in situ treatment process used to remove VOCs from unsaturated soil. SVE is a presumptive remedy for VOCs in soil. A vacuum is imposed on the unsaturated zone, removing air and vapors from the soil and promoting the vaporization of volatile compounds. Chlorinated solvents and low molecular weight petroleum hydrocarbons may be treated using this technology. To the extent that dioxins, PCBs, and pesticides are not volatile enough to enter the air phase, SVE would not be effective. While SVE has been applied to the removal of some PAHs from the soil, it is not the most likely remedy of choice with high molecular weight PAHs such as benzo(a)pyrene. The air stream may require treatment through an activated carbon filter prior to discharge to the atmosphere.

SVE is accomplished via wells screened in the vadose zone. Passive vent wells or active air injection may be used to enhance control of vapor flow through the subsurface. Often, the ground surface is sealed to prevent short-circuiting by atmospheric air. The technology generally works best in unsaturated zones at least 10 feet thick. Often, biodegradation of organic compounds is enhanced by SVE because oxygen levels in the subsurface are increased. Bioventing is similar to SVE except that air is usually injected into, rather than withdrawn from, the subsurface, and the airflow rates employed are usually lower.

SVE is limited in applicability and effectiveness for the following reasons:

 High humic content of the soil inhibits volatilization.  Heterogeneous soil conditions may result in inconsistent removal rates.  Low soil permeability limits subsurface airflow and reduces process efficiency.

Data requirements include air permeability of the soil; well radius of influence; location of preferential subsurface pathways (e.g., utility trenches, highly permeable soil strata); soil particle size

September 2012 107 DRAFT FINAL Draft Final Feasibility Study Tanaga and Ogliuga Island FUDS, AK Contract No. W911KB-08-D-0004 AECOM Project No: 60133134

distribution; moisture content; depth to groundwater; seasonal groundwater elevation fluctuations; nature of the ground surface; and concentrations of total carbon content, organic contaminants, iron, and manganese. The technology is typically evaluated by a field pilot test if compounds are highly volatile and soil is permeable. If the effectiveness of the technology is in question due to lower volatility or low soil permeability, column studies can be conducted in the laboratory in which contaminated soil is subjected to an airflow and contaminant removal is monitored with time.

5.3.2.9 OFF-SITE TREATMENT/DISPOSAL Excavation consists of removal of contaminated soil near the surface using heavy machinery. Prior to implementing an excavation process, the composition of soil requiring excavation and the depth to groundwater must be considered. Backfilling the area with clean soil or fill would complete the excavation process.

Shallow depths to groundwater could restrict the amount of soil to be removed. The presence of buildings, structures, and concrete slabs would also impede excavation and would likely result in some contaminated soil remaining in place in some situations. Excavation around buildings and structures would likely need shoring to preserve structural integrity. The generation of fugitive emissions during excavation may also pose a problem.

Excavation is required prior to implementing ex situ treatment and disposal options, and partial excavation may be required to implement containment options.

Following excavation of potentially contaminated soil, the soil remaining in the open excavations would be sampled for analytical testing to determine whether any contamination remained and the levels and extent of the remaining contaminated soil.

5.3.3 Remedial Technologies for Groundwater/Surface Water

5.3.3.1 ON-SITE TREATMENT: AIR SPARING Air sparging is an in situ technology in which air is injected through a contaminated aquifer. Injected air transverses horizontally and vertically in channels through the soil column, creating an underground stripper that removes contaminants by volatilization. Contaminants are aerated into the unsaturated zone where a vapor extraction system removes the generated vapor phase contamination. Injected air can enhance biodegradation below and above the water table. The target contaminant groups are VOCs and fuels.

Depth of contaminants and specific site geology must be considered for construction. Soil heterogeneity may cause some zones to be relatively unaffected. Potential uncontrolled movement of potentially dangerous vapors can occur with uniform air flow through the saturated zone.

Data required before implementation would include vadose zone gas permeability, depth to water, groundwater flow rate, radial influence of the sparging well, aquifer permeability and heterogeneities, presence of low permeability layers, presence of dense non-aqueous liquids, depth of contamination, and contamination volatility and solubility. If the effectiveness of the technology is in question due to lower volatility or low soil permeability, column studies can be conducted in the laboratory in which contaminated soil is subjected to an airflow and contaminant removal is monitored with time to determine air-saturation in the saturation zone during an air sparging test.

5.3.3.2 ON-SITE TREATMENT: IN SITU CHEMICAL OXIDATION Chemical oxidation as an in situ treatment is an injection of oxidant chemicals to degrade target organic COCs such as chlorinated organics, petroleum hydrocarbons, PAHs, pesticides, and explosives. Chemical oxidation involves the destruction of molecular bonds of the target contaminant by the removal of electrons into water and carbon dioxide. The oxidants generally have the capacity

September 2012 108 DRAFT FINAL Draft Final Feasibility Study Tanaga and Ogliuga Island FUDS, AK Contract No. W911KB-08-D-0004 AECOM Project No: 60133134

for high treatment efficiencies (e.g., greater than 90%) for unsaturated aliphatic and aromatic compounds with very fast reaction rates (e.g., 90% destruction in minutes). The properties of the oxidant determine the rate and extent of degradation, which are susceptible to matrix conditions such as pH, temperature, concentration of oxidant, and concentration of other oxidant-consuming substances such as natural organic matter and reduced minerals such as carbonate and other free radicals. The method of delivery and distribution are dependent on the rate of the reaction. Vertical and horizontal injection wells and sparge points with forced advection can be used as the oxidant delivery system to move the oxidant into the subsurface. To establish the treatment operating parameters, bench or pilot scale testing is required to determine pre-treatment screening, additive mix composition, adequate oxidant doses, soil properties for effective contact determination, amount of injection events, and retention times. For certain oxidants, such as catalyzed hydrogen peroxide, off gas is generated and will have to be treated before release.

In situ chemical oxidation is limited by the following:

 The amounts of hazardous chemicals required to meet the demand of the target organic chemicals and the unproductive oxidant consumption of the formation.  Some organic compounds are resistant to oxidation.  Subsurface oxidant transport and delivery are highly dependent on groundwater and soil conditions and the oxidants kinetic reaction limits.  Oxidant persistence based on oxidant reaction rates and contaminant reaction rates may need multiple injection events.  The potential for geochemical side effects include the reducing the pH, permeability, and biological perturbation.

In situ chemical oxidation data requirements include oxidant reaction chemistry and transport processes; soil particle size distribution; moisture content; depth to groundwater; seasonal groundwater elevation fluctuations; nature of the ground surface; and concentrations of total carbon content, organic contaminants, iron, and manganese. This technology has the potential for rapid and extensive degradation of organic contaminants. Treatability studies would likely be required.

5.4 SCREENING OF TECHNOLOGIES The potential remedial technologies were initially evaluated using three primary criteria: effectiveness, implementability, and cost. Process options are evaluated relative to other options within the same general response action. The three criteria are described as follows:

 The evaluation of effectiveness focuses on the potential effectiveness of the process option in handling the estimated areas or volumes of media and meeting the remediation goals identified in the RAOs; the potential impacts to human health and the environment during the construction and implementation phase; and how proven and reliable the process is with respect to the contaminants and conditions at the site  The evaluation of implementability focuses on the institutional aspects of implementability such as the ability to obtain the necessary permits, and the availability of necessary equipment and skilled workers to implement the process option.  The evaluation of cost focuses on the approximate capital and operating costs relative to other process options in the same technology type.

These evaluation criteria are the same criteria used to evaluate remedial alternatives in accordance with several publications including U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide (Platinum International 2002), CERCLA

September 2012 109 DRAFT FINAL Draft Final Feasibility Study Tanaga and Ogliuga Island FUDS, AK Contract No. W911KB-08-D-0004 AECOM Project No: 60133134

guidance (EPA 1988), and Summary of Treatment Technology Effectiveness for Contaminated Soils (EPA 1990). This cleanup is being conducted under the regulations contained in 18 AAC 75.

Table 5-2 presents the screening of the technologies under consideration based on the above criteria and indicates which technologies will be retained for further consideration in preparing remedial action alternatives.

5.4.1 Remoteness and Energy Sources Due to the remote location and logistical difficulties of the Tanaga and Ogliuga Islands, transportation to and from the field site affects all potential remedial alternatives, and current human use is minimal. Remoteness and inaccessibility are a significant factor in the evaluation and execution of the various remedial actions.

The infrastructure of Tanaga and Ogliuga Islands consists of dilapidated or collapsed buildings with no energy sources. All remedial actions requiring energy will also require the installation of an energy system. The energy system will be chosen based on the anticipated energy resource, estimates of annual energy production, annual operation and maintenance costs, and life-cycle cost analysis of initial expenses, energy savings, financial incentives, and simple payback. Energy management tools such as personnel or remote data collectors will need to be supplied or monitored for supply and demand. The energy systems will have to be climate controlled to minimize energy loss throughout the mechanical network. Off grid energy sources are better suited for mechanical or infrastructure components with low or intermittent energy demands such as small pumps, communication systems, or the interior of small buildings. Remedial actions requiring high amounts of energy will be difficult to implement. Tanaga has a sufficient road system in place, while Ogliuga does not.

5.4.2 Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge Because the Tanaga and Ogliuga Islands are part of the AMNWR, remedial actions for both will be evaluated based on the potential for the introduction of invasive species, preservation of the land use, and other ecological considerations. Impacts to wildlife will be a significant issue that may limit schedule or duration of some alternatives. Negotiations with wildlife management agencies may affect which remedial action alternative is ultimately selected.

Table 5-1: General Response Actions and Remedial Technologies Remediation Technology General Response Action Soil/Sediment GW/Surface Water Monitored Natural Attenuation Monitored Natural Attenuation Monitored Natural Attenuation Institutional Controls Engineering Controls Engineering Controls Land Characterization Water Characterization Administrative Regulation Administrative Regulation In Situ Remediation Immobilization (On-Site) Solidification N/A Stabilization Capping Treatment (On-Site) Phytoremediation Phytoremediation Landfarming In Situ Chemical Oxidation In Situ Chemical Oxidation Air sparing Soil Vapor Extraction Ex Situ Remediation Containment Landfill Physical Barriers Disposal Confined Disposal Facilities Confined Disposal Facilities

September 2012 110 DRAFT FINAL Draft Final Feasibility Study Tanaga and Ogliuga Island FUDS, AK Contract No. W911KB-08-D-0004 AECOM Project No: 60133134

Remediation Technology General Response Action Soil/Sediment GW/Surface Water Treatment (On-site) Incineration Ex situ Chemical Oxidation Low Temperature Thermal Desorption Air sparing Landfarming Ex Situ Chemical Oxidation Soil Vapor Extraction Treatment (Off-site) Incineration Ex situ Chemical Oxidation Low Temperature Thermal Desorption N/A not applicable

September 2012 111 DRAFT FINAL Draft Final Feasibility Study Tanaga and Ogliuga Island FUDS, AK Contract No. W911KB-08-D-0004 AECOM Project No: 60133134

Table 5-2: Screening Evaluation of Remedial Technologies for Soil/Sediment Technology Description Effectiveness Implementability Cost Evaluation No Action No response action. Low. High. Easy to implement. Low. No cost. Rejected as viable alternative but retained for comparison purposes Institutional Controls Restrict access by signage, Low. Somewhat minimize High. Engineering controls and Low. Costs are low. Retained for comparison fencing, and other controls. potential exposure to safety devices (signs, fences) purposes. contamination. The would be located around the effectiveness would be site to restrict access. Easy to evaluated periodically. Impact to implement. human health is low. Such controls would preclude certain future uses of the property. Natural Attenuation/Long-term Natural degradation with Low. Reduces some High. Easy to implement. Low. Costs are low initially; Retained for comparison monitoring monitoring and periodic contaminants slowly over time. however, monitoring and purposes. sampling. Impacts to human health are evaluation over time may be low. expensive. Immobilization: Solidifying contaminated soil. Moderate. Can isolate receptors Moderate. Land use restrictions Low. Costs are low (porous Rejected as viable alternative Solidification/Stabilization from the soil. Impacts to human and long-term maintenance gravel) or high (concrete). for only moderately health is low. would be required. The land effectiveness in reducing risk may be incompatible with future and not practical to implement. use. Phytoremediation/Vegetation- Use plants to remove, transfer, Low. Length of growing season Moderate. Easy start up with Moderate. Moderate costs for Rejected as viable alternative enhanced remediation stabilize, and destroy may lengthen cleanup time. Bio- planting and removal. However, plant start-up, removal, and due to location slow plant contaminants in soil. absorbed materials may be finding a native plant that is a restoration of indigenous plants. growth and restoration potential. mobilized into GW or good candidate will be difficult. bioaccumulate in animals. High for heavy metals and PCBs and lower for POLs. Incineration Through the use of high High. Can remove and destroy Low. No incinerators in Alaska High. Costs are high with plant Rejected as viable alternative temperatures (870 to 1,200°C), fuel-related compounds (not are permitted to incinerate construction and energy needs. for high energy needs. volatilizes and combusts in the metals). Four options (rotary RCRA-regulated hazardous presence of oxygen organic kiln, fluidized bed, circulating waste. Mobilization of either the constituents in contaminated bed, infrared conveyor) are plant to site (plus permit from soil and/or hazardous wastes. available. When permitted as air ADEC) or the shipment of The destruction and removal pollution sources, should material off-site could impede. efficiency with proper operation address human health exceeds the 99.99% problems. High for POLs and requirement for hazardous low for lead and PCBs. waste, PCBs, and dioxins.

September 2012 112 DRAFT FINAL Draft Final Feasibility Study Tanaga and Ogliuga Island FUDS, AK Contract No. W911KB-08-D-0004 AECOM Project No: 60133134

Technology Description Effectiveness Implementability Cost Evaluation Low Temperature Thermal Contaminated soil and wastes High. Can remove VOCs Moderate. Mobilization of either High. Costs are high with plant Retained for detailed evaluation. Desorption are heated between 90 to (BTEX) though less effective the plant to site (plus permit construction and energy needs. 315°C to volatilize water and with semivolatile organic from ADEC) or excavation and However, requirements are organic contaminants. A carrier compounds (naphthalene, shipment of material could lower than for incineration. gas or vacuum system pesticides). Potential impacts to impede. transports volatilized water and human health from waste organics to the gas treatment stream and incomplete system. Successful for treatment are high but remediating petroleum controllable. High for POLs and hydrocarbon in all types of soil low for lead and PCBs. while retaining the soil's physical properties and ability to support biological activity. Landfill Excavate contaminated soil. Moderate. Effective at Low. Permission for the creation Moderate to low cost of Rejected as viable alternative Place excavated soil into minimizing exposure by of the landfill depends based on operation and maintenance for high cost and only moderate permitted landfill. reducing the mobility of the landowner. after initial high cost for effectiveness in reducing risk. waste. Provides long-term construction. effectiveness. Landfarming Excavate contaminated soil. High. Effective at minimizing Low. Permission for the creation Moderate. Costs are moderate Retained for detailed evaluation. Place excavated soil into exposure by reducing the of the landfarm depends based to high depending on the permitted landfill with compost volume, mobility, and toxicity of on landowner. Easier to vigorousness of the or other fill. Rotate or turnover the waste. Provides long-term construct than landfill. landfarming. Low to no cost of periodically. effectiveness more quickly than operation and maintenance cost landfill. High for POLs and low once low levels of for lead and PCBs. contamination are reached. Capping Covering soil contaminated area Moderate. Can isolate receptors Low. Land use restrictions and Low. Costs are low (porous Rejected as viable alternative with impervious materials. from the soil. Impacts to human long-term maintenance would gravel) or high (impermeable for only moderately health are low. Capping may not be required. The land may be surface). effectiveness in reducing risk meet remediation action incompatible with future use. and not practical to implement. objectives. In/ex situ chemical oxidation: Enhanced biodegradation - Moderate. Can enhance the Moderate. Application points Moderate. Costs are low to Rejected as viable alternative ORC Injection indigenous or inoculated biogeneration of petroleum and quantities of ORC may moderate. for only moderately microorganisms degrade hydrocarbon contaminated soil. require field verification to effectiveness in reducing risk organic contaminants found in Soils that are porous with determine the aerial extent of and not practical to implement. soil and/or GW converting them natural flushing and high ORC distribution. Some to innocuous end products. precipitation levels ORC could excavation equipment will be Nutrients, oxygen, or other be easily be applied ex situ or in required to be mobilized to the amendments may be used to situ. Impacts to human health site for application of ORC. Use enhance bioremediation and are low. of ORC socks (time release) contaminant desorption from could allow for shorter on-site subsurface materials. time than other ex situ options.

September 2012 113 DRAFT FINAL Draft Final Feasibility Study Tanaga and Ogliuga Island FUDS, AK Contract No. W911KB-08-D-0004 AECOM Project No: 60133134

Technology Description Effectiveness Implementability Cost Evaluation Soil Vapor Extraction In situ unsaturated soil Moderate. Can remove VOCs Low. High humic content of the High. Energy source Rejected as viable alternative technology with a vacuum to (BTEX) though cannot remove soil inhibits volatilization. construction and consumption for location high moisture induce the controlled flow of air semivolatile organic Heterogeneous soil conditions are high. content in soils and only and remove volatile and some compounds. But, additional may result in inconsistent moderate effectiveness. semivolatile compounds. Gas airflow could increase removal rates. The process leaving the soil may be treated breakdown of semivolatile requires installation of a large to recover/destroy the compounds (naphthalene). generator and regular operation, contaminants.GW extraction Impacts to human health are and maintenance of the pumps can be used to reduce controllable. High for VOCs and equipment. The employment of GW upwelling induced by the low for lead and PCBs. local skilled technicians to vacuum to increase the depth of operate and maintain equipment the vadose zone. may be difficult. The technology has a large energy demand and high maintenance requirements. Air sparging Injection of air into GW. Moderate. Can remove volatile Low. Channeling of airflow may High. Costs are high due to Rejected as viable alternative contaminants. Impacts to occur. Heterogeneous soil power requirements. for high energy needs. human health are low. High for conditions can affect the VOCs and low for lead. direction and velocity of airflow. Without SVE could induce contaminant migration beyond the contaminated zone. Installation, operation, and maintenance of a power source are required. In situ chemical oxidation: Injection of ozone into GW. Low. Can target chemicals of Low. The transportation of the High. Costs are high due to Rejected as viable alternative Ozone Injection concern with appropriate large quantities of hazardous power requirements and for only moderately oxidizer. The concentration of oxidizing chemicals to the site chemical oxidizers. effectiveness in reducing risk other oxidant-consuming may limit the implementability. and not practical to implement. substances such as natural organic matter degrades rate and extent of effectiveness. High for VOCs and low for lead. °C degree Celsius BTEX benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes GW groundwater

September 2012 114 DRAFT FINAL Draft Final Feasibility Study Tanaga and Ogliuga Island FUDS, AK Contract No. W911KB-08-D-0004 AECOM Project No: 60133134

6.0 IDENTIFICATION AND ANALYSIS OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES Alternatives and total volume per site is represented in Table 6-1.

6.1 ALTERNATIVE 1 – NO ACTION Alternative 1 is the “No Action” alternative in which no remediation would take place. Soil, sediment, surface water, and groundwater would be left in place without any response actions such as monitoring, institutional controls, removal, and treatment. The “No Action” alternative is retained to provide a baseline for comparison and evaluation of other alternatives.

6.2 ALTERNATIVE 2 – INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS AND MONITORED NATURAL ATTENUATION Alternative 2 is institutional controls and monitored natural attenuation. Institutional controls could include signs, fences, and other similar engineering controls. Soil, sediment, surface water, and groundwater would be left in place without any active remedial actions such as removal and treatment. Monitored natural attenuation would occur every year for 30 years. The monitoring would include the sampling of the existing wells on Tanaga. The monitoring well network at the Ogliuga Runway has been removed, thus additional wells would have to be added for monitoring of the site. Monitoring wells would be installed on Ogliuga during the first year of monitoring. This alternative is retained to provide comparison and evaluation for other alternatives.

6.3 ALTERNATIVE 3 – HOT SPOT REMOVAL Alternative 3 is the hot spot removal through excavation and off-site disposal or treatment of contaminated soils. EPA guidance indicates “hot spots consist of highly toxic and/or highly mobile material and present a potential principal threat to human health and the environment” (EPA 1993). According to the EPA, the principal threat concept is applied to the characterization of the source materials. A source material is a material that includes or contains hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants that act as a reservoir for migration of contamination to groundwater, surface water or air, or acts as a source for direct exposure (i.e., non-aqueous liquid phase liquids in groundwater).

The alternative would involve the excavation and off-site treatment of the POL and PCB impacted soils and the excavation and off-site disposal of the lead impacted soil. Monitoring wells would be installed on Ogliuga during the remedial action. The excavated areas would be filled with a non- contaminated on-site source and seeded to encourage plant restoration. During excavation, dust control would be implemented.

Because only hot spots would be removed, low-level contamination not inside the hot spot would not be removed. It is possible that small areas of low-level contamination that exceed the ADEC cleanup standards might remain in place and not be remediated. This alternative is intended to significantly reduce risk while also reducing costs relative to a more complete excavation alternative.

This alternative also includes a monitored natural attenuation of the areas with groundwater cleanup levels exceedances (Barrel Dump, Southeast of Airstrip, and Ogliuga Runway). This alternative would also include monitoring of the groundwater and institutional controls that would be implemented across the entire site to prevent exposure to COCs in soil, surface water, and

September 2012 115 DRAFT FINAL Draft Final Feasibility Study Tanaga and Ogliuga Island FUDS, AK Contract No. W911KB-08-D-0004 AECOM Project No: 60133134

groundwater. Sampling would occur every 5 years for 30 years. The monitoring would include sampling of all the existing wells on Tanaga and at Ogliuga Runway.

6.4 ALTERNATIVE 4 – LANDFARMING Alternative 4 is landfarming in which petroleum hydrocarbon contaminated soil and sediment is excavated, placed into lined beds, and periodically turned over or tilled to promote biodegradation. During excavation, dust control would be implemented. Soil would be divided into three cells to facilitate soil and storm water management. Cell site determination would be governed by topography to prevent erosion and any further spreading of contaminated media. A potential location of the two cells could be the Barrel Dump Area (Figure 6-1). The contaminated media would be treated in lifts that are up to 18 inches thick. Watering and fertilizer would be used to encourage active microbial culture and reduce treatment times. However, if climate conditions are naturally humid and the soil is sufficiently moist, watering would be minimal. The periodic tilling would continue until the desired level of treatment is achieved. During tilling and other material handling operation, proper dust control would be implemented. The excavated areas would be filled with a non- contaminated on-site source and seeded to encourage plant restoration.

The alternative would occur over 2 years. The first season would be a full remediation effort: 20– 30 personnel, full remote camp and support facilities, several pieces of large equipment (i.e., dozer, excavator, dump trucks), gear, and supplies. The first season would be 8 weeks of excavation and landfarm setup, and monitoring well network establishment. At the end of the first season, the remote location with few to no visitors allows for the necessary equipment to be left on island until the next season. The second season would be a smaller team, roughly 10 personnel. The second season would be 8 weeks, focusing on the completion of aeration of soil. Supplies would be brought via tug from Adak, one to two times a week.

The barge would harbor in Lash Bay for the duration of the remedial action. Personnel accommodations and supporting facilities would be placed just off shore of Lash Bay, same as in the RI (AECOM 2009). Equipment and gear would be stored on the beach where applicable. Decontamination facilities and supporting equipment would be placed near enough to the shore for ample water supply, but far enough to prevent wave erosion of decontamination pad. Access on Tanaga would heavily rely on the current road system, while access to Ogliuga will prove difficult with few fly days for helicopter and little to no road access to sites. Stockpiled materials would be placed near the landfarming areas. POL impacted soil from Ogliuga would be brought to Tanaga for treatment. PCE and lead impacted soil from Ogliuga would be transferred from island to barge.

6.5 ALTERNATIVE 5 – MOBILE BURN Alternative 5 is mobile burn, which includes the on-site treatment of a low temperature thermal desorption system to treat the petroleum hydrocarbon impacted soils, and off-site treatment and disposal of the lead, PCB, and PCE impacted soils. POL impacted soils would be fed into the thermal desorption system, thereby, desorbing water and organic contaminants from the soil on site. Soil meeting cleanup levels would be returned to previously excavated areas on the islands. Volatilized gases would be routed to a thermal treatment chamber or other form of filter. A proposed location for the mobile burn facility is near the Southeast of the Airstrip area (SA24) (Figure 6-2).

The alternative would involve the excavation and off-site disposal or treatment of the lead, PCB, and PCE impacted soils. It is assumed due to the remote location and lack of nearby communities to be

September 2012 116 DRAFT FINAL Draft Final Feasibility Study Tanaga and Ogliuga Island FUDS, AK Contract No. W911KB-08-D-0004 AECOM Project No: 60133134

concerned about noise distribution that the mobile burn unit will run on a 24-hour schedule. Based on the rate of small incinerators of 5 to 15 tons per hour and an estimated 9,114 tons of soil, the mobile burn alternative will be scheduled to last 8 weeks. Monitoring wells would be installed on Ogliuga during the remedial action. During excavation, dust control would be implemented. Contaminated soil and sediment would be excavated and all excavated areas filled with a non-contaminated on-site source and seeded to encourage plant restoration.

The barge would harbor in Lash Bay for the duration of the remedial action. Personnel accommodations and supporting facilities would be placed just off shore of Lash Bay, same as in the RI (AECOM 2009). Equipment and gear would be stored on the beach where applicable. Decontamination facilities and supporting equipment would be placed near enough to the shore for ample water supply, but far enough to prevent wave erosion of decontamination pad. Access on Tanaga would heavily rely on the current road system, while access to Ogliuga will prove difficult with few fly days for helicopter and little to no road access to sites. Mobile burn and its support facilities would be located near SA24, utilizing the Tanaga roads for access to the other sites with minimal disturbance to the tundra. Stockpiled materials would be placed near the mobile burn area. POL impacted soil from Ogliuga would be brought to Tanaga for treatment. PCE and lead impacted soil from Ogliuga would be transferred from island to barge.

6.6 ALTERNATIVE 6 – COMPLETE REMOVAL AND OFF-SITE DISPOSAL OR TREATMENT Alternative 6 is the complete removal of contaminated soils with off-site disposal of lead and treatment of petroleum, PCB, and PCE impacted media. During excavation, dust control would be implemented. All excavated areas would be filled with a non-contaminated on-site source and seeded to encourage plant restoration.

6.7 ALTERNATIVE 7 – IN SITU CHEMICAL OXIDATION Alternative 7 is in situ chemical oxidation of contaminated soils with off-site disposal of lead, PCB, and PCE impacted media. During excavation, dust control would be implemented. All excavated areas would be filled with a non-contaminated on-site source and seeded to encourage plant restoration.

September 2012 117 DRAFT FINAL Draft Final Feasibility Study Tanaga and Ogliuga Island FUDS, AK Contract No. W911KB-08-D-0004 AECOM Project No: 60133134

The in situ chemical oxidation and its supporting facilities, building, and setup would require a 20– 30 personnel team over 8 weeks. Monitoring wells would be installed on Ogliuga during the remedial action setup. After 8 weeks, personnel would be decreased by 50%, the barge would deliver the other impacted soil, and operation and maintenance would begin. The operation and maintenance duration would depend on the effectiveness of the chemical and is assumed to be 8 weeks. For this estimate, production rates are assumed to be moderate to high at the beginning of oxidation. Operation and maintenance would continue in the form of annual visits for repairs, filter changes, and other operation necessities, which would potentially coincide with monitoring visits.

The barge would harbor in Lash Bay for the duration of the remedial action. Personnel accommodations and supporting facilities would be placed just off shore of Lash Bay, same as in the RI (AECOM 2009). Equipment and gear would be stored on the beach where applicable. Decontamination facilities and supporting equipment would be placed near enough to the shore for ample water supply, but far enough to prevent wave erosion of decontamination pad. POL impacted soil from Ogliuga would be transferred to the barge for off-site treatment. Due to the high organics and difficulties in reaching the island on a regular basis, the setting up and maintenance of a second in situ chemical oxidation area would be not be feasible. PCE and lead impacted soil from Ogliuga would be transferred from island to barge.

September 2012 118 DRAFT FINAL AREA Q

AREA R

AREA P AREA C

AREA H

AREA D

AREA G

AREA F

AREA I AREA L 5,600 yd2

AREA M Legend Approximate Road Location

AREA E Potential Landfarming Cell Placement 2 12,100 yd Sub-Area Boundary

AREA K Maximum LIF (%) 3 - 10% 11 - 25% AREA N AREA O AREA J 26 - 50% 51 - 100% > 100% Plume Boundary Generated by Software Plume Boundary Inferred by Professional Judgment

NOTES: Figure 6-1 1. Contours are inferred. Data only exists at specific UVOST Alternative 4: Potential probe locations. Contours were generated using Surfer Version 8.05 Landfarming Cell Placement DESIGNED BY: SCALE: with Kriging as the default gridding method. ³ INT As Shown 2. Data from this figure reproduced from USACE DRAWN BY: DATE: Tanaga Island Feet INT Jan. 2012 / Rev: 1 (2010) "2009 Tanaga Petroleum-Oil-Lububricant CHECKED BY: FILE: Naval Auxiliary Air Facility Tanaga 0525 0100 U.S. ARMY CORPS INT Refer to left margin Investigation". FUDS Project No. F10AK022801 OF ENGINEERS SUBMITTED BY: PROJECT NUMBER: ALASKA DISTRICT BB/ftc 60133134 Path: T:\USACE_Tanaga\GIS_Docs\Working\Report_FS_SDFSIE\Fig6-1.mxd Path: 2813600 2813800 2814000 2814200 2814400

Figure 6-2 Potential Mobile Burn Facility Placement

Legend

253200 253200 Investigation Areas 253000 253000 Airstrip

Feed Prep/Mix Area Ash Storage Equipment Bins 252800 252800 Decontamination Kiln Area of Detail Control Room

Inset: Tanaga Island Support Facilites Personnel Projection: Alaska State Plane Zone 10, NAD83, Units in Feet Decontamination U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS ALASKA DISTRICT

DESIGNED BY: Notes: Naval Auxiliary Air Facility Tanaga 1. For features of interest, the first part of the name corresponds BB/ftc to the name assigned during the 2007 GPS survey conducted FUDS Project No. F10AK022801 252600 252600 DRAWN BY: by BCC-Jacobs; the second part of the name (in parenthesis) Tanaga Island, Alaska represents the name assigned by North Wind during the 2006 Feet EM/ftc GPS survey. PROJECT NUMBER: 0 40 80 160 CHECKED BY: SCALE: 2. Base Image: Commercial satellite imagery; October 4, 2008. As Shown 60133134 RLB/ftc DAT E: SUBMITTED BY: January 2012 2813600 2813800 2814000 2814200 2814400 BB/ftc FILE: Refer to left margin REVISION: 1 Path: T:\USACE_Tanaga\GIS_Docs\Working\Report_FS_SDFSIE\Fig6-2.mxdPath: Table 6-1: Alternatives and Total Volumes

Estimated Volume (yd3) Alternative 1: Alternative 2: Alternative 3: Alternative 4: Alternative 5: Alternative 6: Alternative 7: Migration to Constituents Direct Contact Groundwater In Situ Chemical Area of Concern (Alt 3) (Alt 4-7) No Action Control and Monitoring Hot Spot Removal a Landfarming a Mobile Burn a Complete Removal Oxidation Main Camp POL 308 1,203 No Action Institutional Controls/ Selective Excavation Landfarming LTTD Excavation and Off-site ISO Monitored Natural Disposal PCB 5 11 b Selective and PCB PCB Excavation PCB Excavation Attenuation Excavation Lead 10 10 Excavation Excavation Excavation Excavation Barrel Dump c POL 520 3,395 Selective Excavation Landfarming LTTD ISO Airstrip POL 6 10 Lead 4 4 Excavation Excavation Excavation Excavation Southeast of POL 540 1,490 Selective Excavation Landfarming LTTD ISO Airstrip Lead 12 12 Excavation Excavation Excavation Excavation Pumphouse POL 22 153 Selective Excavation Landfarming LTTD ISO Lead 2 2 Excavation Excavation Excavation Excavation North of Airstrip POL 5 7 Selective Excavation Landfarming LTTD ISO Tower POL 13 19 Ogliuga East POL 1 1 Ogliuga West POL 2 8 Ogliuga Runway POL 8 13 Camp Lead, PCE 4 4 Excavation Excavation Excavation Excavation Total 6,342 1,462 Total (except POL) 37 43 ISO In Situ Chemical Oxidation a Excavation and off-site disposal or treatment. Selective excavation includes institutional controls. Clean-up level for direct contact for Hot Spot Removal. Clean-up for migration-to-groundwater for Alternative 3-6. b For barrel dump, the unknown amounts of light non-aqueous phase liquids or very high concentrated contaminated soil associated with leaking drums may make this alternative impracticable. c Barrel Dump remediation will also include any free product in the barrel dump.

