Record of Decision for Site 6 (Final-Signed)

CLE000366.pdf

FINAL

SITE 6 RECORD OF DECISION

Clear Air Force Station, Alaska

April 2010

CLE000366.pdf

F I N A L

SITE 6 RECORD OF DECISION

Prepared for Clear Air Force Station Alaska

Prepared by

URS Group, Inc. 8181 E. Tufts Avenue Denver, Colorado 80237 Project No. 22240412.05000

April 2010

CLE000366.pdf

Site 6 Record of Decision Clear Air Force Station, Alaska

W:\Projects\22240412_Clear_Site_6_FS-ROD\Sub_00\6.0_Proj_Deliv\ROD\Final\Site 6_Final_ROD_04-22-10.doc i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................................III LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................................III LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ................................................................... V 1.0 DECLARATION............................................................................................................1-1

1.1 Site Name and Location.......................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Statement of Basis and Purpose.............................................................................. 1-1 1.3 Assessment of the Site ............................................................................................ 1-1 1.4 Description of the Selected Remedy....................................................................... 1-2 1.5 Statutory Determinations ........................................................................................ 1-3 1.6 Data Certification Checklist.................................................................................... 1-4 1.7 Authorizing Signatures ........................................................................................... 1-5

2.0 DECISION SUMMARY ...............................................................................................2-1 2.1 Site Location and Brief Description ....................................................................... 2-1 2.2 Site History and Enforcement Activities ................................................................ 2-1

2.2.1 Clear Air Force Station ............................................................. 2-1 2.2.2 Site 6 ......................................................................................... 2-2

2.3 Community Participation........................................................................................ 2-3 2.4 Scope and Role of Site............................................................................................ 2-4 2.5 Site Characteristics.................................................................................................. 2-5

2.5.1 Physiography and Climate ........................................................ 2-5 2.5.2 Geology..................................................................................... 2-6 2.5.3 Hydrogeology ........................................................................... 2-7 2.5.4 Surface Water Hydrology ......................................................... 2-7 2.5.5 Ecology ..................................................................................... 2-7 2.5.6 Previous Soil Investigations...................................................... 2-8 2.5.7 Previous Groundwater Investigations ....................................... 2-9 2.5.8 Nature and Extent of Contamination ........................................ 2-9 2.5.9 Conceptual Site Model............................................................ 2-10

2.6 Current and Potential Future Land and Water Uses ............................................. 2-11 2.6.1 Land Uses................................................................................ 2-11 2.6.2 Groundwater Uses................................................................... 2-12

2.7 Summary of Site Risks.......................................................................................... 2-12 2.7.1 Summary of Human Health Risk Assessment ........................ 2-12 2.7.2 Summary of Ecological Risk Assessment .............................. 2-16 2.7.3 Site-Specific Alternative Cleanup Levels............................... 2-20 2.7.4 Basis for Action ...................................................................... 2-20

2.8 Remedial Action Objectives ................................................................................. 2-21 2.9 Descriptions of Alternatives ................................................................................. 2-21

2.9.1 Description of Remedy Components ...................................... 2-21 Alternative 1 - No Action ...................................................................... 2-22 Alternative 2 – Land Use Controls ........................................................ 2-22 Alternative 3 – In Situ Vitrification....................................................... 2-24 Alternative 4 – On-Site Treatment and Reuse as Backfill ..................... 2-25

CLE000366.pdf


W:\Projects\22240412_Clear_Site_6_FS-ROD\Sub_00\6.0_Proj_Deliv\ROD\Final\Site 6_Final_ROD_04-22-10.doc ii

Alternative 5A – Commercial/Industrial Use Excavation and Off-Site Disposal................................................................................... 2-26

Alternative 5B – Unrestricted Use Excavation and Off-Site Disposal .. 2-26 2.9.2 Common Elements and Distinguishing Features of Each

Alternative............................................................................... 2-27 2.10 Comparative Analysis of Alternatives .................................................................. 2-27

2.10.1 Overall Protection of Human Health and Environment.......... 2-29 2.10.2 Compliance with ARARs ....................................................... 2-29 2.10.3 Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence ............................ 2-29 2.10.4 Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume Through Treatment

................................................................................................. 2-29 2.10.5 Short-Term Effectiveness ....................................................... 2-30 2.10.6 Implementability ..................................................................... 2-30 2.10.7 Cost ......................................................................................... 2-30 2.10.8 Regulatory Agency Acceptance.............................................. 2-31 2.10.9 Community Acceptance.......................................................... 2-31

2.11 Principal Threat Wastes ........................................................................................ 2-31 2.12 Selected Remedy................................................................................................... 2-32

2.12.1 Summary of Rationale for Selected Remedy.......................... 2-32 2.12.2 Description of the Selected Remedy....................................... 2-32 2.12.3 Summary of Estimated Remedy Cost ..................................... 2-35 2.12.4 Expected Outcomes of Selected Remedy ............................... 2-36

2.13 Statutory Determination........................................................................................ 2-36 2.13.1 Protection of Human Health and the Environment................. 2-36 2.13.2 Compliance with ARARs ....................................................... 2-37 2.13.3 Cost-Effectiveness .................................................................. 2-37 2.13.4 Utilization of Permanent Solutions and Alternative Treatment

Technologies ........................................................................... 2-37 2.13.5 Preference for Treatment as a Principal Element ................... 2-38 2.13.6 Five-Year Review Requirement ............................................. 2-38

2.14 Documentation of Significant Changes from Preferred Alternative of Proposed Plan.............................................................................................................................. 2-38

3.0 RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY................................................................................3-1 3.1 Stakeholder Issues and Lead Agency Responses.................................................... 3-1 3.2 Technical and Legal Issues ..................................................................................... 3-1

4.0 REFERENCES...............................................................................................................4-1

CLE000366.pdf


W:\Projects\22240412_Clear_Site_6_FS-ROD\Sub_00\6.0_Proj_Deliv\ROD\Final\Site 6_Final_ROD_04-23-10.doc iii

LIST OF TABLES

Table No. Title

1-1 Summary of Detailed Analysis of Remedial Alternatives 2-1 Soil Cleanup Level Criteria for Site 6 2-2 Summary of Human Health Chemicals of Potential Concern and Medium

Specific Exposure Point Concentrations at Site 6 2-3 Cancer Toxicity Data Summary for Site 6 2-4 Non-Cancer Chronic Toxicity Data Summary for Site 6 2-5 Summary of Cancer Risks and Noncancer Hazards for Construction Worker

Exposures to Soil 2-6 Summary of Cancer Risks and Noncancer Hazards for Maintenance Worker

Exposures to Soil 2-7 Summary of Site 6 Human Health Chemicals of Concern 2-8 Summary of Chemicals of Potential Ecological Concern and Medium

Specific Exposure Point Concentrations at Site 6 2-9 Assessment Endpoints and Measures of Effect for the Ecological Risk

Assessment of Site 6 2-10 Supplemental Screening of Chemicals of Potential Ecological Concern in

Soil at Site 6 2-11 Site 6 Cleanup Levels 2-12 Summary of Comparative Analysis of Remedial Alternatives 2-13 Chemical-Specific Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements 2-14 Action-Specific Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements 2-15 Location-Specific Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements LIST OF FIGURES

Figure No. Title

2-1 Site 6 Location Map 2-2 Site 6 Features 2-3 Human Health Conceptual Site Model Flowchart, Site 6 2-4 Ecological Conceptual Site Model Flowchart, Site 6 2-5 Site 6 Sample Locations with Constituent Concentrations Exceeding ADEC

Cleanup Levels 2-6 Site 6 Soil/Dried Sludge Exceeding Site-Specific Alternative Cleanup Levels 2-7 Site 6 PCB Concentrations 2-8 Site 6 Generalized Cross-Section of Maximum Sample Concentrations at

Depth 2-9 Site 6 Land Use Controls Area 2-10 Site 6 Conceptual Layout of Selected Remedy LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix No. Title

A Alternative Level Cleanup Determination B Referenced Air Force Instructions

CLE000366.pdf


W:\Projects\22240412_Clear_Site_6_FS-ROD\Sub_00\6.0_Proj_Deliv\ROD\Final\Site 6_Final_ROD_04-22-10.doc iv

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS °F Degrees Fahrenheit

AAC Alaska Administrative Code

ACL Alternative Cleanup Level

ADEC Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

AFCEE Air Force Center for Engineering and the Environment

AFI Air Force Instruction

AFS Air Force Station

ARAR applicable or relevant and appropriate requirement

bgs below ground surface

BGP Base General Plan

BRA baseline risk assessment

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

COC chemical of concern

COPC chemical of potential concern

COPEC chemical of potential ecological concern

CSM Conceptual Site Model

DRO diesel range organics

DD Decision Document

DERP Defense Environmental Restoration Program

EPC exposure point concentration

ERA Ecological Risk Assessment

ERBSC ecological risk-based screening concentration

ft feet

FS feasibility study

GRO gasoline range organics

HI hazard index

HHRA Human Health Risk Assessment

IRP Installation Restoration Program

LUC land use control

mg/kg milligram per kilogram

CLE000366.pdf


W:\Projects\22240412_Clear_Site_6_FS-ROD\Sub_00\6.0_Proj_Deliv\ROD\Final\Site 6_Final_ROD_04-22-10.doc v

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS (continued)

NCP National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan

NFA No Further Action

O&M operation and maintenance

PAH polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons

PCB polychlorinated biphenyls

ppm parts per million

RAO remedial action objective

RBSC risk-based screening concentrations

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

RfD reference does

RI remedial investigation

ROD Record of Decision

RRO residual range organics

SARA Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act

SI Site Investigation

SSPARS Solid State Phased Array Radar System

SVOC semivolatile organic compound

TCLP Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure

TPH total petroleum hydrocarbon

TRV toxicity reference value

TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act

USAF United States Air Force

USAMDC United States Army Missile Defense Command

USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

USGS United States Geological Survey

UCL upper confidence limit

VOC volatile organic compound

§ section symbol to refer to a particular section of a document

CLE000366.pdf


W:\Projects\22240412_Clear_Site_6_FS-ROD\Sub_00\6.0_Proj_Deliv\ROD\Final\Site 6_Final_ROD_04-22-10.doc 1-1

1.0 DECLARATION

1.1 SITE NAME AND LOCATION

Clear Air Force Station (AFS) occupies approximately 11,500 acres of federally-owned land in east central Alaska, approximately 80 miles southwest of Fairbanks and 250 miles north of Anchorage, in the Tanana Valley. This Record of Decision (ROD) addresses remedial actions for soil and dried sludge for Site 6 at Clear AFS. Site 6 is a former sludge drying pit that received wastes from the sewage treatment plant, an Imhoff tank/leach field system that treated most of the wastewater generated by Clear AFS. Clear AFS does not have any sites listed on the National Priorities List (NPL), but the Department of Defense (DoD) follows the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) process to investigate and clean up sites on DoD facilities. Therefore, there is no associated National Superfund Database (e.g., Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System [CERCLIS]) identification number for Site 6.

1.2 STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE

This decision document presents the selected remedy for Site 6. The selected remedy was chosen in accordance with CERCLA, as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA) and, as applicable, the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). The selected remedy is Alternative 5A (Commercial/Industrial Use Excavation and Off-Site Disposal), which is described in detail in Section 2.9, Description of Alternatives, of this ROD.

This decision is based on the Administrative Record file for Site 6. This Administrative Record file is available for review at the Anderson Village Library located in Anderson, Alaska, and at the Noel Wien Library located in Fairbanks, Alaska. Information not specifically summarized in this ROD or its references, but contained in the Administrative Record, has been considered and is relevant to selection of the remedy for Site 6. Therefore, the ROD is based upon, and relies upon, the entire Administrative Record file in making the decision.

This document is issued by the Department of the Air Force as the lead agency. The Air Force is managing remediation of contamination at Site 6 in accordance with CERCLA as required by the Defense Environmental Restoration Program (DERP). The Air Force has selected the remedy for the site. The State of Alaska, as represented by the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC), agrees that the selected remedy, when completed, will meet the cleanup requirements of ADEC 18 Alaska Administrative Code (AAC) 75, including state program requirements for the cleanup of petroleum products.

1.3 ASSESSMENT OF THE SITE

The response action selected in this ROD is necessary to protect the public health or welfare or the environment from actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances into the environment. Areas within Site 6 cannot support unlimited use and unrestricted exposure due to the presence of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and lead remaining in place above the residential level after implementation of the selected remedy. Land use restrictions are required

CLE000366.pdf



as part of this response action and will be achieved through imposition of land use controls (LUCs) that limit the use and/or exposure to those areas of the property that are contaminated. The AF is committed to implementing, monitoring, maintaining, and enforcing all components of the selected remedy to ensure that it remains protective of human health and the environment.

1.4 DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED REMEDY

Remedial alternatives for Site 6 were developed and evaluated through the Site 6 – Clear Air Force Station Feasibility Study Report (USAF 2009a). Based on results of the Feasibility Study, the Air Force selected Alternative 5A, excavation and off-site disposal of contaminated soil/dried sludge (the source materials constituting principal threats at Site 6) for areas of the former sludge drying pits that exceed established site-specific alternative cleanup levels (ACLs), as the preferred alternative for Site 6. This remedy would be subject to LUCs to restrict future use of the site to commercial and industrial uses.

The major components of the selected remedy include:

• Excavate soil/dried sludge at locations with constituent concentrations exceeding site-specific cleanup levels. The site-specific ACL for lead is 1,079 mg/kg and its determination and development is detailed in Appendix A. Per the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), the total PCB cleanup level adopted for Site 6 is 25 mg/kg (i.e., low occupancy), consistent with the anticipated future land use (i.e., industrial). Locations exceeding site-specific cleanup levels include a small region in the primary cell (4 ft wide by 4 ft long by 4 ft deep) and a small region in the secondary cell (11.5 ft wide by 24 ft long by 2 ft deep), resulting in approximately 30 (bulk) cubic yards of excavated contaminated soil/dried sludge.

• Collect confirmation samples of the base and walls of the excavation to document concentrations in the remaining soil. In addition, the excavated soil/dried sludge would be sampled to characterize it for disposal.

• Dispose of contaminated soil/dried sludge at an off-base disposal facility. A majority of the excavated soil/dried sludge could likely be disposed as nonhazardous waste in a Subtitle D landfill (e.g., Columbia Ridge in Arlington, Oregon); however, a small portion of the soil/dried sludge may contain concentrations of PCBs greater than 50 milligram per kilogram (mg/kg) and would require disposal as bulk PCB remediation waste in a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Subtitle C landfill (e.g., Chem Waste in Arlington, Oregon), consistent with TSCA regulations.

• Backfill the excavated areas (approximately 30 cubic yards) and bring the area level with the surrounding ground surface (approximately 1,400 to 2,300 cubic yards of soil dependent on final site grade configuration). The final grade would be revegetated to match surrounding vegetation. Backfill material would likely be obtained from an on-site source.

• Implement LUCs to restrict access to Site 6 and restrict future use of the site to commercial and industrial purposes only. Since the soil/dried sludge is being removed to a low occupancy/commercial/industrial level, residual soil contamination will not be safe for residential use. Therefore, LUCs are necessary to preclude such uses and to control

CLE000366.pdf



the disposition and use of any soil excavated from the site. LUCs will be added to the existing LUC section of the Clear AFS General Plan within 90 days of ROD signature.

Site 6 is one of 29 Sites (25 Installation Restoration Program [IRP] sites and four Military Munitions Response Program sites) at Clear AFS. The overall cleanup strategy for Clear AFS involves removal and/or source management. The selected alternative for Site 6 fits into the overall site management plan through source removal of contaminated soil/dried sludge exceeding site-specific low occupancy/commercial/industrial cleanup levels, and management of the remaining soil/dried sludge using LUCs.

The principal threat wastes for Site 6 are the PCB- and lead-contaminated soils. These contaminants will be addressed by the selected alternative through excavation and source removal of soil exceeding site-specific low occupancy/commercial/industrial cleanup levels, and the use of LUCs to control the disposition and use of any remaining soil at the site.

1.5 STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS

The selected remedy for Site 6 is protective of human health and the environment, complies with promulgated requirements that are applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs) to the remedial action, and is cost-effective. The selected remedy represents the maximum extent to which permanent solutions can be used in a practicable manner at the site. It provides the best balance of trade-offs in terms of balancing criteria.

The NCP establishes the expectation that treatment will be used to address the principal threats posed by a site whenever practicable (40 CFR 300.430[a] [1] [iii] [A]). The selected remedy does not satisfy the statutory preference for treatment as a principal element of the remedy because it involves soil removal and off-site disposal. Although soil will not be treated, excavation and off-site disposal is an appropriate remedy because it permanently and significantly reduces the mobility and volume of contaminants at the site. It is an efficient approach because it permanently removes contaminated soil above site-specific ACLs in the source area in a shorter timeframe than implementation of the treatment technologies in Alternatives 3 and 4 or the complete removal in Alternative 5B. Also, the reduced volume of soil requiring removal in the selected remedy (30 cubic yards) is easier to handle and less costly than the volume in Alternatives 3, 4, and 5B (473 cubic yards). Therefore, the additional cost, effort, and time it would take to remediate Site 6 impacted soil/dried sludge under the treatment and complete removal alternatives (Alternatives 3, 4, and 5B) are not proportional to the benefit of achieving these cleanup levels (residential) when the likely anticipated future land use is industrial.

Although the contaminated soil/dried sludge exceeding site-specific ACLs would be excavated and disposed of under the selected remedy; hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants will remain on-site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure. Therefore, a statutory review will be conducted within 5 years after initiation of the remedial action to evaluate whether the selected remedy is, or will be, protective of human health and the environment, and at least every five years thereafter as long as the site is not suitable for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure.

CLE000366.pdf



1.6 DATA CERTIFICATION CHECKLIST

The following information is included in the Decision Summary section (Section 2.0) of this ROD. Additional information can be found in the Administrative Record for the site.

• Baseline risk presented by the COCs (Section 2.7);

• List of chemicals of concern (COCs) and their respective concentrations (Section 2.8 and Tables 2-7 and 2-10);

• Cleanup levels established for COCs and the basis for these levels (Section 2.7, 2.8, and Table 2-11)

• Current and reasonably anticipated future land and water use assumptions used in the baseline risk assessment and ROD (Sections 2.1, 2.5, and 2.6);

• How source materials constituting principal threats are addressed (Sections 2.9, 2.11, and 2.12);

• Potential land use that will be available to the site as a result of the selected remedy (Sections 2.9, 2.10, and 2.12);

• Estimated capital, operation and maintenance (O&M), and total present worth costs (Section 2.12, and Table 1-1); and

• Rationale that led to the selected remedy (Section 2.12).

CLE000366.pdf

CLE000366.pdf



2.0 DECISION SUMMARY

2.1 SITE LOCATION AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION

Clear AFS is located on approximately 11,500 acres of federally owned land and is approximately 80 miles southwest of Fairbanks and 250 miles north of Anchorage on the Parks Highway (Highway 3) in central Alaska. The installation is divided into four main areas: the Composite Area, where most administrative, recreational, and living quarters are located; the Old Camp Area, which is comprised of civil engineering, maintenance shops, and security forces; the Old Technical (Tech) Site, which is the former radar site; and the Solid State Phased Array Radar System (SSPARS), where the current radar and related equipment area is located. Of the 11,500 acres that compose the installation, approximately 3,800 acres are developed. The installation is bordered to the east by George Parks Alaska Highway; to the south by the Alaska Range; to the north by Lake Sansing and the community of Anderson; and to the west by the Nenana River. The installation can be accessed from the George Parks Highway, which is the main highway (State Highway 3) connecting Anchorage and Fairbanks.

Site 6 is located in the eastern portion of Clear AFS (southeast of the Composite Area) (Figure 2-1). Site 6 is in an area currently classified for industrial use in the Clear AFS General Plan (USAF 2005a), and is comprised of a former sludge drying pit and an adjacently located active concrete-lined sludge drying pit (Figure 2-2). A north-south trending unpaved road accesses the site from the south, and an east-west trending unpaved road accesses the site from the west. The northern portion of Site 6 is occupied by railroad tracks and the railroad right-of-way.

Site 6 consists of a former sludge drying pit that measures approximately 40 feet (ft) by 100 ft and that has been excavated approximately 8 ft below the surrounding grade, with steep embankment sideslopes. The pit was divided into two cells, a primary cell and a secondary cell that were separated by an approximately two foot high berm; however, that berm is no longer present due to field investigation activities. The former sludge drying pit is bordered to the north, east, and south by treed areas, and on the west by an access road and the active concrete-lined sludge drying pit. The interior of the former sludge drying pit is largely covered by shrub/scrub vegetation, with intermittent patches of exposed surface liner. Dried sludge is present in the former drying pits, varying in thickness from less than one inch to approximately 6 inches. The dried sludge material is characterized by its highly organic, spongy, and fine-grained nature, with extensive roots binding the material together. No dried sludge was observed outside of the former sludge drying pit or active concrete-lined sludge drying pit (USAF 2008a).

2.2 SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES

2.2.1 Clear Air Force Station

Clear AFS was established after World War II for use as a bombing range. In 1960, a radar station was constructed at Clear AFS. The primary mission of Clear AFS is to detect and provide an early warning of a ballistic missile attack against the North American continent. (United States Army Missile Defense Command [USAMDC] 2002). Additional information about the history of operations at Clear AFS and environmental settings can be found in previous

CLE000366.pdf



environmental reports, including Installation Restoration Program, Records Search for Clear Air Force Station, Alaska (CH2M Hill 1981); Base General Plan (USAF 2005a); and the Final Work Plan for Remedial Investigations at Sites 6 and 17 (USAF 2007a).

2.2.2 Site 6

Site 6 was the location of a sludge drying pit associated with the sewage treatment plant, an Imhoff tank/leach field system that treated most of the wastewater generated by Clear AFS. The Imhoff tank and leach field system likely became operational sometime in the 1960s (USAF 2007b); the specific start date is unknown. The system is still in use; however, the sludge drying process is now achieved through the use of a concrete-lined and fenced-in sludge drying bed. The former sludge drying pit has been closed for general use, but was used in the early 1990s on an emergency basis for disposal of sludge from the treatment plant (USAF 2005b).

During a Phase I Preliminary Assessment inspection in 1981, Site 6 was identified as a potentially hazardous site, along with 16 other sites at Clear AFS. In 1984, a Phase II Stage 1 study was conducted to determine presence or absence of environmental contamination and, if found, to estimate the magnitude and extent of contamination and recommend additional investigations that would better define the contamination. In 1988, United States Geological Survey (USGS) installed a well downgradient from the sewage treatment facility and leach field and analyzed subsurface soil/dried sludge samples for pesticides/PCBs; no contaminants were detected (USGS 1988). A 1990 Final Decision Document for Sites 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 14, 15, and 16, determined that Site 6 did not pose a significant hazard for migration nor a significant health hazard, and stated that no further action was necessary (USGS 1990).

