File: 18G

N\ flI~~~~~~~~~~~~~~nn~~~~~~~h~~~~ti~~~~~~~U~~~~~fl'~~~~~~~~ DR ~ ~ Hil

~~~~t~~~~~~~N& ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ovmer19Ovriwo tePooedPa noraini ls vialea h nfra ~ 4*

Alsk . Inxdito,2 area preiosl iden-

Ove eriew ofthproposed Plaouthraci n.34 Cnformtoisals Av ailablie atteIfra1qtC6

gevroudalster tand soils atde the Opesorab e Ui Eielson Air Force Base, AK 99702-22250(0o2)sevtourc area atEesoner Air FrceA Base, (907) 377-5209

also addressed here. The Air Force, the Noel Wien Library 01 poS

United States Environmental Protection 1215 Cowles Street OCIG

Agency (EPA), and the Alaska Department Fairbanks, AK 99701

of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) are (907) 459-1020 Poub eeln%

seeking public input on this Proposed Plan. bTA,19

Your participation is an important contribu- North Pole Library toetion to the decision-making process. 601 Snowman Lane 10 o20 .

This plan, which complies with Section 117(a) North Pole, AK 99705 . eJ~desho

of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, (907) 488-6101 . rhp jotpole.

Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), The 30-day public comment period is

highlights the preferred cleanup alternatives from November 8 to December 7, 1993.prpsdb h i ocEA n nC ulcmeigwl ehl nNvme 7

How You Can Participate School on Eighth Avenue, North Pole,

The Air Force, EPA, and ADEC encour-age the public to participate in the decision-making process. Although this Proposed Plan ISDidentifies preferred alternatives, the final ISDdecision will not be made until the public Site Background................................2

comment period has ended and all comments Purpose and Scope of Proposed Plan ..... 2

have been reviewed and considered. The Source Area Descriptions .............. 4selected actions could differ from the pre- Summary of Operable Unit 2ferred alternatives, depending upon new Suc raRss1information resulting from public comments. Sucleau AlteratRivsk................... 11

This Proposed Plan summarizes informa-ClauAlentvs.................. 1

tion that can be found in greater detail in the Summary of Alternatives ............... 1 1

Administrative Record. The Administrative Evaluation of Alternatives 1..............4

Record, which contains the information upon Summary of the Preferred Alternatives .... 1 8which the decision will be based, is available Public Involvement .................... 19for public review at:

Elmer E. Rasmusen Library t rArctic and Polar Regions Archives SectionUniversity of AlaskaFairbanks, Alaska 99775(907) 474-6594

N, -0~~'~ ME>~N -

Alaska. This meeting will provide an oppor- and 3) hazardous waste sites that are regu-tunity for questions and verbal comments. lated under flORA.Written comments may be submitted any This Proposed Plan does three things.time during the comment period to: It identifies areas proposed for no further

Lt. Steve Rickert ~~~~investigation. It shows cleanup alternativesLt. Steve Rickert ~~~~considered for contaminated areas. Finally, it

Public Affairs Office presents the preferred cleanup options to pro-3112 Broadway Avenue, Suite 8 tect human health and the environment byEDeleon Air Force Base, Alaska 99702-1830 controlling contamination sources, reducing(907) 377-2116 further movement of groundwater contamina-

Site Background ~ ~~~~tion, and protecting potential drinking water.

Eielson Air Force Base, located approxi- Suc vlainRpr ramately 25 miles southeast of Fairbanks, is A group of potential contamination sourcesprimarily a tactical air support installation at Eielson Air Force Base was evaluated in a(see Figure 1). screening assessment to determine whether

Typical activities on Eielson Air Force additional investigation or cleanup underBase include flight operations, aircraft Superfund was required. These sources had

maintenance, and support functions. been identified from earlier Air Force docu-Since 1943, these and other ments as potential areas of contamination.activities generated varying The Air Force conducted field investigations

quantities of wastes. The major at many of these areas in the 1980s undersources of hazardous wastes the environmental evaluation process called

E~o~g0 ~ OY~ykt~ include industrial facilities the Installation Restoration Program.UMAkFWCOBso and equipment maintenance, In accordance with the Federal Facility

Ab Zfit~, fire suppression training, and Agreement, the Air Force, in conjunction

32&akw YAve S.p*, fuels storage and delivery, with ADEC and EPA, is evaluating these&nAr Fowo Bj8, Eielson Air Force Base was potential source areas under the 'Phase 1

A ~~~~~placed on the National Priorities Source Evaluation" process. The Phase 1

List (or 'Superfund" list) in Novem- Source Evaluation process is used to deter-ber 1989. In May 1991, the Air Force, mine whether 1) the source should be investi-EPA, and ADEC negotiated a Federal gated further under CERCLA, 2) the source

FaiiyAgreement outlining the procedures should be referred to another state or federaland schedule to investigate and clean up con- program, or 3) the source does not appear totaminated areas under CERCLA at Rielson pose a risk to human health or the environ-Air Force Base. ment and no further action is required. This

approach eliminates the need for extensive

Purpose and Scope ~~~and time-consuming investigations of areasPurpose and Scope ~~~that already have enough information

of Proposed Plan available to make a decision.

This Proposed Plan addresses 1) areas Operable Unit 2 Source Areasthat were evaluated to determine the needfor additional investigation, 2) a group of For the seven potential source areassource areas called 0132, which are contami- within 0132. the Air Force completed anated with petroleum, oil, and lubricants, comprehensive investigation of groundwater,

2 Fe4W/soo w~c Gase-$/cventer I.W

.. '~~~> .P

Source Evaluation Report (SER) Areas Fa:'banks Ejelsan Air Farce Base Location

L305 - Old Army LandfillL307 -Test LandfillhPaPTO8 - Fire Training Area (Past)SS12 - JPA Spill, Building 2351STIS5 - Multiproduct Fuel LineSTI S - MOGAS (Motor Gasoline)

Fuel Line SpillSTI - Canol Pipeline SpillSD21 - Road Oiling - Quarry Road llo FSD22 - Road Oiling - Industrial Road Boundary ________

S023 - Road Oiling - Manchu Road Richardson Hwy'S024 - Road Oiling -Gravel Haul Road U 0SER AreasDP28 - Fly Ash Disposal Site Arasofpoenia0P29 - Drum Burial ShteScemMlsI AasoptnilSS3O - PCB Storage Facility AVcontamInationSS31 - P08 Storage Facility that were evalu-DP40 - Power Plant Sludge Pit ated to dotermineSS41 - Auto Hobby Shop (Past) 4 whether theySS42 - Miscellaneous Storage require addi-

and Disposal Area 14 tional investiga-SS47 - Commissary Parking Lottinclauo

Fuel Spill FTSTasAlsw1tinceauoWP8O - New Auto Hobby Shop DP2 P.InsI', no further action.SS82 - Garrison Slough S4

Operable Unit 2 01 cm ra(0U72) Source Areas 0111ScnwAres

STIO - Bulh Fuel Storage DP4 ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~Areas contamirnatedST1O - BukFuel Satoraged Are'Faith palm~lgumf, all,

-i Dise Fuel Satuitdlre and lubricants that