This page intentionally left blank Draft Final Feasibility Study Tanaga and Ogliuga Island FUDS, AK Contract No. W911KB-08-D-0004 AECOM Project No: 60133134

7.0 COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF REMEDIAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES 7.1 EVALUATION CRITERIA The response action alternative evaluation is based on the nine evaluation criteria specified by the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) (40 CFR 300.430(e)(a)(iii)) and EPA guidance for conducting RIs and FSs under CERCLA (EPA 1988). The nine evaluation criteria specified by the NCP are listed in 40 CFR 300.430(e)(a)(iii) and presented in Table 7-1.

The first two criteria (i.e., overall protection of human health and the environment and compliance with ARAR criteria) are categorized as threshold criteria, and relate directly to statutory requirements that each response action alternative must meet.

The next five criteria (i.e., short-term effectiveness; long-term effectiveness and permanence; reduction in toxicity, mobility, or volume through treatment; implementability; and cost) are the primary balancing criteria upon which selection of the response action is based. Together, the threshold and balancing criteria are considered in the FS.

The final two criteria (i.e., state and public acceptance) are modifying criteria and will be considered in the selection of a final response action and discussed in the record of decision once regulator and public comments on the FS report and proposed plan have been received and reviewed. However, the anticipated acceptance of each alternative by the state and public is identified in the FS based on EPA policy and site-related comments that USACE has received from state regulators and the public (Section 7.3).

7.2 COST ESTIMATE METHODOLOGY Cost estimates were prepared using the remedial action cost engineering and requirements (RACER) system version 10.4 with mark-up (AECOM 2011). Because each of the remediation alternatives only had information available at a planning level of detail, all estimates contain a degree of uncertainty. The best available data was used, but where data was not available, reasonable assumptions were made and are discussed below.

Each remedial alternative was estimated as a separate project, but many of the project elements were common across alternatives. For instance, excavation and disposal or treatment of hazardous materials was a part of Alternatives 3 through 7 (Note: Alternatives 1 and 2 were retained to provide comparison and evaluation for the other alternatives).

Table 7-2 presents a summary of the project elements (RACER Technology Modules) and key assumptions that were used for each estimate.

A large part of the cost for Alternatives 3 through 7 is barge transportation.

7.3 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES The six alternatives were comparatively evaluated using the NCP criteria and a five-tiered scale (Poor-1, Fair-2, Good-3, Very Good-4, and Excellent-5) (see Table 7-3). Analyses for the two Threshold Criteria, Protection of Human Health and the Environment and Compliance with ARARs were rated as Pass/Fail. The various ratings were compared to assess the relative performance of each response action alternative and to identify the preferred action for the site.

7.3.1 No Action Threshold Criteria. The No Action alternative does not meet the criteria of Protection of Human Health and Compliance with ARARs because it does not address the contaminants currently in place on the islands. Therefore, this alternative was assigned a rating of “Fail.”

September 2012 123 DRAFT FINAL Draft Final Feasibility Study Tanaga and Ogliuga Island FUDS, AK Contract No. W911KB-08-D-0004 AECOM Project No: 60133134

Primary Balancing Criteria. The No Action alternative is not effective at meeting the Primary Balancing Criteria. This alternative does not have long-term effectiveness and permanence, does not reduce the toxicity or mobility of contaminants, and is not effective in the short term. Therefore, this alternative has been assigned a rating of “Poor (1)” for the first three Primary Balancing Criteria. Because no action is being taken, the criteria of Implementability and Cost do not apply.

7.3.2 Monitored Natural Attenuation and Institutional Controls Threshold Criteria. The Monitored Natural Attenuation and Institutional Controls alternative does not meet the Protection of Human Health and Compliance criteria with ARARs because it does not address the contaminant on the islands. The Institutional Controls do prevent people from accessing the impacted media. For some COCs, there will be natural remediation through rain, wind, vegetation growth, and biodegradation; however, this process will be slow due to slow vegetation growth, short growth season, and low annual temperatures. Therefore, this alternative was assigned a rating of “Fail.”

Primary Balancing Criteria. The Monitored Natural Attenuation and Institutional Controls alternative is not effective at meeting the Primary Balancing Criteria. This alternative does not have long-term effectiveness and permanence, does not reduce the toxicity or mobility of contaminants, and is not effective in the short term. Therefore, this alternative has been assigned a rating of “Poor (1)” for the first three Primary Balancing Criteria.

However, this alternative can easily be implemented so the Implementability criterion is rated as “Excellent (5).” Cost of this alternative has been assigned as “Very Good (4)” based on the other alternatives’ costs.

7.3.3 Hot Spot Removal Threshold Criteria. Hot Spot Removal alternative does meet the criteria of Protection of Human Health. Therefore, this alternative was assigned a rating of “Pass.” Compliance with ARARs has the potential to address the contaminants over time. This alternative was assigned a rating of “Pass.”

Primary Balancing Criteria. The Hot Spot Removal alternative is somewhat effective at meeting the Primary Balancing criteria. This alternative does have long-term effectiveness and permanence, does partially reduce the toxicity or mobility of contaminants, and is partially effective in the short term. It is expected that there is a slight danger of contamination being spread during excavation, but proper procedures should offset that risk. Therefore, the long-term effectiveness, short-term effectiveness and implementability have been rated as “Very Good (4).”

This alternative does reduce toxicity through off-site treatment for the POL impacted soil. The lead impacted soils are simply transferred to a permitted disposal facility. Therefore, this alternative has been assigned a rating of “Good (3)” for the Reduction in Toxicity criterion. Cost of this alternative has been assigned as “Very Good (4)” based on the other alternatives’ costs.

Modifying Criteria. Based on prior experience with similar projects, the state is likely to approve of the removal of the highly contaminated media. Therefore, the Regulatory Acceptance criterion has been rated as “Good (3).”

7.3.4 Landfarming Threshold Criteria. Landfarming alternative does meet the criteria of Protection of Human Health and Compliance with ARARs, and was assigned a rating of “Pass.”

Primary Balancing Criteria. The Landfarming alternative is effective at meeting the Primary Balancing criteria. This alternative does have long-term effectiveness and permanence, does partially reduce the toxicity or mobility of contaminants, and is partially effective in the short term.

September 2012 124 DRAFT FINAL Draft Final Feasibility Study Tanaga and Ogliuga Island FUDS, AK Contract No. W911KB-08-D-0004 AECOM Project No: 60133134

However, effectiveness comes with time. It is expected that there is a slight danger of contamination being spread during excavation and landfarming, but proper procedures should offset that risk. Therefore, the long-term effectiveness and implementability have been rated as “Excellent (4)” and “Good (3),” respectively. Short-term effectiveness has been rated as “Good (3).”

This alternative does reduce toxicity through on-site treatment for the POL impacted soil. The lead impacted soils are simply transferred to a permitted disposal facility. Therefore, this alternative has been assigned a rating of “Good (3)” for the Reduction in Toxicity criterion. Cost of this alternative has been assigned as “Poor (1)” based on the other alternatives’ costs.

Modifying Criteria. Based on prior experience with similar projects, the state is likely to approve of the removal of the highly contaminated media and implementation of a landfarm. Therefore, the Regulatory Acceptance criterion has been rated as “Good (3).”

Because this alternative removes the highly contaminated media from the site, this is likely to be acceptable to the community. Therefore, the Community Acceptance criterion has been rated as “Good (3).” This rating will be reevaluated following the public comment period.

7.3.5 Mobile Burn Threshold Criteria. Mobile Burn alternative does meet the criteria of Protection of Human Health and Compliance with ARARs, and was assigned a rating of “Pass.”

Primary Balancing Criteria. The Mobile Burn alternative is effective at meeting the Primary Balancing criteria. This alternative does have long-term effectiveness and permanence, does partially reduce the toxicity or mobility of contaminants, and is effective in the short term. It is expected that there is a slight danger of contamination being spread during excavation, but proper procedures should offset that risk. Therefore, the long-term effectiveness and short-term effectiveness have been rated as “Excellent (5)” and implementability has been rated as “Good (3).”

This alternative does reduce toxicity through off-site treatment for the POL impacted soil. The lead and PCB impacted soils are simply transferred to a permitted disposal facility. Therefore, this alternative has been assigned a rating of “Good (3)” for the Reduction in Toxicity criterion. Cost of this alternative has been assigned as “Fair (2)” based on the other alternatives’ costs.

Modifying Criteria. Based on prior experience with similar projects, the state is likely to approve of the removal of the highly contaminated media and implementation of a mobile burner. Therefore, the Regulatory Acceptance criterion has been rated as “Good (3).”

7.3.6 Complete Removal and Off-site Disposal or Treatment Threshold Criteria. Complete Removal and Off-site Disposal or Treatment alternative does meet the criteria of Protection of Human Health and Compliance with ARARs, and was assigned a rating of “Pass.”

Primary Balancing Criteria. The Complete Removal and Off-site Disposal or Treatment alternative is effective at meeting the Primary Balancing criteria. This alternative does have long-term effectiveness and permanence, does partially reduce the toxicity or mobility of contaminants, and is effective in the short term. It is expected that there is a slight risk of contamination being spread during excavation, but proper procedures should offset that risk. Therefore, the long-term effectiveness and short-term effectiveness have been rated as “Excellent (5).” The transportation of

September 2012 125 DRAFT FINAL Draft Final Feasibility Study Tanaga and Ogliuga Island FUDS, AK Contract No. W911KB-08-D-0004 AECOM Project No: 60133134

the contaminated media to an off-site facility is a considerable feat; therefore, the implementability has been rated as “Fair (2).”

This alternative does reduce toxicity through off-site treatment for the POL impacted soil. The lead impacted soils are simply transferred to a permitted disposal facility. Therefore, this alternative has been assigned a rating of “Good (3)” for the Reduction in Toxicity criterion. Cost of this alternative has been assigned as “Poor (1)” based on the other alternatives’ costs.

Because this alternative removes all the highly contaminated media from the site, this is likely to be the favored alternative of the community. Therefore, the Community Acceptance criterion has been rated as “Good (3).” This rating will be reevaluated following the public comment period.

7.3.7 In Situ Chemical Oxidation Threshold Criteria. In Situ Oxidation alternative does meet the criteria of Protection of Human Health and Compliance with ARARs, and was assigned a rating of “Pass.”

Primary Balancing Criteria. In Situ Chemical Oxidation alternative is effective at meeting the Primary Balancing criteria. This alternative does have long-term effectiveness and permanence, does partially reduce the toxicity or mobility of contaminants, and is effective in the short term. It is expected that there is a slight danger of contamination being spread during excavation, but proper procedures should offset that risk. Therefore, the long-term effectiveness and short-term effectiveness have been rated as “Excellent (5)” and implementability has been rated as “Good (3).”

This alternative does reduce toxicity through in situ chemical oxidation treatment for the POL impacted soil. The lead impacted soils are simply transferred to a permitted disposal facility. Therefore, this alternative has been assigned a rating of “Good (3)” for the Reduction in Toxicity criterion. Cost of this alternative has been assigned as “Very Good (4)” based on the other alternatives’ costs.

Table 7-1: Criteria for Detailed Evaluation of Response Action Alternatives Criterion How the Criterion is Applied Threshold Criteria Overall Protection of Human Assesses the ability of an alternative to eliminate, reduce, or control the risks associated Health and the Environment with exposure pathways, including direct contact, potential migration, and risks to ecosystems. Compliance with ARARs Evaluates the potential of an alternative to comply with chemical-, location-, and action- specific ARARs. Compliance with other TBC criteria is also evaluated, but is not mandatory. Primary Balancing Criteria Long-term Effectiveness and Measures the ability of an alternative to permanently protect human health and the Permanence environment.

September 2012 126 DRAFT FINAL Draft Final Feasibility Study Tanaga and Ogliuga Island FUDS, AK Contract No. W911KB-08-D-0004 AECOM Project No: 60133134

Criterion How the Criterion is Applied Reduction in Toxicity, Mobility, or Evaluates the ability of an alternative to permanently or significantly reduce the toxicity, Volume Through Treatment mobility, or volume of the constituents particularly through treatment. Short-Term Effectiveness Assesses the capability of an alternative to protect human health and the environment during implementation of a response action. Implementability Evaluates technical feasibility and the difficulty of applying the alternative at the site, the reliability of the technology, the unknowns associated with the alternative, and the need for treatability studies. Assesses administrative requirements, including regulatory agency approval and the need for permits and waivers. Assesses mobilization needs and the accessibility of equipment and trained personnel required to implement the alternative. Cost Assesses the capital, operation, and maintenance costs of each alternative. Modifying Criteria Regulatory Agency Acceptance Evaluates the technical and administrative issues and concerns the state may have regarding the alternative. Community Acceptance Evaluates the issues and concerns the public may have regarding the alternative. Source: 40 CFR 300.430(e)(9) and 300.430(f)(1).

Table 7-2: RACER Technologies and Key Assumptions Alternative RACER Technology Modules Key Assumptions 1. No action None None 2. Monitored Natural Attenuation and Administrative LUCs No fencing Institutional Controls Monitoring 30 years of monitoring Five-year review Annual site visit by 2 people 3. Hot Spot Removal Remedial Design Design cost of 8% Excavation Design start: May 2012 Off-site Transportation and Waste Removal: May 2013 Disposal Containerize and barge material to Cleanup and Landscaping Anchorage Residual Waste Management 1,462 CY of hazardous wastes Site Close-out Documentation Five-Year Review Monitoring 4. Landfarming Landfarming Design cost of 8% Remedial Design Design start: May 2012 Excavation Removal: May 2013 Off-site Transportation and Waste Containerize and barge un-cleaned material Disposal to Anchorage Cleanup and Landscaping 43 CY of PCB and lead impacted soil Residual Waste Management Site Close-out Documentation Five-Year Review 5. Mobile Burn Low Thermal Temperature Design cost of 8% Desorption Design start: May 2012 Remedial Design Removal: May 2013 Excavation Containerize and barge un-cleaned material Off-site Transportation and Waste to Anchorage Disposal 43 CY of PCB and lead impacted soil Cleanup and Landscaping Residual Waste Management Site Close-out Documentation Five-Year Review

September 2012 127 DRAFT FINAL Draft Final Feasibility Study Tanaga and Ogliuga Island FUDS, AK Contract No. W911KB-08-D-0004 AECOM Project No: 60133134

Alternative RACER Technology Modules Key Assumptions 6. Complete Removal and Off-site Disposal Excavation Design cost of 8% or Treatment Off-site Transportation and Waste Design start: May 2012 Disposal Removal: May 2013 Cleanup and Landscaping Containerize and barge un-cleaned material Residual Waste Management to Anchorage Site Close-out Documentation 6,342 CY of POL, PCB, and lead impacted Five-Year Review soil 7. In Situ Chemical Oxidation In Situ Chemical Oxidation Design cost of 8% Remedial Design Design start: May 2012 Excavation Removal: May 2013 Off-site Transportation and Waste Containerize and barge un-cleaned material Disposal to Anchorage Cleanup and Landscaping 69 CY of PCB and lead impacted soil Residual Waste Management Site Close-out Documentation Five-Year Review CY cubic yard

September 2012 128 DRAFT FINAL Table 7-3: Comparison of Response Action Alternatives

Alternative 2: Institutional Controls Alternative 6: Alternative 1: and Monitored Alternative 3: Alternative 4: Alternative 5: Complete Removal and Off-site Alternative 7: Criterion 5-Tiered Scale No Action Natural Attenuation Hot Spot Removal Landfarming Mobile Burn Treatment or Disposal In Situ Chemical Oxidation Threshold Criteria Overall Protection of Pass if highly Fail Fail Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Human Health and protective Does not address Does not address Provides protection of human health and the Provides protection of human health Provides protection of human health and Provides protection of human health Provides protection of human health and Environment Fail if not current current contamination. environment by removing the highest contamination and the environment by removing all the environment by removing all and the environment by removing all the environment by removing all protective contamination. Access restrictions from the site. contamination and debris into a contamination from the site. contamination and debris from the contamination from the site. unlikely to be controlled, permit containment cell. site. enforceable. Compliance with Pass if alternative Fail Fail Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass ARARs complies with all Does not comply with Does not comply with Partially complies in the short-term and complies in Complies with the identified ARARs. Complies with the identified ARARs. Complies with the identified ARARs. Complies with the identified ARARs. ARARs the identified ARARs. the identified ARARs long-term with the identified ARARs for POL. Removal Fail if alternative for soil. of contaminated media does not meet migration-to- does not comply groundwater cleanup levels. with all ARARs Primary Balancing Criteria Long-Term Excellent (5) if Poor (1) Poor (1) Very Good (4) Excellent (5) Excellent (5) Excellent (5) Excellent (5) Effectiveness and highly effective The condition of the The condition of the Effective and permanent because highly contaminated Effective and permanent because Effective and permanent because all Effective and permanent because all Effective and permanent because all Permanence Poor (1) if not site will continue to site will continue to media is removed from the site and placed in a facility contamination and waste materials are contaminated media is removed from contaminated media is removed from contaminated media is removed from the effective deteriorate. deteriorate. specially designed, constructed, and monitored to removed from the site and placed into the site and either burned or placed in a the site and placed in a facility site and either oxidized or placed in a receive such wastes. a controlled, permit containment cell. facility specially designed, constructed, specially designed, constructed, and facility specially designed, constructed, and monitored to receive such wastes. monitored to receive such wastes. and monitored to receive such wastes. Reduction in Toxicity, Excellent (5) if Poor (1) Poor (1) Good (3) Good (3) Good (3) Good (3) Good (3) Mobility, or Volume reduces all Does not reduce Does not reduce Does reduce toxicity, mobility, or volume through off- Does reduce toxicity, mobility, or Does reduce toxicity, mobility, or volume Does reduce toxicity, mobility, or Does reduce toxicity, mobility, or volume Through Treatment contaminants toxicity, mobility, or toxicity, mobility, or site treatment for the POLs. Does not reduce toxicity, volume through treatment for the through treatment for the POLs and volume through off-site treatment for through treatment for the POLs and Poor (1) if no volume through volume through mobility, or volume through treatment for the metals. POLs. Does not reduce toxicity, some metals. Could create more all contaminants except some metals. PCBs. reduction treatment. treatment. mobility, or volume through treatment hazardous materials in burn. for the metals. Short-Term Excellent (5) if Poor (1) Poor (1) Very Good (4) Good (3) Excellent (5) Excellent (5) Excellent (5) Effectiveness highly effective The condition of the The condition of the Can be implemented quickly, but will cause some Can be implemented quickly, but will Can be implemented quickly, but will Can be implemented quickly, but will Can be implemented quickly, but will Poor (1) if not site will continue to site will continue to short-term disturbance of contamination. Protective cause some short-term disturbance of cause some short-term disturbance of cause some short-term disturbance of cause some short-term disturbance of effective deteriorate. deteriorate. measures and careful handling would be required. contamination. Protective measures contamination. Protective measures and contamination. Protective measures contamination. Protective measures and The natural biodegradation of the remaining and careful handling would be careful handling would be required. and careful handling would be careful handling would be required. contaminated media to meet the migration-to- required. Landfarming will take time. required. groundwater cleanup levels will take time. Implementability Excellent (5) if No action taken. Excellent (5) Very Good (4) Good (3) Good (3) Fair (2) Good (3) highly feasible This alternative is This alternative is technically feasible and can be This alternative is technically feasible This alternative is technically feasible This alternative is technically feasible This alternative is technically feasible and available technically feasible readily implemented. and can be readily implemented. and can be readily implemented. and can be readily implemented. and can be readily implemented. Poor (1) if not and can be readily Operation and maintenance will be Operation and maintenance will be Transportation of all contaminated Operation and maintenance will be feasible and implemented. difficult. difficult. material will be difficult. difficult. available Cost Excellent (5) if No action taken. Very Good (4) Very Good (4) Poor (1) Fair (2) Poor (1) Very Good (4) <$6M $7.36 million $7.15 million $10.2 million $9.17 million $11.6 million $7.78 million Good (3) if <$8M Poor (1) if >$10M Modifying Criteria Regulatory Agency Excellent (5) if Poor (1) Poor (1) Good (3) Good (3) Good (3) Good (3) Good (3) Acceptance highly acceptable Unlikely to be Unlikely to be Regulators will likely approve of moving highly Regulators will likely approve of Regulators will likely approve of burning Regulators will likely approve of Regulators will likely approve of oxidizing Poor (1) if not acceptable. acceptable. contaminated media to permitted facilities with low moving contamination to permitted all contaminated media. moving contamination to permitted POL contaminated media with minimal acceptable amounts of disturbance. landfill. facilities with the restoration of impact. excavated areas. Community Excellent (5) if Poor (1) Poor (1) Good (3) Good (3) Good (3) Good (3) Good (3) Acceptance * highly acceptable Unlikely to be Unlikely to be It is anticipated that the public would find this It is anticipated that the public would It is anticipated that the public would find It is anticipated that the public would It is anticipated that the public would find Poor (1) if not acceptable. acceptable. alternative acceptable. find this alternative acceptable. this alternative acceptable. find this alternative acceptable with this alternative acceptable. acceptable appropriate restoration. Totals Fail, 5 Fail, 14 Pass, 25 Pass, 21 Pass, 24 Pass, 22 Pass, 26 * Will be reevaluated after the public comment period

This page intentionally left blank.

Draft Final Feasibility Study Tanaga and Ogliuga Island FUDS, AK Contract No. W911KB-08-D-0004 AECOM Project No: 60133134

8.0 CONCLUSIONS This FS presents a detailed and comparative analysis of remedial action alternatives and evaluates the alternatives for selection of an appropriate remedial action that will address hazardous substances identified at various areas of investigation at Tanaga and Ogliuga Island FUDS. The selected remedial action alternative must be protective of human health and the environment, compliant with applicable ADEC soil and groundwater cleanup levels, implementable, effective, and generally cost effective, and meet State, property owner, and public approval.

A proposed plan will be developed describing the remedial action alternatives and will present the preferred remedial action alternative. The preferred alternative is the alternative that would best accomplish the purpose and need of the proposed action while fulfilling its statutory objectives of protecting human health and the environment. Even though a preferred alternative is not selected at this time, Alternative 7 In Situ Chemical Oxidation has been identified as a reasonable scenario for the remedial action.

September 2012 131 DRAFT FINAL Draft Final Feasibility Study Tanaga and Ogliuga Island FUDS, AK Contract No. W911KB-08-D-0004 AECOM Project No: 60133134

This page intentionally left blank.

September 2012 132 DRAFT FINAL Draft Final Feasibility Study Tanaga and Ogliuga Island FUDS, AK Contract No. W911KB-08-D-0004 AECOM Project No: 60133134

9.0 REFERENCES AECOM, Inc. 2011. RACER Cost Estimating Software. Version 11.0. Denver. October.

AECOM Technical Services, Inc. (AECOM). 2009. Tanaga and Ogliuga Island, Alaska Formerly Used Defense Sites (F10AK022801 and F10AK018002) Remedial Investigation. 2009.

Alaska Administrative Code (AAC). 2008. Groundwater and Surface Water Cleanup Levels. 18 AAC 75.345.

Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC). 2004. "Sediment Quality Guidelines (SQG)" Technical Memorandum. March 2004. Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation. 2004.

———. 2008a. Alaska Water Quality Criteria Manual For Toxic And Other Deleterious Organic And Inorganic Substances. 12 December.

———. 2008b. Web-Based Method Three Calculator. State of Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, Division of Spill Prevention and Response Contaminated Sites Program, December 2008.

———. 2009a. Arsenic in Soil. Technical Memorandum. Division of Spill Prevention and Response, Contaminated Sites Program. March.

———. 2009b. Ecoscoping Guidance. State of Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, Division of Spill Prevention and Response Contaminated Sites Program, March 2009.

———. 2012. Cleanup Levels Guidance. State of Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, Division of Spill Prevention and Response Contaminated Sites Program, April 2012.

Alaska Department of Natural Resources (ADNR). 2005. Alaska Coastal Management Plan, Aleutians West Coastal Resource Service Area, Volume II, Resource Inventory and Analysis. Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Alaska Coastal Management Plan; and National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, 2005.

BC Contractors & Jacobs (BCC-Jacobs JV). 2008. 2007 Containerized Hazardous, Toxic or Radioactive Waste Removal Action Report, Tanaga and Ogliuga Island, Alaska (Final). Prepared for USACE under Contract No. W911KB-06-D-0008, 2008.

Buchman, M. F. 2008. NOAA Screening Quick Reference Tables. NOAA OR&R Report 08-1. Office of Response and Restoration Division. Seattle: NOAA. Available at: http://response.restoration.noaa.gov/book_shelf/122_NEW-SQuiRTs.pdf

Department of the Navy (DON). 2003. NFESC User’s Guide UG-2054-ENV: Guidance for Environmental Background Analysis. April.

———. 2009. Building the Navy's Bases in World War II: History of the Bureau of Yards and Docks and the Civil Engineer Corps 1940-1946. April 2009. http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/Building_Bases/index.html (accessed July 2009).

California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA). 1997. Selecting Inorganic Constituents as Chemicals of Potential Concern at Risk Assessments at Hazardous Waste Sites and Permitted Facilities. Final Policy. Sacramento: Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), Human and Ecological Risk Division. February.

September 2012 133 DRAFT FINAL Draft Final Feasibility Study Tanaga and Ogliuga Island FUDS, AK Contract No. W911KB-08-D-0004 AECOM Project No: 60133134

Ecology and Environment, Inc. (E&E) 1993. Field Investigation Report for Tanaga Island FUDS Tanaga Island, Alaska. Anchorage, Alaska: Ecology and Environment Inc., Anchorage. 1993.

Environmental Protection Agency, United States (EPA).1988. Guidance for Conducting Remedial Investigations and Feasibility Studies under CERCLA. Interim final. EPA 540-G-89-004.

———. 1990. Summary of Treatment Technology Effectiveness for Contaminated Soils. EPA 540-2- 89-053.

———. 1993. Presumptive Remedy for CERCLA Municipal Landfill Sites. EPA 540-F-93-035, OERR Directive No. 9355.0-49FS. September.

———. 2008. Regional Screening Levels for Chemical Contaminants at Superfund Sites. EPA Office of Superfund. September.

———. 2009. ProUCL Version 4.00.04. Office of Research and Development. May.

Fraser, G. and H. Barnett. 1959. Geology of the Delarof and Westernmost Andreanof Islands Aleutian Islands. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1959.

Northwind, Inc. 2006. Pre-removal Assessment for containerized Hazardous, Toxic, or Radio Active Waste Removal. Ogliuga and Tanaga Island, Alaska Formerly Used Defense Sites (Draft). Draft Report prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Alaska District, 2006.North Wind, Inc. 2006.

Ocean Technology Ltd. 1986. Tanaga Island, Defense Environmental Restoration.

Platinum International. 2002. Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide. 4th ed. Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD: U.S. Army Environmental Center. July.

United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 1977. Debris removal and cleanup study: Aleutian Islands and Lower Alaska Peninsula, Alaska (D 769.87.Af.U54.1976). Sections Contributed by Thomas Dowell, Jr. Alaska District, Corps of Engineers, Alaska. October 1976, 1977.

———. 1979. Aleutian Islands and Lower Alaska Peninsula Debris Removal and Cleanup, Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Anchorage, Alaska: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Alaska District, 1979.

———. 1987. World War II in Alaska: A Historic and Resources Management Plan, Vol. 1 of 2. Anchorage, Alaska: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Alaska District, 1987.

———. 1998. Work Plan: Site Investigation 1998: Ogliuga Island Landing Field, Alaska (May 1998). Technical Engineering Section, Environmental Engineering Branch, Alaska District, 1998.

———. 1999. Site Investigation Report, Ogliuga Island, Alaska. Environmental Engineering Branch, Alaska District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Anchorage, Alaska, 1999.

———. 2008. Archaeological Monitoring of Formerly Used Defense Site (FUDS) Clean-up on Tanaga (XGI-0055) AND Ogliuga Islands (XGI-0036), the Aleutian Islands, Alaska. Anchorage, Alaska: Environmental Resource Section U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Diane K. Hanson, Ph.D., Littoral Zooarchaeology, 2008.

September 2012 134 DRAFT FINAL

Appendix A UVOST Surfer Areas

This page intentionally left blank.

The following tables provide the number of UVOST probes, maximum LIF, and an estimate of the surface area of soil impacted with DRO in excess of the ADEC Method 3 alternate cleanup level (830 mg/kg). This concentration was assumed to be represented by an average effective LIF of 2.6%. The surface area of impacted soil exceeding 2.6% was inferred using visual interpretation of UVOST probe locations and average effective LIF% results.