In 1993, following the 1990 Decision Document (USGS 1990), a letter was received from EPA Region 10 requesting that soil samples be collected at Site 6 and that all drinking water wells and any well located within 0.25 mile of a source be sampled (USEPA 1993). The 1993 Summary of U.S. Air Force Installation Restoration Program report documented that the sludge pit was used on one or more occasions after 1989 for disposal of sludge from the treatment plant in emergency situations (Nelson and Carr 1993). The Air Force requested that the USGS evaluate whether discharge from the sewage treatment plant had affected groundwater. Water from well W-6A, drilled downgradient from the leach field and sludge pit, showed only a trace of tetrachloroethene in 1988.

In 2003, an e-mail from ADEC noted the lack of data presented in the 1990 Decision Document (ADEC 2003b). The e-mail stated that groundwater in well W-6A exceeded ADEC standards for gasoline range organics (GRO) and total diesel range organics (DRO) in 1989. The e-mail also stated that although ADEC did not have sediment standards, a risk evaluation should be made based on other applicable screening criteria. In addition, the e-mail stated that Site 6 should be sampled for metals, PCBs, and other chemicals of potential concern (COPCs). The USAF recommended that well W-6A be sampled and tested for a full suite of analytical chemicals because analytical methods and detection limits had changed since Site 6 was sampled in 1989. A risk assessment for Site 6 was also recommended (USAF 2005b).

The USAF proposed a Site Investigation (SI) at Site 6 to determine if metals, chlorinated solvents, PCBs, DRO, and GRO were still present in the sludge drying pit and if they may have migrated into the groundwater (USAF 2005b). A Draft, Preliminary Findings Report, Sites 6, 7,

CLE000366.pdf



and 17 discussed the findings of the 2005 SI (USAF 2006a). Ten surface soil/dried sludge confirmation samples and one duplicate sample were collected within the historic sludge drying pit. Several COPCs exceeded both ADEC cleanup levels and regional background concentrations, including the semi-volatile organic compound (SVOC) 4-chloroaniline, PCBs, and metals at most locations (USAF 2006a). Due to the COPCs detected in surface soil/dried sludge, additional sampling of site media was recommended, including surface soil/dried sludge, subsurface soil, and groundwater.

A Remedial Investigation (RI) was conducted to augment data for the historic sludge drying pits, and to evaluate potential impacts around the active concrete-lined sludge drying pit, as well as delineate the nature and extent of contamination. The Site 6 RI was conducted in July 2007, and consisted of soil/dried sludge and groundwater characterization using field screening and fixed laboratory analysis. Soils/dried sludge were first screened for chlorinated compounds to identify locations to collect confirmation laboratory samples. Confirmation samples were analyzed for GROs, DROs, residual range organics (RROs), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), SVOCs, polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), PCBs (Aroclor 1248, Aroclor 1254, and Aroclor 1260), and RCRA listed metals.

A FS to evaluate remedial alternatives to address the soil/dried sludge contamination was performed in 2009. Based on that study, the preferred remedy was selected as discussed in the Proposed Plan (USAF 2009b).

2.3 COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION

The USAF has prepared and implemented a Community Involvement Plan (USAF 2008b) in accordance with CERCLA requirements. The Community Involvement Plan describes community involvement activities that the USAF will undertake during remedial activities at Clear AFS. The USAF has followed the requirements of the Community Involvement Plan, including holding public meetings and providing the opportunity for public comment throughout the cleanup process.

The RI (USAF 2008a), FS (USAF 2009a), other investigative reports, and the Proposed Plan (USAF 2009b) have been made available to the public and can be found in the Administrative Record at the following locations:

Anderson Village Library Reference Section First Street Anderson, Alaska 99744 Phone: (907) 582-2628

Noel Wien Library Reference Section 1215 Cowles Street Fairbanks, Alaska 99701 Phone: (907) 459-1024

Hours of Operation: 10 am to 9pm (Mon-Thur) 10 am to 6 pm (Fri-Sat)

CLE000366.pdf



A public comment period for the Proposed Plan (USAF 2009b) was held from August 1 through August 31, 2009. In addition, a public meeting was offered on August 13, 2009, to present the Proposed Plan to the community. No one from the public attended the meeting and no written or verbal comments were received during the public comment period.

2.4 SCOPE AND ROLE OF SITE

As with many large sites, the environmental issues at Clear AFS are complex. As a result, the Air Force, with concurrence from ADEC, has organized the environmental restoration work at Clear AFS into 29 IRP Sites, as described below.

• Site 1 – Landfill 1 (1959 – 1968): Filled landfill depressions in 2007 per 1990 Decision Document (DD); continued long-term management and LUCs.

• Site 2 – Landfill 2: Filled landfill depressions in 2007 per 1990 DD; Site closed with restrictions on use; monitored LUCs.

• Site 3 – Landfill 3: Closed under Compliance Program via permit.

• Site 4 – Landfill 4: Removed surficial debris in 2006 per 1990 DD; closed with no restrictions.

• Site 5 – Coal Storage Area: ADEC and Air Force agreed in was not an IRP site; no action required.

• Site 6 – Drying Beds (Imhoff): Nature and extent of contamination (PCBs and lead) determined in 2006; FS initiated in 2009.

• Site 7 – 50,000 gallon oil spill: Site inspection efforts conducted in 2007 confirmed no contamination exists above state cleanup standards; site closed with no further action (NFA).

• Site 8 – 200 gallon fuel spill: Biovented (1995-2001); site inspection efforts conducted in 2007 confirmed no contamination exists above state cleanup standards; site closed with NFA.

• Site 9 – MOGAS tanks: Biovented (1998-2000); confirmation samples collected in 2006 indicated no contaminants remain at levels above ADEC cleanup standards; site closed with NFA.

• Site 10 – Radioactive Material Storage Building: Site inspection efforts conducted in 2006 indicated no release occurred; site closed with NFA.

• Site 11 – Fire Training Area: Excavated and landfarmed; confirmation sampling conducted in 2007 indicated cleanup levels were reached; site closed requiring no further monitoring.

• Site 12 – Drums at Gravel Pit: The remaining drum was removed in 2005 and sampled; contents were not hazardous; site closed with NFA required.

• Site 13 – DDT Drums One Mile South of Power Plant: Excavated and liner placed; FS completed; Proposed Plan and ROD initiated.

CLE000366.pdf



• Site 14 – Construction Camp Disposal Area: Investigated; FS through ROD initiated.

• Site 15 – Lake Sansing: Investigated; no risk above acceptable levels; PP and ROD initiated.

• Site 16 – PCB Transformer in Power Plant: Leaks cleaned; site closed in 2005 with NFA required.

• Site 17 – Power Plant Oil/Water Seperator: Investigated; petroleum hydrocarbons remain above ADEC’s most stringent levels; PP and ROD initiated.

• Site 18 – Infiltration Pond Near Thaw Shed: Not designated an IRP Site; no cleanup required.

• Site 19 – Crib Near Motor Pool: Biovented (1995-2004); cleanup goals met; PP and ROD initiated.

• Site 20 – Destroyed Building 85: Excavated; no contaminants above cleanup levels; PP and ROD initiated.

• Site 21 – Auto Service Grease Pad: Investigated; no risks to human health or the environment; PP and ROD initiated.

• Site 22 – Auto Hobby Shop: Investigated; FS completed in 2009; PP and ROD initiated.

• Site 23 – Heavy Equipment Parking Garage: Excavated; concrete floor placed; PP and ROD initiated.

• Site 24 – Spill Site 24 Near New Solid State Phased Array Radar System; SI completed; no indications of release; site closed in 2007 with NFA required.

• Site 26 – Former Underground Storage Tanks: Tanks removed; investigated; no contaminants above ADEC cleanup levels except at one tank; remedial pilot study initiated.

• SR401 – North Range Small Arms: Investigated and conducted a removal action for excavation and off-site disposal of lead contamination.

• SR402 – South Range Small Arms: Investigated; NFA required.

• TS403 – Former Skeet Range: Investigated a conducted a removal action for excavation and off-site disposal of PAH contamination.

• TS404 – Unauthorized Small Arms: Investigated; NFA required.

This decision document addresses Site 6 at Clear AFS. Remedial actions undertaken for Site 6 will not impact other IRP Sites at Clear AFS.

2.5 SITE CHARACTERISTICS

2.5.1 Physiography and Climate

Clear AFS lies in the Tanana Valley immediately north of the foothills of the Alaska Range. The Denali Fault marks the boundary between the Tanana Valley and the Alaska Range located

CLE000366.pdf



approximately 60 miles south of the installation. Interior Alaska is periodically shaken by severe earthquakes. Several faults in the vicinity of the installation are considered active. Large earthquakes (e.g., Richter magnitudes up to 7.8) have been recorded in the Fairbanks area, and recurrence is probable, according to the USGS (USAF 2005a). Several large, east-west trending faults, including the Hines Creek and McKinley faults, occur south of the installation, where both are strands of the Denali Fault (one of the largest crustal breaks in Alaska). A large east-west trending fault breaks the Nenana Gravel formation north of Poker Creek, about 3 miles north of the Healy power plant. It is not known if this fault is active (USAF 2005a).

Earthquake potential is the only recognized geological constraint to development at Clear AFS. Structures should be designed to withstand magnitude seven or higher events with little or no effect (USAF 2005a).

Clear AFS is located on a large glacial outwash area, comprised primarily of medium to coarse gravel. The region is underlain by a variety of bedrock types, including schist, sandstone, and coal-bearing formations, and was partially-glaciated. Outwash from previous glaciations and the Nenana Gravels that underlie the north margin of the Alaska Range can be hundreds of feet thick within the area of Clear AFS (USAF 2005a).

The outwash is a wedge-shaped fan, sloping downward from the south (the source of the outwash) to the north. The Nenana River subsequently flows northward as well. The Nenana River breached a well-defined terminal moraine and deposited coarser gravels in an arc (making the inner fan closest to the breach) and deposited medium gravels in a middle fan further out. Clear AFS is situated on the eastern half of the fan. Clear AFS is covered with many interlaced sinuous channels, terraces, and banks, formed during glacial melt-water outwash deposition. Local elevation differences of these features are around 1.5 to 6.5 ft (USAF 2005a).

The sub-arctic climate at Clear AFS and the surrounding area is typical of central Alaska according to the Alaska Climate Research Center. The yearly average temperature is 26.1 degrees Fahrenheit (°F), with January typically the coldest month (-8.0 °F) and July typically the warmest (61.6 °F). Daily temperature fluctuation averages are approximately 20 °F in both the summer and winter. Prevailing winds are from the north and northeast, and the average monthly wind velocity is 5 miles per hour. Relative humidity ranges from approximately 75% in October to approximately 50% in May (USAF, 2005a).

Precipitation generally occurs during the summer months. During the period of 1971 through 2001, the average annual precipitation of the Clear AFS, Alaska area was 12.88 inches. The average snowfall is about 44.2 inches per year with the highest totals occurring in mid winter and early spring (USAF, 2005a).

2.5.2 Geology

The sediments underlying Clear AFS are primarily composed of sandy gravel, poorly stratified with well to poorly graded (poorly to well sorted) coarse sand. The thickness is estimated to extend several hundred feet. Generally, soils at Clear AFS are predominantly sands and gravel overlaid by a thin layer of silt. The dried sludge at Site 6 consists of a very fine grained, highly organic and spongy mat that is heavily bound by extensive roots. The sludge is underlain by native soils, consisting of light brown sandy gravel with cobbles.

CLE000366.pdf



Soil/dried sludge samples were collected from within the primary and secondary cells of the former sludge drying pit (Site 6) and around the active concrete-lined sludge drying pit (located adjacent to Site 6) during the SI and RI to investigate surface and subsurface conditions. In addition, two test trenches were dug to evaluate near-surface conditions, including the thickness of dried sludge in the former sludge drying pit, the presence or absence of a liner, and surface lithology. Borings for samples were generally less than 1.3 ft below ground surface (bgs), with two sample locations extending to 46.5 and 48.5 ft bgs. Within the former sludge drying pit area, the surface soil consists of sludge material and soil from the surrounding area. The dried sludge is generally present as a thin layer overlying native soil; however, in some locations, there appears to be some mixing of sludge and shallow native soil.

2.5.3 Hydrogeology

Groundwater beneath Clear AFS occurs in an unconfined aquifer within unconsolidated sand and gravel with cobbles. Depth to groundwater ranges from 20 to 100 ft bgs. The aquifer is recharged by infiltration from the Nenana River and by vertical infiltration of precipitation.

Regional groundwater generally flows to the north-northwest, with a water table gradient of approximately 3 ft per mile. Field activities at Site 6 in 2007 indicated the depth to groundwater is approximately 55 ft bgs and generally flows to the northwest.

2.5.4 Surface Water Hydrology

Surface water at the installation consists of a manmade surface drainage system of ditches, swales and culverts, Lake Sansing, the cooling pond, several unnamed tributaries, several natural retention and detention ponds, and the Nenana River. The Nenana River is a large, braided river flowing from major glaciers in the Alaska Range, with fairly uniform flow throughout the summer. In sub-arctic Alaska, the typical hydrological pattern is dominated by snowmelt runoff in the late spring and early summer. Clear AFS has a semiarid climate, and rainfall events do not account for the highest flows. Peak snowmelt, and thus peak flows, likely occur in early summer (early to mid-June). The ice-free period on streams usually runs from mid-May until mid-October, when streams freeze over.

Standing water bodies include Lake Sansing and the power plant cooling pond. Both are manmade resources employed in the daily operation of the station. Other small manmade depressions may contain surface water periodically during wetter periods or periods of snowmelt. The former sludge drying pit at Site 6 may contain standing water during some periods; however, it appears to be dry most of the time. The former sludge drying pit has steep embankment sideslopes, and there is no existing pathway for surface water flow out of the pit.

2.5.5 Ecology

The environment of the Clear AFS is characterized as the Interior Forested Lowland and Upland Subregion of the Interior Alaska Ecoregion (ADEC, 1999; Shannon & Wilson, 1999). This subregional habitat is dominated by birch and spruce forest, dry meadow, and gravel barrens. A variety of grasses, sedges, and willows are located throughout the site. The wildlife at Clear AFS is typical of the fairly undisturbed nature of the station and its vicinity. Mammals commonly observed throughout the facility include red fox, coyote, black bear, brown bear, snowshoe hare, red squirrel, porcupine, mink, marten, beaver, muskrat, and moose. Clear AFS

CLE000366.pdf



provides foraging, migrating, and nesting habitat for a variety of bird species. Birds typically observed in the area include common raven, ruffed grouse, ptarmigan, Canada goose, mallard, cliff swallow, American robin, yellow-rumped warbler, and darkeyed junco (ADEC, 1999; USAMDC, 2002). Although there are no reptiles in the region, the wood frog (Rana sylvatica) is a prevalent amphibian in Central Alaska (MacDonald, 2003).

Site 6 is not a sensitive environment (as defined in ADEC, 2005), nor are threatened or endangered species known to be present on or in close proximity to the site. Although much of the Clear AFS is undeveloped and naturally-vegetated open space, land use at the AFS, as well as specifically at Site 6, is generally classified as industrial and is expected to remain so for the foreseeable future. Consequently, activities which support the primary mission of the AFS receive priority in land-use and environmental-management decision making concerning Site 6.

2.5.6 Previous Soil Investigations

Soil investigations were conducted in 2005 and 2007 to evaluate the nature and extent of contamination in surface and subsurface soil at Site 6. Soil sample locations during the 2005 and 2007 investigations are shown in Figure 2-5. The 2005 soil investigation included collection of surface soil samples from an established grid within the primary former sludge drying pit for laboratory analysis. The 2007 soil investigation included collection of surface and subsurface soil samples, and was completed in multiple phases. An initial field screening of soil for the presence of PCBs was conducted to assess appropriate surface sample locations and subsurface sample intervals in soil borings for laboratory samples. Subsequently, analytical samples were collected for laboratory testing from selected surface locations from within the secondary sludge drying pit and surrounding the active concrete-lined sludge drying pit, and from selected depth intervals in borings. Surface and subsurface soil samples were analyzed for GRO, DRO/RRO, VOCs, SVOCs, PAHs, PCBs (Aroclor 1248, Aroclor 1254, and Aroclor 1260), and RCRA Metals.

Surface soil (0 - 2 ft bgs) within the former sludge drying pit consists of sludge material and native soil. In 2005, 10 surface soil samples were collected from within the primary cell of the sludge drying pit from depths of 1.3 ft or less. Several layers of plastic liner were found in the primary cell of the sludge drying pit, but it is unclear whether the observed multiple liners represented a design feature, or simply reflected excess liner material folded over in some areas. Effort was made to collect samples from material below the liner; however, based on the analytical profile of the samples collected, it appears that dried sludge is intermixed with native soil in this cell area. In 2007, 10 locations within the secondary cell of the former sludge drying pit and six locations from around the active, concrete-lined sludge drying pit were screened for the presence of PCBs. Field results indicated no PCB concentrations in excess of 50 parts per million (ppm) (the minimum detection limit for the test kits) at any of the surface screening locations. Ten analytical surface soil samples (seven within the secondary cell of the former sludge drying pit and three around the active concrete-lined sludge drying pit) were collected from depths of less than 1.1 ft bgs. No liner was observed in the secondary cell of the former sludge drying pit or around the active sludge drying area.

In 2007, subsurface soil samples were collected for field screening and confirmation analysis to evaluate the vertical extent of contamination at the site. Two soil borings and three monitoring wells were installed using a truck-mounted, air-rotary-type drill rig. Nine subsurface soil-screening samples were collected from both soil borings to evaluate the presence of PCBs.

CLE000366.pdf



Screening for chlorinated compounds did not exceed 50 ppm in any of the subsurface soil samples; therefore, six confirmation samples were selected from locations that would provide vertical definition of constituents in subsurface soil.

2.5.7 Previous Groundwater Investigations

An evaluation of groundwater at Site 6 was conducted in 2007 and involved groundwater monitoring well installation and development, groundwater-level measurements, and groundwater monitoring well sampling and analysis. No groundwater investigations were undertaken at Site 6 during the 2005 site investigation.

In addition to the existing groundwater monitoring well at Site 6, three new monitoring wells were installed and developed in 2007 to characterize groundwater upgradient, in-source, and downgradient of the source. Total well depths for the three new monitoring wells ranged from 64.1 to 64.5 ft bgs, and depth to water for the four wells ranged from 54.9 to 56.9 ft bgs in July 2007. Monitoring well development was considered complete once parameter stabilization was reached and turbidity was below 50 nephelometric turbidity units.

Groundwater analytical data was collected to determine whether groundwater contaminant concentrations are below ADEC 18 Alaska Administrative Code (AAC) 75 cleanup levels, risk-based cleanup levels, and regional background concentrations. Additionally, groundwater analytical data provided hydrogeologic data and groundwater chemistry data to support whether remedial actions would need to be developed to address groundwater, or if a no further action decision for groundwater was appropriate. Groundwater samples were collected using low-flow sampling procedures from four Site 6 monitoring wells. Groundwater samples were submitted to an off-site laboratory and analyzed for GRO, DRO/RRO, VOCs, SVOCs, PCBs (Aroclor 1248, Aroclor 1254, and Aroclor 1260), PAHs, and RCRA Metals.

2.5.8 Nature and Extent of Contamination

Data from the 2005 and 2007 investigations indicate the presence of DRO, metals, SVOCs, and PCBs in dried sludge and near surface soil (less than 1.3 ft bgs) over the footprint of the former sludge drying pit, at concentrations exceeding the most stringent applicable ADEC soil cleanup levels, as defined in 18 AAC 75 and shown on Table 2-1. Constituent concentrations exceeding applicable ADEC levels at soil sample locations are shown on Figure 2-5. Soil sample locations with constituent concentrations exceeding ACLs developed for the site following the risk assessment process, as discussed in Section 2.7.3, are shown on Figure 2-6. In addition, soil sample locations and their total PCB concentrations relative to associated cleanup levels are shown on Figure 2-7. Based on the analytical results, the dried sludge material contains substantially higher concentrations of contaminants than does the underlying native soil, and does not appear to be present beyond the footprint of the drying pits. A cross-section displaying maximum detected soil concentrations across the sludge drying pits is shown in Figure 2-8. Within native soil below the dried sludge, contaminant concentrations appear to decrease quickly with depth, as evidenced by relatively low concentrations of specific analytes detected in 6 and 12 ft bgs samples during 2007 (Figure 2-8). Contaminant concentrations in the dried sludge are inhomogeneous.

Arsenic was the only constituent detected above ADEC cleanup levels in subsurface samples; however, arsenic concentrations in all subsurface samples, while exceeding the ADEC cleanup

CLE000366.pdf



level of 2 mg/kg, were generally consistent with regional background concentrations for that constituent, which is 10.9 mg/kg. One reported arsenic concentration of 15.2 mg/kg at a depth of 18.5 ft in boring S06-SB02 is presumed to be naturally occurring, based on the significantly lower arsenic concentration at a depth of 6 ft bgs in that boring (Figure 2-8). Exceedances of ADEC cleanup levels and regional soil background concentrations occur in both the sludge and the underlying native soil extending laterally across the base of the pits and to a depth of 1 to 2 ft bgs, as indicated by the observed thickness and analytical profiles of the dried sludge and the underlying native soil. This impacted area translates to an approximate volume of 312 to 358 (bank) cubic yards of soil/dried sludge. Based on the sampling results, no environmental concerns appear to be present around the active concrete-lined sludge drying pit. While arsenic exceeded the applicable ADEC cleanup level in samples from the active concrete-lined drying pit, the arsenic concentrations were consistent with regional soil background concentrations (10.9 mg/kg).

Groundwater samples were collected from four new monitoring wells located upgradient, within, and downgradient of the former sludge drying pits. No constituents were detected at concentrations exceeding ADEC groundwater cleanup levels; however, DRO, RRO, metals (arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, lead, selenium, and silver), several VOCs (chloromethane, acetone, chloroform, tetrachloroethylene, and toluene), and several SVOCs (di-n-butyl phthalate, naphthalene, 2-methylnaphthalene, 1-methylnaphthalene, indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene, dibenz(a,h)anthracene, and benzo(g,h,i)perylene) were detected at low concentrations below ADEC cleanup levels. Based upon the distribution of these constituents across the site in upgradient, in-source, and downgradient wells, their source does not appear to be the former sludge drying pits. It is possible that the source of measurable groundwater impacts is the base leach field located to the south and hydraulically upgradient of Site 6.