ST13 - Railroad JJ'-4 Fuel Spill AraS,74jar nesiaeST18 - Old Boiler Fuel Spill to detif pteniaST19 - JP 4 Fuel Line Spill SS1risks and alterna-DP26 -Furl Tank Sludge Burial Dfives for addressing

them.

Figure 1. Areas addressed in Proposed Plan. Figure 2, page 8, shows the Operable Unit 2 sourceareas in more detail.

E~e/scnAkFaxce aso-Aavmber /99 3

surface water, and soil contamination. The 2) Building 6214 - CERCLA source areaAir Force is also testing fuel storage tanks ST16. These hazardous waste managementand piping in these areas. The base plans to areas are addressed in this Proposed Planupgrade the system and remove and replace under CERCLA.leaking components under a separate AirForce Underground Storage Tank Program. Source Area DescriptionsRCRA Sites Phase 1 Source Evaluation Areas

Several sites addressed within this Using the Phase 1 Source Evaluation

RCRA =Resource Proposed Plan were used to manage haz- screening process, 21 areas previously iden-

Conservation and ardous waste subject to RORA. RORA gives tilled as areas of potential contamination are

Recovery Act EPA the authority to require waste manage- being proposed for no further action (seement unit closure and cleanup measures Figure 1). The Phase 1 Source Evaluation

CERCLA =for facilities that manage hazardous waste. Report, which is in the Administrative

Comprehensive The intent, as provided in this Proposed Record, documents the evaluation of

Environmental Plan , is to address the substantive closure 21 areas that are recommended for no

Response, Corn- requirements of these RCRA-regulated sites further action.pensation, andunder CERCLA. This effort will minimize The groundwater beneath Eielson Airsensation, anduplicative program actions while accom- Force Base will continue to be monitored as

Liability Act plishing functionally equivalent protective part of a site-wide groundwater monitoring

standards. Although certain sites may program. If it is determined that there areremain subject to additional administra- contaminant releases to the groundwatertive RCRA closure requirements, the sub- originating from any areas recommendedstantive closure requirements of these for no further action, the potential source

sites are proposed to be accomplished solely of contamination will be revaluated. Thisunder CEROLA. reevaluation may include additional sam-

On December 7, 1980, Eielson Air Force pling and/or source characterization.Base submitted an application to EPA to A brief description and evaluationstore hazardous waste and became subject of each of the 21 areas is included below.to the applicable RORA standards of a stor-age facility. These standards provide genera] LF05 (Old Army Landfill). LFO5, whichoperational requirements and closure stan- was used from 1956 to 1959, probablydards when hazardous waste storage activi- received general refuse such as emptyties end. Building 3424, which was identified containers and drums, scrap materials,in the initial Air Force application as the and small quantities of waste oils andhazardous waste storage facility, is included spent solvents. Site investigations and

in this Proposed Plan as part of CERCLA analysis of groundwater, sediment, soil,source area SS31 and is otherwise subject and surface water show no significantto the RORA closure requirements under contamination that poses a risk to

40 CFR § 265, Subpart G. human health or the environment.

On June 15, 1988, the EPA and Eielson *LF07 (Test Landfill). LF07 operatedAir Force Base signed a RORA Federal for less than 1 year in 1967. It primarilyFacility Compliance Agreement, which received household waste with little or norequired Eielson to pursue RCRA closure industrial waste and is now covered with

at specific hazardous waste management soil. There is no historical evidence to sug-areas, including 1) the Building 3424 stor- gest that the landfill contains high levelsage area - CERCLA source area SS31 and

4 ElisenAr'Fctre aSe-Abrember In?

of contamination. A 1991 field visit showed exists that poses a nisk to human healthno evidence of stressed vegetation or sur- or the environment. Some contaminantsface debris, would have evaporated, and the remainder

FY08 (Fire Training Area, Past). Ff08 would have moved through subsurfaceis anold rave pitwher fir-traningsoils into the groundwater where they

exercises may have been conducted from toblwo reuldaveobee dispersedf aondciued1948 to 1955. The pit is filled with water t eo ezaoylvl fcnenand contains a partially submerged B-29 *STI6 (MOGAS Fuel Line Spill). In 1957, _______

bomber fuselage. The location of this area, approximately 5,000 gallons of gas werein addition to the fact that fire-training spilled. Field investigations of groundwa- MOGAS =Motor

activities were being conducted at another ter, soil, and surface water indicate no sig- (automotive)area at this time, make the use of FT08 as nificant fuel-related contamination that gasolinea fire-training area unlikely. Field investi- poses a risk to human health or the envi- -________

gation of groundwater, sediment, soil, and ronment. Contamination would have likelysurface water indicated no significant con- evaporated or moved through subsurfacetamination that poses a risk to human soils into the groundwater where it would

health or the environment, have dispersed to below regulatory levels

55S12 (JP-4 Fuel Spill, Building 2351). of concern.In 1981. 5,000 gallons of JP-4 (jet propel- In September 1986, a RORA inspection atlant) fuel were accidentally discharged Building 6214 revealed approximately 265inside Building 2351. Although the major- improperly stored and labeled drums. Byity of the spill was contained within the joint agreement among the Air Force, EPA,building, it was estimated that 100 gallons and ADEC, this area is being addressedflowed outside the building onto unpaved as part of the adjacent CEROLA sourceground. Cleanup activities recovered area ST16.

approximately half of this amount. The drums probably contained paint and

Some contaminants would have evapo- solvents. The drums were removed andrated, and the remainder would have properly disposed through the Air Forcemoved through subsurface soils into the hazardous materials program. A sitegroundwater where they would have been inspection in August 1993 revealed smalldispersed and diluted to below regulatory amounts of tar or asphalt deposits andlevels of concern. Moreover, any contami- several small paint spills. There was nonants remaining in the soil at the spill indication of spilled solvents.

area would have been removed by the S TI 7 Canal Pipeline Spill). In 1957,grading, base-material placement, and the Canol pipeline ruptured and spilledpaving that subsequently occurred approximately 20,000 gallons of dieselaround Building 2351. fuel. Field investigations of groundwater