Table A-1: Main Camp Area UVOST Investigation Results

Surface Area Exceeding DRO Cleanup Site Feature # of Probes Maximum LIF Level (square feet) MC24(T85) 14 30 490 MC25(T86) 5 2 0 MC23(T87) 10 2 0 MC22(T88) 6 8 0 MC19(T89), T90B, T91B 75 68 10900 MC14(T93) 4 2 0 MC12(T96C) 53 143 9000 MC06(T102) 6 5 0 MC05(T96) 3 2 0 MC01(T101) 11 75 860 Total 187 - 21250

Table A-2: Barrel Dump Area UVOST Investigation Results

Surface Area Exceeding DRO Cleanup Barrel Dump Area # of Probes Maximum LIF Level (square feet) Area A 30 29 1600 Area B 21 3.8 0 Area C 11 24.5 390 Area D 17 91 4300 Area E 11 118 1800 Area F 18 204 570 Area G 14 60 included with Area I Area H 15 3.8 0 Area I 18 77 8200 Area J 4 0.5 0 Area K 21 5.9 0 Area L 19 51 3300 Area M 13 17.4 290 Area N 29 102 1400 Area O 12 425 1800 Area P 16 98 4900 Area Q 5 2.3 0 Area R 12 6.3 0 Total 286 - 28550

Table A-3: Southeast Area of the Airstrip UVOST Investigation Results

Surface Area Exceeding DRO Site Feature # of Probes Maximum LIF Cleanup Level (square feet) SA17 4 2.75 0 SA19(T51), SA20(T52), SA21(T50), SA22(T49), SA23(T48) 19 17.3 220 SA18(T53C) 27 198 7200 SA13(T47) 14 57 3370 Total 64 - 10790

Table A-4: Pumphouse Area UVOST Investigation Results

Surface Area Exceeding DRO Cleanup Site Feature # of Probes Maximum LIF Level (square feet) PH3(T104) 15 23 720 PH7(T107) 5 1.2 0 PH5(T106B), PH6(T106A) 18 1.8 0 PH1 (T108) 11 99 1300 Total 49 - 2020

The following tables provide the number of UVOST probes, calculated depth of soil impacted with DRO in excess of the ADEC Method 3 alternate cleanup level (830 mg/kg), an estimate of the surface area, and calculated volume. ADEC Method 3 alternate cleanup level (830 mg/kg) was assumed to be represented by an average effective LIF of 2.6%. The estimated depth is the average depth of impacted soil plus 6 inch border. Table A-5: Main Camp Area UVOST Investigation Volume Estimates

Surfer Calculated Depth Surface Surface with LIF > 2.6% Total Depth Area Area Volume 2 2 3 Sample No. (ft) (ft) (ft ) (ft ) (yd ) MC01 MCLIF146 0.50 10.00 9.50 MCLIF150 0.00 2.00 2.00 MCLIF151 0.25 1.50 1.25 MCLIF154 0.25 1.25 1.00 4.44 860 141 MC06 MCLIF172 3.75 4.00 0.25 MCLIF173 5.75 6.75 1.00 MCLIF175 0.00 0.50 0.50 MCLIF177 1.00 1.25 0.25 1.50 1250 69 MC12 MCLIF092 0.00 6.00 6.00 MCLIF094 0.00 4.50 4.50 MCLIF095 2.00 5.00 3.00 MCLIF096 1.50 4.75 3.25 MCLIF097 0.50 3.50 3.00 MCLIF098 0.50 3.50 3.00 MCLIF099 1.50 2.50 1.00 MCLIF100 0.50 2.00 1.50 MCLIF109 1.50 4.00 2.50 MCLIF110 1.00 3.50 2.50 MCLIF111 1.00 1.50 0.50 MCLIF112 1.25 1.75 0.50 MCLIF117 1.25 2.00 0.75 MCLIF118 1.25 1.75 0.50 MCLIF121 1.50 3.00 1.50 MCLIF122 1.50 1.75 0.25 MCLIF124 0.25 1.25 1.00 MCLIF160 0.25 0.75 0.50 MCLIF161 0.50 1.50 1.00 MCLIF165 1.00 2.25 1.25 MCLIF166 0.50 1.50 1.00 MCLIF167 0.50 1.50 1.00 2.82 9000 939

Page 1 of 2 Table A-5: Main Camp Area UVOST Investigation Volume Estimates (cont'd)

Surfer Calculated Depth Surface Surface with LIF > 2.6% Total Depth Area Area Volume 2 2 3 Sample No. (ft) (ft) (ft ) (ft ) (yd ) MC19 MCLIF007 0.50 2.50 2.00 MCLIF008 2.25 2.50 0.25 MCLIF009 0.50 1.75 1.25 MCLIF010 0.50 1.00 0.50 MCLIF011 0.00 3.00 3.00 MCLIF013 0.75 1.00 0.25 MCLIF015 0.50 1.50 1.00 MCLIF016 1.00 3.00 2.00 MCLIF017 1.00 2.50 1.50 MCLIF020 2.75 3.00 0.25 MCLIF021 0.25 0.50 0.25 MCLIF026 0.35 1.25 0.90 MCLIF027 6.50 7.00 0.50 MCLIF033 0.50 1.00 0.50 MCLIF035 0.50 1.00 0.50 MCLIF037 0.25 0.75 0.50 MCLIF038 0.50 3.00 2.50 MCLIF039 1.00 3.50 2.50 MCLIF040 2.50 3.50 1.00 MCLIF041 2.50 3.50 1.00 MCLIF042 1.75 3.50 1.75 MCLIF043 0.00 1.50 1.50 MCLIF046 1.50 1.75 0.25 MCLIF051 2.50 4.00 1.50 MCLIF052 1.25 1.75 0.50 MCLIF053 0.50 1.50 1.00 MCLIF054 0.50 1.00 0.50 MCLIF056 1.00 1.50 0.50 MCLIF057 0.50 1.00 0.50 MCLIF059 0.25 0.75 0.50 MCLIF064 3.25 4.50 1.25 MCLIF068 3.50 3.75 0.25 MCLIF138 2.50 2.75 0.25 1.98 10900 800 MC22 MCLIF004 2.50 3.00 0.50 20 0.37 MC24 MCLIF083 0.50 1.50 1.00 MCLIF086 0.50 0.75 0.25 MCLIF089 4.50 5.50 1.00 MCLIF090 5.00 9.50 4.50 2.69 490 49

Page 2 of 2 Table A-6: Barrel Dump Area UVOST Investigation Volume Estimates

Surfer Calculated Depth Surface Surface with LIF > 2.6% Total Depth Area Area Volume 2 2 3 Sample No. (ft) (ft) (ft ) (ft ) (yd ) Area A (BDA 003 0.00 4.00 4.00 LIF) 004 0.00 4.50 4.50 006 0.00 0.25 0.25 017 5.50 11.00 5.50 018 2.00 3.00 1.00 022 0.00 0.25 0.25 026 8.00 9.00 1.00 3.36 1600 199 Area B (BDB 042 1.25 1.75 0.50 LIF) 043 0.25 0.50 0.25 1.38 100 5 Area C 056 1.75 3.50 1.75 (BDC LIF) 057 1.00 3.00 2.00 058 1.50 3.00 1.50 2.75 390 40 Area D 063 1.25 3.50 2.25 (BDD LIF) 064 1.75 2.00 0.25 065 2.00 3.00 1.00 069 0.25 1.50 1.25 073 2.50 3.50 1.00 074 1.74 2.00 0.26 075 0.50 0.75 0.25 076 0.75 6.00 5.25 079 0.25 0.50 0.25 2.31 4300 367 Area E (BDE 500 4.00 13.00 9.00 LIF) 507 2.50 5.50 3.00 7.00 1800 467 Area F (BDF 528 6.00 7.00 1.00 LIF) 529 7.50 12.00 4.50 708 4.00 11.00 7.00 5.17 570 109 Area G and 575 4.75 5.00 0.25 Area I 576 0.50 0.75 0.25 (BDG/I LIF) 577 1.50 3.75 2.25 578 5.50 20.00 14.50 583 4.25 4.50 0.25 590 3.25 7.25 4.00 591 6.50 7.75 1.25 592 5.50 6.75 1.25 594 5.25 6.75 1.50 595 6.50 8.50 2.00 597 7.75 9.50 1.75 599 3.25 4.25 1.00 600 5.50 7.00 1.50 601 0.00 0.25 0.25 604 9.50 10.00 0.50 3.17 8200 962 Area H 519 1.00 1.25 0.25 20 0 (BDH LIF) 522 0.75 1.00 0.25 20 0 525 2.50 2.75 0.25 20 0 1 Area K (BDK 607 0.25 0.50 0.25 20 0 LIF) 616 11.00 11.25 0.25 20 0 625 13.00 13.50 0.50 20 0 1

Page 1 of 2 Table A-6: Barrel Dump Area UVOST Investigation Volume Estimates (cont'd)

Surfer Calculated Depth Surface Surface with LIF > 2.6% Total Depth Area Area Volume 2 2 3 Sample No. (ft) (ft) (ft ) (ft ) (yd ) Area L (BDL 676 2.50 3.50 1.00 LIF) 677 2.00 4.00 2.00 678 1.75 3.50 1.75 679 0.00 0.25 0.25 680 3.50 3.75 0.25 681 13.75 14.25 0.50 692 7.00 13.00 6.00 693 7.00 13.00 6.00 698 0.00 0.25 0.25 699 0.00 0.50 0.50 2.85 3300 348 Area M 682 13.50 13.75 0.25 (BDM LIF) 683 11.50 13.00 1.50 684 0.50 11.50 11.00 685 11.00 12.50 1.50 686 10.00 11.75 1.75 688 9.00 9.25 0.25 690 0.00 13.00 13.00 703 0.00 0.25 0.25 4.69 290 50 Area N 649 0.25 0.25 0.00 (BDN LIF) 654 1.00 5.50 4.50 655 0.00 0.50 0.50 661 0.25 0.50 0.25 671 0.00 0.25 0.25 2.1 1400 109 Area O 635 0.00 3.00 3.00 (BDO LIF) 636 2.00 6.00 4.00 637 0.00 0.25 0.25 641 0.00 0.25 0.25 2.875 1800 192 Area P (BDP 545 0.25 1.50 1.25 LIF) 546 0.50 2.50 2.00 548 0.50 2.25 1.75 549 0.50 1.75 1.25 551 3.25 4.50 1.25 552 0.00 4.00 4.00 553 0.25 3.75 3.50 554 0.00 2.00 2.00 555 0.50 2.75 2.25 557 5.25 6.00 0.75 3.00 4900 544 Area R 569 0.75 1.00 0.25 20 0.19 (BDR LIF)

Page 2 of 2 Table A-7: Southeast Area of the Airstrip UVOST Investigation Volume Estimates

Surfer Calculated Depth Surface Surface with LIF > 2.6% Total Depth Area Area Volume 2 2 3 Sample No. (ft) (ft) (ft ) (ft ) (yd ) SA13 0.024 0.25 2.75 2.50 0.026 2.25 3.00 0.75 0.030 2.00 3.50 1.50 0.031 3.25 5.00 1.75 2.63 3370 328 SA18 0.038 0.00 8.00 8.00 0.039 0.00 4.50 4.50 0.040 1.50 2.50 1.00 0.041 1.00 2.25 1.25 0.044 0.75 1.00 0.25 0.047 0.75 1.25 0.50 0.051 0.00 10.50 10.50 0.056 6.25 6.50 0.25 0.057 9.50 9.75 0.25 0.058 0.00 6.00 6.00 0.060 6.50 9.75 3.25 0.061 0.00 7.00 7.00 0.062 9.50 10.00 0.50 0.063 1.25 3.50 2.25 4.25 7200 1133 SA19-23 0.006 0.00 0.25 0.25 0.009 3.50 9.00 5.50 0.012 3.25 3.75 0.50 0.013 0.25 4.25 4.00 3.56 220 29

Page 1 of 1 This page intentionally left blank Table A-8: Pumphouse Area UVOST Investigation Volume Estimates

Surfer Calculated Depth Surface Surface with LIF > 2.6% Total Depth Area Area Volume 2 2 3 Sample No. (ft) (ft) (ft ) (ft ) (yd ) PH1 0.028 0.75 2.50 1.75 0.030 1.50 1.75 0.25 2.00 1300 96 PH3 0.001 0.50 1.50 1.00 0.002 1.75 1.75 0.00 0.005 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.013 0.75 1.00 0.25 1.31 720 35

Page 1 of 1 This page intentionally left blank

Appendix B TOC Calculation

This page intentionally left blank.

Table B-1: Method Three Cleanup levels for the Lower TOC (%) on Tanaga Island FUDS Residential Cleanup Levels

Tanaga Average TOC = 1.66% Low TOC Average 1 = 0.375% Lowest of Low TOC = 0.164%

Migration to Migration to Migration to Analyte Ingestion Inhalation Groundwater Ingestion Inhalation Groundwater Ingestion Inhalation Groundwater Fuels Diesel Range Organics 8300 60000 3500 8300 28500 830 8300 19000 380 Gasoline Range Organics 33200 9800 3600 33200 4800 860 33200 3200 400 Residual Range Organics 8300 22200 162000 8300 22200 36300 8300 22200 16000

1 Barrel Dump SS02 and Southeast of Airstrip SS01 and SS02

Table B-2: Method Three Cleanup levels for the TOC (%) ranging from 2-4% on Tanaga Island FUDS Residential Cleanup Levels Tanaga Average TOC = 1.66% TOC Average in 2-4% range = 2.94% Lowest of the 2-4% range = 2.01%

Migration to Migration to Migration to Analyte Ingestion Inhalation Groundwater Ingestion Inhalation Groundwater Ingestion Inhalation Groundwater Fuels Diesel Range Organics 8300 60000 3500 8300 79800 6500 8300 66000 4500 Gasoline Range Organics 33200 9800 3600 33200 13000 6400 33200 10800 4400 Residual Range Organics 8300 22200 162000 8300 22200 286000 8300 22200 196000

Page 1 of 1 This page intentionally left blank Table B-3: Method Three Cleanup levels for the calculation on Tanaga and Ogiluga Island FUDS Residential Cleanup Level Low TOC Average 1 = 0.375%

Analyte Migration to Groundwater Fuels Diesel Range Organics 830 Gasoline Range Organics 860 Residual Range Organics 36300

1 Barrel Dump SS02 and Southeast of Airstrip SS01 and SS02 TOC = total organic carbon

Page 1 of 1 This page intentionally left blank

Appendix C Risk Calculations

This page intentionally left blank.

Table C-1: Comparison of Cleanup Levels from ADEC’s Method Three Calculator for Petroleum Hydrocarbons

SE of North of Ogliuga Ogliuga Ogliuga Residential Cleanup Levels (mg/kg) Main Camp Barrel Dump Airstrip Airstrip Airstrip Tower Pumphouse Landfill Runway East West Outdoor Migration to Analyte Direct Contact Inhalation Groundwater Maximum Detected (mg/kg) 1 Fuels Diesel Range Organics 8,300 28,500 830 10,900 32,000 8,130 9,530 16,600 166,000 10,700 16.3 13,300 906 4,000 Gasoline Range Organics 33,200 4,800 860 104 59 0.984 617 3.11 53.8 5.09 0.939 70.8 614 - Residual Range Organics 8,300 22,200 36,300 24,200 30,000 32,800 38,100 2,960 7,400 18,900 95.3 81,200 648 48,000 PAHs 2-Methylnaphthalene 230 1,100 68 19 8.22 409 11.7 Acenaphthylene 2,300 670 12.7 Anthracene 16,800 11,100 2.01 0.147 3.07 Benzo(a)-anthracene 4 13 1.2 Benzo(a)-pyrene 0.4 7.8 1.01 Benzo(b)-fluoranthene 4 46 2.43 Benzo(g,h,i)-perylene 1,100 145,000 0.638 Benzo(k)-fluoranthene 40 450 0.83 Chrysene 400 1,400 1.74 0.243 Fluoranthene 1,500 5,100 3.9 0.33 Fluorene 1,900 820 1.57 0.422 1.74 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)-pyrene 4 150 0.584 Naphthalene 1,100 40 68 1.06 2.92 112 2.13 Phenanthrene 16,800 11,300 2.15 1.65 0.165 76.6 3.16 Pyrene 1,100 3,800 0.0699 3.36 SVOCs 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol 5,300 220 0.443 2,4,6-Trichloro-phenol 380 5,700 4.7 0.366 2,4-Dimethyl-phenol 1,100 28 0.181 2,4-Dinitrophenol 130 1.5 7.4 1.45 1.29 1.9 1.28 1.72 1.59 2,4-Dinitrotoluene 7.2 0.026 0.433 0.277 2,6-Dinitrotoluene 7.3 0.026 0.296 2-Nitrophenol 2 19,000 170 0.112 3,3-Dichlorobenzidine 9.2 0.71 0.243 0.259 3-Nitroaniline 3 41 150 0.22 0.209 4,6-Dinitro-2-ethylphenol 4 130 1.5 0.957 4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol 4 130 1.5 4-Chloro-3-methylphenol 4 130 1.5 0.244 0.968 4-Nitrophenol 2 19,000 170 0.451 0.48 0.809 0.586 Benzoic acid 259,000 490 2.2 2.29 1.32 23.1 4.11 Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 180 49 0.307 0.318 Hexachloro-benzene 2.6 2.1 0.17 0.171 Isophorone 4,400 5 0.868 1.2 N-Nitroso-diphenylamine 610 53 1.96 0.684 Penta-chlorophenol 32 0.17 0.804 0.846 VOCs 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 4,100 67 70 4.66 96.7 0.125 10.8 0.133 6.72 3.54 6.39 1,2-Dibromoethane 3.4 0.6 0.00024 9.32

Page 1 of 2 Table C-1: Comparison of Cleanup Levels from ADEC’s Method Three Calculator for Petroleum Hydrocarbons (cont'd)

SE of North of Ogliuga Ogliuga Ogliuga Residential Cleanup Levels (mg/kg) Main Camp Barrel Dump Airstrip Airstrip Airstrip Tower Pumphouse Landfill Runway East West Outdoor Migration to Analyte Direct Contact Inhalation Groundwater Maximum Detected (mg/kg) 1 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 4,100 67 70 3.49 40.3 0.046 3.49 1.94 1.2 2.87 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 280 39 1.8 0.0741 2-Butanone 5,300 10 1.58 2-Chlorotoluene 5 1,700 400 1.6 0.603 0.034 4-Chlorotoluene 5 1,700 400 1.6 0.234 4-Isopropyltoluene 6 8,300 3,000 160 1.55 1.09 0.746 0.389 0.02 0.448 0.276 Acetone 74,700 52,500 90 0.391 0.739 0.272 0.794 4.77 Benzene 120 13 0.055 69.2 0.609 0.0728 0.11 Ethylbenzene 8,300 140 20 50.4 0.0256 7.42 0.701 0.0765 2.01 Isopropylbenzene 8,300 3,000 160 0.931 1.77 0.0122 189 0.413 0.173 0.864 Methylene chloride 520 21 0.25 0.33 0.375 0.08 n-Butylbenzene 830 410 52 0.95 1.18 0.373 0.283 0.766 n-Propylbenzene 830 410 52 0.442 6.03 1.44 0.579 0.344 0.762 sec-Butylbenzene 830 300 40 0.687 0.612 1.37 0.281 0.155 tert-Butylbenzene 830 370 40 1.17 0.102 Toluene 660 25,300 16 293 0.0283 13.4 0.476 0.191 0.149 0.088 Xylenes (total) 16,600 700 190 391 0.134 51.1 0.154 6.41 0.734 15.8 mg/kg = milligram per kilogram 1 Gray shading for exceedance of most stringent cleanup level. 2 Toxicity indices (reference dose and cancer potency factor) for 2-nitrophenol and 4-nitrophenol are under peer-review; therefore, phenol was used as a structural surrogate in the same chemical family. 3 Toxicity indices (reference dose and cancer potency factor) for 3-nitroaniline were not found in the peer-reviewed literature; therefore,nitrobenzene was used as a structural surrogate in the same chemical family. 4 Toxicity indices (reference dose and cancer potency factor) for 4,6-Dinitro-2-ethylphenol, 4-Chloro-3-methylphenol, and 4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol were not found in the peer-reviewed literature; therefore,2,4-dintirophenol was used as a structural surrogate in the same chemical family. 5 Toxicity indices (reference dose and cancer potency factor) for 2-chlorotoluene and 4-chlorotoluene were not found in the peer-reviewed literature; therefore, chlorobenzene was used as a structural surrogate in the same chemical family. 6 Toxicity indices (reference dose and cancer potency factor) for 4-isopropytoluene were not found in the peer-reviewed literature; therefore, isopropylbenzene was used as a structural surrogate in the same chemical family.

Page 2 of 2 Table C-2: Summary of Cancer Risks and Hazard Quotients for Main Camp

Maximum Direct Contact Inhalation Detected Cancer Hazard Cancer Hazard Analyte (mg/kg) Risk Quotient Risk Quotient PAHs 2-Methylnaphthalene 19.0 0 0.083 0 0.0058 Anthracene 2.01 0 0.00012 0 0 Fluorene 1.57 0 0.00083 0 0 Naphthalene 1.06 0 0.00096 8.8E-08 0.002 Phenanthrene 2.15 0 0.00013 0 0 Pyrene 0.0699 0 0.000064 0 0 SVOCs 2,4-Dinitrophenol 7.40 0 0.039 0 0.0000027 N-Nitroso-diphenylamine 1.96 3.2E-08 0.0025 0 0 VOCs 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 4.66 0 0.0011 0 0.023 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 3.49 0 0.00085 0 0.021 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 0.0741 2.6E-09 0 6.2E-09 0 4-Isopropyltoluene1 1.55 0 0.00019 0 0.00017 Isopropylbenzene 0.931 0 0.00011 0 0.0001 n-Butylbenzene 0.950 0 0.0011 0 0.00073 n-Propylbenzene 0.442 0 0.00053 0 0.00034 sec-Butylbenzene 0.687 0 0.00083 0 0.00074 Metals Arsenic 7.78 0.000021 0.37 0 0 Barium 328 0 0.02 0 0 Chromium 78.2 0 0.31 0 0 Lead 10,100 0 0 0 0 Mercury 0.12 0 0.0048 0 0.0092 Nickel 22.4 0 0.013 0 0 Selenium 2.56 0 0.0062 0 0 Silver 0.325 0 0.00079 0 0 Vanadium 127 0 0.22 0 0 PCBs2 Aroclor 1260 59.7 0.00026 0 0 0 Totals 3.E-04 1 9.E-08 0.06 1 Toxicity indices (reference dose and cancer potency factor) for 4-isopropytoluene were not found in the peer-reviewed literature; therefore, isopropylbenzene was used as a structural surrogate in the same chemical family. 2 All Aroclors were calculated utilizing the PCB cancer risk and hazard quotient.

Page 1 of 1 This page intentionally left blank Table C-3: Summary of Cancer Risks and Hazard Quotients for Barrel Dump Direct Contact Inhalation Maximum Detected Cancer Hazard Cancer Hazard Analyte (mg/kg) Risk Quotient Risk Quotient SVOCs 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol 0.443 0 0.000084 0 2,4,6-Trichloro-phenol 0.366 9.6E-09 0 1E-09 0 2,4-Dimethyl-phenol 0.181 0 0.011 0 2,4-Dinitrophenol 1.45 0 0.00016 0 2,4-Dinitrotoluene 0.433 0.0000006 0.0036 0 2,6-Dinitrotoluene 0.296 0.00000041 0.0047 0 2-Nitrophenol 1 0.112 0 0.0000059 0 0 3,3-Dichlorobenzidine 0.243 0.00000026 0 0 0 3-Nitroaniline 2 0.209 0 0.0051 0 0.00063 4,6-Dinitro-2-ethylphenol 3 0.957 0 0.0074 0 0 4-Chloro-3-methylphenol 3 0.244 0.0019 0 0 0 4-Nitrophenol 1 0.451 0 0.00024 0 0 Benzoic acid 2.2 0 0.0000085 0 0 Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 0.307 1.7E-08 0.00046 0 0 Isophorone 0.868 2E-09 0.000082 0 N-Nitroso-diphenylamine 0.684 0.000053 0 0.000046 0 Penta-chlorophenol 0.804 0.00000025 0 0 VOCs 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 96.7 0 0.024 0 0.64 1,2-Dibromoethane 9.32 0.0000012 0.0055 0.0000037 0 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 40.3 0 0.024 0 0.31 4-Isopropyltoluene 4 1.09 0 0.000045 0 0.00019 Benzene 69.2 0.0000058 0.21 0.000025 0.24 Ethylbenzene 50.4 0 0.0061 0.0000016 0.0033 Isopropylbenzene 1.77 0 0.00021 0 0.00026 n-Butylbenzene 1.18 0 0.0014 0 0.0012 n-Propylbenzene 6.03 0 0.0073 0 0.0053 sec-Butylbenzene 0.612 0 0.00074 0 0.00089 Toluene 293 0 0.044 0 0.0053 Xylenes (total) 391 0 0.24 0 0.24 PAHs 2-Methylnaphthalene 5.91 0 0.026 0 0.0054 Metals Arsenic 6.7 0.000018 0.32 0 0 Lead 14.1 0 0 0 0 Totals: 2.E-03 0.9 8.E-05 1 mg/kg = milligram per kilogram 1 Toxicity indices (reference dose and cancer potency factor) for 4-nitrophenol are under peer-review; therefore, phenol was used as a structural surrogate in the same chemical family.

2 Toxicity indices (reference dose and cancer potency factor) for 3-nitroaniline were not found in the peer- reviewed literature; therefore,nitrobenzene was used as a structural surrogate in the same chemical family.

3 Toxicity indices (reference dose and cancer potency factor) for 4,6-Dinitro-2-ethylphenol and 4-Chloro-3- methylphenol were not found in the peer-reviewed literature; therefore, 2,4-dintirophenol was used as a structural surrogate in the same chemical family. 4 Toxicity indices (reference dose and cancer potency factor) for 4-isopropytoluene were not found in the peer- reviewed literature; therefore, isopropylbenzene was used as a structural surrogate in the same chemical Page 1 of 1 This page intentionally left blank Table C-4: Summary of Cancer Risks and Hazard Quotients for Airstrip Direct Contact Inhalation Maximum Detected Cancer Hazard Cancer Hazard Analyte (mg/kg) Risk Quotient Risk Quotient PAHs Benzo(a)-anthracene 1.2 0.000003 0 0 0 Benzo(a)-pyrene 1.01 0.000025 0 0 0 Benzo(b)-fluoranthene 2.43 0.0000061 0 0 0 Benzo(g,h,i)-perylene 0.638 0 0.00058 0 0 Benzo(k)-fluoranthene 0.83 0.00000021 0 0 0 Chrysene 1.74 4.4E-08 0 0 0 Fluoranthene 3.9 0 0.0026 0 0 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)-pyrene 0.584 0.0000015 0 0 0 Phenanthrene 1.65 0 0.000098 0 0 Pyrene 3.36 0 0.0031 0 0 SVOCs 2,4-Dinitro-phenol 1.29 0 0.0099 0 0 4-Nitrophenol1 0.48 0 0.000025 0 0 VOCs 1,2,4-Trimethyl-benzene 0.125 0 0.00003 0.00069 1,3,5-Trimethyl-benzene 0.046 0 0.000011 0.00031 Ethylbenzene 0.0256 0 0.0000031 7E-10 0.0000014 Isopropyl-benzene 0.0122 0 0.0000015 0.0000015 Toluene 0.0283 0 0.0000043 0.00000043 Xylenes (total) 0.134 0 0.0000081 0.000074 Metals Arsenic 6.37 0.000017 0.3 0 0 Barium 27.9 0 0.0017 0 0 Chromium 20.1 0 0.08 0 0 Lead 308 0 0 0 0 Nickel 22.2 0 0.013 0 0 Selenium 0.369 0 0.0009 0 0 Silver 0.0383 0 0.000093 0 0 Vanadium 60.9 0 0.11 0 0 Totals: 5.E-05 0.5 7.E-10 0.001 1 Toxicity indices (reference dose and cancer potency factor) for 4-nitrophenol are under peer-review; therefore, phenol was used as a structural surrogate in the same chemical family.

Page 1 of 1 This page intentionally left blank Table C-5: Summary of Cancer Risks and Hazard Quotients for Southeast of Airstrip Direct Contact Inhalation Maximum Detected Cancer Hazard Cancer Hazard Analyte (mg/kg) Risk Quotient Risk Quotient PAHs 2-Methylnaphthalene 8.22 0.036 0 0.0099 Anthracene 0.147 0.0000088 0 0 Fluorene 0.422 0.00022 0 0 Naphthalene 2.92 0.0027 0.00000094 0.021 Phenanthrene 0.165 0.0000098 0 0 SVOCs Isophorone 1.2 2.7E-09 0.00011 0 0 VOCs 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 10.8 0 0.0026 0 0.2 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 3.49 0 0.00085 0 0.076 2-Chlorotoluene 1 0.603 0 0.00035 0 0.0019 4-Chlorotoluene 1 0.234 0 0.00014 0 0.00043 4-Isopropyltoluene 2 0.746 0 0.00009 0 0.00018 Acetone 0.391 0 0.0000052 0.0000076 Benzene 0.609 5.1E-08 0.0018 0.00000055 0.0055 Ethylbenzene 7.42 0 0.00089 0.00000067 0.0014 Isopropylbenzene 189 0 0.023 0.079 Methylene chloride 0.33 6.3E-09 0.00000017 0.0024 n-Butylbenzene 0.373 0 0.00045 0 0.0012 n-Propylbenzene 1.44 0 0.0017 0 0.0045 sec-Butylbenzene 1.37 0 0.0017 0 0.0057 tert-Butylbenzene 1.17 0 0.0014 0 0.004 Toluene 13.4 0 0.002 0 0.00065 Xylenes (total) 51.1 0 0.0031 0 0.091 Metals Arsenic 5.06 0.000014 0.24 0 0 Barium 40.8 0 0.0025 0 0 Cadium 0.105 0 0.0016 0 0 Chromium 15.5 0 0.062 0 0 Lead 162000 0 0 0 0 Mercury 0.0271 0 0.0011 0 0.0021 Nickel 15.1 0 0.0089 0 0 Selenium 1.73 0 0.0042 0 0 Vanadium 112 0 0.19 0 0 Totals: 1.E-05 0.6 2.E-06 0.5

1 Toxicity indices (reference dose and cancer potency factor) for 2-chlorotoluene and 4-chlorotoluene were not found in the peer- reviewed literature; therefore, chlorobenzene was used as a structural surrogate in the same chemical family.

2 Toxicity indices (reference dose and cancer potency factor) for 4-isopropytoluene were not found in the peer-reviewed literature; therefore, isopropylbenzene was used as a structural surrogate in the same chemical family.

Page 1 of 1 This page intentionally left blank Table C-6: Summary of Cancer Risks and Hazard Quotients for North of Airstrip Direct Contact Inhalation Maximum Detected Cancer Hazard Hazard Analyte (mg/kg) Risk Quotient Cancer Risk Quotient SVOCs 2,4-Dinitrophenol 1.9 0 0.015 0 0 Benzoic acid 2.29 0 0.0000088 0 0 VOCs 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 0.133 0 0.000032 0 0.0006 Acetone 0.739 0 0.0000099 0 0.000011 Xylenes (total) 0.154 0 0.0000093 0 0.000067 Metals Arsenic 1.74 4.7E-06 0.083 0 0 Barium 80.6 0 0.0049 0 0 Chromium 5.57 0 0.022 0 0 Lead 86.4 0 0 0 0 Mercury 0.0215 0 0.00086 0 0.0017 Nickel 14.7 0 0.0086 0 0 Selenium 1.6 0 0.0039 0 0 Silver 0.0825 0 0.0002 0 0 Vanadium 134 0 0.23 0 0 PCBs 1 Aroclor 1260 0.200 8.7E-07 0 0 0 Totals: 6.E-06 0.4 0.E+00 0.002 1 All Aroclors were calculated utilizing the PCB cancer risk and hazard quotient.

Page 1 of 1 This page intentionally left blank Table C-7: Summary of Cancer Risks and Hazard Quotients for Tower

Direct Contact Inhalation Maximum Detected Cancer Hazard Cancer Hazard Analyte (mg/kg) Risk Quotient Risk Quotient PAHs 2-Methyl-naphthalene 409 0 1.8 0 0.16 Acenaphthylene 12.7 0 0.0055 0 0 Naphthalene 112 0 0.1 0.000012 0.27 Phenanthrene 76.6 0 0.0046 0 0 VOCs 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 6.72 0 0.0016 0 0.045 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 1.94 0 0.00047 0 0.015 4-Isopropyltoluene 1 0.389 0 0.000047 0 0.000057 Acetone 0.272 0 0.0000036 0 0.0000045 Ethylbenzene 0.701 0 0.000084 2.2E-08 0.000046 Isopropylbenzene 0.413 0 0.00005 0 0.000061 n-Butylbenzene 0.283 0 0.00034 0 0.00029 n-Propylbenzene 0.579 0 0.0007 0 0.0006 sec-Butylbenzene 0.281 0 0.00034 0.0004 tert-Butylbenzene 0.102 0 0.00012 0 0.00012 Toluene 0.476 0 0.000072 0 0.0000085 Xylenes (total) 6.41 0 0.00039 0 0.004 Metals Arsenic 3.63 0.0000098 0.17 0 0 Barium 73.9 0 0.0045 0 0 Cadmium 0.761 0 0.012 0 0 Chromium 14.1 0 0.056 0 0 Lead 219 0 0 0 0 Mercury 0.0578 0 0.0023 0 0.0044 Nickel 27.9 0 0.016 0 0 Selenium 1.22 0 0.003 0 0 Vanadium 167 0 0.29 0 0 Totals: 1.E-05 2 1.E-05 0.5 1 Toxicity indices (reference dose and cancer potency factor) for 4-isopropytoluene were not found in the peer-reviewed literature; therefore, isopropylbenzene was used as a structural surrogate in the same chemical family.

