usace - cercla five-year review report · 1,3,5-tnb 1,3,5-trinitrobenzene 2,4-dnt...

US Army Corps of Engineers® CERCLA FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT SAVANNA ARMY DEPOT ACTIVITY SAVANNA, ILLINOIS

FINAL USACE Contract Number W912QR-12-D-0010 Delivery Order Number 0014

Prepared for: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Louisville District Louisville, Kentucky June 2015

THIS PAGE WAS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

CERCLA Five-Year Review Report Savanna Army Depot Activity

Savanna, Illinois

Final

USACE Contract Number W912QR-12-D-0010 Delivery Order Number 0014

Prepared for: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Louisville District Louisville, Kentucky

June 2015

Final CERCLA Five-Year Review iii June 2015 Savanna Army Depot Activity

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................. ES-1

FIVE-YEAR REVIEW SUMMARY FORM ..................................................................................... ES-3

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

2.0 SITE CHRONOLOGY ................................................................................................................. 2-1

3.0 BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................ 3-1

3.1 PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF SVDA .................................................................... 3-1 3.2 SITE-SPECIFIC BACKGROUND INFORMATION .......................................................... 3-3

3.2.1 Site 111 (1934 Outdoor Washout Plant) .................................................................. 3-3 3.2.2 Site 192 (Manganese Ore Storage Mounds) ............................................................ 3-6 3.2.3 Site 37PS (Pole Storage Area), Site 76CS (Former Coal Storage Area), and

Site 76OD (Open Drum Area) ................................................................................. 3-8 3.2.4 Site 126 (CN Plant Boiler Building Underground Storage Tanks [Building

502]) ....................................................................................................................... 3-10 3.2.5 21 LUC Sites (Sites 35, 60PS, 60S2, 60S3, 76FA, 76GS, 76RH, 86, 88HD,

92, 93, 95, 102LB, 128, 131, 135, 183, 189, 190A, HA, and SEW) ...................... 3-12

4.0 REMEDIAL ACTIONS ................................................................................................................ 4-1

4.1 REMEDY SELECTION ....................................................................................................... 4-2 4.1.1 Remedy Selection for Site 111 ................................................................................. 4-2 4.1.2 Remedy Selection for Site 192 ................................................................................. 4-3 4.1.3 Remedy Selection for Sites 37PS, 76CS, and 76OD ............................................... 4-3 4.1.4 Remedy Selection for Site 126 ................................................................................. 4-4 4.1.5 Remedy Selection for 21 LUC Sites ........................................................................ 4-4

4.2 REMEDY IMPLEMENTATION ......................................................................................... 4-5 4.2.1 Site 111 Remedy Implementation ............................................................................ 4-5 4.2.2 Site 192 Remedy Implementation ............................................................................ 4-7 4.2.3 Sites 37PS, 76CS, 76OD, and 126 Remedy Implementation................................... 4-8 4.2.4 21 LUC Sites Remedy Implementation ................................................................... 4-8

4.3 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE ................................................................................ 4-8 4.3.1 Site 111 Operation and Maintenance ....................................................................... 4-8 4.3.2 Site 192 Operation and Maintenance ....................................................................... 4-8 4.3.3 Sites 37PS, 76CS, 76OD, and 126 Operation and Maintenance .............................. 4-8 4.3.4 LUC Sites Operation and Maintenance .................................................................... 4-8

5.0 PROGRESS SINCE THE LAST FIVE-YEAR REVIEW ......................................................... 5-1

6.0 FIVE-YEAR REVIEW PROCESS .............................................................................................. 6-1

6.1 ADMINISTRATIVE COMPONENTS ................................................................................ 6-1 6.2 COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT........................................................................................ 6-1 6.3 DOCUMENT REVIEW ....................................................................................................... 6-2 6.4 DATA REVIEW ................................................................................................................... 6-2

6.4.1 Site 111 .................................................................................................................... 6-2 6.4.2 Site 192 .................................................................................................................... 6-4 6.4.3 Sites 37PS, 76CS, 76OD, and 126 ........................................................................... 6-5 6.4.4 21 LUC Sites ............................................................................................................ 6-5

6.5 SITE INSPECTION .............................................................................................................. 6-5

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

Page

Final CERCLA Five-Year Review iv June 2015 Savanna Army Depot Activity

6.6 INTERVIEWS ...................................................................................................................... 6-6 6.7 INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS .......................................................................................... 6-6

6.7.1 Institutional Controls for the Site 111 ...................................................................... 6-6 6.7.2 Institutional Controls for Site 192 ............................................................................ 6-7 6.7.3 Institutional Controls for the 21 LUC Sites ............................................................. 6-8

7.0 TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT...................................................................................................... 7-1

7.1 QUESTION A: IS THE REMEDY FUNCTIONING AS INTENDED BY THE DECISION DOCUMENTS? ................................................................................................ 7-1 7.1.1 Remedial Action Performance ................................................................................. 7-1

7.1.1.1 Site 111 Remedial Action Performance .................................................... 7-1 7.1.1.2 Site 192 Remedial Action Performance .................................................... 7-1 7.1.1.3 Sites 37PS, 76CS, 76OD, and 126 Remedial Action Performance ........... 7-1 7.1.1.4 LUC Sites Remedial Action Performance ................................................ 7-1

7.2 QUESTION B: ARE THE EXPOSURE ASSUMPTIONS, TOXICITY DATA, CLEANUP LEVELS, AND REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES USED AT THE TIME OF REMEDY SELECTION STILL VALID? ........................................................... 7-1 7.2.1 Changes in Standards and To-Be-Considered Criteria ............................................ 7-2 7.2.2 Changes in Exposure Pathways, Toxicity, and Other Contaminant

Characteristics .......................................................................................................... 7-2 7.3 QUESTION C: HAS ANY OTHER INFORMATION COME TO LIGHT THAT

COULD CALL INTO QUESTION THE PROTECTIVENESS OF THE REMEDY? ........ 7-3 7.4 TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT SUMMARY ........................................................................ 7-3

8.0 ISSUES, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND FOLLOW-UP ACTIONS ....................................... 8-1

9.0 PROTECTIVENESS STATEMENTS ........................................................................................ 9-1

9.1 SITE 111 PROTECTIVENESS STATEMENT ................................................................... 9-1 9.2 SITE 192 PROTECTIVENESS STATEMENT ................................................................... 9-1 9.3 SITES 37PS, 76CS, 76OD, AND 126 PROTECTIVENESS STATEMENT....................... 9-1 9.4 LUC SITES PROTECTIVENESS STATEMENT ............................................................... 9-1

10.0 NEXT REVIEW .......................................................................................................................... 10-1

11.0 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................ 11-1

LIST OF ATTACHMENTS

Attachment A Public Notice Attachment B Documents Reviewed Attachment C Site 111 Remedial Action Report Tables and Figures Attachment D Site 192 Remedial Action Report Figures Attachment E FYR Site Inspection Forms Attachment F Site Inspection Photo Log Attachment G Interview Records

Final CERCLA Five-Year Review v June 2015 Savanna Army Depot Activity

FIGURES

Page

Figure 1-1. Lower Post FYR Sites ......................................................................................................... 1-3 Figure 1-2. Ammunition Area FYR Sites .............................................................................................. 1-4

TABLES

Page

Table 2-1. SVDA Chronology ............................................................................................................. 2-1 Table 3-1. Status of SVDA RI/FS Sites not in Final RODs ................................................................ 3-1 Table 3-2. RI Summary of 21 LUC Sites .......................................................................................... 3-13 Table 4-1. Remediation Goals for Site 111 ......................................................................................... 4-2 Table 4-2. Remediation Goals for Site 192 ......................................................................................... 4-3 Table 4-3. Cleanup Goals for Sites 37PS, 76CS, and 76OD ............................................................... 4-4 Table 4-4. Cleanup Goals for Site 126 ................................................................................................ 4-4 Table 6-1. SVDA FYR Team Members .............................................................................................. 6-1 Table 6-2. Site 192 Surface Soil RG Exceedances .............................................................................. 6-4 Table 6-3. Site 192 Subsurface Soil/Railroad Track RG Exceedances ............................................... 6-5 Table 6-4. Summary of Planned ICs for Site 111 ................................................................................ 6-6 Table 6-5. Summary of Planned ICs for Site 192 ................................................................................ 6-7 Table 6-6. Summary of Planned ICs for the 21 LUC Sites ................................................................. 6-8 Table 8-1. Issues, Recommendations, and Follow-up Actions ........................................................... 8-2

Final CERCLA Five-Year Review vi June 2015 Savanna Army Depot Activity

ACRONYMS

1,3,5-TNB 1,3,5-Trinitrobenzene 2,4-DNT 2,4-Dinitrotoluene APE Ammunition Peculiar Equipment ARAR Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirement AUF Area Use Factor BCT BRAC Closure Team BERA Baseline Ecological Risk Assessment BLS Below Land Surface BRAC Base Realignment and Closure CELRL U.S. Army Corps of Engineers – Louisville District CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act CFR Code of Federal Regulations COC Chemical of Concern COPC Chemical of Potential Concern COR Contracting Officer’s Representative cPAH Carcinogenic Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbon EBS Environmental Baseline Survey ecoCOPC Ecological Chemical of Potential Concern ESV Ecological Screening Value EU Exposure Unit FFA Federal Facilities Agreement FFS Focused Feasibility Study FS Feasibility Study FYR Five-Year Review GAC Granular Activated Carbon gpm Gallons per Minute GQS Groundwater Quality Standard HI Hazard Index HQ Hazard Quotient I.D. Identification IC Institutional Control IAC Illinois Administrative Code IEPA Illinois Environmental Protection Agency IRP Installation Restoration Program ISPCS Illinois State Plane Coordinate System KO Contracting Officer LRA Local Redevelopment Authority LUC Land Use Control LUCIP Land Use Control Implementation Plan MCPA 2-Methyl-4-Chlorophenoxyacetic Acid msl Mean Sea Level NCP National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan NFA No Further Action NOAEL No-Observable-Adverse-Effect Level NPL National Priorities List O&M Operation and Maintenance OB Open Burning OBG Old Burning Ground OD Open Detonation

Final CERCLA Five-Year Review vii June 2015 Savanna Army Depot Activity

ACRONYMS (Continued)

OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration P.G. Professional Geologist PAH Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbon PBT Persistent, Bioaccumulative, and Toxic PCB Polychlorinated Biphenyl PCP Pentachlorophenol PMP Project Management Professional PP Proposed Plan PRG Preliminary Remediation Goal RAO Remedial Action Objective RAP Remedial Action Plan RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act RG Remediation Goal RI Remedial Investigation RIP Remedy In Place RO Remediation Objective ROD Record of Decision RGO Remediation Goal Option SERA Screening-Level Ecological Risk Assessment SVDA Savanna Army Depot Activity SVOC Semivolatile Organic Compound TACO Tiered Approach to Corrective Action Objectives TBD To-Be-Determined TCE Trichloroethene TNT Trinitrotoluene UECA Uniform Environmental Covenants Act USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USATHAMA U.S. Army Toxic and Hazardous Materials Agency USCS Unified Soil Classification System USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency USGS U.S. Geological Survey UST Underground Storage Tank UU/UE Unlimited Use and Unrestricted Exposure VOC Volatile Organic Compound XRF X-ray Fluorescence

Final CERCLA Five-Year Review ES-1 June 2015 Savanna Army Depot Activity

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This is the first Five-Year Review (FYR) for the Savanna Army Depot Activity (SVDA), located in Savanna, Illinois. This FYR reviews information to determine if the remedies selected for Sites 35, 37PS, 60PS, 60S2, 60S3, 76CS, 76FA, 76GS, 76OD, 76RH, 86, 88HD, 92, 93, 95, 102LB, 111, 126, 128, 131, 135, 183, 189, 190A, 192, HA, and SEW are and will continue to be protective of human health and the environment. The triggering action for this FYR was the Site 111 onsite mobilization for the start of the remedial action construction phase on July 30, 2010.

SVDA is in northwestern Illinois adjacent to the Mississippi River in Jo Daviess and Carroll Counties. The Installation occupied 13,062 acres at the time of closure. The Lower Post area at SVDA consists of approximately 550 acres on the eastern end of the Installation and was formerly used for administrative, industrial, recreational, and housing areas; disposal sites; storage facilities; training areas; a maintenance shop area; and Ordnance School Lake. The Plant Area includes the CF, CL, and CN Plant Areas. The Upper Post areas comprise approximately 11,797 acres, including approximately 3,943 acres for ammunition storage. The remaining Upper Post acreage consists predominantly of undeveloped, forested land occurring along the northern facility boundary. Former land use on the Upper Post consisted predominantly of ammunition storage, explosives washout facilities, burn sites, waste burial sites, bomb disassembly facilities, melt and pour facilities, and test ranges. Bottomland facilities on the Upper Post consisted of detonation and open burning sites.

In 1989, a Federal Facilities Agreement (FFA) was signed by the Army, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), and Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA). In 1995, SVDA was selected by the Secretary of Defense for closure under the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) process and SVDA officially closed in March 2000. There are 127 Installation Restoration Program (IRP) sites at SVDA. Eighty-six of the 127 IRP sites have achieved response complete. Twenty-seven of the 86 response completed SVDA sites require an FYR following the final Records of Decision (RODs) and include:

• Site 111 – Final ROD, SVAD-111, 1934 Outdoor Washout Plant, SVDA, Illinois, April 2010

• Site 192 – Final ROD, SVAD-192, Manganese Ore Storage Mounds, SVDA, Illinois, January 2010

• Sites 37PS, 76CS, 76OD, and 126 – Final ROD for Sites 5, 24, 37PS, 69, 76CS, 76OD, 126, 155, 184, and 186, SVDA, Savanna, Illinois, August 2013

• Sites 35, 60PS, 60S2, 60S3, 76FA, 76GS, 76RH, 86, 88HD, 92, 93, 95, 102LB, 128, 131, 135, 183, 189, 190A, HA, and SEW – Final ROD for 33 Lower Post and Plant Area Sites, SVDA, Savanna, Illinois, July 2012.

Environmental investigations were summarized in Remedial Investigations (RIs) completed between 2004 and 2009, along with an evaluation of remedial alternatives in various Focused Feasibility Study (FFS) and Feasibility Study (FS) reports. The following is a summary of the selected remedies based on the final RODs and the status for each of the sites included in the FYR:

• Site 111 – In Situ Chemical Treatment (land use controls [LUCs] are included as part of the remedy) (URS 2010a). Status: The remedial action is in place but has not been completed. Additional treatment and monitoring are required. In addition, the Uniform Environmental Covenants Act (UECA) environmental covenant has yet to be executed.


• Site 192 – Offsite Disposal (LUCs are included as part of the remedy) (URS 2010b). Status: Excavation and offsite disposal of soils have been completed and the LUCs are in place; however, the UECA environmental covenant has yet to be executed.

• Sites 37PS, 76CS, 76OD, and 126 – Excavation and Offsite Disposal for Unrestricted Use (SAIC 2013). Status: Excavation and offsite disposal have been approved as the selected remedy and the remedial action work plans are currently undergoing stakeholder review.

• Sites 35, 60PS, 60S2, 60S3, 76FA, 76GS, 76RH, 86, 88HD, 92, 93, 95, 102LB, 128, 131, 135, 183, 189, 190A, HA, and SEW – LUCs (SAIC 2012). Status: LUCs have been approved as the selected remedy for these sites and the Land Use Control Implementation Plan (LUCIP), which includes the sample UECA environmental covenant, was finalized in March 2015.

Based on the results of the first FYR, the following protectiveness determinations have been made:

• The selected remedy for Site 111 is currently protective of human health and the environment because it was implemented as intended in the final ROD. However, in order for the remedy to be protective in the long term, the treatment system must be resumed and operated until the remediation goal options (RGOs) identified in the ROD for soils and groundwater at the site have been met. LUCs have been implemented in accordance with the July 2012 LUC Plan; however, the UECA environmental covenant has yet to be executed. Inspections of the site and interviews conducted for this FYR indicate that the LUCs are being enforced as intended and are effective. In order for the LUCs to be protective in the long term, the UECA environmental covenant is needed to ensure that effective procedures are in place so that LUCs are monitored, maintained, and enforced so that the remedy continues to function as intended.

• The selected remedy for Site 192 is currently protective of human health and the environment. Remedial actions at Site 192 have been completed. Potential threats to human health and the environment have been addressed through the excavation and offsite disposal of the contaminated soils and the implementation of LUCs. Confirmation samples were collected from excavated areas, confirming that excavation standards specified in the Site 192 ROD were met. LUCs have been implemented in accordance with the August 2012 LUC Plan; however, the UECA environmental covenant has yet to be executed. Inspections of the site and the interviews conducted for the FYR indicate that the LUCs are being enforced as intended and are effective. In order for the selected remedy to be protective in the long term, the UECA environmental covenant is needed to ensure that effective procedures are in place so that LUCs are monitored, maintained, and enforced so that the remedy continues to function as intended.

• The selected remedies for Sites 37PS, 76CS, 76OD, and 126 are expected to be protective of human health and the environment upon completion. In the interim, remedial activities completed to date have adequately addressed all exposure pathways that could result in unacceptable risks in these areas.

• The selected remedies for the 21 LUC Sites (Sites 35, 60PS, 60S2, 60S3, 76FA, 76GS, 76RH, 86, 88HD, 92, 93, 95, 102LB, 128, 131, 135, 183, 189, 190A, HA, and SEW) are currently protective of human health and the environment by prohibiting residential land use through use of LUCs and at Sites 35 and HA prohibiting the use of groundwater through use of LUCs. However, in order for the selected remedy to be protective in the long term, an executed UECA environmental covenant is needed to ensure that effective procedures are in place so that LUCs are monitored, maintained, and enforced so that the remedy continues to function as intended.


FIVE-YEAR REVIEW SUMMARY FORM

SITE IDENTIFICATION

Site Name: Savanna Army Depot Activity

EPA ID: IL3210020803

Region: 5 State: IL City/County: Jo Daviess and Carroll Counties

SITE STATUS

NPL Status: Final

Multiple OUs? Yes

Has the site achieved construction completion? No

REVIEW STATUS

Lead agency: Other Federal Agency If “Other Federal Agency” was selected above, enter Agency name: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Author name (Federal or State Project Manager): Jamie Johnson

Author affiliation: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers contractor (Leidos)

Review period: October 2014 – April 2015

Date of site inspection: October 20, 2014

Type of review: Statutory

Review number: 1

Triggering action date: July 30, 2010

Due date (five years after triggering action date): July 30, 2015


Issues/Recommendations

OU(s) without Issues/Recommendations Identified in the Five-Year Review:

Sites 37PS, 76CS, 76OD, and 126

Issues and Recommendations Identified in the Five-Year Review:

OU(s): Site 111

Issue Category: Operations and Maintenance

Issue: Site 111 treatment system has been locked/winterized since June 2014

Recommendation: Resume treatment system and continue monitoring at Site 111

Affect Current Protectiveness

Affect Future Protectiveness

Implementing Party

Oversight Party

Milestone Date

No Yes Army USEPA, IEPA 06/01/2018


OU(s): Site 111

Issue Category: Institutional Controls

Issue: Monitoring, maintenance, and enforcement of LUCs is required

Recommendation: Finalize and execute the UECA environmental covenant



Implementing Party

Oversight Party

Milestone Date



OU(s): Site 192



Recommendation: Finalize and execute the UECA environmental covenant



Implementing Party

Oversight Party

Milestone Date




OU(s): Sites 35, 60PS, 60S2, 60S3, 76FA, 76GS, 76RH, 86, 88HD, 92, 93, 95, 102LB, 128, 131, 135, 183, 189, 190A, HA, SEW



Recommendation: Execute the UECA environmental covenant.



Implementing Party

Oversight Party

Milestone Date


Operable Unit: Site 111

Protectiveness Determination: Short-term Protective

The selected remedy for Site 111 is currently protective of human health and the environment because it was implemented as intended in the final ROD. However, in order for the remedy to be protective in the long term, the treatment system must be resumed and operated until the RGOs identified in the ROD for soils and groundwater at the site have been met. LUCs have been implemented in accordance with the July 2012 LUC Plan; however, the UECA environmental covenant has yet to be executed. Inspections of the site and interviews conducted for this FYR indicate that the LUCs are being enforced as intended and are effective. In order for the LUCs to be protective in the long term, the UECA environmental covenant is needed to ensure that effective procedures are in place so that LUCs are monitored, maintained, and enforced so that remedy continues to function as intended.

Operable Unit: Site 192


The selected remedy for Site 192 is currently protective of human health and the environment. Remedial actions at Site 192 have been completed. Potential threats to human health and the environment have been addressed through the excavation and offsite disposal of the contaminated soils and the implementation of LUCs. Confirmation samples were collected from excavated areas, confirming that excavation standards specified in the Site 192 ROD were met. LUCs have been implemented in accordance with the August 2012 LUC Plan; however, the UECA environmental covenant has yet to be executed. Inspections of the site and interviews conducted for the FYR indicate that the LUCs are being enforced as intended and are effective. In order for the LUCs to be protective in the long term, the UECA environmental covenant is needed to ensure that effective procedures are in place so that LUCs are monitored, maintained, and enforced so that remedy continues to function as intended.


Operable Unit: Sites 37PS, 76CS, 76OD, and 126

Protectiveness Determination: Will Be Protective

The selected remedies for Sites 37PS, 76CS, 76OD, and 126 are expected to be protective of human health and the environment upon completion. In the interim, remedial activities completed to date have adequately addressed all exposure pathways that could result in unacceptable risks in these areas.

Operable Unit: Sites 35, 60PS, 60S2, 60S3, 76FA, 76GS, 76RH, 86, 88HD, 92, 93, 95, 102LB, 128, 131, 135, 183, 189, 190A, HA, and SEW


The selected remedies for the 21 LUC Sites (Sites 35, 60PS, 60S2, 60S3, 76FA, 76GS, 76RH, 86, 88HD, 92, 93, 95, 102LB, 128, 131, 135, 183, 189, 190A, HA, and SEW) are currently protective of human health and the environment by prohibiting residential land use through the use of LUCs. In addition, the selected remedy for Sites 35 and HA is currently protective of human health and the environment by prohibiting the use of groundwater through the use of LUCs. However, in order for the selected remedy to be protective in the long term, an executed UECA environmental covenant is needed to ensure that effective procedures are in place so that LUCs are monitored, maintained, and enforced so that the remedy continues to function as intended.

Final CERCLA Five-Year Review 1-1 June 2015 Savanna Army Depot Activity

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The purpose of a Five-Year Review (FYR) is to evaluate the implementation and performance of a remedy to determine if the remedy will continue to be protective of human health and the environment. The methods, findings, and conclusions of FYRs are documented in FYR reports. In addition, FYR reports identify issues found during the review, if any, and document recommendations to address them.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) prepares FYRs pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) Section 121 and the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). CERCLA 121 states:

“If the President selects a remedial action that results in any hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remaining at the site, the President shall review such remedial action no less often than each five years after the initiation of such remedial action to assure that human health and the environment are being protected by the remedial action being implemented. In addition, if upon such review it is the judgment of the President that action is appropriate at such site in accordance with section [104] or [106], the President shall take or require such action. The President shall report to the Congress a list of facilities for which such review is required, the results of all such reviews, and any actions taken as a result of such reviews.”

USEPA interpreted this requirement further in the NCP, 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Section 300.430(f)(4)(ii), which states:

“If a remedial action is selected that results in hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remaining at the site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure, the lead agency shall review such actions no less often than every five years after the initiation of the selected remedial action.”

On behalf of the U.S. Army Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Office, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) performed this statutory FYR of the remedial actions being implemented at Savanna Army Depot Activity (SVDA), located in Savanna, Illinois, for review by the USEPA, Region 5. The FYR was conducted between October 2014 and April 2015. The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA), as the support agency representing the State of Illinois, has reviewed all supporting documentation and provided input to BRAC during the FYR process.

This is the first FYR for SVDA. The triggering action for this statutory review is the Site 111 onsite mobilization for the start of the remedial action construction phase on July 30, 2010. The FYR is required due to the fact that hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remain at the site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure (UU/UE) and includes 27 sites based on the following final Records of Decision (RODs):

• Site 111 – Final ROD, SVAD-111, 1934 Outdoor Washout Plant, SVDA, Illinois, April 2010

• Site 192 – Final ROD, SVAD-192, Manganese Ore Storage Mounds, SVDA, Illinois, January 2010

• Sites 37PS, 76CS, 76OD, and 126 – Final ROD for Sites 5, 24, 37PS, 69, 76CS, 76OD, 126, 155, 184, and 186, SVDA, Illinois, August 2013


The locations of the sites included in the FYR are presented in Figures 1-1 and 1-2.


K E Y M A PK E Y M A PNOT TO SCALENOT TO SCALE

FIGURE: 1-1

SAVANNA ARMY DEPOTSAVANNA, ILLINOIS

PROJECT: GIS_DATA\SVAD\Projects\5 Year Review\Figure 1-1 Lower Post FYR Site Locations 11x17.mxd

LOWER POSTFYR SITES

DATE: 12/3/2014

SITELOCATIONS

Site HASite 128

Site 135

Site 88HDSite 190A

Site 76CS

Site 35

Site 131

Site 102LB

Site 189

Site 126

Site 76RH

Site 95

Site 76OD

Site 76GS

Site 37PS

Site 86

Site 93

Site 76FA

Site 92

LegendRAILROAD

ROADS

SV BOUNDARY

SITES

SEWERLINES SITE

BUILDINGS

RIVER

0 1,300650Feet

³


K E Y M A PK E Y M A PNOT TO SCALENOT TO SCALE

FIGURE: 1-2

SAVANNA ARMY DEPOTSAVANNA, ILLINOIS

PROJECT: GIS_DATA\SVAD\Projects\5 Year Review\Figure 1-2 Ammunition Area FYR Site Locations 11x17.mxd

AMMUNITION AREAFYR SITES

DATE: 12/3/2014

SITELOCATIONS

Site 111

Site 192 E

Site 192 D

Site 192 F

Site 192 A

Site 192 C

Site 192 B

Site 60S3

Site 60PS

Site 183Site 60S2

LegendSV BOUNDARY

SITES

BUILDINGS

RAILROAD

ROADS

RIVER

0 1,200 2,400 3,600600Feet

³


2.0 SITE CHRONOLOGY

Table 2-1 lists the dates of important events for SVDA and the sites included in the FYR.

Table 2-1. SVDA Chronology Savanna Army Depot Activity, Savanna, Illinois

Date Title/Author Summary 1917 The U.S. Army purchased the Installation for construction of a proof and test facility for

artillery guns and ammunition. Operations expanded to ordnance storage facilities and loading and renovating shells and bombs. Several areas were historically used for demolition and burning of obsolete ordnance.

January 1979 Installation Assessment of SVDA (USATHAMA)

Initial study; specific areas of the facility were found to be potentially contaminated.

1989 Listed on NPL by USEPA September

1989 FFA with USEPA, Region 5 and IEPA Ensuring that the environmental impacts

associated with past and present activities at the site are thoroughly investigated and that appropriate remedial actions are taken.

1995 Selected for closure under BRAC of 1990 May 1999 EBS Report (SAIC) Identified the type and extent of contamination

due to past operations to release as excess property.

March 2000 SVDA officially closed October 2004 Lower Post RI Report (SAIC) Sites 35, 37PS, 76CS, 76OD, 86, 88HD, 92, 93,

95, 128, 135, 190A, HA, and SEW were included in the RI. Data collected during the investigation and data obtained during previous surveys were summarized. The RI also established the risks to public health, welfare, and the environment for each of the sites.

December 2005 Supplemental Lower Post RI Report (SAIC)

Sites 131 and 190A were included in the RI. Data collected during the investigation and data obtained during previous surveys were summarized. The RI also established the risks to public health, welfare, and the environment for each of the sites.

August 2006 Lower Post Shop Area RI Report (SAIC) Sites 76FA, 76GS, and 76RH were included in the RI. Data collected during the investigation and data obtained during previous surveys were summarized. The RI also established the risks to public health, welfare, and the environment for each of the sites.