2.5.9 Conceptual Site Model

A Conceptual Site Model (CSM) was developed in the RI Work Plan (USAF 2007a), later revised in the RI (USAF 2008a), to establish likely contaminant exposure pathways to human and ecological receptors. The CSMs for human health and ecological receptors are shown in Figures 2-3 and 2-4, respectively. Several complete pathways exist for human and ecological receptors to interact with contaminated soil/dried sludge at Site 6.

Several factors result in a relatively low exposure potential to human receptors at Site 6 and include: controlled Base access; current and future industrial land use designation; no regular use of the former sludge drying pit; and no plans for new construction in the area. No complete exposure pathways currently exist for groundwater (Figure 2-3). Direct contact with groundwater is not expected because the depth to groundwater at the site is 50 ft bgs on average. In addition, no volatile chemicals are present in groundwater in great enough concentrations to complete the groundwater vapor pathway. Although groundwater at the site is not used as a drinking water source, it would be safe to drink because no chemicals are present in groundwater at concentrations above cleanup levels (USAF 2008a).

Contaminant migration is somewhat limited because of the physical nature of the site and surrounding area, and the physical and chemical nature of the contaminated media. Surface runoff is eliminated because the former sludge drying pit is approximately 8 feet deep, with no pathway for outward flow of water. Additionally, the coarse nature of soils in the area and the morphology of Site 6 reduce runoff potential. The heavily treed area surrounding the pit and the

CLE000366.pdf



steep embankments create a natural wind barrier, and the cohesive and well-bound nature of the dried sludge reduces potential wind transport. Infiltration to groundwater is possible, as confirmed by detections of constituents in subsurface soil, so the contaminant fate and transport route to groundwater is considered at Site 6.

Potential human receptors for direct soil exposure include construction workers (though no construction activities are currently planned for the site), maintenance workers cutting brush, and potential recreational visitors and berry pickers. Recreational pathways were considered insignificant and were not quantified in the risk assessment because of the small area of the site (0.09 acres) and the few berry bushes present. The following potential exposure pathways were quantitatively evaluated under future conditions:

• Construction workers could be exposed through incidental ingestion, dermal contact, and inhalation of fugitive dust (to a depth of 15 ft) while conducting soil-disturbing activities during the course of a one-time, short-term construction project; and

• Maintenance workers could be exposed to surface soil (to a depth of 2 ft) through incidental ingestion and dermal contact on a usual basis while performing brush cutting.

Ecological exposure pathways involving groundwater, surface water, and sediment are considered incomplete for Site 6 (Figure 2-4). Additionally, inhalation of vapor and particulate and dermal contact for birds and mammals are typically considered insignificant pathways. Potentially complete and significant ecological exposure pathways at Site 6 include:

• Direct contact with contaminated surface soil, including ingestion and dermal absorption by soil invertebrates, and incidental ingestion by terrestrial birds and mammals.

• Root and plant uptake from precipitation infiltrating contaminated surface soils.

• Ingestion of contaminated vegetation, invertebrates, and other prey items by animals, with accompanying bioaccumulation

2.6 CURRENT AND POTENTIAL FUTURE LAND AND WATER USES

2.6.1 Land Uses

Clear AFS consists of property that is developed for functions vital to the mission, forested, or otherwise considered as open space. The area outside of the property line surrounding Clear AFS is largely undeveloped forest land, making the perimeter indistinguishable. Due to this buffer, the existing on- and off-base land uses are compatible. The only encroachment of an off-base land use is the Clear Public Airport approach/departure clear zone (USAF 2005a). The developed area on the installation consists of four defined areas: Composite Area, Old Camp Area, Old Tech Site, and the SSPARS area. These areas are distinct in function and character (USAF 2005a).

Site 6 is located in a developed area identified in the Base General Plan as Industrial (USAF 2005a). Currently, Site 6 is zoned for industrial use and is expected to remain industrial in the future. Surrounding land uses immediately adjacent to installation property are non-developed, recreational or open space activities with the exception of the Anderson Airport. The vast amount of open space adjacent to the installation and the reliance of people in this area on the

CLE000366.pdf



activities of the base suggest that there is not, and will most likely never be, a conflict of encroachment or incompatible uses between the installation and its neighbors (USAF 2005a).

2.6.2 Groundwater Uses

Groundwater underlying Clear AFS is generally suitable for domestic and agricultural uses. ADEC classifies all groundwater as a potential source of drinking water. However, Site 6 groundwater is not currently used as a drinking water source, and is not expected to be used as a drinking water source in the future. Clear AFS water is supplied by two wells in the Old Camp Area, and it is anticipated that these wells will continue to meet the installation’s future water needs. Site 6 is to the northeast, down/cross gradient, of the water supply wells as groundwater flow at the site is to the north northwest.

2.7 SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS

A baseline risk assessment (BRA) was conducted to determine whether contaminated media at Site 6 poses an unacceptable threat to human health and/or the environment. The risk assessments were based on human health and ecological conceptual site models developed for the site (Figures 2-3 and 2-4 for human health and ecological receptors, respectively). A BRA is a scientific procedure that uses facts and assumptions to estimate the potential for adverse effects on humans, plants, or animals from exposure to chemicals, assuming no cleanup occurs, and is used to evaluate if a site requires cleanup. It provides the basis for taking action and identifies the contaminants and exposure pathways that need to be addressed by the remedial action.

2.7.1 Summary of Human Health Risk Assessment

The human health risk assessment (HHRA) is divided into the following sections: identification of COCs (hazard assessment), exposure assessment, toxicity assessment, and risk characterization. Potential risks for both current and future site occupants are discussed. Key assumptions and uncertainties associated with the HHRA are also identified. The chemicals, exposure pathways, and populations associated with unacceptable risk are highlighted, as they serve as the primary basis for remedial action.

2.7.1.1 Identification of Chemicals of Potential Concern

This section identifies those chemicals associated with potentially unacceptable risk at the site and that are the basis for the proposed remedial action. The data used in this risk assessment was deemed to be of sufficient quality and quantity for its intended use. For inorganics, detectable chemical concentrations were compared to background values (i.e., naturally occurring conditions) (USGS 1996, 1984, and 1988), and values exceeding background were then compared to risk-based screening values. The screening values for groundwater and soil are one-tenth the ADEC cleanup levels presented on Table B1 from AAC 75.341 and Table C from AAC 75.345 for soil and groundwater, respectively. For soil, the “under 40-inch zone” and the lowest value from the ingestion or inhalation pathway was used. For chemicals that are not on Tables B1 and C, levels from ADEC Technical Memorandum—01-007 (ADEC 2003a) were used. If ADEC did not have a value, one-tenth of the noncancer or the full cancer value of the USEPA Region 6, Human Health Medium-Specific Screening Levels for residential exposures were used for screening (USEPA, 2006b). The screening values were adjusted by one-tenth

CLE000366.pdf



when necessary to represent a carcinogenic risk of 1 x 10-6 and a hazard quotient of 0.1, as

consistent with ADEC guidance for selection of COPCs (ADEC 2001). If a detected chemical did not have a screening value in any of these sources, a surrogate compound of similar structure and toxicity was selected.

Site chemical concentrations exceeding their respective screening concentrations were retained for further evaluation. Only two constituents in groundwater, barium and lead, had maximum detected concentrations slightly greater than one-tenth of the ADEC cleanup levels, and were selected as COPCs. However, barium and lead in groundwater were not quantitatively evaluated in the risk assessment because their maximum detected concentrations did not exceed their respective ADEC Table C groundwater cleanup values, and the toxic effects of these constituents are not additive; thus, neither constituent is present in concentrations that would present a health concern for drinking water exposures.

Fifty-two individual constituents were detected in soil/dried sludge samples, with 12 exceeding regional background concentrations and their respective screening values (one-tenth of ADEC cleanup levels for ingestion or inhalation exposures, whichever are lower) in near surface samples (less than 1.3 ft bgs). No samples from greater depths showed substantial deviations from regional background concentrations, or exceedances of screening values for any constituents. The following 12 constituents in near surface soil/dried sludge exceeded screening values and were selected as COPCs: arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, Aroclor 1248, Aroclor 1254, Aroclor 1260, DRO, RRO, and benzo(a)pyrene. Although selenium, silver, and 4-chloroaniline did not exceed one-tenth their respective screening value for the ingestion or inhalation pathways, they did exceed the ADEC migration to groundwater pathway.

The detection frequency (number of samples in which the chemical was detected divided by the total number of samples analyzed), range of detected concentrations (maximum and minimum concentrations detected), exposure point concentrations (EPCs) (the calculated or assumed concentration of the chemical at the assumed location of exposure), and screening concentration (concentration above which the chemical is believed to possibly present a risk to human health or the environment and thus require further evaluation) for COPCs and media of concern for Site 6 are presented in Table 2-2.

Through the risk assessment process, COPCs are further evaluated based on specific exposure areas, receptors, and refined (e.g., site specific, receptor-specific) toxicity values. All COPCs are quantified as to their level of risk to potential receptors. These risk estimates are compared to USEPA acceptable limits to determine the point of departure, i.e., the point above which they are considered chemicals of concern (COCs). The process followed to evaluate COPCs for Site 6 with respect to potential receptors and associated toxicity is discussed in the following sections.

2.7.1.2 Exposure Assessment

This section documents the populations and exposure pathways that were quantitatively evaluated in the risk assessment. A CSM was developed to aid in determining reasonable exposure scenarios and pathways of concern; this CSM is shown in Figure 2-3. As described in this section, both current and future populations have been evaluated based on current and reasonably anticipated future land use. The contaminated media to which people may be exposed is also discussed. Resources other than land may be involved.

CLE000366.pdf



Currently, the land is not being used for any specific purpose. However, Site 6 is zoned for industrial use in the Clear AFS General Plan, and is expected to remain industrial in the future. In addition, the lot size of the site is smaller than a typical residence, further minimizing the potential for future residential use. As discussed in Section 2.5.9, the human receptors of potential concern identified for Site 6 were future construction workers, current and future maintenance workers, and future potential drinking water users. Current and future recreational visitors, berry-pickers, were also identified as potential receptors; however, the recreational pathways were considered insignificant and not quantified in the risk assessment because of the small area of the site (0.09 acres) and the few berry bushes present.

According to ADEC (2005), human exposure of contaminants in soil should be evaluated to a depth of 15 feet. In this assessment, the construction worker soil exposure depth of 15 feet, and for the maintenance worker the soil exposures were evaluated in the top two feet, based on the type of activities conducted by each population. The following potential exposure pathways were quantitatively evaluated under future conditions:

• Construction workers could be exposed through incidental ingestion, dermal contact, and inhalation of fugitive dust (to a depth of 15 ft) while conducting soil-disturbing activities during the course of a one-time, short-term construction project; and

• Maintenance workers could be exposed to surface soil (to a depth of 2 ft) through incidental ingestion and dermal contact on a usual basis while performing brush cutting.

Major assumptions about exposure frequency, duration, and other exposure factors that were included in the exposure assessment are included in the HHRA, Appendix H of the RI (USAF 2008a).

2.7.1.3 Toxicity Assessment

This section describes the carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic toxicity criteria used to calculate the potential risk for each COPC. Carcinogenic toxicity is the tendency of a chemical to cause cancer. Non-carcinogenic toxicity includes all other adverse health effects of a chemical.

Toxicity data for carcinogens is presented in Table 2-3 and for non-carcinogens in Table 2-4. When available, separate toxicity criteria are listed for ingestion (oral intake, swallowing), inhalation (breathing into the lungs), and dermal (absorption through the skin) routes of exposure. For carcinogenic COPCs, the toxicity criteria is the slope factor, which is a number, which when multiplied by the daily dose of the chemical, yields the expected incidence of cancer in a population. For example, a slope factor of 2 (mg/kg-day)-1

multiplied by a daily dose of 0.001 mg/kg-day would yield a cancer incidence of 0.002 which would be 2000 cancers in a population of 1 million (See Section 2.7.1.4 for more information). The weight of evidence/cancer guideline description is a descriptor, usually provided by the USEPA classifying the degree of confidence that the chemical is a human carcinogen. Slope factors and weight of evidence/cancer guideline descriptions are listed in Table 2-3 along with the source of each slope factor and date of its publication.

For non-carcinogenic chemicals the toxicity criteria is the reference dose (RfD). The RfD is the maximum daily dose of the chemical that is not expected to cause any adverse effect on human health. The RfD is calculated from actual dosing data (experimental animals or humans) by dividing the observed dose that produces no effects by “uncertainty” or “safety” factors that range from 3 to 3000, depending on the relevance and quality of the study used, to yield a daily

CLE000366.pdf



dose that has a high certainty of being safe for humans because it is lower than the observed “safe” dose by a factor of 3 to 3000. RfDs and the uncertainty factors used in their calculation are listed in Table 2-4 for each COPC along with the target organ of the toxicity, and the sources of each RfD and date of its publication.

2.7.1.4 Risk Characterization

This section of the risk assessment combines the results of the exposure assessment with the toxicity criteria identified for the COPCs and pathways. Carcinogenic risks and noncarcinogenic impacts for each COPC are presented for all populations and media of interest, including both current and future land and other resource use settings. Cumulative risks, including all COPCs and pathways, for all relevant pathways and populations are also described. These risk estimates are summarized in Tables 2-5 and 2-6. The results of the HHRA are interpreted within the context of the CERCLA acceptable risk range.

The major uncertainties affecting the risk assessment are also presented in this section, including uncertainties related to sampling and analysis, environmental fate and transport modeling, the use of default exposure assumptions, and those associated with the toxicity criteria. For carcinogens, risks are generally expressed as the incremental probability of an individual’s likelihood of developing cancer over a lifetime as a result of exposure to the carcinogen. Excess lifetime cancer risk is calculated from the following equation:

Risk = CDI x SF

Where:

Risk = a unitless probability (e.g., 2 x 10-5) of an individual’s likelihood of developing cancer

CDI = chronic daily intake averaged over 70 years (mg/kg-day)

SF = slope factor, expressed as (mg/kg-day)-1

These risks are probabilities that usually are expressed in scientific notation (e.g., 1x 10-6). An excess lifetime cancer risk of 1x10-6

indicates that an individual experiencing the reasonable maximum exposure estimate has a 1 in 1,000,000 chance of developing cancer as a result of site related exposure. This is referred to as an “excess lifetime cancer risk” because it would be in addition to the risks of cancer individuals face from other causes such as smoking or exposure to too much sun. The chance of an individual’s developing cancer from all other causes has been estimated to be as high as one in three. The USEPA’s generally acceptable risk range for site-related exposure is 10-4

to 10-6 (1 in 10,000 to 1 in 1,000,000).

The potential for non-carcinogenic effects is evaluated by comparing an exposure level over a specified time period (e.g., life-time) with an RfD derived for a similar exposure period. The ratio of site-related daily intake to the RfD is called the HQ:

Non-cancer HQ = CDI/RfD

Where: CDI = chronic daily intake

RfD = reference dose

CDI and RfD are expressed in the same units and represent the same exposure period (i.e., chronic, subchronic, or short-term).

CLE000366.pdf



An HQ less than or equal to 1 indicates that a receptor’s dose of a single contaminant is less than or equal to the RfD, and that toxic noncarcinogenic effects from that chemical are unlikely. The Hazard Index (HI) is generated by adding the HQs for all COPCs and pathways at a site that affect the same target organ (e.g., liver) or that act through the same mechanism of action within a medium or across all media to which an individual may reasonably be exposed. An HI less than or equal to 1 indicates that adverse effects are unlikely from additive exposure to site chemicals. An HI greater than 1 indicates that site-related exposures may present a risk to human health.

Risks from lead are evaluated separately from other chemicals. Consistent with ADEC (2005) guidance, potential construction worker and maintenance worker risks from exposure to lead in soil/dried sludge were evaluated using the USEPA Adult Lead Model. No unacceptable risk from lead was identified. For constituents other than lead, cancer risks, non-total petroleum hydrocarbon (TPH) noncancerous hazards, and TPH mixture (i.e., DRO and RRO) noncancerous hazards were calculated (Tables 2-5 and 2-6).

Construction worker exposures to constituents in soil/dried sludge were 4 x 10-6, 4.7, and 0.079 for cancer risks, non-TPH noncancerous hazards, and TPH mixture noncancerous hazards, respectively. The non-TPH noncancerous hazards slightly exceeded the target health goal of 1 for the construction worker scenario, due almost entirely to Aroclor 1254. Risks and hazards for maintenance worker exposure to these constituents in surface soil/dried sludge were 2 x 10-5, 0.76, and 0.018 for cancer risks, non-TPH noncancerous hazards, and TPH mixture noncancerous hazards, respectively. Cancer risks only marginally exceeded the midpoint target health goal of 1 x 10-5, due almost entirely to Aroclor 1254. The maximum detected Aroclor 1254 and Aroclor 1260 concentrations were both collected from the same sampling location, SS-6-7. The concentrations of these constituents reported in this sample were approximately one order of magnitude greater than the next highest detected concentrations. If the data from this sampling location were removed from the exposure-point concentration calculations, the cumulative noncancerous hazard for the construction worker exposure scenario and the cumulative cancer risk for the maintenance worker exposure scenario would decrease to below target health goals.

Every aspect of the risk assessment contains multiple sources of uncertainty. Simplifying assumptions are often made so that the exact amount of uncertainty cannot be quantified. The risk assessment is intended to overestimate rather than underestimate probable risk. Therefore, the results of this assessment are likely to be protective of health despite the inherent uncertainties in the process. A detailed discussion of uncertainties in the risk assessment is provided in the HHRA, Appendix H of the RI (USAF 2008a).

Based on the HHRA, it was concluded that potential risks to human receptors appear to exist at Site 6. Risks to construction workers from surface and subsurface soils at Site 6 slightly exceed the target health goals, and risks to maintenance workers from surface soils marginally exceed the target health goals, but are within USEPA’s acceptable cancer risk range. Table 2-7 summarizes the COCs for Site 6 based on the results of the risk assessment.

2.7.2 Summary of Ecological Risk Assessment

This section summarizes the approaches and findings of the ecological risk assessment (ERA) that has been performed at Site 6. An ERA estimates the likelihood that adverse ecological

CLE000366.pdf



effects (e.g., mortality, reproductive failure) will occur as a result of a release of a hazardous substance at a site. The purpose for conducting the ERA is to 1) identify and characterize the current and potential threats to the environment from hazardous substance release, 2) evaluate the ecological impacts of alternative remediation strategies, and 3) establish clean-up levels that will protect the natural resources at risk. It is a qualitative and/or quantitative appraisal of the actual or potential effects of site releases on plants and animals. There is uncertainty in concluding whether ecological hazards might result from the concentrations of chemical of potential ecological concern (COPECs) in surface soil/dried sludge at Site 6; however, based on the results of the evaluation conducted, a potential for ecological hazards may exist. The COPECs associated with unacceptable site risk (if any) are identified, as well as the receptors and exposure pathways of primary concern. Based on the presence of potentially unacceptable risks to ecological receptors, remedial actions to eliminate exposure pathways would result in environmental improvement, and could effectively mitigate environmental hazards.

2.7.2.1 Identification of Chemicals of Potential Ecological Concern

The scope of the ERA was limited to the evaluation of potential ecological hazards associated with chemical substances in the surface soil/dried sludge at Site 6. The risk assessment procedures follow ERA guidance documents of the ADEC, USEPA, and USEPA Region 10. Under ADEC risk assessment guidance (2000; 2005a,b; 2007), the first stage of Problem Formulation is a “scoping evaluation” to determine whether a risk assessment of a site is necessary. An “ecoscoping form” for Site 6 indicated that there are potentially complete pathways for exposure of ecological organisms to contaminants in the Site 6 environment.

The following analytes were identified as screening-level COPECs: metals (arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, selenium, and silver); SVOCs (bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate); PAHs (benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, benzo(k)fluoranthene, benzo(g,h,i)perylene, benzo(a)pyrene, chrysene, dibenz(a,h)anthracene, fluoranthene, indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene, and pyrene); and, PCBs (Aroclor 1248, Aroclor 1254, and Aroclor 1260) as shown in Table 2-8.

2.7.2.2 Exposure Assessment

This section describes the ecological setting on and near the site and types of habitat present, including any ecologically sensitive areas that have been identified. The key species at the site are identified, including any Federal or State designated rare, endangered, or threatened species. Complete exposure pathways and chemical-specific EPCs for each receptor of interest are also presented. The results of any field studies that have been conducted, as well as the assumptions, approaches, and results of any exposure modeling are presented.

As discussed in Section 2.5.5, the environment of the Clear AFS is characterized as the Interior Forested Lowland and Upland Subregion of the Interior Alaska Ecoregion (ADEC, 1999; Shannon & Wilson, 1999). This subregional habitat is dominated by birch and spruce forest, dry meadow, and gravel barrens. A variety of grasses, sedges, and willows are located throughout the site.

The wildlife at Clear AFS is typical of the fairly undisturbed nature of the station and its vicinity. Mammals commonly observed throughout the facility include red fox, coyote, black bear, brown bear, snowshoe hare, red squirrel, porcupine, mink, marten, beaver, muskrat, and moose. Clear AFS provides foraging, migrating, and nesting habitat for a variety of bird species. Birds typically observed in the area include common raven, ruffed grouse, ptarmigan, Canada goose,

CLE000366.pdf



mallard, cliff swallow, American robin, yellow-rumped warbler, and darkeyed junco (ADEC, 1999; USAMDC, 2002). Although there are no reptiles in the region, the wood frog (Rana sylvatica) is a prevalent amphibian in Central Alaska (MacDonald, 2003).

Site 6 is not a sensitive environment (as defined in ADEC, 2005), nor are threatened or endangered species known to be present on or in close proximity to the site. Although much of the Clear AFS is undeveloped and naturally-vegetated open space, land use at the AFS, as well as specifically at Site 6, is generally classified as industrial and is expected to remain so for the foreseeable future.

Biota of potential concern in the region include terrestrial vegetation, soil invertebrates, amphibians, migratory and non-migratory avian species, and large and small mammals. For this screening-level ERA, the ecological receptors of concern are plants, soil invertebrates, ground-foraging birds, and mammals. Potentially contaminated media at the sites include soil, surface water, air, and groundwater; in addition, plants and animals contacting these media may themselves serve as conduits for exposure of other organisms to site-related chemicals via food-web transfers. Potentially complete and significant exposure pathways at Sites 6 include:

• Direct contact with contaminated surface soil, including ingestion and dermal absorption by soil invertebrates, and incidental ingestion by terrestrial birds and mammals.