Page 1 of 1 This page intentionally left blank Table C-8: Summary of Cancer Risks and Hazard Quotients for Pumphouse Direct Contact Inhalation Maximum Detected Cancer Hazard Cancer Hazard Analyte (mg/kg) Risk Quotient Risk Quotient Metals Arsenic 5.58 0.000015 0.27 0 0 Barium 38.2 0 0.0023 0 0 Chromium 6.6 0 0.026 0 0 Lead 912 0 0 0 0 Nickel 9.91 0 0.0058 0 0 Selenium 2.63 0 0.0064 0 0 Vanadium 123 0 0.21 0 0 PCBs Aroclor 1254 0.441 0.0000019 0 0 0 Aroclor 1260 0.330 0.0000014 0 0 0 Totals 2.E-05 0.5 0.E+00 0 mg/kg = milligram per kilogram

Page 1 of 1 This page intentionally left blank Table C-9: Summary of Cancer Risks and Hazard Quotients for Landfill

Direct Contact Inhalation Maximum Detected Cancer Hazard Cancer Hazard Analyte (mg/kg) Risk Quotient Risk Quotient SVOCs 2,4-Dinitrophenol 1.28 0 0.0098 0 0 4-Nitrophenol 1 0.809 0 0.000043 0 0 Benzoic acid 1.32 0 0.0000051 0 0 VOCs 4-Isopropyltoluene 2 0.02 0 0.0000024 0 0.0000023 Acetone 0.794 0 0.000011 0 0.000012 Metals Arsenic 4.55 0.000012 0.22 0 0 Barium 35.1 0 0.0021 0 0 Cadmium 0.317 0 0.0049 0 0 Chromium 9.33 0 0.037 0 0 Lead 35.8 0 0 0 0 Mercury 0.589 0 0.024 0 0.045 Nickel 21.1 0 0.012 0 0 Selenium 0.561 0 0.0014 0 0 Silver 0.0646 0 0.00016 0 0 Vanadium 74.3 0 0.13 0 0 Totals: 1.E-05 0.4 0.E+00 0.05 1 Toxicity indices (reference dose and cancer potency factor) for 4-nitrophenol are under peer-review; therefore, phenol was used as a structural surrogate in the same chemical family.

2 Toxicity indices (reference dose and cancer potency factor) for 4-isopropytoluene were not found in the peer-reviewed literature; therefore, isoproplbenzene was used as a structural surrogate in the same

Page 1 of 1 This page intentionally left blank Table C-10: Summary of Cancer Risks and Hazard Quotients for Ogliuga Runway Direct Contact Inhalation Maximum Detected Cancer Hazard Cancer Hazard Analyte (mg/kg) Risk Quotient Risk Quotient PAHs 2-Methylnaphthalene 11.7 0 0.051 0 0.0029 Anthracene 3.07 0 0.00018 0 0 Fluorene 1.74 0 0.00092 0 0 Naphthalene 2.13 0 0.0019 0.00000014 0.0031 Phenanthrene 3.16 0 SVOCs 2,4-Dinitrophenol 1.72 0 0.013 0 0 Benzoic acid 23.1 0 0.000089 0 0 VOCs 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 3.54 0 0.00086 0 0.014 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 1.2 0 0.00029 0 0.0055 2-Butanone 1.58 0 0.000032 0 0.0000071 4-Isopropyltoluene 1 0.448 0 0.000021 0 0.000015 Acetone 4.77 0 0.000064 0 0.000065 Benzene 0.0728 6.1E-09 0.00022 1.6E-08 0.00015 Ethylbenzene 0.0765 0 0.0000092 1.4E-09 0.000003 Isopropylbenzene 0.173 0 0.000021 0 0.000015 Methylene chloride 0.375 7.2E-09 0 8.7E-08 0.0013 n-Butylbenzene 0.766 0 0.00092 0 0.00048 n-Propylbenzene 0.344 0 0.00041 0 0.00022 Toluene 0.191 0 0.000029 0 0.0000021 Xylenes (total) 0.734 0 0.000044 0 0.00028 Metals Arsenic 17.9 0.000048 0.85 0 0 Barium 194 0 0.012 0 0 Cadmium 4.17 0 0.064 0 0 Chromium 34.2 0 0.14 0 0 Lead 1580 0 0 0 0 Mercury 0.198 0 0.0079 0 0.015 Nickel 55.3 0 0.033 0 0 Selenium 3.18 0 0.0078 0 0 Silver 2.2 0 0.0054 0 0 Vanadium 211 0 0.36 0 0 Totals: 5.E-05 1.6 2.E-07 0.04 1 Toxicity indices (reference dose and cancer potency factor) for 4-isopropytoluene were not found in the peer-reviewed literature; therefore, isoproplbenzene was used as a structural surrogate in the same chemical family.

Page 1 of 1 This page intentionally left blank Table C-11: Summary of Cancer Risks and Hazard Quotients for Ogliuga East

Direct Contact Inhalation Maximum Detected Cancer Hazard Cancer Hazard Analyte (mg/kg) Risk Quotient Risk Quotient PAHs Chrysene 0.243 6.1E-09 0 0 0.000078 SVOCs 2,4-Dinitrophenol 1.59 0 0.012 0 0 2,4-Dinitrotoluene 0.277 0.00000038 0.0023 0 0 3,3-Dichlorobenzidine 0.259 0.00000028 0 0 0 4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol 1 0.968 0 0.012 0 0 4-Nitrophenol 2 0.586 0 0.000031 0 0 Benzoic acid 4.11 0 0.000016 0 0 Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 0.318 1.8E-08 0.00047 0 0 Hexachloro-benzene 0.171 0.00000066 0.004 0.00000012 0 Penta-chlorophenol 0.846 0.00000026 0.00056 0 0 VOCs 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 6.39 0 0.0016 0 0.015 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 2.87 0 0.0007 0 0.0078 4-Isopropyltoluene 3 0.276 Ethylbenzene 2.01 0 0.00024 2.2E-08 0.000047 Isopropylbenzene 0.864 0 0.0001 0 0.000045 n-Propylbenzene 0.762 0 0.00092 0.00028 sec-Butylbenzene 0.155 0 0.00019 0 0 Toluene 0.149 0 0.000023 0 0.00000095 Xylenes (total) 15.8 0 0.00095 0 0.0036 Metals Arsenic 3.11 0.0000084 0.15 0 0 Barium 44 0 0.0027 0 0 Cadmium 2.05 0 0.032 0 0 Chromium 6.99 0 0.028 0 0 Lead 287 0 0 0 0 Mercury 0.135 0 0.0054 0 0.01 Nickel 4.75 0 0.0028 0 0 Selenium 3.11 0 0.0076 0 0 Silver 0.11 0 0.00027 0 0 Vanadium 102 0 0.18 0 0 Totals: 1.E-05 0.4 1.E-07 0.04 1 Toxicity indices (reference dose and cancer potency factor) for 4,6-Dinitro-2-ethylphenol and 4,6-Dinitro-2- methylphenol were not found in the peer-reviewed literature; therefore,2,4-dintirophenol was used as a structural surrogate in the same chemical family. 2 Toxicity indices (reference dose and cancer potency factor) for 4-nitrophenol are under peer-review; therefore, phenol was used as a structural surrogate in the same chemical family. 3 Toxicity indices (reference dose and cancer potency factor) for 4-isopropytoluene were not found in the peer- reviewed literature; therefore, isopropylbenzene was used as a structural surrogate in the same chemical family.

Page 1 of 1 This page intentionally left blank Table C-12: Summary of Cancer Risks and Hazard Quotients for Ogliuga West

Maximum Direct Contact Inhalation Detected Cancer Hazard Cancer Hazard Analyte (mg/kg) Risk Quotient Risk Quotient VOCs 2-Chlorotoluene 0.034 0 0.00002 0 0.00015 Benzene 0.11 9.2E-09 0.00033 0.00000013 0.0013 Methylene Chloride 0.08 1.5E-09 0 4.2E-08 0.00062 Toluene 0.088 0 0.000013 0 0.0000058 PAHs Fluoranthene 0.33 0 0.00022 0 0 Metals Arsenic 6.71 0.000018 0.32 0 0 Barium 41.6 0 0.0025 0 0 Cadmium 0.903 0 0.014 0 0 Chromium 5.8 0 0.023 0 0 Lead 26.2 0 0 0 0 Mercury 0.021 0 0.00084 0 0.0016 Nickel 6.74 0 0.004 0 0 Silver 0.034 0 0.000083 0 0 Vanadium 10.7 0 0.018 0 0 Totals 2.E-05 0.4 2.E-07 0.004 mg/kg = milligram per kilogram

Page 1 of 1 This page intentionally left blank

Appendix D Racer WSBs

This page intentionally left blank.

Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

System:

RACER Version: 10.4.0 Database Location: P:\Projects\Clients U-Z\USACE\W911KB-08-D-0004\2008 Task Orders\451 and 452 - Tanaga & Ogliuga RI-FS\15 HTRW FS\tanaga and ogliuga_method three.mdb

Folder:

Folder Name: Tanaga and Ogliuga

Alternative:

Alternative ID: 00: GW Monitoring for Hot Spot Alternative Name: 00: GW Monitoring for Hot Spot Alternative Category: None

Location State / Country: ALASKA City: ALEUTIAN ISLANDS

Location Modifier Default User 3.159 3.159

Options Database: Modified System Cost Database Date: 2011 Report Option: Calendar

Description Monitoring of the GW at Barrel Dump, Southeast of Airstrip, and Ogliuga Runway for areas where there were groundwater cleanup level exceedances for Hot Spot, Landfarming, Mobile Burn, and ISO

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:57 PM Page: 1 of 9 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

Site:

Site ID: 01: Mobilization Site Name: 01: Mobilization Site Type: None Media/Waste Type Primary: Soil Secondary: N/A

Contaminant Primary: Fuels Secondary: Metals

Stage Names SI: RI/FS, EE/CA: RD: IRA, RmA-C: RA-C: RA-O: LTM: PCO:

Documentation Description: mobilizing to the site. Support Team: Documentation of personnel used to provide support for estimator and preparation of the estimate. References: Documentation of reference sources used in the preparation of the estimate.

Estimator Information Estimator Name: Sarah Byam Estimator Title: Engineer Agency/Org./Office: AECOM Business Address: 1835 South Bragaw Street, Suite 490 Anchorage, AK 99508 Telephone Number: 907-561-5700 Email Address: [email protected] Estimate Prepared Date: 12/09/2011

Estimator Signature: Date:

Reviewer Information Reviewer Name: Reviewer Title: Agency/Org./Office:

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:57 PM Page: 2 of 9 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups) Business Address: Telephone Number: Email Address: Date Reviewed:

Reviewer Signature: Date:

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:57 PM Page: 3 of 9 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

Stage:

Stage Type: Remedial Action Stage Name: RA-C Description: Transportation of personnel and land use controls of the site Approach: Ex Situ Start Date: December, 2011 Labor Rate Group: System Labor Rate Analysis Rate Group: System Analysis Rate Stage Markups: System Defaults Technology Markups Markup % Prime % Sub. PERSONNEL MOB/DEMOB Yes 100 0 ADMINISTRATIVE LAND USE CONTROLS Yes 100 0

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:57 PM Page: 4 of 9 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

HTRW RA WBS Marked Up Costs 331 HTRW REMEDIAL ACTION (CONSTRUCTION)

331.01 MOBILIZATION AND PREPARATORY WORK 331.01.03 Submittals/Implementation Plans ADMINISTRATIVE LAND $466,267 USE CONTROLS 331.01.02 Mobilization of Personnel PERSONNEL $562,779 MOB/DEMOB

$1,029,046

Total: $1,029,046

HTRW RA WBS Total: $1,029,046

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:57 PM Page: 5 of 9 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

Site:

Site ID: 02: GW Monitoring Site Name: 02: GW Monitoring Site Type: POL impacts Media/Waste Type Primary: Groundwater Secondary: N/A

Contaminant Primary: Fuels Secondary: Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)

Stage Names SI: RI/FS, EE/CA: RD: IRA, RmA-C: RA-C: RA-O: LTM: PCO:

Documentation Description: Groundwater monitoring for sites that will not have soil removed in the Hot Spot Removal. Monitoring will occur over thirty years. Support Team: Documentation of personnel used to provide support for estimator and preparation of the estimate. References: Documentation of reference sources used in the preparation of the estimate.

Estimator Information Estimator Name: Sarah Byam Estimator Title: Engineer Agency/Org./Office: AECOM Business Address: 1835 S Bragaw Street Suite #490 Anchorage, AK 99508 Telephone Number: 907.561.5700 Email Address: [email protected] Estimate Prepared Date: 09/04/2012

Estimator Signature: Date:

Reviewer Information Reviewer Name: Reviewer Title: Agency/Org./Office:

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:57 PM Page: 6 of 9 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups) Business Address: Telephone Number: Email Address: Date Reviewed:

Reviewer Signature: Date:

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:57 PM Page: 7 of 9 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

Stage:

Stage Type: Remedial Action Stage Name: RA-C Description: Groundwater monitoring for the locations on Tanaga and Ogliuga that exceed the most stringent cleanup levels for the groundwater. Plus creation of two monitoring wells at Ogliuga. Approach: Ex Situ Start Date: September, 2012 Labor Rate Group: System Labor Rate Analysis Rate Group: System Analysis Rate Stage Markups: System Defaults Technology Markups Markup % Prime % Sub. MONITORING Yes 100 0 Groundwater Monitoring Well Yes 100 0

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:57 PM Page: 8 of 9 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

HTRW RA WBS Marked Up Costs 331 HTRW REMEDIAL ACTION (CONSTRUCTION)

331.02 MONITORING, SAMPLING, TESTING, AND ANALYSIS 331.02.04 Monitoring Wells Groundwater Monitoring $44,072 Well 331.02.91 Other MONITORING $737,182

$781,254

Total: $781,254

HTRW RA WBS Total: $781,254

Total: $1,810,300

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:57 PM Page: 9 of 9 This page intentionally left blank Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

System:

RACER Version: 10.4.0 Database Location: P:\Projects\Clients U-Z\USACE\W911KB-08-D-0004\2008 Task Orders\451 and 452 - Tanaga & Ogliuga RI-FS\15 HTRW FS\tanaga and ogliuga_method three.mdb

Folder:

Folder Name: Tanaga and Ogliuga

Alternative:

Alternative ID: Alternative 02: MNA and IC Alternative Name: 02: Monitored NA and IC Alternative Category: None

Location State / Country: ALASKA City: ALEUTIAN ISLANDS

Location Modifier Default User 3.159 3.159

Options Database: Modified System Cost Database Date: 2011 Report Option: Calendar

Description Monitored natural attenuation and institutional controls. Options changed to a modified system cost.

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:23:31 PM Page: 1 of 21 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

Site:

Site ID: 01: Mobilization Site Name: 01: Mobilization Site Type: None Media/Waste Type Primary: Soil Secondary: N/A

Contaminant Primary: Fuels Secondary: Metals

Stage Names SI: RI/FS, EE/CA: RD: IRA, RmA-C: RA-C: RA-O: LTM: PCO:

Documentation Description: Mobilizing to the site. Support Team: Documentation of personnel used to provide support for estimator and preparation of the estimate. References: Documentation of reference sources used in the preparation of the estimate.

Estimator Signature: Date:

Reviewer Information Reviewer Name: Reviewer Title: Agency/Org./Office:

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:23:31 PM Page: 2 of 21 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups) Business Address: Telephone Number: Email Address: Date Reviewed:

Reviewer Signature: Date:

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:23:31 PM Page: 3 of 21 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

Stage:

Stage Type: Remedial Action Stage Name: RA-C Description: Transportation of personnel Approach: Ex Situ Start Date: December, 2011 Labor Rate Group: System Labor Rate Analysis Rate Group: System Analysis Rate Stage Markups: System Defaults Technology Markups Markup % Prime % Sub. PERSONNEL MOB/DEMOB Yes 100 0

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:23:31 PM Page: 4 of 21 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

HTRW RA WBS Marked Up Costs 331 HTRW REMEDIAL ACTION (CONSTRUCTION)

331.01 MOBILIZATION AND PREPARATORY WORK 331.01.02 Mobilization of Personnel PERSONNEL $921,293 MOB/DEMOB

$921,293

Total: $921,293

HTRW RA WBS Total: $921,293

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:23:31 PM Page: 5 of 21 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

Site:

Site ID: 02: Land use Controls Site Name: 02: Land use Controls Site Type: None Media/Waste Type Primary: Soil Secondary: N/A

Contaminant Primary: Fuels Secondary: None

Stage Names SI: RI/FS, EE/CA: RD: IRA, RmA-C: RA-C: RA-O: LTM: PCO:

Documentation Description: Land use controls for all sites Support Team: Documentation of personnel used to provide support for estimator and preparation of the estimate. References: Documentation of reference sources used in the preparation of the estimate.

Estimator Signature: Date:

Reviewer Information Reviewer Name: Reviewer Title: Agency/Org./Office:

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:23:31 PM Page: 6 of 21 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups) Business Address: Telephone Number: Email Address: Date Reviewed:

Reviewer Signature: Date:

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:23:31 PM Page: 7 of 21 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

Stage:

Stage Type: Remedial Action Stage Name: RA-C Description: land use controls for all sites Approach: Ex Situ Start Date: December, 2011 Labor Rate Group: System Labor Rate Analysis Rate Group: System Analysis Rate Stage Markups: System Defaults Technology Markups Markup % Prime % Sub. ADMINISTRATIVE LAND USE CONTROLS Yes 100 0

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:23:31 PM Page: 8 of 21 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

HTRW RA WBS Marked Up Costs 331 HTRW REMEDIAL ACTION (CONSTRUCTION)

331.01 MOBILIZATION AND PREPARATORY WORK 331.01.03 Submittals/Implementation Plans ADMINISTRATIVE LAND $1,816,059 USE CONTROLS

$1,816,059

Total: $1,816,059

HTRW RA WBS Total: $1,816,059

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:23:31 PM Page: 9 of 21 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

Site:

Site ID: 03: Post Review and Close-Out Site Name: 03: Post Review and Close-Out Site Type: None Media/Waste Type Primary: Soil Secondary: N/A

Contaminant Primary: Fuels Secondary: Metals

Stage Names SI: RI/FS, EE/CA: RD: IRA, RmA-C: RA-C: RA-O: LTM: PCO:

Documentation Description: post review and close out for both islands Support Team: Documentation of personnel used to provide support for estimator and preparation of the estimate. References: Documentation of reference sources used in the preparation of the estimate.

Estimator Signature: Date:

Reviewer Information Reviewer Name: Reviewer Title: Agency/Org./Office:

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:23:31 PM Page: 10 of 21 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups) Business Address: Telephone Number: Email Address: Date Reviewed:

Reviewer Signature: Date:

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:23:31 PM Page: 11 of 21 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

Stage:

Stage Type: Site Closeout Stage Name: PCO Description: five year review for every five years of 30 years of monitoring and site-close out

Start Date: December, 2011 Labor Rate Group: System Labor Rate Analysis Rate Group: System Analysis Rate Stage Markups: System Defaults Technology Markups Markup % Prime % Sub. Five-Year Review Yes 100 0 Site Close-Out Documentation Yes 100 0 Five-Year Review Yes 100 0 Five-Year Review Yes 100 0 Five-Year Review Yes 100 0 Five-Year Review Yes 100 0

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:23:31 PM Page: 12 of 21 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

HTRW RA WBS Marked Up Costs 331 HTRW REMEDIAL ACTION (CONSTRUCTION)

331.20 SITE RESTORATION 331.20.90 Other Five-Year Review $77,363 Other Five-Year Review $77,363 331.20.90 Other Five-Year Review $77,363 Other Five-Year Review $77,363 331.20.90 Other Five-Year Review $77,363 Other Site Close-Out $98,010 Documentation

$484,827

Total: $484,827

HTRW RA WBS Total: $484,827

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:23:31 PM Page: 13 of 21 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

Site:

Site ID: Ogliuga Site Name: Ogliuga Site Type: POL impacts Media/Waste Type Primary: Soil Secondary: Groundwater

Contaminant Primary: Fuels Secondary: Metals

Stage Names SI: RI/FS, EE/CA: RD: IRA, RmA-C: RA-C: RA-O: LTM: PCO:

Documentation Description: Runway: Located in the north central part of the island, and contains the former landing strip. No water bodies were noted with 150 feet of the features of interest. R04 - 55 gallon drums, former location of six partial, non-galvanized 55-gallon drums and area of spilled grease R10 - 500 gallon fuel tank, an empty 500-gallon fuel tank and adjacent generator with engine and radiator R17 - 1,000 gallon fuel tank, 1,000 gallon AST located on a bluff with a galvanized sink and wood debris approximately 20 feet east of the AST at the base of the bluff

Support Team: Documentation of personnel used to provide support for estimator and preparation of the estimate. References: Documentation of reference sources used in the preparation of the estimate.

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:23:31 PM Page: 14 of 21 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

Estimator Signature: Date:

Reviewer Information Reviewer Name: Reviewer Title: Agency/Org./Office: Business Address: Telephone Number: Email Address: Date Reviewed:

Reviewer Signature: Date:

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:23:31 PM Page: 15 of 21 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

Stage:

Stage Type: Remedial Action Stage Name: RA-C Description: monitoring. 30 years of monitoring Approach: Ex Situ Start Date: December, 2011 Labor Rate Group: System Labor Rate Analysis Rate Group: System Analysis Rate Stage Markups: System Defaults Technology Markups Markup % Prime % Sub. MONITORING Yes 100 0

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:23:31 PM Page: 16 of 21 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

HTRW RA WBS Marked Up Costs 331 HTRW REMEDIAL ACTION (CONSTRUCTION)

331.02 MONITORING, SAMPLING, TESTING, AND ANALYSIS 331.02.91 Other MONITORING $807,641

$807,641

Total: $807,641

HTRW RA WBS Total: $807,641

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:23:31 PM Page: 17 of 21 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

Site:

Site ID: Tanaga Site Name: Tanaga Site Type: None Media/Waste Type Primary: Solids Secondary: Free Product

Contaminant Primary: Fuels Secondary: Metals

Stage Names SI: RI/FS, EE/CA: RD: IRA, RmA-C: RA-C: RA-O: LTM: PCO:

Documentation Description: Tanaga sites: Airstrip, Barrel Dump, Main camp, North of Airstrip, Pumphouse, Southeast of Airstrip, and Tower Support Team: Documentation of personnel used to provide support for estimator and preparation of the estimate. References: Documentation of reference sources used in the preparation of the estimate.

Estimator Signature: Date:

Reviewer Information Reviewer Name: Reviewer Title: Agency/Org./Office:

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:23:31 PM Page: 18 of 21 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups) Business Address: Telephone Number: Email Address: Date Reviewed:

Reviewer Signature: Date:

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:23:31 PM Page: 19 of 21 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

Stage:

Stage Type: Remedial Action Stage Name: RA-C Description: Monitoring contains the following wells for the sites: Airstrip, 3; Barrel Dump, 8; Main Camp, 9; North of Airstrip, 3; Pumphouse, 4; Southeast Airstrip, 5; Tower, 3. One event per well. 30 years of monitoring Approach: Ex Situ Start Date: December, 2011 Labor Rate Group: System Labor Rate Analysis Rate Group: System Analysis Rate Stage Markups: System Defaults Technology Markups Markup % Prime % Sub. MONITORING Yes 100 0

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:23:31 PM Page: 20 of 21 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

HTRW RA WBS Marked Up Costs 331 HTRW REMEDIAL ACTION (CONSTRUCTION)

331.02 MONITORING, SAMPLING, TESTING, AND ANALYSIS 331.02.91 Other MONITORING $3,331,271

$3,331,271

Total: $3,331,271

HTRW RA WBS Total: $3,331,271

Total: $7,361,091

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:23:31 PM Page: 21 of 21 This page intentionally left blank Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

System:

RACER Version: 10.4.0 Database Location: P:\Projects\Clients U-Z\USACE\W911KB-08-D-0004\2008 Task Orders\451 and 452 - Tanaga & Ogliuga RI-FS\15 HTRW FS\tanaga and ogliuga_method three.mdb

Folder:

Folder Name: Tanaga and Ogliuga

Alternative:

Alternative ID: Alternative 03: Hot Spot Removal Alternative Name: 03: Hot Spot Removal Alternative Category: None

Location State / Country: ALASKA City: ALEUTIAN ISLANDS

Location Modifier Default User 3.159 3.159

Options Database: Modified System Cost Database Date: 2011 Report Option: Calendar

Description Hot spot removal. Options changed to a modified system cost.

Excavation consists of removal of contaminated soil near the surface using heavy machinery. Prior to implementing an excavation process, the composition of soil requiring excavation and the depth to groundwater must be considered. Backfilling the area with clean soil or fill would complete the excavation process. Shallow depths to groundwater could restrict the amount of soil to be removed. The presence of buildings, structures, and concrete slabs would also impede excavation and would likely result in some contaminated soil remaining in place in some situations. Excavation around buildings and structures would likely need shoring to preserve structural integrity. The generation of fugitive emissions during excavation may also pose a problem. Excavation is required prior to implementing ex situ treatment and disposal options, and partial excavation may be required to implement containment

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:23:47 PM Page: 1 of 46 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups) options. Following excavation of potentially contaminated soil, the soil remaining in the open excavations would be sampled for analytical testing to determine whether any contamination remained and the levels and extent of the remaining contaminated soil.

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:23:47 PM Page: 2 of 46 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

Site:

Site ID: 01: Mobilization Site Name: 01: Mobilization Site Type: None Media/Waste Type Primary: Soil Secondary: N/A

Contaminant Primary: Fuels Secondary: Metals

Stage Names SI: RI/FS, EE/CA: RD: IRA, RmA-C: RA-C: RA-O: LTM: PCO:

Estimator Signature: Date:

Reviewer Information Reviewer Name: Reviewer Title: Agency/Org./Office:

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:23:47 PM Page: 3 of 46 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups) Business Address: Telephone Number: Email Address: Date Reviewed:

Reviewer Signature: Date:

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:23:47 PM Page: 4 of 46 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

Stage:

Stage Type: Remedial Action Stage Name: RA-C Description: 1 User defined estimate: personnel travel from ANC to Adak and Adak to Tanaga by Tug Boat 2 User defined estimate: equipment on barge (rental during travel), loading and off-loading material, travel to and from, lighter barge for beach landings 3 User defined estimate: camp for personnel with moving of equipment off barge 4 User defined estimate: transportation of the soils from the Seattle harbor to the Oregon landfill and the transportation of the soils from the Anchorage harbor to the POL incinerator 1 Decon Facilities is for Tanaga. 2 Decon Facilities is for Ogliuga. 1 Residual waste management is the management of the two decon facilities. Approach: Ex Situ Start Date: December, 2011 Labor Rate Group: System Labor Rate Analysis Rate Group: System Analysis Rate Stage Markups: System Defaults Technology Markups Markup % Prime % Sub. PERSONNEL TRAVEL TO TANAGA Yes 100 0 BARGE FROM SEA TO TANAGA Yes 100 0 PERSONNEL CAMP Yes 100 0 Decontamination Facilities Yes 100 0 Decontamination Facilities Yes 100 0 Residual Waste Management Yes 100 0

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:23:47 PM Page: 5 of 46 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

HTRW RA WBS Marked Up Costs 331 HTRW REMEDIAL ACTION (CONSTRUCTION)

331.01 MOBILIZATION AND PREPARATORY WORK 331.01.01 Mobilization of Construction Equipment and BARGE FROM SEA TO $2,684,808 Facilities TANAGA 331.01.04 Setup/Construct Temporary Facilities Decontamination $55,366 Facilities Setup/Construct Temporary Facilities Decontamination $55,366 Facilities 331.01.01 Mobilization of Construction Equipment and PERSONNEL CAMP $507,362 Facilities 331.01.02 Mobilization of Personnel PERSONNEL TRAVEL $46,836 TO TANAGA

$3,349,738

331.19 DISPOSAL (COMMERCIAL) 331.19.21 Transportation to Storage/Disposal Facility Residual Waste $35,235 Management

$35,235

Total: $3,384,973

HTRW RA WBS Total: $3,384,973

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:23:47 PM Page: 6 of 46 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

Site:

Site ID: 02: Post Review and Close-Out Site Name: 02: Post Review and Close-Out Site Type: None Media/Waste Type Primary: Soil Secondary: N/A

Contaminant Primary: Fuels Secondary: Metals

Stage Names SI: RI/FS, EE/CA: RD: IRA, RmA-C: RA-C: RA-O: LTM: PCO:

Documentation Description: Post review and close out for both islands Support Team: Documentation of personnel used to provide support for estimator and preparation of the estimate. References: Documentation of reference sources used in the preparation of the estimate.

Estimator Signature: Date:

Reviewer Information Reviewer Name: Reviewer Title: Agency/Org./Office:

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:23:47 PM Page: 7 of 46 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups) Business Address: Telephone Number: Email Address: Date Reviewed:

Reviewer Signature: Date:

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:23:47 PM Page: 8 of 46 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

Stage:

Stage Type: Site Closeout Stage Name: PCO Description: five year review and site-close out

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:23:47 PM Page: 9 of 46 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

HTRW RA WBS Marked Up Costs 331 HTRW REMEDIAL ACTION (CONSTRUCTION)

331.20 SITE RESTORATION 331.20.90 Other Five-Year Review $77,363 Other Site Close-Out $98,010 Documentation

$175,373

Total: $175,373

HTRW RA WBS Total: $175,373

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:23:47 PM Page: 10 of 46 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

Site:

Site ID: Airstrip Site Name: Airstrip Site Type: POL impacts Media/Waste Type Primary: Soil Secondary: N/A

Contaminant Primary: Fuels Secondary: Metals

Stage Names SI: RI/FS, EE/CA: RD: IRA, RmA-C: RA-C: RA-O: LTM: PCO:

Documentation Description: Airstrip Includes a 200 ft by 5,000 ft runway, which is currently in various stages of decay and partially overgrown with vegetation. Marston matting conditon varies from nearlly intact to entirely rusted away. The runway is littered with abandoned, heavy equipment with wooden poles and drums. A21 - Compressor, Gardner Denver Comprssor with enginee and cracked oil pan T42 - 55 gallon drums, partially non-galvanized drums, empty 55-gallon drums and intact, galvanized drums randomly scattered Support Team: Documentation of personnel used to provide support for estimator and preparation of the estimate. References: Documentation of reference sources used in the preparation of the estimate.