February 2007 Supplemental Plant Area RI Report (SAIC)

Sites 60PS, 60S2, and 60S3 were included in the RI. Data collected during the investigation and data obtained during previous surveys were summarized. The RI also established the risks to public health, welfare, and the environment for each of the sites.

February 2007 RI for Sites 88 and 189 (SAIC) Site 189 was included in the RI. Data collected during the investigation and data obtained during previous surveys were summarized. The RI also established the risks to public health, welfare, and the environment for the site.


Table 2-1. SVDA Chronology Savanna Army Depot Activity, Savanna, Illinois (Continued)

Date Title/Author Summary April 2007 RI Report for the CL and CN Plant Areas

and the Remaining LRA Parcel (SAIC) Sites 102LB, 126, and 183 were included in the RI. Data collected during the investigation and data obtained during previous surveys were summarized. The RI also established the risks to public health, welfare, and the environment for each of the sites.

December 2007 RI Report for Sites 46, 76CS, 84, and 184 Site 76CS was included in the RI. Data collected during the investigation and data obtained during previous surveys were summarized. The RI also established the risks to public health, welfare, and the environment for the site.

December 2007 Lower Post RI BERA Sites 128 and 190A were included in the RI BERA. Data collected during the investigation and data obtained during previous surveys were summarized. The RI also established the risks to public health, welfare, and the environment for each of the sites.

December 2008 Plant Areas FFS (SAIC) Evaluated remedial action alternatives for sites that were identified in the Supplemental Plant Area RI and RI Report for the CL and CN Plant Areas and Remaining LRA Parcel. This included Sites 60PS, 60S2, 102LB, and 183.

December 2008 Site 192 RI/FS (URS) Data collected during the investigation and data obtained during previous surveys were summarized. The RI also established the risks to public health, welfare, and the environment for the site. The FS portion evaluated remedial action alternatives for the site.

May 2008 Site 111 RI/FS (URS) Data collected during the investigation and data obtained during previous surveys were summarized. The RI also established the risks to public health, welfare, and the environment for the site. The FS portion evaluated remedial action alternatives for the site.

November 2009 Lower Post FFS (SAIC) Evaluated remedial action alternatives for sites that were identified in the Lower Post RI Report, Lower Post Shop Area RI Report, Supplemental Lower Post RI Report, and RI Report for the CL and CN Plant Areas and Remaining LRA Parcel. This included Sites 35, 76FA, 76GS, 76RH, 86, 88HD, 92, 93, 95, 128, 131, 135, 189, 190A, HA, and SEW.

January 2009 Site 111 PP (URS) Public meeting held on January 29, 2009 for Site 111.

May 2009 Site 192 PP (URS) Public meeting held on May 28, 2009 for Site 192.

January 2010 ROD for SVAD-192, Manganese Ore Storage Mounds

USEPA and IEPA provided signatures in April and March 2010, respectively.

March 2010 ROD for SVAD-111, 1934 Outdoor Washout Plant (URS)

USEPA and IEPA provided signatures in April and March 2010, respectively.


Table 2-1. SVDA Chronology Savanna Army Depot Activity, Savanna, Illinois (Continued)

Date Title/Author Summary July 2010 Sites 24, 76CS, 99, and 126 FS Evaluated remedial action alternatives for sites

that were identified in the CF Plant Area RI Report; Sites 46, 76CS, 84, and 184 RI Report; and RI Report for the CL and CN Plant Areas and Remaining LRA Parcel. Evaluated remedial action alternatives for Sites 76CS, 76OD, and 126.

July 30, 2010 Site 111 Remedial Action Implementation Remedial action construction was initiated. July 2011 PP for 33 Sites in the Lower Post and

Plant Areas (SAIC) Public meeting held on July 28, 2011 and included Sites 35, 60PS, 60S2, 60S3, 76FA, 76GS, 76RH, 86, 88HD, 92, 93, 95, 102LB, 128, 131, 135, 183, 189, 190A, HA, and SEW. Other 12 sites also presented in this ROD were recommended for no action and unrestricted use.

July 2012 ROD for 33 Lower Post and Plant Area Sites (SAIC)

USEPA and IEPA provided signatures in August 2012.

November 2012 PP for Sites 5, 24, 37PS, 69, 76CS, 76OD, 126, 155, 184, and 186 (SAIC)

Public meeting held on December 6, 2012 and included Sites 37PS, 76CS, 76OD, and 126. Sites 5, 24, 69, 155, 184, and 186 also presented in this ROD were recommended for no action and unrestricted use.

August 2013 ROD for Sites 5, 24, 37PS, 69, 76CS, 76OD, 126, 155, 184, and 186 (SAIC)

USEPA and IEPA provided signatures in September 2013.

March 2015 LUCIP for 21 Post and Plant Area Sites The LUCIP was finalized with a sample environmental covenant; however, the environmental covenant needs to be executed at a future date.

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK


3.0 BACKGROUND

3.1 PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF SVDA

SVDA is in northwestern Illinois adjacent to the Mississippi River in Jo Daviess and Carroll Counties. The Installation is in the central lowlands of the interior plains physiographic province. The Installation occupied 13,062 acres at the time of closure and is bordered by agricultural land to the north and east, the Apple River to the southeast, and the Mississippi River to the south and west. SVDA is encompassed on the Blackhawk, Illinois and Green-Island, Iowa U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangle maps (1952-53 revision, photo-revised 1975) approximately between coordinates 466,000 feet and 484,000 feet (east) of the Illinois State Plane Coordinate System (ISPCS). The majority of the northern and central portions of the Installation (Upper Post) are in Jo Daviess County, Illinois, and the southernmost acreage (Lower Post) is in Carroll County, Illinois.

The Lower Post area at SVDA consists of approximately 550 acres on the eastern end of the Installation and was formerly used for administrative, industrial, recreational, and housing areas; disposal sites; storage facilities; training areas; a maintenance shop area; and Ordnance School Lake. The Plant Area includes the CF, CL, and CN Plant Areas. The Upper Post areas comprise approximately 11,797 acres, including approximately 3,943 acres for ammunition storage; 4,732 acres of marginally utilized Mississippi River backwater area; and 1,005 acres comprising Mississippi River Pool #12. The remaining Upper Post acreage consists predominantly of undeveloped, forested land occurring along the northern facility boundary. Former land use on the Upper Post consisted predominantly of ammunition storage, explosives washout facilities, burn sites, waste burial sites, bomb disassembly facilities, melt and pour facilities, and test ranges. Bottomland facilities on the Upper Post consisted of detonation and open burning sites.

In 1989, a Federal Facilities Agreement (FFA) was signed by the Army, USEPA, and IEPA. In 1995, SVDA was selected by the Secretary of Defense for closure under the BRAC process and SVDA officially closed in March 2000. The BRAC Closure Team (BCT), which has the responsibility for making site decisions across all environmental programs at SVDA, was assembled in accordance with the FFA and consists of representatives from the Army, USEPA, and IEPA. There are 127 Installation Restoration Program (IRP) sites at SVDA with 86 of these sites having achieved response complete (SVDA 2014). Table 3-1 provides a status for the other 33 SVDA sites currently in the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) process for remedies that have not yet been selected and documented in a final ROD.

Table 3-1. Status of SVDA RI/FS Sites not in Final RODs Savanna Army Depot Activity, Savanna, Illinois

Site I.D. Site Name CERCLA Status SVAD-001 TNT Washout Facility (Building 2208) RI, FS, and PP finalized. ROD in process. SVAD-020 Abandoned Landfill RI and PP finalized. ROD in process. SVAD-021BDP Bomb Disassembly Plant RI, FS, and PP finalized. ROD in process. SVAD-033 Artillery Tunnel Test Site (Mounds) RI and FS completed. PP in process. SVAD-036 Industrial Sewage Plant (Building 937) RI completed. FS in process. SVAD-045 Igloos, Magazines, Warehouses (A, H, J) RI in process. SVAD-047 Chromium Ore Open Storage Area RI completed. FS in process. SVAD-050 Demolition Area (Bottomlands) RI completed. FS in process. SVAD-067 Fire Training Area RI and FS completed. PP in process. SVAD-073 Stables Landfill (Dump) RI, FS, and PP finalized. ROD in process. SVAD-076AD APE Shop Rear Dock Area RI, FS, and PP finalized. ROD in process. SVAD-084 Scrap Wood Open Burn Area RI completed. FS in process. SVAD-085 New Small Arms Range RI completed. FS in process. SVAD-087 Railroad Tie Pile Disposal Area RI in process.


Table 3-1. Status of SVDA RI/FS Sites not in Final RODs Savanna Army Depot Activity, Savanna, Illinois (Continued)

Site I.D. Site Name CERCLA Status SVAD-090 H-Area Landfill Cells RI completed. FS in process. SVAD-099 Building 762 CF Plant Battery Shop RI, FS, and PP finalized. ROD in process. SVAD-178 Ordnance School Lake Outfalls RI, FS, and PP finalized. ROD in process. SVAD-181 Buildings E601 and E607 RI completed. FS in process. SVAD-222 Explosive Building Decontamination RI in process. SVAD-223 Building 134, Small Arms Ammunition Disposal RI in process. SVAD-226 J-609 Open Burn Area RI completed. FS in process. SVAD-001-R-01 90mm Casing Test Area RI completed. FS in process. SVAD-003-R-01 A-Area Detonation Pit RI completed. FS in process. SVAD-004-R-01 Burn Area 105 RI in process. SVAD-005-R-01 Hand Grenade Burial Site RI completed. FS in process. SVAD-006-R-01 Mortar Impact Range Group RI in process. SVAD-007-R-01 Mustard Burn Area A RI in process. SVAD-008-R-01 Mustard Burn Area B RI in process. SVAD-009-R-01 Old Burning Grounds Group RI completed. FS in process. SVAD-010-R-01 Pre-1939 OB/OD Grounds RI completed. FS in process. SVAD-012-R-01 Proof Range Group RI completed. FS in process. SVAD-014-R-01 Upper Function Test Range RI completed. FS in process. SVAD-015-R-01 New Function Test Range RI completed. FS in process.

Twenty-seven SVDA sites require an FYR following the final RODs and include:

• Site 111 – Final ROD, SVAD-111, 1934 Outdoor Washout Plant, SVDA, Illinois, March 2010.

• Site 192 – Final ROD, SVAD-192, Manganese Ore Storage Mounds, SVDA, Illinois, January 2010.

• Sites 37PS, 76CS, 76OD, and 126 – Final ROD for Sites 5, 24, 37PS, 69, 76CS, 76OD, 126, 155, 184, and 186, SVDA, Savanna, Illinois, August 2013.


Environmental investigations were summarized in RIs completed between 2004 and 2009, along with an evaluation of remedial alternatives in various Focused Feasibility Study (FFS) and FS reports. The following is a summary of the selected remedies based on the final RODs and the status for each of the sites included in the FYR:

• Site 111 – In Situ Chemical Treatment (land use controls [LUC] are included as part of the remedy) (URS 2010a). Status: The remedial action is in place but has not been completed. Additional treatment and monitoring are required.

• Site 192 – Offsite Disposal (LUCs are included as part of the remedy) (URS 2010b). Status: Excavation and offsite disposal of soils have been completed and the LUCs are in place.

• Sites 37PS, 76CS, 76OD, and 126 – Excavation and Offsite Disposal for Unrestricted Use (SAIC 2013). Status: Excavation and offsite disposal have been approved as the selected remedy and work plans are currently in review.

• Sites 35, 60PS, 60S2, 60S3, 76FA, 76GS, 76RH, 86, 88HD, 92, 93, 95, 102LB, 128, 131, 135, 183, 189, 190A, HA, and SEW – LUCs (SAIC 2012). Status: LUCs have been approved as


the selected remedy for these sites and the Land Use Control Implementation Plan (LUCIP) was finalized in March 2015.

LUCs would be implemented to protect humans by preventing unacceptable exposure to contaminants in soil and/or groundwater. Human health risks at the 23 LUC sites (Sites 35, 60PS, 60S2, 60S3, 76FA, 76GS, 76RH, 86, 88HD, 92, 93, 95, 102LB, 111, 128, 131, 135, 183, 189, 190A, 192, HA, and SEW) are acceptable for the planned future land users (i.e., industrial and construction workers), but they were deemed unacceptable for unrestricted reuse (represented by a future residential land use scenario). The LUCs, in the form of institutional controls (ICs) such as an environmental covenant, will be implemented to maintain industrial land use at the 23 sites.

No further action (NFA) has been documented for the following 59 SVDA sites following the signatures on the noted RODs:

• Sites 2, 3, 23, 26, 27, 28, 36SL, 37AB, 37CD, 41, 49, 59, 72, 75, 88, 94, 104, 121, 129, 154, 179, and 185 – Final ROD for NFA at 22 Sites, SVDA, Savanna, Illinois, April 2010

• Site 44 – Final ROD for SVAD-044, Nitric Acid Storage Area, SVDA, Savanna, Illinois, November 2009

• Sites 6, 10, 11, 12, 46, 71, 82OC, 82SS, 89, 101, 122, 180, 193, and 194 – Final ROD for NFA at 14 Sites, SVDA, Savanna, Illinois, June 2012

• Sites 4, 37FS, 37GS, 81, 88DB, 136, 102TF, 130, 132, 133, 134, and 190B – Final ROD for 33 Lower Post and Plant Area Sites, SVDA, Savanna, Illinois, July 2012

• Sites 5, 24, 69, 155, 184, and 186 – Final ROD for Sites 5, 24, 37PS, 69, 76CS, 76OD, 126, 155, 184, and 186, SVDA, Savanna, Illinois, August 2013

• Site 32 – Final ROD Site 32, National Guard Pistol Range, SVDA, Savanna, Illinois, June 2014

• Site 224 – Final ROD Site 224, Cosmoline Grease Dump Site, SVDA, Savanna, Illinois, June 2014

• Sites 16 and 195 – Final ROD for Sites 16 – SAA Deactivation Furnace and 195 – Wildlife Area Sludge Application, SVDA, Savanna, Illinois, September 2014.

3.2 SITE-SPECIFIC BACKGROUND INFORMATION

This section provides site-specific descriptions for each of the sites included in the FYR and summaries of the physical characteristics, land and resource use, geology and hydrogeology, history of contamination, initial responses, human health and ecological risk assessment results, and basis for taking action at each site.

3.2.1 Site 111 (1934 Outdoor Washout Plant)

Physical Characteristics—The topography at Site 111 (10.8 acres) is gently rolling, consisting of undulating surface mounds and depressions. The overall topography slopes from east to west and ranges in elevation from approximately 622 to 646 feet above mean sea level (msl). Site 111 is mostly vegetated, with the dominant ground cover consisting of low-growing grasses and hop clover with large clumps of elderberry.

There are no surface water bodies at Site 111. The nearest surface water bodies are an emergent marsh located 1,600 feet east of Site 111, a small stream that is a tributary of Primms Pond located 1,850 feet to the southeast, Primms Pond located approximately 2,850 feet southeast of the site, and the backwater area associated with the Mississippi River located approximately 1.3 miles to the southwest.


Land and Resource Use—Approximately 2,930 acres, including Site 111, are administered by the Jo-Carroll Local Redevelopment Authority (LRA). The future land use for Site 111 is industrial as part of LRA Parcel 16B. There are no surface water bodies at Site 111. Groundwater in the shallow overburden aquifer is unlikely to be used as drinking water as bedrock aquifers provide the majority of local drinking water supplies, including the drinking water supply system for SVDA.

Geology and Hydrogeology—The soils underlying Site 111 consist predominantly of yellow-brown to dark yellow-brown to brown, fine- to medium-grained sand with varying amounts of silt that extend to depths greater than 90 feet below land surface (BLS). The majority of the soils observed are described as poorly sorted (SP) or well-sorted (SW) sands as defined by the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS).

Average depths to groundwater across Site 111 range from approximately 46 to 57 feet BLS, depending on location and time of year. The groundwater flow direction at Site 111 is predominantly to the southwest; however, due to the relatively low hydraulic gradient in the area, variability in the flow direction may occur with small changes in groundwater elevations. The hydraulic gradient was measured at 0.00031 feet per foot in September 2003 with a higher gradient (0.0029 feet per foot) observed in the vicinity of MW-111-10, MW-111-11, and MW-111-12 adjacent to the Site 46 structure. The hydraulic gradient in July 2006 was measured at 0.00028 feet per foot and appeared to be relatively uniform across the site. The average linear groundwater flow velocity at MW-111-13 and MW-111-14 is estimated to range from 10 to 17 feet per year, respectively.

History of Contamination—The Outdoor Washout Plant was constructed in 1933 and used through 1936 to renovate ammunition. The plant consisted of a two-cell de-boostering barricade, a shell washout unit, a shell rinse unit, an ammonium nitrate collection sump and storage tank, an explosives sludge collection tank, a locomotive stand used as a source of heat, a tank car used as a source of water, and a trinitrotoluene (TNT) purification tank.

During the washout process, shells were de-boostered and explosives were washed out. The shells were then inspected and taken to the renovating plant for band modification of the 155-mm Howitzer shell and for sandblasting and painting in preparation for loading. The recovered ammonium nitrate solution was saved and shipped to the DuPont Company in tank cars. The recovered TNT was washed, re-melted, cast in packing boxes, taken to the high-explosive magazines, and stored.

Movement of nitroaromatics/nitramines between the various stations was via cars moving along a tramway (SOD 1935). Three types of tram cars were used to carry the explosives from the washout to the purification tank, carry the shells to the washout and rinse tanks, and convey the boxed TNT to a loading station. The trams were operated manually on a 12-inch-wide industrial tramway. In 1936, the plant processed 21,242 loaded shells and recovered 55,320 pounds of TNT and 283,700 pounds of ammonium nitrate (SOD 1943). The structures that once were located in this area are inventoried on the current building information schedule; however, the plant was a field operation without permanent foundations, except for the two-cell deboostering barricade (USACE 1999).

Summary of Initial Responses—During the Phase I, II, and III (2000 to 2003) field investigations, 80 soil samples and 28 groundwater samples were collected for laboratory analysis. Soil samples included both surface and subsurface samples. Groundwater samples were collected from temporary locations using Hydropunch® methods and from permanent groundwater monitoring wells. Samples were collected to determine the nature and extent of contamination and provide data necessary to conduct a baseline risk assessment.

During the Phase IV (2006) RI/FS field investigation of Site 111, 18 soil and 16 groundwater samples were collected to determine the extent of contamination in soil and groundwater, evaluate risks to human health or the environment, and provide the necessary data to complete an FS.


Evaluation of Site Risk from the RIs—A baseline human health risk assessment, screening-level ecological risk assessment (SERA), and baseline ecological risk assessment (BERA) were completed at Site 111 to evaluate the potential for adverse effects associated with exposure to site-related contaminants using data collected during Phase I (2000), Phase II (2001), and Phase III (2003). Analytical results for chemical constituents detected during the Phase IV (2006) investigation (URS 2008a) were lower than the maximum detected concentrations detected during the Phase I, Phase II, and Phase III investigations. Therefore, the data from the Phase I, Phase II, and Phase III investigations were determined to be sufficient to evaluate human health and ecological risks at the site. A summary of the chemicals of potential concern (COPCs) are provided under the Basis for Taking Action summary below.

Human Health Risk Assessments Results—The baseline human health risk assessment evaluated exposure of industrial and construction workers to surface (0 to 0.5 feet BLS) and shallow subsurface (0.5 to 15 feet BLS) soil based on the planned future use of this site as industrial/commercial. An assessment of recreational receptors, residents exposed to soil, and residents exposed to groundwater at Site 111 also was conducted, although risks are hypothetical given the planned future use. The residential scenario serves as a conservative measure of risk that may be referenced to support LUCs or to support possible changes in the planned future reuse.

For industrial workers, the baseline human health risk assessment found that cancer risks from exposure through ingestion and dermal contact to surface soil and subsurface soil fell within the target range (1 × 10-6 to 1 × 10-4). A potential risk for noncarcinogenic health effects was identified for surface soil because the hazard index (HI) exceeds the target HI of 1, due primarily to the presence of TNT.

For construction workers, the baseline human health risk assessment determined that cancer risks from exposure to surface soil fell within the lower end of the target range; a potential risk for noncarcinogenic health effects was identified for surface soil because the HI exceeds the target HI of 1. For subsurface soil, cancer risks fell below the target range and no adverse noncarcinogenic health effects were identified as the HI was below the target HI of 1.

For hypothetical recreational receptors, cancer risks fell within the target range for surface soil; the combined noncancer HIs for the recreational scenario are 5 for children and 0.6 for adults. The surface soil noncancer HI exceeds the target HI of 1 primarily due to the presence of TNT.

For hypothetical residents, unacceptable cancer risks (above the target range) were identified for surface and subsurface soil, produce, and groundwater. Cancer risks for the residents exceeded the target risk range due primarily to the ingestion of plants grown in soil and ingestion of groundwater. HIs for surface soil, subsurface soil, produce, and groundwater exposures all exceeded the target HI.

Ecological Risk Assessment Results—As part of the SERA, a qualitative habitat screen; persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic (PBT) chemical screen; and ecological toxicity screen were conducted at Site 111. The SERA identified a potential risk to ecological receptors and several hazard quotients (HQs) for TNT were above 1. Therefore, Site 111 was evaluated further in a BERA.

The BERA concluded that, should the site remain undeveloped for an extended period of time, protected plants and bird species are potentially at risk from exposure to soil, based on HQs for TNT that were greater than 1. A target cleanup goal of 50 mg/kg TNT was chosen for ecological receptors in order to provide acceptable protection of potential bird and mammal receptors. This cleanup goal was considered to be acceptable to most plant populations, based on available phytotoxicity information. However, state-listed plant species were considered to potentially colonize Site 111, and the relative sensitivities of state-listed plant species to TNT in soil were not known.

Basis for Taking Action—The RI concluded that the chemicals of concern (COCs) (1,3,5,-trinitrobenzene [1,3,5-TNB], TNT, 2,4-dinitrotoluene [2,4-DNT], aminodinitrotoluenes, benzo[a]pyrene, and dibenzo[a,h] anthracene) are present in the soil at levels that could pose potential risks to human health and ecological receptors or impact the groundwater above Illinois Class 1


groundwater quality standards (GQSs) through vertical subsurface migration. In addition, nitroaromatic/nitramine compounds are present in groundwater above the Illinois Class 1 GQSs.

3.2.2 Site 192 (Manganese Ore Storage Mounds)

Physical Characteristics—The topography at Site 192 (total of 34.9 acres) consists of relatively flat land, with a general slope to the north-northeast. Surface elevations range from approximately 600 feet above msl near Site 192E to a maximum elevation of approximately 630 feet above msl near Site 192B. Site 192 is sparsely vegetated with areas of base soil present throughout the area. The site is adjacent to the rail lines that run parallel to McIntyre Road. Sparsely located pieces of manganese ore are visible on the ground surface across the site.

Land and Resource Use—Approximately 2,930 acres, including Site 192, are administered by the Jo-Carroll LRA. The future land use for Site 192 is industrial as part of LRA Parcels 10, 11, and 18. There are no surface water bodies at Site 192. Groundwater in the shallow overburden aquifer is unlikely to be used as drinking water as bedrock aquifers provide the majority of local drinking water supplies, including the drinking water supply system for SVDA.

Site 192 is located within a large, high-quality undeveloped prairie. The manganese ore piles were located along a long stretch of railroad track and, thus, the samples were subdivided into five groups (exposure unit [EU]-1 through EU-5). Area EU-3 provides habitat for two state-listed plants, Beach Heather and Blue Grama. Western Hognose snakes (Illinois threatened) have been observed in Area EU-4 and records of nesting Loggerhead Shrikes (Illinois threatened) have been consistently found in cedars and honey locusts adjacent to Areas EU-3 and EU-4.

Geology and Hydrogeology—Geologic conditions at Site 192 have been characterized based on data collected during the RI/FS field investigations. The pH of the soil at Site 192 was 6.64 as measured at SB-192-03 at the ground surface. The soils underlying Site 192 are primarily dark brown to yellowish-brown, well-rounded, well-sorted, fine- to medium-grained sands. The majority of the soils observed at Site 192 are described as poorly sorted (SP) sands, as defined by the USCS.

Hydrogeologic data specific to Site 192 are limited, as only one permanent monitoring well (PZ-14) has been installed at the site. Groundwater elevations were observed during the completion of soil borings at Site 192 during Phase I field activities. The depth to groundwater at the northwestern end of the site was observed to be approximately 42 feet BLS at SB-192-01. The depth to groundwater at the southern extreme of Site 192 was observed to be approximately 24 feet BLS at SB-192-08. The depth to groundwater at PZ-14 was observed to be approximately 39 feet BLS. The predominant flow direction is to the south-southwest toward the Mississippi River.

History of Site Contamination—Site 192 was originally identified during the Environmental Baseline Survey (EBS) evaluation of aerial photographs (SAIC 1999). Oval mounds and rectangular objects were identified in 1952 and 1954 National Archives aerial photographs of SVDA but not in subsequent aerial photographs dated 1964. The mounds appeared to be covered and tied down, and rectangular objects in the photographs appeared to be stockpiled ammunition cans.

Historical documents suggest that the mounds identified in aerial photographs were storage piles of battery-grade manganese ore. A 1959 historical report for the Installation noted 72 piles of manganese ore along the SVDA railroad tracks in the lower storage area. The piles of manganese ore were covered with tarps and old pallets. The mounds were to be moved to the Nitrate Pits (Site 46) in the spring of 1960 (SOD 1959).

Summary of the Initial Responses—During the Phase I, II, and III (2000 to 2002) field investigations at Site 192, 106 soil samples and 3 groundwater samples were collected for laboratory analysis. Soil samples included both surface and subsurface samples analyzed exclusively for metals. Groundwater samples were collected from Hydropunch® borings for metals and anion analyses. Samples


were collected to determine the nature and extent of contamination and provide data necessary to conduct a baseline risk assessment.

During the 2006 RI/FS field investigation at Site 192, 27 soil samples and 1 groundwater sample were collected to determine the extent of contamination in soil and to provide the necessary data to complete an FS.

Evaluation of the Site Risks—A baseline human health risk assessment, SERA, and BERA were completed, prior to remedial actions, to evaluate the potential for adverse effects associated with exposure to site-related contaminants at Site 192. The baseline human health risk assessment and SERA were completed using data collected from 2000 to 2002 (Phases I, II, and III). Analytical results for metals detected during the 2006 RI/FS field activities (URS 2008b) were within the range of previously detected concentrations. Therefore, the data from the Phase I, II, and III investigations were determined to be sufficient to evaluate human health and ecological risks at the site. In addition, the BERA included data from the 2006 RI/FS field activities (URS 2008b). A summary of the results from the risk assessments and COPCs are provided at the end of each risk assessment summary and the Basis for Taking Action summary below.

Human Health Risk Assessment Results—The baseline human health risk assessment evaluated exposure of industrial and construction workers to surface (0.0 to 0.5 feet BLS) and shallow subsurface (0.5 to 15 feet BLS) soil based on the planned future use of the site as industrial/commercial. An assessment of recreational receptors and residents exposed to soil also was completed, although risks are hypothetical given the planned future industrial/commercial use.

The manganese ore piles were located along a long stretch of railroad track and, thus, the samples were subdivided into four groups (EU-2 through EU-5). At EU-1, contaminant concentrations were determined to be indistinguishable from background and were not evaluated further.

The COPCs evaluated in the human health risk assessment were the chemicals identified as site related. For lead, the maximum detected concentrations at EU-2, EU-3, and EU-4 exceed the health-based screening value of 400 mg/kg. Modeling was completed to evaluate exposures to surface soil for the industrial worker (adult) and resident (child) receptors. Blood lead levels due to exposure during construction activities are uncertain and were not estimated because the existing lead-uptake model is not valid for evaluating exposures of short duration.