ST15 (Multiproduct Fuel Line). In and soil were conducted at ST17, but no1970, 5,000 gallons of automotive gaso- fuel-related contamination was found. Itline were spilled. In 1973, 5,000 gallons appears that the actual spill area wasof JP-4 were spilled in the same location, located off base where the pipeline crossesSite investigations and analysis of ground- the Richardson Highway, approximatelywater, sediment, soil, and surface water 4 miles north of ST17.indicate that no significant contamination

EklsmAkFc.ce Base-At vsvber ISMI 5

•SD21, 5D22, SD23, and SD24 (Road Site investigations and analyses of ground-Oiling Sites). Road oiling was used for water, soil, surface water, and sedimentdust control on unpaved roads (SD21. showed no contamination that poses a riskSD22, SD23, and SD24) from 1950 until to human health or the environment.some time in the 1980s. Before 1978, roads *SS30 and 5S81 (PCB Storage Facili-were oiled with waste petroleum products, ties). SS30 and SS31 are former POBincluding waste oils, contaminated fuels, storage facilities. Materials stored atand solvents. From 1978 until oiling was SS30 and SS31 included undrained anddiscontinued, waste engine oils and con- empty transformer casings and PCB-

Road oiling sites taminated diesel fuel were used. contaminated liquids and soils fromate Quarry Road Contaminants probably evaporated dur- cleanup of a POB spill at another loca-(8021), Industrial ing application or adhered to fine-grained tion. The PCB equipment and wasteRoad (8022), soil and were subsequently scattered non- materials stored at SS30 and SS31 wereManchu Road uniformly over a wide area by wind, vehicle removed between 1982 and 1987 for off-(8023), and traffic, and routine road maintenance, base disposal. Other waste materialsGravel Haul Surface soils have been sampled in some such as paint, paint remover, and sol-Road (8024). adjacent areas and contained no signifi- vents were also stored at S531.See Figure 1 cant contamination that poses a risk In September 1986, a RCRA inspection

opae3. to human health or the environment, at Building 3424 identified improperlyOil ~~~~~ Many of the unpaved road segments stored and labeled waste containers. By

are now paved. joint agreement among the Air Force,

•DP28 (Fly Ash Disposal Site). DP28 is EPA, and ADEC, this area is beinga former gravel borrow pit used for dis- addressed as part of CERCLA sourceposal of fly ash generated by the power area SS31.plant from the early iPS0s until 1977. There were no spills or leaks reported atRecent analyses of the fly ash indicate SS30 or SS31. Site investigations andthat the material is not a hazardous analyses of soil and surface water fromwaste and does not pose a threat toneryGrioSluhndctdo

huand hoealwth. Thegaetatisn addsignificant contamination that poses aand covered wih vegetationrisk to human health or the environment.

•DP29 (Drum Burial Site). DP29 isDP0(oePlnSudeit.P4a formr grael pitused o dispse ofwas used from the late 1950s until the late

55-gallon drums from 1965 to 1968. It is 1970s to dispose of sludge from air scrub-estimated that 400 to 500 drums, which bers in the power plant and residue from

eusowere placedhi t haecotied rspavlpt periodic cleaning of the power plant boiler.'emulson, wre plced n thegrave pitThe pit is now filled with water. The water

and covered with fill material. Most of the cnandacaklk usacpoaldrums were empty and some may have cnandacaklk usacpoalcontained only residual amounts of engine from mineral deposits from boiler cleaningoils and industrial solvents. The gravel pit operations. These types of mineral depos-was later used for the storage of asphalt its do not pose a risk to human health.rubble. More recently, some of the buried Although sampling was not conducted atdrums have been uncovered and removed. DP4O, a 1991 field inspection revealed noThese drums were found to be empty, evidence of stressed vegetation or surfacecrushed, and of poor integrity, debris. Boiler acid used for cleaning to

6 FSabonAt Fare Base-Mygember i-n

remove mineral deposits from water would lot showed low contaminant concentra-be neutralized quickly, and residual hydro- tions that do not pose a risk to humancarbon contaminants would have been health or the environment. Lead wasdestroyed by high temperatures in the detected in the groundwater at two wellspower plants. located on the southern, upgradient part

SS4I (Auto obby ShopP~t). 5S41of the parking lot, indicating the possibil-

was used by base personnel for repairing ioty of anther sourceok cnain ation.personal vehicles from the 1960s to 1982.sotofheprigl.Drums containing used oils and fuel were *WP60 (New Auto Hobby Shop). WP6Ostored outside the shop, and small quanti- is used by base personnel for maintainingties of industrial solvents were reportedly personal vehicles. Base policies are inused. The drums were removed between place for recycling and disposing hazard-1982 and 1986. The building was demol- ous materials. Site investigations andished and the area regraded. analysis of groundwater, sediment, soil,

Groundwater in this area contains ben- and surface water show no significantzene pparntly rom nothe spil atcontamination that poses a risk to

zeeIpaetyfomaohrsila human health or the environment.ST1S(DP26. This contamination is ad-dressed as part of cleanup for ST13IDP26. * 562 (Garrison Slough). GarrisonSite investigations and analysis of soil Slough, which begins at the south endshow no significant contamination that of Eielson Air Force Base, flows northposes a risk to human health or the through the developed portion of theenvironment. base and into Moose Creek. The slough

• SS42 (iscellaeous Stoage andis not a domestic or industrial waterDsoaAra.SS42 (Msclano s ustoragerand supply; however, the water is used toDi 6spfosa A trea).ge4 wasnsd d uringa ofwater family garden plots and for recre-

the 160s or strageand dsposl ofational fishing. Garrison Slough wasmiscellaneous small equipment andinorcllstdaacnamain

constuctin equpmen. SS4 als hassource. Though the slough may haveempty drums that contained waste oil, received contamination from severallubricants, and solvents. This area is now different sources at the base, it is notcovered with trees and vegetation. Site itself a potential source of contamination.investigations and analysis of groundwa- The impacts to Garrison Slough are beingter, sediment, soil, and surface water investigated whenever a source area hasshow no significant contamination that the potential for impacting the slough.poses a risk to human health or the In addition, any residual contamination

environment. ~~~~~~~in the slough will be evaluated in the•SS47 (Commissary Parking Lot Fuel ongoing base-wide investigation.Spill). During a preconstruction soilinvestigation in 1987 for an addition to Operable Unit 2 Source Areasthe Commissary, some fuel-contaminatedsoil was found at a depth of about 9 feet The seven areas that comprise 0U2 arenear the center of the paved parking lot, shown in Figure 2. The following is a briefThe source of contamination is unknown; description of those areas.there are no known or reported spills in * STIO - Bulk Fuel Storagethis area. Field investigations of ground-water and soil in the center of the parking * S814 -Railr-oad JP-4 Fuel Spill Area

Beltsm Ak Farce Base-A/ovemter I993 7