Estimator Signature: Date:

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:23:47 PM Page: 11 of 46 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

Reviewer Information Reviewer Name: Reviewer Title: Agency/Org./Office: Business Address: Telephone Number: Email Address: Date Reviewed:

Reviewer Signature: Date:

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:23:47 PM Page: 12 of 46 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

Stage:

Stage Type: Remedial Action Stage Name: RA-C Description: excavation of the HOT POL and metals Approach: Ex Situ Start Date: December, 2011 Labor Rate Group: System Labor Rate Analysis Rate Group: System Analysis Rate Stage Markups: System Defaults Technology Markups Markup % Prime % Sub. Residual Waste Management Yes 100 0 Professional Labor Management Yes 100 0 Excavation Yes 100 0 Excavation Yes 100 0 Load and Haul Yes 100 0

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:23:47 PM Page: 13 of 46 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

HTRW RA WBS Marked Up Costs 331 HTRW REMEDIAL ACTION (CONSTRUCTION)

331.08 SOLIDS COLLECTION AND CONTAINMENT 331.08.01 Contaminated Soil Collection Excavation $12,410 Contaminated Soil Collection Excavation $18,911

$31,321

331.19 DISPOSAL (COMMERCIAL) 331.19.21 Transportation to Storage/Disposal Facility Load and Haul $1,734 Transportation to Storage/Disposal Facility Residual Waste $8,229 Management

$9,962

331.22 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS (Optional Breakout) 331.22.03 Warehouse, Materials Handling, and Purchasing Professional Labor $7,950 Management

$7,950

Total: $49,233

HTRW RA WBS Total: $49,233

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:23:47 PM Page: 14 of 46 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

Site:

Site ID: Barrel Dump Site Name: Barrel Dump Site Type: POL impacts Media/Waste Type Primary: Soil Secondary: Free Product

Contaminant Primary: Fuels Secondary: Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)

Stage Names SI: RI/FS, EE/CA: RD: IRA, RmA-C: RA-C: RA-O: LTM: PCO:

Documentation Description: The Barrel Dump area encompasses approximately 12.5 arces. The dump consists of scattered drums, drum piles, and buried drums. The Barrel Dump is situated in a partially excavated sandy ridge parallel to the shore. No surface water bodies occur in the immediate area.Free product LAPLs Support Team: Documentation of personnel used to provide support for estimator and preparation of the estimate. References: Documentation of reference sources used in the preparation of the estimate.

Estimator Signature: Date:

Reviewer Information Reviewer Name:

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:23:47 PM Page: 15 of 46 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups) Reviewer Title: Agency/Org./Office: Business Address: Telephone Number: Email Address: Date Reviewed:

Reviewer Signature: Date:

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:23:47 PM Page: 16 of 46 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

Stage:

Stage Type: Remedial Action Stage Name: RA-C Description: excavation of the HOT POL. groundwater extraction wells were not added due to the preexistence of wells. discharge to POTW not included. Approach: Ex Situ Start Date: December, 2011 Labor Rate Group: System Labor Rate Analysis Rate Group: System Analysis Rate Stage Markups: System Defaults Technology Markups Markup % Prime % Sub. Excavation Yes 100 0 Residual Waste Management Yes 100 0 Professional Labor Management Yes 100 0 Load and Haul Yes 100 0

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:23:47 PM Page: 17 of 46 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

HTRW RA WBS Marked Up Costs 331 HTRW REMEDIAL ACTION (CONSTRUCTION)

331.08 SOLIDS COLLECTION AND CONTAINMENT 331.08.01 Contaminated Soil Collection Excavation $24,747

$24,747

331.19 DISPOSAL (COMMERCIAL) 331.19.21 Transportation to Storage/Disposal Facility Load and Haul $4,994 Transportation to Storage/Disposal Facility Residual Waste $283,711 Management

$288,704

331.22 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS (Optional Breakout) 331.22.03 Warehouse, Materials Handling, and Purchasing Professional Labor $60,149 Management

$60,149

Total: $373,600

HTRW RA WBS Total: $373,600

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:23:47 PM Page: 18 of 46 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

Site:

Site ID: Main Camp Site Name: Main Camp Site Type: POL impacts Media/Waste Type Primary: Soil Secondary: N/A

Contaminant Primary: Fuels Secondary: Metals

Stage Names SI: RI/FS, EE/CA: RD: IRA, RmA-C: RA-C: RA-O: LTM: PCO:

Documentation Description: Main Camp Main Camp is located in the FUDS. Soil mainly consists of peat. In areas where structures or raods are loacted, there is a layer of poorly graded sand immediately below the vegetation. The sand varies in thicknesses ranging from 1.5 to 6 feet. The presence of the sand again suggests it was placed in the area as fill.

Groundwater depths ranged from 0.06 to 1.62 feet bgs, indicating essentially staurated conditions. The presence of numerous drainage ditches in this area indicates that water-logged conditions also were a problem at the time of occupation. The shallow groundwater indicates that there is essentially no unsaturated zone present. Soil excavations in this area also encountered water at a foot or less. The presence of a permanent stream to the east of the Main Camp area and the drainage ditches directed towards the stream, indicate that groundwater flows to this creek. M01 - 55 gallon drums, 12 drums in the Main Camp area. Fuel is the only concern of the site. MC06 - 55 gallon drums, Three small piles (15 to 20 drums per pile) on western side of the Main Camp MC08 - Batteries at collasped machine shop, Former battery locations on wooden floor among debris within the footprint of the collapsed building MC12 - oil waste drums, two partial non-galvanized drums (possibly waste oil) and one intact drum suspected to contain motor oil MC13 - battery, Two bare spots located immediately west of a collapsed building with abundant wood and metal debris in the area MC18 - Transformers near fallen power pole, Power pole lying on the ground Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:23:47 PM Page: 19 of 46 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups) next to a partially collapsed wooden building with wood and metal debris surrounding the pole MC19 - Collasped building with fuel tank, collasped buildings, a fuel tank, and drums, includes T89, T90B, T91B, Feature MC18, a PCB source is immediately adjacent to the area. MC22 - Debris and 150-gallon fuel tank, an empty 150-gallon fuel tank located next to several collasped buildings in the central portion of the Main Camp area MC24 - Collapsed latrines and barracks with fuel box, Empty fuel box located on the northern edge of the Main Camp MC29 - Two batteries, two batteries located approximately 50 feet south of MC10 and 30 feet east of well MCA-MW05, new location added to the scope Support Team: Documentation of personnel used to provide support for estimator and preparation of the estimate. References: Documentation of reference sources used in the preparation of the estimate.

Estimator Signature: Date:

Reviewer Information Reviewer Name: Reviewer Title: Agency/Org./Office: Business Address: Telephone Number: Email Address: Date Reviewed:

Reviewer Signature: Date:

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:23:47 PM Page: 20 of 46 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

Stage:

Stage Type: Remedial Action Stage Name: RA-C Description: excavation of the HOT POL and metals Approach: Ex Situ Start Date: December, 2011 Labor Rate Group: System Labor Rate Analysis Rate Group: System Analysis Rate Stage Markups: System Defaults Technology Markups Markup % Prime % Sub. Excavation Yes 100 0 Residual Waste Management Yes 100 0 Professional Labor Management Yes 100 0 Excavation Yes 100 0 Load and Haul Yes 100 0

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:23:47 PM Page: 21 of 46 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

HTRW RA WBS Marked Up Costs 331 HTRW REMEDIAL ACTION (CONSTRUCTION)

331.08 SOLIDS COLLECTION AND CONTAINMENT 331.08.01 Contaminated Soil Collection Excavation $21,676 Contaminated Soil Collection Excavation $13,272

$34,948

331.19 DISPOSAL (COMMERCIAL) 331.19.21 Transportation to Storage/Disposal Facility Load and Haul $4,230 Transportation to Storage/Disposal Facility Residual Waste $194,421 Management

$198,651

331.22 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS (Optional Breakout) 331.22.03 Warehouse, Materials Handling, and Purchasing Professional Labor $45,186 Management

$45,186

Total: $278,785

HTRW RA WBS Total: $278,785

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:23:47 PM Page: 22 of 46 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

Site:

Site ID: North Airstrip Site Name: North Airstrip Site Type: POL impacts Media/Waste Type Primary: Soil Secondary: N/A

Contaminant Primary: Fuels Secondary: None

Stage Names SI: RI/FS, EE/CA: RD: IRA, RmA-C: RA-C: RA-O: LTM: PCO:

Documentation Description: N Airstrip The area between the north end of the airstrip and the CAA building approximately 0.5 mile north of the end of the runway, which includes features of interest. The remains of the radar beacon structure and a transmitter building on a ridge east of the Main Camp area, immediately west of the Small Arms Firing Range Support Team: Documentation of personnel used to provide support for estimator and preparation of the estimate. References: Documentation of reference sources used in the preparation of the estimate.

Estimator Signature: Date:

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:23:47 PM Page: 23 of 46 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups) Reviewer Information Reviewer Name: Reviewer Title: Agency/Org./Office: Business Address: Telephone Number: Email Address: Date Reviewed:

Reviewer Signature: Date:

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:23:47 PM Page: 24 of 46 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

Stage:

Stage Type: Remedial Action Stage Name: RA-C Description: excavation of the HOT POL and metals Approach: Ex Situ Start Date: December, 2011 Labor Rate Group: System Labor Rate Analysis Rate Group: System Analysis Rate Stage Markups: System Defaults Technology Markups Markup % Prime % Sub. Excavation Yes 100 0 Residual Waste Management Yes 100 0 Professional Labor Management Yes 100 0 Load and Haul Yes 100 0

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:23:47 PM Page: 25 of 46 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

HTRW RA WBS Marked Up Costs 331 HTRW REMEDIAL ACTION (CONSTRUCTION)

331.08 SOLIDS COLLECTION AND CONTAINMENT 331.08.01 Contaminated Soil Collection Excavation $14,810

$14,810

331.19 DISPOSAL (COMMERCIAL) 331.19.21 Transportation to Storage/Disposal Facility Load and Haul $1,734 Transportation to Storage/Disposal Facility Residual Waste $4,551 Management

$6,285

331.22 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS (Optional Breakout) 331.22.03 Warehouse, Materials Handling, and Purchasing Professional Labor $3,892 Management

$3,892

Total: $24,986

HTRW RA WBS Total: $24,986

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:23:47 PM Page: 26 of 46 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

Site:

Site ID: Ogliuga Runway Site Name: Ogliuga Runway Site Type: POL impacts Media/Waste Type Primary: Soil Secondary: Groundwater

Contaminant Primary: Fuels Secondary: Metals

Stage Names SI: RI/FS, EE/CA: RD: IRA, RmA-C: RA-C: RA-O: LTM: PCO:

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:23:47 PM Page: 27 of 46 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups) Estimator Signature: Date:

Reviewer Information Reviewer Name: Reviewer Title: Agency/Org./Office: Business Address: Telephone Number: Email Address: Date Reviewed:

Reviewer Signature: Date:

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:23:47 PM Page: 28 of 46 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

Stage:

Stage Type: Remedial Action Stage Name: RA-C Description: excavation of the HOT POL and metals Approach: Ex Situ Start Date: December, 2011 Labor Rate Group: System Labor Rate Analysis Rate Group: System Analysis Rate Stage Markups: System Defaults Technology Markups Markup % Prime % Sub. Excavation Yes 100 0 Residual Waste Management Yes 100 0 Professional Labor Management Yes 100 0 Excavation Yes 100 0 Load and Haul Yes 100 0

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:23:47 PM Page: 29 of 46 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

HTRW RA WBS Marked Up Costs 331 HTRW REMEDIAL ACTION (CONSTRUCTION)

331.08 SOLIDS COLLECTION AND CONTAINMENT 331.08.01 Contaminated Soil Collection Excavation $15,097 Contaminated Soil Collection Excavation $12,337

$27,434

331.19 DISPOSAL (COMMERCIAL) 331.19.21 Transportation to Storage/Disposal Facility Load and Haul $1,734 Transportation to Storage/Disposal Facility Residual Waste $14,277 Management

$16,010

331.22 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS (Optional Breakout) 331.22.03 Warehouse, Materials Handling, and Purchasing Professional Labor $8,384 Management

$8,384

Total: $51,828

HTRW RA WBS Total: $51,828

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:23:47 PM Page: 30 of 46 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

Site:

Site ID: Ogliuga West Site Name: Ogliuga West Site Type: POL impacts Media/Waste Type Primary: Soil Secondary: N/A

Contaminant Primary: Fuels Secondary: Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)

Stage Names SI: RI/FS, EE/CA: RD: IRA, RmA-C: RA-C: RA-O: LTM: PCO:

Documentation Description: West of the runway on the the northwest side of the Ogliuga Support Team: Documentation of personnel used to provide support for estimator and preparation of the estimate. References: Documentation of reference sources used in the preparation of the estimate.

Estimator Signature: Date:

Reviewer Information Reviewer Name: Reviewer Title: Agency/Org./Office:

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:23:47 PM Page: 31 of 46 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups) Business Address: Telephone Number: Email Address: Date Reviewed:

Reviewer Signature: Date:

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:23:47 PM Page: 32 of 46 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

Stage:

Stage Type: Remedial Action Stage Name: RA-C Description: landfarming limited by 100 cubic yards treated Approach: Ex Situ Start Date: December, 2011 Labor Rate Group: System Labor Rate Analysis Rate Group: System Analysis Rate Stage Markups: System Defaults Technology Markups Markup % Prime % Sub. Excavation Yes 100 0 Residual Waste Management Yes 100 0 Professional Labor Management Yes 100 0 Load and Haul Yes 100 0

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:23:47 PM Page: 33 of 46 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

HTRW RA WBS Marked Up Costs 331 HTRW REMEDIAL ACTION (CONSTRUCTION)

331.08 SOLIDS COLLECTION AND CONTAINMENT 331.08.01 Contaminated Soil Collection Excavation $17,189

$17,189

331.19 DISPOSAL (COMMERCIAL) 331.19.21 Transportation to Storage/Disposal Facility Load and Haul $1,734 Transportation to Storage/Disposal Facility Residual Waste $6,144 Management

$7,877

331.22 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS (Optional Breakout) 331.22.03 Warehouse, Materials Handling, and Purchasing Professional Labor $4,690 Management

$4,690

Total: $29,756

HTRW RA WBS Total: $29,756

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:23:47 PM Page: 34 of 46 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

Site:

Site ID: Pumphouse Site Name: Pumphouse Site Type: POL impacts Media/Waste Type Primary: Soil Secondary: N/A

Contaminant Primary: Fuels Secondary: Metals

Stage Names SI: RI/FS, EE/CA: RD: IRA, RmA-C: RA-C: RA-O: LTM: PCO:

Documentation Description: Pumphouse - Located between the Main Camp and the Airstrip. Includes the water pump house on the shores of the small lake north of the road from the Main Camp area and the Airstrip area, the main generator building for the camp with accompanying transformers located on the road, former control tower and communications building on a hill south of the road, and a fuel box on an apron of the airstrip just west of the generators. Support Team: Documentation of personnel used to provide support for estimator and preparation of the estimate. References: Documentation of reference sources used in the preparation of the estimate.

Estimator Signature: Date:

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:23:47 PM Page: 35 of 46 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups) Reviewer Information Reviewer Name: Reviewer Title: Agency/Org./Office: Business Address: Telephone Number: Email Address: Date Reviewed:

Reviewer Signature: Date:

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:23:47 PM Page: 36 of 46 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

Stage:

Stage Type: Remedial Action Stage Name: RA-C Description: excavation of the HOT POL and metals Approach: Ex Situ Start Date: December, 2011 Labor Rate Group: System Labor Rate Analysis Rate Group: System Analysis Rate Stage Markups: System Defaults Technology Markups Markup % Prime % Sub. Excavation Yes 100 0 Residual Waste Management Yes 100 0 Professional Labor Management Yes 100 0 Excavation Yes 100 0 Load and Haul Yes 100 0

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:23:47 PM Page: 37 of 46 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

HTRW RA WBS Marked Up Costs 331 HTRW REMEDIAL ACTION (CONSTRUCTION)

331.08 SOLIDS COLLECTION AND CONTAINMENT 331.08.01 Contaminated Soil Collection Excavation $16,400 Contaminated Soil Collection Excavation $12,130

$28,530

331.19 DISPOSAL (COMMERCIAL) 331.19.21 Transportation to Storage/Disposal Facility Load and Haul $1,734 Transportation to Storage/Disposal Facility Residual Waste $19,960 Management

$21,693

331.22 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS (Optional Breakout) 331.22.03 Warehouse, Materials Handling, and Purchasing Professional Labor $9,832 Management

$9,832

Total: $60,055

HTRW RA WBS Total: $60,055

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:23:47 PM Page: 38 of 46 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

Site:

Site ID: Southeast Airstrip Site Name: Southeast Airstrip Site Type: POL impacts Media/Waste Type Primary: Soil Secondary: N/A

Contaminant Primary: Fuels Secondary: Metals

Stage Names SI: RI/FS, EE/CA: RD: IRA, RmA-C: RA-C: RA-O: LTM: PCO:

Documentation Description: SE Airstrip Support Team: Documentation of personnel used to provide support for estimator and preparation of the estimate. References: Documentation of reference sources used in the preparation of the estimate.

Estimator Signature: Date:

Reviewer Information Reviewer Name: Reviewer Title: Agency/Org./Office:

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:23:47 PM Page: 39 of 46 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups) Business Address: Telephone Number: Email Address: Date Reviewed:

Reviewer Signature: Date:

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:23:47 PM Page: 40 of 46 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

Stage:

Stage Type: Remedial Action Stage Name: RA-C Description: excavation of the HOT POL and metals Approach: Ex Situ Start Date: December, 2011 Labor Rate Group: System Labor Rate Analysis Rate Group: System Analysis Rate Stage Markups: System Defaults Technology Markups Markup % Prime % Sub. Excavation Yes 100 0 Residual Waste Management Yes 100 0 Professional Labor Management Yes 100 0 Excavation Yes 100 0 Load and Haul Yes 100 0

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:23:47 PM Page: 41 of 46 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

HTRW RA WBS Marked Up Costs 331 HTRW REMEDIAL ACTION (CONSTRUCTION)

331.08 SOLIDS COLLECTION AND CONTAINMENT 331.08.01 Contaminated Soil Collection Excavation $30,620 Contaminated Soil Collection Excavation $13,633

$44,253

331.19 DISPOSAL (COMMERCIAL) 331.19.21 Transportation to Storage/Disposal Facility Load and Haul $4,994 Transportation to Storage/Disposal Facility Residual Waste $322,990 Management

$327,984

331.22 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS (Optional Breakout) 331.22.03 Warehouse, Materials Handling, and Purchasing Professional Labor $490,472 Management

$490,472

Total: $862,709

HTRW RA WBS Total: $862,709

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:23:47 PM Page: 42 of 46 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

Site:

Site ID: Tower Site Name: Tower Site Type: POL impacts Media/Waste Type Primary: Soil Secondary: N/A

Contaminant Primary: Fuels Secondary: Fuels

Stage Names SI: RI/FS, EE/CA: RD: IRA, RmA-C: RA-C: RA-O: LTM: PCO:

Documentation Description: Tower - Groundwater is from 3 to 3.75 feet bgs The only surface water body near the Tower area sources is inimpacted by site-related contamination. Support Team: Documentation of personnel used to provide support for estimator and preparation of the estimate. References: Documentation of reference sources used in the preparation of the estimate.

Estimator Signature: Date:

Reviewer Information Reviewer Name: Reviewer Title:

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:23:47 PM Page: 43 of 46 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups) Agency/Org./Office: Business Address: Telephone Number: Email Address: Date Reviewed:

Reviewer Signature: Date:

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:23:47 PM Page: 44 of 46 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

Stage:

Stage Type: Remedial Action Stage Name: RA-C Description: excavation of the HOT POL and metals Approach: Ex Situ Start Date: December, 2011 Labor Rate Group: System Labor Rate Analysis Rate Group: System Analysis Rate Stage Markups: System Defaults Technology Markups Markup % Prime % Sub. Excavation Yes 100 0 Residual Waste Management Yes 100 0 Professional Labor Management Yes 100 0 Load and Haul Yes 100 0

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:23:47 PM Page: 45 of 46 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

HTRW RA WBS Marked Up Costs 331 HTRW REMEDIAL ACTION (CONSTRUCTION)

331.08 SOLIDS COLLECTION AND CONTAINMENT 331.08.01 Contaminated Soil Collection Excavation $16,104

$16,104

331.19 DISPOSAL (COMMERCIAL) 331.19.21 Transportation to Storage/Disposal Facility Load and Haul $1,734 Transportation to Storage/Disposal Facility Residual Waste $8,931 Management

$10,664

331.22 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS (Optional Breakout) 331.22.03 Warehouse, Materials Handling, and Purchasing Professional Labor $18,429 Management

$18,429

Total: $45,197

HTRW RA WBS Total: $45,197

Total: $5,336,495

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:23:47 PM Page: 46 of 46 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

System:

RACER Version: 10.4.0 Database Location: P:\Projects\Clients U-Z\USACE\W911KB-08-D-0004\2008 Task Orders\451 and 452 - Tanaga & Ogliuga RI-FS\15 HTRW FS\tanaga and ogliuga_method three.mdb

Folder:

Folder Name: Tanaga and Ogliuga

Alternative:

Alternative ID: Alternative 04: Landfarming Alternative Name: 04: Landfarming Alternative Category: None

Location State / Country: ALASKA City: ALEUTIAN ISLANDS

Location Modifier Default User 3.159 3.159

Options Database: Modified System Cost Database Date: 2011 Report Option: Calendar

Description Landfarming with selective excavation of the metals. Options changed to a modified system cost.

Landfarming is landfill treatment with the addition of periodic tilling or turning to aerate the waste. To optimize the rate of contaminant degradation, soil conditions are carefully controlled. Actions such as moisture control through irrigation, aeration through soil rotation, pH through the addition of lime, and other amendments such as nutrients and soil bulking agents are performed. Landfarming is most successful in treating petroleum hydrocarbons, especially lighter, more volatile hydrocarbons such as gasoline. The efficiency of landfarming is determined by the type and concentration of contaminants, soil type moisture, temperature, application frequency, waste loading rates, volatilization, and aeration. Landfarming is limited in applicability and effectiveness by the following: length of time to complete remediation is dependent on the conditions

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:02 PM Page: 1 of 54 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups) affecting biological degradation of contaminants such as temperature and moisture; biodegradation does not occur for inorganic contaminants; tilling and other handling operations can create fugitive dust; a large amount of space is required; and runoff collection facilities must be constructed and monitored. Data requirements include soil particle size distribution, moisture content, pH, concentrations of the total organic content, surface geological features, subsurface geological and hydrogeological features, soil temperature, precipitation, wind velocity and direction, water availability, atmospheric temperature, permeability, and microorganisms. Treatability studies are generally not conducted.

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:02 PM Page: 2 of 54 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

Site:

Site ID: 01: Mobilization Site Name: 01: Mobilization Site Type: None Media/Waste Type Primary: Soil Secondary: N/A

Contaminant Primary: Fuels Secondary: Metals

Stage Names SI: RI/FS, EE/CA: RD: IRA, RmA-C: RA-C: RA-O: LTM: PCO:

Documentation Description: mobilizing to the site. moving soil from Ogliuga to Tanaga Support Team: Documentation of personnel used to provide support for estimator and preparation of the estimate. References: Documentation of reference sources used in the preparation of the estimate.

Estimator Signature: Date:

Reviewer Information Reviewer Name: Reviewer Title: Agency/Org./Office:

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:02 PM Page: 3 of 54 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups) Business Address: Telephone Number: Email Address: Date Reviewed:

Reviewer Signature: Date:

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:02 PM Page: 4 of 54 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

Stage:

Stage Type: Remedial Action Stage Name: RA-C Description: 1 User defined estimate: personnel travel from ANC to Adak and Adak to Tanaga by Tug Boat 2 User defined estimate: equipment on barge (rental during travel), loading and off-loading material, travel to and from, lighter barge for beach landings 3 User defined estimate: camp for personnel 4 User defined estimate: mobilization of the operator in the second year of landfarming. 5 User defined estimate: supplies and remote camp for the operator in the second year of the landfarming 6 User defined estimate: transport of the soil from the Seattle harbor to the Oregon landfill 1 Decon Facilities is for Tanaga. 2 Decon Facilities is for Ogliuga. 1 Residual waste management is the management of the two decon facilities. Approach: Ex Situ Start Date: December, 2011 Labor Rate Group: System Labor Rate Analysis Rate Group: System Analysis Rate Stage Markups: System Defaults Technology Markups Markup % Prime % Sub. PERSONNEL TRAVEL TO TANAGA Yes 100 0 OPERATOR MOB/DEMOB, SECOND YEAR Yes 100 0 REMOTE CAMP, OPERATOR, SECOND YEAR Yes 100 0 BARGE FROM SEA TO TANAGA Yes 100 0 PERSONNEL CAMP Yes 100 0 EQUIPMENT OVER WINTER Yes 100 0 Decontamination Facilities Yes 100 0 Decontamination Facilities Yes 100 0 Residual Waste Management Yes 100 0

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:02 PM Page: 5 of 54 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

HTRW RA WBS Marked Up Costs 331 HTRW REMEDIAL ACTION (CONSTRUCTION)

331.01 MOBILIZATION AND PREPARATORY WORK 331.01.01 Mobilization of Construction Equipment and BARGE FROM SEA TO $2,554,308 Facilities TANAGA 331.01.04 Setup/Construct Temporary Facilities Decontamination $55,366 Facilities Setup/Construct Temporary Facilities Decontamination $55,366 Facilities 331.01.01 Mobilization of Construction Equipment and EQUIPMENT OVER $41,059 Facilities WINTER 331.01.02 Mobilization of Personnel OPERATOR $62,806 MOB/DEMOB, SECOND YEAR 331.01.01 Mobilization of Construction Equipment and PERSONNEL CAMP $507,362 Facilities 331.01.02 Mobilization of Personnel PERSONNEL TRAVEL $58,060 TO TANAGA 331.01.05 Construct Temporary Utilities REMOTE CAMP, $351,648 OPERATOR, SECOND YEAR

$3,685,974

331.19 DISPOSAL (COMMERCIAL) 331.19.21 Transportation to Storage/Disposal Facility Residual Waste $35,235 Management

$35,235

Total: $3,721,209

HTRW RA WBS Total: $3,721,209

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:02 PM Page: 6 of 54 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

Site:

Site ID: 02: Landfarming Site Name: 02: Landfarming Site Type: None Media/Waste Type Primary: Soil Secondary: N/A

Contaminant Primary: Fuels Secondary: Metals

Stage Names SI: RI/FS, EE/CA: RD: IRA, RmA-C: RA-C: RA-O: LTM: PCO:

Documentation Description: landfarming of all Tanaga Support Team: Documentation of personnel used to provide support for estimator and preparation of the estimate. References: Documentation of reference sources used in the preparation of the estimate.

Estimator Signature: Date:

Reviewer Information Reviewer Name: Reviewer Title: Agency/Org./Office:

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:02 PM Page: 7 of 54 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups) Business Address: Telephone Number: Email Address: Date Reviewed:

Reviewer Signature: Date:

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:02 PM Page: 8 of 54 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

Stage:

Stage Type: Remedial Action Stage Name: RA-C Description: landfarming component of Tanaga and Ogliuga. 3.31226 acres of cleanup and landscaping plus 2.0 acres of landfarming, plus land use controls for landfarm Approach: Ex Situ Start Date: December, 2011 Labor Rate Group: System Labor Rate Analysis Rate Group: System Analysis Rate Stage Markups: System Defaults Technology Markups Markup % Prime % Sub. Ex Situ Land Farming Yes 100 0 ADMINISTRATIVE LAND USE CONTROLS Yes 100 0 Cleanup and Landscaping Yes 100 0

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:02 PM Page: 9 of 54 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

HTRW RA WBS Marked Up Costs 331 HTRW REMEDIAL ACTION (CONSTRUCTION)

331.01 MOBILIZATION AND PREPARATORY WORK 331.01.03 Submittals/Implementation Plans ADMINISTRATIVE LAND $1,652,558 USE CONTROLS

$1,652,558

331.03 SITEWORK 331.03.04 Roads/Parking/Curbs/Walks Cleanup and $118,854 Landscaping

$118,854

331.11 BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT 331.11.03 Land Treatment/Farming (Solid Phase Ex Situ Land Farming $1,436,931 Biodegradation)

$1,436,931

Total: $3,208,343

HTRW RA WBS Total: $3,208,343

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:02 PM Page: 10 of 54 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

Site:

Site ID: 03: Post Review and Close-Out Site Name: 03: Post Review and Close-Out Site Type: None Media/Waste Type Primary: Soil Secondary: N/A

Contaminant Primary: Fuels Secondary: Metals

Stage Names SI: RI/FS, EE/CA: RD: IRA, RmA-C: RA-C: RA-O: LTM: PCO:

Estimator Signature: Date:

Reviewer Information Reviewer Name: Reviewer Title: Agency/Org./Office:

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:02 PM Page: 11 of 54 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups) Business Address: Telephone Number: Email Address: Date Reviewed:

Reviewer Signature: Date:

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:02 PM Page: 12 of 54 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

Stage:

Stage Type: Site Closeout Stage Name: PCO Description: five year review and site-close out

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:02 PM Page: 13 of 54 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

HTRW RA WBS Marked Up Costs 331 HTRW REMEDIAL ACTION (CONSTRUCTION)

331.20 SITE RESTORATION 331.20.90 Other Five-Year Review $77,363 Other Site Close-Out $98,010 Documentation

$175,373

Total: $175,373

HTRW RA WBS Total: $175,373

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:02 PM Page: 14 of 54 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

Site:

Site ID: Airstrip Site Name: Airstrip Site Type: POL impacts Media/Waste Type Primary: Soil Secondary: N/A

Contaminant Primary: Fuels Secondary: Metals

Stage Names SI: RI/FS, EE/CA: RD: IRA, RmA-C: RA-C: RA-O: LTM: PCO:

Estimator Signature: Date:

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:02 PM Page: 15 of 54 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

Reviewer Information Reviewer Name: Reviewer Title: Agency/Org./Office: Business Address: Telephone Number: Email Address: Date Reviewed:

Reviewer Signature: Date:

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:02 PM Page: 16 of 54 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

Stage:

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:02 PM Page: 17 of 54 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

HTRW RA WBS Marked Up Costs 331 HTRW REMEDIAL ACTION (CONSTRUCTION)

331.08 SOLIDS COLLECTION AND CONTAINMENT 331.08.01 Contaminated Soil Collection Excavation $18,911 Contaminated Soil Collection Excavation $12,337

$31,248

331.19 DISPOSAL (COMMERCIAL) 331.19.21 Transportation to Storage/Disposal Facility Load and Haul $1,734 Transportation to Storage/Disposal Facility Residual Waste $3,677 Management

$5,411

331.22 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS (Optional Breakout) 331.22.03 Warehouse, Materials Handling, and Purchasing Professional Labor $7,855 Management

$7,855

Total: $44,514

HTRW RA WBS Total: $44,514

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:02 PM Page: 18 of 54 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

Site:

Site ID: Barrel Dump Site Name: Barrel Dump Site Type: POL impacts Media/Waste Type Primary: Soil Secondary: Free Product

Contaminant Primary: Fuels Secondary: Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)

Stage Names SI: RI/FS, EE/CA: RD: IRA, RmA-C: RA-C: RA-O: LTM: PCO:

Estimator Signature: Date:

Reviewer Information Reviewer Name:

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:02 PM Page: 19 of 54 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups) Reviewer Title: Agency/Org./Office: Business Address: Telephone Number: Email Address: Date Reviewed:

Reviewer Signature: Date:

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:02 PM Page: 20 of 54 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

Stage:

Stage Type: Remedial Action Stage Name: RA-C Description: excavation of the POL. groundwater extraction wells were not added due to the preexistence of wells. discharge to POTW not included. 4103 cubic yards. Approach: Ex Situ Start Date: December, 2011 Labor Rate Group: System Labor Rate Analysis Rate Group: System Analysis Rate Stage Markups: System Defaults Technology Markups Markup % Prime % Sub. Excavation Yes 100 0 Professional Labor Management Yes 100 0 Load and Haul Yes 100 0

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:02 PM Page: 21 of 54 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

HTRW RA WBS Marked Up Costs 331 HTRW REMEDIAL ACTION (CONSTRUCTION)

331.08 SOLIDS COLLECTION AND CONTAINMENT 331.08.01 Contaminated Soil Collection Excavation $63,139

$63,139

331.19 DISPOSAL (COMMERCIAL) 331.19.21 Transportation to Storage/Disposal Facility Load and Haul $28,228

$28,228

331.22 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS (Optional Breakout) 331.22.03 Warehouse, Materials Handling, and Purchasing Professional Labor $303,557 Management

$303,557

Total: $394,924

HTRW RA WBS Total: $394,924

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:02 PM Page: 22 of 54 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

Site:

Site ID: Main Camp Site Name: Main Camp Site Type: POL impacts Media/Waste Type Primary: Soil Secondary: N/A

Contaminant Primary: Fuels Secondary: Metals

Stage Names SI: RI/FS, EE/CA: RD: IRA, RmA-C: RA-C: RA-O: LTM: PCO:

Groundwater depths ranged from 0.06 to 1.62 feet bgs, indicating essentially staurated conditions. The presence of numerous drainage ditches in this area indicates that water-logged conditions also were a problem at the time of occupation. The shallow groundwater indicates that there is essentially no unsaturated zone present. Soil excavations in this area also encountered water at a foot or less. The presence of a permanent stream to the east of the Main Camp area and the drainage ditches directed towards the stream, indicate that groundwater flows to this creek. M01 - 55 gallon drums, 12 drums in the Main Camp area. Fuel is the only concern of the site. MC06 - 55 gallon drums, Three small piles (15 to 20 drums per pile) on western side of the Main Camp MC08 - Batteries at collasped machine shop, Former battery locations on wooden floor among debris within the footprint of the collapsed building MC12 - oil waste drums, two partial non-galvanized drums (possibly waste oil) and one intact drum suspected to contain motor oil MC13 - battery, Two bare spots located immediately west of a collapsed building with abundant wood and metal debris in the area MC18 - Transformers near fallen power pole, Power pole lying on the ground Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:02 PM Page: 23 of 54 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups) next to a partially collapsed wooden building with wood and metal debris surrounding the pole MC19 - Collasped building with fuel tank, collasped buildings, a fuel tank, and drums, includes T89, T90B, T91B, Feature MC18, a PCB source is immediately adjacent to the area. MC22 - Debris and 150-gallon fuel tank, an empty 150-gallon fuel tank located next to several collasped buildings in the central portion of the Main Camp area MC24 - Collapsed latrines and barracks with fuel box, Empty fuel box located on the northern edge of the Main Camp MC29 - Two batteries, two batteries located approximately 50 feet south of MC10 and 30 feet east of well MCA-MW05, new location added to the scope Support Team: Documentation of personnel used to provide support for estimator and preparation of the estimate. References: Documentation of reference sources used in the preparation of the estimate.