For industrial workers, the baseline human health risk assessment found that cancer risks for surface soil fell within the upper end of the target range (1 × 10-6 to 1 × 10-4). No carcinogenic COPCs were evaluated in subsurface soil at any of the EUs, or in surface soil at EU-4. A potential risk for noncarcinogenic health effects was identified for surface soil at EU-3 and EU-4, where the HI exceeds the target HI of 1. No unacceptable noncarcinogenic health risks were found in the subsurface soil. The noncarcinogenic health risks, when present at any EU, were almost entirely attributable to manganese. The greatest cancer risk was present at EU-3, where nearly all of the cancer risk was attributable to arsenic. Projected blood lead levels all fell below the limits of 0.1 mg/L and probabilities of exceeding the limit were all less than the target value of 0.05 set by USEPA.

For construction workers, cancer risks for surface soil fell within the target range. No carcinogenic COPCs were evaluated in subsurface soil at any of the EUs, or in surface soil at EU-4. The HI for surface soil exceeded the target HI of 1 at EUs 3, 4, and 5. Exposure risks in surface soil were due primarily to the ingestion and inhalation routes. The HIs for subsurface soil all fall below the target HI of 1. The noncarcinogenic health risks, when present at any EU, were almost entirely attributable to manganese. The greatest cancer risk was present at EU-3, where nearly all of the cancer risk was attributable to arsenic.

For hypothetical recreational receptors, projected cancer risk, noncarcinogenic HIs, and blood lead levels reached or exceeded targets from exposure to surface soil. Exposure to subsurface soil is not


expected for recreational receptors. The noncarcinogenic health risks, when present in any EU, were almost entirely attributable to manganese. The greatest cancer risk was present in EU-3, where nearly all of the cancer risk was attributable to arsenic.

For hypothetical residents, the projected cancer risk from exposure to surface soil exceeded the upper limit of the target range. HIs at EU-2 and EU-3 surface soil greatly exceeded the target of 1. These risks are due to the ingestion of soil and plants grown in the surface soil. At EU-3, projected blood lead levels exceeded its limit and the probability of exceeding the limit was greater than the target set by USEPA.

Ecological Risk Assessment Results—As part of the SERA, a qualitative habitat screen, PBT chemical screen, and ecological toxicity screen were conducted for all five EUs. The SERA identified a potential risk to ecological receptors because HQs for several ecological chemicals of potential concern (ecoCOPCs) were at or above the target HQ of 1 in soil at every EU except EU-1.

A BERA conducted for surface soil and shallow subsurface soil (at all EUs except EU-1) concluded that chemicals present in Site 192 soils did not pose an unacceptable risk of adverse effects to ecological receptors.

Basis for Taking Action—The RI concluded that the COPCs (arsenic, lead, and manganese) are present in the soil at levels that for the intended industrial/commercial land use (including construction workers) pose potential risk to human receptors. In addition, the residual manganese ore pieces that remain on the ground surface in several areas of the site are considered by IEPA to be solid waste and should be appropriately managed.

3.2.3 Site 37PS (Pole Storage Area), Site 76CS (Former Coal Storage Area), and Site 76OD (Open Drum Area)

Physical Characteristics—Site 76CS is an open area within the Lower Post Shop Area between Building 117 (Ammunition Peculiar Equipment [APE] Shop) and Building 115 (Locomotive Roundhouse), continuing north along a railroad spur, and ending along the railroad tracks north of Building 129. Site 76CS is bounded to the south by Site 76FA and to the west by Sites 37PS, 37FS, 37GS, 76OD, and 76AD. Site 37PS is approximately 0.07 acres and consists of broken asphalt and gravel with some scattered grasses and weeds. Site 76OD is approximately 0.23 acres containing some vegetation (grasses mixed with other species) between a parking lot and railroad tracks (Site 76CS). Site 76CS is a 2.9-acre site, including grassy areas surrounding actively used railroad tracks leading from Building 115.

Land and Resource Use—Approximately 2,930 acres, including Sites 37PS, 76CS, and 76OD, are administered by the Jo-Carroll LRA. The future land use for Site 192 is industrial/commercial as part of LRA Parcel 17. There are no surface water bodies at Sites 37PS, 76CS, and 76OD. Groundwater in the shallow overburden aquifer is unlikely to be used as drinking water as bedrock aquifers provide the majority of local drinking water supplies, including the drinking water supply system for SVDA.

Geology—Geologic conditions at Sites 37PS, 76CS, and 76OD have been characterized based on data collected during the RI field investigations. The soils underlying Sites 37PS, 76CS, and 76OD are primarily dark brown to yellowish-brown, well-rounded, well-sorted, fine- to medium grained sands. The majority of the soils observed at Sites 37PS, 76CS, and 76OD are described as poorly sorted (SP) sands, as defined by the USCS.

History of Site Contamination—Site 37PS was used to store treated utility poles and is in an open area adjacent to Site 76CS, southeast of Building 703. During the EBS (SAIC 1999), a tar-like substance, suspected to be creosote, was observed dripping onto the exposed soil below the aboveground storage rack.


Aerial photographs from 1946, 1947, 1952, and 1955 show a coal storage area located at Site 76CS between the Locomotive Roundhouse (Building 115) and the APE Shop (Building 117) and north of Building 117 (SAIC 1999). The coal piles encompassed the unpaved area west of the railroad tracks between Building 117 and in the area north of Buildings 117 and 129. These areas no longer are used for coal storage; however, coal fragments and coal dust were identified on the ground surface during the EBS. The exact quantities of coal stored at the stockpile area are unknown.

Site 76OD was used from approximately 1980 to 1985 to temporarily store closed drums containing miscellaneous hazardous materials. Between 20 and 30 55-gallon drums containing Stoddard solvent, used oil, and used coolant reportedly were stored in this open area. According to a SVDA employee, spills occurred due to improper handling, storage, and sampling of the drums. Records concerning the drum removal and sampling of the contents of the drums are unavailable.

Summary of the Initial Responses—During the Phase I, II, and III (1998, 1999, and 2003) field investigations at Site 76CS, samples were from multiple intervals within 15 soil borings and 1 Hydropunch® groundwater sample were collected for laboratory analysis. At Sites 37PS and 76OD, soil samples were collected in 1998 from multiple intervals within five soil borings. In addition, one Hydropunch® groundwater sample was collected at Sites 37PS and 76OD. A monitoring well was installation at Site 37PS and sampled in 1999, 2000, and 2001. Samples were collected to determine the nature and extent of contamination and provide data necessary to conduct a baseline risk assessment (SAIC 2007e).

Evaluation of the Site Risks—A baseline human health risk assessment and SERA were completed as part of the RI to evaluate the potential for adverse effects associated with exposure to site-related contaminants at Sites 37PS, 76CS, and 76OD. The baseline human health risk assessment and SERA were completed using data collected from investigations that occurred between 1998 and 2003. A summary of the results from the risk assessments and COCs are provided at the end of each risk assessment summary and the Basis for Taking Action summary below.

Human Health Risk Assessment Results—The baseline human health risk assessment at Sites 37PS, 76CS, and 76OD was conducted to evaluate exposure of industrial and construction workers to soil. In addition, people who use the site for recreational purposes and hypothetical residents were evaluated. Soil exposures were evaluated for all groups (SAIC 2007e).

Under the planned industrial/commercial future land use of the sites, cancer risks fall within the target risk range (1 × 10-6 to 1 × 10-4) and noncancer HIs are less than 1 for industrial and construction workers. Estimated cancer risk is at the high end of the target risk range for the industrial worker scenario at Site 76CS due primarily to the presence of arsenic in the soil and also to the presence of polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) that are associated with cancer health effects.

Although worker human health risks from the soil at the sites are within the target cancer risk range and do not exceed the target HI, cancer risk approaching the upper bound of the target at Site 76CS coupled with uncertainty associated with the calculation of risks for carcinogenic PAHs (cPAHs) resulted in the BCT’s decision to consider the risks unacceptable for the anticipated future land users (i.e., industrial and commercial workers).

Under hypothetical recreational land use, cancer risks fall within the target risk range and noncancer HIs are below or equal the target of 1. Noncancer HIs do not exceed the target. Under hypothetical residential land use, cancer risks exceed the target risk range and target HI for the resident due primarily to arsenic and cPAHs.

The soil COCs associated with the planned industrial/commercial future land use for Sites 37PS, 76CS, and 76OD are arsenic, benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, and dibenzo(a,h)anthracene. In addition, benzo(a)anthracene is a soil COC for Site 76CS.


Ecological Risk Assessment Results—The primary ecological exposure pathways identified at the site were exposure of terrestrial receptors to PBT chemicals and ecoCOPCs in the surface and shallow subsurface soil. The PBT chemical screen identified mercury as a surface and shallow subsurface soil constituent with potential to bioaccumulate at Site 37PS. The ecological toxicity screen at Site 37PS identified 6 inorganics and 11 semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs) as ecoCOPCs in the surface and/or shallow subsurface soil (SAIC 2007e).

Food-chain modeling was conducted to assess the effects of the PBT chemicals and ecoCOPCs in the soils on wildlife (e.g., shrews, robins, hawks, and eagles) at Sites 37PS. HQs above 1 were estimated for this site. Given the small acreage (0.07 acres) at Site 37PS and the industrial nature of this area, it is unlikely that hawks, eagles, shrews, or robins would spend a large amount of time foraging there; therefore, the HQs greatly overestimate the risks to these species. As a result, the site was recommended for NFA from an ecological perspective.

The PBT chemical screen identified mercury as a surface and shallow subsurface soil constituent with potential to bioaccumulate at Site 76OD. Aroclor 1260 also was identified as a surface soil PBT chemical. The ecological toxicity screen at Site 76OD identified eight inorganics, five SVOCs (including one PAH), and one polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) as ecoCOPCs in the surface and/or shallow subsurface soil.

Food-chain modeling was conducted to assess the effects of the PBT chemicals and ecoCOPCs in the soils on wildlife at Site 76OD. HQs above 1 were estimated for this site. Given the small acreage (0.23 acres) at Site 76OD and the industrial nature of this area, it is unlikely that hawks, eagles, shrews, or robins would spend a large amount of time foraging there; therefore, the HQs greatly overestimate the risks to these species. As a result, the site was recommended for NFA from an ecological perspective.

Mercury was identified as a PBT chemical in surface soil at Site 76CS. The ecological toxicity screen at Site 76CS identified eight inorganic constituents and six organic constituents as ecoCOPCs in the surface soil with potential for adverse impacts to ecological receptors. The inorganic constituent (arsenic) and organic constituents (benzo[a]pyrene, carbazole, dibenzofuran, and naphthalene) also were identified in the shallow subsurface soil as ecoCOPCs. Four volatile organic compounds (VOCs) were selected for further evaluation in shallow subsurface soil due to inhalation concerns.

Food-chain modeling was conducted for the PBT chemicals and ecoCOPCs. Site 76CS HQs above 1 ranged from 1.1 to 46.1 from the metals arsenic, lead, selenium, thallium, and zinc for one or more receptors in the surface soil. Use of the realistic diet and area use factor (AUF) decreases the HQs for hawks and eagles from zinc to below 1; however, the HQs associated with robins and shrews from several metals remain above 1. Although the HQs remain above 1 from metals, the most elevated concentrations of the metals were detected in soil borings among active railroad tracks. The concentrations of the metals in the grassy fields to the north and east of the railroad lines (which are more attractive to wildlife for foraging territory or cover) were all below their respective ecological screening values (ESVs). Wildlife exposure to elevated concentrations of metals would be limited. The inhalation pathway is not of concern at Site 76CS as VOCs were not detected in the four samples collected from the soil depth interval in which burrows are expected to occur. The site was recommended for NFA from an ecological perspective.

Basis for Taking Action—The RI concluded that the COCs (arsenic, benzo[a]pyrene, benzo[a]anthracene, benzo[b]fluoranthene, and dibenzo[a,h]anthracene) are present in the soil at levels that for the intended industrial/commercial land use (including construction workers) pose potential risk to human receptors.

3.2.4 Site 126 (CN Plant Boiler Building Underground Storage Tanks [Building 502])

Physical Characteristics—Site 126 is approximately 0.29 acres and is located in an open area between the CN Loop and CN Service Road in a small area to the west of Building 502.


Land and Resource Use—Approximately 2,930 acres, including Site 126, are administered by the Jo-Carroll LRA. The future land use for Site 126 is industrial/commercial as part of LRA Parcel 11. There are no surface water bodies at Site 126. Groundwater in the shallow overburden aquifer is unlikely to be used as drinking water as bedrock aquifers provide the majority of local drinking water supplies, including the drinking water supply system for SVDA.

Geology—Geologic conditions at Site 126 have been characterized based on data collected during the RI field investigations. The soils underlying Site 126 are primarily dark brown to yellowish-brown, well-rounded, well-sorted, fine- to medium-grained sands. The majority of the soil observed at Site 126 is described as poorly sorted (SP) sands, as defined by the USCS.

History of Site Contamination—The CN Plant Boiler Building, Building 502, was constructed in 1942 as a boiler building to provide steam heat to all structures within the CN Plant. The EBS noted that four 80,000-gallon concrete underground storage tanks (USTs) were constructed in place in 1942, west of Building 502 (SAIC 1999). In 1993, SVDA solicited the State of Illinois on the proper procedures for taking these tanks out of service. The State of Illinois Fire Marshal indicated that the tanks were considered field constructed for the onsite storage and consumption of heating oil; therefore, the tanks were not covered by the state and Federal UST regulations (SVDA 1993a) and could be abandoned as SVDA deemed necessary. In May 1997, the tanks were cleaned and filled with sand.

IEPA reviewed the 1993 SVDA memorandum (SVDA 1993b) and indicated that although the tanks are exempt from certain notification and reporting requirements, they were still subject to state requirements for overfilling and spill reporting and cleanup (Illinois Administrative Code [IAC] 170.400, 170.590 through 170.610). In addition, Sections 12(a) and 12(d) of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act may apply. IEPA also indicated that Federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) requirements pursuant to 40 CFR 280, Subpart F also may still apply (IEPA 1997).

Summary of the Initial Responses—During the Phase I and II (2000 and 2001) field investigations at Site 126, samples from multiple intervals within nine soil borings and one Hydropunch® groundwater sample were collected for laboratory analysis. In addition, one groundwater monitoring well was installed in 2001 and sampled during two rounds of groundwater sampling. Samples were collected to determine the nature and extent of contamination and provide data necessary to conduct a baseline risk assessment (SAIC 2007b).

Evaluation of the Site Risks—A baseline human health risk assessment and SERA were completed as part of the RI to evaluate the potential for adverse effects associated with exposure to site-related contaminants at Site 126 (SAIC 2007b). The baseline human health risk assessment and SERA were completed using data collected from investigations that occurred in 2000 and 2001. A summary of the results from the risk assessment and COCs are provided at the end of each risk assessment summary and the Basis for Taking Action summary below.

Human Health Risk Assessment Results—The baseline human health risk assessment for Site 126 was conducted to evaluate exposure of industrial and construction workers to soil. These individuals are most likely to be present at the site under the planned future land use. In addition, the human health risk assessment evaluated children and adults who participate in recreational activities at the site and individuals in a residential setting as a conservative hypothetical land use. Soil exposures were evaluated for all groups.

The risk assessment results indicate industrial worker, construction worker, and recreational receptor cancer risks fall within the target risk range (1 × 10-6 to 1 × 10-4) primarily due to ingestion of and dermal contact with cPAHs present in the soil (benzo[a]anthracene, benzo[a]pyrene, benzo[b]fluoranthene, dibenzo[a,h]anthracene, and indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene). There is some uncertainty associated with the cancer risks for these PAHs because the risk estimates may not adequately address exposure associated with the dermal contact pathway. The combined noncancer HIs are below the target HI of 1. Although human health risks from the soil at the sites are within the target cancer risk range and


do not exceed the target HI, cancer risks within the upper half of the target risk range coupled with uncertainty associated with the calculation of risks for cPAHs resulted in the BCT’s decision to consider the risks unacceptable for the anticipated future land users.

Risks for hypothetical residential receptors exceed the target cancer risk range and the HIs are less than 1. The soil COCs identified at Site 126 are benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, dibenzo(a,h)anthracene, and indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene.

Ecological Risk Assessment Results—Although the site is of limited use for wide-ranging ecological receptors (i.e., hawks and eagles), it could be utilized by smaller-ranging ecological receptors (i.e., shrews and robins) for a portion of their foraging needs. No PBT chemicals with the potential to bioaccumulate were identified at Site 126. The ecological toxicity screen identified benzo(a)pyrene as a surface and shallow subsurface soil ecoCOPC with potential for adverse impacts to ecological receptors. Food-chain modeling was conducted to assess the effects of benzo(a)pyrene in surface and shallow subsurface soils on wildlife (e.g., shrews, robins, hawks, and eagles).

As the HQs associated with the ecoCOPC benzo(a)pyrene were below 1, the SERA concluded that concentrations of benzo(a)pyrene do not pose risks to terrestrial receptors at Site 126. The site was recommended for NFA from an ecological perspective.

Basis for Taking Action—The RI concluded that the COCs (benzo[a]anthracene, benzo[a]pyrene, benzo[b]fluoranthene, dibenzo[a,h]anthracene, and indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene) are present in the soil at levels that for the intended industrial/commercial land use (including construction workers) pose potential risk to human receptors.

3.2.5 21 LUC Sites (Sites 35, 60PS, 60S2, 60S3, 76FA, 76GS, 76RH, 86, 88HD, 92, 93, 95, 102LB, 128, 131, 135, 183, 189, 190A, HA, and SEW)

Physical Characteristics—Sites 76FA, 76GS, 76RH, 86, 92, 93, 95, 135, and SEW are located in the Lower Post Shop Area. Sites 88HD, 128, 131, 190A, and HA are located in the H-Area Warehouses. The remaining LUC sites (35, 60PS, 60S2, 60S3, 102LB, 183, and 189) are located in individual areas within the Lower Post of SVDA.

Land and Resource Use—The planned future land use for the LUC sites is industrial/commercial. There are no surface water bodies at the 21 LUC sites. Groundwater in the shallow overburden aquifer is unlikely to be used as drinking water as bedrock aquifers provide the majority of local drinking water supplies, including the drinking water supply system for SVDA.

Geology—Geologic conditions at the 21 LUC sites have been characterized based on data collected during the RI field investigations. The soils underlying the 21 LUC sites are primarily dark brown to yellowish-brown, well-rounded, well-sorted, fine- to medium-grained sands. The majority of the soil observed at the 21 LUC sites is described as poorly sorted (SP) sands, as defined by the USCS.

Summary of the Initial Responses—Various phases of RI investigations have been completed at the 21 LUC sites. Table 3-2 provides a summary of the media sampled at each of the 21 LUC sites and the detected constituents along with the references to the applicable RI and FFS/FS reports. Samples were collected to determine the nature and extent of contamination and provide data necessary to conduct a baseline risk assessment.

Evaluation of the Site Risks—Baseline human health risk assessments and SERAs were completed as part of the RIs to evaluate the potential for adverse effects associated with exposure to site-related contaminants at the 21 LUC sites. Based on the conservative SERAs, Sites 88HD, 128, and 190A required further evaluation in a BERA. The baseline human health risk assessments, SERAs, and BERAs were completed using data collected from the RI field investigations. Table 3-2 provides a site-specific summary of the results of each risk assessment and the COCs for each of the 21 LUC sites.

Final CE

RC

LA Five-Y

ear Review

3-13

June 2015 S

avanna Arm

y Depot Activity

Table 3-2. RI Summary of 21 LUC Sites Savanna Army Depot Activity, Savanna, Illinois

Site Media

Sampled

Chemical Constituents

Detected Chemicals of Concern Human Health Assessmenta Ecological Assessmentb Supporting Documents Site 35 – Main Sewage Disposal Plant (Building 275)

Soil and groundwater

SVOCs, pesticides, PCBs, and metals

Soil COCs for the hypothetical resident following removal efforts are copper, benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, benzo(k)fluoranthene, dibenzo(a,h)anthracene, indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene, 4,4’-DDD, 4,4’-DDE, 4,4’-DDT, dieldrin, heptachlor epoxide, and Aroclor 1260. Groundwater COCs are arsenic, benzo(a)anthracene, dibenzo(a,h)anthracene, and manganese

After soil removal efforts, cancer risks within the target risk range and noncancer HIs below the target HI are acceptable for the planned future land use. For residents, cancer risks and noncancer HIs exceed risk targets and warrant LUCs.

The area containing the best habitat for wildlife has been remediated and will continue to be used for industrial purposes. Therefore, ecological risks are acceptable.

Lower Post RI Report (SAIC 2004)

Lower Post FFS (SAIC 2009)

Site 60PS – Liquid Propellant Storage Areas (Buildings 802 and 803)


VOCs, SVOCs, metals, and anions

Soil COC for the hypothetical resident is manganese. No groundwater COCs.

For the planned future land use, cancer and noncancer risks are at or below regulatory targets. For residents, cancer risks are within the target risk range; however, noncancer HIs exceeding the target HI warrant LUCs.

Although HQs for robins were above 1 for lead, the small acreage of available habitat and limited detections of elevated concentrations limit wildlife exposure. Therefore, ecological risks are acceptable.

Supplemental Plant Area RI Report (SAIC 2007a)

Plant Area FFS (SAIC 2008)

Site 60S2 – Building 800 Septic System


VOCs, SVOCs, and metals

Soil COC for hypothetical residents is manganese. No groundwater COCs.

For the planned future land use, cancer risks are at or below the lower bound of the target risk range and noncancer HIs are below the target. For residents, cancer risks are within the target risk range; however, noncancer HIs exceeding the target HI warrant LUCs.

All of the HQs were below 1 at this small site. Therefore, ecological risks are acceptable.



Final CE

RC

LA Five-Y

ear Review

3-14

June 2015 S

avanna Arm

y Depot Activity

Table 3-2. RI Summary of 21 LUC Sites Savanna Army Depot Activity, Savanna, Illinois (Continued)

Site Media

Sampled


Detected Chemicals of Concern Human Health Assessmenta Ecological Assessmentb Supporting Documents Site 60S3 – Building 810 Septic System


VOCs, and SVOCs, and metals

Soil COC for hypothetical residents is manganese. No groundwater COCs.

For the planned future land use, cancer risks below the target risk range and noncancer HIs below the target HI are acceptable. For residents, cancer risks are below the target risk range; however, noncancer HIs exceeding the target HI warrant LUCs.

All HQs were below 1 using more realistic exposure assumptions. Therefore, ecological risks are acceptable.



Site 76FA – Building 117 Furnace Area


Metals Soil COCs for the hypothetical resident are antimony, arsenic, cadmium, copper, lead, and zinc. No groundwater COCs.

For the planned future land use, noncancer HIs less than 1 and cancer risks are within the target risk range are acceptable. These cancer risks are considered conservative primarily because the size of the site is small for industrial use. Resident noncancer HIs, cancer risks, and blood lead levels exceeding the targets warrant LUCs.

Ecological evaluation of the site demonstrated that there is inadequate habitat to support wildlife receptors. Therefore, ecological risks are acceptable.

Lower Post Shop Area RI Report (SAIC 2006)


Site 76GS – Former Service Station (Building 111)

Soil, soil gas, and groundwater

VOCs, SVOCs, herbicides, pesticides, and metals

Soil COCs for the hypothetical resident are benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, dibenzo(a,h)anthracene, indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene, and PCP. No groundwater COCs.

For the planned future land use, cancer risks are at or below the lower bound of the target risk range and noncancer HIs are below the target. For residents, cancer risks at the upper end of the target risk range warrant LUCs.

Ecological evaluation of the site demonstrated that there is inadequate habitat to support wildlife receptors. Therefore, ecological risks are acceptable.

Lower Post Shop Area RI Report (SAIC 2006)


Site 76RH – Locomotive Roundhouse (Building 115)


VOCs, SVOCs, herbicides, metals, and anions

Soil COCs for the hypothetical resident are benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, benzo(k)fluoranthene, dibenzo(a,h)anthracene, and indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene. No groundwater COCs.

For the planned future land use, noncancer HIs less than the target HI and cancer risks within the target risk range are acceptable. The samples were collected below the concrete building floor (reducing human exposure) and site concentrations are at or below the TACO Tier I industrial remediation objectives. For residents, noncancer HIs are below the target HI; however, cancer risks exceeding the target risk range warrant LUCs.

All HQs were below 1. In addition, the site lacks suitable habitat areas inside the building and has limited habitat area outside. Therefore, ecological risks are acceptable.



Final CE

RC

LA Five-Y

ear Review

3-15

June 2015 S

avanna Arm

y Depot Activity


Site Media

Sampled


Detected Chemicals of Concern Human Health Assessmenta Ecological Assessmentb Supporting Documents Site 86 – Building 128 Storage Area


VOCs, SVOCs, pesticides, herbicides, metals, and anions

Soil COCs for the hypothetical resident are benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, dibenzo(a,h)anthracene, 4,4´-DDE, and 4,4´-DDT. No groundwater COCs.

For the planned future land use, cancer risks at or below the lower bound of the target risk range and noncancer HIs below the target HI are acceptable. For residents, although cancer risks are within the target risk range and noncancer HIs are below the target HI, LUCs are recommended because contamination is not bounded and the site is surrounded by Site 135, which requires LUCs.

One HQ was above 1 using more realistic exposure assumptions; however, the overall habitat quantity and quality were deemed insufficient to support populations of wildlife. Therefore, ecological risks are acceptable.



Site 88HD Soil and groundwater

VOCs, SVOCs, PCBs, pesticides, metals, and anions

Site 88HD, soil COCs for the hypothetical resident are benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, benzo(k)fluoranthene, dibenzo(a,h)anthracene, indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene, cadmium, zinc, and Aroclor 1260. Groundwater was evaluated as part of the H-Area Warehouses Groundwater Monitoring Program (Site HA).

For Site 88HD, cancer risks for the planned future land use are within the target risk range and noncancer HIs are below the target HI. Resident cancer risks exceeding the target risk range and noncancer HIs exceeding the target HI warrant LUCs.

HQs remain above 1 using more realistic exposure assumptions in the BERA at Site 88HD. Site 88HD, which encompasses Site 136, is highly disturbed, possesses limited habitat quality, and contains no important ecological resources that require protection. Therefore, ecological risks are acceptable.


Supplemental Lower Post RI Report (SAIC 2005)


Site 92 – Pesticide Storage (Building 113)


VOCs, SVOCs, pesticides, herbicides, and metals

Soil COCs for the hypothetical residential receptors are benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene, PCP, 4,4´-DDE, 4,4´-DDT, dieldrin, and heptachlor epoxide. No groundwater COCs.

For the planned future land use, cancer risks within or below the target risk range and noncancer HIs below the target HI are acceptable; note that concentrations of risk drivers are consistent with background or below applicable risk screening values. For residents, noncancer HIs are at or below the target HI; cancer risks at the upper bound of the target risk range warrant LUCs.

One HQ was above 1 for robins from 4,4´-DDT using more realistic exposure assumptions; however, the overall habitat quantity and quality were deemed insufficient to support populations of wildlife. Therefore, ecological risks are acceptable.



Final CE

RC

LA Five-Y

ear Review

3-16

June 2015 S

avanna Arm

y Depot Activity


Site Media

Sampled


Detected Chemicals of Concern Human Health Assessmenta Ecological Assessmentb Supporting Documents Site 93 – Pesticide Mixing Pad


VOCs, SVOCs, pesticides, herbicides, and metals

Soil COCs for the hypothetical residential receptors are arsenic, lead, 4,4’-DDD, 4,4’-DDE, 4,4’-DDT, alpha-chlordane, gamma-chlordane, dieldrin, heptachlor, and heptachlor epoxide. No groundwater COCs.

For the planned future land use, cancer risks are within the target risk range, noncancer HIs are below the target, HI, and blood lead levels are below the target. These risks are acceptable and are conservative due to the small size of the site (0.067 acres). Resident cancer risks exceeding the upper bound of the target risk range, noncancer HIs exceeding 1, and blood lead levels exceeding the target warrant LUCs.

HQs remained above 1 using more realistic exposure assumptions; however, the overall habitat quantity and quality were deemed insufficient to support populations of wildlife. Therefore, ecological risks are acceptable.



