Record of Decision Sites 5, 24, 37PS, 69, 76CS, 76OD, 126, 155, 184, and 186 Savanna Army Depot Activity Savanna, Illinois Final Prepared for: Louisville District 600 Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Place Louisville, Kentucky 40202 Prepared by: Science Applications International Corporation 8301 Greensboro Drive McLean, Virginia 22102 August 2013 Contract No. DACW62-03-D-0003, Delivery Order No. CY01, SAIC CRN 142044 Contract No. W912QR-08-D-0008, Delivery Order No. 0012, SAIC CRN 180617 Record of Decision Sites 5, 24, 37PS, 69, 76CS, 76OD, 126, 155, 184, and 186 827.20130822.001 Savanna Army Depot Activity Savanna, Illinois Final Prepared for: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Louisville District Louisville, Kentucky 40202 Prepared by: Science Applications International Corporation 8301 Greensboro Drive McLean, Virginia 22102 Contract No. DACW62-03-D-0003, Delivery Order No. CY01, SAIC CRN 142044 Contract No. W912QR-08-D-0008, Delivery Order No. 0012, SAIC CRN 180617 August 2013 THIS PAGE WAS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Certification 4 CONTRACTOR STATEMENT OF INDEPENDENT TECHNICAL REVIEW Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) has completed the Record of Decision for Sites 5, 24, 37PS, 69, 76CS, 76OD, 126, 155, 184, and 186 at Savanna Army Depot Activity, Savanna, Illinois. Notice is hereby given that an independent technical review has been conducted that is appropriate to the level of risk and complexity inherent in the project as defined in the SAIC Quality Assurance Plan. During the independent technical review, compliance with established policy principles and procedures, using justified and valid assumptions, was verified. This included review of assumptions, methods, procedures, and materials used in analyses; the appropriateness of data used and the level of data obtained; and assessment of the reasonableness of the results, including consistency with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) policy. August 20, 2013 Marcy Larriva, P.E., PMP Date Project Manager August 20, 2013 Joseph E. Peters Date QA Manager August 20, 2013 Jed Thomas, P.E. Date Independent Technical Review Team Leader Significant concerns and explanation of the resolutions are documented within the project file. As noted above, all concerns resulting from independent technical review of the project have been considered. August 20, 2013 Lisa Jones-Bateman, REM, PMP Date Vice President THIS PAGE WAS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1. DECLARATION ............................................................................................................................ 1-1 1.1 INSTALLATION LOCATION AND SITE NAMES .......................................................... 1-1 1.2 STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE ........................................................................ 1-1 1.3 DESCRIPTION OF SELECTED REMEDY AND ASSESSMENT OF THE SITES ......... 1-3 1.4 STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS .................................................................................. 1-3 1.5 ROD DATA CERTIFICATION CHECKLIST .................................................................... 1-4 1.6 AUTHORIZING SIGNATURES ......................................................................................... 1-5 2. DECISION SUMMARY ................................................................................................................ 2-1 2.1 INSTALLATION HISTORY, SITE NAMES, AND LOCATIONS ................................... 2-1 2.2 SITE HISTORY AND REGULATORY ACTIVITY .......................................................... 2-1 2.3 COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION ...................................................................................... 2-9 2.4 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING .......................................................................................... 2-9 2.5 SCOPE AND ROLE OF RESPONSE ACTION .................................................................. 2-9 2.6 SITE DESCRIPTIONS ....................................................................................................... 2-10 2.6.1 Site 5 (Liquid Propellant Burn Area) ................................................................... 2-10 2.6.2 Site 24 (CF Plant Melt and Pour Facility) ............................................................ 2-11 2.6.3 Site 37PS (Pole Storage Area) ............................................................................. 2-13 2.6.4 Site 69 (Contaminated Waste Processor – Building 2215) .................................. 2-14 2.6.5 Site 76CS (Former Coal Storage Area) ................................................................ 2-15 2.6.6 Site 76OD (Open Drum Storage Area) ................................................................ 2-17 2.6.7 Site 126 (CN Plant Boiler Building USTs, Building 502) ................................... 2-18 2.6.8 Site 155 (CF Plant Drilling and Boostering Building – Building 729) ................ 2-19 2.6.9 Site 184 (CL Plant Compressor Building – Building 640) .................................. 2-21 2.6.10 Site 186 (CF Plant Generator Building – Building 707) ...................................... 2-21 2.7 HISTORICAL AND POTENTIAL FUTURE LAND USES ............................................. 2-23 2.8 SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS ............................................................................................ 2-23 2.8.1 Screening Evaluation ........................................................................................... 2-23 2.8.2 Human Health Risk Assessment .......................................................................... 2-24 2.8.3 Ecological Risk Assessment ................................................................................. 2-26 2.9 REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES ............................................................................... 2-27 2.10 APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS ANALYSIS......................................................................................................................... 2-27 2.11 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES FOR SITES 37PS, 76CS, AND 76OD ............... 2-29 2.11.1 Comparative Analysis of Alternatives ................................................................. 2-30 2.11.1.1 Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment ................. 2-30 2.11.1.2 Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements ....................................................................................... 2-30 2.11.1.3 Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence ......................................... 2-32 2.11.1.4 Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume Through Treatment ....... 2-32 2.11.1.5 Short-Term Effectiveness .................................................................... 2-32 2.11.1.6 Implementability .................................................................................. 2-32 2.11.1.7 Cost ...................................................................................................... 2-33 2.11.1.8 Regulatory Acceptance ........................................................................ 2-33 2.11.1.9 Community Acceptance ....................................................................... 2-33 2.11.2 Principal Threat Waste ......................................................................................... 2-33 2.11.3 Selected Remedy .................................................................................................. 2-34 2.12 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES FOR SITE 126 .................................................... 2-34 2.12.1 Comparative Analysis of Alternatives ................................................................. 2-35 Savanna Army Depot, Final ROD v August 2013 Sites 5, 24, 37PS, 69, 76CS, 76OD, 126, 155, 184, and 186 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Page 2.12.1.1 Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment ................. 2-35 2.12.1.2 Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements ....................................................................................... 2-37 2.12.1.3 Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence ......................................... 2-37 2.12.1.4 Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume Through Treatment ....... 2-37 2.12.1.5 Short-Term Effectiveness .................................................................... 2-38 2.12.1.6 Implementability .................................................................................. 2-38 2.12.1.7 Cost ...................................................................................................... 2-38 2.12.1.8 Regulatory Acceptance ........................................................................ 2-38 2.12.1.9 Community Acceptance ....................................................................... 2-39 2.12.2 Principal Threat Waste ......................................................................................... 2-39 2.12.3 Selected Remedy .................................................................................................. 2-39 2.13 STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS ................................................................................ 2-40 2.14 DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNFICANT CHANGES ....................................................... 2-40 3. RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY ................................................................................................ 3-1 3.1 BACKGROUND ON COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT ................................................... 3-1 3.2 SUMMARY OF COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD ...............................................................................................................................