Estimator Signature: Date:

Reviewer Information Reviewer Name: Reviewer Title: Agency/Org./Office: Business Address: Telephone Number: Email Address: Date Reviewed:

Reviewer Signature: Date:

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:02 PM Page: 24 of 54 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

Stage:

Stage Type: Remedial Action Stage Name: RA-C Description: landfarming limited by 100 cubic yards treated Approach: Ex Situ Start Date: December, 2011 Labor Rate Group: System Labor Rate Analysis Rate Group: System Analysis Rate Stage Markups: System Defaults Technology Markups Markup % Prime % Sub. Excavation Yes 100 0 Residual Waste Management Yes 100 0 Excavation Yes 100 0 Professional Labor Management Yes 100 0 Load and Haul Yes 100 0

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:02 PM Page: 25 of 54 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

HTRW RA WBS Marked Up Costs 331 HTRW REMEDIAL ACTION (CONSTRUCTION)

331.08 SOLIDS COLLECTION AND CONTAINMENT 331.08.01 Contaminated Soil Collection Excavation $118,021 Contaminated Soil Collection Excavation $13,272

$131,293

331.19 DISPOSAL (COMMERCIAL) 331.19.21 Transportation to Storage/Disposal Facility Load and Haul $17,478 Transportation to Storage/Disposal Facility Residual Waste $22,602 Management

$40,080

331.22 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS (Optional Breakout) 331.22.03 Warehouse, Materials Handling, and Purchasing Professional Labor $220,996 Management

$220,996

Total: $392,369

HTRW RA WBS Total: $392,369

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:02 PM Page: 26 of 54 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

Site:

Site ID: North Airstrip Site Name: North Airstrip Site Type: POL impacts Media/Waste Type Primary: Soil Secondary: N/A

Contaminant Primary: Fuels Secondary: None

Stage Names SI: RI/FS, EE/CA: RD: IRA, RmA-C: RA-C: RA-O: LTM: PCO:

Estimator Signature: Date:

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:02 PM Page: 27 of 54 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups) Reviewer Information Reviewer Name: Reviewer Title: Agency/Org./Office: Business Address: Telephone Number: Email Address: Date Reviewed:

Reviewer Signature: Date:

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:02 PM Page: 28 of 54 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

Stage:

Stage Type: Remedial Action Stage Name: RA-C Description: landfarming limited by 100 cubic yards treated Approach: Ex Situ Start Date: December, 2011 Labor Rate Group: System Labor Rate Analysis Rate Group: System Analysis Rate Stage Markups: System Defaults Technology Markups Markup % Prime % Sub. Excavation Yes 100 0 Professional Labor Management Yes 100 0 Load and Haul Yes 100 0

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:02 PM Page: 29 of 54 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

HTRW RA WBS Marked Up Costs 331 HTRW REMEDIAL ACTION (CONSTRUCTION)

331.08 SOLIDS COLLECTION AND CONTAINMENT 331.08.01 Contaminated Soil Collection Excavation $15,023

$15,023

331.19 DISPOSAL (COMMERCIAL) 331.19.21 Transportation to Storage/Disposal Facility Load and Haul $1,734

$1,734

331.22 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS (Optional Breakout) 331.22.03 Warehouse, Materials Handling, and Purchasing Professional Labor $4,175 Management

$4,175

Total: $20,932

HTRW RA WBS Total: $20,932

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:02 PM Page: 30 of 54 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

Site:

Site ID: Ogliuga East Site Name: Ogliuga East Site Type: POL impacts Media/Waste Type Primary: Soil Secondary: N/A

Contaminant Primary: Fuels Secondary: None

Stage Names SI: RI/FS, EE/CA: RD: IRA, RmA-C: RA-C: RA-O: LTM: PCO:

Documentation Description: four barrel piles with avaition fuel. location of linking drums Support Team: Documentation of personnel used to provide support for estimator and preparation of the estimate. References: Documentation of reference sources used in the preparation of the estimate.

Estimator Signature: Date:

Reviewer Information Reviewer Name: Reviewer Title: Agency/Org./Office:

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:02 PM Page: 31 of 54 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups) Business Address: Telephone Number: Email Address: Date Reviewed:

Reviewer Signature: Date:

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:02 PM Page: 32 of 54 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

Stage:

Stage Type: Remedial Action Stage Name: RA-C Description: landfarming limited by 100 cubic yards treated Approach: Ex Situ Start Date: December, 2011 Labor Rate Group: System Labor Rate Analysis Rate Group: System Analysis Rate Stage Markups: System Defaults Technology Markups Markup % Prime % Sub. Excavation Yes 100 0 Professional Labor Management Yes 100 0 Load and Haul Yes 100 0

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:02 PM Page: 33 of 54 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

HTRW RA WBS Marked Up Costs 331 HTRW REMEDIAL ACTION (CONSTRUCTION)

331.08 SOLIDS COLLECTION AND CONTAINMENT 331.08.01 Contaminated Soil Collection Excavation $14,449

$14,449

331.19 DISPOSAL (COMMERCIAL) 331.19.21 Transportation to Storage/Disposal Facility Load and Haul $1,734

$1,734

331.22 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS (Optional Breakout) 331.22.03 Warehouse, Materials Handling, and Purchasing Professional Labor $3,419 Management

$3,419

Total: $19,601

HTRW RA WBS Total: $19,601

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:02 PM Page: 34 of 54 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

Site:

Site ID: Ogliuga Runway Site Name: Ogliuga Runway Site Type: POL impacts Media/Waste Type Primary: Soil Secondary: Groundwater

Contaminant Primary: Fuels Secondary: Metals

Stage Names SI: RI/FS, EE/CA: RD: IRA, RmA-C: RA-C: RA-O: LTM: PCO:

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:02 PM Page: 35 of 54 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups) Estimator Signature: Date:

Reviewer Information Reviewer Name: Reviewer Title: Agency/Org./Office: Business Address: Telephone Number: Email Address: Date Reviewed:

Reviewer Signature: Date:

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:02 PM Page: 36 of 54 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

Stage:

Stage Type: Remedial Action Stage Name: RA-C Description: landfarming limited by 100 cubic yards treated Approach: Ex Situ Start Date: December, 2011 Labor Rate Group: System Labor Rate Analysis Rate Group: System Analysis Rate Stage Markups: System Defaults Technology Markups Markup % Prime % Sub. Excavation Yes 100 0 Professional Labor Management Yes 100 0 Excavation Yes 100 0 Load and Haul Yes 100 0

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:02 PM Page: 37 of 54 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

HTRW RA WBS Marked Up Costs 331 HTRW REMEDIAL ACTION (CONSTRUCTION)

331.08 SOLIDS COLLECTION AND CONTAINMENT 331.08.01 Contaminated Soil Collection Excavation $20,421 Contaminated Soil Collection Excavation $12,337

$32,758

331.19 DISPOSAL (COMMERCIAL) 331.19.21 Transportation to Storage/Disposal Facility Load and Haul $1,734

$1,734

331.22 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS (Optional Breakout) 331.22.03 Warehouse, Materials Handling, and Purchasing Professional Labor $10,432 Management

$10,432

Total: $44,924

HTRW RA WBS Total: $44,924

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:02 PM Page: 38 of 54 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

Site:

Site ID: Ogliuga West Site Name: Ogliuga West Site Type: POL impacts Media/Waste Type Primary: Soil Secondary: N/A

Contaminant Primary: Fuels Secondary: Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)

Stage Names SI: RI/FS, EE/CA: RD: IRA, RmA-C: RA-C: RA-O: LTM: PCO:

Estimator Signature: Date:

Reviewer Information Reviewer Name: Reviewer Title: Agency/Org./Office:

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:02 PM Page: 39 of 54 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups) Business Address: Telephone Number: Email Address: Date Reviewed:

Reviewer Signature: Date:

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:02 PM Page: 40 of 54 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

Stage:

Stage Type: Remedial Action Stage Name: RA-C Description: landfarming limited by 100 cubic yards treated Approach: Ex Situ Start Date: December, 2011 Labor Rate Group: System Labor Rate Analysis Rate Group: System Analysis Rate Stage Markups: System Defaults Technology Markups Markup % Prime % Sub. Excavation Yes 100 0 Professional Labor Management Yes 100 0 Load and Haul Yes 100 0

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:02 PM Page: 41 of 54 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

HTRW RA WBS Marked Up Costs 331 HTRW REMEDIAL ACTION (CONSTRUCTION)

331.08 SOLIDS COLLECTION AND CONTAINMENT 331.08.01 Contaminated Soil Collection Excavation $17,189

$17,189

331.19 DISPOSAL (COMMERCIAL) 331.19.21 Transportation to Storage/Disposal Facility Load and Haul $1,734

$1,734

331.22 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS (Optional Breakout) 331.22.03 Warehouse, Materials Handling, and Purchasing Professional Labor $4,690 Management

$4,690

Total: $23,612

HTRW RA WBS Total: $23,612

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:02 PM Page: 42 of 54 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

Site:

Site ID: Pumphouse Site Name: Pumphouse Site Type: POL impacts Media/Waste Type Primary: Soil Secondary: N/A

Contaminant Primary: Fuels Secondary: Metals

Stage Names SI: RI/FS, EE/CA: RD: IRA, RmA-C: RA-C: RA-O: LTM: PCO:

Estimator Signature: Date:

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:02 PM Page: 43 of 54 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups) Reviewer Information Reviewer Name: Reviewer Title: Agency/Org./Office: Business Address: Telephone Number: Email Address: Date Reviewed:

Reviewer Signature: Date:

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:02 PM Page: 44 of 54 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

Stage:

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:02 PM Page: 45 of 54 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

HTRW RA WBS Marked Up Costs 331 HTRW REMEDIAL ACTION (CONSTRUCTION)

331.08 SOLIDS COLLECTION AND CONTAINMENT 331.08.01 Contaminated Soil Collection Excavation $37,596 Contaminated Soil Collection Excavation $12,130

$49,725

331.19 DISPOSAL (COMMERCIAL) 331.19.21 Transportation to Storage/Disposal Facility Load and Haul $2,497 Transportation to Storage/Disposal Facility Residual Waste $5,905 Management

$8,402

331.22 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS (Optional Breakout) 331.22.03 Warehouse, Materials Handling, and Purchasing Professional Labor $16,678 Management

$16,678

Total: $74,805

HTRW RA WBS Total: $74,805

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:02 PM Page: 46 of 54 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

Site:

Site ID: Southeast Airstrip Site Name: Southeast Airstrip Site Type: POL impacts Media/Waste Type Primary: Soil Secondary: N/A

Contaminant Primary: Fuels Secondary: Metals

Stage Names SI: RI/FS, EE/CA: RD: IRA, RmA-C: RA-C: RA-O: LTM: PCO:

Estimator Signature: Date:

Reviewer Information Reviewer Name: Reviewer Title: Agency/Org./Office:

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:02 PM Page: 47 of 54 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups) Business Address: Telephone Number: Email Address: Date Reviewed:

Reviewer Signature: Date:

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:02 PM Page: 48 of 54 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

Stage:

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:02 PM Page: 49 of 54 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

HTRW RA WBS Marked Up Costs 331 HTRW REMEDIAL ACTION (CONSTRUCTION)

331.08 SOLIDS COLLECTION AND CONTAINMENT 331.08.01 Contaminated Soil Collection Excavation $45,496 Contaminated Soil Collection Excavation $13,633

$59,129

331.19 DISPOSAL (COMMERCIAL) 331.19.21 Transportation to Storage/Disposal Facility Load and Haul $12,484 Transportation to Storage/Disposal Facility Residual Waste $28,183 Management

$40,667

331.22 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS (Optional Breakout) 331.22.03 Warehouse, Materials Handling, and Purchasing Professional Labor $165,177 Management

$165,177

Total: $264,973

HTRW RA WBS Total: $264,973

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:02 PM Page: 50 of 54 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

Site:

Site ID: Tower Site Name: Tower Site Type: POL impacts Media/Waste Type Primary: Soil Secondary: N/A

Contaminant Primary: Fuels Secondary: Fuels

Stage Names SI: RI/FS, EE/CA: RD: IRA, RmA-C: RA-C: RA-O: LTM: PCO:

Estimator Signature: Date:

Reviewer Information Reviewer Name: Reviewer Title:

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:02 PM Page: 51 of 54 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups) Agency/Org./Office: Business Address: Telephone Number: Email Address: Date Reviewed:

Reviewer Signature: Date:

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:02 PM Page: 52 of 54 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

Stage:

Stage Type: Remedial Action Stage Name: RA-C Description: landfarming limited by 100 cubic yards treated Approach: Ex Situ Start Date: December, 2011 Labor Rate Group: System Labor Rate Analysis Rate Group: System Analysis Rate Stage Markups: System Defaults Technology Markups Markup % Prime % Sub. Excavation Yes 100 0 Professional Labor Management Yes 100 0 Load and Haul Yes 100 0

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:02 PM Page: 53 of 54 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

HTRW RA WBS Marked Up Costs 331 HTRW REMEDIAL ACTION (CONSTRUCTION)

331.08 SOLIDS COLLECTION AND CONTAINMENT 331.08.01 Contaminated Soil Collection Excavation $16,679

$16,679

331.19 DISPOSAL (COMMERCIAL) 331.19.21 Transportation to Storage/Disposal Facility Load and Haul $1,734

$1,734

331.22 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS (Optional Breakout) 331.22.03 Warehouse, Materials Handling, and Purchasing Professional Labor $5,857 Management

$5,857

Total: $24,269

HTRW RA WBS Total: $24,269

Total: $8,409,848

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:02 PM Page: 54 of 54 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

System:

RACER Version: 10.4.0 Database Location: P:\Projects\Clients U-Z\USACE\W911KB-08-D-0004\2008 Task Orders\451 and 452 - Tanaga & Ogliuga RI-FS\15 HTRW FS\tanaga and ogliuga_method three.mdb

Folder:

Folder Name: Tanaga and Ogliuga

Alternative:

Alternative ID: Alternative 05: Mobile Burn Alternative Name: 05: Mobile Burn Alternative Category: None

Location State / Country: ALASKA City: ALEUTIAN ISLANDS

Location Modifier Default User 3.159 3.159

Options Database: Modified System Cost Database Date: 2011 Report Option: Calendar

Description LTTD. Options changed to a modified system cost.

Low temperature thermal desorption (LTTD) is an ex situ treatment process generally applicable to organic compounds in which the contaminated media are heated and constituents are driven off through volatilization. LTTD is a presumptive remedy for VOCs in soil. Temperatures for LTTD range from 300 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) to 1,000°F. Volatilized materials are either collected using condensers, scrubbers, or adsorbers, or are destroyed in an afterburner or catalytic control device. Systems that collect the volatilized constituents produce a waste stream that must be managed. Some residual organic constituents may remain in the treated soil. Conditions that can negatively impact the viability of this technology for treating soil include high clay content and high moisture content. Individual metals may be treated depending on the metal and its form.

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:19 PM Page: 1 of 54 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups) Similar to incineration, some highly volatile metal complexes may be vaporized and collected by the control system. Lower volatility metal complexes will remain in the soil. The low temperatures of LTTD may chemically transform chlorinated organic compounds such as PCBs to more toxic compounds. LTTD is limited in applicability and effectiveness by the following: specific feed-size and materials-handling can impact the applicability and cost; dewatering may be necessary to achieve acceptable soil moisture levels; and highly abrasive feed potentially can damage the processor unit. The critical design parameters for LTTD include required temperatures, retention times, and gas phase control. Required data for evaluating the feasibility of LTTD include soil particle size distribution; moisture content; pH; and concentrations of the total organic content, organic compounds, and heavy metals. Treatability studies for LTTD usually employ a muffle furnace test to evaluate the effects of varying temperatures and retention times, and the nature of process residuals and their handling characteristics. The availability of fuel on site is a limitation for this technology; however, fuel could be transported.

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:19 PM Page: 2 of 54 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

Site:

Site ID: 01: Mobilization Site Name: 01: Mobilization Site Type: None Media/Waste Type Primary: Soil Secondary: N/A

Contaminant Primary: Fuels Secondary: Metals

Stage Names SI: RI/FS, EE/CA: RD: IRA, RmA-C: RA-C: RA-O: LTM: PCO:

Estimator Signature: Date:

Reviewer Information Reviewer Name: Reviewer Title: Agency/Org./Office:

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:19 PM Page: 3 of 54 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups) Business Address: Telephone Number: Email Address: Date Reviewed:

Reviewer Signature: Date:

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:19 PM Page: 4 of 54 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

Stage:

Stage Type: Remedial Action Stage Name: RA-C Description: 1 User defined estimate: personnel travel from ANC to Adak and Adak to Tanaga by Tug Boat 2 User defined estimate: equipment on barge (rental during travel), loading and off-loading material, travel to and from, lighter barge for beach landings 3 User defined estimate: camp for personnel with moving of equipment off barge 1 Decon Facilities is for Tanaga. 2 Decon Facilities is for Ogliuga. 1 Residual waste management is the management of the two decon facilities. Approach: Ex Situ Start Date: December, 2011 Labor Rate Group: System Labor Rate Analysis Rate Group: System Analysis Rate Stage Markups: System Defaults Technology Markups Markup % Prime % Sub. PERSONNEL TRAVEL TO TANAGA Yes 100 0 BARGE FROM SEA TO TANAGA Yes 100 0 PERSONNEL CAMP Yes 100 0 Decontamination Facilities Yes 100 0 Decontamination Facilities Yes 100 0 Residual Waste Management Yes 100 0

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:19 PM Page: 5 of 54 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

HTRW RA WBS Marked Up Costs 331 HTRW REMEDIAL ACTION (CONSTRUCTION)

$3,230,462

331.19 DISPOSAL (COMMERCIAL) 331.19.21 Transportation to Storage/Disposal Facility Residual Waste $35,235 Management

$35,235

Total: $3,265,697

HTRW RA WBS Total: $3,265,697

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:19 PM Page: 6 of 54 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

Site:

Site ID: 02: LTTD Site Name: 02: LTTD Site Type: None Media/Waste Type Primary: Soil Secondary: N/A

Contaminant Primary: Fuels Secondary: None

Stage Names SI: RI/FS, EE/CA: RD: IRA, RmA-C: RA-C: RA-O: LTM: PCO:

Documentation Description: LTTD for the alternative Support Team: Documentation of personnel used to provide support for estimator and preparation of the estimate. References: Documentation of reference sources used in the preparation of the estimate.

Estimator Signature: Date:

Reviewer Information Reviewer Name: Reviewer Title: Agency/Org./Office:

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:19 PM Page: 7 of 54 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups) Business Address: Telephone Number: Email Address: Date Reviewed:

Reviewer Signature: Date:

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:19 PM Page: 8 of 54 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

Stage:

Stage Type: Remedial Action Stage Name: RA-C Description: LTTD 3.31 cleanup and landscaping of excavation Approach: Ex Situ Start Date: December, 2011 Labor Rate Group: System Labor Rate Analysis Rate Group: System Analysis Rate Stage Markups: System Defaults Technology Markups Markup % Prime % Sub. On-site Low Temp. Thermal Desorption Yes 100 0 Professional Labor Management Yes 100 0 Cleanup and Landscaping Yes 100 0

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:19 PM Page: 9 of 54 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

HTRW RA WBS Marked Up Costs 331 HTRW REMEDIAL ACTION (CONSTRUCTION)

331.03 SITEWORK 331.03.04 Roads/Parking/Curbs/Walks Cleanup and $65,032 Landscaping

$65,032

331.14 THERMAL TREATMENT 331.14.02 Low Temperature Thermal Desorption On-site Low Temp. $2,193,621 Thermal Desorption

$2,193,621

331.22 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS (Optional Breakout) 331.22.03 Warehouse, Materials Handling, and Purchasing Professional Labor $346,592 Management

$346,592

Total: $2,605,245

HTRW RA WBS Total: $2,605,245

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:19 PM Page: 10 of 54 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

Site:

Site ID: 03: Post Review and Close-Out Site Name: 03: Post Review and Close-Out Site Type: None Media/Waste Type Primary: Soil Secondary: N/A

Contaminant Primary: Fuels Secondary: Metals

Stage Names SI: RI/FS, EE/CA: RD: IRA, RmA-C: RA-C: RA-O: LTM: PCO:

Estimator Signature: Date:

Reviewer Information Reviewer Name: Reviewer Title: Agency/Org./Office:

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:19 PM Page: 11 of 54 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups) Business Address: Telephone Number: Email Address: Date Reviewed:

Reviewer Signature: Date:

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:19 PM Page: 12 of 54 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

Stage:

Stage Type: Site Closeout Stage Name: PCO Description: five year review and site-close out

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:19 PM Page: 13 of 54 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

HTRW RA WBS Marked Up Costs 331 HTRW REMEDIAL ACTION (CONSTRUCTION)

331.20 SITE RESTORATION 331.20.90 Other Five-Year Review $77,363 Other Site Close-Out $98,010 Documentation

$175,373

Total: $175,373

HTRW RA WBS Total: $175,373

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:19 PM Page: 14 of 54 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

Site:

Site ID: Airstrip Site Name: Airstrip Site Type: POL impacts Media/Waste Type Primary: Soil Secondary: N/A

Contaminant Primary: Fuels Secondary: Metals

Stage Names SI: RI/FS, EE/CA: RD: IRA, RmA-C: RA-C: RA-O: LTM: PCO:

Estimator Signature: Date:

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:19 PM Page: 15 of 54 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

Reviewer Information Reviewer Name: Reviewer Title: Agency/Org./Office: Business Address: Telephone Number: Email Address: Date Reviewed:

Reviewer Signature: Date:

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:19 PM Page: 16 of 54 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

Stage:

Stage Type: Remedial Action Stage Name: RA-C Description: landfarming limited by 100 cubic yards treated Approach: Ex Situ Start Date: December, 2011 Labor Rate Group: System Labor Rate Analysis Rate Group: System Analysis Rate Stage Markups: System Defaults Technology Markups Markup % Prime % Sub. Load and Haul Yes 100 0 Excavation Yes 100 0 Residual Waste Management Yes 100 0 Professional Labor Management Yes 100 0 Excavation Yes 100 0

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:19 PM Page: 17 of 54 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

HTRW RA WBS Marked Up Costs 331 HTRW REMEDIAL ACTION (CONSTRUCTION)

331.08 SOLIDS COLLECTION AND CONTAINMENT 331.08.01 Contaminated Soil Collection Excavation $18,911 Contaminated Soil Collection Excavation $12,337

$31,248

331.19 DISPOSAL (COMMERCIAL) 331.19.21 Transportation to Storage/Disposal Facility Load and Haul $1,734 Transportation to Storage/Disposal Facility Residual Waste $3,677 Management

$5,411

331.22 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS (Optional Breakout) 331.22.03 Warehouse, Materials Handling, and Purchasing Professional Labor $7,855 Management

$7,855

Total: $44,514

HTRW RA WBS Total: $44,514

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:19 PM Page: 18 of 54 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

Site:

Site ID: Barrel Dump Site Name: Barrel Dump Site Type: POL impacts Media/Waste Type Primary: Soil Secondary: Free Product

Contaminant Primary: Fuels Secondary: Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)

Stage Names SI: RI/FS, EE/CA: RD: IRA, RmA-C: RA-C: RA-O: LTM: PCO:

Estimator Signature: Date:

Reviewer Information Reviewer Name:

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:19 PM Page: 19 of 54 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups) Reviewer Title: Agency/Org./Office: Business Address: Telephone Number: Email Address: Date Reviewed:

Reviewer Signature: Date:

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:19 PM Page: 20 of 54 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

Stage:

Stage Type: Remedial Action Stage Name: RA-C Description: excavation of the POL. groundwater extraction wells were not added due to the preexistence of wells. discharge to POTW not included. 4103 cubic yards. Approach: Ex Situ Start Date: December, 2011 Labor Rate Group: System Labor Rate Analysis Rate Group: System Analysis Rate Stage Markups: System Defaults Technology Markups Markup % Prime % Sub. Load and Haul Yes 100 0 Excavation Yes 100 0 Professional Labor Management Yes 100 0

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:19 PM Page: 21 of 54 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

HTRW RA WBS Marked Up Costs 331 HTRW REMEDIAL ACTION (CONSTRUCTION)

331.08 SOLIDS COLLECTION AND CONTAINMENT 331.08.01 Contaminated Soil Collection Excavation $63,139

$63,139

331.19 DISPOSAL (COMMERCIAL) 331.19.21 Transportation to Storage/Disposal Facility Load and Haul $28,228

$28,228

331.22 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS (Optional Breakout) 331.22.03 Warehouse, Materials Handling, and Purchasing Professional Labor $303,557 Management

$303,557

Total: $394,924

HTRW RA WBS Total: $394,924

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:19 PM Page: 22 of 54 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

Site:

Site ID: Main Camp Site Name: Main Camp Site Type: POL impacts Media/Waste Type Primary: Soil Secondary: N/A

Contaminant Primary: Fuels Secondary: Metals

Stage Names SI: RI/FS, EE/CA: RD: IRA, RmA-C: RA-C: RA-O: LTM: PCO:

Groundwater depths ranged from 0.06 to 1.62 feet bgs, indicating essentially staurated conditions. The presence of numerous drainage ditches in this area indicates that water-logged conditions also were a problem at the time of occupation. The shallow groundwater indicates that there is essentially no unsaturated zone present. Soil excavations in this area also encountered water at a foot or less. The presence of a permanent stream to the east of the Main Camp area and the drainage ditches directed towards the stream, indicate that groundwater flows to this creek. M01 - 55 gallon drums, 12 drums in the Main Camp area. Fuel is the only concern of the site. MC06 - 55 gallon drums, Three small piles (15 to 20 drums per pile) on western side of the Main Camp MC08 - Batteries at collasped machine shop, Former battery locations on wooden floor among debris within the footprint of the collapsed building MC12 - oil waste drums, two partial non-galvanized drums (possibly waste oil) and one intact drum suspected to contain motor oil MC13 - battery, Two bare spots located immediately west of a collapsed building with abundant wood and metal debris in the area MC18 - Transformers near fallen power pole, Power pole lying on the ground Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:19 PM Page: 23 of 54 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups) next to a partially collapsed wooden building with wood and metal debris surrounding the pole MC19 - Collasped building with fuel tank, collasped buildings, a fuel tank, and drums, includes T89, T90B, T91B, Feature MC18, a PCB source is immediately adjacent to the area. MC22 - Debris and 150-gallon fuel tank, an empty 150-gallon fuel tank located next to several collasped buildings in the central portion of the Main Camp area MC24 - Collapsed latrines and barracks with fuel box, Empty fuel box located on the northern edge of the Main Camp MC29 - Two batteries, two batteries located approximately 50 feet south of MC10 and 30 feet east of well MCA-MW05, new location added to the scope Support Team: Documentation of personnel used to provide support for estimator and preparation of the estimate. References: Documentation of reference sources used in the preparation of the estimate.