Site 95 – Flammable Storage (Building 104)


VOCs, SVOCs, pesticides, herbicides, PCBs, metals, and anions

Soil COCs for the hypothetical resident are benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, 4,4’-DDT, zinc, and Aroclor 1254. No groundwater COCs.

For the planned future land use, cancer risks fall below the lower bound of the target risk range and noncancer HIs are below the target HI. Resident cancer risks fall within the target risk range; however, noncancer HIs greater than the target HI warrant LUCs.

HQs remained above 1 using more realistic exposure assumptions; however, the overall habitat quantity and quality were deemed insufficient to support populations of wildlife. Therefore, ecological risks are acceptable.



Site 102LB –Building 642 Leaching Beds


VOCs, SVOCs, PCBs, and metals

Soil COC for the hypothetical resident is Aroclor 1254. No groundwater COCs.

For Site 102LB, the planned future land use cancer risks are below the target risk range and noncancer HIs are below the target HI. For residents, cancer risks within the target cancer risk range are acceptable; however, noncancer HIs exceeding the target warrant LUCs.

Aroclor 1254 and thallium had HQs above 1; however, each of these chemicals was detected in only one of five samples; ecological exposures to elevated concentrations would be limited spatially. Therefore, ecological risks are acceptable.

RI Report for the CL and CN Plant Areas and the Remaining LRA Parcel (SAIC 2007b)


Site 128 – H-Area Zinc Ingot Piles


Metals and anions

Soil COCs for the hypothetical resident are iron, lead, and zinc. No groundwater COCs.

For the planned future land use, cancer risks are near the low end of the target risk range and noncancer HIs are below the target HI; these risks are acceptable and concentrations of the risk driver are consistent with background values. For residents, cancer risks are within the target risk range; however, noncancer HIs exceeding the target HI warrant LUCs.

HQs were above 1 using more realistic exposure assumptions in the BERA; however, Site 128 does not contain important ecological resources that require protection. Therefore, ecological risks are acceptable.


Lower Post RI BERA (SAIC 2007d)


Final CE

RC

LA Five-Y

ear Review

3-17

June 2015 S

avanna Arm

y Depot Activity


Site Media

Sampled


Detected Chemicals of Concern Human Health Assessmenta Ecological Assessmentb Supporting Documents Site 131 – Building 137 Scrap Pile



Soil COCs for the hypothetical resident are benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, dibenzo(a,h)anthracene, and indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene. No groundwater COCs.

For the planned future land use, cancer risks are near the low end of the target risk range and noncancer HIs are below the target; these risks are acceptable and concentrations of the PAH risk drivers are below their TACO Tier I remediation objectives for industrial/commercial properties. For residents, noncancer HIs are below the target; however, cancer risks reaching the upper bound of the target risk range warrant LUCs.

All HQs were below 1. Therefore, ecological risks are acceptable.



Site 135 – Former Coal Storage Area



Soil COCs for the hypothetical residential receptors are benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, dibenzo(a,h)anthracene, and indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene. No groundwater COCs.

For the planned future land use, cancer risks are within the target risk range and noncancer HIs are below the target; these risks are acceptable and site concentrations are below the TACO Tier I commercial/ industrial remediation objectives at most locations. For residents, cancer risks exceeding the upper bound of the target risk range and noncancer HIs exceeding the target HI warrant LUCs.

HQs for metals were above 1; however, exposure to these metals would be limited because there are limited detections of the metals above their ESVs and the industrial land use is a deterrent to wildlife usage. Therefore, ecological risks are acceptable.



Site 183 – CL Plant Storage Building (Building 615)


VOCs, SVOCs, explosives, metals, and anions

Soil COCs for the hypothetical resident are 2,4-DNT, TNT, hexachlorobenzene, benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, dibenzo(a,h)anthracene, and PCP. No groundwater COCs.

For the planned future land use, cancer risks are within the target risk range and noncancer HIs are below the target HI; these risks are acceptable and site concentrations are consistent with background levels or are below the TACO Tier I commercial/industrial remediation objective. Resident noncancer HIs are below the target HI; however, cancer risks at the upper bound of the target risk range warrant LUCs.

One HQ remained above 1 using more realistic exposure assumptions; however, the small site area (0.1 acres), which is primarily enclosed within a building, and limited samples with elevated concentrations, suggest that exposure of lead to wildlife would be limited spatially. Therefore, ecological risks are acceptable.

RI Report for the CL and CN Plant Areas and the Remaining LRA Parcel (SAIC 2007b)


Final CE

RC

LA Five-Y

ear Review

3-18

June 2015 S

avanna Arm

y Depot Activity


Site Media

Sampled


Detected Chemicals of Concern Human Health Assessmenta Ecological Assessmentb Supporting Documents Site 189 – Water Tower (Building 904)

Soil Metals Soil COCs for the hypothetical resident are copper and zinc.

For the planned future land use, cancer risks are within the target risk range and noncancer HIs are below the target HI; these risks are acceptable and site concentrations of the risk driver are below state background levels. For residents, cancer risks falling within the target risk range are acceptable; however, noncancer HIs exceeding the target warrant LUCs.

Some HQs were above 1; however, the potentially contaminated area is very small (less than 0.1 acres). Therefore, ecological risks are acceptable.

RI Report Sites 88 and 189 (SAIC 2007c)


Site 190A – H-Area Material Storage Area (Area A)


VOCs, SVOCs, PCBs, metals, and anions

Soil COCs for the hypothetical resident are arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, iron, lead, zinc, benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, benzo(k)fluoranthene, dibenzo(a,h)anthracene, indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene, and Aroclor 1260. No groundwater COCs.

At Site 190A, cancer risks for the planned future land use are within the target risk range and noncancer HIs are below the target; these risks are acceptable; site concentrations of the risk driver are consistent with state background levels and PAH risks are driven by concentrations at one location near a railroad. For residents, cancer risks exceeding the upper bound of the target risk range and noncancer HIs exceeding the target HI warrant LUCs.

HQs remain above 1 using more realistic exposure assumptions in the BERA; however, Site 190A possesses limited habitat quality and there are no important ecological resources that require protection.



Lower Post RI BERA (SAIC 2007d)


Site HA – H-Area Warehouses Groundwater Monitoring Program

Groundwater VOCs, SVOCs, pesticides, herbicides, metals, and anions

Groundwater COCs for the hypothetical resident are aldrin, TCE, and MCPA.

For the planned future land use, cancer risks are below the target risk range and noncancer HIs are below the target. HI. For residents, cancer risks fall at the low end of the target risk range; however, noncancer HIs exceeding the target warrant LUCs.

Since the investigation focused on groundwater, there were no potentially complete ecological exposures at the H-Area Warehouses. Therefore, ecological risks are acceptable.



Final CE

RC

LA Five-Y

ear Review

3-19

June 2015 S

avanna Arm

y Depot Activity


Site Media

Sampled


Detected Chemicals of Concern Human Health Assessmenta Ecological Assessmentb Supporting Documents Site SEW – Lower Post Sewerlines

Soil VOCs, SVOCs, PCBs, pesticides, herbicides, and metals

Soil COCs for the hypothetical resident are benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, dibenzo(a,h)anthracene, indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene, Aroclor 1260, and PCP.

For the planned future land use, cancer risks are within the target risk range and noncancer HIs are below the target; these cancer risks are acceptable and site concentrations of the PAH risk drivers are below the TACO Tier I remediation objectives for industrial/commercial properties. For residents, noncancer HIs are below the target HI; however, cancer risks reaching the upper bound of the target risk range warrant LUCs.

Chemicals with HQs above 1 had a very low frequency of detection and exposures to these chemicals would be further limited due to the industrial land use. Therefore, ecological risks are acceptable.



aHuman health risk assessment: cancer risks target risk range is 1 × 10-6 to 1 × 10-4 and noncancer HI target is 1. bEcological risk assessment: HQ target is 1.


Human Health Risk Assessment Results—Baseline human health risk assessments were conducted for each of the 21 LUC sites. Baseline risk assessments were conducted for each LUC site to estimate the human health risk associated with potential exposure to chemicals detected at the site in the absence of remedial actions. Based on the LRA land use plan, the LUC sites will continue to be used for industrial/commercial purposes and no residential land use is expected.

The human health risk assessments evaluated the potential for adverse health effects for groups of people (i.e., industrial and construction workers, recreational receptors) likely to be present under the planned future land use of the site: industrial and construction workers under an industrial/commercial scenario at all sites. In addition, the assessments evaluated the potential for adverse health effects for groups of people present under hypothetical or unlikely land use scenarios (i.e., residents at all sites and recreational receptors). The residential scenario is the most conservative because land use is unrestricted and it is typically the scenario with the highest risks. The exposure pathways evaluated included ingestion and dermal contact with soil and inhalation of contaminated dust and vapors in the air. Additional pathways for residents include ingestion of produce grown in soil, drinking groundwater, and contact with groundwater while bathing/showering.

Human health risks for Sites 35, 60PS, 60S2, 60S3, 76FA, 76GS, 76RH, 86, 88HD, 92, 93, 95, 102LB, 128, 131, 135, 183, 189, 190A, HA, and SEW are characterized by cancer risks that are below or within the target risk range (1 × 10-6 to 1 × 10-4) and noncancer HIs at or below the target of 1 for the planned future land use, with the exception of Site 60PS (where the noncancer HI for the recreational child is 2). For hypothetical residential exposures, cancer risks are above the USEPA target risk range and/or noncancer HIs are above the HI target. Table 3-2 provides a site-specific summary of the baseline human health risk assessments results for each of the 21 LUC sites.

Ecological Risk Assessment Results—SERAs were conducted for each of the 21 LUC sites to estimate the potential adverse effect to ecological receptors resulting from exposures to chemicals detected at the sites if no remedial action were taken. Based on the conservative SERAs, Sites 88HD, 128, and 190A required further evaluation in a BERA. The SERA and BERA assessments of the LUC sites determined that ecological risks for all of the site areas are acceptable as the sites either had HQ values <1, provided limited exposure, possessed limited habitat size or quality, or contained no important ecological resources that require protection. Table 3-2 provides a site-specific summary of the SERA and BERA results for each of the LUC sites.

Basis for Taking Action—Based on the baseline human health risk assessments, human health risks at the 21 LUC sites (Sites 35, 60PS, 60S2, 60S3, 76FA, 76GS, 76RH, 86, 88HD, 92, 93, 95, 102LB, 128, 131, 135, 183, 189, 190A, HA, and SEW) are acceptable for the planned future land users (i.e., industrial and construction workers) but are unacceptable for hypothetical residents.


4.0 REMEDIAL ACTIONS

The RODs for the FYR sites were finalized in 2010, 2012, and 2013. Remedial action objectives (RAOs) were developed as a result of RI and FFS/FS activities conducted at each site. Data and cost estimates aided in the development of and screening of remedial alternative considered in the final RODs. The primary objective of the remedial actions at SVDA is to effectively mitigate, minimize threats to, and provide adequate protection of human health and the environment. To meet this objective, the Army developed RAOs for each of the sites.

The RAOs for Site 111 are summarized as follows:

• Soil—Prevent industrial site worker and construction worker exposure to surface soil (0 to 0.5 feet BLS) containing nitroaromatic/nitramine compounds at concentrations above the site-specific risk-based preliminary remediation goals (PRGs)

• Soil—Prevent ecological exposure to surface (0 to 0.5 feet BLS) and shallow subsurface (0.5 to 2 feet BLS) soil containing nitroaromatic/nitamine compounds at concentrations above the site-specific ecological remediation goals (RGs)

• Soil—Prevent or reduce the potential for nitroaromatic/nitramine compounds in soil to migrate to groundwater resulting in concentrations above Illinois Class 1 GQSs

• Groundwater—Prevent human exposure to groundwater at concentrations above Illinois Class 1 GQSs

• Groundwater—To the extent practical, restore the groundwater quality at the site to Illinois Class 1 GQSs.

The RAOs for soil at Site 192 are summarized as follows:

• Prevent industrial site worker and construction worker exposure to surface soil containing arsenic above its Tiered Approach to Corrective Action Objective (TACO) industrial/commercial remediation objective (RO), manganese above its TACO construction worker RO, and lead above its site-specific risk-based RG

• Prevent construction worker exposure to subsurface soil containing arsenic and manganese above their respective TACO construction worker ROs and lead above its site-specific risk-based RG

• Locate and collect residual manganese ore pieces larger than ½ inch in diameter that remain on the Site 192 ground surface to the maximum practical extent for offsite disposal or reuse.

The RAOs for soil at Sites 37PS, 76CS, 76OD, and 126 are summarized as follows:

• Reduce soil contamination (where applicable) to meet human health PRGs and acceptable risk levels for the planned future land use (i.e., industrial/commercial)

• Prevent human exposure to contaminated soil that would cause unacceptable risk.

The RAOs for the 21 sites requiring LUCs (Sites 35, 60PS, 60S2, 60S3, 76FA, 76GS, 76RH, 86, 88HD, 92, 93, 95, 102LB, 128, 131, 135, 183, 189, 190A, HA, and SEW) are summarized as follows:

• Ensure that risks associated with the ROD sites are acceptable (i.e., fall within or below the target cancer risk range of 1 × 10-6 to 1 × 10-4 and fall below or equal the target noncancer HI of 1)


• Implement LUCs maintaining industrial land use at the 21 ROD sites where risks are unacceptable under the hypothetical residential scenario

• Prevent the use of groundwater as a source of drinking water at Sites 35 and HA.

4.1 REMEDY SELECTION

The following subsections describe the selected remedy for the FYR sites as described in the final RODs.

4.1.1 Remedy Selection for Site 111

The selected soil remedy was In Situ Chemical Treatment and was composed of the following actions to achieve the RAOs:

• Implementation of in situ treatment that would consist of alkaline hydrolysis (lime treatment) for nitroaromatics/nitramines in surface soil and shallow subsurface soil

• Construction and operation of a soil flushing and groundwater extraction system for treatment of the shallow subsurface soil and groundwater impacted above the Illinois Class 1 standard

• Implementation of LUCs restricting groundwater use and residential land use.

In situ treatment would consist of alkaline hydrolysis (lime treatment) for nitroaromatics/nitramines in surface soil and shallow subsurface soil. Lime treatment would consist of applying lime to soil to increase soil pH to the optimum level for degradation of the contaminants. A tractor with a tiller attachment would thoroughly mix a lime slurry to a depth of 2 feet BLS. Soil flushing and groundwater recovery would be implemented for subsurface soil and groundwater impacted above Illinois Class 1 standards, respectively. Soil flushing would remove contaminants from the soil by passing water through soils in place using an infiltration process. The water then would be recovered from the underlying aquifer and filtered before going through the infiltration process again.

Groundwater monitoring would be conducted monthly during soil flushing to monitor contaminant concentrations and potential migration. The duration to achieve RAOs for all media was estimated at 5 years. LUCs would be implemented to prevent soil exposure to hypothetical residential receptors. The expected form of LUCs is an environmental covenant, to be developed during remedial design, per the Uniform Environmental Covenants Act (UECA) (Illinois Public Act 095-0845). In addition, groundwater use would be restricted until groundwater RAOs are achieved. The RGs specified in the ROD are presented in Table 4-1.

Table 4-1. Remediation Goals for Site 111 Savanna Army Depot Activity, Savanna, Illinois

COC Soil RG (mg/kg) Groundwater (mg/L) 1,3,5-Trinitrobenzene – 0.84 2,4,6-Trinitrotoluene 50 0.014 2,4-Dinitrotoluene 5.6 0.0001* Aminodinitrotoluenes (total) 681 0.014

– Not Applicable

*Note: The RG in the Final ROD (URS 2010a) was presented as 0.1 mg/L; however in accordance with the Illinois GQSs the value actually was 0.1 µg/L.



The selected soil remedy was Offsite Disposal and was composed of the following actions to achieve the RAOs:

• Excavation and offsite disposal of surface soil (0 to 0.5 feet BLS) within a total area of 6.5 acres.

• Visual survey of unexcavated areas by onsite personnel for residual pieces of ore. All identified residual ore pieces larger than 0.5 inches in diameter would be collected for offsite disposal or reuse.

• Use of specialized railroad ballast cleaning equipment to separate contaminated soil from crushed-rock ballast material located along the tracks (approximately 0.75 miles).

• Implementation of LUCs restricting residential land use.

The excavation areas are about 6.5 acres total (represented by arsenic greater than 11.3 mg/kg). Approximately 6,000 cubic yards of contaminated soil would be disposed of offsite at a licensed solid waste landfill, presumably as nonhazardous waste, or utilized in the beneficial reuse program. All unexcavated areas of the site would be visually surveyed by onsite personnel for residual pieces of ore. All identified residual ore pieces larger than ½ inches in diameter would be collected for offsite disposal or reuse.

Specialized railroad ballast cleaning equipment would be used to separate contaminated soil from crushed-rock ballast material located along the tracks (approximately 0.75 miles). The soil fraction would be disposed of offsite as nonhazardous waste in a licensed solid waste landfill. The processed ballast material would be replaced on the tracks.

LUCs would be implemented to prevent soil exposure to hypothetical residential receptors. The expected form of LUCs is an environmental covenant, to be developed during remedial design, per the UECA (Illinois Public Act 095-0845). The RGs specified in the ROD RGs are presented in Table 4-2.

Table 4-2. Remediation Goals for Site 192 Savanna Army Depot Activity, Savanna, Illinois

COC Soil RG (mg/kg) Manganese 4,100 Arsenic 11.3 Lead 1,050

4.1.3 Remedy Selection for Sites 37PS, 76CS, and 76OD

The selected soil remedy for Sites 37PS, 76CS, and 76OD was Excavation and Offsite Disposal for Unrestricted Use and was composed of the following actions to achieve the RAOs:

• Excavation and offsite disposal of soils above the respective residential PRGs within a total area of 104,243 square feet

• Removal and replacement of the railroad tracks within the site to accommodate site remediation

• LUCs would not be required because the site would meet the unrestricted use criteria at the completion of the remedial action.

The selected remedy involves the excavation of soils with COC concentrations above their respective residential PRGs followed by transportation and disposal at a permitted offsite facility.


Confirmation sampling would be completed, the excavation backfilled using clean soil, and the site restored to the surrounding grade. The railroad tracks within the site would require removal and replacement to accommodate site remediation. The proposed excavation areal extent is approximately 104,243 square feet. The vertical extent varies across the proposed excavation area; depths range from approximately 1 to 15 feet BLS. Proposed remedial activities at the site would be coordinated with SVDA personnel, including the railroad operator, to ensure minimal disruption to railroad operation. The cleanup goals specified in the ROD are presented in Table 4-3.

Table 4-3. Cleanup Goals for Sites 37PS, 76CS, and 76OD Savanna Army Depot Activity, Savanna, Illinois

COC Soil Cleanup Goals Arsenic 11.3 mg/kg Benzo(a)anthracene 900 µg/kg Benzo(a)pyrene 90 µg/kg Benzo(b)fluoranthene 900 µg/kg Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 90 µg/kg


The selected soil remedy for Site 126 was Excavation and Offsite Disposal for Unrestricted Use and was composed of the following actions to achieve the RAOs:

• Excavation and offsite disposal of soils above the respective residential PRGs within a total area of 6,442 square feet

• LUCs would not be required because the site would meet the unrestricted use criteria at the completion of the remedial action.

The selected remedy involves the excavation of soils with COC concentrations above their respective residential PRGs followed by transportation and disposal at a permitted offsite facility. Confirmation sampling would be completed, the excavation backfilled using clean soil, and the site restored to the surrounding grade. The proposed excavation areal extent is approximately 6,442 square feet. The vertical extent varies across the proposed excavation area; depths range from approximately 1 to 15 feet BLS. Proposed remedial activities at the site would be coordinated with SVDA personnel, including the railroad operator, to ensure minimal disruption to railroad operation. The cleanup goals specified in the ROD are presented in Table 4-4.

Table 4-4. Cleanup Goals for Site 126 Savanna Army Depot Activity, Savanna, Illinois

COC Soil Cleanup Goals (µg/kg) Benzo(a)anthracene 900 Benzo(a)pyrene 90 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 900 Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 90 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 900

4.1.5 Remedy Selection for 21 LUC Sites

The selected soil remedy for the 21 LUC sites (Sites 35, 60PS, 60S2, 60S3, 76FA, 76GS, 76RH, 86, 88HD, 92, 93, 95, 102LB, 128, 131, 135, 183, 189, 190A, HA, and SEW) was LUCs and would be implemented to prohibit residential use and maintain the current industrial land use in perpetuity. The


LUCs at these sites would consist of administrative restrictions to maintain future use of the site for industrial purposes and prohibit the use of groundwater as a source of drinking water at Sites 35 and HA. These LUCs would be outlined in a LUC remedial design, with restrictions stated in full or by reference within deeds, easements, covenants, mortgages, leases, or other instruments of property transfer. The expected form of LUCs is a Uniform Environmental Covenant to be filed concurrently with property transfer to the LRA. Restrictions would be maintained through all potential future property transfers. LUC inspections of the sites would be conducted periodically and during the CERCLA FYRs.

4.2 REMEDY IMPLEMENTATION

The following subsections describe the implementation of the selected remedies on a site-by-site basis.

4.2.1 Site 111 Remedy Implementation

The remedy selected (In Situ Chemical Treatment) for Site 111 consisted of in situ lime treatment of the surface and shallow subsurface soils, treatment of shallow subsurface and groundwater using a soil flushing and groundwater extraction system, and implementation of LUCs to restrict groundwater and residential land use. The remedial design was approved in April 2010 within the Remedial Action Plan (RAP) (URS 2010c). The Remedial Action Report completed in June 2014 recommended additional treatment to achieve the RGs within the finalized ROD.

In situ lime treatment was completed in specific treatment areas to degrade residual explosive compounds in the shallow subsurface (i.e., 0 to 2 feet BLS). Mechanical mixing of industrial-grade hydrated lime into the impacted soil was completed using a tractor with a deep tiller attachment. Appropriate lime quantities (roughly 1 percent by weight) were evenly spread on the ground surface of the specific treatment areas. An estimated 720 pounds of lime were used during the initial mixing to reach a target soil pH of 12. Each treatment area was tilled daily or every other day until performance monitoring indicated that the RGs had been achieved. Lime treatment operations were discontinued once TNT concentrations were below the RGs. Additional confirmation soil samples were then collected and analyzed by the offsite laboratory to demonstrate that the RGs were achieved.

A soil flushing system consisting of three groundwater extraction wells, three piezometers, a water treatment system (including electrical hookup), water delivery piping, and soil flushing galleries was constructed. The water treatment system was designed to remove residual explosive compounds from recovered water prior to reapplication to the specific treatment areas through the soil flushing galleries. The water treatment system installed consisted of a sedimentation tank, granular activated carbon (GAC) vessels, a transfer pump, controls to direct water flow, a concrete pad to support the equipment, and an enclosed shelter for controls and instrumentation.

In July 2010, baseline groundwater samples were collected from seven monitoring wells and analyzed for nitroaromatics/nitramines. Samples also were collected from groundwater in each influent pipe in the soil flushing system, representing water from each extraction well (three influent samples), and after passing through the GAC vessels (one effluent sample).

The soil flushing system was turned on briefly in August 2010 to test the system and determine the best flow for each specific treatment area. Unfortunately, the areas exhibited poor infiltration, especially treatment area TA-C. This was likely due to the hardening of the lime and surface soil mixture. Each treatment area was raked to increase drainage, but the drainage remained poor. The soil from 0 to 2 feet BLS in treatment areas TA-B, TA-C, and TA-D was excavated and backfilled with crushed limestone rock to allow increased water infiltration rates to improve the effectiveness of soil flushing. Following the excavation and replacement, the observed infiltration improved. However, the water recirculation system was winterized until operations could resume in the spring/summer of 2011.


Soil flushing system operations began on July 12, 2011 and continued for 4 months until freezing weather conditions prevented further flushing. The soil flushing system operations resumed on April 3, 2012 and continued for 7 months. In July 2012, the pumps at extraction wells EW-1 and EW-3 were switched to increase the pumping rate at extraction well EW-3. In August 2012, infiltration rates were slightly lowered. These optimization efforts were completed to increase extraction well capture zones, particularly at EW-3.

Direct push sampling was completed on April 7, 2013 at each of the treatment areas to evaluate the need for additional soil flushing or optimization measures. Soil samples were collected at 4, 16, 32, and 48 feet BLS and analyzed for nitroaromatics/nitramines. Based on the results of this sampling and following discussion with the Army, USEPA, and IEPA, soil flushing was discontinued at four of the treatment areas (TA-A, TA-B, TA-C, and TA-D).

Soil flushing resumed at treatment area TA-5C on August 5, 2013. Groundwater extraction was resumed at extraction wells EW-1 and EW-3 at slightly higher rates than at the end of the 2012 season. Groundwater extraction at EW-2 was discontinued. These optimization efforts were completed to increase the extraction well capture zone at EW-3. The soil flushing system was shut down on October 24, 2013 due to cold weather conditions. The following recommendations for future activities were summarized in the Site 111 Remedial Action Report (URS 2014):

• Restart the soil flushing system following the relocation of the groundwater discharge point to MW-111-02. Resume groundwater extraction at EW-3 (40 gallons per minute [gpm]) and soil flushing at TA-5C (8 gpm) at the same rates as 2013. Collect groundwater samples quarterly at EW-3, MW-111-02, MW-111-06, MW-111-09, and the system effluent for performance monitoring. If increases in residual explosive concentrations at monitoring wells are observed, appropriate sentinel wells will be sampled during the next quarterly event.

• Continue soil flushing until residual explosive concentrations in groundwater at EW-3 decrease to below the RGs. After this objective has been met, continue groundwater extraction at EW-3 until residual explosive concentrations in groundwater at all site monitoring wells are below RGs. Based on current residual explosive concentration reduction trends in groundwater, this is expected to take 1 to 3 additional years of system operation.

• Once residual explosive concentrations in groundwater are below RGs for four consecutive events, request USEPA and IEPA confirmation letters to officially document site closure, per the RAP (URS 2010c).

Soil flushing resumed at Site 111 on April 7, 2014 and the system was shut down in June 2014 due to the end of the contract. The Army has re-issued the contract to complete the remedial action at Site 111 and the soil flushing and groundwater extraction system will re-start in the spring of 2015 in order to complete the remedial action in accordance with the finalized ROD.

The objective of LUCs for Site 111 are to prohibit the development and use of property for uses other than industrial, including residential housing, elementary and secondary schools, child care facilities, and playgrounds. The LUC Plan for Site 111 documented this objective and was finalized in July 2012; however, the UECA environmental covenant has yet to the signed and executed. Informal annual reviews have been completed by the Army, as the Army owns the property and is onsite with regular visits to the areas, to assess the effectiveness of the LUCs. Formal annual reviews will be conducted following this FYR and will include a visual inspection, review of records, interviews with the property owner, and completion of a LUC Inspection Checklist.


4.2.2 Site 192 Remedy Implementation

The remedy selected for Site 192 (completed in 2012) consisted of a combination of excavation and offsite disposal of surface soil and shallow subsurface soil to achieve the RAOs. Soil was excavated from an area of approximately 15 acres to depths ranging from 0.5 to 1.5 feet BLS and disposed of offsite at a licensed, solid waste landfill as nonhazardous waste.

Manganese ore pieces larger than 0.5 inches in diameter were collected during a visual survey by field personnel and added to the soil stockpiles for offsite disposal until no visible pieces were observed over a given area.

Following excavation, discrete soil samples were collected from the base and perimeter of excavation areas to confirm that soil exceeding the RGs had been removed. Each sample was analyzed in the field for arsenic, lead, and manganese using an X-ray fluorescence (XRF) analyzer. Sample splits from approximately 10 percent of the XRF samples were sent to the laboratory for metals analysis to confirm field results.

Contaminated railroad ballast material located along the tracks (approximately 4,400 feet) was removed using a specialized vacuum truck. Ballast and soil were removed to an average depth of 0.5 feet, generally not exceeding the bottom depth of the railroad ties. Following the excavation of contaminated ballast and confirmation sampling, clean ballast material was placed along the tracks. Ballast then was tamped and regulated using rail-mounted equipment.