• Root and plant uptake from precipitation infiltrating contaminated surface soils.

• Ingestion of contaminated vegetation, invertebrates, and other prey items by animals, with accompanying bioaccumulation.

In accordance with USEPA and ADEC guidance for screening level assessments, the maximum concentrations of analytes detected in sampled media are used as the EPCs. The detection frequency, range of detected concentrations, and EPCs for chemicals and media of potential concern for Site 6 are all identified in Table 2-8.

2.7.2.3 Ecological Effects Assessment

Ecotoxicity values for a screening-level ERA, as initial indicators of the potential for adverse ecological effects, were developed by ADEC as “ecological risk-based screening concentration” (ERBSCs) (ADEC 2007). ERBSCs are contaminant concentrations in environmental media that may pose unacceptable ecological hazards to exposed receptors if exceeded, and are available for most of the analytes detected in samples collected from Site 6. In addition to the ERBSCs, alternative risk-based screening concentrations (RBSCs) based on the scientific literature, and other criteria such as background levels of inorganic constituents, were considered in the hazard interpretation step. The assessment endpoints, measures of ecological effect, and the connection between them for Site 6 are presented in Table 2-9.

2.7.2.4 Ecological Risk Characterization

This section presents a brief summary of the environmental risks identified at the site, the basis for the risks, how the risks were determined, and COC concentrations that are expected to protect ecological receptors. Hazard estimates are traditionally based on the comparison of exposure estimates to some specified toxicological benchmark or effects indicator, expressed as a hazard quotient (HQ); for example:

CLE000366.pdf



HQ = EPC/ERBSC

Where:

EPC = exposure-point concentration (maximum detected concentration [mg/kg])

ERBSC= ecological risk-based screening concentration (mg/kg).

As in the HHRA, if an HQ is greater than 1 (i.e., exposure is greater than the no-effect toxicity concentration), then this is an indication that the exposure-pathway should be evaluated in greater detail. If the HQ is less than 1, then exposure is less than the no-effect concentration, adverse effects are not expected, and no further action is necessary. Screening-level HQs exceeded 1 for arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, selenium, silver, bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, benzo(a)pyrene, naphthalene, and total PCBs. Chemical-specific ERBSCs are not available for 4-isopropyltoluene, trichlorofluoromethane, benzoic acid, benzyl alcohol, n-nitrosodiphenylamine, acenaphthene, acenaphthylene, dibenz(a,h)anthracene, pyrene, Aroclor 1248, Aroclor 1254, Aroclor 1260, DRO, and RRO.

Analytes with screening-level HQs greater than 1, PAHs and related compounds, and analytes that do not have a corresponding ERBSC were further evaluated through comparisons with select alternative RBSCs. Alternative RBSCs were obtained from site-specific and general scientific literature, and include Ecological Soil Screening Levels (USEPA, 2005a–e, 2006), Ecological Preliminary Remediation Goals (Efroymson et al., 1997c), and Phytotoxicity and Invertebrate Benchmarks (Efroymson et al., 1997a and 1997b, respectively). Background concentrations of inorganic analytes (USAF, 1995; USGS, 1996) were also considered in evaluating the concentrations of inorganic constituents in soil at the site. Table 2-10 presents the supplemental comparison of the maximum detected concentrations of COPECs in surface soil at Site 6 to the ERBSCs and alternative RBSCs.

The comparisons of the Site 6 inorganic concentrations to RBSCs and regional background concentrations result in relatively complex combinations of exceedances and non-exceedances. However, the exceedances occur in the surface soil/dried sludge within the relatively small area of the former sludge drying pit, most commonly from locations SS23 and SS24 (for all inorganic constituents and most of the organic analytes) and location SS-6-7 for Aroclors 1254 and 1260.

The screening analysis performed for this assessment did not account for site-specific factors such as chemical bioavailability over time, adaptive tolerance, reproductive potential, the small size of the affected area, and recruitment from similar adjoining areas. The small size of Site 6, 0.09 acre, is such that the site is generally unlikely to meet the minimum home range areas for more than a couple of individual small rodents or other mobile ecological receptors; therefore, the site would be unlikely to solely meet the foraging requirements of the receptors. Consequently, population-level effects in the receptor population would be even more unlikely (e.g., wide-ranging animals like the red fox would not forage exclusively at a small site). Nevertheless, screening-level ERA necessarily assumes 100 percent site use to appropriate a protective evaluation. In addition, the use of the maximum detected concentrations as the exposure-point concentrations in the screening-level ERA represents a protective upper-end estimate of the likely true exposure concentrations, and probably results in an estimate that is greater than the concentration that a mobile receptor, or population of receptors distributed across the site, would actually encounter. Lastly, the screening-level ERBSCs and alternative RBSCs are derived as ecologically protective thresholds based predominantly on no-adverse-

CLE000366.pdf



effect levels. As a result, the approach used in this assessment develops protective (conservative) estimates of exposure which likely indicate a potential for hazard that is greater than actually encountered by organisms that might utilize the site. Thus, an exceedance of a screening-level benchmark is a trigger for further analysis, not a definitive indication that adverse ecological effects would occur at the site.

There is uncertainty in concluding whether ecological hazards might result from the COPEC concentrations in surface soil/dried sludge at Site 6. Affected surface soils at Site 6 occur approximately 6 to 8 feet below the surrounding surface topography. However, based on the evaluation results, a potential for ecological hazards may exist (Table 2-10). Remedial actions to eliminate exposure pathways would result in environmental improvement, and could effectively mitigate environmental hazards. Potentially effective actions could include excavation of contaminated soils/dried sludge and/or covering the former sludge drying pit with a sufficiently thick layer of clean soil to preclude contact between ecological receptors and contaminated soil/dried sludge.

2.7.3 Site-Specific Alternative Cleanup Levels

Following the BRA and RI, site-specific ACLs were developed for the FS for constituents identified as COPCs. These ACLs were developed to determine what level of contaminants in soil/dried sludge, posing a potential risk, would need to be addressed through remedial action at Site 6. Per 18 AAC 75.340(a)(4), site-specific ACLs can be developed to replace applicable ADEC cleanup levels when the site owner (or other responsible party):

(1) performs a site-specific risk assessment and submits a risk assessment report to the department for approval, and if the department determines that the alternative cleanup level is protective of human health, safety, and welfare, and of the environment, based on the site-specific risk assessment; in performing the risk assessment, a responsible person shall follow the department's Risk Assessment Procedures Manual, dated June 8, 2000, adopted by reference; and

(2) obtains the consent of each landowner who is affected by the contamination at the site that a cleanup level less stringent than a cleanup level appropriate to residential land use is appropriate for the site. [18 AAC 75.340(h)].

For Site 6, a site-specific risk assessment has been performed (USAF 2008a). ACLs were calculated using site-specific equations developed in the risk assessment for Site 6 (USAF 2008a, Appendix H) for construction workers and maintenance workers. ACLs are summarized and compared to other ADEC standards in Table 2-1. Additional information supporting the development of site-specific ACLs can be found in Appendix A. Although ACLs were developed for PCBs in Appendix A, the TSCA level for low occupancy use (25 mg/kg) was used to be consistent with anticipated future land use (i.e., industrial).

2.7.4 Basis for Action

The response action selected in this ROD is necessary to protect the public health or welfare or the environment from actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances into the environment. The response action is based on the results from the risk assessment process (USAF 2008a) and guidelines presented in A Guide to Preparing Superfund Proposed Plans,

CLE000366.pdf



Records of Decision, and Other Remedy Selection Decision Documents (United States Environmental Protection Agency [USEPA] 1999).

2.8 REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES

Remedial Action Objectives (RAOs) are site-specific cleanup objectives that have been established based on the nature and extent of contamination, potential for human and environmental exposure, and ARARs. RAOs provide the basis for selecting appropriate response actions and remedial technologies, and for developing alternatives. The following RAOs have been identified for Site 6:

• Reduction in the concentration of contaminants in soil within the former sludge drying pits to meet applicable State of Alaska cleanup levels; and,

• Reduction of potential risks to human and ecological receptors to acceptable levels.

As discussed in Section 2.6.3, ACLs were developed for constituents identified as COPCs. These ACLs were evaluated against other cleanup criteria (e.g., TSCA low occupancy [e.g., industrial] land use values, ADEC 18 AAC 75.341 cleanup levels) to establish site-specific cleanup levels for COCs at Site 6 (Table 2-11).

Analytical groundwater samples indicated there were no exceedances of ADEC cleanup levels; therefore, no RAOs are proposed for groundwater. Clear AFS water is supplied by two wells in the old camp area, and it is anticipated that these wells will continue to meet the installation’s future water needs. Site 6 is to the northeast, down/cross gradient, of the water supply wells as groundwater flow at the site is to the north northwest.

2.9 DESCRIPTIONS OF ALTERNATIVES

The following six remedial alternatives were developed for Site 6 and compared as described in the FS (USAF 2009a):

• Alternative 1 – No Action

• Alternative 2 – Land Use Controls

• Alternative 3 – In Situ Vitrification

• Alternative 4 – On-Site Treatment and Reuse as Backfill

• Alternative 5A – Commercial/Industrial Use Excavation and Off-Site Disposal

• Alternative 5B – Unrestricted Use Excavation and Off-Site Disposal

2.9.1 Description of Remedy Components

A total of six alternatives were developed to address remediation at Site 6. The primary components of these alternatives are presented below. The alternatives are numbered to correspond with the alternatives presented in the Site 6 FS. Detailed analyses for each alternative are summarized in Table 1-1.

CLE000366.pdf



Alternative 1 - No Action Regulations governing the Superfund program require that a “no action” alternative be evaluated to establish a baseline for comparison. The primary components of Alternative 1 include:

• No further action will be taken regarding contamination in soil/dried sludge;

• No LUCs, such as administrative or engineering controls, will be implemented; and

• No long-term monitoring will be implemented.

Alternative 2 – Land Use Controls LUCs are administrative and/or engineering controls employed at a site to protect human health and the environment by controlling access and exposure to contaminants. Administrative controls are legal controls intended to reduce the potential for human exposure to contamination by limiting land use. Engineering controls are physical controls put into place at a site to prevent human and ecological exposure to contamination. LUCs for Site 6 would restrict access to contaminated soil/dried sludge and would prohibit use of the area, except for environmental monitoring or testing purposes.

A. The specific LUC performance objectives under Alternative 2 and the mechanisms for achieving these objectives are as follows:

A.1 Protect human health and the environment by limiting exposure to contaminants in the soils and sludges and by controlling the excavation and movement of these soils and sludges. LUCs remain in place until unlimited use and unrestricted exposure can be allowed.

B. To meet the LUC Objectives, the following actions and restrictions shall be implemented and maintained on the land at Site 6. See Figure 2-9 for the area where LUCs apply.

B.1 Construction of a maintained fence with posted informative signs around Site 6.

B.2 Employ USAF administrative procedures to track all development activity at Clear AFS that requires excavation so that no project violates use restrictions. Existing procedures are included in Air Force Instruction (AFI) 32-1021, Planning and Programming of Facility Projects, and work request procedures under AFI 32-1001, Operations Management, or their equivalent as they may be amended (Appendix B). AFIs and procedures require coordination with and prior approval by environmental personnel if a proposed project is located on or near an DERP site. Base personnel would verify locations of potentially contaminated sites via the available information (maps, documents, databases, geographic information system [GIS], etc.). The USAF will ensure that these or equivalent instructions, processes, and/or requirements will be complied with for all proposed construction or surface soil disturbing activities.

B.3 Update the Clear AFS Base General Plan (BGP). The BGP implements “zoning-like” requirements at Clear AFS. The BGP is one of the first and primary documents to be reviewed when installation personnel are proposing projects on the installation. AFI 32-7062 (Appendix B) requires this comprehensive planning document for the establishment and maintenance of administrative and physical

CLE000366.pdf



controls. The USAF will develop a map to be included in the BGP showing the extent of contamination associated with Site 6. This information as well as LUCs, boundaries, and expected durations will be added to the existing LUC section of the BGP within 90 days of ROD signature. This section includes a comprehensive listing and map of all LUCs on the installation. The USAF may change the BGP and agrees to notify ADEC at least 30 days prior to a change that addresses or affects LUCs. The following restrictions will be incorporated into the BGP and cross-referenced to this map:

B.3.1 No construction until the concentration of hazardous substances in the soil is at such levels to allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure.

B.3.2 Prior to excavation and reuse of soils in this area notify the Environmental Office to ensure proper handling and disposal of any contaminated soils.

B.4 The USAF shall not modify or terminate LUCs or modify land use within the affected areas without approval by ADEC. The USAF shall obtain prior concurrence before any anticipated action that may disrupt the effectiveness of the LUCs.

B.4.1 For proposed land use changes that do not include transfer of the property, the USAF will obtain concurrence from ADEC at least 45 days in advance of any anticipated Base proposal inconsistent with the use restriction and assumptions described herein, any anticipated action which may disrupt the effectiveness of the LUCs, or any action which may alter or negate the need for the LUCs.

B.4.2 The USAF will provide notice to ADEC at least 6 months prior to any transfer or sale of property associated with Site 6 affected by the above restrictions so that ADEC can be involved in discussions to document that appropriate provisions are included in the transfer terms or conveyance documents to maintain effective LUCs. If it is not possible for the facility to notify ADEC at least 6 months prior to any transfer or sale, then the facility will notify ADEC as soon as possible but no later than 60 days prior to the transfer or sale of any property subject to LUCs. In addition to the land transfer notice and discussion provisions above, the USAF further agrees to provide ADEC with similar notice, within the same time frames, as to federal to federal transfer of property. The USAF shall provide a copy of the executed deed to ADEC. The USAF will provide similar notification as to leases, in addition to transfers by deed.

B.5 The USAF will conduct periodic monitoring of the LUCs (five year reviews). The USAF shall provide notice to ADEC within 10 business days if it discovers any activity that is inconsistent with the LUC requirements, objectives or controls, or any action that may interfere with the effectiveness of the LUCs. The USAF shall include in such notice a list of corrective actions taken or planned to address such deficiency or failure.

B.6 The USAF will fully comply with and be accountable for the LUCs identified herein and will timely submit to ADEC a monitoring report on the status of the

CLE000366.pdf



LUCs, including the operation, maintenance, and monitoring of LUCs, and how any LUC deficiency or inconsistent use has been addressed.

B.6.1 The LUC monitoring report shall be filed in the Administrative Record and Information Repository.

B.6.2 The LUC monitoring report is not subject to approval and/or revision by ADEC and will be provided to each for informational purposes only.

B.7 The USAF is responsible for implementing (to the degree controls are not already in place), monitoring, maintaining, and enforcing the identified LUCs. If the USAF determines that it cannot meet specific LUC requirements, it is understood that the remedy may be reconsidered and that additional measures may be required for the protection of human health and the environment. The USAF shall obtain concurrence from ADEC prior to modifying or terminating any LUCs, Objectives, or LUC Implementation Actions.

B.8 The USAF is responsible for informing, monitoring, enforcing, and binding, where appropriate, authorized lessees, tenants, contractors, and other authorized occupants of the site of LUCs impacting the site.

Since this alternative does not allow unlimited use and unrestricted exposure, this alternative would be subject to review not less than every five years. For estimating purposes, it is assumed that LUCs for Site 6 would be in place for approximately 30 years.

Alternative 3 – In Situ Vitrification Alternative 3 would involve in situ vitrification of the contaminated soil/dried sludge at Site 6 and would incorporate LUCs to restrict future activities in the area that might compromise the treated soils/dried sludge. Vitrification consists of passing an electrical current through electrodes drilled into the contaminated soils/dried sludge to create high temperatures that melt soils and binds constituents into a solid, glass-like material resistant to leaching, effectively immobilizing the present contaminants. Vitrification may cause some contaminants to be destroyed and others to volatilize, thereby reducing their concentration in the soil/dried sludge. Emissions generated during the treatment process are collected in an off gas handling system. The vitrified block would be permanent and not harmful to receptors, however, future construction may be limited using LUCs to avoid damage to the treated area. Because this alternative involves active remediation, confirmation sampling/monitoring would be performed to evaluate the attainment of remediation goals.

The primary components of Alternative 3 include:

• Vitrify approximately 473 (bulk) cubic yards of contaminated soils/dried sludge. Electrical current is passed between electrodes installed into the soil to an approximate depth of 3 ft, over a treatment area approximately 115 ft long by 42 ft wide.

• Collect and treat gases generated during vitrification process with an off gas handling system.

• Collect confirmation samples of the vitrified material to verify that contaminant concentrations do not exceed Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) levels.

CLE000366.pdf



Confirmation soil samples would be collected from the area below and surrounding the vitrified block to document concentrations in the remaining soil.

• Backfill approximately 108 cubic yards to account for soil volume reduction during vitrification (assumes a 30 percent reduction). Additional backfill would be necessary to bring the area level with the surrounding ground surface and would require approximately 1,400 to 2,300 cubic yards of soil dependent on final site grade configuration. The final grade would be revegetated to match surrounding vegetation. Backfill material would likely be obtained from an on-site source.

Alternative 4 – On-Site Treatment and Reuse as Backfill Alternative 4 would involve the excavation of contaminated soil/dried sludge in the area of the former sludge drying pits; ex situ incineration or thermal desorption for organics (e.g., PCBs, SVOCs, PAHs, DRO, and RRO); ex situ solidification/stabilization for metals; and reuse of the treated soil/dried sludge for backfill. Incineration involves heating the contaminated soil/dried sludge to temperatures high enough to volatilize and combust contaminants. Thermal desorption consists of heating the contaminated soil/dried sludge to temperatures high enough to volatilize organics, thereby thermally oxidizing contaminants to levels below cleanup standards. Thermal processes would sufficiently treat for organics, however, metals would remain at concentrations above cleanup levels, therefore, the contaminated material would be stabilized with binding agents. This alternative would be subject to LUCs to restrict future activities in the area that might compromise the treated soils/dried sludge. Because this alternative involves active remediation, confirmation sampling/monitoring would be performed to evaluate the attainment of remediation goals.

The primary components of Alternative 4 include:

• Excavate approximately 473 (bulk) cubic yards of contaminated soil/dried sludge from the primary and secondary cells. The average depth of excavation over the former sludge drying pits would be approximately 2 ft.

• Thermally treat the excavated contaminated soil/dried sludge (approximately 473 cubic yards) using a direct-fired thermal desorption unit that would be mobilized to the site and operated by a contractor. Contaminated media would be fed directly to the burner flame and heated to temperatures between 650 to 1,100 degrees Celsius, thereby destroying organics to levels below cleanup standards. This alternative would require collection and treatment of air emissions generated from the thermal desorption process.

• Stabilize/solidify the thermally-treated media (approximately 473 cubic yards) by mixing binding agents (e.g., cement powder, lime kiln dust, fly ash) with the media using standard mixing equipment (e.g., backhoe).

• Collect confirmation samples of the treated and stabilized media to verify that contaminant concentrations no longer exceed cleanup and TCLP levels. Confirmation soil samples would be collected from the area surrounding the treated soil and the base and walls of the excavation to document concentrations in the remaining soil.

• Backfill the excavated areas with the treated and stabilized media. Additional backfill would be necessary to bring the area level with the surrounding ground surface and would require approximately 1,400 to 2,300 cubic yards of soil dependent on final site

CLE000366.pdf



grade configuration. The final grade would be revegetated to match surrounding vegetation. Backfill material would likely be obtained from an on-site source.

Alternative 5A – Commercial/Industrial Use Excavation and Off-Site Disposal Alternative 5A, the selected remedy for the site, would involve the excavation and off-site disposal of contaminated soil/dried sludge, in the area of the former sludge drying pits, which exceeds established site-specific ACLs. This alternative would be subject to LUCs to restrict future use of the site to commercial and industrial purposes only (e.g., ground maintenance and vehicle maintenance). Although LUCs would still be implemented, there would be fewer restrictions on potential future uses (e.g., construction activities) in the area because contaminated source material is removed. However, since the soil/dried sludge is being removed to a low occupancy/commercial/industrial level, residual soil contamination will not be safe for residential purposes (e.g., on-base housing). Therefore, LUCs are necessary to preclude such uses and to control the disposition and use of any soil excavated from the site. Because this alternative involves active remediation, confirmation sampling/monitoring would be performed to evaluate the attainment of remediation goals.

The primary components of Alternative 5A include:

• Excavate soil/dried sludge at locations with chemical concentrations exceeding site-specific ACLs. This includes an approximate area of 4 ft by 4 ft in the primary cell and an approximate area of 11.5 ft by 24 ft in the secondary cell. The average depth of excavation for the primary cell area and the secondary cell area would be approximately 4 ft and 2 ft, respectively, resulting in approximately 30 (bulk) cubic yards of excavated contaminated soil/dried sludge.

• Dispose of contaminated soil/dried sludge at an off-base disposal facility. A majority of the excavated soil/dried sludge could likely be disposed as nonhazardous waste in a Subtitle D landfill (e.g., Columbia Ridge in Arlington, Oregon), however, a small portion of the soil/dried sludge may contain concentrations of PCBs greater than 50 mg/kg and would require disposal as bulk PCB remediation waste in a RCRA Subtitle C landfill (e.g., Chem Waste in Arlington, Oregon), consistent with TSCA regulations.



Alternative 5B – Unrestricted Use Excavation and Off-Site Disposal Alternative 5B is similar to Alternative 5A in that it includes excavation and off-site disposal; however, under Alternative 5B, the area of the former sludge drying pits, which exceeds ADEC cleanup levels, as opposed to site-specific ACLs, would be excavated. Additionally, this alternative would not require LUCs, because the contamination source would be removed to

CLE000366.pdf



allow for unrestricted land use. Because this alternative involves active remediation, confirmation sampling/monitoring would be performed to evaluate the attainment of remediation goals.

The primary components of Alternative 5B include:

• Excavate soil/dried sludge at locations with constituent concentrations exceeding ADEC cleanup levels, which includes the majority of the primary and secondary cells. The average depth of excavation over the former sludge drying pits would be approximately 2 ft, resulting in approximately 473 (bulk) cubic yards of excavated soil/dried sludge.




2.9.2 Common Elements and Distinguishing Features of Each Alternative

Several alternatives would result in contaminated soil/dried sludge remaining on site and would not allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure. Therefore, a statutory review would be conducted within 5 years after initiation of the remedial action to evaluate whether the selected remedy is, or will be, protective of human health and the environment, and every five years thereafter until the contaminant levels are appropriate for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure. Additionally, each alternative, except for Alternatives 1 and 5B, would be subject to LUCs, to limit use of the site and the disposition and use of the soil/dried sludge remaining. Alternatives 3 and 4 both include treatment with varying technologies and Alternatives 5A and 5B include excavation and disposal of the soil/dried sludge off-site with varying volumes. Alternative 5A is the only alternative that includes remediation to the low occupancy (e.g., industrial) cleanup level (i.e., anticipated future land use), where the Alternatives 3, 4, and 5B include remediation to the residential cleanup level. Alternative 5B is the only alternative to include remediation for unrestricted use.