Estimator Signature: Date:

Reviewer Information Reviewer Name: Reviewer Title: Agency/Org./Office: Business Address: Telephone Number: Email Address: Date Reviewed:

Reviewer Signature: Date:

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:19 PM Page: 24 of 54 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

Stage:

Stage Type: Remedial Action Stage Name: RA-C Description: landfarming limited by 100 cubic yards treated Approach: Ex Situ Start Date: December, 2011 Labor Rate Group: System Labor Rate Analysis Rate Group: System Analysis Rate Stage Markups: System Defaults Technology Markups Markup % Prime % Sub. Load and Haul Yes 100 0 Excavation Yes 100 0 Residual Waste Management Yes 100 0 Excavation Yes 100 0 Professional Labor Management Yes 100 0

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:19 PM Page: 25 of 54 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

HTRW RA WBS Marked Up Costs 331 HTRW REMEDIAL ACTION (CONSTRUCTION)

331.08 SOLIDS COLLECTION AND CONTAINMENT 331.08.01 Contaminated Soil Collection Excavation $118,021 Contaminated Soil Collection Excavation $13,272

$131,293

331.19 DISPOSAL (COMMERCIAL) 331.19.21 Transportation to Storage/Disposal Facility Load and Haul $17,478 Transportation to Storage/Disposal Facility Residual Waste $22,602 Management

$40,080

331.22 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS (Optional Breakout) 331.22.03 Warehouse, Materials Handling, and Purchasing Professional Labor $220,996 Management

$220,996

Total: $392,369

HTRW RA WBS Total: $392,369

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:19 PM Page: 26 of 54 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

Site:

Site ID: North Airstrip Site Name: North Airstrip Site Type: POL impacts Media/Waste Type Primary: Soil Secondary: N/A

Contaminant Primary: Fuels Secondary: None

Stage Names SI: RI/FS, EE/CA: RD: IRA, RmA-C: RA-C: RA-O: LTM: PCO:

Estimator Signature: Date:

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:19 PM Page: 27 of 54 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups) Reviewer Information Reviewer Name: Reviewer Title: Agency/Org./Office: Business Address: Telephone Number: Email Address: Date Reviewed:

Reviewer Signature: Date:

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:19 PM Page: 28 of 54 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

Stage:

Stage Type: Remedial Action Stage Name: RA-C Description: landfarming limited by 100 cubic yards treated Approach: Ex Situ Start Date: December, 2011 Labor Rate Group: System Labor Rate Analysis Rate Group: System Analysis Rate Stage Markups: System Defaults Technology Markups Markup % Prime % Sub. Load and Haul Yes 100 0 Excavation Yes 100 0 Professional Labor Management Yes 100 0

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:19 PM Page: 29 of 54 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

HTRW RA WBS Marked Up Costs 331 HTRW REMEDIAL ACTION (CONSTRUCTION)

331.08 SOLIDS COLLECTION AND CONTAINMENT 331.08.01 Contaminated Soil Collection Excavation $15,023

$15,023

331.19 DISPOSAL (COMMERCIAL) 331.19.21 Transportation to Storage/Disposal Facility Load and Haul $1,734

$1,734

331.22 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS (Optional Breakout) 331.22.03 Warehouse, Materials Handling, and Purchasing Professional Labor $4,175 Management

$4,175

Total: $20,932

HTRW RA WBS Total: $20,932

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:19 PM Page: 30 of 54 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

Site:

Site ID: Ogliuga East Site Name: Ogliuga East Site Type: POL impacts Media/Waste Type Primary: Soil Secondary: N/A

Contaminant Primary: Fuels Secondary: None

Stage Names SI: RI/FS, EE/CA: RD: IRA, RmA-C: RA-C: RA-O: LTM: PCO:

Estimator Signature: Date:

Reviewer Information Reviewer Name: Reviewer Title: Agency/Org./Office:

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:19 PM Page: 31 of 54 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups) Business Address: Telephone Number: Email Address: Date Reviewed:

Reviewer Signature: Date:

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:19 PM Page: 32 of 54 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

Stage:

Stage Type: Remedial Action Stage Name: RA-C Description: landfarming limited by 100 cubic yards treated Approach: Ex Situ Start Date: December, 2011 Labor Rate Group: System Labor Rate Analysis Rate Group: System Analysis Rate Stage Markups: System Defaults Technology Markups Markup % Prime % Sub. Load and Haul Yes 100 0 Excavation Yes 100 0 Professional Labor Management Yes 100 0

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:19 PM Page: 33 of 54 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

HTRW RA WBS Marked Up Costs 331 HTRW REMEDIAL ACTION (CONSTRUCTION)

331.08 SOLIDS COLLECTION AND CONTAINMENT 331.08.01 Contaminated Soil Collection Excavation $14,449

$14,449

331.19 DISPOSAL (COMMERCIAL) 331.19.21 Transportation to Storage/Disposal Facility Load and Haul $1,734

$1,734

331.22 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS (Optional Breakout) 331.22.03 Warehouse, Materials Handling, and Purchasing Professional Labor $3,419 Management

$3,419

Total: $19,601

HTRW RA WBS Total: $19,601

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:19 PM Page: 34 of 54 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

Site:

Site ID: Ogliuga Runway Site Name: Ogliuga Runway Site Type: POL impacts Media/Waste Type Primary: Soil Secondary: Groundwater

Contaminant Primary: Fuels Secondary: Metals

Stage Names SI: RI/FS, EE/CA: RD: IRA, RmA-C: RA-C: RA-O: LTM: PCO:

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:19 PM Page: 35 of 54 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups) Estimator Signature: Date:

Reviewer Information Reviewer Name: Reviewer Title: Agency/Org./Office: Business Address: Telephone Number: Email Address: Date Reviewed:

Reviewer Signature: Date:

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:19 PM Page: 36 of 54 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

Stage:

Stage Type: Remedial Action Stage Name: RA-C Description: landfarming limited by 100 cubic yards treated Approach: Ex Situ Start Date: December, 2011 Labor Rate Group: System Labor Rate Analysis Rate Group: System Analysis Rate Stage Markups: System Defaults Technology Markups Markup % Prime % Sub. Load and Haul Yes 100 0 Excavation Yes 100 0 Residual Waste Management Yes 100 0 Professional Labor Management Yes 100 0 Excavation Yes 100 0

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:19 PM Page: 37 of 54 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

HTRW RA WBS Marked Up Costs 331 HTRW REMEDIAL ACTION (CONSTRUCTION)

331.08 SOLIDS COLLECTION AND CONTAINMENT 331.08.01 Contaminated Soil Collection Excavation $20,421 Contaminated Soil Collection Excavation $12,337

$32,758

331.19 DISPOSAL (COMMERCIAL) 331.19.21 Transportation to Storage/Disposal Facility Load and Haul $1,734 Transportation to Storage/Disposal Facility Residual Waste $8,133 Management

$9,867

331.22 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS (Optional Breakout) 331.22.03 Warehouse, Materials Handling, and Purchasing Professional Labor $10,432 Management

$10,432

Total: $53,057

HTRW RA WBS Total: $53,057

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:19 PM Page: 38 of 54 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

Site:

Site ID: Ogliuga West Site Name: Ogliuga West Site Type: POL impacts Media/Waste Type Primary: Soil Secondary: N/A

Contaminant Primary: Fuels Secondary: Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)

Stage Names SI: RI/FS, EE/CA: RD: IRA, RmA-C: RA-C: RA-O: LTM: PCO:

Estimator Signature: Date:

Reviewer Information Reviewer Name: Reviewer Title: Agency/Org./Office:

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:19 PM Page: 39 of 54 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups) Business Address: Telephone Number: Email Address: Date Reviewed:

Reviewer Signature: Date:

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:19 PM Page: 40 of 54 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

Stage:

Stage Type: Remedial Action Stage Name: RA-C Description: landfarming limited by 100 cubic yards treated Approach: Ex Situ Start Date: December, 2011 Labor Rate Group: System Labor Rate Analysis Rate Group: System Analysis Rate Stage Markups: System Defaults Technology Markups Markup % Prime % Sub. Load and Haul Yes 100 0 Excavation Yes 100 0 Professional Labor Management Yes 100 0

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:19 PM Page: 41 of 54 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

HTRW RA WBS Marked Up Costs 331 HTRW REMEDIAL ACTION (CONSTRUCTION)

331.08 SOLIDS COLLECTION AND CONTAINMENT 331.08.01 Contaminated Soil Collection Excavation $17,189

$17,189

331.19 DISPOSAL (COMMERCIAL) 331.19.21 Transportation to Storage/Disposal Facility Load and Haul $1,734

$1,734

331.22 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS (Optional Breakout) 331.22.03 Warehouse, Materials Handling, and Purchasing Professional Labor $4,690 Management

$4,690

Total: $23,612

HTRW RA WBS Total: $23,612

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:19 PM Page: 42 of 54 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

Site:

Site ID: Pumphouse Site Name: Pumphouse Site Type: POL impacts Media/Waste Type Primary: Soil Secondary: N/A

Contaminant Primary: Fuels Secondary: Metals

Stage Names SI: RI/FS, EE/CA: RD: IRA, RmA-C: RA-C: RA-O: LTM: PCO:

Estimator Signature: Date:

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:19 PM Page: 43 of 54 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups) Reviewer Information Reviewer Name: Reviewer Title: Agency/Org./Office: Business Address: Telephone Number: Email Address: Date Reviewed:

Reviewer Signature: Date:

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:19 PM Page: 44 of 54 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

Stage:

Stage Type: Remedial Action Stage Name: RA-C Description: landfarming limited by 100 cubic yards treated Approach: Ex Situ Start Date: December, 2011 Labor Rate Group: System Labor Rate Analysis Rate Group: System Analysis Rate Stage Markups: System Defaults Technology Markups Markup % Prime % Sub. Excavation Yes 100 0 Professional Labor Management Yes 100 0 Excavation Yes 100 0 Load and Haul Yes 100 0 Residual Waste Management Yes 100 0

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:19 PM Page: 45 of 54 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

HTRW RA WBS Marked Up Costs 331 HTRW REMEDIAL ACTION (CONSTRUCTION)

331.08 SOLIDS COLLECTION AND CONTAINMENT 331.08.01 Contaminated Soil Collection Excavation $37,596 Contaminated Soil Collection Excavation $12,130

$49,725

331.19 DISPOSAL (COMMERCIAL) 331.19.21 Transportation to Storage/Disposal Facility Load and Haul $2,497 Transportation to Storage/Disposal Facility Residual Waste $5,905 Management

$8,402

331.22 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS (Optional Breakout) 331.22.03 Warehouse, Materials Handling, and Purchasing Professional Labor $16,678 Management

$16,678

Total: $74,805

HTRW RA WBS Total: $74,805

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:19 PM Page: 46 of 54 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

Site:

Site ID: Southeast Airstrip Site Name: Southeast Airstrip Site Type: POL impacts Media/Waste Type Primary: Soil Secondary: N/A

Contaminant Primary: Fuels Secondary: Metals

Stage Names SI: RI/FS, EE/CA: RD: IRA, RmA-C: RA-C: RA-O: LTM: PCO:

Estimator Signature: Date:

Reviewer Information Reviewer Name: Reviewer Title: Agency/Org./Office:

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:19 PM Page: 47 of 54 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups) Business Address: Telephone Number: Email Address: Date Reviewed:

Reviewer Signature: Date:

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:19 PM Page: 48 of 54 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

Stage:

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:19 PM Page: 49 of 54 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

HTRW RA WBS Marked Up Costs 331 HTRW REMEDIAL ACTION (CONSTRUCTION)

331.08 SOLIDS COLLECTION AND CONTAINMENT 331.08.01 Contaminated Soil Collection Excavation $45,496 Contaminated Soil Collection Excavation $13,633

$59,129

331.19 DISPOSAL (COMMERCIAL) 331.19.21 Transportation to Storage/Disposal Facility Load and Haul $12,484 Transportation to Storage/Disposal Facility Residual Waste $28,183 Management

$40,667

331.22 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS (Optional Breakout) 331.22.03 Warehouse, Materials Handling, and Purchasing Professional Labor $165,177 Management

$165,177

Total: $264,973

HTRW RA WBS Total: $264,973

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:19 PM Page: 50 of 54 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

Site:

Site ID: Tower Site Name: Tower Site Type: POL impacts Media/Waste Type Primary: Soil Secondary: N/A

Contaminant Primary: Fuels Secondary: Fuels

Stage Names SI: RI/FS, EE/CA: RD: IRA, RmA-C: RA-C: RA-O: LTM: PCO:

Estimator Signature: Date:

Reviewer Information Reviewer Name: Reviewer Title:

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:19 PM Page: 51 of 54 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups) Agency/Org./Office: Business Address: Telephone Number: Email Address: Date Reviewed:

Reviewer Signature: Date:

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:19 PM Page: 52 of 54 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

Stage:

Stage Type: Remedial Action Stage Name: RA-C Description: landfarming limited by 100 cubic yards treated Approach: Ex Situ Start Date: December, 2011 Labor Rate Group: System Labor Rate Analysis Rate Group: System Analysis Rate Stage Markups: System Defaults Technology Markups Markup % Prime % Sub. Excavation Yes 100 0 Professional Labor Management Yes 100 0 Load and Haul Yes 100 0

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:19 PM Page: 53 of 54 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

HTRW RA WBS Marked Up Costs 331 HTRW REMEDIAL ACTION (CONSTRUCTION)

331.08 SOLIDS COLLECTION AND CONTAINMENT 331.08.01 Contaminated Soil Collection Excavation $16,679

$16,679

331.19 DISPOSAL (COMMERCIAL) 331.19.21 Transportation to Storage/Disposal Facility Load and Haul $1,734

$1,734

331.22 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS (Optional Breakout) 331.22.03 Warehouse, Materials Handling, and Purchasing Professional Labor $5,857 Management

$5,857

Total: $24,269

HTRW RA WBS Total: $24,269

Total: $7,359,371

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:19 PM Page: 54 of 54 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

System:

RACER Version: 10.4.0 Database Location: P:\Projects\Clients U-Z\USACE\W911KB-08-D-0004\2008 Task Orders\451 and 452 - Tanaga & Ogliuga RI-FS\15 HTRW FS\tanaga and ogliuga_method three.mdb

Folder:

Folder Name: Tanaga and Ogliuga

Alternative:

Alternative ID: Alternative 06: Complete Removal Alternative Name: 06: Complete Removal Alternative Category: None

Location State / Country: ALASKA City: ALEUTIAN ISLANDS

Location Modifier Default User 3.159 3.159

Options Database: Modified System Cost Database Date: 2011 Report Option: Calendar

Description Complete Removal and Off-site Disposal/Treatment. Options changed to a modified system cost.

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:32 PM Page: 1 of 50 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups) options, and partial excavation may be required to implement containment options. Following excavation of potentially contaminated soil, the soil remaining in the open excavations would be sampled for analytical testing to determine whether any contamination remained and the levels and extent of the remaining contaminated soil.

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:32 PM Page: 2 of 50 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

Site:

Site ID: 01: Mobilization Site Name: 01: Mobilization Site Type: None Media/Waste Type Primary: Soil Secondary: N/A

Contaminant Primary: Fuels Secondary: Metals

Stage Names SI: RI/FS, EE/CA: RD: IRA, RmA-C: RA-C: RA-O: LTM: PCO:

Estimator Signature: Date:

Reviewer Information Reviewer Name: Reviewer Title: Agency/Org./Office:

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:32 PM Page: 3 of 50 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups) Business Address: Telephone Number: Email Address: Date Reviewed:

Reviewer Signature: Date:

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:32 PM Page: 4 of 50 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

Stage:

Stage Type: Remedial Action Stage Name: RA-C Description: 1 User defined estimate: personnel travel from ANC to Adak and Adak to Tanaga by Tug Boat 2 User defined estimate: equipment on barge (rental during travel), loading and off-loading material, travel to and from, lighter barge for beach landings 3 User defined estimate: camp for personnel with moving of equipment off barge 4 User defined estimate: the transportation of the soil from Seattle harbor to Oregon landfill and the transportation of soils from the Anchorage harbor to POL incinerator 1 Decon Facilities is for Tanaga. 2 Decon Facilities is for Ogliuga. 1 Residual waste management is the management of the two decon facilities. Approach: Ex Situ Start Date: December, 2011 Labor Rate Group: System Labor Rate Analysis Rate Group: System Analysis Rate Stage Markups: System Defaults Technology Markups Markup % Prime % Sub. SOIL TRANSPORT Yes 100 0 PERSONNEL TRAVEL TO TANAGA Yes 100 0 BARGE FROM SEA TO TANAGA Yes 100 0 PERSONNEL CAMP Yes 100 0 Decontamination Facilities Yes 100 0 Decontamination Facilities Yes 100 0 Residual Waste Management Yes 100 0

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:32 PM Page: 5 of 50 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

HTRW RA WBS Marked Up Costs 331 HTRW REMEDIAL ACTION (CONSTRUCTION)

331.01 MOBILIZATION AND PREPARATORY WORK 331.01.01 Mobilization of Construction Equipment and BARGE FROM SEA TO $5,621,508 Facilities TANAGA 331.01.04 Setup/Construct Temporary Facilities Decontamination $55,366 Facilities Setup/Construct Temporary Facilities Decontamination $55,366 Facilities 331.01.01 Mobilization of Construction Equipment and PERSONNEL CAMP $507,362 Facilities 331.01.02 Mobilization of Personnel PERSONNEL TRAVEL $58,060 TO TANAGA 331.01.01 Mobilization of Construction Equipment and SOIL TRANSPORT $6,859 Facilities

$6,304,521

331.19 DISPOSAL (COMMERCIAL) 331.19.21 Transportation to Storage/Disposal Facility Residual Waste $35,235 Management

$35,235

Total: $6,339,755

HTRW RA WBS Total: $6,339,755

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:32 PM Page: 6 of 50 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

Site:

Site ID: 02: Post Review and Close-Out Site Name: 02: Post Review and Close-Out Site Type: None Media/Waste Type Primary: Soil Secondary: N/A

Contaminant Primary: Fuels Secondary: Metals

Stage Names SI: RI/FS, EE/CA: RD: IRA, RmA-C: RA-C: RA-O: LTM: PCO:

Documentation Description: post review and close out for both islands for every five years Support Team: Documentation of personnel used to provide support for estimator and preparation of the estimate. References: Documentation of reference sources used in the preparation of the estimate.

Estimator Signature: Date:

Reviewer Information Reviewer Name: Reviewer Title: Agency/Org./Office:

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:32 PM Page: 7 of 50 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups) Business Address: Telephone Number: Email Address: Date Reviewed:

Reviewer Signature: Date:

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:32 PM Page: 8 of 50 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

Stage:

Stage Type: Site Closeout Stage Name: PCO Description: five year review and site-close out

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:32 PM Page: 9 of 50 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

HTRW RA WBS Marked Up Costs 331 HTRW REMEDIAL ACTION (CONSTRUCTION)

331.20 SITE RESTORATION 331.20.90 Other Five-Year Review $77,363 Other Site Close-Out $98,010 Documentation

$175,373

Total: $175,373

HTRW RA WBS Total: $175,373

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:32 PM Page: 10 of 50 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

Site:

Site ID: Airstrip Site Name: Airstrip Site Type: POL impacts Media/Waste Type Primary: Soil Secondary: N/A

Contaminant Primary: Fuels Secondary: Metals

Stage Names SI: RI/FS, EE/CA: RD: IRA, RmA-C: RA-C: RA-O: LTM: PCO:

Estimator Signature: Date:

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:32 PM Page: 11 of 50 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

Reviewer Information Reviewer Name: Reviewer Title: Agency/Org./Office: Business Address: Telephone Number: Email Address: Date Reviewed:

Reviewer Signature: Date:

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:32 PM Page: 12 of 50 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

Stage:

Stage Type: Remedial Action Stage Name: RA-C Description: landfarming limited by 100 cubic yards treated Approach: Ex Situ Start Date: December, 2011 Labor Rate Group: System Labor Rate Analysis Rate Group: System Analysis Rate Stage Markups: System Defaults Technology Markups Markup % Prime % Sub. Load and Haul Yes 100 0 Excavation Yes 100 0 Residual Waste Management Yes 100 0 Professional Labor Management Yes 100 0 Excavation Yes 100 0

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:32 PM Page: 13 of 50 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

HTRW RA WBS Marked Up Costs 331 HTRW REMEDIAL ACTION (CONSTRUCTION)

331.08 SOLIDS COLLECTION AND CONTAINMENT 331.08.01 Contaminated Soil Collection Excavation $18,911 Contaminated Soil Collection Excavation $12,337

$31,248

331.19 DISPOSAL (COMMERCIAL) 331.19.21 Transportation to Storage/Disposal Facility Load and Haul $1,734 Transportation to Storage/Disposal Facility Residual Waste $7,830 Management

$9,564

331.22 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS (Optional Breakout) 331.22.03 Warehouse, Materials Handling, and Purchasing Professional Labor $7,855 Management

$7,855

Total: $48,667

HTRW RA WBS Total: $48,667

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:32 PM Page: 14 of 50 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

Site:

Site ID: Barrel Dump Site Name: Barrel Dump Site Type: POL impacts Media/Waste Type Primary: Soil Secondary: Free Product

Contaminant Primary: Fuels Secondary: Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)

Stage Names SI: RI/FS, EE/CA: RD: IRA, RmA-C: RA-C: RA-O: LTM: PCO:

Estimator Signature: Date:

Reviewer Information Reviewer Name:

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:32 PM Page: 15 of 50 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups) Reviewer Title: Agency/Org./Office: Business Address: Telephone Number: Email Address: Date Reviewed:

Reviewer Signature: Date:

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:32 PM Page: 16 of 50 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

Stage:

Stage Type: Remedial Action Stage Name: RA-C Description: excavation of the POL. groundwater extraction wells were not added due to the preexistence of wells. discharge to POTW not included. 4103 cubic yards. Approach: Ex Situ Start Date: December, 2011 Labor Rate Group: System Labor Rate Analysis Rate Group: System Analysis Rate Stage Markups: System Defaults Technology Markups Markup % Prime % Sub. Load and Haul Yes 100 0 Excavation Yes 100 0 Residual Waste Management Yes 100 0 Professional Labor Management Yes 100 0

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:32 PM Page: 17 of 50 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

HTRW RA WBS Marked Up Costs 331 HTRW REMEDIAL ACTION (CONSTRUCTION)

331.08 SOLIDS COLLECTION AND CONTAINMENT 331.08.01 Contaminated Soil Collection Excavation $63,139

$63,139

331.19 DISPOSAL (COMMERCIAL) 331.19.21 Transportation to Storage/Disposal Facility Load and Haul $28,228 Transportation to Storage/Disposal Facility Residual Waste $1,787,818 Management

$1,816,046

331.22 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS (Optional Breakout) 331.22.03 Warehouse, Materials Handling, and Purchasing Professional Labor $303,557 Management

$303,557

Total: $2,182,742

HTRW RA WBS Total: $2,182,742

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:32 PM Page: 18 of 50 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

Site:

Site ID: Main Camp Site Name: Main Camp Site Type: POL impacts Media/Waste Type Primary: Soil Secondary: N/A

Contaminant Primary: Fuels Secondary: Metals

Stage Names SI: RI/FS, EE/CA: RD: IRA, RmA-C: RA-C: RA-O: LTM: PCO:

Groundwater depths ranged from 0.06 to 1.62 feet bgs, indicating essentially staurated conditions. The presence of numerous drainage ditches in this area indicates that water-logged conditions also were a problem at the time of occupation. The shallow groundwater indicates that there is essentially no unsaturated zone present. Soil excavations in this area also encountered water at a foot or less. The presence of a permanent stream to the east of the Main Camp area and the drainage ditches directed towards the stream, indicate that groundwater flows to this creek. M01 - 55 gallon drums, 12 drums in the Main Camp area. Fuel is the only concern of the site. MC06 - 55 gallon drums, Three small piles (15 to 20 drums per pile) on western side of the Main Camp MC08 - Batteries at collasped machine shop, Former battery locations on wooden floor among debris within the footprint of the collapsed building MC12 - oil waste drums, two partial non-galvanized drums (possibly waste oil) and one intact drum suspected to contain motor oil MC13 - battery, Two bare spots located immediately west of a collapsed building with abundant wood and metal debris in the area MC18 - Transformers near fallen power pole, Power pole lying on the ground Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:32 PM Page: 19 of 50 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups) next to a partially collapsed wooden building with wood and metal debris surrounding the pole MC19 - Collasped building with fuel tank, collasped buildings, a fuel tank, and drums, includes T89, T90B, T91B, Feature MC18, a PCB source is immediately adjacent to the area. MC22 - Debris and 150-gallon fuel tank, an empty 150-gallon fuel tank located next to several collasped buildings in the central portion of the Main Camp area MC24 - Collapsed latrines and barracks with fuel box, Empty fuel box located on the northern edge of the Main Camp MC29 - Two batteries, two batteries located approximately 50 feet south of MC10 and 30 feet east of well MCA-MW05, new location added to the scope Support Team: Documentation of personnel used to provide support for estimator and preparation of the estimate. References: Documentation of reference sources used in the preparation of the estimate.

Estimator Signature: Date:

Reviewer Information Reviewer Name: Reviewer Title: Agency/Org./Office: Business Address: Telephone Number: Email Address: Date Reviewed:

Reviewer Signature: Date:

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:32 PM Page: 20 of 50 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

Stage:

Stage Type: Remedial Action Stage Name: RA-C Description: landfarming limited by 100 cubic yards treated Approach: Ex Situ Start Date: December, 2011 Labor Rate Group: System Labor Rate Analysis Rate Group: System Analysis Rate Stage Markups: System Defaults Technology Markups Markup % Prime % Sub. Load and Haul Yes 100 0 Excavation Yes 100 0 Residual Waste Management Yes 100 0 Excavation Yes 100 0 Professional Labor Management Yes 100 0

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:32 PM Page: 21 of 50 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

HTRW RA WBS Marked Up Costs 331 HTRW REMEDIAL ACTION (CONSTRUCTION)

331.08 SOLIDS COLLECTION AND CONTAINMENT 331.08.01 Contaminated Soil Collection Excavation $118,021 Contaminated Soil Collection Excavation $13,272

$131,293

331.19 DISPOSAL (COMMERCIAL) 331.19.21 Transportation to Storage/Disposal Facility Load and Haul $17,478 Transportation to Storage/Disposal Facility Residual Waste $1,117,273 Management

$1,134,750

331.22 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS (Optional Breakout) 331.22.03 Warehouse, Materials Handling, and Purchasing Professional Labor $220,996 Management

$220,996

Total: $1,487,040

HTRW RA WBS Total: $1,487,040

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:32 PM Page: 22 of 50 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

Site:

Site ID: North Airstrip Site Name: North Airstrip Site Type: POL impacts Media/Waste Type Primary: Soil Secondary: N/A

Contaminant Primary: Fuels Secondary: None

Stage Names SI: RI/FS, EE/CA: RD: IRA, RmA-C: RA-C: RA-O: LTM: PCO:

Estimator Signature: Date:

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:32 PM Page: 23 of 50 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups) Reviewer Information Reviewer Name: Reviewer Title: Agency/Org./Office: Business Address: Telephone Number: Email Address: Date Reviewed:

Reviewer Signature: Date:

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:32 PM Page: 24 of 50 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

Stage:

Stage Type: Remedial Action Stage Name: RA-C Description: landfarming limited by 100 cubic yards treated Approach: Ex Situ Start Date: December, 2011 Labor Rate Group: System Labor Rate Analysis Rate Group: System Analysis Rate Stage Markups: System Defaults Technology Markups Markup % Prime % Sub. Load and Haul Yes 100 0 Excavation Yes 100 0 Residual Waste Management Yes 100 0 Professional Labor Management Yes 100 0

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:32 PM Page: 25 of 50 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

HTRW RA WBS Marked Up Costs 331 HTRW REMEDIAL ACTION (CONSTRUCTION)

331.08 SOLIDS COLLECTION AND CONTAINMENT 331.08.01 Contaminated Soil Collection Excavation $15,023

$15,023

331.19 DISPOSAL (COMMERCIAL) 331.19.21 Transportation to Storage/Disposal Facility Load and Haul $1,734 Transportation to Storage/Disposal Facility Residual Waste $5,745 Management

$7,479

331.22 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS (Optional Breakout) 331.22.03 Warehouse, Materials Handling, and Purchasing Professional Labor $4,175 Management

$4,175

Total: $26,678

HTRW RA WBS Total: $26,678

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:32 PM Page: 26 of 50 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

Site:

Site ID: Ogliuga East Site Name: Ogliuga East Site Type: POL impacts Media/Waste Type Primary: Soil Secondary: N/A

Contaminant Primary: Fuels Secondary: None

Stage Names SI: RI/FS, EE/CA: RD: IRA, RmA-C: RA-C: RA-O: LTM: PCO:

Estimator Signature: Date:

Reviewer Information Reviewer Name: Reviewer Title: Agency/Org./Office:

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:32 PM Page: 27 of 50 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups) Business Address: Telephone Number: Email Address: Date Reviewed:

Reviewer Signature: Date:

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:32 PM Page: 28 of 50 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

Stage:

Stage Type: Remedial Action Stage Name: RA-C Description: landfarming limited by 100 cubic yards treated Approach: Ex Situ Start Date: December, 2011 Labor Rate Group: System Labor Rate Analysis Rate Group: System Analysis Rate Stage Markups: System Defaults Technology Markups Markup % Prime % Sub. Load and Haul Yes 100 0 Excavation Yes 100 0 Residual Waste Management Yes 100 0 Professional Labor Management Yes 100 0

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:32 PM Page: 29 of 50 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

HTRW RA WBS Marked Up Costs 331 HTRW REMEDIAL ACTION (CONSTRUCTION)

331.08 SOLIDS COLLECTION AND CONTAINMENT 331.08.01 Contaminated Soil Collection Excavation $14,449

$14,449

331.19 DISPOSAL (COMMERCIAL) 331.19.21 Transportation to Storage/Disposal Facility Load and Haul $1,734 Transportation to Storage/Disposal Facility Residual Waste $2,560 Management

$4,294

331.22 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS (Optional Breakout) 331.22.03 Warehouse, Materials Handling, and Purchasing Professional Labor $3,419 Management

$3,419

Total: $22,162

HTRW RA WBS Total: $22,162

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:32 PM Page: 30 of 50 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

Site:

Site ID: Ogliuga Runway Site Name: Ogliuga Runway Site Type: POL impacts Media/Waste Type Primary: Soil Secondary: Groundwater

Contaminant Primary: Fuels Secondary: Metals

Stage Names SI: RI/FS, EE/CA: RD: IRA, RmA-C: RA-C: RA-O: LTM: PCO:

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:32 PM Page: 31 of 50 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups) Estimator Signature: Date:

Reviewer Information Reviewer Name: Reviewer Title: Agency/Org./Office: Business Address: Telephone Number: Email Address: Date Reviewed:

Reviewer Signature: Date:

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:32 PM Page: 32 of 50 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

Stage:

Stage Type: Remedial Action Stage Name: RA-C Description: landfarming limited by 100 cubic yards treated Approach: Ex Situ Start Date: December, 2011 Labor Rate Group: System Labor Rate Analysis Rate Group: System Analysis Rate Stage Markups: System Defaults Technology Markups Markup % Prime % Sub. Load and Haul Yes 100 0 Excavation Yes 100 0 Residual Waste Management Yes 100 0 Professional Labor Management Yes 100 0 Excavation Yes 100 0

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:32 PM Page: 33 of 50 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

HTRW RA WBS Marked Up Costs 331 HTRW REMEDIAL ACTION (CONSTRUCTION)

331.08 SOLIDS COLLECTION AND CONTAINMENT 331.08.01 Contaminated Soil Collection Excavation $20,421 Contaminated Soil Collection Excavation $12,337

$32,758

331.19 DISPOSAL (COMMERCIAL) 331.19.21 Transportation to Storage/Disposal Facility Load and Haul $1,734 Transportation to Storage/Disposal Facility Residual Waste $19,400 Management

$21,134

331.22 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS (Optional Breakout) 331.22.03 Warehouse, Materials Handling, and Purchasing Professional Labor $10,432 Management

$10,432

Total: $64,324

HTRW RA WBS Total: $64,324

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:32 PM Page: 34 of 50 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

Site:

Site ID: Ogliuga West Site Name: Ogliuga West Site Type: POL impacts Media/Waste Type Primary: Soil Secondary: N/A

Contaminant Primary: Fuels Secondary: Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)

Stage Names SI: RI/FS, EE/CA: RD: IRA, RmA-C: RA-C: RA-O: LTM: PCO:

Estimator Signature: Date:

Reviewer Information Reviewer Name: Reviewer Title: Agency/Org./Office:

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:32 PM Page: 35 of 50 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups) Business Address: Telephone Number: Email Address: Date Reviewed:

Reviewer Signature: Date:

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:32 PM Page: 36 of 50 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

Stage:

Stage Type: Remedial Action Stage Name: RA-C Description: landfarming limited by 100 cubic yards treated Approach: Ex Situ Start Date: December, 2011 Labor Rate Group: System Labor Rate Analysis Rate Group: System Analysis Rate Stage Markups: System Defaults Technology Markups Markup % Prime % Sub. Load and Haul Yes 100 0 Excavation Yes 100 0 Residual Waste Management Yes 100 0 Professional Labor Management Yes 100 0