Besides ballast replacement, site restoration activities consisted of backfilling, grading, and seeding along excavated lengths of railroad track. Backfill material was acquired from a borrow pit located at SVDA. Backfill was placed and graded to conform to the surrounding topography. Slopes along McIntyre Road and the railroad tracks were compacted and finish graded. Site 192 was hydroseeded with a mixture of native short grass and rye and then mulched.

Confirmation samples collected from the base and perimeter of each excavation area indicate that the majority of the soil above RGs at Site 192 was successfully removed. However, soil with manganese and arsenic concentrations slightly above the industrial and/or construction worker RGs remains onsite at a few isolated locations underlying the railroad tracks, as described in the Remedial Action Report (URS 2011b). LUCs at Site 192 were recommended to be implemented for the entire site boundaries and maintained indefinitely.

The objectives of LUCs were outlined in the LUC Plan for Site 192 as follows:

• Restrict land use to industrial/commercial to prevent residential development.

• Require that the existing railroad tracks remain in place as an engineered barrier to limit potential future industrial/construction worker exposure to underlying soil contaminated above the RGs.

• Place signs every 500 feet near the tracks at Site 192. Signs will read “Removal of railroad tracks is restricted.”

• Require a site safety plan to be developed and implemented by the property owner if temporary track removal (e.g., for replacement) is planned in areas located within the LUC boundaries to ensure that workers are adequately protected pursuant to Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations and safe worker practices. The safety plan would reduce potential risks to site workers from exposure to impacted subsurface soil by specifying the use of engineered controls such as dust monitoring or suppression, and/or protective equipment for workers such as gloves and dust masks.


The LUC Plan for Site 192 was finalized in August 2012 and the required signage was installed on December 5, 2012; however, the UECA environmental covenant has yet to the signed and executed. Informal annual reviews have been completed by the Army, as the Army owns the property and is onsite with regular visits to the areas, to assess the effectiveness of the LUCs. Formal annual reviews will be conducted following this FYR and will include a visual inspection, review of records, interviews with the property owner, and completion of a LUC Inspection Checklist. Five-year reviews would be required to ensure the effectiveness of the LUCs.

4.2.3 Sites 37PS, 76CS, 76OD, and 126 Remedy Implementation The selected remedies for Sites 37PS, 76CS, 76OD, and 126 of Excavation and Offsite Disposal for

Unrestricted Use have not yet been implemented; however, the remedial actions have been contracted by the Army. The remedial action work plans for Sites 37PS, 76CS, 76OD, and 126 will be undergoing stakeholder review in the spring of 2015. Remedial actions are expected to be completed in the summer of 2015.

4.2.4 21 LUC Sites Remedy Implementation The selected remedies(LUCs) for the 21 LUC sites (35, 60PS, 60S2, 60S3, 76FA, 76GS, 76RH, 86,

88HD, 92, 93, 95, 102LB, 128, 131, 135, 183, 189, 190A, HA, and SEW) have been implemented because the LUCIP was finalized in March 2015; however, the UECA environmental covenant needs to be executed to maintain the current industrial land use at the 21 sites and prohibit groundwater use at Sites 35 and HA in perpetuity.

4.3 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 4.3.1 Site 111 Operation and Maintenance

The selected remedy (In Situ Chemical Treatment) for Site 111 consisted of in situ lime treatment of the surface and shallow subsurface soils, treatment of shallow subsurface and groundwater using a soil flushing and groundwater extraction system, and implementation of LUCs to restrict groundwater and residential land use. The soil flushing and groundwater extraction system remains operational onsite; however, at the time of the FYR site inspection, the system was locked and winterized from June 2014.

The operation and maintenance (O&M) plan (URS 2011a) summarizes the components (e.g., technical specifications from each component manufacturer) and operational procedures (i.e., system start-up, system monitoring and sampling, and system winterization).

4.3.2 Site 192 Operation and Maintenance The selected remedy (Offsite Disposal) for Site 192 was completed in 2010. There is no remaining

system to operate or maintain. No formal O&M plan was prepared.

4.3.3 Sites 37PS, 76CS, 76OD, and 126 Operation and Maintenance The selected remedy (Excavation and Offsite Disposal for Unrestricted Use) for Sites 37PS, 76CS,

76OD, and 126 has yet to be implemented. There is no system to operate or maintain. No formal O&M plan was prepared.

4.3.4 LUC Sites Operation and Maintenance The selected remedies (LUCs) for Sites 35, 60PS, 60S2, 60S3, 76FA, 76GS, 76RH, 86, 88HD, 92,

93, 95, 102LB, 128, 131, 135, 183, 189, 190A, HA, and SEW have been implemented. In addition, the remedial action does not require a system to operate or maintain. No formal O&M plan was prepared.


5.0 PROGRESS SINCE THE LAST FIVE-YEAR REVIEW

This document presents the first FYR Report for SVDA. No other reviews have occurred since the signing of the Site 111 ROD in April 2010 and the Site 111 onsite mobilization for the start of the remedial action construction phase on July 30, 2010.


6.0 FIVE-YEAR REVIEW PROCESS

6.1 ADMINISTRATIVE COMPONENTS

USACE initiated the First FYR for SVDA in October 2014 and scheduled its completion for July 2015. Parties involved in the completion of the FYR process include USACE and its contractor, Plexus; USEPA, Region 5; and IEPA. Individual participants, their affiliations, and their roles are provided in Table 6-1.

Table 6-1. SVDA FYR Team Members Savanna Army Depot Activity, Savanna, Illinois

Individual Agency Title Tom Barounis USEPA USEPA Region 5 Project Manager Charlene Falco IEPA IEPA Project Manager Cathy Collins SVDA BRAC SVDA BRAC Environmental Coordinator Lisa R. Bisig CELRL KO Dick Kennard, P.G. CELRL COR Todd Knuth CELRL Construction Division Representative Ramona Coffey CELRL Construction Division Representative Ali Sadrieh, PMP Plexus Program Manager Jarett McDonald Plexus Project Manager Marcy Larriva, P.E., PMP Leidos Project Manager Mark Bagel Plexus Quality Manager Margaret Mikulich Plexus Safety Manager Deb Schepleng Plexus Contract Manager

6.2 COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT

Public notices were published in the following publications announcing the commencement of the FYR process for SVDA, providing contact information for USACE, and inviting community participation:

• Savanna Times Journal – Thursday, October 16 • NW Illinois Dispatch – Thursday, October 16 • Galena Gazette – Wednesday, October 15 • Clinton Herald Daily – Wednesday, October 15 and Saturday, October 18.

The press notice is provided in Attachment A. No one from the community contacted the BRAC Environmental Coordinator as a result of this advertisement.

This First FYR Report will be made available to the public once it has been finalized. Copies of this document will be placed in the designated public repositories:

• Savanna Public Library, 326 3rd Street, Savanna, Illinois 61074 • Hanover Township Library, 204 Jefferson Street, Hanover, Illinois 61041 • Savanna Army Depot Activity, 18935 B Street, Savanna, Illinois 61074.

Upon completion of the First FYR, a public notice will be placed in the local publications to announce the availability of the final First FYR Report in the site document repositories.


6.3 DOCUMENT REVIEW

The first FYR includes a review of relevant, site-related documents and included remedial action plans, O&M, remedial action reports, and LUC plans. The RODs for Site 111 (URS 2010a); the ROD for Site 192 (URS 2010b); the ROD for Sites 5, 24, 37PS, 69, 76CS, 76OD, 126, 155, 184, and 186 (SAIC 2012); and the ROD for 33 Lower Post and Plant Area Sites (SAIC 2013) were the primary documents consulted to obtain RAOs and cleanup levels. Attachment B includes a list of documents reviewed for the First FYR.

6.4 DATA REVIEW

The following sections present the data reviewed as part of the first FYR.

6.4.1 Site 111

The confirmation sampling and performance monitoring associated with Site 111 selected remedy (In Situ Chemical Treatment) was reviewed. Data from confirmation and performance monitoring was reviewed within the USEPA and IEPA approved reports and the stakeholders have concurred with the conclusions and recommendations noted in the Remedial Action Report (URS 2014). The following paragraphs describe the confirmation sampling and performance monitoring results as summarized in the Remedial Action Report (URS 2014). Tables and figures for the data presented in the Remedial Action Report (URS 2014) are included in Attachment C.

Direct push sampling was completed on April 7, 2013 at each of the treatment areas to evaluate the need for additional soil flushing or optimization measures. Soil samples were collected at 4, 16, 32, and 48 feet BLS and analyzed for nitroaromatics/nitramines. The results of the direct push sampling are shown in Attachment C, Table 1. Based on the results of this sampling and following discussion with the Army, USEPA, and IEPA, soil flushing was discontinued at four of the treatment areas (TA-A, TA-B, TA-C, and TA-D). Soil flushing resumed at TA-5C on August 5, 2013 and continued until October 24, 2013 when the soil flushing system was shut down due to cold weather conditions.

During 2011 and 2012, soil flushing operations and performance monitoring samples were collected on a monthly basis per the Remedial Action Plan (URS 2010c). Water levels were measured at all Site 111 monitoring wells and piezometers during each sampling event. Annual RAO reports were completed to present the results of the performance monitoring and capture zone analysis, and make recommendations for future RAO (URS 2012 and URS 2013).

In 2013, quarterly groundwater samples were collected at seven Site 111 monitoring wells. A summary of the analytes detected in 2013 performance monitoring samples is included in Attachment C, Table 2. Water levels, measured at all Site 111 monitoring wells and piezometers during each sampling event, are presented in Attachment C, Table 3. As noted in the Site 111 Remedial Action Report (URS 2014), the soil flushing and groundwater extraction rates remained constant in 2013. Figure 1 in Attachment C presents interpreted capture zones and the potentiometric surface typical during 2013 system operation. The current extent of TNT in groundwater above RGs is presents in Attachment C, Figure 2. A summary of TNT concentrations since the soil flushing began is presented in Attachment C, Table 4 and Figures 2 and 3.

Based on the evaluation of concentration trends and capture zone analysis, the following conclusions were drawn in the Site 111 Remedial Action Report:

• Results of effluent (EFF-1) sampling indicate carbon treatment has effectively removed residual explosive concentrations to below detectable levels prior to reapplication within the treatment areas.


• Pumping rates were adequate to create sufficient capture zones that reduced residual groundwater contamination at performance monitoring wells during 2013.

• Soil analytical results indicate that the remaining residual explosive mass is primarily at TA-5C, within the capture zone of EW-3. Residual explosive concentrations at EW-3, M-111-06, and MW-111-09 remain above the RGs. These results indicate that the mass continues to be removed from the soil at TA-5C and recovered in groundwater.

• Residual explosive concentrations in groundwater at EW-1, EW-2, and surrounding monitoring wells are below the RGs.

• The system has been operating as designed since startup in 2011. Site 111 has met the performance of objective of remedy in place (RIP).

The following recommendations for future activities were summarized in the Site 111 Remedial Action Report (URS 2014):

• Restart the soil flushing system following the relocation of the groundwater discharge point to MW-111-02. Resume groundwater extraction at EW-3 (40 gpm) and soil flushing at TA-5C (8 gpm) at the same rates as 2013. Collect groundwater samples quarterly at EW-3, MW-111-02, MW-111-06, MW-111-09, and the system effluent for performance monitoring. If increases in residual explosive concentrations at monitoring wells are observed, appropriate sentinel wells will be sampled during the next quarterly event.

• Continue soil flushing until residual explosive concentrations in groundwater at EW-3 decrease to below the RGs. After this objective has been met, continue groundwater extraction at EW-3 until residual explosive concentrations in groundwater at all site monitoring wells are below RGs. Based on current residual explosive concentration reduction trends in groundwater, this is expected to take 1 to 3 additional years of system operation.

• Once residual explosive concentrations in groundwater are below RGs for four consecutive events, request USEPA and IEPA confirmation letters to officially document site closure, per the RAP (URS 2010c).

Soil flushing resumed at Site 111 on April 7, 2014, and the system was shut down in June 2014 due to the end of the contract. The Army has re-issued the contract to complete the remedial action at Site 111 and the soil flushing and groundwater extraction system will re-start in the spring of 2015 in order to complete the remedial action in accordance with the final ROD.

For additional information pertinent to the implementation of selected remedy at Site 111 and the resulting data, refer to the documents listed below:

• Final Work Plan, SVAD-111, Outdoor Washout Plant, Lime Treatment Pilot Study, SVDA, Illinois, May 2008

• Final SVAD-111, Outdoor Washout Plant, Remedial Action Plan, SVDA, Illinois, April 2010

• Final SVAD-111, Outdoor Washout Plant, Interim Remedial Action Report, SVDA, Illinois, July 2011

• Final SVAD-111, Outdoor Washout Plant, 2011 Annual Remedial Action Operation Report, SVDA, Illinois, February 2012

• Final SVAD-111, Outdoor Washout Plant, 2012 Annual Remedial Action Operation Report, SVDA, Illinois, February 2013


• Final SVAD-111, Outdoor Washout Plant, Remedial Action Report, SVDA, Illinois, June 2014.

6.4.2 Site 192

The confirmation sampling associated with the Site 192 selected remedy (Offsite Disposal) was reviewed. Data from confirmation sampling were reviewed within the USEPA and IEPA approved reports and the stakeholders have concurred with the Remedial Action Report (URS 2011b).

As detailed in the Remedial Action Report (URS 2011b), confirmation sampling results indicate that the majority of soil above the RGs at Site 192 were successfully removed. However, soil above the industrial and/or construction worker RGs remains onsite at a few isolated locations. These locations are summarized in the following paragraphs and presented in Attachment D, Figures 3-3 and 3-5 to 3-9.

Perimeter surface soil locations listed in Table 6-1 represent areas where confirmation sample XRF analysis initially indicated achievement of the RGs and excavation was stopped. However, upon the receipt of laboratory split analytical results following the demobilization, these locations were determined to be slightly above the IEPA TACO construction worker RO of 4,100 mg/kg for manganese.

Table 6-2. Site 192 Surface Soil RG Exceedances Savanna Army Depot Activity, Savanna, Illinois

Exposure Unit Excavation

Area Sample

Identification COC

Detected concentration

(mg/kg) RG Exceeded

EU-3 EA-3E E35 Manganese 4,150 Construction Worker Ingestion RO

EU-4 EA-4A S10 Manganese 4,700 Construction Worker

Ingestion RO

S12 Manganese 4,600 Construction Worker Ingestion RO

EU-5 EA-5A S1 Manganese 4,370 Construction Worker Ingestion RO

Railroad track samples in Table 6-3 represent soil intermixed with ballast material located between

the ties, at depths below the bottom of the ties, which remains above the RGs. Because of the presence of the railroad tracks, access to this material was limited and could not be fully removed without risking the integrity of the railroad track structure. Following the excavation between the ties to the maximum practicable extent per the Site 192 RAP (URS 2010d), this soil was covered with 6 to 8 inches of offsite ballast material.

For the potential construction worker, the manganese RG of 4,100 mg/kg was exceeded at four locations and the arsenic RG of 61 mg/kg was exceeded at one location. For the potential industrial worker, the arsenic RG of 11.3 mg/kg was exceeded at five locations.

The Remedial Action Report (URS 2011b) concluded that as long as the existing railroad tracks remain in place preventing exposure to the underlying contaminated subsurface materials, and appropriate safety measures are considered during periodic routine maintenance of the tracks, this soil is not considered to represent a significant risk to potential future industrial or construction workers at Site 192.

In addition to the conclusion noted above, the Remedial Action Report (URS 2011b) recommended additional spot removal and associated confirmation sampling to address surface soil remaining above RGs in the excavation perimeter areas be completed. The report also recommended that additional perimeter confirmation sampling will be completed where current sample locations are generally greater than 50 feet apart. On July 12, 2011, the impacted soil was removed from portions of the perimeter of the four existing excavation areas. The spot removal covered approximately 0.22 acres to depths from 0.5 to


1 foot BLS. Discrete soil samples were collected from each excavation area following the spot removal. Also, additional perimeter confirmation samples were collected where previous samples were more than 50 feet apart. Metals concentrations were below the RGs (URS 2011c).

Table 6-3. Site 192 Subsurface Soil/Railroad Track RG Exceedances Savanna Army Depot Activity, Savanna, Illinois

Exposure Unit Excavation

Area Sample

Identification COCs

Detected Concentration

(mg/kg) RG Exceeded

EU-2 EA-2A W12 Manganese/ Arsenic 7,019/ 27 Construction/Industrial

Worker Ingestion RO

EU-3 EA-3C

B76 Manganese 6,600 Construction Worker Ingestion RO

B77 Manganese 4,800 Construction Worker Ingestion RO

EA-3E B262 Arsenic 12.4 Industrial Worker Ingestion RO

EU-4 EA-4A N4 Arsenic 21 Industrial Worker Ingestion RO

EU-5 EA-5A

E1 Arsenic 29 Industrial Worker Ingestion RO

E2 Manganese/ Arsenic 4,125/ 65 Construction/Industrial

Worker Ingestion RO

E3 Arsenic 47 Industrial Worker Ingestion RO

For additional information pertinent to the implementation of selected remedy at Site 192 and the

resulting data, refer to the documents listed below:

• Final SVAD-192, Manganese Ore Storage Mounds, RAP, SVDA, Illinois, January 2010

• Final SVAD-192, Manganese Ore Storage Mounds, Remedial Action Report, SVDA, Illinois, July 2011

• Final SVAD-192, Manganese Ore Storage Mounds, Technical Memorandum, SVDA, Illinois, September 2011.

6.4.3 Sites 37PS, 76CS, 76OD, and 126

There are no data to review for Sites 37PS, 76CS, 76OD, and 126 as the selected remedy has yet to be implemented.

6.4.4 21 LUC Sites

There are no new data to review for the LUC sites (Sites 35, 60PS, 60S2, 60S3, 76FA, 76GS, 76RH, 86, 88HD, 92, 93, 95, 102LB, 128, 131, 135, 183, 189, 190A, HA, and SEW).

6.5 SITE INSPECTION

Representatives from Plexus and Leidos conducted the site inspection of the FYR sites on October 20, 2014. The purpose of the site inspections was to assess the current conditions, evaluate the integrity of historical and current remedial action activities, evaluate current controls and use restrictions, and evaluate the feasibility of the proposed remedial actions at each of the FYR sites.


Site inspections were conducted at each of the FYR sites in accordance with the “Five-Year Review Site Inspection Checklist,” dated June 2002. Inspections of the active sites where the remedial action is underway or planned in the immediate future (i.e., Site 111, 37PS, 76CS, 76OD, and 126) resulted in a review of the each site’s current conditions and effectiveness of the planned implemented remedy. Results of the site inspections indicated that the sites are being maintained in generally good condition and the selected remedies are feasible as proposed. Inspections of the checklists and photographs from the site inspection are provided in Attachments E and F, respectively.

6.6 INTERVIEWS

During the FYR process, interviews were conducted with the SVDA BRAC Environmental Coordinator (Cathy Collins); USEPA, Region 5 (Tom Barounis); and IEPA (Charlene Falco). The interviews were conducted on December 4, 2014. The purpose of the interviews was to document the current status of the sites and any potential problems or successes with the phases of the remedy that have been implemented to date. The details of the interviews are included in Attachment G.

6.7 INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS

ICs are nonengineered instruments, such as administrative and/or legal controls, that help minimize the potential for exposure to contamination and protect the integrity of the remedy. Compliance with ICs is required to assure long-term protectiveness for any areas that do not allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure (UU/UE). LUCs were the remedy selected for the 21 LUC sites (Sites 35, 60PS, 60S2, 60S3, 76FA, 76GS, 76RH, 86, 88HD, 92, 93, 95, 102LB, 128, 131, 135, 183, 189, 190A, HA, and SEW) and were a part of the selected remedies for Sites 111 and 192. ICs were and will be implemented for all the sites requiring LUCs.

6.7.1 Institutional Controls for the Site 111

LUCs are part of the selected remedy for Site 111 and ICs would be implemented to prohibit residential use and maintain the current industrial land use in perpetuity. The ICs at the site consist of administrative restrictions to maintain future use of the site for industrial purposes and prohibit the use of groundwater as a source of drinking water. The LUCs are outlined in the finalized LUC Plan for Site 111. The expected form of LUCs is the UECA environmental covenant to be filed concurrently with property transfer to the LRA once the remedial action has been completed. Restrictions would be maintained through all potential future property transfers. LUC inspections of Site 111 are and would continue to be conducted periodically and during the CERCLA FYRs. The planned ICs for Site 111 are summarized in Table 6-4 and are further discussed below. The LUC boundary for Site 111 is shown in Figure 1-2.

Table 6-4. Summary of Planned ICs for Site 111 Savanna Army Depot Activity, Savanna, Illinois

Media, Engineered Controls, and Areas that Do Not Support UU/UE

Based on Current Conditions ICs

Needed

ICs Called for in the Decision

Documents Impacted Parcel(s) IC Objective

Title of IC Instrument Planned and Date

Soil and Groundwater – Site 111

Yes Yes 16B

Prohibit residential use and maintain current industrial land use Prohibit the use of groundwater as a drinking water source

UECA environmental covenant needs to be executed following the completion of the remedial action (planned for June 2018)


Status of Access Restrictions and ICs—Once the RGs have been achieved during the remedial action (i.e., soil flushing and groundwater extraction system), the UECA environmental covenant will be prepared and submitted for review to the stakeholders. Once approved and signed, the UECA environmental covenant will be recorded with Jo Daviess County, Illinois.

Current Compliance—Residential land use such as elementary or secondary school, child care facilities, playgrounds, or other occupancy uses that are incompatible with industrial/commercial activity or are tantamount to residential occupancy including growing of crops and produce for human consumption was not observed during the annual and FYR site inspections at Site 111. In addition, no evidence of the use or installation of groundwater wells in the surficial aquifer for consumptive use was observed. Interviews with the Army, USEPA, and IEPA noted that current uses are consistent with the stated objectives of the ICs.

Long-Term Stewardship—Long-term protectiveness at Site 111 requires implementation of and compliance with use restrictions to ensure the remedy will function as intended. Once the UECA environmental covenant is in place, the site remedy components, including the ICs, will be maintained, monitored, and enforced to ensure long-term protectiveness.

6.7.2 Institutional Controls for Site 192

LUCs are part of the selected remedy for Site 192 and ICs would be implemented to prohibit residential use and maintain the current industrial land use in perpetuity. The ICs at the site consist of administrative restrictions to maintain future use of the site for industrial purposes. The LUCs are outlined in the finalized LUC Plan for Site 192. The expected form of LUCs is a UECA environmental covenant to be filed concurrently with property transfer to the LRA. Restrictions would be maintained through all potential future property transfers. LUC inspections of the sites are and would continue to be conducted periodically and during the CERCLA FYRs. A summary of the planned ICs for Site 192 is listed in Table 6-5 and are further discussed below. The LUC boundary for Site 192 is shown in Figure 1-2.

Table 6-5. Summary of Planned ICs for Site 192 Savanna Army Depot Activity, Savanna, Illinois



Needed


Documents Impacted Parcel(s)

IC Objective Title of IC Instrument Planned and Date

Soil – Site 192

Yes Yes 10, 11, 18

Prohibit residential use and maintain current industrial land use

UECA environmental covenant needs to be signed and executed (planned for June 2018)

Status of Access Restrictions and ICs—The UECA environmental covenant that was prepared and

approved by USEPA and IEPA needs to be signed and recorded with Carroll and Jo Daviess Counties , Illinois.

Current Compliance—Residential land use such as elementary or secondary school, child care facilities, playgrounds, or other occupancy uses that are incompatible with industrial/commercial activity or are tantamount to residential occupancy including growing of crops and produce for human consumption was not observed during the annual and FYR site inspections of Site 192. In addition, interviews with the Army, USEPA, and IEPA noted that current uses are consistent with the stated objectives of the ICs.

Long-Term Stewardship—Long-term protectiveness at Site 192 requires implementation of and compliance with use restrictions to ensure the remedy will function as intended. Once the UECA


environmental covenant is in place, the site remedy components, including the ICs, will be maintained, monitored, and enforced to ensure long-term protectiveness.

6.7.3 Institutional Controls for the 21 LUC Sites

The selected soil remedy for the 21 LUC sites (Sites 35, 60PS, 60S2, 60S3, 76FA, 76GS, 76RH, 86, 88HD, 92, 93, 95, 102LB, 128, 131, 135, 183, 189, 190A, HA, and SEW) was LUCs and ICs would be implemented to prohibit residential use and maintain the current industrial land use in perpetuity. The ICs at these sites would consist of administrative restrictions to maintain future use of the site for industrial purposes and prohibit the use of groundwater as a source of drinking water at Sites 35 and HA. These LUCs are outlined in the LUCIP for Twenty-One Lower Post and Plant Area Sites (ERT 2015). The expected form of LUCs is a UECA environmental covenant to be filed concurrently with property transfer to the LRA. Restrictions would be maintained through all potential future property transfers. LUC inspections of the sites are and would continue to be conducted periodically and during the CERCLA FYRs. A summary of the planned LUCs for the sites is listed in Table 6-6 and are further discussed below. The LUC boundaries for the 21 LUC Sites are shown in Figures 1-1 and 1-2.

Table 6-6. Summary of Planned ICs for the 21 LUC Sites Savanna Army Depot Activity, Savanna, Illinois



Needed


Documents Impacted Parcel(s) IC Objective

Title of IC Instrument Planned and Date

Soil – Lower Post Shop Area (76FA, 76GS, 76RH, 86, 92, 93, 95, 135, and SEW) Yes Yes 17



Soil – H-Area Warehouse (Sites 88HD, 128, 131, 190A, and HA) Yes Yes 13



Groundwater – H-Area Warehouse (Site HA) Yes Yes 13

Prohibit the use of groundwater as a drinking water source

UECA environmental covenant need to be signed and executed (planned for June 2018)

Soil – Sites 60PS, 60S2, and 60S3

Yes Yes 15



Soil – Sites 102LB and 183

Yes Yes 11



Soil – Site 189

Yes Yes 10W



Soil and Groundwater – Site 35

Yes Yes STP


Prohibit the use of groundwater as a drinking water source


Status of Access Restrictions and ICs— The UECA environmental covenant that was prepared and

approved by USEPA and IEPA needs to be signed and recorded with Carroll and Jo Daviess Counties, Illinois.


Current Compliance—Residential land use such as elementary or secondary school, child care facilities, playgrounds, or other occupancy uses that are incompatible with industrial/commercial activity or are tantamount to residential occupancy including growing of crops and produce for human consumption was not observed during the FYR site inspections of the 21 LUC Sites. In addition, no evidence of the use or installation of groundwater wells in the surficial aquifer for consumptive use was observed at Sites 35 and HA. Interviews with the Army, USEPA, and IEPA noted that current uses are consistent with the stated objectives of the ICs.

Long-Term Stewardship—Long-term protectiveness at the sites requires implementation of and compliance with use restrictions to ensure the remedy will function as intended. Once the UECA environmental covenant is in place, the site remedy components, including the ICs, will be maintained, monitored, and enforced to ensure long-term protectiveness.


7.0 TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT

7.1 QUESTION A: IS THE REMEDY FUNCTIONING AS INTENDED BY THE DECISION DOCUMENTS?

7.1.1 Remedial Action Performance

7.1.1.1 Site 111 Remedial Action Performance

The selected remedy (In Situ Chemical Treatment) for Site 111 is functioning as intended by the decision documents; however, the remedy is not complete. The soil flushing and groundwater treatment system has been operating as designed since the startup in 2011. LUCs associated with Site 111 have been implemented as a remedy component from the final ROD (URS 2010a) and the LUC Plan was finalized in July 2012.

As noted within the Remedial Action Report (URS 2014), soil analytical results indicate that a remaining residual explosive compound mass is present primarily within treatment area TA-5C, within the capture zone of extraction well EW-3. The residual explosive compound concentrations at EW-3, MW-111-06, and MW-111-09 remain above RGs. The residual explosive compound concentrations in groundwater at EW-1, EW-2, and the surrounding monitoring wells are below the RGs. Additional treatment and monitoring are required within the TA-5C treatment area before the remedial action can be considered complete.