~~~~->.....~~~~~~'

TakST10 Bulk Fuel Slone,&U, .u

4 4~~~~~T1 ul auatdra aginRa

S~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

w<.., *~~~~Inusriltve

*S# GT18~

Figure 2. Operable Unit 2 source areas

ST1Q and SS14 are addressed jointly The area surrounding the gravel pit is

because they are located together, shar- a permitted landfill for the disposal of

ing the same groundwater and petroleum demolition debris (hardfihl). Spills and

product contamination. Groundwater at leaks from the tanks and associated pip-

both areas is approximately 7 to 11 feet ing have resulted in contaminated soils

below the land surface and flows in a and petroleum products above and in the

northwesterly direction, where it and groundwater. The tanks were inspected

the floating petroleum products are this summer and found to be in good con-

intercepted by Hardflll Lake. dition. In addition, the Air Force is test-ing the distribution piping for leaks.

ST10 includes the active Bulk Fuel Stor- Tanks will be upgraded with doubleage area and Hardflhl Lake. The Bulk Fuel bottoms, leak detection, dikes, andStorage area consists of six large, above- liners before January 1, 1997.ground storage tanks that were used tostore leaded aviation and motor fuel, diesel There are two RCRA-related areas that

fuel, and jet fuels. Hardfill Lake is an old are geographically associated with ST10.

gravel pit that has filled with groundwater. By joint agreement between the Air Force,

8 Et/VsonAll Force Base-A'Wemher I19l

EPA, and ADTEC, these two areas are ST13 and DP26 are addressed jointlybeing addressed in conjunction with ST1O. because they are located together, shar-One of these areas is a former drum stor- ing the same groundwater and petroleumage area used from 1976 through 1993. product contamination. GroundwaterApproximately 450 drums were removed, at both areas is 7 to 14 feet below thewith final sampling and removal occurring land surface and flaws in a northwest-June 1993. The other area was used to erly direction.store sandblasting grit. Six tanks wereST3iadeslflsplaranrthsandblasted to remove the old lead-based Suel iules adiese fuel spilltaeas enearf the EA USprimer. The resulting material was put in fuel oultsalongy ther souteas endergofuth EPAironme.S.drums and stored for about 1 year. Storage maink ojtaxuway.nThere tare 10 udieerground. EnvrotcinmAencalof these drums resulted in a RCRA Notice Tetanks ofje fu veln oene tank tof distoelfe. metonAncof Violation in 1990. These drums haveThtakmyhvebnusdosorbeen removed and disposed of through the aviation and motor fuels. The area was ADEC = Alaska

Air Foce haardousmaterals prgram.used for filling fuel bladders for transfer Department ofResidual contamination at both of these tormt oain.Sil n ek rmEnvironmentalareas will be sampled and evaluated, as the fuel outlets, underground pipes, and Conservation

apprpriteas part of the CEROLA action storage tanks have created contaminatedappropr/Siate soils and groundwater. The entire fueling

at ST1O/5T14. ~~~~~~system at this location will be removed

SS14 is located along the railroad tracks and replaced in 1994.across from ST10. Fuel was delivered toDPSiloaedrctyasofSS.tthe tanks via the railroad until 1977.DP6iloaedrctyasofS1.IThe area is currently active with ongoing has been used for fuel storage and dis-fueling activities. Spills and leaks of fuels, persal since the base was established. The

primaily P-4 uelresuled i conami-area has one large, above-ground storagepriaresily JP-4 fuetrlesulterduincotsami-e tank (Tank 300), associated undergroundanad sils ahgondwpetroeuprodcs.bv piping, and surface fueling outlets. Spills

and in the groundwater. ~and leaks of fuels have resulted in petro-

5 T11 - Fuel Saturated Area. STI 1 is leum contamination in soils and abovecurrently a dog-training facility adjacent and in groundwater. The primary sourceto Garrison Slough. The area used to be of contamination at DP26 is believed tothe base bakery whose diesel-fueled ovens be past leaks from Tank 300 and its asso- JP-4 Jewere fed by an underground pipeline. Fuel ciated piping. The tank was replaced in pmopellant (fuel)leaks, probably from the pipeline, resulted 1989. The groundwater contaminationin the layer of diesel fuel above the water has spread into ST13.table and in Garrison Slough. During aST8-OdBieFulpl.S18cncleanup effort in the late 1970s, tepe-sists of three buildings in an industrialline was removed and residual diesel fuelpatothbseTebulighuewas removed from on top of the groundwa- patothbseTebulighueter. Groundwater is 10 to 13 feet below several emergency diesel generators thatthe land surface. It flows to the northeast, are fueled by two 25,000-gallon under-away from the slough, for the majority of ground storage tanks. Petroleum productsthe year. were detected during an excavation project

in the mid-1970s. The source is believed to* STiS - Diesel Fuel Spill be related to the storage tanks. The tanks

* DP26 - Fuel Tank Sludge Burial failed a 'tightness' test in August 1993,were emptied, and will be removed in 1994.

FbelsmnAvFoxe Base-Wayember /199 9

A 4'~~~~~~~~~~~~~'

*ST19 - JP-4 Fuel Line Spill. ST19 is Carcinogenic effects were evaluated to findlocated along buried fuel pipelines in an how many more people might get cancer fromundeveloped part of the base. A jet spill contamination. The National Contingencyresulted when a pipeline control valve was Plan defines acceptable risks for Superfundsheared by a snowplow in the late 1950s. sites as additional cancers in the range ofThe spill contaminated the soils and 1 chance in 10,000 to 1 chance in 1,000,000.groundwater. Groundwater is 6 to 8 feet Noncarcinogenic effects are evaluated bybelow the land surface, and flows in a comparing the estimated intake of thenorthwesterly direction. contaminant with levels believed to cause

toxic effects.