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:32 PM Page: 37 of 50 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

HTRW RA WBS Marked Up Costs 331 HTRW REMEDIAL ACTION (CONSTRUCTION)

331.08 SOLIDS COLLECTION AND CONTAINMENT 331.08.01 Contaminated Soil Collection Excavation $17,189

$17,189

331.19 DISPOSAL (COMMERCIAL) 331.19.21 Transportation to Storage/Disposal Facility Load and Haul $1,734 Transportation to Storage/Disposal Facility Residual Waste $6,144 Management

$7,877

331.22 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS (Optional Breakout) 331.22.03 Warehouse, Materials Handling, and Purchasing Professional Labor $4,690 Management

$4,690

Total: $29,756

HTRW RA WBS Total: $29,756

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:32 PM Page: 38 of 50 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

Site:

Site ID: Pumphouse Site Name: Pumphouse Site Type: POL impacts Media/Waste Type Primary: Soil Secondary: N/A

Contaminant Primary: Fuels Secondary: Metals

Stage Names SI: RI/FS, EE/CA: RD: IRA, RmA-C: RA-C: RA-O: LTM: PCO:

Estimator Signature: Date:

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:32 PM Page: 39 of 50 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups) Reviewer Information Reviewer Name: Reviewer Title: Agency/Org./Office: Business Address: Telephone Number: Email Address: Date Reviewed:

Reviewer Signature: Date:

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:32 PM Page: 40 of 50 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

Stage:

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:32 PM Page: 41 of 50 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

HTRW RA WBS Marked Up Costs 331 HTRW REMEDIAL ACTION (CONSTRUCTION)

331.08 SOLIDS COLLECTION AND CONTAINMENT 331.08.01 Contaminated Soil Collection Excavation $37,596 Contaminated Soil Collection Excavation $12,130

$49,725

331.19 DISPOSAL (COMMERCIAL) 331.19.21 Transportation to Storage/Disposal Facility Load and Haul $2,497 Transportation to Storage/Disposal Facility Residual Waste $91,104 Management

$93,601

331.22 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS (Optional Breakout) 331.22.03 Warehouse, Materials Handling, and Purchasing Professional Labor $16,678 Management

$16,678

Total: $160,004

HTRW RA WBS Total: $160,004

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:32 PM Page: 42 of 50 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

Site:

Site ID: Southeast Airstrip Site Name: Southeast Airstrip Site Type: POL impacts Media/Waste Type Primary: Soil Secondary: N/A

Contaminant Primary: Fuels Secondary: Metals

Stage Names SI: RI/FS, EE/CA: RD: IRA, RmA-C: RA-C: RA-O: LTM: PCO:

Estimator Signature: Date:

Reviewer Information Reviewer Name: Reviewer Title: Agency/Org./Office:

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:32 PM Page: 43 of 50 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups) Business Address: Telephone Number: Email Address: Date Reviewed:

Reviewer Signature: Date:

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:32 PM Page: 44 of 50 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

Stage:

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:32 PM Page: 45 of 50 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

HTRW RA WBS Marked Up Costs 331 HTRW REMEDIAL ACTION (CONSTRUCTION)

331.08 SOLIDS COLLECTION AND CONTAINMENT 331.08.01 Contaminated Soil Collection Excavation $45,496 Contaminated Soil Collection Excavation $13,633

$59,129

331.19 DISPOSAL (COMMERCIAL) 331.19.21 Transportation to Storage/Disposal Facility Load and Haul $12,484 Transportation to Storage/Disposal Facility Residual Waste $838,570 Management

$851,054

331.22 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS (Optional Breakout) 331.22.03 Warehouse, Materials Handling, and Purchasing Professional Labor $165,177 Management

$165,177

Total: $1,075,360

HTRW RA WBS Total: $1,075,360

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:32 PM Page: 46 of 50 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

Site:

Site ID: Tower Site Name: Tower Site Type: POL impacts Media/Waste Type Primary: Soil Secondary: N/A

Contaminant Primary: Fuels Secondary: Fuels

Stage Names SI: RI/FS, EE/CA: RD: IRA, RmA-C: RA-C: RA-O: LTM: PCO:

Estimator Signature: Date:

Reviewer Information Reviewer Name: Reviewer Title:

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:32 PM Page: 47 of 50 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups) Agency/Org./Office: Business Address: Telephone Number: Email Address: Date Reviewed:

Reviewer Signature: Date:

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:32 PM Page: 48 of 50 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

Stage:

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:32 PM Page: 49 of 50 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

HTRW RA WBS Marked Up Costs 331 HTRW REMEDIAL ACTION (CONSTRUCTION)

331.08 SOLIDS COLLECTION AND CONTAINMENT 331.08.01 Contaminated Soil Collection Excavation $16,679

$16,679

331.19 DISPOSAL (COMMERCIAL) 331.19.21 Transportation to Storage/Disposal Facility Load and Haul $1,734 Transportation to Storage/Disposal Facility Residual Waste $12,462 Management

$14,195

331.22 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS (Optional Breakout) 331.22.03 Warehouse, Materials Handling, and Purchasing Professional Labor $5,857 Management

$5,857

Total: $36,731

HTRW RA WBS Total: $36,731

Total: $11,648,592

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:32 PM Page: 50 of 50 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

System:

RACER Version: 10.4.0 Database Location: P:\Projects\Clients U-Z\USACE\W911KB-08-D-0004\2008 Task Orders\451 and 452 - Tanaga & Ogliuga RI-FS\15 HTRW FS\tanaga and ogliuga_method three.mdb

Folder:

Folder Name: Tanaga and Ogliuga

Alternative:

Alternative ID: 07: In Situ Chemical Oxidation Alternative Name: 07: In Situ Chemical Oxidation Alternative Category: None

Location State / Country: ALASKA City: ALEUTIAN ISLANDS

Location Modifier Default User 3.159 3.159

Options Database: Modified System Cost Database Date: 2011 Report Option: Calendar

Description In situ chemical oxidaiton remediation alternative

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:44 PM Page: 1 of 53 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

Site:

Site ID: 01: Mobilization Site Name: 01: Mobilization Site Type: None Media/Waste Type Primary: Soil Secondary: N/A

Contaminant Primary: Fuels Secondary: None

Stage Names SI: RI/FS, EE/CA: RD: IRA, RmA-C: RA-C: RA-O: LTM: PCO:

Documentation Description: Mobilization of personnel, equipment, and gear Support Team: Documentation of personnel used to provide support for estimator and preparation of the estimate. References: Documentation of reference sources used in the preparation of the estimate.

Estimator Signature: Date:

Reviewer Information Reviewer Name: Reviewer Title: Agency/Org./Office:

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:44 PM Page: 2 of 53 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups) Business Address: Telephone Number: Email Address: Date Reviewed:

Reviewer Signature: Date:

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:44 PM Page: 3 of 53 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

Stage:

Stage Type: Remedial Action Stage Name: RA-C Description: 1 User defined estimate: personnel travel from ANC to Adak and Adak to Tanaga by Tug Boat 2 User defined estimate: equipment on barge (rental during travel), loading and off-loading material, travel to and from, lighter barge for beach landings 3 User defined estimate: camp for personnel 4 User defined estimate: mobilization of the operator in the second year of landfarming. 5 User defined estimate: supplies and remote camp for the operator in the second year of the landfarming 6 User defined estimate: transport of the soil from the Seattle harbor to the Oregon landfill 1 Decon Facilities is for Tanaga. 2 Decon Facilities is for Ogliuga. 1 Residual waste management is the management of the two decon facilities. Approach: Ex Situ Start Date: December, 2011 Labor Rate Group: System Labor Rate Analysis Rate Group: System Analysis Rate Stage Markups: System Defaults Technology Markups Markup % Prime % Sub. Decontamination Facilities Yes 100 0 Decontamination Facilities Yes 100 0 Residual Waste Management Yes 100 0 PERSONNEL TRAVEL TO TANAGA Yes 100 0 OPERATOR MOB/DEMOB, SECOND YEAR Yes 100 0 REMOTE CAMP, OPERATOR, SECOND YEAR Yes 100 0 BARGE FROM SEA TO TANAGA Yes 100 0 PERSONNEL CAMP Yes 100 0 SOIL TRANSPORT Yes 100 0

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:44 PM Page: 4 of 53 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

HTRW RA WBS Marked Up Costs 331 HTRW REMEDIAL ACTION (CONSTRUCTION)

331.01 MOBILIZATION AND PREPARATORY WORK 331.01.01 Mobilization of Construction Equipment and BARGE FROM SEA TO $2,556,558 Facilities TANAGA 331.01.04 Setup/Construct Temporary Facilities Decontamination $55,366 Facilities Setup/Construct Temporary Facilities Decontamination $55,366 Facilities 331.01.02 Mobilization of Personnel OPERATOR $62,806 MOB/DEMOB, SECOND YEAR 331.01.01 Mobilization of Construction Equipment and PERSONNEL CAMP $507,362 Facilities 331.01.02 Mobilization of Personnel PERSONNEL TRAVEL $58,060 TO TANAGA 331.01.05 Construct Temporary Utilities REMOTE CAMP, $351,648 OPERATOR, SECOND YEAR 331.01.01 Mobilization of Construction Equipment and SOIL TRANSPORT $6,859 Facilities

$3,654,025

331.19 DISPOSAL (COMMERCIAL) 331.19.21 Transportation to Storage/Disposal Facility Residual Waste $35,235 Management

$35,235

Total: $3,689,259

HTRW RA WBS Total: $3,689,259

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:44 PM Page: 5 of 53 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

Site:

Site ID: 02: In Situ Chemical Oxidation Site Name: 02: In Situ Chemical Oxidaiton Site Type: None Media/Waste Type Primary: Soil Secondary: Groundwater

Contaminant Primary: Fuels Secondary: PCBs

Stage Names SI: RI/FS, EE/CA: RD: IRA, RmA-C: RA-C: RA-O: LTM: PCO:

Documentation Description: In Situ Chemical Oxidation remediation Support Team: Documentation of personnel used to provide support for estimator and preparation of the estimate. References: Documentation of reference sources used in the preparation of the estimate.

Estimator Signature: Date:

Reviewer Information Reviewer Name: Reviewer Title: Agency/Org./Office:

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:44 PM Page: 6 of 53 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups) Business Address: Telephone Number: Email Address: Date Reviewed:

Reviewer Signature: Date:

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:44 PM Page: 7 of 53 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

Stage:

Stage Type: Remedial Action Stage Name: RA-C Description: In situ chemical oxidation facility and associated required materials and supplies Approach: Ex Situ Start Date: September, 2012 Labor Rate Group: System Labor Rate Analysis Rate Group: System Analysis Rate Stage Markups: System Defaults Technology Markups Markup % Prime % Sub. Advanced Oxidation Processes Yes 100 0

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:44 PM Page: 8 of 53 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

HTRW RA WBS Marked Up Costs 331 HTRW REMEDIAL ACTION (CONSTRUCTION)

331.12 CHEMICAL TREATMENT 331.12.08 Ultraviolet Photolysis Advanced Oxidation $796,771 Processes

$796,771

Total: $796,771

HTRW RA WBS Total: $796,771

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:44 PM Page: 9 of 53 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

Site:

Site ID: 03: Post Review and Close-Out Site Name: 03: Post Review and Close-Out Site Type: None Media/Waste Type Primary: Soil Secondary: N/A

Contaminant Primary: Fuels Secondary: Metals

Stage Names SI: RI/FS, EE/CA: RD: IRA, RmA-C: RA-C: RA-O: LTM: PCO:

Estimator Signature: Date:

Reviewer Information Reviewer Name: Reviewer Title: Agency/Org./Office:

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:44 PM Page: 10 of 53 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups) Business Address: Telephone Number: Email Address: Date Reviewed:

Reviewer Signature: Date:

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:44 PM Page: 11 of 53 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

Stage:

Stage Type: Site Closeout Stage Name: PCO Description: five year review and site-close out

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:44 PM Page: 12 of 53 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

HTRW RA WBS Marked Up Costs 331 HTRW REMEDIAL ACTION (CONSTRUCTION)

331.20 SITE RESTORATION 331.20.90 Other Five-Year Review $77,363 Other Site Close-Out $98,010 Documentation

$175,373

Total: $175,373

HTRW RA WBS Total: $175,373

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:44 PM Page: 13 of 53 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

Site:

Site ID: Airstrip Site Name: Airstrip Site Type: POL impacts Media/Waste Type Primary: Soil Secondary: N/A

Contaminant Primary: Fuels Secondary: Metals

Stage Names SI: RI/FS, EE/CA: RD: IRA, RmA-C: RA-C: RA-O: LTM: PCO:

Estimator Signature: Date:

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:44 PM Page: 14 of 53 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

Reviewer Information Reviewer Name: Reviewer Title: Agency/Org./Office: Business Address: Telephone Number: Email Address: Date Reviewed:

Reviewer Signature: Date:

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:44 PM Page: 15 of 53 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

Stage:

Stage Type: Remedial Action Stage Name: RA-C Description: landfarming limited by 100 cubic yards treated Approach: Ex Situ Start Date: December, 2011 Labor Rate Group: System Labor Rate Analysis Rate Group: System Analysis Rate Stage Markups: System Defaults Technology Markups Markup % Prime % Sub. Load and Haul Yes 100 0 Excavation Yes 100 0 Residual Waste Management Yes 100 0 Professional Labor Management Yes 100 0 Excavation Yes 100 0

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:44 PM Page: 16 of 53 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

HTRW RA WBS Marked Up Costs 331 HTRW REMEDIAL ACTION (CONSTRUCTION)

331.08 SOLIDS COLLECTION AND CONTAINMENT 331.08.01 Contaminated Soil Collection Excavation $18,911 Contaminated Soil Collection Excavation $12,337

$31,248

331.19 DISPOSAL (COMMERCIAL) 331.19.21 Transportation to Storage/Disposal Facility Load and Haul $1,734 Transportation to Storage/Disposal Facility Residual Waste $3,677 Management

$5,411

331.22 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS (Optional Breakout) 331.22.03 Warehouse, Materials Handling, and Purchasing Professional Labor $7,855 Management

$7,855

Total: $44,514

HTRW RA WBS Total: $44,514

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:44 PM Page: 17 of 53 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

Site:

Site ID: Barrel Dump Site Name: Barrel Dump Site Type: POL impacts Media/Waste Type Primary: Soil Secondary: Free Product

Contaminant Primary: Fuels Secondary: Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)

Stage Names SI: RI/FS, EE/CA: RD: IRA, RmA-C: RA-C: RA-O: LTM: PCO:

Estimator Signature: Date:

Reviewer Information Reviewer Name:

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:44 PM Page: 18 of 53 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups) Reviewer Title: Agency/Org./Office: Business Address: Telephone Number: Email Address: Date Reviewed:

Reviewer Signature: Date:

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:44 PM Page: 19 of 53 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

Stage:

Stage Type: Remedial Action Stage Name: RA-C Description: excavation of the POL. groundwater extraction wells were not added due to the preexistence of wells. discharge to POTW not included. 4103 cubic yards. Approach: Ex Situ Start Date: December, 2011 Labor Rate Group: System Labor Rate Analysis Rate Group: System Analysis Rate Stage Markups: System Defaults Technology Markups Markup % Prime % Sub. Load and Haul Yes 100 0 Excavation Yes 100 0 Professional Labor Management Yes 100 0

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:44 PM Page: 20 of 53 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

HTRW RA WBS Marked Up Costs 331 HTRW REMEDIAL ACTION (CONSTRUCTION)

331.08 SOLIDS COLLECTION AND CONTAINMENT 331.08.01 Contaminated Soil Collection Excavation $63,139

$63,139

331.19 DISPOSAL (COMMERCIAL) 331.19.21 Transportation to Storage/Disposal Facility Load and Haul $28,228

$28,228

331.22 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS (Optional Breakout) 331.22.03 Warehouse, Materials Handling, and Purchasing Professional Labor $303,557 Management

$303,557

Total: $394,924

HTRW RA WBS Total: $394,924

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:44 PM Page: 21 of 53 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

Site:

Site ID: Main Camp Site Name: Main Camp Site Type: POL impacts Media/Waste Type Primary: Soil Secondary: N/A

Contaminant Primary: Fuels Secondary: Metals

Stage Names SI: RI/FS, EE/CA: RD: IRA, RmA-C: RA-C: RA-O: LTM: PCO:

Groundwater depths ranged from 0.06 to 1.62 feet bgs, indicating essentially staurated conditions. The presence of numerous drainage ditches in this area indicates that water-logged conditions also were a problem at the time of occupation. The shallow groundwater indicates that there is essentially no unsaturated zone present. Soil excavations in this area also encountered water at a foot or less. The presence of a permanent stream to the east of the Main Camp area and the drainage ditches directed towards the stream, indicate that groundwater flows to this creek. M01 - 55 gallon drums, 12 drums in the Main Camp area. Fuel is the only concern of the site. MC06 - 55 gallon drums, Three small piles (15 to 20 drums per pile) on western side of the Main Camp MC08 - Batteries at collasped machine shop, Former battery locations on wooden floor among debris within the footprint of the collapsed building MC12 - oil waste drums, two partial non-galvanized drums (possibly waste oil) and one intact drum suspected to contain motor oil MC13 - battery, Two bare spots located immediately west of a collapsed building with abundant wood and metal debris in the area MC18 - Transformers near fallen power pole, Power pole lying on the ground Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:44 PM Page: 22 of 53 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups) next to a partially collapsed wooden building with wood and metal debris surrounding the pole MC19 - Collasped building with fuel tank, collasped buildings, a fuel tank, and drums, includes T89, T90B, T91B, Feature MC18, a PCB source is immediately adjacent to the area. MC22 - Debris and 150-gallon fuel tank, an empty 150-gallon fuel tank located next to several collasped buildings in the central portion of the Main Camp area MC24 - Collapsed latrines and barracks with fuel box, Empty fuel box located on the northern edge of the Main Camp MC29 - Two batteries, two batteries located approximately 50 feet south of MC10 and 30 feet east of well MCA-MW05, new location added to the scope Support Team: Documentation of personnel used to provide support for estimator and preparation of the estimate. References: Documentation of reference sources used in the preparation of the estimate.

Estimator Signature: Date:

Reviewer Information Reviewer Name: Reviewer Title: Agency/Org./Office: Business Address: Telephone Number: Email Address: Date Reviewed:

Reviewer Signature: Date:

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:44 PM Page: 23 of 53 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

Stage:

Stage Type: Remedial Action Stage Name: RA-C Description: landfarming limited by 100 cubic yards treated Approach: Ex Situ Start Date: December, 2011 Labor Rate Group: System Labor Rate Analysis Rate Group: System Analysis Rate Stage Markups: System Defaults Technology Markups Markup % Prime % Sub. Load and Haul Yes 100 0 Excavation Yes 100 0 Residual Waste Management Yes 100 0 Excavation Yes 100 0 Professional Labor Management Yes 100 0

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:44 PM Page: 24 of 53 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

HTRW RA WBS Marked Up Costs 331 HTRW REMEDIAL ACTION (CONSTRUCTION)

331.08 SOLIDS COLLECTION AND CONTAINMENT 331.08.01 Contaminated Soil Collection Excavation $118,021 Contaminated Soil Collection Excavation $13,272

$131,293

331.19 DISPOSAL (COMMERCIAL) 331.19.21 Transportation to Storage/Disposal Facility Load and Haul $17,478 Transportation to Storage/Disposal Facility Residual Waste $22,602 Management

$40,080

331.22 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS (Optional Breakout) 331.22.03 Warehouse, Materials Handling, and Purchasing Professional Labor $220,996 Management

$220,996

Total: $392,369

HTRW RA WBS Total: $392,369

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:44 PM Page: 25 of 53 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

Site:

Site ID: North Airstrip Site Name: North Airstrip Site Type: POL impacts Media/Waste Type Primary: Soil Secondary: N/A

Contaminant Primary: Fuels Secondary: None

Stage Names SI: RI/FS, EE/CA: RD: IRA, RmA-C: RA-C: RA-O: LTM: PCO:

Estimator Signature: Date:

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:44 PM Page: 26 of 53 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups) Reviewer Information Reviewer Name: Reviewer Title: Agency/Org./Office: Business Address: Telephone Number: Email Address: Date Reviewed:

Reviewer Signature: Date:

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:44 PM Page: 27 of 53 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

Stage:

Stage Type: Remedial Action Stage Name: RA-C Description: landfarming limited by 100 cubic yards treated Approach: Ex Situ Start Date: December, 2011 Labor Rate Group: System Labor Rate Analysis Rate Group: System Analysis Rate Stage Markups: System Defaults Technology Markups Markup % Prime % Sub. Load and Haul Yes 100 0 Excavation Yes 100 0 Professional Labor Management Yes 100 0

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:44 PM Page: 28 of 53 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

HTRW RA WBS Marked Up Costs 331 HTRW REMEDIAL ACTION (CONSTRUCTION)

331.08 SOLIDS COLLECTION AND CONTAINMENT 331.08.01 Contaminated Soil Collection Excavation $15,023

$15,023

331.19 DISPOSAL (COMMERCIAL) 331.19.21 Transportation to Storage/Disposal Facility Load and Haul $1,734

$1,734

331.22 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS (Optional Breakout) 331.22.03 Warehouse, Materials Handling, and Purchasing Professional Labor $4,175 Management

$4,175

Total: $20,932

HTRW RA WBS Total: $20,932

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:44 PM Page: 29 of 53 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

Site:

Site ID: Ogliuga East Site Name: Ogliuga East Site Type: POL impacts Media/Waste Type Primary: Soil Secondary: N/A

Contaminant Primary: Fuels Secondary: None

Stage Names SI: RI/FS, EE/CA: RD: IRA, RmA-C: RA-C: RA-O: LTM: PCO:

Estimator Signature: Date:

Reviewer Information Reviewer Name: Reviewer Title: Agency/Org./Office:

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:44 PM Page: 30 of 53 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups) Business Address: Telephone Number: Email Address: Date Reviewed:

Reviewer Signature: Date:

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:44 PM Page: 31 of 53 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

Stage:

Stage Type: Remedial Action Stage Name: RA-C Description: landfarming limited by 100 cubic yards treated Approach: Ex Situ Start Date: December, 2011 Labor Rate Group: System Labor Rate Analysis Rate Group: System Analysis Rate Stage Markups: System Defaults Technology Markups Markup % Prime % Sub. Load and Haul Yes 100 0 Excavation Yes 100 0 Professional Labor Management Yes 100 0

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:44 PM Page: 32 of 53 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

HTRW RA WBS Marked Up Costs 331 HTRW REMEDIAL ACTION (CONSTRUCTION)

331.08 SOLIDS COLLECTION AND CONTAINMENT 331.08.01 Contaminated Soil Collection Excavation $14,449

$14,449

331.19 DISPOSAL (COMMERCIAL) 331.19.21 Transportation to Storage/Disposal Facility Load and Haul $1,734

$1,734

331.22 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS (Optional Breakout) 331.22.03 Warehouse, Materials Handling, and Purchasing Professional Labor $3,419 Management

$3,419

Total: $19,601

HTRW RA WBS Total: $19,601

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:44 PM Page: 33 of 53 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

Site:

Site ID: Ogliuga Runway Site Name: Ogliuga Runway Site Type: POL impacts Media/Waste Type Primary: Soil Secondary: Groundwater

Contaminant Primary: Fuels Secondary: Metals

Stage Names SI: RI/FS, EE/CA: RD: IRA, RmA-C: RA-C: RA-O: LTM: PCO:

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:44 PM Page: 34 of 53 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups) Estimator Signature: Date:

Reviewer Information Reviewer Name: Reviewer Title: Agency/Org./Office: Business Address: Telephone Number: Email Address: Date Reviewed:

Reviewer Signature: Date:

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:44 PM Page: 35 of 53 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

Stage:

Stage Type: Remedial Action Stage Name: RA-C Description: landfarming limited by 100 cubic yards treated Approach: Ex Situ Start Date: December, 2011 Labor Rate Group: System Labor Rate Analysis Rate Group: System Analysis Rate Stage Markups: System Defaults Technology Markups Markup % Prime % Sub. Load and Haul Yes 100 0 Excavation Yes 100 0 Professional Labor Management Yes 100 0 Excavation Yes 100 0

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:44 PM Page: 36 of 53 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

HTRW RA WBS Marked Up Costs 331 HTRW REMEDIAL ACTION (CONSTRUCTION)

331.08 SOLIDS COLLECTION AND CONTAINMENT 331.08.01 Contaminated Soil Collection Excavation $20,421 Contaminated Soil Collection Excavation $12,337

$32,758

331.19 DISPOSAL (COMMERCIAL) 331.19.21 Transportation to Storage/Disposal Facility Load and Haul $1,734

$1,734

331.22 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS (Optional Breakout) 331.22.03 Warehouse, Materials Handling, and Purchasing Professional Labor $10,432 Management

$10,432

Total: $44,924

HTRW RA WBS Total: $44,924

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:44 PM Page: 37 of 53 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

Site:

Site ID: Ogliuga West Site Name: Ogliuga West Site Type: POL impacts Media/Waste Type Primary: Soil Secondary: N/A

Contaminant Primary: Fuels Secondary: Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)

Stage Names SI: RI/FS, EE/CA: RD: IRA, RmA-C: RA-C: RA-O: LTM: PCO:

Estimator Signature: Date:

Reviewer Information Reviewer Name: Reviewer Title: Agency/Org./Office:

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:44 PM Page: 38 of 53 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups) Business Address: Telephone Number: Email Address: Date Reviewed:

Reviewer Signature: Date:

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:44 PM Page: 39 of 53 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

Stage:

Stage Type: Remedial Action Stage Name: RA-C Description: landfarming limited by 100 cubic yards treated Approach: Ex Situ Start Date: December, 2011 Labor Rate Group: System Labor Rate Analysis Rate Group: System Analysis Rate Stage Markups: System Defaults Technology Markups Markup % Prime % Sub. Load and Haul Yes 100 0 Excavation Yes 100 0 Professional Labor Management Yes 100 0

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:44 PM Page: 40 of 53 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

HTRW RA WBS Marked Up Costs 331 HTRW REMEDIAL ACTION (CONSTRUCTION)

331.08 SOLIDS COLLECTION AND CONTAINMENT 331.08.01 Contaminated Soil Collection Excavation $17,189

$17,189

331.19 DISPOSAL (COMMERCIAL) 331.19.21 Transportation to Storage/Disposal Facility Load and Haul $1,734

$1,734

331.22 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS (Optional Breakout) 331.22.03 Warehouse, Materials Handling, and Purchasing Professional Labor $4,690 Management

$4,690

Total: $23,612

HTRW RA WBS Total: $23,612

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:44 PM Page: 41 of 53 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

Site:

Site ID: Pumphouse Site Name: Pumphouse Site Type: POL impacts Media/Waste Type Primary: Soil Secondary: N/A

Contaminant Primary: Fuels Secondary: Metals

Stage Names SI: RI/FS, EE/CA: RD: IRA, RmA-C: RA-C: RA-O: LTM: PCO:

Estimator Signature: Date:

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:44 PM Page: 42 of 53 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups) Reviewer Information Reviewer Name: Reviewer Title: Agency/Org./Office: Business Address: Telephone Number: Email Address: Date Reviewed:

Reviewer Signature: Date:

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:44 PM Page: 43 of 53 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

Stage:

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:44 PM Page: 44 of 53 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

HTRW RA WBS Marked Up Costs 331 HTRW REMEDIAL ACTION (CONSTRUCTION)

331.08 SOLIDS COLLECTION AND CONTAINMENT 331.08.01 Contaminated Soil Collection Excavation $37,596 Contaminated Soil Collection Excavation $12,130

$49,725

331.19 DISPOSAL (COMMERCIAL) 331.19.21 Transportation to Storage/Disposal Facility Load and Haul $2,497 Transportation to Storage/Disposal Facility Residual Waste $5,905 Management

$8,402

331.22 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS (Optional Breakout) 331.22.03 Warehouse, Materials Handling, and Purchasing Professional Labor $16,678 Management

$16,678

Total: $74,805

HTRW RA WBS Total: $74,805

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:44 PM Page: 45 of 53 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

Site:

Site ID: Southeast Airstrip Site Name: Southeast Airstrip Site Type: POL impacts Media/Waste Type Primary: Soil Secondary: N/A

Contaminant Primary: Fuels Secondary: Metals

Stage Names SI: RI/FS, EE/CA: RD: IRA, RmA-C: RA-C: RA-O: LTM: PCO:

Estimator Signature: Date:

Reviewer Information Reviewer Name: Reviewer Title: Agency/Org./Office:

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:44 PM Page: 46 of 53 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups) Business Address: Telephone Number: Email Address: Date Reviewed:

Reviewer Signature: Date:

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:44 PM Page: 47 of 53 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

Stage:

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:44 PM Page: 48 of 53 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

HTRW RA WBS Marked Up Costs 331 HTRW REMEDIAL ACTION (CONSTRUCTION)

331.08 SOLIDS COLLECTION AND CONTAINMENT 331.08.01 Contaminated Soil Collection Excavation $45,496 Contaminated Soil Collection Excavation $13,633

$59,129

331.19 DISPOSAL (COMMERCIAL) 331.19.21 Transportation to Storage/Disposal Facility Load and Haul $12,484 Transportation to Storage/Disposal Facility Residual Waste $28,183 Management

$40,667

331.22 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS (Optional Breakout) 331.22.03 Warehouse, Materials Handling, and Purchasing Professional Labor $165,177 Management

$165,177

Total: $264,973

HTRW RA WBS Total: $264,973

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:44 PM Page: 49 of 53 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

Site:

Site ID: Tower Site Name: Tower Site Type: POL impacts Media/Waste Type Primary: Soil Secondary: N/A

Contaminant Primary: Fuels Secondary: Fuels

Stage Names SI: RI/FS, EE/CA: RD: IRA, RmA-C: RA-C: RA-O: LTM: PCO:

Estimator Signature: Date:

Reviewer Information Reviewer Name: Reviewer Title:

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:44 PM Page: 50 of 53 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups) Agency/Org./Office: Business Address: Telephone Number: Email Address: Date Reviewed:

Reviewer Signature: Date:

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:44 PM Page: 51 of 53 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

Stage:

Stage Type: Remedial Action Stage Name: RA-C Description: landfarming limited by 100 cubic yards treated Approach: Ex Situ Start Date: December, 2011 Labor Rate Group: System Labor Rate Analysis Rate Group: System Analysis Rate Stage Markups: System Defaults Technology Markups Markup % Prime % Sub. Excavation Yes 100 0 Professional Labor Management Yes 100 0 Load and Haul Yes 100 0

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:44 PM Page: 52 of 53 Alternative WBS Report (with Markups)

HTRW RA WBS Marked Up Costs 331 HTRW REMEDIAL ACTION (CONSTRUCTION)

331.08 SOLIDS COLLECTION AND CONTAINMENT 331.08.01 Contaminated Soil Collection Excavation $16,679

$16,679

331.19 DISPOSAL (COMMERCIAL) 331.19.21 Transportation to Storage/Disposal Facility Load and Haul $1,734

$1,734

331.22 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS (Optional Breakout) 331.22.03 Warehouse, Materials Handling, and Purchasing Professional Labor $5,857 Management

$5,857

Total: $24,269

HTRW RA WBS Total: $24,269

Total: $5,966,326

Print Date: 9/18/2012 3:24:44 PM Page: 53 of 53 This page intentionally left blank