2.10 COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES

The remedial alternatives were evaluated using criteria given in USEPA guidance (USEPA 1988) and in the NCP [40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 300.430(f)(5)(i)] to determine which would be most protective of human health and the environment, cost effective, and easiest

CLE000366.pdf



to implement. The alternative method selection and screening process is described in the Site 6 FS (USAF 2009a).

To comply with the NCP, evaluation criteria must be applied to the remedial alternatives. These criteria, as described in Guidance for Conducting RI/FSs Under CERCLA (USEPA 1988) and the NCP [40 CFR 300.430(f)(5)(i)] fall into three categories: threshold criteria, balancing criteria and modifying criteria. The following table summarizes the nine criteria within these broad categories:

EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR SUPERFUND REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES

Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment determines whether an alternative eliminates, reduces, or controls threats to public health and the environment through institutional controls, engineering controls, or treatment.

Thre

shol

d C

riter

ia –

C

riter

ia m

ust b

e m

et

befo

re a

n al

tern

ativ

e ca

n be

con

side

red

as a

re

med

y

Compliance with ARARs evaluates whether the alternative meets federal and state environmental statutes, regulations, and other requirements that pertain to the site, or whether a waiver is justified.

Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence considers the ability of an alternative to maintain protection of human health and environment over time.

Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume of Contaminants Through Treatment evaluates an alternative’s use of treatment to reduce the harmful effects of principal contaminants, their ability to move in the environment, and the amount of contamination present.

Short-term Effectiveness considers the length of time needed to implement an alternative and the risks the alternative poses to workers, residents, and the environment during implementation.

Implementability considers the technical and administrative feasibility of implementing the alternative, including factors such as the relative availability of goods and services.

Bal

anci

ng C

riter

ia –

Rel

ativ

e tra

deof

fs

betw

een

diff

eren

t crit

eria

are

ev

alua

ted

Costs include estimated capital and annual operations and maintenance costs, as well as present worth cost. Present worth cost is the total cost of an alternative over time in terms of today’s dollar value. Cost estimates are expected to be accurate within a range of +50 to –30 percent.

State/Support Agency Acceptance considers whether the State agrees with or opposes the preferred alternative. ADEC reviews and comments upon important documents throughout the process.

Mod

ifyin

g C

riter

ia –

Ev

alua

te w

heth

er

rem

edy

is su

ppor

ted

by

stat

e an

d co

mm

unity

af

ter t

he p

ublic

com

men

t pe

riod

Community Acceptance considers whether the local community agrees with or opposes the preferred alternative. Comments received on the Proposed Plan are an important indicator of community acceptance.

These criteria were applied to evaluate the six alternatives for Site 6, as described in the FS (USAF 2009a). The preferred alternative provides the better balance of tradeoffs among the alternatives with respect to the evaluation criteria. The USAF expects that the preferred alternative will satisfy the statutory requirements in CERCLA Section 121(b) that state the selected alternative:

• Be protective of human health and the environment,

• Comply with ARARs,

• Be cost-effective,

• Utilize permanent treatment alternatives, and

CLE000366.pdf



• Satisfy the statutory preference for treatment.

The comparative analysis for selection of the preferred cleanup method for Site 6 is discussed in the following sections and shown on Table 2-12.

2.10.1 Overall Protection of Human Health and Environment

Alternative 1, No Action, would not be protective of human health and the environment under current conditions. This would be the least protective of the alternatives.

Alternative 2, Land Use Controls, would provide minimal protection by restricting access to and use of contaminated soil/dried sludge. The level of protection would be greater than what is provided by Alternative 1.

Alternative 3, In Situ Vitrification; Alternative 4, On-Site Treatment and Reuse as Backfill; Alternative 5A, Commercial/Industrial Use Excavation and Off-Site Disposal; and Alternative 5B, Unrestricted Use Excavation and Off-Site Disposal, would provide the greatest protection because they involve removal and/or treatment of contaminated soil/dried sludge that presents a potential risk to human health under the designated land use.

2.10.2 Compliance with ARARs

Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 would not comply with ARARs, because soil/dried sludge containing contaminants above cleanup levels would remain at the site.

Alternative 3, Alternative 4, Alternative 5A, and Alternative 5B would comply with action-, location-, and chemical-specific ARARs. However, soil/dried sludge exceeding applicable cleanup levels would remain on site under Alternative 3 and Alternative 4, but would be entrapped in a solid, non-leachable matrix that would protect potential receptors from exposure.

2.10.3 Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence

Alternative 1 would not provide long-term effectiveness because untreated contamination would remain in soil/dried sludge.

Alterative 2 would provide long-term effectiveness by implementing LUCs to restrict access to and use of contaminated soil/dried sludge.

Alternative 3, Alternative 4, Alternative 5A, and Alternative 5B would provide the greatest long-term effectiveness because the three alternatives involve removal and/or treatment of contaminated soil/dried sludge that presents a potential risk to human health. However, soil/dried sludge treated on-site (Alternative 3 and Alternative 4) could become compromised if not properly controlled, which is slightly less effective in the long-term as compared to removal and disposal off site (Alternative 5A and Alternative 5B).

2.10.4 Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume Through Treatment

Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 would not provide any reduction in contaminant toxicity, mobility, or volume through treatment.

Alternative 3 and Alternative 4 would reduce the mobility of contaminants because the soil/dried sludge would be treated, thereby reducing the potential for leaching of contaminants from soil/dried sludge. The toxicity of metals in soil/dried sludge would not be reduced; however,

CLE000366.pdf



organics may be volatilized/removed in Alternative 3 and would be thermally destroyed in Alternative 4. The volume of contaminated soil/dried sludge would not be reduced in either alternative.

Alternative 5A and Alternative 5B do not include treatment but do include the reduction of toxicity, mobility, and volume of contaminants from Site 6. Contaminated soil/dried sludge would be moved to an off-site location (landfill) where it would be managed in a lined facility. Alternative 5B would involve removal of a larger volume of soil/dried sludge than Alternative 5A.

2.10.5 Short-Term Effectiveness

Alternative 1 would have the least short-term impacts to the community, workers, or the environment because it does not involve active remediation.

Alternative 2 would have minimal short-term impacts due to construction of fencing around the contaminated soil/dried sludge area.

Alternative 3 would have increased impacts over Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 due to the application of in situ treatment of contaminated soil/dried sludge. However, there would be less risks associated with in situ treatment, because of the reduced handling of soils/dried sludge and the need for only one soil treatment technology, versus the excavation and dual ex situ treatments in Alternative 4. Alternative 5A would have moderate impacts as it involves transport of soils/dried sludge over a large distance (potentially 2,600 miles one way), but the excavated/transported volume is relatively small (i.e., 30 cubic yards versus the 473 cubic yards in Alternative 5B). Alternative 5B would have the greatest impacts due mostly to the transport of the larger volume of excavated contaminated soil/dried sludge over such a long distance.

2.10.6 Implementability

Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 do not include active remediation and would be the easiest to implement. However, Alternative 2 includes LUCs that would require administrative coordination and enforcement.

Alternative 3 would be moderately difficult to implement because of the application of in situ vitrification, but would be less difficult than Alternative 4 and Alternative 5B. Alternative 4, which includes excavation of contaminated soils/dried sludge prior to dual treatment (thermal desorption and solidification/stabilization), and Alternative 5B, which includes excavation and off-site transport of a larger volume of soil/dried sludge to a disposal facility a fairly long distance away, would be the most difficult alternatives to implement. Although Alternative 5A also includes excavation and off-site transport of soil/dried sludge, the volume involved is relatively small, and could be accomplished more easily than on-site treatment or the disposal volume associated with Alternative 5B.

2.10.7 Cost

Alternative 1, No Action, would have no associated capital or O&M costs.

Alternative 2, Land Use Controls, would have the next lowest capital and O&M costs. Capital costs would include labor and materials for construction of a fence and placement of warning signs around the contaminated soil/dried sludge area. O&M costs would include periodic

CLE000366.pdf



updates of the LUCs in the Clear AFS General Plan, providing updates to the Restoration Advisory Board, and 5-year reviews.

Alternative 3, In Situ Vitrification, would have the highest estimated cost. The increase in cost is associated with the application of a complex treatment process and long distance mobilization/demobilization to the site.

Alternative 4, On-Site Treatment and Reuse as Backfill, would have the second highest cost. Ex situ treatments are usually easier to implement than similar in situ technologies, which could account for the slight decrease in cost compared to Alternative 3. Costs associated with Alternative 4 are mainly from the use of two treatment technologies to handle both organics and metals in soil/dried sludge. Due to the limited number of thermal treatment contractors, long distance mobilization/demobilization on-site also adds cost to the alternative.

Alternative 5A, Commercial/Industrial Use Excavation and Off-Site Disposal, would cost less than Alternative 3, Alternative 4, and Alternative 5B, and would achieve the same level of protection for intended human receptors (i.e., construction and maintenance workers) based on the designated land use (i.e., commercial/industrial) of the site. LUCs add cost to the alternative, but would provide protection of other potential receptors by providing restrictions that prohibit use of the site.

Alternative 5B, Unrestricted Use Excavation and Off-Site Disposal, would cost more than Alternative 5A. Unlike Alternative 5A, LUCs would not be required, which makes long-term management less expensive. However, the increase in cost is associated with transportation of a larger volume of contaminated soil/dried sludge over a long distance. The additional cost would be slightly more protective than Alternative 5A, by allowing unrestricted use of the site; however, Alternative 5A would only restrict use of the site to low occupancy/commercial/industrial uses, which is the designated land use of the site for the foreseeable future.

2.10.8 Regulatory Agency Acceptance

Alternative 5A, Commercial/Industrial Use Excavation and Off-Site Disposal is the preferred alternative for Site 6. ADEC concurs that the proper implementation of this alternative complies with state laws and regulations.

2.10.9 Community Acceptance

The public comment period on the Proposed Plan was held from August 1 through August 31, 2009, and a public meeting was offered on August 13, 2009, but no one from the public attended. No written or verbal comments were received during the public comment period.

2.11 PRINCIPAL THREAT WASTES

The NCP establishes an expectation that treatment will be used to address the principal threats (i.e., source material that is highly toxic and/or highly mobile) posed by a site wherever practicable. The principal threat wastes for Site 6 are the PCB- and lead-contaminated soils. The primary risk is the contaminated soil/dried sludge, which would be addressed through treatment in Alternatives 3 and 4 and through excavation in Alternatives 5A and 5B.

CLE000366.pdf



2.12 SELECTED REMEDY

2.12.1 Summary of Rationale for Selected Remedy

The selected remedy for addressing contaminated soil/dried sludge at Site 6 is Alternative 5A: Commercial/Industrial Use Excavation and Off-Site Disposal. A conceptual layout of the selected remedy is shown on Figure 2-10.

Soil excavation and off-site disposal was selected for soil areas with concentrations exceeding site-specific ACLs because it is expected to achieve long-term risk reduction and adequately protect human health and the environment. Furthermore, excavation of contaminated soil/dried sludge reduces the potential for contaminant migration to groundwater at the site. Under this alternative, contaminated soil/dried sludge will be removed from two small areas located within the former sludge drying pits. Alternative 1 (No Action) and Alternative 2 (Land Use Controls) do not include source removal and are not as protective of potential receptors. Alternatives 3, 4, and 5B all require the use of treatment technologies that are more difficult to implement and require handling of a larger quantity of soil (473 cubic yards) than the selected remedy (30 cubic yards). The selected remedy not only provides protection for receptors based on the anticipated future land use (i.e., industrial), it is easier to implement and costs significantly less than the alternatives that include treatment and/or disposal for unrestricted land use.

2.12.2 Description of the Selected Remedy

Alternative 5A involves the excavation and off-site disposal of contaminated soil/dried sludge for areas of the former sludge drying pits that exceed established site-specific ACLs. Although this alternative would be subject to LUCs to restrict future use of the site to commercial and industrial, there would be fewer restrictions on potential future uses (e.g., construction activities) in the area because contaminated source material is removed. However, since the soil/dried sludge is being removed to a low occupancy/commercial/industrial level, residual soil contamination will not be safe for residential use. Therefore, LUCs are necessary to preclude such uses and to control the disposition and use of any soil excavated from the site. Because this alternative involves active remediation, confirmation sampling/monitoring would be performed to evaluate the attainment of remediation goals.

The primary components of the selected remedy (Alternative 5A) include:

• Excavate soil/dried sludge at locations with constituent concentrations exceeding site-specific ACLs. This includes a small region in the primary cell (4 ft wide by 4 ft long by 4 ft deep) and a small region in the secondary cell (11.5 ft wide by 24 ft long by 2 ft deep), resulting in approximately 30 (bulk) cubic yards of excavated contaminated soil/dried sludge.


CLE000366.pdf




• Backfill the excavated areas with clean soil (approximately 30 cubic yards) and bring the area level with the surrounding ground surface (approximately 1,400 to 2,300 cubic yards of clean soil dependent on final site grade configuration). The final grade would be revegetated to match surrounding vegetation. Backfill material would likely be obtained from an on-site source.

• LUCs to restrict access to Site 6 and restrict future use as described in detail below.

A. The specific LUC performance objectives for the selected remedy and the mechanisms for achieving these objectives are as follows:

A.1 Protect human health and the environment by limiting exposure to remaining contaminants in the soils and sludges and by controlling the excavation and movement of these soils and sludges. LUCs remain in place until unlimited use and unrestricted exposure can be allowed.

A.2 Prohibit the development and use of land to only commercial and industrial (restricted access) scenarios until contaminant levels are appropriate for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure.

B. To meet the LUC Objectives, the following actions and restrictions shall be implemented and maintained on the land at Site 6. See Figure 2-9 for the area where LUCs apply.

B.1 Construction of a maintained fence with posted informative signs around Site 6.

B.2 Employ USAF administrative procedures to track all development activity at Clear AFS that requires excavation so that no project violates use restrictions. Existing procedures are included in AFI 32-1021, Planning and Programming of Facility Projects, and work request procedures under AFI 32-1001, Operations Management, or their equivalent as they may be amended (Appendix B). AFIs and procedures require coordination with and prior approval by environmental personnel if a proposed project is located on or near an DERP site. Base personnel would verify locations of potentially contaminated sites via the available information (maps, documents, databases, GIS, etc.). The USAF will ensure that these or equivalent instructions, processes, and/or requirements will be complied with for all proposed construction or surface soil disturbing activities.

B.3 Update the Clear AFS BGP. The BGP implements “zoning-like” requirements at Clear AFS. The BGP is one of the first and primary documents to be reviewed when installation personnel are proposing projects on the installation. AFI 32-7062 (Appendix B) requires this comprehensive planning document for the establishment and maintenance of administrative and physical controls. The USAF will develop a map to

CLE000366.pdf



be included in the BGP showing the extent of contamination associated with Site 6. This information as well as LUCs, boundaries, and expected durations will be added to the existing LUC section of the BGP within 90 days of ROD signature. This section includes a comprehensive listing and map of all LUCs on the installation. The USAF may change the BGP and agrees to notify ADEC at least 30 days prior to a change that addresses or affects LUCs. The following restrictions will be incorporated into the BGP and cross-referenced to this map:

B.3.1 No residential construction until the concentration of hazardous substances in the soil is at such levels to allow for unrestricted use and exposure.

B.3.2 Prior to excavation and reuse of soils in this area notify the Environmental Office to ensure proper handling and disposal of any contaminated soils.

B.4 The USAF shall not modify or terminate LUCs or modify land use within the affected areas without approval by ADEC. The USAF shall obtain prior concurrence before any anticipated action that may disrupt the effectiveness of the LUCs.

B.4.1 For proposed land use changes which do not include transfer of the property, the USAF will obtain concurrence from ADEC at least 45 days in advance of any anticipated Base proposal inconsistent with the use restriction and assumptions described herein, any anticipated action which may disrupt the effectiveness of the LUCs, or any action which may alter or negate the need for the LUCs.

B.4.2 The USAF will provide notice to ADEC at least 6 months prior to any transfer or sale of property associated with Site 6 affected by the above restrictions so that ADEC can be involved in discussions to document that appropriate provisions are included in the transfer terms or conveyance documents to maintain effective LUCs. If it is not possible for the facility to notify ADEC at least 6 months prior to any transfer or sale, then the facility will notify ADEC as soon as possible but no later than 60 days prior to the transfer or sale of any property subject to LUCs. In addition to the land transfer notice and discussion provisions above, the USAF further agrees to provide ADEC with similar notice, within the same time frames, as to federal to federal transfer of property. The USAF shall provide a copy of the executed deed to ADEC. The USAF will provide similar notification as to leases, in addition to transfers by deed.

B.5 The USAF will conduct periodic monitoring of the LUCs (five year reviews). The USAF shall provide notice to ADEC within 10 business days if it discovers any activity that is inconsistent with the LUC requirements, objectives or controls, or any action that may interfere with

CLE000366.pdf



the effectiveness of the LUCs. The USAF shall include in such notice a list of corrective actions taken or planned to address such deficiency or failure.

B.6 The USAF will fully comply with and be accountable for the LUCs identified herein and will timely submit to ADEC a monitoring report on the status of the LUCs, including the operation, maintenance, and monitoring of LUCs, and how any LUC deficiency or inconsistent use has been addressed.

B.6.1 The LUC monitoring report shall be filed in the Administrative Record and Information Repository.

B.6.2 The LUC monitoring report is not subject to approval and/or revision by ADEC and will be provided to each for informational purposes only.

B.7 The USAF is responsible for implementing (to the degree controls are not already in place), monitoring, maintaining, and enforcing the identified LUCs. If the USAF determines that it cannot meet specific LUC requirements, it is understood that the remedy may be reconsidered and that additional measures may be required for the protection of human health and the environment. The USAF shall obtain concurrence from ADEC prior to modifying or terminating any LUCs, Objectives, or LUC Implementation Actions.

B.8 The USAF is responsible for informing, monitoring, enforcing, and binding, where appropriate, authorized lessees, tenants, contractors, and other authorized occupants of the site of LUCs impacting the site.

2.12.3 Summary of Estimated Remedy Cost

This alternative includes the following stages: Remedial Design, Remedial Action, Long-Term Management, LUCs, and Project-Close Out. The total (current dollar) cost for the selected remedy is estimated at $1,119,000, which does not account for escalation, discounting, or contingency. This translates to a net present value of $684,000 once discounted at a 7 percent rate. The initial capital cost is estimated at $380,000 (current dollar) and is associated with the Remedial Design stage, construction of LUCs (e.g., security fence with gates and signage), implementation of administrative LUCs, and excavation with off-site disposal. Excavation with off-site disposal, included as the Remedial Action process for this alternative, can be divided into the following stages with corresponding cost percentages of the total process cost: off-site treatment and disposal facility and transport (17 percent); professional labor management (30 percent); backfill, cleanup, and landscaping (9 percent); excavation (41 percent); and decontamination facilities and residual waste management (3 percent). During the Remedial Action, 68 confirmation composite soil samples would be collected, surrounding and within the excavation, to evaluate whether operations may have contaminated the surrounding region and four samples collected from the excavated material to characterize it for off-site disposal (includes quality assurance/quality control samples). Although this alternative would not require performance monitoring sampling, the total long-term management cost is estimated at $563,000 (current dollar) and consists of enforcing the LUCs and generating the annual report. In addition to long-term management, the total periodic

CLE000366.pdf



cost is estimated at $176,000 (current dollar) and includes 5-year reviews, termination of LUCs, and the Project-Close Out Report. There are several assumptions associated with the cost analysis for the selected remedy including: an excavated volume of 4 ft wide by 4 ft long and 4 ft deep for the location in the primary cell and 11.5 ft wide by 24 ft long and 2 ft deep for the location in the secondary cell. Additional assumptions include that decontamination water would be disposed of in Fairbanks (69 miles away); 3 tons of soil/dried sludge would be transported to a TSCA regulated facility and 27 tons of soil/dried sludge to a Subtitle D (non-TSCA regulated) facility, both of which are located in Arlington, Oregon; loading of excavated soil/dried sludge into on-site roll-offs provided by T&D Company; and the site would be backfilled to grade requiring a total of 1,452 cubic yards of soil/dried sludge. A program-default timeframe of 30 years was applied for maintaining LUCs, and was used as the timeframe for the cost analysis. Additional costing documentation can be found in the FS report (2009a).

2.12.4 Expected Outcomes of Selected Remedy

Soil excavation was selected because it is expected to achieve long-term reductions in risk and reductions in the potential for contaminant migration to groundwater through removal of the contaminated soil/dried sludge that exceeds site-specific ACLs.

2.13 STATUTORY DETERMINATION

Based on the information available at this time, the USAF believes the preferred alternative, Alternative 5A: Commercial/Industrial Use Excavation and Off-Site Disposal, meets the threshold criteria and provides the better balance of tradeoffs among the alternatives with respect to the balancing and modifying criteria. Alternative 5 will be protective of human health and the environment, will comply with ARARs, will reduce potential for contaminant migration, and will provide a cost-effective, long-term solution. ADEC believes that Alternative 5 will comply with state laws and regulations.

Under CERCLA Section (§) 121 and the NCP, the lead agency must select remedies that are protective of human health and the environment, comply with ARARs (unless a statutory waiver is justified), are cost effective, and utilize permanent solutions and alternative treatment technologies or resource recovery technologies to the maximum extent practicable. In addition, CERCLA includes a preference for remedies that employ treatment that would permanently and significantly reduce the volume, toxicity, or mobility of hazardous wastes as a principal element and a bias against off-site disposal of untreated wastes. The following sections discuss how the selected remedy meets these statutory requirements.

2.13.1 Protection of Human Health and the Environment

This alternative will provide protection to human health and the environment through removal of contaminated soil/dried sludge, with respect to the designated land use (i.e., commercial/industrial). The BRA results indicate that contaminated soil/dried sludge, in limited areas, presents a potential risk to human health for construction and maintenance workers. Soil/dried sludge with contaminant concentrations exceeding site-specific ACLs will be removed, thereby reducing the potential for exposure by preventing direct contact with soil/dried sludge by intended users of the site. The soil/dried sludge removal and placement of non-contaminated backfill will also reduce the potential for ecological exposure.