7.1.1.2 Site 192 Remedial Action Performance

The selected remedy (Offsite Disposal) for Site 192 is identified as a completed remedial action where the RGs have been achieved during the excavation and offsite disposal of soil affected by the COCs. LUCs associated with Site 192 have been implemented as a remedy component from the final ROD (URS 2010b). The LUC Plan was finalized in August 2012 and the installation of the required signage was completed on December 5, 2012. The results of the FYR indicate that the remedy functioned to satisfy the intended RAOs stated in the final ROD for Site 192 (URS 2010b).

7.1.1.3 Sites 37PS, 76CS, 76OD, and 126 Remedial Action Performance

The selected remedies have yet to be implemented for Sites 37PS, 76CS, 76OD, and 126. The remedial action work plans are currently being developed and will be finalized in the spring/summer of 2015.

7.1.1.4 LUC Sites Remedial Action Performance

The selected remedies (LUCs) for the 21 LUC sites have been implemented to maintain the current industrial land use at all 21 sites and to prohibit groundwater use at Sites 35 and HA because the LUCIP was finalized in March 2015. However, the UECA environmental covenant is needed to ensure that effective procedures are in place and LUCs are monitored, maintained, and enforced so that the remedy continues to function as intended for perpetuity.

7.2 QUESTION B: ARE THE EXPOSURE ASSUMPTIONS, TOXICITY DATA, CLEANUP LEVELS, AND REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES USED AT THE TIME OF REMEDY SELECTION STILL VALID?

There have been no change in the physical conditions at SVDA that would affect the protectiveness of the remedies.


7.2.1 Changes in Standards and To-Be-Considered Criteria

There have been no changes to the applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs) and no new standards or to-be-determined (TBD) criteria enforced that would affect the protectiveness of the remedies.

7.2.2 Changes in Exposure Pathways, Toxicity, and Other Contaminant Characteristics

Human health and ecological receptors and routes of exposure have not changed since the time the RODs for the FYR sites were finalized. New COCs or contaminant sources have not been identified. Controls were implemented during the remedy to prevent the release of any toxic byproducts. The conceptual site models for FYR sites, as they relate to soil contamination and its transport, have not changed since the remedy was completed. No groundwater use assumptions have changed since the time the RODs for the FYR sites were finalized. Changes in toxicity and exposure assumptions are discussed below.

Changes in Toxicity—The COCs and their associated RGs were examined to see if changes in toxicity information might affect the protectiveness of the RGs. With the exception of arsenic and TNT, all of the COCs and RGs were based on risks to human health.

At Sites 37PS, 76CS, 76OD, and 126, the human health COCs include arsenic and/or cPAHs. Because the RG for arsenic is a value based on background, it is not risk-based. Therefore the arsenic RG is not affected by changes in toxicity information. The human health RGs for the cPAHs are the current published TACO Tier I residential soil remediation objectives and were calculated using current toxicity information.

At Site 111, the COCs are explosives in both groundwater and soil. For groundwater, the human health RGs are the current published IEPA Class I GQSs (which are promulgated by law) or the current non-TACO groundwater remediation objective (for the aminodinitrotoluenes). For soil, the human health RGs remain protective because they either use current toxicity information (i.e., for the aminodinitrotoluenes) or, in the case of 2,4-DNT, the current toxicity information is less stringent than that used to calculate the RG (i.e., the currently recommended slope factor is less than the slope factor used to calculate the remediation goal). For TNT, the RG is based on ecological effects and is more stringent than the human health industrial-based RG.

The TNT soil RG for ecological receptors was based on a weight-of-evidence evaluation of the risks associated with the various ecological receptors. It was determined in the BERA that an RG of 50 mg/kg TNT would provide acceptable protection of potential bird and mammal receptors. In addition, 50 mg/kg TNT was likely to be acceptable to most plant populations, based on available phytotoxicity information. The Army recently conducted an evaluation of the ecological RG of 50 mg/kg TNT to determine if it was appropriate to use at another SVDA site (Old Burning Ground [OBG]/Site 50). There are a number of exposure and toxicity differences that have caused the Army to recommend a higher PRG instead of 50 mg/kg as the RG. For example, the Site 111 RG derivation used a no-observable-adverse-effect level (NOAEL) due to the presence of the state-listed upland sandpiper. Because there are no federally threatened or endangered species known to occur at OBG/Site 50, use of the NOAEL would be overly conservative. In addition, site-specific uptake factor data from the OBG are available with which to derive a TNT RG. If site-specific conditions (e.g., soil type, pH) are similar between OBG/Site 50 and Site 111, then the TNT RG used at Site 111 might be overprotective for mammals and birds. However, the more protective value of 50 mg/kg is appropriate at Site 111 due to the presence of state-listed plant species (there are no known state-listed plant species at OBG/Site 50). Based on a review of the weight-of-evidence used in the BERA to select 50 mg/kg, the Army believes 50 mg/kg TNT to be sufficiently protective of ecological receptors at Site 111.


At Site 192, the human health COCs are three metals (arsenic, manganese, and lead). As with earlier sites, the RG for arsenic is based on background and therefore not affected by changes in toxicity information. For manganese, the human health RG is the current published TACO construction worker soil remediation objective and was calculated using current toxicity information. For lead, the RG was calculated using the latest version of the Adult Lead Model.

In summary, changes to toxicity information were examined for the human health and ecological COCs and their associated RGs. The changes were found to have no effect on the protectiveness of the RGs.

Changes in Exposure Assumptions—Some exposure assumptions have been updated since the time the human health risk assessments were conducted. USEPA updated their recommended default exposure factors in 2014 (USEPA 2014), which draws upon information presented in the 2011 Exposure Factors Handbook (USEPA 2011). These changes would have a minor effect on human health risks and risk-based remediation goals. Risks and remediation goals based upon residential land use would be affected by several changes: a decrease in the child skin surface area and an increase in the adult skin surface area (for the dermal contact pathway), an increase in the adult body weight, and a decrease in the adult exposure duration. Risks and remediation goals based upon industrial/commercial land use would be affected by an increase in the skin surface area and an increase in body weight. The overall effect of these changes is very slight and would result in essentially the same risk and remediation goal or one that is slightly more protective. Chemicals with remediation goals based upon background (i.e., arsenic), ecological effects (i.e., TNT), biokinetic uptake models (i.e., lead), and current state GQSs (i.e., explosives) are not affected by the changes in the recommended default exposure factors.

7.3 QUESTION C: HAS ANY OTHER INFORMATION COME TO LIGHT THAT COULD CALL INTO QUESTION THE PROTECTIVENESS OF THE REMEDY?

No additional ecological targets were identified during the FYR process. Weather-related events are not expected to affect the protectiveness of the remedies. No land use changes were identified during the FYR process. There is no other information that calls into question the protectiveness of the remedies.

7.4 TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT SUMMARY

According to the records and data reviewed, site inspections, and interviews completed, the selected remedies at the FYR sites have functioned and are expected to function as intended in the applicable RODs. There have been no changes to the physical conditions that would affect the protectiveness of the remedies. Site-specific ARARs stated in the applicable RODs for the FYR sites have been met or are expected to be met upon completion. There have been no significant changes to the toxicity factors for the COCs that were used in the baseline risk assessment, and there have been no significant changes to the standardized risk assessment methodology that could affect the protectiveness of the remedies. There have been no changes to the land use that would affect the protectiveness of the LUCs. There is no other information to call into question the protectiveness of the remedies.


8.0 ISSUES, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND FOLLOW-UP ACTIONS

Table 8-1 identifies and summarizes the issues, recommendations, and follow-up actions resulting from this FYR.

Final CE

RC

LA Five-Y

ear Review

8-2

June 2015 S

avanna Arm

y Depot Activity

Table 8-1. Issues, Recommendations, and Follow-up Actions Savanna Army Depot Activity, Savanna, Illinois

OU Issue Recommendation/ Follow-up Action

Party Responsible

Oversight Agency Milestone Date

Affects Protectiveness? Current Future

Site 111 Site 111 treatment system has been locked/winterized since June 2014

Resume treatment system and continue monitoring at Site 111

Army USEPA, IEPA

June 1, 2015 No Yes

Site 111 Monitoring, maintenance, and enforcement of LUCs is required

Finalize and execute the UECA environmental covenant

Army USEPA, IEPA

June 1, 2018 No Yes

Site 192 Monitoring, maintenance, and enforcement of LUCs is required

Finalize and execute the UECA environmental covenant

Army USEPA, IEPA

June 1, 2018 No Yes

Sites 35, 60PS, 60S2, 60S3, 76FA, 76GS, 76RH, 86, 88HD, 92, 93, 95, 102LB, 128, 131, 135, 183, 189, 190A, HA, SEW

Monitoring, maintenance, and enforcement of LUCs is required

Finalize and execute the UECA environmental covenant for the 21 LUC sites

Army USEPA, IEPA

June 1, 2018 No Yes


9.0 PROTECTIVENESS STATEMENTS

9.1 SITE 111 PROTECTIVENESS STATEMENT

The selected remedy for Site 111 is currently protective of human health and the environment because it was implemented as intended in the final ROD. However, in order for the remedy to be protective in the long term, the treatment system must be resumed and operated until the RGOs identified in the ROD for soils and groundwater at the site have been met. LUCs have been implemented in accordance with the July 2012 LUC Plan; however, the UECA environmental covenant has yet to be executed. Inspections of the site and interviews conducted for this FYR indicate that the LUCs are being enforced as intended and are effective. In order for the LUCs to be protective in the long term, the UECA environmental covenant is needed to ensure that effective procedures are in place so that LUCs are monitored, maintained, and enforced so that the remedy continues to function as intended.

9.2 SITE 192 PROTECTIVENESS STATEMENT

The selected remedy for Site 192 is currently protective of human health and the environment. Remedial actions at Site 192 have been completed. Potential threats to human health and the environment have been addressed through the excavation and offsite disposal of the contaminated soils and the implementation of LUCs. Confirmation samples were collected from excavated areas, confirming that excavation standards specified in the Site 192 ROD were met. LUCs have been implemented in accordance with the LUC Plan in August 2012; however, the UECA environmental covenant has yet to be executed. Inspections of the site and interviews conducted for this FYR indicate that the LUCs are being enforced as intended and are effective. In order for the LUCs to be protective in the long term, the UECA environmental covenant is needed to ensure that effective procedures are in place so that LUCs are monitored, maintained, and enforced so that the remedy continues to function as intended.

9.3 SITES 37PS, 76CS, 76OD, AND 126 PROTECTIVENESS STATEMENT

The selected remedies for Sites 37PS, 76CS, 76OD, and 126 are expected to be protective of human health and the environment upon completion. In the interim, remedial activities completed to date have adequately addressed all exposure pathways that could result in unacceptable risks in these areas.

9.4 21 LUC SITES PROTECTIVENESS STATEMENT

The selected remedies for the 21 LUC sites (Sites 35, 60PS, 60S2, 60S3, 76FA, 76GS, 76RH, 86, 88HD, 92, 93, 95, 102LB, 128, 131, 135, 183, 189, 190A, HA, and SEW) are currently protective of human health and the environment by prohibiting residential land use through the use of LUCs. In addition, the selected remedy for Sites 35 and HA is currently protective of human health and the environment by prohibiting the use of groundwater through the use of LUCs. However, in order for the selected remedy to be protective in the long term, an executed UCEA environmental covenant is needed to ensure that effective procedures are in place and LUCs are monitored, maintained, and enforced so that the remedy continues to function as intended.


10.0 NEXT REVIEW

This site requires ongoing FYRs as long as waste is left onsite that does not allow for unrestricted use and unlimited exposure. The next FYR will be due within 5 years of the signature date of this FYR.


11.0 REFERENCES

ERT. 2015. Land Use Control Implementation Plan for Twenty-One Lower Post and Plant Area Sites, Final. Savanna Army Depot Activity, Savanna, Illinois. Final. March.

IEPA (Illinois Environmental Protection Agency). 1997. Letter from Charlene Falco, Remedial Project Manager, IEPA, to John Clarke, BRAC Environmental Coordinator, SVDA, providing comments on supporting documentation for Underground Storage Tanks. Submitted by SAIC. May 15.

SAIC (Science Applications International Corporation). 1999. Environmental Baseline Survey Report. Savanna Army Depot Activity, Savanna, Illinois. Prepared for the U.S. Army Environmental Center. Final. May.

SAIC. 2004. Lower Post Remedial Investigation, Savanna Army Depot Activity, Savanna, Illinois. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Final. October.

SAIC. 2005. Supplemental Lower Post RI Report. Savanna Army Depot Activity, Savanna, Illinois. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Final. December.

SAIC. 2006. Lower Post Shop Area Remedial Investigation Report. Savanna Army Depot Activity, Savanna, Illinois. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Final. August.

SAIC. 2007a. Supplemental Plant Area Remedial Investigation Report. Savanna Army Depot Activity, Savanna, Illinois. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Final Revision 1. May.

SAIC. 2007b. Remedial Investigation Report for the CL and CN Plant Areas and the Remaining LRA Parcel. Savanna Army Depot Activity, Savanna, Illinois. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Final. April.

SAIC. 2007c. Remedial Investigation Report Sites 88 and 189. Savanna Army Depot Activity, Savanna, Illinois. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Final. February.

SAIC. 2007d. Lower Post Remedial Investigation Baseline Ecological Risk Assessment. Savanna Army Depot Activity, Savanna, Illinois. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Final. December.

SAIC. 2007e. Remedial Investigation Report for Sites 46, 76CS, 84, and 189. Savanna Army Depot Activity, Savanna, Illinois. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Final Revision 1. December.

SAIC. 2008. Plant Area Focused Feasibility Study. Savanna Army Depot Activity, Savanna, Illinois. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Final. December.

SAIC. 2009. Lower Post Focused Feasibility Study. Savanna Army Depot Activity, Savanna, Illinois. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Final. November.

SAIC. 2012. Record of Decision for 33 Lower Post and Plant Area Sites. Savanna Army Depot Activity, Savanna, Illinois. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Final. July.

SAIC. 2013. Record of Decision. Sites 5, 24, 37PS, 69, 76CS, 76OD, 126, 155, 184, and 186, Savanna Army Depot Activity, Savanna, Illinois. Final. August.

SOD (Savanna Ordnance Depot). 1935. Facilities Data Summary for Loading and Renovation Plant, Savanna Ordnance Depot, Illinois. Written communications documenting activities at the loading and renovation plant April 25, 1935, revised February 26, 1936.


SOD. 1943. Historical Report for Phase I (1 July 1919 to 1 July 1939). Letter, WARA-Archives II, R6 156, Entry 646: Historics of Ordnance Installations and Activities, 1940-1945, Box A403. (Archives Search Report [B-58]). 30 January.

SOD. 1959. Historical Report, July through December.

SVDA (Savanna Army Depot Activity). 1993a. Permit Application for Hazardous Waste Facilities at Savanna Army Depot Activity, Savanna, Illinois. Prepared for the U.S. Army Environmental Center by Haliburton NUS. October 31.

SVDA. 1993b. Underground Concrete Tanks at Building 502. Memorandum from J. Clarke. November 24.

SVDA. 2014. FY2014 Savanna Army Depot Activity Base Realignment & Closure Installation Action Plan. August 6.

USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 1999. Ordnance and Explosives, Archives Search Report for Savanna Army Depot Activity, Savanna, Illinois. Revised Final. March.

URS. 2008a. SVAD-111, 1934 Outdoor Washout Plant, Remedial Investigation /Feasibility Study. Savanna Army Depot Activity, Illinois. Final. May.

URS. 2008b. Remedial Investigation / Feasibility Study SVAD-192, Manganese Ore Storage Mounds. Savanna Army Depot Activity, Illinois. Final. December.

URS. 2010a. Record of Decision. SVAD-111, 1934 Outdoor Washout Plant. Savanna Army Depot Activity, Illinois. Final. March.

URS. 2010b. Record of Decision. SVAD-192, Manganese Ore Storage Mounds. Savanna Army Depot Activity, Illinois. Final. January.

URS. 2010c. Remedial Action Plan. SVAD-111, 1934 Outdoor Washout Plant. Savanna Army Depot Activity, Illinois. Final. April.

URS. 2010d. Remedial Action Plan. SVAD-192, Manganese Ore Storage Mounds. Savanna Army Depot Activity, Illinois. Final. December..

URS. 2011a. Operation and Maintenance Manual. SVAD-111, 1934 Outdoor Washout Plant. Savanna Army Depot Activity, Illinois. Final. July.

URS. 2011b. Remedial Action Report. SVAD-192, Manganese Ore Storage Mounds. Savanna Army Depot Activity, Illinois. Final. December.

URS. 2011c. Technical Memorandum. SVAD-192, Manganese Ore Storage Mounds, Savanna Army Depot Activity, Illinois. Final. September.

URS. 2012. 2011 Annual Remedial Action Operation Report SVAD-111, 1934 Outdoor Washout Plant. Savanna Army Depot Activity, Illinois. Final. February.

URS. 2013. 2012 Annual Remedial Action Operation Report SVAD-111, 1934 Outdoor Washout Plant. Savanna Army Depot Activity, Illinois. Final. February.

URS. 2014. Remedial Action Report. SVAD-111, 1934 Outdoor Washout Plant. Savanna Army Depot Activity, Illinois. Final. June.

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2011. Exposure Factors Handbook: 2011 Edition (Final). Office of Research and Development. September. EPA/600/R-090/052F. http://www.epa.gov/ncea/efh/pdfs/efh-complete.pdf.

http://www.epa.gov/ncea/efh/pdfs/efh-complete.pdf


USEPA. 2014. Memorandum: Human Health Evaluation Manual, Supplemental Guidance: Update of Standard Default Exposure Factors. Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation. February. OSWER Directive 9200.1-120. http://www.epa.gov/oswer/riskassessment/pdf/superfund-hh-exposure/OSWER-Directive-9200-1-120-ExposureFactors.pdf.

http://www.epa.gov/oswer/riskassessment/pdf/superfund-hh-exposure/OSWER-Directive-9200-1-120-ExposureFactors.pdf

http://www.epa.gov/oswer/riskassessment/pdf/superfund-hh-exposure/OSWER-Directive-9200-1-120-ExposureFactors.pdf

ATTACHMENT A

PUBLIC NOTICE

A-1

Public Notice of CERCLA Five-Year Review for 27 Sites Savanna Army Depot Activity

The U.S. Army, in conjunction with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, will be conducting the CERCLA Five-Year Review at 27 sites at Savanna Army Depot Activity (SVDA) in Savanna, Illinois. The Five-Year Review process ensures that the selected CERCLA remedies remain protective of human health and the environment.

The 27 sites that require the CERCLA Five-Year Reviews are based on the following final Records of Decision (RODs):

Site 111 – Final ROD, SVAD-111, 1934 Outdoor Washout Plant, SVDA, Savanna, Illinois. March 2010.

Site 192 – Final ROD, SVAD-192, Manganese Ore Storage Mounds, SVDA, Savanna, Illinois. January 2010.

Sites 35, 60PS, 60S2, 60S3, 76FA, 76GS, 76RH, 86, 88HD, 92, 93, 95, 102LB, 128, 131, 135, 183, 189, 190A, HA, and SEW – Final ROD for 33 Lower Post and Plant Area Sites, SVDA, Savanna, Illinois. July 2012.

Sites 37PS, 76CS, 76OD, and 126 – Final ROD for Sites 5, 24, 37PS, 69, 76CS, 76OD, 126, 155, 184, and 186, SVDA, Savanna, Illinois. August 2013.

The remedy selected for 23 of the sites (Sites 35, 60PS, 60S2, 60S3, 76FA, 76GS, 76RH, 86, 88HD, 92, 93, 95, 102LB, 111, 128, 131, 135, 183, 189, 190A, 192, HA, and SEW) is implementation of land use controls (LUCs) to protect humans by preventing unacceptable exposure to contaminants in soil and/or groundwater. Human health risks at these 23 sites are acceptable for the planned future land users (i.e., industrial and construction workers), but they were deemed unacceptable for unrestricted reuse (represented by a hypothetical residential land use scenario). The LUCs, in the form of institutional controls such as an environmental covenant, will be implemented to maintain industrial land use at the 23 sites and prevent residential and agricultural uses of the site.

The remedies selected for Sites 37PS, 76CS, 76OD, and 126 are remedial actions other than LUCs. Although remedial actions are planned, Five-Year Reviews will be completed for these sites in accordance with CERCLA until unrestricted reuse is achieved during the implementation of the remedial action.

It is anticipated that the Five-Year Review will be completed by April 2015. The Administrative Record, which includes the RODs and supporting documents along with the results of the Five-Year Review, can be found at SVDA and information repositories located in the Savanna and Hanover libraries. Information on the CERCLA Five-Year Review process also is available at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency website (http://www.epa.gov/superfund/cleanup/postconstruction/ 5yr.htm).

If you would like to provide comments or receive more information, please call Ms. Cathy Collins, SVDA BRAC Environmental Coordinator, at (815) 273-8827.

ATTACHMENT B

DOCUMENTS REVIEWED

B-1

LIST OF DOCUMENTS REVIEWED FOR SAVANNA ARMY DEPOT ACTIVITY FIVE-YEAR REVIEW

A variety of previous assessments, surveys, and investigations have been conducted at SVDA. The documents outlining these previous assessments were reviewed as part of the records review and included the following:

ERT. 2014. Land Use Control Implementation Plan for Twenty-One Lower Post and Plant Area Sites, Savanna Army Depot Activity, Savanna, Illinois. July.

SAIC (Science Applications International Corporation). 1999. Environmental Baseline Survey Report. Savanna Army Depot Activity, Savanna, Illinois. Prepared for the U.S. Army Environmental Center. Final. May.

SAIC. 2004. Lower Post Remedial Investigation, Savanna Army Depot Activity, Savanna, Illinois. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Final. October.

SAIC. 2005. Supplemental Lower Post RI Report. Savanna Army Depot Activity, Savanna, Illinois. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Final. December.

SAIC. 2006. Lower Post Shop Area Remedial Investigation Report. Savanna Army Depot Activity, Savanna, Illinois. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Final. August.

SAIC. 2007. Remedial Investigation Report Sites 88 and 189. Savanna Army Depot Activity, Savanna, Illinois. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Final. February.

SAIC. 2007. Remedial Investigation Report for the CL and CN Plant Areas and the Remaining LRA Parcel. Savanna Army Depot Activity, Savanna, Illinois. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Final. April.

SAIC. 2007. Supplemental Plant Area Remedial Investigation Report. Savanna Army Depot Activity, Savanna, Illinois. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Final Revision 1. May.

SAIC. 2007. Remedial Investigation Report for Sites 46, 76CS, 84, and 184, Savanna Army Depot Activity, Savanna, Illinois. Final Revision 1. December.

SAIC. 2007. Remedial Investigation Report for the CF Plant Area. Savanna Army Depot Activity, Savanna, Illinois. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Final. August.

SAIC. 2007. Lower Post Remedial Investigation Baseline Ecological Risk Assessment. Savanna Army Depot Activity, Savanna, Illinois. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Final. December.

SAIC. 2008. Plant Area Focused Feasibility Study. Savanna Army Depot Activity, Savanna, Illinois. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Final. December.

SAIC. 2009. Lower Post Focused Feasibility Study. Savanna Army Depot Activity, Savanna, Illinois. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Final. November.

SAIC. 2009. Proposed Plan, APE Shop Rear Dock Area (Site 76AD). Savanna Army Depot Activity, Savanna, Illinois. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Final. December.

SAIC. 2010. Sites 24, 76CS, 99, and 126 Feasibility Study, Savanna Army Depot Activity, Savanna, Illinois. Final. July.

SAIC. 2011. Proposed Plan for 33 Lower Post and Plant Area Sites. Savanna Army Depot Activity, Savanna, Illinois. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Final. July.

SAIC. 2012. Record of Decision for 33 Lower Post and Plant Area Sites. Savanna Army Depot Activity, Savanna, Illinois. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Final. July.

B-2

SAIC. 2012. Proposed Plan Sites 5, 24, 37PS, 69, 76CS, 76OD, 126, 155, 184, and 186, Savanna Army Depot Activity, Savanna, Illinois. Final. November.

SAIC. 2013. Record of Decision. Sites 5, 24, 37PS, 69, 76CS, 76OD, 126, 155, 184, and 186, Savanna Army Depot Activity, Savanna, Illinois. Final. August.

USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 1999. Ordnance and Explosives, Archives Search Report for Savanna Army Depot Activity, Savanna, Illinois. Revised Final. March.

URS. 2008. SVAD-111, 1934 Outdoor Washout Plant, Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study. Savanna Army Depot Activity, Illinois. Final. May.

URS. 2008. Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study SVAD-192, Manganese Ore Storage Mounds. Savanna Army Depot Activity, Illinois. Final. December.

URS. 2009. Proposed Plan. SVAD-111, 1934 Outdoor Washout Plant. Savanna Army Depot Activity, Illinois. Final. January.

URS. 2009. Proposed Plan. SVAD-192, Manganese Ore Storage Mounds. Savanna Army Depot Activity, Illinois. Final. June.

URS. 2010. Record of Decision. SVAD-192, Manganese Ore Storage Mounds. Savanna Army Depot Activity, Illinois. Final. January.

URS. 2010. Record of Decision. SVAD-111, 1934 Outdoor Washout Plant. Savanna Army Depot Activity, Illinois. Final. March.

URS. 2010. Remedial Action Plan. SVAD-111, 1934 Outdoor Washout Plant. Savanna Army Depot Activity, Illinois. Final. April.

URS. 2010. Remedial Action Report. SVAD-192, Manganese Ore Storage Mounds. Savanna Army Depot Activity, Illinois. Final. December.

URS. 2011. Interim Remedial Action Report. SVAD-111, 1934 Outdoor Washout Plant. Savanna Army Depot Activity, Illinois. Final. July.

URS. 2011. Operation and Maintenance Manual. SVAD-111, 1934 Outdoor Washout Plant. Savanna Army Depot Activity, Illinois. Final. July.

URS. 2011. Remedial Action Report. SVAD-192, Manganese Ore Storage Mounds. Savanna Army Depot Activity, Illinois. Final. July.

URS. 2011. Technical Memorandum. SVAD-192, Manganese Ore Storage Mounds. Savanna Army Depot Activity, Illinois. Final. September.

URS. 2012. 2011 Annual Remedial Action Operation Report SVAD-111, Outdoor Washout Plant. Savanna Army Depot Activity, Illinois. Final. February.

URS. 2012. Land Use Control Plan. SVAD-111, 1934 Outdoor Washout Plant. Savanna Army Depot Activity, Illinois. Final. July.

URS. 2012. Land Use Control Plan. SVAD-192, Manganese Ore Storage Mounds. Savanna Army Depot Activity, Illinois. Final. August.

URS. 2013. 2012 Annual Remedial Action Operation Report. SVAD-111, 1934 Outdoor Washout Plant. Savanna Army Depot Activity, Illinois. Final. February.

URS. 2014. Remedial Action Report. SVAD-111, 1934 Outdoor Washout Plant. Savanna Army Depot Activity, Illinois. Final. June.