Summary at Operable Unit 2 * STIO/SS14. Leaks and spills of fuels at

Source Area Risks centrations of BTEX (benzene, toluene,ethylbenzene, and xylene) in the ground-

The Air Force evaluated the estimated water. The additional cancer risk estimatehealth problems that could result if con- for all exposure pathways in a future resi-tamination at each of the 0U2 source areas dential scenario is 2 in 1,000. Much of thiswas not cleaned up. The estimate is based risk is from benzene in the groundwater.primarily upon the following factors: 1) the In addition, elevated toluene and xyleneslocation and amount of contaminant present, in the groundwater could have toxic effects2) the toxicity of the contaminant, 3) current if this groundwater were used for drinkingand future use of the area (e.g., residential or showering. The risks to current workersor industrial), and 4) the environmental at ST10/SS14 are all within acceptablepathways that could expose people to regulatory levels.contaminants.

The presence and amount of contamina- Lead in the groundwater has a maximumtion were determined by collecting and ana- concentration of 46 parts per billion, whichlyzing samples. Samples were collected from exceeds the drinking water standard of1986 to 1992, with most collected during the 15 parts per billion.summer of 1991. *ST13IDP26. Elevated levels of BTEX and

Potential current and future risks were naphthalene are present in the ground-

evaluated for the workers onsite and resi- water at ST13. The additional cancer riskdents, including children and adults. in a future residential scenario is 6 in

The risk assessment evaluated six ways 10,000, primarily from benzene in the

people could be exposed to contamination by groundwater. In addition, elevated levelsliving on or near the contaminated areas in of toluene and xylenes in the groundwaterthe future: 1) using groundwater for dnink- mycuetxcefcsi sdfrdiking and showering, 2) touching and eating may cashoertoicnfetsigse.odiksoil, 3) eating plants grown on contaminatedinorswengsoils, 4) inhaling vapors and dust released The maximum concentration of lead infrom the soils, 5) eating fish living in con- the groundwater is 795 parts per billion,taminated surface waters, and 6) drinking which exceeds the drinking water stan-water from streams or lakes or getting it on dard of 15 parts per billion. However,the skin, the groundwater is not currently used

The estimated risks from each of these for drinking, and the risks to currentpathways are added to determine total risk workers at ST13/DP26 are all withinand are evaluated for carcinogenic (cancer- acceptable regulatory levels.causing) and noncarcinogenic (toxic) effects.

10 &I1ScoAkfx~ce as&e-A bwember /993

* STI1ISTI8. At these areas, very low levels elevated lead in groundwater. The cleanupof BTEX contamination remain in soils objectives are 1) to reduce contaminant levelsand groundwater. The cancer and noncar- in the groundwater to below drinking watercinogenic risks at both areas are within standards, and 2) to clean up soil so that itacceptable regulatory levels for current no longer adts as a source of groundwaterand future scenarios. Some residual petro- contamination.leum hydrocarbons remain in subsurface Cleanup procedures would be installedsoils at depths of 10 to 13 feet below the using a 'building-block" approach, whereland surface. This contamination is not ongoing monitoring would evaluate how eachexpected to pose a risk to human health technology is working before moving to theor the environment, next phase of cleanup. This phased approach

would allow the Air Force to use actual field* STID. ST19 has elevated levels of BTEX data during cleanup to get the best mix of

in the groundwater in a localized area very technologies to meet cleanup objectives.near the spill site. For the future residen- Because of the variable levels and distri-tial scenario (people living at the site), the bution of contamination, slightly different _________additional cancer risk is 2 in 100,000, pri alternatives were evaluated for each pair ofmanily from benzene in the groundwater. areas. The alternatives evaluated for ST1O/ STEX= benzene,In addition, elevated levels of toluene, S14adT3/P6wrtounehlethylbenzene, and xylenes in the ground- 514adT1/P6wrtoentylwater may pose an unacceptable risk if * Alternative 1 - No action benzene, andthis area were developed as a residential xyltrntieeneRsticedgoudwtemuefuelarea. The groundwater in this area is not .Atraie2-Rsrce rudae s otmnto

currently used, nor expected to be used, * Alternative 3 - Bioventingas a base drinking water supply. The * Alternative 4risks to current workers at ST19 areall within acceptable regulatory levels. - Soil venting/air sparging at ST10/SSI4

- Soil venting/air sparging/groundwater

Cleanup Alternatives treatment at ST13/DP26* Alternative 5 - Soil excavation/groundwa-

The cumulative risk calculated for areas ter treatment.ST11 and ST18 is within acceptable regula-tory levels. ST19 is in an undeveloped part Summary of Alternativesof the base, and the current cumulative riskis very low. Thus, environmental cleanup The five alternatives for both sets ofis not proposed for these three areas under areas are described below. Estimated costsSuperfund. However, under the Underground are shown in Table 2 on page 17. The sectionStorage Tank Program, the Air Force will after this, Evaluation of Alternatives, corn-remove the tanks at ST18. In addition, the pares the alternatives.Air Force will continue to monitor the ground- Atraie1 oAtowater at these areas to ensure that ground- Atraie1 oAtowater quality poses no risk to human health The "no action" alternative is requiredor the environment, to be evaluated as a baseline for comparison

Cleanup alternatives are presented for against other alternatives. Under this alter-ST10/SS14 and ST13/DP26 because of their native, the Air Force would not take anyhigher levels of groundwater and subsurface further cleanup action at these areas undersoil contamination and the presence of

Eie/scnAktcrce Base-November/OW0

CERCLA. It is estimated that groundwater Bloventingcontamination would persist for more than Ar1;dnsoe

200 years.

Alternative 2: Restricted Groundwater UseThe 'restricted groundwater use" alter-

native would restrict the use of areas withMorarmcontaminated groundwater through baseregulations. These institutional controls Fo

would limit current and future exposureto contaminated groundwater. Contami-nants would be allowed to disperse anddegrade through natural processes. TheAir Force would monitor groundwater toevaluate contaminant movement. Thisalternative would not reduce the source Smear

of contamination.

Alternative 3: BioventingThe "bioventing" alternative (Figure 3) Groundwater Flow

would reduce the contaminant source byenhancing natural processes to degrade con- EDOrm.ve So I Pet o~sr Pmducts

tamination in the subsurface soil. Bioventingwould reduce the concentrations of BTEXCo,,mdmuwaecompounds in the subsurface soils. The sys-: Figure 3. Bioventing. This process injectstern would use wells to inject just enough air air into the soil to sustain naturally occurr-into the soil to sustain naturally occurring ing microorganisms that break down the fuelmicroorganisms that break down the fuel contamination.product contamination.