CLE000366.pdf



2.13.2 Compliance with ARARs

This alternative would comply with action-, location-, and chemical-specific ARARs. Soil/dried sludge exceeding ACLs would be removed and disposed at appropriate off-site facilities, thereby preventing exposure to potential receptors. Contaminated soil/dried sludge at concentrations exceeding ADEC cleanup levels would remain under this alternative, however, it is anticipated that contamination left in place will not conflict with the ability to comply with chemical-, action-, and location-specific ARARs based on the designated land use for the site.

Activities will be conducted in a manner consistent with applicable ARARs. Additionally, current and future activities at Site 6 will be conducted in compliance with the Base General Plan (USAF 2005a). See Tables 2-13, 2-14, and 2-15 for a listing of ARARs for Site 6. In addition to the site-specific ARARs, the USAF will comply with applicable laws related to transportation and disposal activities related to Clear AFS waste materials.

2.13.3 Cost-Effectiveness

In the lead agency’s judgment, the selected remedy is cost-effective and represents a reasonable value for the money to be spent. In making this determination, the following definition was used: “A remedy shall be cost-effective if its costs are proportional to its overall effectiveness.” (NCP §300.430(f)(1)(ii)(D)). This was accomplished by evaluating the “overall effectiveness” of those alternatives that satisfied the threshold criteria (i.e., were both protective of human health and the environment and ARAR-compliant). Overall effectiveness was evaluated by assessing four of the five balancing criteria in combination (long-term effectiveness and permanence; reduction in toxicity, mobility, and volume through treatment; short-term effectiveness; and implementability). Overall effectiveness was then compared to costs to determine cost-effectiveness. The relationship of the overall effectiveness of this remedial alternative was determined to be proportional to its costs and hence this alternative represents a reasonable value for the money to be spent.

The capital cost of Alternative 5A is estimated to be $380,000 (current dollar) and includes costs associated with excavation, transportation, and disposal of approximately 30 (bulk) cubic yards of soil/dried sludge, confirmation soil sampling, and backfilling the excavations and former sludge drying pits to grade with the clean soil. Total O&M cost of $739,000 (current dollar) consists of enforcing the LUCs, generating the annual report, periodic costs for 5-year reviews, and project close out costs (i.e., LUCs termination, well abandonment, reporting) throughout an assumed 30-year period of analysis. The present value cost is estimated to be $684,000.

2.13.4 Utilization of Permanent Solutions and Alternative Treatment Technologies

The selected remedy uses permanent solutions and treatment technologies to the extent practicable. The selected remedy removes contaminated soil/dried sludge from the cells of the former sludge drying pits that poses an unacceptable risk to human health and the environment. Of those alternatives that are protective of human health and the environment and comply with ARARs, the selected remedy provides the better balance of trade-offs in terms of the five balancing criteria and two modifying criteria.

CLE000366.pdf



2.13.5 Preference for Treatment as a Principal Element

The selected remedy does not satisfy the statutory preference for treatment as a principal element of the remedy because it includes soil removal and off-site disposal of untreated soil. Although soil will not be treated, excavation and off-site disposal is an appropriate remedy because it permanently and significantly reduces the mobility and volume of contaminants at the site. It is an efficient approach because it permanently removes contaminated soil above site-specific ACLs in the source area in a shorter timeframe than the treatment technologies in Alternatives 3 and 4 or the complete removal in Alternative 5B. Also, the reduced volume of soil requiring removal in the selected remedy (30 cubic yards) is easier to handle and less costly than the volume in Alternatives 3, 4, and 5B (473 cubic yards). Therefore, the additional cost, effort, and time it would take to remediate Site 6 impacted soil/dried sludge under the treatment and complete removal alternatives (Alternatives 3, 4, and 5B) are not proportional to the benefit of achieving these cleanup levels (residential) when the likely anticipated future land use is industrial.

2.13.6 Five-Year Review Requirement

Although the contaminated soil/dried sludge exceeding site-specific ACLs would be excavated and disposed of under the selected remedy; hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants will remain on-site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure. Therefore, a statutory review will be conducted within 5 years after initiation of the remedial action and every 5 years to evaluate whether the selected remedy is, or will be, protective of human health and the environment, and at least every five years thereafter as long as the site is not suitable for unlimited use unrestricted exposure.

2.14 DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES FROM PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE OF PROPOSED PLAN

The Proposed Plan for the ROD was released for public comment on August 1, 2009. The preferred alternative identified in the Proposed Plan was Alternative 5A, Commercial/Industrial Use Excavation and Off-Site Disposal, which was determined to be protective of human health and the environment. Because no community comments or new information was provided that alters the assumptions or conclusions used in developing the preferred alternative, the preferred alternative is the selected remedy without any changes.

CLE000366.pdf



3.0 RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY

3.1 STAKEHOLDER ISSUES AND LEAD AGENCY RESPONSES

In accordance with NCP §300.430(f)(3), a public comment period on the Proposed Plan for the remedies for Site 6 was held from August 1 through August 31, 2009. At the time of the public comment period, the USAF had identified the preferred alternative for the remedy for Site 6, with ADEC concurrence. A public meeting was offered on August 13, 2009 to explain the proposed plan and present the alternatives evaluated in the FS. John Wright (Environmental Restoration Program Point of Contact for Clear AFS), John Moylan (Environmental Manager for Clear AFS), Debra Caillouet (ADEC), Rafael Vazquez (Air Force Center for Engineering and Environment Program Manager, Restoration Program Management Office), Bill Burke (AECOM), Eric DeRuyter (URS Group), and Cynthia Kirkham (URS Group) attended the meeting. No one from the public attended the meeting and no written or verbal comments were received during the public comment period. Because no community comments or new information was provided that alters the assumptions or conclusions used in developing the preferred alternative, the preferred alternative is the selected remedy without any changes.

3.2 TECHNICAL AND LEGAL ISSUES

No technical and legal issues were identified.

CLE000366.pdf



4.0 REFERENCES

Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC). 1999. Ecoregions/Assessment Endpoint Project, Technical Background Document for Selection and Application of Default Assessment Endpoints and Indicator Species in Alaskan Ecoregions. June.

ADEC. 2001. Technical Memorandum – 01-003: Screening Procedures for COPCs Under Method Four. January.

ADEC. 2003a. Technical Memorandum – 01-007: Additional Cleanup Values. November.

ADEC. 2003b. E-mail from ADEC to Ms. Kathryn Curtis, 21 CES/CEV, re: Notes on IRP Decision Document for Clear. December 10, 2003.

ADEC. 2005. Draft Risk Assessment Procedures Manual. November.

ADEC. 2007. Ecoscoping Guidance. Division of Spill Prevention and Response, Contaminated Sites Program, Department of Environmental Conservation, State of Alaska. March.

Air Force Center for Engineering and the Environmental (AFCEE). 2009. Environmental Restoration Proposed Plan and Decision Document Procedure. December.

CH2M Hill. 1981. Installation Restoration Program Records Search for Clear Air Force Station. Prepared for U.S. Air Force under Contract No. F080637-80-G0010-004-01. October.

Efroymson, R.A., M.E. Will, G.W. Suter II, and A.C. Wooten. 1997a. Toxicological Benchmarks for Screening Contaminants of Potential Concern for Effects on Terrestrial Plants: 1997 Revision. ES/ER/TM-85/R3. Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Management. Prepared by Lockheed Martin Energy Systems, Inc., for the East Tennessee Technology Park, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN.

Efroymson, R.A., M.E. Will, and G.W. Suter II. 1997b. Toxicological Benchmarks for Contaminants of Potential Concern for Effects on Soil and Litter Invertebrates and Heterotrophic Processes: 1997 Revision. ES/ER/TM-126/R2. Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Management. Prepared by Lockheed Martin Energy Systems, Inc., for the East Tennessee Technology Park, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN.

Efroymson, R.A., G.W. Suter II, B.E. Sample, and D.S. Jones. 1997c. Preliminary Remediation Goals for Ecological Endpoints. ES/ER/TM-162/R2. Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Management. Prepared by Lockheed Martin Energy Systems, Inc., for the East Tennessee Technology Park, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN.

MacDonald, S.O. 2003. The Amphibians and Reptiles of Alaska, A Field Handbook. First Edition. University of Alaska Museum. Fairbanks, Alaska.

CLE000366.pdf



Nelson, G.L. and M.R. Carr (Nelson and Carr). 1993. Summary of U.S. Air Force Installation Restoration Program, Clear Air Force Station, Alaska. U.S. Geological Survey Administrative Report, Anchorage, Alaska.

Shannon & Wilson. 1999. User’s Guide for Selection and Application of Default Assessment Endpoints and Indicator Species in Alaskan Ecoregions. Prepared for ADEC. June.

USAF. 2009. Environmental Restoration Proposed Plan and Decision Document Procedure. December. U.S. Air Force.

USAF. 1995. Environmental Restoration Program Remedial Investigation Report and Proposed Remedial Action Plan Sites 17-23, Clear AFS, Alaska. April. U.S. Air Force.

USAF. 2005a. Base General Plan, Clear AFS, Alaska. March. U.S. Air Force.

USAF. 2005b. Site Summaries for Installation Restoration Program Sites 1 through 23, Clear AFS, Alaska. December. U.S. Air Force.

USAF. 2006. Draft Preliminary Findings Report, Sites 6, 7, and 17, Clear Air Force Station, Alaska. January. U.S. Air Force.

USAF. 2007a. Work Plan for Remedial Investigations at Sites 6 and 17, Final. March.

USAF. 2007b. Clear AFS Imhoff System. January. U.S. Air Force.

USAF. 2008a. Draft Final Remedial Investigation Report for Site 6. Clear Air Force Station, Alaska. Prepared for: 21 SW, Peterson Air Force Base, Texas and Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence, Brooks Air Force Base, Texas. February.

USAF. 2008b. Environmental Restoration Management Community Involvement Plan 2008 Update. Clear Air Force Station, Alaska. July 2008.

USAF. 2009a. Final Site 6 – Clear Air Force Station Feasibility Study Report. Clear Air Force Station, Alaska. January 2009.

USAF. 2009b. Final Proposed Plan for Site 6. Clear Air Force Station, Alaska. July.

USAMDC. 2002. Ground-Based Midcourse Defense Validation of Operational Concept, Environmental Assessment. United States Army Missile Defense Command.

USEPA. 1993. Letter from EPA Region 10 to Captain Rob Vinson, re: SI and additional testing. October 27, 1993.

USEPA. 1988. Guidance for Conducting Remedial Investigations and Feasibility Studies Under CERCLA. USEPA/540/G-89/004. Interim Final.

USEPA. 1999. A Guide to Preparing Superfund Proposed Plans, Records of Decision, and Other Remedy Selection Decision Documents. EPA 540-R-98-031, OSWER 9200.1-23P. July.

CLE000366.pdf



USEPA. 2005a. Ecological Soil Screening Levels for Arsenic. Interim Final. OSWER Directive 9285.7-62. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. March.

USEPA. 2005b. Ecological Soil Screening Levels for Barium. Draft Interim Final. OSWER Directive 9285.7-63. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. February.

USEPA. 2005c. Ecological Soil Screening Levels for Cadmium. Interim Final. OSWER Directive 9285.7-65. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. March.

USEPA. 2005d. Ecological Soil Screening Levels for Chromium. Interim Final. OSWER Directive 9285.7-66. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. March.

USEPA. 2005e. Ecological Soil Screening Levels for Lead. Interim Final. OSWER Directive 9285.7-70. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. March.

USEPA. 2005f. U.S. EPA Technical Review Workgroup for Lead, Adult Lead Committee, Version date 05/19/09. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/superfund/lead/products.htm#alm.

USEPA. 2006a. Ecological Soil Screening Levels for Silver. Interim Final. OSWER Directive 9285.7-77. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. September.

USEPA. 2006b. U.S. EPA Region 6 Human Health Medium-Specific Screening Levels 2007 and Supplemental Information. December.

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1984. Chemical Analysis of Soils and Other Surficial Materials, Alaska. Prepared by Gough, L.P., Peard, J.L., Severson, R.C., Shacklette, H.T., Tompkins, M.L., Steward, K.C., and Briggs, P.H. for U.S. Geological Survey. OFR 84-423.

USGS. 1988. Summary and Results of Well-Drilling Program at Clear Air Force Station, Alaska, June to September 1988. United States Geological Survey.

USGS. 1990. Final Decision Document for Sites 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12

USGS. 1996. Summary and Results of Water, Soil, and Sediment Sampling at Clear Air Station, Alaska (May to September 1994). U. S. Geological Survey.

CLE000366.pdf

TABLES

CLE000366.pdf

Table 1-1

SUMMARY OF DETAILED ANALYSIS OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES

CLEAR AIR FORCE STATION, ALASKA

Remedial Alternatives Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment

Compliance with ARARs

Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence

Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, and Volume through Treatment

Short-Term Effectiveness

Implementability

Cost

ALTERNATIVE 1 — No Action

Would not protect human health and the environment.

Would not comply with all potential chemical-, action-, and location-specific ARARs.

Would not provide long-term effectiveness because untreated contamination remains in soil at concentrations exceeding cleanup levels.

Toxicity, mobility, and volume of contaminants would not be reduced by active treatment.

No additional impacts to site workers and the environment because there would be no construction.

Would be easy to implement because there would be no construction.

$0

ALTERNATIVE 2 — Land Use Controls

Would provide minimal protection to human health and the environment by restricting access to and use of contaminated soil.

Would not comply with all potential chemical-, action-, and location-specific ARARs.

Would provide minimal long-term effectiveness by implementing Land Use Controls to limit or prevent use of soil and managing risk posed by the remaining contaminants. Controls contained in the General Plan are a long term and reliable management control to provide protection because they are required for all major installations and are enforceable by the Installation Commander. Administrative activities and periodic monitoring of access control measures would be required.

Toxicity, mobility, and volume of contaminants would not be reduced by active treatment.

Implementation would result in minimal additional impacts to workers and the environment from installation of fencing around the contaminated soil area.

Would be easy to implement technically and administratively. Clear Air Force Station administrative requirements would include modifying the General Plan and institution of reliable management controls, including administrative monitoring and review on an annual basis. Minimal coordination activities with USEPA and ADEC. Site access controls (i.e., fencing) would require occasional maintenance.

Capital (Current $) $168,000

Total O&M (Current $)

$739,000

Total Present Value $472,000

ALTERNATIVE 3 — In Situ Vitrification

Would protect human health and the environment through in situ treatment of the source.

Would comply with potential chemical-, action-, and location-specific ARARs. Soil exceeding applicable cleanup levels would remain on site; however, some contaminants would be thermally destroyed and the remaining constituents would be solidified/stabilized.

Soil treatment would prevent contaminant exposure for human receptors. In situ immobilization in the area would eliminate the potential for contaminants to leach in the long-term. Land Use Controls would prevent use of treated soil.

The mobility of contaminants in soil would be reduced through treatment, and the toxicity of organics in soil may be reduced through volatilization. Metal toxicity in soil would not be reduced, nor would the volume of contaminants in soil.

Potential additional impacts to site workers and the environment during treatment of contaminated soil associated with heating of the soil to high temperatures.

Moderately easy to implement. Soil contamination is shallow (less than 2 feet bgs) and in situ treatment to that depth is relatively easy and can be accomplished with standard mixing equipment.

Capital (Current $) $2,543,000


$739,000

Total Present Value $2,847,000

ALTERNATIVE 4 — On-Site Treatment and Reuse as Backfill

Would protect human health and the environment through ex situ treatment of the source.

Would comply with potential chemical-, action-, and location-specific ARARs. Soil exceeding applicable cleanup levels would remain on site; however, some contaminants would be thermally destroyed and the remaining constituents would be trapped in a vitrified block.

Soil treatment would prevent contaminant exposure for human receptors. Ex situ immobilization in the area would eliminate the potential for contaminants to leach in the long-term. In addition, thermal treatment would permanently destroy organic contaminants in soil. Land Use Controls would prevent use of treated soil.

The mobility of contaminants in soil would be reduced through treatment, and the toxicity of organics in soil may be oxidized through thermal desorption. Metal toxicity in soil would not be reduced, nor would the volume of contaminants in soil.

Additional impacts to site workers and the environment during excavation and ex situ treatment of contaminated soil. Excavation of soil would require additional handling of contaminated media. In addition, treatment would be accomplished in a two-step process: (1) thermal treatment, which involves complex system operation and heating of soil to high temperatures, and (2) solidification/stabilization, which require mixing and handling of treatment chemicals.

Moderately difficult to implement. Soil contamination is shallow (less than 2 feet bgs) and excavation to that depth is relatively easy. Ex situ treatment with thermal desorption and solidification/stabilization is technically feasible, but requires the use of complex systems, and thermal desorption contractors are not readily available. The requirement for dual treatment components adds to the complexity of the alternative.

Capital (Current $) $2,172,000


$739,000


ALTERNATIVE 5A — Commercial/Industrial Use Excavation and Off-Site Disposal

Would protect human health and the environment through source removal.

Would comply with potential chemical-, action-, and location-specific ARARs. Soil exceeding applicable cleanup levels would be removed and disposed off site.

Soil removal would eliminate a source of contaminant exposure for human receptors and a potential source of contaminant leaching in the long-term. Land Use Controls would limit or prevent use of soil in the area to commercial/industrial scenerios.

Removal of contaminated soil would result in a reduction of contaminant toxicity, mobility, and volume at the site. Toxicity and volume would not actually be reduced because contaminated soil is disposed of at off-site landfill; however, contaminated soil would be managed in a lined facility.

Further increased impacts to the community and environment during transport of contaminated soil over a potentially large distance, which would result in increased consumption of natural resources and production of air emissions and greenhouse gases.

Moderately difficult to implement. Soil contamination is shallow (less than 2 feet bgs) and excavation to that depth is relatively easy. Transportation of contaminated soil is technically feasible and can be accomplished with standard earth moving equipment; however, it would require hauling soil a long distance (potentially 2,600 miles one way), which increases the difficulty of the alternative, but soil volumes are small.

Capital $380,000

Total O&M

$739,000

Total Present Value $684,000

ALTERNATIVE 5B — Unrestricted Use Excavation and Off-Site Disposal

Would protect human health and the environment through source removal.

Would comply with potential chemical-, action-, and location-specific ARARs. Soil exceeding applicable cleanup levels would be removed and disposed off site.

Soil removal would eliminate a source of contaminant exposure for human receptors and a potential source of contaminant leaching in the long-term.

Removal of contaminated soil would result in a reduction of contaminant toxicity, mobility, and volume at the site. Toxicity and volume would not actually be reduced because contaminated soil is disposed of at an off-site landfill; however, contaminated soil would be managed in a lined facility.

Further increased impacts to the community and environment during transport of a larger volume of contaminated soil over a potentially large distance, which would result in further increased consumption of natural resources and production of air emissions and greenhouse gases.

Moderately difficult to implement. Soil contamination is shallow (less than 2 feet bgs) and excavation to that depth is relatively easy. Transportation of contaminated soil is technically feasible and can be accomplished with standard earth moving equipment; however, it would require hauling soil a long distance (potentially 2,600 miles one way), which increases the difficulty of the alternative.

Capital $1,168,000

Total O&M

$53,000


W:\Projects\22240412_Clear_Site_6_FS-ROD\Sub_00\6.0_Proj_Deliv\ROD\Final\Tables\Table 1-1_DetailedAnalysisSummary_rev1.doc

Sheet 1 of 1 CLE000366.pdf

Table 2-1 Soil Cleanup Level Criteria for Site 6


COPC

Maximum Detected Concentration

at Site 6 (mg/kg)

Background Value a

(mg/kg)

Site-Specific ACL b, c (mg/kg)

ADEC Cleanup Level without Migration to

GW c, d (mg/kg)

ADEC Cleanup Level with

Migration to GW d

(mg/kg) Arsenic 28.8 10.9 80 5.5 2 Barium 5,140 457 258,081 7,100 1,100 Cadmium 13.6 0.87 993 100 5 Chromium (Total) 98.4 41.4 3,869 300 26 Lead e 1,410 12.2 1,079 400 400 Mercury 10.5 ND 387 18 1.4 Selenium 24.8 ND -- h 510 3.5 Silver 48.3 NA -- h 510 21 PCBs Aroclor 1248 3.5 0 46 1 or 25 f 1 or 25 f Aroclor 1254 140 0 18 1 or 25 f 1 or 25 f Aroclor 1260 43 0 46 1 or 25 f 1 or 25 f DRO 1,700 0 99,262 g 10,250 250 RRO 6,800 0 99,262 g 10,000 10,000 4-Chloroaniline 6.0 0 -- h 410 0.5 Benzo(a)pyrene 0.16 0 6.5 1 1

Notes: a Background values have been provided for reference purposes only and are assumed to be zero for volatile organic compounds, semi-volatile organic compounds, and pesticides (Summary and Results of Water, Soil, and Sediment Sampling at Clear Air Station, Alaska (May to September 1994) (USGS 1996).

b Site-specific alternative cleanup levels were developed per ADEC Method 4 cleanup levels [18 AAC 75.340(a)(4)], which are based on the site-specific risk assessment. The cleanup level listed is the lowest value between the construction worker and maintenance worker scenarios.

c Migration to groundwater was not used, since contamination at the site has been present for a long duration and the above compounds were either not detected in groundwater or were detected at concentrations that did not exceed groundwater cleanup standards, which suggests migration to groundwater from the contaminants present in soil has not occurred and is not likely to occur.

d The cleanup level listed is the lowest value in 18 AAC 75.341 Method 2, Table B1 and B2 “Under 40 Inch Zone” (December 30, 2006) (Tables 4-1 to 4-3 from the Draft Final Remedial Investigation Report for Site 6, 2008), unless noted otherwise.

e The cleanup level for lead must be determined on a site-specific basis, based on land use; for residential land use, that level is 400 mg/kg, and for commercial or industrial land use, that level is 1,000 mg/kg.

f The ADEC 18 AAC 75 default soil cleanup level of 1 mg/kg is presented for PCBs; however, a higher cleanup level of 25 mg/kg is permitted under TSCA (40 CFR 761.61[a][4][i][B]) for commercial or industrial land use.

g The DRO ACL allows that 40 percent of the total value does not exceed the Aromatic ACL. The RRO ACL allows that 30 percent of the total concentration does not exceed the Aromatic ACL.

h ACLs were not developed for these constituents as they were not identified as COPCs in the risk assessment. Thus, the presence of these constituents in soil does not represent a health risk based on the current and anticipated future site land use, and no ACL is suggested.