ATTACHMENT C

SITE 111 REMEDIAL ACTION REPORT TABLES AND FIGURES

Final Remedial Action Report

SVAD-111, 1934 Outdoor Washout Plant

SAVANNA ARMY DEPOT ACTIVITY, ILLINOIS

June 2014

Prepared for:

U.S. Department of the Army Corps of Engineers - Louisville District

Louisville, Kentucky

Contract No. W912QR-04-D-0025 Delivery Order No. 2

Prepared by:

12120 Shamrock Plaza, Suite 100

Omaha, Nebraska 68154

16169990

Tables

Site 111 RA Report / Rev.1 Q:\1616\9990\SVAD-111\RA Report\Rev1\Site 111- RA Report_rev1.docx\4-Jun-14/OMA SVDA FFPR PBC W912QR-04-D-0025, DO 2

TABLE 1SITE 111

SUMMARY OF ANALYTES DETECTED IN DIRECT PUSH SOIL SAMPLES - 2013

Site 111 - RA Report / Rev. 1SVDA FFPR PBCW912QR-04-D-0025, DO 2

Page 1 of 4Q:\1616\9990\SVAD-111\RA Report\Rev1\Site 111 2013 Tables_rev1.xlsx/6/4/2014\OMA

FIELD ID

DATE COLLECTEDResult RL Qual Result RL Qual Result RL Qual Result RL Qual Result RL Qual

NITROAROMATICS / NITRAMINES (µg/kg)1,3,5-Trinitrobenzene < 400 U < 400 U < 400 U < 400 U < 400 U2,4,6-Trinitrotoluene < 400 U < 400 U < 400 U < 400 U 130 400 J4-Amino-2,6-dinitrotoluene < 400 U < 400 U < 400 U < 400 U < 400 U

Notes:< = Sample result is less than the reporting limitµg/kg = microgram per kilogramID = IdentificationJ = EstimatedQual = QualifierRL = Reporting LimitU = Nondetect

April 7, 2013

SB-111-TA-A-04 SB-111-TA-A-16 SB-111-TA-A-32 SB-111-TA-B-04SB-111-TA-A-48

April 7, 2013 April 7, 2013 April 7, 2013 April 7, 2013

TABLE 1SITE 111




FIELD ID

DATE COLLECTED

NITROAROMATICS / NITRAMINES (µg/kg)1,3,5-Trinitrobenzene2,4,6-Trinitrotoluene4-Amino-2,6-dinitrotoluene

Notes:< = Sample result is less than the report µg/kg = microgram per kilogramID = IdentificationJ = EstimatedQual = QualifierRL = Reporting LimitU = Nondetect

SB-111-TA-C-04

Result RL Qual Result RL Qual Result RL Qual Result RL Qual Result RL Qual

< 400 U < 400 U < 400 U < 400 U < 400 U< 400 U < 400 U < 400 U 340 400 J < 400 U< 400 U < 400 U < 400 U 120 400 J < 400 U

April 7, 2013April 7, 2013

SB-111-TA-C-16SB-111-TA-B-48SB-111-TA-B-32SB-111-TA-B-16

April 7, 2013 April 7, 2013April 7, 2013

TABLE 1SITE 111




FIELD ID

DATE COLLECTED



SB-111-TA-5C-04


< 400 U < 400 U < 400 U 130 400 J 1100 400< 400 U < 400 U 510 400 470 400 1800 400< 400 U < 400 U 83 400 J < 400 U < 400 U

SB-111-TA-C-48SB-111-TA-C-32

April 7, 2013 April 7, 2013 April 7, 2013

SB-111-TA-5C-16 SB-111-TA-5C-32

April 7, 2013 April 7, 2013

TABLE 1SITE 111




FIELD ID

DATE COLLECTED



SB-111-TA-D-04


430 400 < 400 U < 400 U 130 400 J 490 400260 400 J 410 400 < 400 U 400 400 140 400 J< 400 U 85 400 J < 400 U < 400 U < 400 U

April 7, 2013

SB-111-TA-D-32 SB-111-TA-D-48

April 7, 2013

SB-111-TA-5C-48 SB-111-TA-D-16

April 7, 2013April 7, 2013 April 7, 2013

TABLE 2SITE 111

SUMMARY OF ANALYTES DETECTED IN PERFORMANCE MONITORING SAMPLES - 2013



FIELD IDDATE COLLECTED

Result RL Qual Result RL Qual Result RL Qual Result RL Qual Result RL QualNITROAROMATICS/NITRAMINES (µg/L)1,3,5-Trinitrobenzene 840 < 1 U < 1 U 7.1 1 9.1 1 150 102,4,6-Trinitrotoluene 14 < 1 U < 1 U 11 1 7.3 1 94 1Total Aminodinitrotoluenes1 14 < 2 U < 2 5.3 2 2.58 2 J 4.5 2Notes:

RL = Reporting LimitU = Nondetect1 Sum of concentration of 2-Amino-4,6-Dinitrotoluene and 4-Amino-2,6-Dinitrotoluene

Values shaded exceed the remediation goal< = Sample result is less than the reporting limitµg/L = microgram per literEFF = EffluentID = IdentificationJ = EstimatedQual = Qualifier

September 4, 2013 October 24, 2013 September 4, 2013 October 24, 2013 September 4, 2013Remediation

Goal

EFF-1 EFF-1 IW-1 EW-1 IW-3

TABLE 2SITE 111





NITROAROMATICS/NITRAMINES (µg/L)1,3,5-Trinitrobenzene 8402,4,6-Trinitrotoluene 14Total Aminodinitrotoluenes1 14Notes:



RemediationGoal


130 20 120 20 130 20 190 20 49 5230 20 16 1 8.6 1 2.9 1 0.18 1 J3.4 2 J 13.3 2 7 2 < 2 U < 2 U

October 23, 2013 September 4, 2013 October 23, 2013October 24, 2013 September 4, 2013EW-3 MW111-02 MW111-02 MW111-05 MW111-05

TABLE 2SITE 111








RemediationGoal


1100 50 1200 50 170 20 190 20 1000 500340 50 290 50 1.7 1 1.5 1 93 1029 2 41 2 J 10.8 2 9.1 2 < 2 U

October 23, 2013 September 4, 2013September 4, 2013 October 23, 2013 September 4, 2013MW111-06 MW111-07 MW111-07 MW111-09MW111-06

TABLE 2SITE 111








RemediationGoal


1000 50 < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U66 50 < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U1.3 2 J < 2 U < 2 U < 2 U < 2 U

October 23, 2013October 23, 2013 September 3, 2013 October 23, 2013 September 3, 2013MW111-13 MW111-14 MW111-14MW111-09 MW111-13

TABLE 3SITE 111

WATER LEVEL ELEVATION DATA - 2013



TOC Depth Groundwater Depth GroundwaterMonitoring Elevation to Water Elevation to Water Elevation

Well (ft, MSL) (ft, BTOC) (ft, MSL) (ft, BTOC) (ft, MSL)

MW-111-01 642.94 50.99 591.95 52.76 590.18

MW-111-02 641.87 50.03 591.84 51.85 590.02

MW-111-03 643.11 51.42 591.69 53.08 590.03

MW-111-04 646.32 54.25 592.07 56.10 590.22

MW-111-05 638.77 46.95 591.82 48.68 590.09

MW-111-06 642.75 51.04 591.71 52.86 589.89

MW-111-07 638.51 46.82 591.69 48.60 589.91

MW-111-08 641.02 49.33 591.69 51.15 589.87

MW-111-09 640.30 48.50 591.80 50.28 590.02

MW-111-10 641.31 49.54 591.77 51.30 590.01

MW-111-11 643.15 51.30 591.85 53.09 590.06

MW-111-12 643.21 51.55 591.66 53.34 589.87

MW-111-13 642.91 51.42 591.49 53.27 589.64

MW-111-14 640.31 48.72 591.59 50.49 589.82

PW-1 642.24 50.99 591.25 52.90 589.34

PW-2 637.87 45.97 591.90 47.78 590.09

PW-3 642.15 50.33 591.82 52.27 589.88

Notes:Elevations are NGVD29.BTOC = below top of casingft = feetMSL = mean sea levelTOC = top of casing

October 23, 2013September 3, 2013

TABLE 4SITE 111

TNT DETECTED IN PERFORMANCE MONITORING SAMPLES – 2011 - 2013



Baseline1 Week 1 Week 2 Month 1 Month 2 Month 3 Month 4 Month 0 Month 1 Month 2 Month 3 Month 4 Month 5 Month 6 Month 72 Quarter 1 Quarter 2

Well ID 7/12/2011 7/21/2011 7/28/2011 8/8/2011 9/15/2011 10/20/2011 11/17/2011 4/3/2012 5/1/2012 6/4/2012 7/10/2012 8/8/2012 9/6/2012 10/4/2012 12/13/2012 9/3/2013 10/23/2013MW-111-2 <1 <1 <1 <2 <1 0.4 0.5 28 41 52 74 90 140 110 49 16 8.6MW-111-5 3.4 0.2 2 2.4 0.66 3.2 0.03 12 23 31 13 3.9 2.6 6.3 2.5 2.9 0.18MW-111-6 190 110 92 59 300 890 1,100 680 1,100 450 1,100 2,500 1400 880 180 340 290MW-111-7 36 7.1 17 15 5.2 1.9 2.4 2 3.3 3.4 3.0 3.5 5.3 3.8 3.4 1.7 1.5MW-111-9 6.3 2.2 21 47 0.19 13 21 33 49 34 28 7.3 7.7 9.9 180 93 66

MW-111-10 <2 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 -3 -3

MW-111-12 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 -3 -3

MW-111-13 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 -4 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1EW-1 7.4 25 110 120 54 40 26 9.7 26 21 17 13 14 10 10 11 7.3EW-2 <1 0.15 40 130 62 48 37 0.43 23 27 27 26 30 13 13 -3 -3

EW-3 0.2 66 820 490 1,100 670 420 2.4 220 450 720 300 350 180 230 94 230EFF-1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

Notes:

All concentrations are in micrograms per liter.1 Results from sampling completed in July 2010 were used to represent pre-soil-flushing baseline conditions in 2011. 2 EW-1, EW-2, EW-3, and EFF-1 samples collected October 31,2012.3 Well was not sampled as a part of the 2013 performance monitoring.4 MW-13 was sampled in November 2011 but not analyzed due to the sample containers being broken during shipment to the laboratory.

2011 2012 2013

Figures

Site 111 RA Report / Rev.1 Q:\1616\9990\SVAD-111\RA Report\Rev1\Site 111- RA Report_rev1.docx\4-Jun-14/OMA SVDA FFPR PBC W912QR-04-D-0025, DO 2

LOCATION GPMEW-1 -15EW-2 0EW-3 -40TA-A 0TA-B 0TA-C 0TA-D 0TA-5C +8

DISCHARGE +47

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Jul-11 Oct-11 Jan-12 May-12 Aug-12 Nov-12 Mar-13 Jun-13 Sep-13 Dec-13

TNT

(ug/

L)

Date

FIGURE 3 SITE 111

TNT CONCENTRATION TRENDS IN RECOVERED GROUNDWATER 2011 - 2013

EW-1

EW-2

EW-3

System Shutdown

System Restart

GW RG (14 ug/L)

Switched Pumps at EW-1 &EW-3

0.0

0.1

1.0

10.0

100.0

1,000.0

10,000.0

Jul-11 Oct-11 Jan-12 May-12 Aug-12 Nov-12 Mar-13 Jun-13 Sep-13 Dec-13

TNT

(ug/

L)

Date

FIGURE 4 SITE 111

TNT CONCENTRATIONS AT MONITORING WELLS 2011 - 2013

MW-111-2

MW-111-5

MW-111-6

MW-111-7

MW-111-9

System Shutdown

System Restart

GW RG (14 ug/L)

Switched Pumps at EW-1 &EW-3

ATTACHMENT D

SITE 192 REMEDIAL ACTION REPORT FIGURES

FINAL

SVAD-192, Manganese Ore Storage Mounds Remedial Action Report


July 2011

Prepared for:

U.S. Department of the Army

Corps of Engineers - Louisville District Louisville, Kentucky

Contract No. W912QR-04-D-0025 Delivery Order No. 2

Prepared by:

12120 Shamrock Plaza, Suite 300

Omaha, Nebraska 68154

16169990

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.!.

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")")

")

")")

")")

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

")

")

")

")

")")

")

")")

")

")

")

")

#*

#*

2A

McIntyre Road

EU-1

EU-2

S5

W1

W2

W3

W4

W5

W6

W7

W8

W9

S4S3

S2S1

N3

N2 N1

E9

E8

E7

E6

E5

E4

E3

E2

E1

B9

B8

B7

B6

B5

B4

B3

B2B1

W13

W12

B89B88

E24

B87 E25

B86E26

B85

E27

B84

E29

E28

W11E23

E16

E15

E14

E13

E12

E11

E10

B83

B82

B81

B80

B79B78

B77

B76

B75

B74

B73

B72

B71

B70

B69

B68

B67

B66

B65

B64

B63

B62

B61

B60

B59

B58

B57

B56

B55

B54

B53

B52B51

B50

B49

B48B47

B46

B45B44

B43

B42

B41

B40

B39

B38

B37

B36

B35

B34

B33

B32

B31

B30

B29

B28

B27

B26

B25

B24

B23

B22

B21

B20

B19

B18

B17

B16

B15

B14B13

B12

B11

B10

E22

E21E20

E19

E18

E17

DRN. BY: JZ

CHK'D. BY: DH

DATE: 04/06/11

REVISION: 0

PROJECT NO.16169990

FIG. NO.3-3

SITE 192EXCAVATION AREA 2A - CONFIRMATION SAMPLING


Z:\s

avan

na\R

AC

-dra

ft\fig

3-3_

2a-c

onf.m

xd -

4/6/

2011

@ 1

2:49

:25

PM

LegendConfirmation Samples") Base or Perimeter Confirmation Sample

#* Railroad Confirmation Sample

#* Railroad Confirmation Sample (exceeds RG) - See Section 5.1

!. Perimeter Confirmation Sample - Later Excavated

! Split Sample (laboratory results used for comparison to RGs)

Pre-Excavation XRF Samples!. At or Below Field Delineation Value (3,300 ppm)

Excavation Boundary

EU Boundary

Railroad

Road

Fence

K0 100 20050

Scale in Feet

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")")

")")

")")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")")

")

")

EU-3

3C

3D/E

McIntyre Road

G Ro

ad

B5

B8

B7

B4

B2

B1

B3

B6

B9

E5

E4

E3

E2

E1

N8

N7

N6N5

N4

N3 N2

N1 E5

E4

E3

E2

E1

B1

B2

B3

B4

B5

B6

B7

B8

B9

B12B11

B10

B81

B80

E51

B79/B82

B78/B83

B77

B76

B75

B74

E50

B73

B72

B71

B70

B69

B68

B67

B66

B65

B64

B63

B62

B61

B60

B59

B58

B57

B56

B55

B54

B53

B52

B51

B49

B48

B50

B47

B46

B45

B44

B43

B42

B41

B40

B39

B38

B37

B36

B35

B34

B33

B32

B31

B30

B29

B28

B27

B26

B25

B24

B23

B22

B21

B20

B19

B18

B17

B16

B15

B14

B13B10

B11

B12

B231

B230

B229

B228

B227

B226

B225

B224

B223DRN. BY: JZ

CHK'D. BY: DH

DATE: 04/06/11

REVISION: 0

PROJECT NO.16169990

FIG. NO.3-5

SITE 192EXCAVATION AREA 3C - CONFIRMATION SAMPLING


Z:\s

avan

na\R

AC

-dra

ft\fig

3-5_

3c-c

onf.m

xd -

4/6/

2011

@ 1

2:52

:23

PM






Excavation Boundary

Stockpile Footprint

EU Boundary

Railroad

Roads

Fence

K0 50 10025

Scale in Feet

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

") ")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

") ")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

") ")")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

") ")")

")

")

")

")

")

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

") ")

")

")

")

")

")

")")

")

")

")

")

!.

!.

!.

!.

EU-3

3E

EU-5

McIntyre Road

G R

oad 3D

E21

E29

E38

E50

S2

S1

B5

B8B7

B4

B2

B1

B3

B6

B9

E5

E4

E3

E2

E1

N7

E1

E2

E3

E4

E5

E6E7E8

E9

B9

B8

B7

B6

B5

B4

B3

B2

B1

E2

E1

B9

B12B11B10

B81

B80

E54

E53

E52

E51

B82

B83

B77

E10

E11

E12

E13

E14

E15E16

E17

E18

E19E20

E22E23

E24

E25

E26E27

E28

E30

E31

E32

E33E34E35

E36

E37E39

E40

E41E42

E43

E44E45

E46

E47E48

E49

B99

B98

B97 B96B95

B94

B93

B92

B91

B90

B89

B88

B87B86

B85

B84

B64

B63

B62

B61

B60

B59

B58

B57

B56

B55

B53

B65

B81B80

B79B78

B77

B76

B75

B74

B73

B72

B71

B70B69

B68B67

B66

B42

B43

B44

B41

B45

B40

B46

B39

B47

B38

B48

B37

B49

B36

B50B35

B51B34

B52B33

B54

B32

B31B30

B29

B28

B27

B26

B25

B24B23

B22

B21

B20

B19

B18

B17

B16

B15

B14

B13

B12

B11

B10

B73

B72

B71

B63B55

B54

B53

B52

B51

B49

B48

B50

B47B46

B40

B39

B38

B37

B36

B35

B34B33

B32

B31

B30

B29

B83

B82

B16

B15

B14

B13B10

B11B12

B269

B192

B268 B266

B265

B264

B267

B251

B250

B249

B248

B247

B263

B262

B261

B260

B259

B258

B257

B256

B255

B254

B253

B252

B246

B245

B244

B243

B242

B241

B240

B239

B238

B237

B236

B235

B234

B233

B232

B231

B230B229

B228B227

B226

B225

B224

B223

B222

B221

B220

B219

B218

B217

B216

B215

B214

B213

B212

B211

B210

B209

B208

B207

B206

B205

B204

B203

B202

B201

B200

B199

B198

B197

B196

B195

B194

B193

B191

B190

B189

B188

B187

B186B185

B184

B183

B182

B181

B180

B179

B178

B177

B176

B175

B174

B173

B172

B170

B169

B168

B167B166

B165B164

B163

B162

B161

B160

B159

B158

B157

B156

B155

B154

B150

B152

B153

B151

B149

B148B147

B146

B145

B144

B143

B142

B141B140

B139B138

B137

B136

B135

B134

B133

B132

B131

B130

B129

B128

B127

B126B125

B124

B123

B122

B121

B120

B119B118

B117

B116B115

B114

B113

B112

B111

B110

B109

B108

B107

B106

B106

B105

B104

B103

B102

B101

B100

DRN. BY: JZ

CHK'D. BY: DH

DATE: 04/06/11

REVISION: 0

PROJECT NO.16169990

FIG. NO.3-6

SITE 192EXCAVATION AREAS 3D AND 3E - CONFIRMATION SAMPLING


Z:\s

avan

na\R

AC

-dra

ft\fig

3-6_

3d-3

e-co

nf.m

xd -

4/6/

2011

@ 1

2:53

:33

PM

LegendConfirmation Samples

") Base or Perimeter Confirmation Sample

") Base or Perimeter Confirmation Sample (exceeds RG) - See Section 5.1






Excavation Boundary

Stockpile Footprint

EU Boundary

Railroad

Roads

Fence

K0 100 20050

Scale in Feet

!. !.

!. !.

!. !.

!.

!. !.

!. !.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!

!

!

!!

!

!!! !

!!

!

!

#*#*#*#*

")

")")

")")

")

")

")

")

")

")

") ")")

")

") ") ")

")")

")

")")

")

")

")

")

")

") ")

")")")")")")")")

") ") ")

")

") ")

")

")")")")")")")")")")")")")

") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ")

")")")")")")")

") ") ")")

")

#* #* #* #* #*

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

")!.

4A4A

EU-4

McIntyre Road

E9

E8

E7

E6

E5

W1

B6

B5

B4

B3

B2

B1B2B3B4B5

B9 B8 B7 B6 E5

E4E3

E2

E1

S9S8

S7S6S5

S4

S3S2S1

W5W4

W3

W2

W1

N9

N8 N7

N6

N4 N3 N2 N1

N12

E10

B53

B52B51B50B49

B48 B47 B46 B45 B44 B43 B42

B41B40B39B38B37B36B35B34B33

B32 B31 B30 B29 B28 B27 B26 B25 B24 B23 B22 B21B20

B17

B19B18

B16

B15B14B13

B12 B11 B10

S15

S14

S13

S12S11

S10

N11

N10

N5

DRN. BY: JZ

CHK'D. BY: DH

DATE: 04/06/11

REVISION: 0

PROJECT NO.16169990

FIG. NO.3-7



Z:\s

avan

na\R

AC

-dra

ft\fig

3-7_

4a-c

onf.m

xd -

4/6/

2011

@ 1

2:54

:26

PM








Excavation Boundary

EU Boundary

Railroad

Roads

K0 100 20050

Scale in Feet

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

")")

")

!.

EU-5

EU-4

5A

5B

McIntyre Road

N7

N6N8

E2

E1

E9

E8

E7

E6

E5

E4

E3

E2

E1N4

N3

N2

N1

W9

W8

W7

W6

W5

W4

W3

W2

W1

S5

S4

S3 S2 S1

B9

B8

B7

B6

B5

B4

B3

B2

B1

B2

B1

N5

N4

N3

N2

N1

W5

E10

B25

B24

B23

B22

B21

B20

B19

B18

B17

B16

B15

B14

B13

B12

B11

B10

N5

DRN. BY: JZ

CHK'D. BY: DH

DATE: 04/06/11

REVISION: 0

PROJECT NO.16169990

FIG. NO.3-8



Z:\s

avan

na\R

AC-d

raft\

fig3-

8_5a

-con

f.mxd

- 4/

6/20

11 @

1:2

3:58

PM








Excavation Boundary

EU Boundary

Railroad

Roads

K0 50 10025

Scale in Feet

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")")")

")

")

")

")

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

")

")

")

")

!.

!.

!.

EU-5

5A

5B

S7

S6

S8

E6

E5

E4

E3

E2

E1

E9W2

W1

S5

S4

S3 S2 S1

B3

B2

B1

B9

B8

B7

B6

B5

B4

B3

B2

B1

N5

N4

N3

N2

N1

W5

W4

W3

W2

W1

S5

S3

B15

E10

B24

B14

B13

B12

B11

B10

S4

S1

S2

DRN. BY: JZ

CHK'D. BY: DH

DATE: 04/06/11

REVISION: 0

PROJECT NO.16169990

FIG. NO.3-9

SITE 192EXCAVATION AREA 5B - CONFIRMATION SAMPLING


Z:\s

avan

na\R

AC-d

raft\

fig3-

9_5b

-con

f.mxd

- 4/

6/20

11 @

12:

55:4

5 PM







Excavation Boundary

EU Boundary

Railroad

Roads

K0 50 10025

Scale in Feet

ATTACHMENT E

FYR SITE INSPECTION FORMS

Site Inspection Checklist – Site 111

I. SITE INFORMATION

Site name: Savanna Army Depot (SVDA) Site 111 Date of inspection: 10/20/2014

Location and Region: Savanna, Illinois, Region 5 EPA ID: IL3210020803

Agency, office, or company leading the five-year review: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Louisville District

Weather/temperature: Sunny, mid-60°s

Remedy Includes: (Check all that apply) _ Landfill cover/containment _ Monitored natural attenuation _ Access controls _ Groundwater containment √ Institutional controls _ Vertical barrier walls _ Groundwater pump and treatment _ Surface water collection and treatment √ Other: Soil flushing and groundwater extraction system _____________________________________________________________________________

Attachments: _ Inspection team roster attached _ Site map attached

II. INTERVIEWS (Check all that apply)

1. O&M site manager Cathy Collins BRAC Environmental Coordinator 12/4/2014 Name Title Date

Interviewed √ at site _ at office _ by phone Phone no. ______________ Problems, suggestions; _ Report attached ________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________

2. O&M staff ____________________________ ______________________ ____________ Name Title Date

Interviewed _ at site _ at office _ by phone Phone no. ______________ Problems, suggestions; _ Report attached _______________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________

E-1

3. Local regulatory authorities and response agencies (i.e., State and Tribal offices, emergency response office, police department, office of public health or environmental health, zoning office, recorder of deeds, or other city and county offices, etc.) Fill in all that apply.

Agency: Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) Contact: Ms. Charlene Falco IEPA Project Manager 12/4/14

Name Title Date Problems; suggestions; _ Report attached _______________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________

Agency: USEPA Region 5 Contact: Mr. Tom Barounis USEPA Region 5 Project Manager 12/4/14


Agency ____________________________ Contact ____________________________ __________________ ________ ____________

Name Title Date Phone no. Problems; suggestions; _ _______________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________

Agency ____________________________ Contact ____________________________ __________________ ________ ____________

Name Title Date Phone no. Problems; suggestions; ________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________

4. Other interviews (optional)

III. ON-SITE DOCUMENTS & RECORDS VERIFIED (Check all that apply)

1. O&M Documents _ O&M manual √ Readily available √ Up to date _ N/A _ As-built drawings √ Readily available _ Up to date _N/A _ Maintenance logs _ Readily available _ Up to date √ N/A Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________

E-2

2. Site-Specific Health and Safety Plan _ Readily available _ Up to date √ N/A _ Contingency plan/emergency response plan _ Readily available _ Up to date √ N/A Remarks: Site 111 has a site safety plan, which was developed by the previous contractor during the installation and operation of the treatment system and remains onsite. When the system resumes, the site safety plan will be updated with the new contractor’s requirements and procedures.

3. O&M and OSHA Training Records _ Readily available _ Up to date √ N/A Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________

4. Permits and Service Agreements _ Air discharge permit _ Readily available _ Up to date √ N/A _ Effluent discharge _ Readily available _ Up to date √ N/A _ Waste disposal, POTW _ Readily available _ Up to date √ N/A _ Other permits_____________________ _ Readily available _ Up to date √ N/A Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________

5. Gas Generation Records _ Readily available _ Up to date √ N/A Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________

6. Settlement Monument Records _ Readily available _ Up to date √ N/A Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________

7. Groundwater Monitoring Records √ Readily available _ Up to date _ N/A Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________

8. Leachate Extraction Records _ Readily available _ Up to date √ N/A Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________

9. Discharge Compliance Records _ Air _ Readily available _ Up to date √ N/A _ Water (effluent) √ Readily available _ Up to date _ N/A Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________

10. Daily Access/Security Logs _ Readily available _ Up to date √ N/A Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________

IV. O&M COSTS

1. O&M Organization _ State in-house _ Contractor for State _ PRP in-house _ Contractor for PRP _ Federal Facility in-house √ Contractor for Federal Facility _ Other__________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________

E-3

2. O&M Cost Records _ Readily available _ Up to date √ Funding mechanism/agreement in place Original O&M cost estimate __________________ _ Breakdown attached

Total annual cost by year for review period if available

From__________ To__________ __________________ G Breakdown attached

Date Date Total cost From__________ To__________ __________________ G Breakdown attached




Date Date Total cost

3. Unanticipated or Unusually High O&M Costs During Review Period Describe costs and reasons: __________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________

V. ACCESS AND INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS √ Applicable _ N/A

A. Fencing

1. Fencing damaged _ Location shown on site map √ Gates secured _ N/A Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________

B. Other Access Restrictions

1. Signs and other security measures √ Location shown on site map _ N/A Remarks__ ________________________________________________________________________

C. Institutional Controls (ICs)

E-4

1. Implementation and enforcement Site conditions imply ICs not properly implemented _ Yes √ No _ N/A Site conditions imply ICs not being fully enforced _ Yes √ No _ N/A

Type of monitoring (e.g., self-reporting, drive by) _________________________________________ Frequency ________________________________________________________________________ Responsible party/agency ____________________________________________________________ Contact ____________________________ __________________ ________ ____________

Name Title Date Phone no.

Reporting is up-to-date _ Yes _ No √ N/A Reports are verified by the lead agency _ Yes _ No √ N/A

Specific requirements in deed or decision documents have been met _ Yes _ No √ N/A Violations have been reported _ Yes _ No √ N/A Other problems or suggestions: _ Report attached _________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________

2. Adequacy √ ICs are adequate _ ICs are inadequate _ N/A Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________

D. General

1. Vandalism/trespassing _ Location shown on site map √ No vandalism evident Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________

2. Land use changes on site _ N/A Remarks_______________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________

3. Land use changes off site _ N/A Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________

VI. GENERAL SITE CONDITIONS

A. Roads √ Applicable _ N/A

1. Roads damaged _ Location shown on site map √ Roads adequate _ N/A Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________

B. Other Site Conditions

E-5

Remarks ______________________________________________________________ ______Treatment system is currently winterized and locked. ______________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________

VII. LANDFILL COVERS _ Applicable √ N/A

A. Landfill Surface

1. Settlement (Low spots) G Location shown on site map G Settlement not evident Areal extent______________ Depth____________ Remarks____________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________

2. Cracks G Location shown on site map G Cracking not evident Lengths____________ Widths___________ Depths__________ Remarks____________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________

3. Erosion G Location shown on site map G Erosion not evident Areal extent______________ Depth____________ Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________

4. Holes G Location shown on site map G Holes not evident Areal extent______________ Depth____________ Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________

5. Vegetative Cover G Grass G Cover properly established G No signs of stress G Trees/Shrubs (indicate size and locations on a diagram) Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________

6. Alternative Cover (armored rock, concrete, etc.) G N/A Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________

7. Bulges G Location shown on site map G Bulges not evident Areal extent______________ Height____________ Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________

E-6

8. Wet Areas/Water Damage G Wet areas/water damage not evident G Wet areas G Location shown on site map Areal extent______________ G Ponding G Location shown on site map Areal extent______________ G Seeps G Location shown on site map Areal extent______________ G Soft subgrade G Location shown on site map Areal extent______________ Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________

9. Slope Instability G Slides G Location shown on site map G No evidence of slope instability Areal extent______________ Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________

B. Benches G Applicable G N/A (Horizontally constructed mounds of earth placed across a steep landfill side slope to interrupt the slope in order to slow down the velocity of surface runoff and intercept and convey the runoff to a lined channel.)