If enough quantities of petroleum prod- Alternative, 4:ucts are present, petroleum products above

groundwater would be collected and removed Soil Venting/Air Sparging at ST10/SS14using wells or trenches. Institutional controlssuch as base regulations to restrict the use of Soil Venting/Air Sparging/Groundwatargroundwater would be used. The Air Force Treatment at ST13/DP26would monitor groundwater to evaluate con- These alternatives focus on reducing thetaminant movement. Partially treating the suc fcnaiaintruhmr grs

soil would geuetesuc o rudae ive removal of petroleum products and soilcontamination. This alternative addressescotmninnlungotann nththe subsurface soil but is not designed to cnaiain nldn otmnnsi hclean up contamination in the 'smear zone" smear zone. Alternative 4 con-sists of manysoils at the top of the groundwater (Figure 3). components that would be installed in phases,The smear zone would continue to contami- depending on actual conditions encountered.nate the groundwater. Contaminated Figure 4 shows these treatment processes.groundwater would not be treated under Initiaily, the system may use some combina-this alternative. tion of soil vapor extraction and bioventing to

12 EllaiA Faice Base-A'aember /W9

Soil Venting

I Bloventing Soil Vapor Extraction I~ Air Sparging

Air lnjoctico Slower Air Ex Ctraton Blower Compressed Adr

A4 iL3 KL

Contaminations -,'n momntsn Exrcd fo " Vaporsretod~e Ventodisg

Groundwater GMurae GonwtFlow ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~FowFo

Contamninated Soil -..- Petroleum Products jŽ$.Contaminated Groundwater

Figure 4. Alternative 4 treatment technologies. Bioventing would be used in combination with

soil vapor extraction, which uses forced air to transform soil contaminants to vapors for removal.Air sparging injects compressed air into the top of the groundwater, causing contaminants thereand in the smear zone to transform to vapors that are treated by the soil venting system.Groundwater extraction and treatment would treat lead-contaminated groundwater.

maximize contaminant removal. The system the subsurface soils for treatment by the soil

may be converted to full-time bioventing for venting system. Any air emissions from theset long-term degradation of the remaining fuel- systems would be treated in accordance with

related contaminants in the soil. state and federal regulations.If enough quantities of petroleum prod- At 8T131DP26, groundwater extraction

ucts are present, petroleum products above and treatment would be used to clean up the

the groundwater would be collected and groundwater contaminated with lead. An

removed using wells or trenches. In addition, extraction well would be installed near Tank

an air sparging system would help volatilize 300 in the areas of highest contamination.(turn to a vapor) petroleum products in the The extracted groundwater would be chemi-

smear-zone soils where a significant amount cally and physically treated to remove lead

of residual contamination remains. In this and petroleum compounds.

system, compressed air is injected into the Removing the source of petroleum contain-

groundwater. The air moves upward through ination in the soil is expected to significantlythe groundwater and soil, causing the con- accelerate natural reduction of contamination

tamination to volatilize and move up into in the groundwater. Base regulations would

F/a/sorrAt foco Base-A bomber 1901 13

resrit te seof rondwte utilth Fiur 5 Th citeio o comuityacep

Atrestrictte use ofi groundateo/rountil ather Frigurei5. Thbe cnvinonlof communistye accep-

Treatment ~~~~~~~~natives to each other using the evaluation

Alternative 5 focuses on reducing the con- criteria.tarninant source through selective excavationof contaminated soils and extraction and Overall Protection of Human Healthtreatment of contaminated groundwater. and the Environment

Soils contaminated with petroleum com-pounds would be excavated, where feasible, All the alternatives except Alternative 1for onsite bioremediation. The excavated area would use institutional controls to prevent

Blioremediatlion would be backfilled with clean or treated soil the use of contaminated groundwater untilCleanup of in accordance with federal and state regula- cleanup standards are achieved. Alternativesexcavated soils tions. However, the amount of contaminated 4 and 5 would provide the greatest protectionusing naturally soil that could be excavated for treatment is and degree of cleanup by treating petroleumoccurring micro- severely limited by the presence of tanks and contamination in the soils and by treatingorganisms, e.g., pipes and the inability to excavate deeper soil contaminated groundwater. Alternative 3composting. in the smear zone. This significant amount of would provide limited protection by treating

soil could not be treated and would continue to some of the soil contamination and partiallyact as a source of groundwater contamination, reducing the source of groundwater contami-

Petroleum products and contaminated nation. However, Alternative 3 does notgroundwater would be extracted using include groundwater treatment.recovery wells. The extracted fuel would berecycled or reused onsite. When there is too Compliance with Applicable orlittle fuel to extract, full-scale groundwater Relevant and Appropriateextraction would be used. The extractedgroundwater would be treated using chemi- Requirementscal and physical treatment to remove lead Alternatives 4 and 5 include groundwaterand petroleum compounds and returned to a tetetadwudb xetdt civsurface water body (Hardfill Lake at ST1O/ treudatment clandwuldp expectdad tor rachieveSS14 or Garrison Slough at ST13IDP26) in groundwthoter cltenanu tandars more rapidly1 2accordance with state and federal regula-thnteoeraentis.Aentvs1,2tions. Groundwater monitoring would con- and 3 would rely on natural processes totinue, and base regulations would restrict slowly decrease petroleum and lead concen-use of groundwater until the groundwater trations in the groundwater.

issafe for drinking. Alternatives 3, 4, and 5 would be designedand implemented to meet all applicable orrelevant and appropriate state and federalEvaluation of Alternatives regulations, including air emission limita-tions, surface water discharge limits, and

In accordance with federal regulations, disposal of byproducts from the groundwaterthe five cleanup alternatives were evaluated treatment activities.based on the nine criteria presented in