AAC = Alaska Administrative Code mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram ACL = Alternative Cleanup Levels NA = not applicable ADEC = Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation ND = not detected ARAR = Applicable or relevant and appropriate requirement PCB = Polychlorinated Biphenyl CFR = Code of Federal Regulations RRO = Residual Range Organics COPC = Chemical of Potential Concern TSCA = Toxic Substances Control Act DRO = Diesel Range Organics USGS = United States Geological Survey GW = Groundwater

W:\Projects\22240412_Clear_Site_6_FS-ROD\Sub_00\6.0_Proj_Deliv\ROD\Final\Tables\Table 2-1_Site 6 Cleanup Levels_rev3.doc


Minimum(mg/kg)

Maximum(mg/kg)

Construction Worker(mg/kg)1

Maintenance Worker(mg/kg)2

Inorganic ConstituentsArsenic Soil 3.7 28.8 100% 14.13 14.32 10.9 0.55Barium Soil and

GW567.2 5140 100% 4417 2261 457 710

Cadmium Soil 0.177 13.6 100% 6.229 6.81 0.61 10Chromium Soil 10.7 98.4 100% 64.86 55.55 41.4 30Lead Soil and

GW54.83 1410 100% 619 565.7 12 40

Mercury Soil 0.036 10.5 100% 7.328 7.875 - 1.8PAHs and Related Compounds

Benzo(a)pyrene Soil 0.00056 0.16 71% 0.137 0.0852 0.16 0.1PCBs - Mixtures

Aroclor 1248 Soil 3.5 3.5 6% 3.5 3.5 0 0.1Aroclor 1254 Soil 0.25 140 100% 83.01 49.05 0 0.1Aroclor 1260 Soil 0.63 43 35% 17.76 19.72 0 0.1

Total Petroleum HydrocarbonsDRO Soil 3 1700 90% 750.3 830.8 0 1025RRO Soil 5.2 6800 100% 6237 5340 0 1000

ADEC = Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation mg/kg = milligram per kilogramDRO = diesel range organics PAH = polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbonEPA = Environmental Protection Agency PCB = polychlorinated biphenylGW = groundwater RRO = residual range organics

Media Frequency of Detections

Concentration Detected Exposure Point Concentration

Table 2-2Summary of Human Health Chemicals of Potential Concern and Medium Specific Exposure Point Concentrations at Site 6


4 Screening values are the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Soil Cleanup Levels (Method Two, under 40-inch zone), or Region 6 Human Health Medium Specific Screening Levels. Soil screening values were adjusted to be protective of a non-cancer hazard of 0.1 and a cancer risk of 1 x 10-6.

5 Barium and lead were not quantitatively evaluated in the risk assessment, because these chemicals are not present in concentrations greater than the unadjusted ADEC criteria or EPA’s drinking water maximum contaminant level for barium and EPA’s drinking water action level for lead. In addition, the toxic effects of these chemicals are not additive, and thus neither chemical is present in concentrations that would present a health concern for the drinking water ingestion pathway.

Source: United States Air Force. 2008. Draft Final Remedial Investigation Report for Site 6. Clear Air Force Station, Alaska.

Chemical of Potential Concern

1 For surface soils 0 to 2 feet below ground surface2 For surface soils 0 to 15 feet below ground surface

Screening Concentration

(mg/kg)4

Background(mg/kg)3

3 Background is assumed to be zero for PCBs and Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons.

Sheet 1 of 1CLE000366.pdf

Chemical of Potential ConcernOral Cancer: Slope Factor(mg/kg-day)-1

Inhalation Cancer: Slope Factor(mg/kg-day)-1

Tumor TypeEPA Cancer

Classificationa Reference

Arsenic 15 15 skin (oral) A USEPA 2007Barium Nonec Nonec NA D USEPA 2007Cadmium None None lung B1 USEPA 2007Chromiumb None None lung A USEPA 2007Mercury Nonec Nonec NA C USEPA 2007Benzo(a)pyrene 7.3 3.1 Forestomach, larynx, and

esophagus tumors (oral);pharynx, larynx tumors

(inhalation)

B2 USEPA 2007 (oral) USEPA 1994 (inhalation)

PCBs (Aroclor 1248, 1254, and 1260) 2 2 liver B2 USEPA 2007DRO aliphatics Nonec Nonec NA Not Classified ADEC 2004DRO aromatics Nonec Nonec NA Not Classified ADEC 2004RRO aliphatics Nonec Nonec NA Not Classified ADEC 2004RRO aromatics Nonec Nonec NA Not Classified ADEC 2004

b The inhalation slope factor for chromium is based on total chromium (1/6 ratio of Cr VI/Cr III).c This chemical is not associated with carcingonic effects. Therefore, there are no cancer toxicity criteria for this chemical.

ADEC = Alaska Department of Environmental ConservationDRO = diesel range organics NA = not applicableUSEPA = United States Environmental Protection Agency PCB = polychlorinated biphenylmg/kg-day = milligram per kilogram per day RRO = residual range organics


Table 2-3Cancer Toxicity Data Summary for Site 6


Group A - human carcinogen (sufficient evidence in humans)Group B1 - probable human carcinogen (limited human data available)Group B2 - probable human carcinogen (sufficient evidence in animals, inadequate or no evidence in humans)Group C - possible human carcinogen (limited evidence in animals)Group D - not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity

a USEPA’s Weight-of-Evidence Classification System:


Chemical of Potential Concern Chronic RfD(mg/kg-day) Toxic Endpoint Critical Study

Chronic RfD UFa RfD Source

Inhalation ExposuresArsenic Nonec -- -- -- --Barium Nonec -- -- -- --Cadmium Nonec -- -- -- --

Chromiumb 0.000029 Lactate dehydrogenase Subchronic rat 300 USEPA 2007Mercury Nonec -- -- -- --Benzo(a)pyrene Noned -- -- -- --PCBs (Aroclor 1248, 1254, and 1260) Noned -- -- -- --DRO aliphatics 0.29 Hepatic and

hematological changesNA NA ADEC 2004

DRO aromatics 0.06 Decreased body weight NA NA ADEC 2004RRO aliphatics 2 Neurotoxicity NA NA ADEC 2004RRO aromatics 0.03 Hepatotoxicity and

nephrotoxicityNA NA ADEC 2004

Oral ExposuresArsenic 0.0003 Hyperpigmentation,

keratosisChronic human oral 3 USEPA 2007

Barium 0.2 Nephropathy 2-year mice drinking water

300 USEPA 2007

Cadmium 0.001 Proteinuria Chronic human oral 10 USEPA 2007Chromiumb 0.003 None reported 1-year rat drinking

water900 USEPA 2007

Mercury 0.0003 Autoimmune Subchronic rat 1000 USEPA 2007Benzo(a)pyrene Noned -- -- -- --PCBs (Aroclor 1248, 1254, and 1260) Noned -- -- -- --DRO aliphatics 0.1 Hepatic and

hematological changesNA NA ADEC 2004

DRO aromatics 0.04 Decreased body weight NA NA ADEC 2004RRO aliphatics 2.00 Neurotoxicity NA NA ADEC 2004RRO aromatics 0.03 Hepatotoxicity and

nephrotoxicityNA NA ADEC 2004

b The inhalation and oral reference doses for chromium are based on Chromium VI.c No inhalation reference dose is available for this chemical. EPA does not recommend route-to-route extrapolation.d This chemical is not a concern based on non-cancer health effects. Therefore, there are no non-cancer toxicity criteria for this chemical.

ADEC = Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation NOAEL = no-observed-adverse-effect levelDRO = diesel range organics RfD = reference dosemg/kg-day = milligram per kilogram per day RRO = residual range organicsLOAEL = lowest-observed-adverse-effect level UF = uncertainty factorNA = not applicable USEPA = United States Environmental Protection Agency


Table 2-4Non-Cancer Chronic Toxicity Data Summary for Site 6


1 variation between species (applied when extrapolating from animal to human)2 variation within species (applied to account for differences in human response and sensitive subpopulations)3 use of a subchronic study to evaluate chronic exposure4 use of a LOAEL, rather than a NOAEL5 deficiencies in the data base

a USEPA indicates that there are generally 5 areas of uncertainty where an application of a UF may be warranted:


HI CR HQ CR HQ CR HQ CR

Arsenic 0.040 3E-07 0.037 2E-07 0.0033 2E-08 -- 1E-11Barium 0.017 -- 0.017 -- -- -- -- --Cadmium 0.0054 2E-12 0.0048 -- 0.00058 -- -- 2E-12Chromium 0.017 1E-10 0.017 -- -- -- 0.0000082 1E-10Mercury 0.019 -- 0.019 -- -- -- -- --Aroclor 1248 -- 1E-07 -- 8E-08 -- 3E-08 -- 4E-13Aroclor 1254 4.6 3E-06 3.2 2E-06 1.4 8E-07 -- 9E-12Aroclor 1260 -- 6E-07 -- 4E-07 -- 2E-07 -- 2E-12Benzo(a)pyrene -- 2E-08 -- 1E-08 -- 4E-09 -- 2E-14

Non TPH Total 4.7 4E-06 3.3 3E-06 1.4 1E-06 0.0000082 2E-10

DRODRO Aliphatic 0.0060 -- 0.0047 -- 0.0014 -- 0.0000000076 --DRO Aromatic 0.0076 -- 0.0058 -- 0.0017 -- 0.000000018 --

RRORRO Aliphatic 0.0028 -- 0.0022 -- 0.00065 -- 0.000000010 --RRO Aromatic 0.063 -- 0.048 -- 0.015 -- 0.00000023 --

TPH Total 0.079 -- 0.061 -- 0.018 -- 0.00000027 --

Notes:COPC - chemical of potential concernCR - cancer riskDRO - diesel range organicsHI - hazard indexHQ - hazard quotientRRO - residual range organicsTPH - total petroleum hydrocarbon-- toxicity criteria are not available or chemical is not carcinogenic to quantify exposures by this pathway.

Table 2-5Summary of Cancer Risks and Noncancer Hazards for Construction Worker Exposures to Soil


Non-TPH COPCs

TPH COPCs

COPCs Ingestion Dermal InhalationTotal


HI CR HQ CR HQ CR

Arsenic 0.0090 1E-06 0.0075 1E-06 0.0015 2E-07Barium 0.0018 -- 0.0018 -- -- --Cadmium 0.0013 -- 0.0011 -- 0.00028 --Chromium 0.0029 -- 0.0029 -- -- --Mercury 0.0041 -- 0.0041 -- -- --Aroclor 1248 -- 8E-07 -- 4E-07 -- 4E-07Aroclor 1254 0.74 1E-05 0.38 5E-06 0.35 5E-06Aroclor 1260 -- 4E-06 -- 2E-06 -- 2E-06Benzo(a)pyrene -- 6E-08 -- 3E-08 -- 3E-08

Non TPH Total 0.76 2E-05 0.40 9E-06 0.36 8E-06

DRODRO Aliphatic 0.0017 -- 0.0010 -- 0.00069 --DRO Aromatic 0.0022 -- 0.0013 -- 0.00086 --

RRORRO Aliphatic 0.00062 -- 0.00038 -- 0.00025 --RRO Aromatic 0.014 -- 0.0084 -- 0.0055 --

TPH Total 0.018 -- 0.011 -- 0.0073 --

Notes:COPC - chemical of potential concernCR - cancer riskDRO - diesel range organicsHI - hazard indexHQ - hazard quotientRRO - residual range organicsTPH - total petroleum hydrocarbon-- toxicity criteria are not available or chemical is not carcinogenic to quantify exposures by this pathway.

Table 2-6Summary of Cancer Risks and Noncancer Hazards for Maintenance Worker Exposures to Soil


Non-TPH COPCs

TPH COPCs

COPCs Ingestion DermalTotal


Table 2-7 Summary of Site 6 Human Health Chemicals of Concern


Exposure Point Concentration

Chemical of Concern Media

Maximum Detected

Concentration at Site 6 (mg/kg)

Construction Worker 1 (mg/kg)

Maintenance Worker 2 (mg/kg)

Screening Concentration

(mg/kg)

Lead Soil 1,410 619 565.7 40

Aroclor 1248 Soil 3.5 3.5 3.5 0.1

Aroclor 1254 Soil 140 83.01 49.05 0.1

Aroclor 1260 Soil 43 17.76 19.72 0.1

Diesel Range Organics Soil 1,700 750.3 830.8 1,025

Residual Range Organics Soil 6,800 6,237 5,340 1,000

Notes: 1 For surface soils 0 to 2 feet below ground surface 3 For surface soils 0 to 15 feet below ground surface

mg/kg = milligram per kilogram

Source: United States Air Force. Draft Final Remedial Investigation Report for Site 6. Clear Air Force Station, Alaska. February 2008.


Minimum(mg/kg)

Maximum(mg/kg)

Inorganic ConstituentsArsenic 3.7 28.8 100% 28.8Barium 67.2 5140 100% 5140Cadmium 0.333 13.6 100% 13.6Chromium 10.8 98.4 100% 98.4Lead 20 1410 100% 1410Mercury 0.18 10.5 100% 10.5Selenium 0.3 24.8 100% 24.8Silver 0.91 48.3 100% 48.3

VOCs4-Isopropyltoluene 0.1 0.11 29% 0.11Trichlorofluoromethane 0.33 1 29% 1

SVOCsBenzoic Acid 0.3 0.32 13% 0.32Benzyl Alcohol 0.061 0.061 6% 0.061Bis(2-ethylhexyl) Phthalate 0.03 12 100% 12N-Nitrosodiphenylamine 0.084 0.084 6% 0.084

PAHs and Related CompoundsAcenaphthene 0.0022 0.0038 12% 0.0038Acenaphthylene 0.0013 0.023 18% 0.023*Anthracene 0.00039 0.05 24% 0.05*Benzo(a)anthracene 0.0013 0.19 82% 0.19Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.0017 0.26 76% 0.26*Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.0008 0.11 47% 0.11*Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 0.00063 0.16 41% 0.16*Benzo(a)pyrene 0.00056 0.16 71% 0.16*Chrysene 0.0017 0.33 88% 0.33Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 0.00045 0.045 24% 0.045*Fluoranthene 0.0018 0.27 82% 0.27Fluorene 0.00039 0.008 24% 0.008*Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 0.00094 0.19 41% 0.191-Methylnaphthalene 0.00036 0.017 100% 0.0172-Methylnaphthalene 0.00068 0.023 41% 0.023*Naphthalene 0.0017 0.16 47% 0.16*Phenanthrene 0.00087 0.084 47% 0.084Pyrene 0.0016 0.24 41% 0.24Sum of 10 (*PAHs and *naphthalene) 1.704Sum of LMW PAHs (italicized analytes) 0.3688Sum of HMW PAHs (bold analytes) 1.955

PCBs - MixturesAroclor 1248 3.5 3.5 6% 3.5Aroclor 1254 0.25 140 100% 140Aroclor 1260 0.63 43 35% 43

Total PCBs 186.5Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH)

C10 - C25 DRO 5.8 1700 100% 1700DRO 62 520 90% 520RRO 17 6800 100% 6800

DRO = diesel range organics PCB = polychlorinated biphenylHMW = high molecular weight RRO = residual range organicsLMW = low molecular weight SVOC = semivolatile organic compoundmg/kg = milligram per kilogram TPH = total petroleum hydrocarbonPAH = polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon VOC = volatile organic compound

Media1Exposure Point Concentration

(mg/kg)

Frequency of Detections

Concetration Detected

Table 2-8Summary of Chemicals of Potential Ecological Concern and Medium Specific Exposure Point Concentrations at Site 6


1 Depth to groundwater is greater than approximately 50 feet below ground surface in the vicinity of Site 6. No wildlife or plant species would directly contact groundwater at this depth, and groundwater is not expected to discharge to any nearby surface-water features. Consequently, exposure of on-site ecological receptors to contaminants in groundwater is an incomplete pathway.

Soil


Soil

Soil

Soil

Soil

Chemical of Potential Ecological Concern

Sheet 1 of 1

CLE000366.pdf

Table 2-9 Assessment Endpoints and Measures of Effect for the Ecological Risk Assessment of Site 6


Assessment Endpoint Measure of Effect Connection Between Assessment Endpoint and Measure of Effect

Survival, reproduction and growth of terrestrial plants and soil macroinvertebrates.

Comparison of measured concentrations of COPECs in surface soil to RBSCs for soil.

RBSCs represent screening-level (ecologically protective) benchmark concentrations for terrestrial organisms exposed to COPECs in soil.

Survival, reproduction, and growth of terrestrial avian herbivores and invertivores.

Comparison of measured concentrations of COPECs in surface soil to RBSCs


Survival, reproduction and growth of mammalian herbivores.

Comparison of measured concentrations of COPECs in surface soil to RBSCs.


COPEC = chemical of potential ecological concern NOAEL = no-observed-adverse-effect level RBSC = risk-based screening concentration

Source: United States Air Force. Draft Final Remedial Investigation Report for Site 6. Clear Air Force Station, Alaska. February 2008.


Alternative RBSC

Concentration(mg/kg) Reference

Inorganic ConstituentsArsenic 28.8 0.3 [Arsenic (III)] 10 (plants)

13.6518 (plants)43 (birds)

46 (mammals)60 (earthworm)

Phytotoxicity benchmark (Efroymson et al. , 1997a)Background (USAF, 1995)

Eco-SSL (EPA, 2005a)Eco-SSL (EPA, 2005a)Eco-SSL (EPA, 2005a)

Invertebrate benchmark (Efroymson et al. , 1997b)

Yes

Barium 5140 5 283 (woodcock)330 (invertebrates)

457500 (plants)

2000 (mammals)

Eco-PRG (Efroymson et al., 1997c)Eco-SSL (EPA, 2005b)

Background (USGS, 1996)Phytotoxicity benchmark (Efroymson et al. , 1997a)

Eco-SSL (EPA, 2005b)

Yes

Cadmium 13.6 0.2 0.36 (mammals)0.509

0.77 (birds)4 (plants, woodcock)

32 (plants)140 (invertebrates)

Eco-SSL (EPA, 2005c)Background (USAF, 1995)

Eco-SSL (EPA, 2005c)Eco-PRG (Efroymson et al., 1997c)

Eco-SSL (EPA, 2005c)Eco-SSL (EPA, 2005c)

Yes

Chromium 98.4 60 0.4 (earthworm)41.4

26 (Cr[III]; birds)34 (Cr[III]; mammals)81 (Cr[VI]; mammals)

Invertebrate benchmark (Efroymson et al. , 1997b)Background (USGS, 1996)

Eco-SSL (EPA, 2005d)Eco-SSL (EPA, 2005d)Eco-SSL (EPA, 2005d)

Yes

Lead 1410 5 13.9811 (birds)

40.5 (woodcock)56 (mammals)120 (plants)

1700 (invertebrates)

Background (USAF, 1995)Eco-SSL (EPA, 2005e)

Eco-PRG (Efroymson et al. , 1997c)Eco-SSL (EPA, 2005e)Eco-SSL (EPA, 2005e)Eco-SSL (EPA, 2005e)

Yes

Mercury 10.5 0.3 (Mercury, inorganic) 0.00051 (methylmercury; woodcock)0.1 (earthworm)

Eco-PRG (Efroymson et al. , 1997c)Invertebrate benchmark (Efroymson et al. , 1997b)

Yes

Selenium 24.8 0.02 0.21 (mouse)1 (plants)

1.4470

Eco-PRG (Efroymson et al. , 1997c)Phytotoxicity benchmark (Efroymson et al. , 1997a)

Background (USAF, 1995) Invertebrate benchmark (Efroymson et al. , 1997b)

Yes

Silver 48.3 2 2 (plants)4.2 (birds)

14 (mammals)50 (soil microorganisms)

560 (plants)

Phytotoxicity benchmark (Efroymson et al. , 1997a)Eco-SSL (EPA, 2006)Eco-SSL (EPA, 2006)

Microorganism benchmark (Efroymson et al. , 1997b)Eco-SSL (EPA, 2006)

Yes

VOCs4-Isopropyltoluene 0.11 -- -- -- NoTrichlorofluoromethane 1 -- -- -- No

SVOCsBenzoic Acid 0.32 -- -- -- NoBenzyl Alcohol 0.061 -- -- -- NoBis(2-ethylhexyl) Phthalate 12 0.9 -- -- YesN-Nitrosodiphenylamine 0.084 -- 20 (earthworms) Invertebrate benchmark (Efroymson et al. , 1997b) No

Table 2-10Supplemental Screening of Chemicals of Potential Ecological Concern in Soil at Site 6


Chemical of Potential Ecological ConcernMaximum Concentration

in Surface Soil(mg/kg)

ERBSCa

(mg/kg)Potential Screening-Level COC?

Sheet 1 of 2

CLE000366.pdf

Alternative RBSC

Concentration(mg/kg) Reference

Table 2-10Supplemental Screening of Chemicals of Potential Ecological Concern in Soil at Site 6


Chemical of Potential Ecological ConcernMaximum Concentration

in Surface Soil(mg/kg)

ERBSCa

(mg/kg)Potential Screening-Level COC?

PAHs and Related CompoundsAcenaphthene 0.0038 -- 20 (plants) Eco-PRG (Efroymson et al. , 1997c) NoAcenaphthylene 0.023 -- 20 Acenaphthene surrogate No*Anthracene 0.05 2 -- -- No*Benzo(a)anthracene 0.19 3 -- -- Yes (<ERBSC, but see Sum of HMW PAHs)Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.26 40 (Benzo[k]fluoranthene) -- -- Yes (<ERBSC, but see Sum of HMW PAHs)*Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.11 40 -- -- Yes (<ERBSC, but see Sum of HMW PAHs)*Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 0.16 30 -- -- Yes (<ERBSC, but see Sum of HMW PAHs)*Benzo(a)pyrene 0.16 0.1 -- -- Yes (<ERBSC, but see Sum of HMW PAHs)*Chrysene 0.33 40 -- -- Yes (<ERBSC, but see Sum of HMW PAHs)Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 0.045 -- -- -- Yes (see Sum of HMW PAHs)*Fluoranthene 0.27 300 -- -- Yes (<ERBSC, but see Sum of HMW PAHs)Fluorene 0.008 30 -- -- No*Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 0.19 2 -- -- Yes (<ERBSC, but see Sum of HMW PAHs)1-Methylnaphthalene 0.017 0.1 (Naphthalene) -- -- No2-Methylnaphthalene 0.023 0.1 (Naphthalene) -- -- No*Naphthalene 0.16 0.1 -- -- No (>ERBSC, but see Sum of LMW PAHs)*Phenanthrene 0.084 30 -- -- NoPyrene 0.24 -- -- -- Yes (see Sum of HMW PAHs)Sum of 10 (*PAHs and *naphthalene) 1.704 40 -- -- NoSum of LMW PAHs (italicized analytes) 0.3688 -- 29 (invertebrates)

100 (mammals)Eco-SSL (EPA, 2007)Eco-SSL (EPA, 2007)

No

Sum of HMW PAHs (bold analytes) 1.955 -- 18 (plants)1.1 (mammals)

Eco-SSL (EPA, 2007)Eco-SSL (EPA, 2007)

Yes

PCBs - MixturesAroclor 1248 3.5 -- 40 (plants) Phytotoxicity benchmark (Efroymson et al. , 1997a) Yes

Sheet 2 of 2

CLE000366.pdf

Table 2-11 Site 6 Cleanup Levels


Chemical of Concern 1 Media

Maximum Detected Concentration at

Site 6 (mg/kg)

Site-Specific Alternative Cleanup

Level (mg/kg)

Cleanup Levels (mg/kg)

Lead Soil 1,410 1,079 1,079

Aroclor 1248 Soil 3.5 46 See Total PCBs 2

Aroclor 1254 Soil 140 18 18 2

Aroclor 1260 Soil 43 46 See Total PCBs 2

Total PCBs Soil 183 -- 25 3

Notes: 1 Site 6 soils contain Diesel Range Organics (DRO) and Residual Range Organics (RRO) with

concentrations up to 1,700 mg/kg and 6,800, mg/kg, respectively. DRO and RRO are not covered by CERCLA, but are State (ADEC) chemicals of concern. Site 6 soils did not exceed cleanup levels established by ADEC 18 AAC 75.341 Table B2 maximum allowable cleanup levels, 12,500 and 22,000 mg/kg, respectively.