1. Flows Bypass Bench G Location shown on site map G N/A or okay Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________

2. Bench Breached G Location shown on site map G N/A or okay Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________

3. Bench Overtopped G Location shown on site map G N/A or okay Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________

C. Letdown Channels G Applicable G N/A (Channel lined with erosion control mats, riprap, grout bags, or gabions that descend down the steep side slope of the cover and will allow the runoff water collected by the benches to move off of the landfill cover without creating erosion gullies.)

1. Settlement G Location shown on site map G No evidence of settlement Areal extent______________ Depth____________ Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________

2. Material Degradation G Location shown on site map G No evidence of degradation Material type_______________ Areal extent_____________ Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________

3. Erosion G Location shown on site map G No evidence of erosion Areal extent______________ Depth____________ Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________

4. Undercutting G Location shown on site map G No evidence of undercutting Areal extent______________ Depth____________ Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________

E-7

5. Obstructions Type_____________________ G No obstructions G Location shown on site map Areal extent______________ Size____________ Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________

6. Excessive Vegetative Growth Type____________________ G No evidence of excessive growth G Vegetation in channels does not obstruct flow G Location shown on site map Areal extent______________ Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________

D. Cover Penetrations _ Applicable √ N/A

1. Gas Vents G Active G Passive G Properly secured/locked G Functioning G Routinely sampled G Good condition G Evidence of leakage at penetration G Needs Maintenance G N/A Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________

2. Gas Monitoring Probes G Properly secured/locked G Functioning G Routinely sampled G Good condition G Evidence of leakage at penetration G Needs Maintenance G N/A Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________

3. Monitoring Wells (within surface area of landfill) G Properly secured/locked G Functioning G Routinely sampled G Good condition G Evidence of leakage at penetration G Needs Maintenance G N/A Remarks___________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________

4. Leachate Extraction Wells G Properly secured/locked G Functioning G Routinely sampled G Good condition G Evidence of leakage at penetration G Needs Maintenance G N/A Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________

5. Settlement Monuments G Located G Routinely surveyed G N/A Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________

E. Gas Collection and Treatment _ Applicable √ N/A

1. Gas Treatment Facilities G Flaring G Thermal destruction G Collection for reuse G Good condition G Needs Maintenance Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________

E-8

2. Gas Collection Wells, Manifolds and Piping G Good condition G Needs Maintenance Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________

3. Gas Monitoring Facilities (e.g., gas monitoring of adjacent homes or buildings) G Good condition G Needs Maintenance G N/A Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________

F. Cover Drainage Layer _ Applicable √ N/A

1. Outlet Pipes Inspected G Functioning G N/A Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________

2. Outlet Rock Inspected G Functioning G N/A Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________

G. Detention/Sedimentation Ponds _ Applicable √ N/A

1. Siltation Areal extent______________ Depth____________ G N/A G Siltation not evident Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________

2. Erosion Areal extent______________ Depth____________ G Erosion not evident Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________

3. Outlet Works G Functioning G N/A Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________

4. Dam G Functioning G N/A Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________

H. Retaining Walls _ Applicable √ N/A

1. Deformations G Location shown on site map G Deformation not evident Horizontal displacement____________ Vertical displacement_______________ Rotational displacement____________ Remarks__________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________

2. Degradation G Location shown on site map G Degradation not evident Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________

E-9

I. Perimeter Ditches/Off-Site Discharge _ Applicable √ N/A

1. Siltation G Location shown on site map G Siltation not evident Areal extent______________ Depth____________ Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________

2. Vegetative Growth G Location shown on site map G N/A G Vegetation does not impede flow Areal extent______________ Type____________ Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________


4. Discharge Structure G Functioning G N/A Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________

VIII. VERTICAL BARRIER WALLS _ Applicable √ N/A

1. Settlement G Location shown on site map G Settlement not evident Areal extent______________ Depth____________ Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________

2. Performance Monitoring Type of monitoring__________________________ G Performance not monitored Frequency_______________________________ G Evidence of breaching Head differential__________________________ Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________

IX. GROUNDWATER/SURFACE WATER REMEDIES √Applicable _ N/A

A. Groundwater Extraction Wells, Pumps, and Pipelines √ Applicable _ N/A

1. Pumps, Wellhead Plumbing, and Electrical √ Good condition _ All required wells properly operating _ Needs Maintenance _ N/A Remarks: Equipment appears to be in good condition; however, the system currently is winterized and locked.___________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________

2. Extraction System Pipelines, Valves, Valve Boxes, and Other Appurtenances √ Good condition _ Needs Maintenance Remarks:___ Equipment appears to be in good condition; however, the system is currently winterized and locked. _________________________________________________________________________________

E-10

3. Spare Parts and Equipment _ Readily available _ Good condition _ Requires upgrade _ Needs to be provided Remarks: Unknown if spare equipment and parts are available as the system is shutdown. ________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________

B. Surface Water Collection Structures, Pumps, and Pipelines _ Applicable √ N/A

1. Collection Structures, Pumps, and Electrical _ Good condition _ Needs Maintenance Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________

2. Surface Water Collection System Pipelines, Valves, Valve Boxes, and Other Appurtenances _ Good condition _ Needs Maintenance Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________

3. Spare Parts and Equipment _ Readily available _ Good condition _ Requires upgrade _ Needs to be provided Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________

C. Treatment System √ Applicable _ N/A

1. Treatment Train (Check components that apply) _ Metals removal _ Oil/water separation _ Bioremediation √ Air stripping √ Carbon adsorbers √ Filters_________________________________________________________________________ G Additive (e.g., chelation agent, flocculent)_____________________________________________ G Others_________________________________________________________________________ √ Good condition _ Needs Maintenance _ Sampling ports properly marked and functional _ Sampling/maintenance log displayed and up to date _ Equipment properly identified _ Quantity of groundwater treated annually System has been winterized since October 2013. _ Quantity of surface water treated annually________________________ Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________

2. Electrical Enclosures and Panels (properly rated and functional) _ N/A √ Good condition _ Needs Maintenance Remarks_ Equipment appears to be in good condition; however, the system is currently shut down. _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________

3. Tanks, Vaults, Storage Vessels _ N/A √ Good condition _ Proper secondary containment _ Needs Maintenance Remarks__ Equipment appears to be in good condition; however, the system is currently shut down. _________________________________________________________________________________

4. Discharge Structure and Appurtenances _ N/A √ Good condition _ Needs Maintenance Remarks____ Equipment appears to be in good condition; however, the system is currently shut down. _________________________________________________________________________________

E-11

5. Treatment Building(s) _ N/A √ Good condition (esp. roof and doorways) _ Needs repair _ Chemicals and equipment properly stored Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________

6. Monitoring Wells (pump and treatment remedy) _ Properly secured/locked _ Functioning _ Routinely sampled √Good condition √ All required wells located _ Needs Maintenance _ N/A Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________

D. Monitoring Data 1. Monitoring Data

√ Is routinely submitted on time √ Is of acceptable quality 2. Monitoring data suggests:

√ Groundwater plume is effectively contained √ Contaminant concentrations are declining

E. Monitored Natural Attenuation

1. Monitoring Wells (natural attenuation remedy) _ Properly secured/locked _ Functioning _ Routinely sampled _ Good condition _ All required wells located _ Needs Maintenance √ N/A Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________

X. OTHER REMEDIES

If there are remedies applied at the site which are not covered above, attach an inspection sheet describing the physical nature and condition of any facility associated with the remedy. An example would be soil vapor extraction.

XI. OVERALL OBSERVATIONS

A. Implementation of the Remedy

Describe issues and observations relating to whether the remedy is effective and functioning as designed. Begin with a brief statement of what the remedy is to accomplish (i.e., to contain contaminant plume, minimize infiltration and gas emission, etc.). ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ The LUCP for Site 111 was finalized in July 2012. . The treatment systems is currently winterized and locked until restarted in the spring of 2015. All components and equipment appeared to be in good condition. ______________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________

E-12

B. Adequacy of O&M

Describe issues and observations related to the implementation and scope of O&M procedures. In particular, discuss their relationship to the current and long-term protectiveness of the remedy. ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____The system should resume treatment to continue decreasing the concentrations in the remaining treatment area above the remediation goals. ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________

C. Early Indicators of Potential Remedy Problems

Describe issues and observations such as unexpected changes in the cost or scope of O&M or a high frequency of unscheduled repairs, that suggest that the protectiveness of the remedy may be compromised in the future. ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ _______None were identified. _____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________

D. Opportunities for Optimization

Describe possible opportunities for optimization in monitoring tasks or the operation of the remedy. ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ______None were identified. ______________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________

E-13

Site Inspection Checklist – Sites 37PS, 76CS, 76OD, and 126

I. SITE INFORMATION

Site name: Savanna Army Depot (SVDA) Sites 37PS, 76CS, 76OD, and 126

Date of inspection: 10/20/2014




Remedy Includes: (Check all that apply) _ Landfill cover/containment _ Monitored natural attenuation _ Access controls _ Groundwater containment _ Institutional controls _ Vertical barrier walls _ Groundwater pump and treatment _ Surface water collection and treatment √ Other: ROD for Sites 37PS, 76CS, 76OD, and 126 specifies selected remedies other than LUCs (Excavation and Offsite Disposal for UU/UE). Sites 37PS, 76CS, 76OD, and 126 were included in the 5-Year Review; however, the remedial action has not been completed at these sites and UU/UE has not yet been achieved. The sites will not require annual LUC inspections when the remedies have been completed.



1. O&M site manager Cathy Collins SVDA BRAC Environmental Coordinator 12/4/2014 Name Title Date




E-14




Agency: USEPA Region 5 Contact: Mr. Tom Barounis USEPA Region 5, Project Manager 12/4/14


Agency ____________________________ Contact ____________________________ __________________ ________ ____________

Name Title Date Phone no. Problems; suggestions; _ Report attached _______________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________

Agency ____________________________ Contact ____________________________ __________________ ________ ____________


4. Other interviews (optional) _


1. O&M Documents _ O&M manual _ Readily available _ Up to date √ N/A _ As-built drawings _ Readily available _ Up to date √ N/A _ Maintenance logs _ Readily available _ Up to date √ N/A Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________

E-15

2. Site-Specific Health and Safety Plan _ Readily available _ Up to date √ N/A _ Contingency plan/emergency response plan _ Readily available _ Up to date √ N/A Remarks______________________________________________________________________





7. Groundwater Monitoring Records _ Readily available _ Up to date √ N/A Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________


9. Discharge Compliance Records _ Air _ Readily available _ Up to date √ N/A _ Water (effluent) _ Readily available _ Up to date √ N/A Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________


IV. O&M COSTS

1. O&M Organization _ State in-house _ Contractor for State _ PRP in-house _ Contractor for PRP _ Federal Facility in-house _ Contractor for Federal Facility _ Other__________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________

E-16

2. O&M Cost Records _ Readily available _ Up to date _ Funding mechanism/agreement in place Original O&M cost estimate ______NA____________ _ Breakdown attached









V. ACCESS AND INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS _ Applicable √ N/A

A. Fencing

1. Fencing damaged _ Location shown on site map _ Gates secured √ N/A Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________


1. Signs and other security measures _Location shown on site map √ N/A Remarks________________________________________________________________________

E-17


1. Implementation and enforcement Site conditions imply ICs not properly implemented _ Yes _ No √ N/A Site conditions imply ICs not being fully enforced _ Yes _ No √ N/A




Specific requirements in deed or decision documents have been met _ Yes _ No √ N/A Violations have been reported _ Yes _ No √ N/A Other problems or suggestions: _ Report attached _________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________

2. Adequacy _ ICs are adequate _ ICs are inadequate √ N/A Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________

D. General


2. Land use changes on site _ N/A Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________





E-18

B. Other Site Conditions Remarks ______________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________


A. Landfill Surface








E-19












E-20











E-21













_________________________________________________________________________________


E-22









IX. GROUNDWATER/SURFACE WATER REMEDIES _ Applicable √ N/A

A. Groundwater Extraction Wells, Pumps, and Pipelines G Applicable G N/A

1. Pumps, Wellhead Plumbing, and Electrical G Good condition G All required wells properly operating G Needs Maintenance G N/A Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________

2. Extraction System Pipelines, Valves, Valve Boxes, and Other Appurtenances G Good condition G Needs Maintenance Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________

3. Spare Parts and Equipment G Readily available G Good condition G Requires upgrade G Needs to be provided Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________

E-23

B. Surface Water Collection Structures, Pumps, and Pipelines G Applicable G N/A

1. Collection Structures, Pumps, and Electrical G Good condition G Needs Maintenance Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________

2. Surface Water Collection System Pipelines, Valves, Valve Boxes, and Other Appurtenances G Good condition G Needs Maintenance Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________


C. Treatment System G Applicable G N/A

1. Treatment Train (Check components that apply) G Metals removal G Oil/water separation G Bioremediation G Air stripping G Carbon adsorbers G Filters_________________________________________________________________________ G Additive (e.g., chelation agent, flocculent)_____________________________________________ G Others_________________________________________________________________________ G Good condition G Needs Maintenance G Sampling ports properly marked and functional G Sampling/maintenance log displayed and up to date G Equipment properly identified G Quantity of groundwater treated annually________________________ G Quantity of surface water treated annually________________________ Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________

2. Electrical Enclosures and Panels (properly rated and functional) G N/A G Good condition G Needs Maintenance Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________

3. Tanks, Vaults, Storage Vessels G N/A G Good condition G Proper secondary containment G Needs Maintenance Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________

4. Discharge Structure and Appurtenances G N/A G Good condition G Needs Maintenance Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________

5. Treatment Building(s) G N/A G Good condition (esp. roof and doorways) G Needs repair G Chemicals and equipment properly stored Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________

E-24

6. Monitoring Wells (pump and treatment remedy) G Properly secured/locked G Functioning G Routinely sampled G Good condition G All required wells located G Needs Maintenance G N/A Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________


G Is routinely submitted on time G Is of acceptable quality 2. Monitoring data suggests:

G Groundwater plume is effectively contained G Contaminant concentrations are declining


1. Monitoring Wells (natural attenuation remedy) G Properly secured/locked G Functioning G Routinely sampled G Good condition G All required wells located G Needs Maintenance G N/A Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________

X. OTHER REMEDIES




Describe issues and observations relating to whether the remedy is effective and functioning as designed. Begin with a brief statement of what the remedy is to accomplish (i.e., to contain contaminant plume, minimize infiltration and gas emission, etc.). ____________________________________________________________________ _The selected remedies for Sites 37PS, 76CS, 76OD, and 126 have yet to be implemented. The work plans for the remedial action are currently in progress. _________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________

E-25

B. Adequacy of O&M

Describe issues and observations related to the implementation and scope of O&M procedures. In particular, discuss their relationship to the current and long-term protectiveness of the remedy. ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ___N/A_______________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________


Describe issues and observations such as unexpected changes in the cost or scope of O&M or a high frequency of unscheduled repairs, that suggest that the protectiveness of the remedy may be compromised in the future. ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ __None were identified. __________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________


Describe possible opportunities for optimization in monitoring tasks or the operation of the remedy. ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____None were identified. ________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________

E-26

Site Inspection Checklist – 22 LUC Sites

I. SITE INFORMATION

Site name: Savanna Army Depot (SVDA) Sites 35, 60PS, 60S2, 60S3, 76FA, 76GS, 76RH, 86, 88HD, 92, 93, 95, 102LB, 128, 131, 135, 183, 189, 190A, 192, HA, and SEW

Date of inspection: 10/20/2014




Remedy Includes: (Check all that apply) _ Landfill cover/containment _ Monitored natural attenuation _ Access controls _ Groundwater containment √ Institutional controls _ Vertical barrier walls _ Groundwater pump and treatment _ Surface water collection and treatment _ Other______________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________



1. O&M site manager Cathy Collins SVDA BRAC Environmental Coordinator 12/4/2014 Name Title Date




E-27




Agency: USEPA Region 5 Contact: Mr. Tom Barounis USEPA Region 5, Project Manager 12/4/14


Agency ____________________________ Contact ____________________________ __________________ ________ ____________


Agency ____________________________ Contact ____________________________ __________________ ________ ____________


4. Other interviews (optional) _ Report attached.


1. O&M Documents _ O&M manual _ Readily available _ Up to date √ N/A _ As-built drawings _ Readily available _ Up to date √ N/A _ Maintenance logs _ Readily available _ Up to date √ N/A Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________

E-28

2. Site-Specific Health and Safety Plan _ Readily available _ Up to date _ N/A _ Contingency plan/emergency response plan _ Readily available _ Up to date _ N/A Remarks: If a temporary track removal (e.g., replacement) is necessary at Site 192, a site safety plan will be at developed by the property owner.





7. Groundwater Monitoring Records _ Readily available _ Up to date √ N/A Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________


9. Discharge Compliance Records _ Air _ Readily available _ Up to date √ N/A _ Water (effluent) _ Readily available _ Up to date √ N/A Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________


IV. O&M COSTS

1. O&M Organization _ State in-house _ Contractor for State _ PRP in-house _ Contractor for PRP _ Federal Facility in-house _ Contractor for Federal Facility _ Other__________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________

E-29

2. O&M Cost Records _ Readily available _ Up to date _ Funding mechanism/agreement in place Original O&M cost estimate ______NA____________ _ Breakdown attached









V. ACCESS AND INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS √ Applicable _ N/A

A. Fencing

1. Fencing damaged _ Location shown on site map √ Gates secured _ N/A Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________


1. Signs and other security measures √ Location shown on site map _ N/A Remarks: During the site inspection, it was confirmed that signs reading, “Removal of railroad tracks is restricted” are posted every 500 linear feet at Site 192. ________________________________________________________________________

E-30


1. Implementation and enforcement Site conditions imply ICs not properly implemented _ Yes √ No _ N/A Site conditions imply ICs not being fully enforced _ Yes √ No _ N/A




Specific requirements in deed or decision documents have been met _ Yes _ No √ N/A Violations have been reported _ Yes _ No √ N/A Other problems or suggestions: _ Report attached _________________________________________________________________________________ Existing railroad tracks at Site 192 remain in place as an engineered barrier to limit potential industrial/ commercial worker exposure to underlying soil. During the site inspection, no evidence of track removal was observed. The signs were observed to be in place as required by the LUC Plan. __________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________

2. Adequacy √ ICs are adequate _ ICs are inadequate _ N/A Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________

D. General


2. Land use changes on site _ N/A Remarks_______________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________





E-31

B. Other Site Conditions Remarks ______________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________


A. Landfill Surface








E-32












E-33











E-34













_________________________________________________________________________________


E-35









IX. GROUNDWATER/SURFACE WATER REMEDIES _ Applicable √ N/A

A. Groundwater Extraction Wells, Pumps, and Pipelines G Applicable G N/A

1. Pumps, Wellhead Plumbing, and Electrical G Good condition G All required wells properly operating G Needs Maintenance G N/A Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________

2. Extraction System Pipelines, Valves, Valve Boxes, and Other Appurtenances G Good condition G Needs Maintenance Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________


E-36

B. Surface Water Collection Structures, Pumps, and Pipelines G Applicable G N/A

1. Collection Structures, Pumps, and Electrical G Good condition G Needs Maintenance Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________

2. Surface Water Collection System Pipelines, Valves, Valve Boxes, and Other Appurtenances G Good condition G Needs Maintenance Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________


C. Treatment System G Applicable G N/A

1. Treatment Train (Check components that apply) G Metals removal G Oil/water separation G Bioremediation G Air stripping G Carbon adsorbers G Filters_________________________________________________________________________ G Additive (e.g., chelation agent, flocculent)_____________________________________________ G Others_________________________________________________________________________ G Good condition G Needs Maintenance G Sampling ports properly marked and functional G Sampling/maintenance log displayed and up to date G Equipment properly identified G Quantity of groundwater treated annually________________________ G Quantity of surface water treated annually________________________ Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________

2. Electrical Enclosures and Panels (properly rated and functional) G N/A G Good condition G Needs Maintenance Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________

3. Tanks, Vaults, Storage Vessels G N/A G Good condition G Proper secondary containment G Needs Maintenance Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________

4. Discharge Structure and Appurtenances G N/A G Good condition G Needs Maintenance Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________

5. Treatment Building(s) G N/A G Good condition (esp. roof and doorways) G Needs repair G Chemicals and equipment properly stored Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________

E-37

6. Monitoring Wells (pump and treatment remedy) G Properly secured/locked G Functioning G Routinely sampled G Good condition G All required wells located G Needs Maintenance G N/A Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________


G Is routinely submitted on time G Is of acceptable quality 2. Monitoring data suggests:

G Groundwater plume is effectively contained G Contaminant concentrations are declining


1. Monitoring Wells (natural attenuation remedy) G Properly secured/locked G Functioning G Routinely sampled G Good condition G All required wells located G Needs Maintenance G N/A Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________

X. OTHER REMEDIES




Describe issues and observations relating to whether the remedy is effective and functioning as designed. Begin with a brief statement of what the remedy is to accomplish (i.e., to contain contaminant plume, minimize infiltration and gas emission, etc.). ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ______ The selected remedies for Sites 35, 60PS, 60S2, 60S3, 76FA, 76GS, 76RH, 86, 88HD, 92, 93, 95, 102LB, 128, 131, 135, 183, 189, 190A, HA, and SEW have yet to be implemented with a final LUCIP. The LUCIP is currently in process. The LUC Plan for Site 192 was finalized in August 2012. The signs were observed to in place at Site 192 and no disturbance or evidence of track removal was observed. ______________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________

E-38

B. Adequacy of O&M

Describe issues and observations related to the implementation and scope of O&M procedures. In particular, discuss their relationship to the current and long-term protectiveness of the remedy. ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____None were identified. ________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________


Describe issues and observations such as unexpected changes in the cost or scope of O&M or a high frequency of unscheduled repairs, that suggest that the protectiveness of the remedy may be compromised in the future. ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ _______None were identified. _____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________


Describe possible opportunities for optimization in monitoring tasks or the operation of the remedy. ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ______None were identified. ______________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________

E-39

ATTACHMENT F

SITE INSPECTION PHOTO LOG

Photographs from Five-Year Review Site Inspection Photos Taken by: Leidos Site Inspection Date: October 20, 2014 Location: Savanna Army Depot Activity, Savanna, Illinois

F-1

Site 35 – Main Sewage Disposal Plant (Building 275)

Site 37PS – Pole Storage Area


F-2

Site 60PS – Liquid Propellant Storage Areas (Buildings 802 and 803)

Site 60S2– Building 800 Septic System


F-3

Site 60S3 – Building 810 Septic System

Site 76CS – Former Coal Storage Area


F-4

Site 76FA – Building 117 Furnace Area

Site 76GS – Former Service Station (Building 111)


F-5

Site 76OD – Open Drum Area

Site 76RH – Locomotive Roundhouse (Building 115)


F-6

Site 86 – Building 128 Storage Area

Site 92 – Pesticide Storage (Building 113)


F-7

Site 95 – Flammable Storage (Building 104)

Site 102LB – Building 642 Leaching Beds


F-8

Site 111 – 1934 Outdoor Washout Plant



F-9




F-10

Site 126 – CN Plant Boiler Building USTs (Building 502)

Site 128 – H-Area Zinc Ingot Piles


F-11

Site 131 – Building 137 Scrap Pile

Site 135 – Former Coal Storage Area


F-12

Site 183 – CL Plant Storage Building (Building 615)

Site 189 – Water Tower (Building 904)


F-13

Site 190A – H-Area Material Storage Area (Area A)

Site 192 – Manganese Ore Storage Mounds


F-14

Site 192 – Manganese Ore Storage Mounds

Site 93 – Pesticide Mixing Pad

ATTACHMENT G

INTERVIEW RECORDS

G-1

INTERVIEW RECORD – SVDASite Name: Savanna Army Depot Activity (SVDA) EPA ID No.: IL3210020803

Subject: First Five-Year Review Time: 15:00 Date: 12/4/14

Type: _Telephone X Visit _Other

Location of Visit: SVDA, BRAC Office

_ Incoming _ Outgoing

Contact Made By:

Name: Jamie Johnson Title: Environmental Engineer Organization: Leidos

Individual Contacted:

Name: Cathy Collins Title: BRAC Environmental Coordinator

Organization: Army

Telephone No: (815) 273-8827

Fax No:

E-Mail Address:

Street Address: Building 246, 18935 B Street

City, State, Zip: Savanna, IL 61074

Summary of Conversation 1) Have there been any issues with the sites included in the Five-Year Review? Any unforeseen difficulties

implementing the selected remedies? Response: No. The treatment at Site 111 is taking longer than expected; however, the concentrations are reducing.

2) Is the treatment system located at Site 111 expected to resume? If so, when? Response: Spring 2015. 3) What is the estimated schedule for the remedial action implementation at Sites 37PS, 76CS, 76OD, and

126? Do you see any issues with the implementation? Response: Summer 2015. 4) What is the status of the preparation of the environmental covenant for the sites with LUCs? Response: The environmental covenant for Sites 111 and 192 is undergoing stakeholder review and Site 192 is the closest to being finalized.

5) Have there been any vandalism or trespassing issues on SVDA? Response: No.

6) Do you feel good communication exists between the Army, USEPA, and IEPA?

Response: Yes.

7) What is your overall impression of the project? Response: Good.

8) What effects, if any, have the sites had on the surrounding community? Response: None.

G-2

INTERVIEW RECORD – USEPASite Name: Savanna Army Depot Activity (SVDA) EPA ID No.: IL3210020803


Type: _Telephone _ Visit X Other

Location of Visit: In person; prior to the TPP meeting located at SVDA


Contact Made By:



Name: Tom Barounis Title: Regional Project Manager Organization: USEPA, Region 5

Telephone No: (312) 353-5577

Fax No: N/A

E-Mail Address:

Street Address: 77 West Jackson Blvd, SRF-9J

City, State, Zip: Chicago, IL 60604

Summary of Conversation 1) Are you aware of any of the standards that are in conflict with the ROD cleanup standards? Response: No.

2) What is your overall impression of the sites included in the Five-Year Review? Response: The selected remedies are operating as designed. 3) Do you feel adequate communication has been maintained between Army, USEPA, and IEPA? Response: Yes. 4) Have there been any complaints, violations, or other incidents related to the Five-Year Review sites

requiring a response from your office? If so, please detail. Response: No.

G-3

INTERVIEW RECORD – IEPASite Name: Savanna Army Depot Activity (SVDA) EPA ID No.: IL3210020803


Type: _Telephone _ Visit X Other

Location of Visit: In person; prior to the TPP meeting located at SVDA


Contact Made By:



Name: Charlene Falco Title: Project Manager Organization: IEPA

Telephone No: (217) 785-2891

Fax No:

E-Mail Address:

Street Address: 1021 North Grand Ave, East

City, State, Zip: Springfield, IL 62702

Summary of Conversation 1) Are you aware of any of the state standards that are in conflict with the ROD cleanup standards? Response: No.

2) What is your overall impression of the sites included in the Five-Year Review? Response: Selected remedies are operating as designed. 3) Do you feel adequate communication has been maintained between Army, USEPA, and IEPA? Response: Yes. 4) Have there been any complaints, violations, or other incidents related to the Five-Year Review sites

requiring a response from your office? If so, please detail. Response: No.