14 E&/sonAkForce Base-Alorenmber IOZ

* ~~~~~~~Short-term effectiveness. Are there potentialadverse effects to either human health or theenvironment during construction or implemen-tation of the alternative? How fast does the

Overall protection of human health and the alternative reach the cleanup goals?environment. How well does the alternativeprotect human health and the environment, both Implementability. Is the alternative both tech-during and after construction? nically and administratively feasible? Has the

technology been used successfully at similar areas?Compliance with requirements. Does thealternative meet all applicable or relevant and Cost. What are the relative costs of the alternative?appropriate state and federal laws?

Sitat acceptance. What are the state's

Long-term effectiveness and permanence. How comments or concerns about the alternativeswell does the alternative protect human health and considered and about the preferred alternative?the environment after completion of cleanup? What, Does the state support or oppose the preferred

if any, risks will remain at the area? alternative?

Reduction of toxicity, mobility, and vol- Conmmunity acceptance. What are theume. Does the alternative effectively treat community's comments or concerns about thethe contamination to significantly reduce the alternatives considered and about the preferredtoxicity, mobility, and volume of the hazardous alternative? Does the community generallysubstance? support or oppose the preferred alternative9

Figure 5. Cniteria for evaluation of alternatives Smear zone =Soils

at the top ot theLong-Term Effectiveness and be allowed to slowly move through the soil to groundwater. See

Permanence ~~~~~~~~~~the groundwater, where it would be pumped Figures 3 and 4 onPermanence ~~~~~out and treated. pages 12 and 13.

Alternative 4 would aggressively treat sub- Alternative 3 would address petroleum con- ________

surface soils, including the smear-zone soils tamination in soils, and, to a lesser extent, inon top of the groundwater. Therefore, Alter- smear-zone soils. However, Alternative 3, asnative 4 would achieve the best treatment of designed, would treat an area one-tenth thesoils that are continuing to contaminate the size of the soils that would be treated usinggroundwater. In addition, Alternative 4 would Alternative 4. In addition, because Alterna-include treatment of lead-contaminated tive 3 would not include groundwater treat-groundwater at ST13/DP26. ment, groundwater contaminants, including

Alternative 5 would include selective lead, would remain significantly longer thanexcavation of soils, but large volumes of estimated for Alternatives 4 and 5.contaminated soils could not be excavated None of the contaminants would bebecause of the presence of pipelines, tanks, addressed by Alternatives 1 and 2 exceptand operating systems in the area. In addi- through natural processes. Therefore,tion, Alternative 5 would not address sig- Alternatives 1 and 2 would provide the leastnificant contamination remaining in the long-term effectiveness and permanence.

smear-zone soils. Under Alternative 5,the remaining soil contamination would

Ele/soAir Farce Bse-Nov7mbr/l IS

Table 1. Comparison of cleanup alternatives using the five balancing criteria. Alternatives areranked by comparing them to each other.

Alternative Number and Ranking6a)

Evaluation Criteria l and 2 3 4 5

Long-term effectiveness and permanence 0 Ci) S S

Reduction of toxicity, mobility, and volume 0 Qi S S

Short-term effectiveness 0 Ci) 0 59

Implementability KeS S 5 0Cost(b') I0=bestl

f = good~

ST13/26 0 =worst 5

The evaluation cri-teria are defined (a) Alternative 1 = no action. -Alternative 2 = restricted groundwater use. Alternative 3 =bioventing.

in Figure E on Alternative 4 = soil venting/~air sparging at ST1O/SS14 and soil venting/air sparging/groundwaterpae15. treatment at ST13/DP26. Alternative 5 = soil excavation/groundwater treatment.

page ~~~~(b) Estimated costs appear in Table 2 on page 17.

Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Shari-Term Effectiveness.Volume Through Treatment None of the alternatives would be expected

Alternatives 4 and 5 would result in the to pose an unacceptable risk to residents orgreatest reduction in toxicity, mobility, and workers during implementation. All potentialvolume of contamination by removing and/or impacts from construction and system oper-treating contamination in the soil and above ation would be readily controlled usingand in the groundwater. Alternative 4 would standard engineering controls and practices.also reduce the volume of lead-contaminated Alternative 4 would be expected to cleangroundwater at ST13/DP26. Alternative 4 up the soils, including the smear zone, in thewould aggressively treat the source of ground- shortest amount of time, thus eliminating thewater contamination by treating the subsur- source of groundwater contamination. Inface soils, including those in the smear zone. addition, by treating lead contamination in

Alternative 5 would not reduce the soil the gtoundwater, Alternative 4 would reducecontamination as effectively, but would the time necessary to achieve groundwaterinclude more aggressive groundwater cleanup standards.extraction and treatment. Alternative 5 would require much more

Alternative 3 would not reduce or treat the time than Alternative 4 to achieve soilsoil contamination, specifically in the smear- cleanup because of the inability to excavatezone soils, as effectively as Alternative 4. In altecnaiae olepcal hsaddition, Alternative 3 would not reduce or in the smear zone on top of the groundwater.treat the groundwater contamination as Though Alternative 5 would include moreAlternatives 4 and 5 would. extensive groundwater extraction and treat-

Neither Alternative 1 or 2 would reduce ment, it is questionable whether groundwaterthe toxicity, mobility, or volume of the treatment would be able to achieve cleanupcontaminants. standards faster than natural processes

16 E;WVsmAk1Fare ~a&s-Atvsvnb&1/19S3

A~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Table 2. Cost of alternatives (thousands of dollaraWO

Alternative 4Alternative 2 Soil Ventingt Alternative 5

Restricted Air Sparging/ Soil Excavatior/Type of Groundwater Alternative 3 Groundwater Groundwater

Cost Use Bioventing Treatment(b),C) TreatmentCC)

STIO: Bulk Fuel StorageSS14: Railroad JP-4 Fuel Spill Area

Construction 5 620 3,450 - 5,150 2,900 (1,600)TotaI(d) 1,170 2,100 5,400 - 7,400 9,100 (6,600)

ST13: Diesel Fuel SpillDP26: Fuel Tank Sludge Burial

Construction 0 830 2,300 - 3,500 (1,200) 1,750 (1,400)Total 1,170 5,800 11,100 - 12,500 (7,100) 4,200 (3,800)

(a) Cost estimates are rough: use only for comparison among alternatives. Alternative 1, no action, has noassociated costs.

(b) Soil venting, air sparging, and groundwater treatment at ST13/DP26. Soil venting and air sparging only atST1O/SS14. Costs would range as shown, depending on reslts of phased implementation.

Cc) Costs in parentheses are for the groundwater treatment component.(d) Assumes 5% inflation over 30 years of operations.

because of the large amounts of remaining require no additional action other than mon-soil contamination that would continue to itoring and/or institutional controls. Thecontaminate the groundwater. technology as described in Alternative 3 is

Alternative 3, as described in this Pro- relatively limited in scope and would alsoposed Plan, would include some treatment be readily implernentable.of soil contamination, but would not address The success of removing petroleum prod-contamination in the smear zone or in the ucts on top of the groundwater as part ofgroundwater. Therefore, Alternative 3, as Alternatives 3, 4, and 5 would depend on thewell as Alternatives 1 and 2, would depend amount of petroleum product that would flowon natural processes to achieve groundwater into the collection system. Effective collectioncleanup standards. Using only natural proc- of petroleum is difficult with the thin layersesses, groundwater contamination may of petroleum products and the large fluctua-persist for more than 200 years. tions in groundwater levels found at Eielson

Air Force Base.

Implementabllhty The technologies included in Alternative 4for the removal of petroleum contamination

All alternatives would use readily avail- are being implemented at three other fuel-able technologies and would be feasible to contaminated areas at Eielson Air Forceconstruct. Alternatives 1 and 2 would be Base. The results to date have been encour-readily implementable because they would aging. These technologies appear to be the

Eie'swn&Fc~rej&m-Abenertifi9Y 17

rst ~ ~ ~ ~ r~~¼ '~N

most effective method for treating the smear- Summnary of thezone soils on top of the groundwater, whereYmuch of the residual petroleum contamina- Preferred Alternativestion remains.

Alternative 5 would be poor in effective- Source Evaluation Report Areasness and implementability because it is notpossible to excavate large volumes of con- The 21 areas included in the Phase 1taminated soils near pipelines, tanks, and Source Evaluation Report are proposedoperating systems, nor in the smear-zone for no further action under CERCLA. Ansoils. Furthermore, although groundwater evaluation of past Air Force practices, andextraction and treatment is a commonly results of site inspections and environmen-used technology, its effectiveness in achiev- tal investigations, indicate that these areasing groundwater cleanup standards is not do not pose a risk to human health or thewell-established, environment. Several of these areas are

also being addressed through tank remov-

Cost als, system upgrades, and debris removalas discussed in the Source Area Descrip-

Based on the information available at tions section.the time the alternatives were developed, In addition, the groundwater beneaththe estimated costs for each alternative Eielson Air Force Base, including wells closeare presented in Table 2. to these areas, will continue to be monitored

The system described in Alternative 4 as part of a site-wide groundwater monitoringwould be implemented in phases, based on program. In the future, if significant contami-actual conditions found in the field. The nation is found from any of the areas recoin-costs included in Table 2 are conservative mended for no further action, the potentialbecause it was assumed that all components source of contamination will be reevaluated.of the system would be required. If some of This reevaluation may include additionalthe components are not required, the actual sampling and more intensive investigation.costs may be significantly lower. In addition,the estimated cost may be further refined Operable Unit 2 Source Areasonce actual costs are finalized for construc-tion of a similar system used this past The cumulative risk for source areas ST11summer at Eielson Air Force Base. and ST18 is within acceptable regulatory

levels. ST19 is in an undeveloped part of the

State Acceptance base, and current cumulative risk is very low.Thus, environmental cleanup is not proposed

ADEC has been involved with preparing for these three areas under Superfund. How-the Proposed Plan and concurs with the ever, under the Underground Storage Tankpreferred alternative. Program, the Air Force will remove the tanks

at STIS. In addition, the Air Force will con-

Community Acceptance tinue to monitor the groundwater at theseareas to ensure that levels protect human

Community acceptance of the preferred health and the environment.alternative and the other alternatives will be For the areas requiring cleanup, Alterna-evaluated after the public comment period is tive 4 is proposed for both ST1OISS14 andheld and all comments have been considered. ST13IDP26. This alternative would achieve

18 Ele/sco Air Force Base-At vanber 1993

substantial risk reduction through treat- used to evaluate the options. Based on avail-ment of the principal source of groundwater able information, the agencies believe thecontamination-fuels on top of the groundwa- preferred alternatives would protect humanter and soil contamination. Groundwater health and the environment, would complymonitoring and institutional controls to with regulatory requirements, would be cost-restrict the use of groundwater would con- effective, and would seek permanent solu-tinue in both areas. H-ardfill Lake would tions to the extent practicable. The preferredprevent expansion of the plume at ST10/ alternatives should satisfy the preference forSS14 because contamination entering the treatment as a principal element.water evaporates at the surface. The leadin the groundwater at ST13/DP26 would Public Involvementbe actively treated by a groundwater extrac-tion system. BTEX compounds in groundwa- A public meeting is scheduled for 7:00 p.m.ter would be expected to diminish naturally. November 17, 1993, at the North Pole Middle

A phased approach would be used to clean School on Eighth Avenue, North Pole, Alaska.up both ST10/SS14 and STl3/DP26. In the Representatives from the Air Force, EPA,summer of 1994, the first step would be to and ADEC will discuss the Proposed Plancontinue monitoring the levels of contamina- and answer questions. You are encouragedtion to determine the final design of the to comment on the Proposed Plan by sendingcleanup systems. After design, Phase 1 of written comments or by commenting at theimplementation would consist of installa- public meeting.tion of the soil ventinglair sparging systems, At the end of the comment period, theanticipated for spring of 1995. In Phase 1, Air Force will prepare a summary respond-studies may also be initiated to observe the ing to public comments. This is called aeffect of soil cleanup and natural processes Responsiveness Summary, and it is submit-on groundwater quality to identify any ted as part of the Record of Decision (ROD),needed modifications. Subsequently, in which documents the selected cleanup actionsPhase 2, groundwater extraction and treat- (see Figure 6). The final cleanup plans arement would be implemented at ST13/DP26. selected only after considering public corn-

In summary, the Air Force, ADEC, and ments. After the ROD is signed, the ROD,EPA believe the preferred alternatives pro- with the Responsiveness Summary, is addedvide the best balance of tradeoffs among to the Information Repositories.alternatives with respect to the cnitenia

4 4 ~~~decision * drawings and4-Develop *Present plan specifications *Operate untilahternatives to public *Respond to cleanup goals

public are met

Figure 6. CERCLA process

F/usonAkFace Bse--November 19fl 1

Whert' You tan Get information on Eid!son Cleanup:FMner E. Rosin usen Library

Arctic and Polar Regions Archives SectionThiversity ofAlaska PbcMrn nPooe j~Fairbanks, AK 99775Nvm e1719 70to90pm

(997) 474-6594 NrhPl ide col ihhAe

7¼ &-n4 Commenu or Fr More f~omtaU~tt~ ITo Fnbarkso

Lieutenant Steve RkckertIPublic Aftairs GOflee CithA

3112 Broadway Ave., Suites AFtffliAeElelson Air Fprco Base, AK 99702.1830

(907) 37'7.2116, mT&On7:30N tin. to 4:30 pn.m, Monday through Friday

Eielson Environmental Cleanup

31 12 B road way Ave., S uiteS8

Eielson Air Force Base, AK 99702-1830

T Pnintced on recycled paper

CORRECTION TO PROPOSED PLAN

Page 17 Table 2. Under ST13: Diesel Fuel Spill and DP26: FuelTank Sludge Burial, the Total Cost for Alternative 5 should be10,700 and not 4,200.

Due to this error, the public comment period will be extended toDec 20, 1993.