2 The site-specific cleanup level identified for Aroclor 1254 was determine based on the most conservative concentration that would be protective of identified receptors. The maximum concentrations for Aroclor 1248 and Aroclor 1260 detected at Site 6 did not exceed their calculated alternative cleanup levels; therefore, they default to the total allowable PCB cleanup level of 25 mg/kg.

3 The ADEC 18 AAC 75 default soil cleanup level is 1 mg/kg for PCBs; however, a higher cleanup level of 25 mg/kg is permitted under TSCA (40 CFR 761.61[a][4][i][B]) for commercial or industrial land use. ADEC = Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation CERCLA = Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act CFR = Code of Federal Regulations mg/kg = milligram per kilogram PCB = Polychlorinated Biphenyl TSCA = Toxic Substances Control Act


Table 2-12

SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVESClear Air Force Station, Alaska

ALTERNATIVE 1 — No Action

ALTERNATIVE 2 — Land Use Controls

ALTERNATIVE 3 — In Situ Vitrification

ALTERNATIVE 4 — On-Site Treatment and Reuse as

Backfill

ALTERNATIVE 5A — Commercial/Industrial Use

Excavation and Off-Site Disposal

ALTERNATIVE 5B — Unrestricted Use Excavation

and Off-Site Disposal

Cost Capital Cost: $0

Total Present Value: $0

Base case for evaluation

Capital Cost: $168,000

Total Present Value: $472,000

$472,000 (Total Present Value) to implement land use controls.

Capital Cost: 2,543,000

Total Present Value: $2,847,000

On-site in situ vitrification of affected soils/dried sludge costs approximately $1.7 to $2.2 million (present value) more than excavation and off-site disposal (Alternatives 5A and 5B).

Capital Cost: $2,172,000


On-site treatment and reuse of affected soils/dried sludge costs approximately $1.3 to $1.8 million (present value) more than excavation and off-site disposal (Alternatives 5A and 5B), but $370,000 (total present value) less than in situ vitrification.

Capital Cost: $380,000

Total Present Value: $684,000

An approximate $210,000 (present value) increase in cost over just land use controls (Alternative 2) includes targeted removal and off-site disposal for commercial/industrial land use.

Capital Cost: $1,168,000


An approximate $490,000 (present value) increase in cost over Alternative 5A adds removal of a larger volume of soil/dried sludge for unrestricted land use.

Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment

Alternative 1 is the least protective of human health because no actions are included. An increased level of protection occurs under Alternative 2 with land use controls by restricting access to and use of contaminated soil/dried sludge. Alternatives 3, 4, 5A, and 5B are the most protective because soil/dried sludge is treated or removed; however, affected soil/dried sludge above the ADEC cleanup level remain in Alternatives 3, 4, and 5A. Summary (most protective to least): 3 = 4 = 5A = 5B > 2 > 1

Compliance with ARARs Alternatives 1 and 2 would not comply with applicable ARARs, because untreated soil/dried sludge above cleanup levels would remain at the site. Alternatives 3, 4, 5A, and 5B are expected to comply with the applicable

ARARs summarized in Tables 2-2, 2-3, and 2-4. Summary (most compliant to least): 3 = 4 = 5A = 5B > 2 = 1

Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence Alternative 1 is the least effective in the long-term because no actions are included. Alternative 2 includes institution controls to restrict future human receptor exposure, and is effective in the long term. Alternatives 3, 4,

5A, and 5B provide the greatest long-term effectiveness through treatment or removal of soils/dried sludge. However, soil/dried sludge treated on-site (Alternative 3 and Alternative 4) could become compromised if not properly controlled, which is slightly less effective in the long-term as compared to removal and disposal off site (Alternative 5A and Alternative 5B). Summary (most effective to least): 5A = 5B > 3 = 4 > 2 > 1

Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, and Volume through Treatment There is no reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume through treatment of contaminated soil/dried sludge under Alternative 1 (No Action) or Alternative 2 (Land Use Controls). Alternatives 3 and 4 include treatment of

affected soil/dried sludge, which would reduce the mobility of contaminants, but only the toxicity of organics in Alternative 4 would be decreased. Alternatives 5A and 5B include excavation and disposal at an off-site hazardous waste landfill, which reduces the toxicity, mobility, and volume of contaminated soil/dried sludge at the site, but there is no reduction through treatment. Alternative 5B involves a greater reduction in contaminant volume than Alternative 5A. Summary (most reduction to least): 5B > 5A > 4 > 3 > 2 = 1

Short-Term Effectiveness Alternatives 1 and 2 provide the least short-term impacts because no construction-related actions will be implemented except installation of a fence in Alternative 2. There will be increased impacts to workers during the

application of in situ treatment; however, they are less than in Alternative 4, which requires excavation of soils/dried sludge prior to treatment and the use of two treatment technologies. Potential risks to workers and the community may occur during the implementation of the removal activities in Alternatives 5A and 5B. Alternative 5B includes increased truck traffic due to the increased volume of soil/dried sludge being handled. Summary (fewest impacts/most effective to greatest impacts/least effective): 1 = 2 > 3 > 4 > 5A > 5B

Implementability Alternatives 1 and 2 do not include active remediation and are the easiest to implement, but Alternative 2 includes land use controls that require administrative coordination and enforcement. Alternatives 3 and 4 include treatment of contaminated soil/dried sludge, which adds a level of complexity to the alternatives. However, Alternative 3 would be easier to implement because it involves a single treatment technology. Alternatives 5A and 5B involve excavation, transport, and disposal of soil/dried sludge, which is a common practice, but transportation to an off-site location requires additional time and effort. The volume associated with Alternative 5A requires a shorter construction period and uses less construction equipment than Alternative 5B, and could be accomplished more easily than on-site treatment, where there are limited subcontractors, multiple treatment trains, and generation of treatment byproducts. Summary (easiest to difficult): 1 > 2 > 5A > 5B > 3 > 4

Notes:

There are two other evaluation criteria, regulatory and community acceptance, which are addressed in Section 2.9 of the ROD.


Table 2-13 CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS (ARARs)


Standard, Requirement,

Criteria, or Limitation

Citations

Description

Applicable/ Relevant

and Appropriate

Comments

FEDERAL RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT

40 CFR Part 261.24 Provides standards for determining the toxicity characteristics of hazardous waste.

Yes/Yes As of August 2008, Alaska was not authorized to implement the federal RCRA program. Relevant and appropriate for alternatives that include contaminated soil management and storage.

TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL ACT

40 CFR Part 761 Subpart D 40 CFR Part 761 Subpart O

Regulations promulgated under authority of TSCA regarding PCB Manufacturing, Processing, Distribution in Commerce, and Use Prohibitions.

Yes/Yes These regulations set forth requirements regarding PCB disposal, remediation waste, storage for disposal, and sampling requirements to verify completion of clean-up and disposal of bulk PCB remediation waste.

Applicable sections include: • 40 CFR 761.60 (disposal requirements) • 40 CFR 761.61 (PCB remediation wastes) • 40 CFR 761.65 (storage for disposal) • 40 CFR 761.283 to 761.298 (sampling protocols)

STATE OF ALASKA ALASKA AIR QUALITY CONTROL REGULATIONS

18 AAC 50.010 and 50.045 Addresses discharge or emission of air contaminants, including particulates.

No/Yes Air quality numeric and other substantive requirements may be ARARs based on particulate emissions.


Sheet 2 of 2

Table 2-13 CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS (ARARs)


Standard, Requirement,

Criteria, or Limitation

Citations

Description

Applicable/ Relevant

and Appropriate

Comments

ALASKA OIL AND HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES POLLUTION CONTROL REGULATIONS

18 AAC 75.341, Tables B1 and B2; 18 AAC 75.345, Table C

18 AAC 75.340(a)(4)

ADEC regulatory cleanup levels for soil.

Addresses the development and use of site-specific alternative cleanup levels.

Yes/No ADEC regulatory cleanup levels. Site-specific alternative cleanup levels can be developed to replace applicable ADEC cleanup levels when the site owner (or other responsible party):



For Site 6, a site-specific risk assessment has been performed.

Notes: AAC = Alaska Administrative Code NAAQS = National Ambient Air Quality StandardsADEC = Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation PCB = Polychlorinated biphenylARAR = Applicable or relevant and appropriate requirement RCRA = Resource Conservation and Recovery ActCFR = Code of Federal Regulations Sec. = SectionFS = Feasibility Study TSCA = Toxic Substances Control Act NA = Not applicable USC = United States Code

CLE000366.pdf

Table 2-14 ACTION-SPECIFIC APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS (ARARs)


Requirement, Criteria, or Limitation

Citations

Description

Applicable/ Relevant and Appropriate

Comments

FEDERAL RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT

42 USC Sec. 6901 et seq. -- -- --

RCRA Subtitle C: Hazardous Waste Management (Identification, Generation, Transportation, Treatment, Storage, and Land Disposal)

40 CFR 261, 262, 263, 264, and 268

RCRA Subtitle C addresses the identification, treatment, storage, and land disposal of hazardous wastes. To the extent hazardous waste, as defined by RCRA, is removed from soil and/or extracted from the groundwater and to the extent air emissions result from treatment operations, the selected remedies will comply with the requirements of 40 CFR 261, 262, 263, and 264.

Yes/Yes Applicable or relevant and appropriate for remedial actions resulting in the generation of hazardous waste. Hazardous waste generated through the use of materials (e.g., decontamination materials) in conjunction with the selected remedies will be stored and disposed of or recycled at a RCRA approved facility in accordance with USEPA policy for off-site disposal of CERCLA waste (40 CFR 300.440).

SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL ACT 42 USC Sec. 6901-6987 -- -- -- CERCLA Waste Off-Site Rule 40 CFR 300.440 The purpose of the Off-Site Rule is to

prevent wastes generated from remedial activities conducted under CERCLA from contributing to present or future environmental problems at off-site waste management facilities that receive them.

Yes/No The Off-Site Rule requires that off-site facilities receiving CERCLA wastes meet established acceptability criteria.





Citations

Description

Applicable/ Comments Relevant and

Appropriate TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL ACT

40 CFR Part 761 Subpart D 40 CFR Part 761 Subpart O

Regulations promulgated under authority of TSCA regarding PCB Manufacturing, Processing, Distribution in Commerce, and Use Prohibitions.

Yes/Yes These regulations set forth requirements regarding PCB disposal, remediation waste, storage for disposal, and sampling requirements to verify completion of clean-up and disposal of bulk PCB remediation waste. Applicable sections include: • 40 CFR 761.60 (disposal requirements) • 40 CFR 761.61 (PCB remediation wastes) • 40 CFR 761.65 (storage for disposal) • 40 CFR 761.283 to 761.298 (sampling

protocols)

STATE OF ALASKA ALASKA AIR QUALITY CONTROL REGULATIONS

18 AAC 50.010 These sections include, by reference, other chapters and sections of 18 AAC 50 that specify chemical emissions, feed rates, and other operating parameters. Alaska law requires operators of soil remediation units to obtain an operating permit if the activity has a potential to emit greater than 100 tons per year of regulated air contaminants.

Yes/NA The substantive construction and operational requirements are potentially applicable for remedial actions resulting in particulate air emissions.

CLEANUP OPERATIONS REQUIREMENTS

18 AAC 75.360 Provides requirements for management of daily operations, waste management, and disposal plans.

Yes/Yes Applicable to remedial actions for cleanup, risk reduction, or long-term management.


Sheet 3 of 3




Citations

Description


Comments

SOIL STORAGE AND DISPOSAL

18 AAC 75.370 Provides requirements for location, liner permeability for temporary stockpiling of contaminated soils, and blending with other soils prior to treatment and disposal.

Yes/Yes Applicable to remedial actions with temporary storage and disposal of contaminated soils.

INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS 18 AAC 75.375 Defines situations where institutional controls are required, describes institutional controls, and specifies criteria that institutional controls must meet.

Yes/Yes Applicable to remedial actions that require some form of institutional controls to reduce or eliminate contact with contaminated media.

Notes: AAC = Alaska Administrative Code OSWER = Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response ADEC = Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation PCB = Polychlorinated Biphenyls ARAR = Applicable or relevant and appropriate requirement RCRA = Resource Conservation and Recovery Act CERCLA = Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act Sec. = Section CFR = Code of Federal Regulations SQuiRT = Screening Quick Reference Table ESA = Endangered Species Act TBC = To be considered TSCA = Toxic Substances Control Act NA = Not applicable USAF = United States Air Force NAAQC = National Ambient Air Quality Standards USC = United States Code NOAA = National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration USEPA = United States Environmental Protection Agency NPDES = National Pollution Discharge Elimination System UST = Underground Storage Tank

CLE000366.pdf

Table 2-15

LOCATION-SPECIFIC APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS (ARARs)

Standard, Requirement, Criteria,

or Limitation

Citation

Description


Comments

FEDERAL MIGRATORY BIRD TREATY ACT 16 USC 703 to 721 Provides protection for migratory bird

species. Yes/NA Consultation with the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service may be required to ensure that cleanup of the site does not unnecessarily impact migratory birds.

BALD EAGLE PROTECTION ACT 16 USC 668 Provides for protection of bald eagles. Yes/NA Remedial activities will be conducted in a manner to minimize adverse impacts on bald eagles and in accordance with substantive requirements.

Notes:

AAC = Alaska Administrative Code NA = Not applicable ACMP = Alaska Coastal Management Program NAGPRA = Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act AFS = Air Force Station RCRA = Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ARAR = Applicable or relevant and appropriate requirement Sec. = Section ARPA = Archaeological Resources Protection Act SHPO = State Historic Preservation Office AS = Alaska Statute TBC = To be considered CFR = Code of Federal Regulations US = United States IRP = Installation Restoration Plan USC = United States Code


FIGURES

CLE000366.pdf

Composite Area

Old Camp Area

Cooling Pond

SSPARS

Old Tech Site Power Plant

Site 6

JOB NO:

SITE 6 LOCATION MAP

DATE:DRAWN:FILE:

2224041209/30/2009

ELSEE PATH


FIGURE 2-1

W:\Pr

ojects

\2224

1097

_Clea

r_Mult

i_Site

s\Sub

_00\1

1.0_C

AD\G

IS Fi

les\Fi

g 2-1.

mxd

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000Feet

®Albers Conical Equal AreaProjection: AlbersFalse_Easting: 0.000000False_Northing: 0.000000Central_Meridian: -154.000000Standard_Parallel_1: 55.000000Standard_Parallel_2: 65.000000Latitude_Of_Origin: 50.000000GCS_North_American_1983Sources: USAF, URSSSPARS = Solid State Phased Array Radar System

560 E. 34th Ave, Suite 100Anchorage, Alaska 99503907.562.3366

CLE000366.pdf

FIGURE 2-2

Site 6 Features

RECORD OF DECISION

22240412--NOT TO SCALE--


S06-MW03

S06-MW02

S06-MW01

Site Area

PrimaryCell

SecondaryCell

Active Concrete-LinedSludge Drying Pit

9/29/2009

GGU


SITE 6Former Sludge

Drying Pit


CLE000366.pdf

Primary ChemicalSource and Release

Mechanism

Secondary ChemicalSource and Release

MechanismExposureMedium

ExposureRoute

Inhalation

Potential Receptors

Release fromSite 6

Leaching andPercolation

to Groundwater

Volatilization(Surface andSubsurface)

Soil Disturbances(Resuspension in Air)

Vapor

Particulate

Inhalation

IngestionGroundwater

FIGURE 2-3. HUMAN HEALTH CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL FLOWCHART, SITE 6

GroundwaterMigration**/

Flow Movement/Partitioning

Futur

e Res

identi

al Dr

inking

Wa

ter U

ser*

Seepage toSoils Incidental

Ingestion andDermal Contact

IncidentalIngestion and

Dermal Contact

Not Applicable

Incomplete

Minor or Insignificant

Potentially Completeand Significant Exposure

Surface Soil

SubsurfaceSoil

Dermal Contact

* Groundwater is not currently used as a drinking water source.** Groundwater-to-surface water connection very unlikely.

Recre

ators

Outdo

or Ma

inten

ance

Work

erCo

nstru

ction

Work

er

Uptakeinto Plants Berries Ingestion

CLE000366.pdf

Primary ChemicalSource and Release

Mechanism

Secondary ChemicalSource and Release

MechanismExposureMedium

ExposureRoute

Inhalation or Gas Uptake

Potential Ecological Receptors

Release fromSite 6

Leaching andPercolation

to Groundwater

Volatilization(Surface andSubsurface)

Soil Disturbances(Resuspension in Air)

Vapor

Particulate

Inhalation

IngestionGroundwater

FIGURE 2-4. ECOLOGICAL CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL FLOWCHART, SITE 6

Plants

Seepage toSoils

IncidentalIngestion and

Dermal Contact

Contact

Not Applicable

Incomplete

Minor or Insignificant

Potentially Completeand Significant Exposure

Surface Soil

SubsurfaceSoil

Dermal Contact

Soil I

nvert

ebrat

esRe

ptiles

and A

mphib

ians

Fish

Uptakeinto Biota Ingestion

Birds

and M

amma

ls

IncidentalIngestion

CLE000366.pdf

#Y#Y

# # #

####

# # #

* # *

* * * *

* # *

##

#

#

#

Former SludgeDrying Pit

Primary Cell Secondary CellSS06-SS23

4-Chloroaniline 3.8Total PCB 13Mercury 10.5Arsenic 22.7Cadmium 12.6Lead 1410 MSelenium 24.8Barium 5140Chromium 98.4Silver 48.3DRO 1500

Result

SS06-SS244-Chloroaniline 6Total PCB 10Mercury 10.2Arsenic 28.8Cadmium 13.6Lead 1180 MSelenium 22Barium 3570Chromium 82.4Silver 43.1DRO 1700

Result

SS-6-24-Chloroaniline 5.7Total PCB 7.0 FMercury 5.4 MArsenic 15 MCadmium 5.1 MLead 460Selenium 21 MBarium 2,600 MChromium 63Silver 23

Result

SS-6-64-Chloroaniline 4.9Total PCB 6.0Mercury 9.9 MArsenic 15 MSelenium 9.3 MBarium 1,800 MChromium 48Cadmium 5.3 M

Result

SS-6-54-Chloroaniline 4.7Total PCB 11Mercury 9.6 MArsenic 15 MCadmium 6.4 MLead 460Selenium 9.9 MBarium 1,900 MChromium 68Silver 28DRO 520

Result

SS-6-104-Chloroaniline 1.6 FTotal PCB 3.31Mercury 4.7 MArsenic 10 MSelenium 4.6 MBarium 1,400 MChromium 50

ResultSS-6-44-Chloroaniline 4.4Total PCB 6.4Mercury 8.3 MArsenic 14 MCadmium 7.4 MLead 630Selenium 16 MBarium 2,400 MChromium 71Silver 27

Result

SS-6-34-Chloroaniline 0.52 FArsenic 3.7a M

Result

SS-6-1Arsenic 4.4a M

Result

SS-6-74-Chloroaniline 1.1 FTotal PCB 183Mercury 8.2 MArsenic 9.8a MCadmium 6.7 MLead 430

Result

SS-6-8Total PCB 2.61Arsenic 5.6a MChromium 26a

Result

SS-6-94-Chloroaniline 1.1 FTotal PCB 2.66Mercury 2.1 MArsenic 11 MSelenium 7.4 MChromium 38a

Result

S06-SB01 Depth (feet) ResultArsenic 12.0 - 13.5 3.8a

Arsenic 22.0 - 23.5 3a

Arsenic 44.5 - 46.5 3.3a

SS06-SS09Total PCB 1.0Arsenic 9.4a

Result

SS06-SS18Arsenic 4.6a

Result S06-SB02 Depth (feet) ResultArsenic 6.0 - 8.0 3.7a

Arsenic* 6.0 - 8.0 4.4a

Arsenic 18.5 - 20.5 15.2Arsenic 46.5 - 48.5 3.8a

SS06-SS19Arsenic 4a

Result


Result

SS06-SS17Total PCB 6.4Mecury 1.86Arsenic 5.3a

Result

S06-SB02S06-SB01

SS-6-9SS-6-8

SS-6-7SS-6-6 SS-6-5 SS-6-4

SS-6-3

SS-6-2

SS-6-1

SS-6-10

SS24

SS23

SS19SS18

SS17

SS10SS09SS08

SS04

SS05SS06SS07

SS03SS02SS01

#

#

#SS20

SS22

SS21

File

Pat

h Y

:\GIS

\Pro

ject

s\C

lear

_AF_

Sta

tion_

Ala

ska\

Map

s\S

ite6_

RO

D\F

igur

e 2-

5 - S

ite 6

Res

ults

Exc

eedi

ng C

lean

up L

evel

s.m

xd

Albers Conical Equal AreaProjection: AlbersFalse_Easting: 0.000000False_Northing: 0.000000Central_Meridian: -154.000000Standard_Parallel_1: 55.000000Standard_Parallel_2: 65.000000Latitude_Of_Origin: 50.000000GCS_North_American_1927

Sources: USAF, URS

# 2005 Surface Soil/Dried Sludgl Sample Location

*2007 Surface Soil/Dried Sludge Screening Sample Location(sample locations were only field analyzed for PCBs)

# 2007 Surface Soil/Dried Sludge Confirmation Sample Location

#Y Soil Boring

Site Boundary

Berm

All units in milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg)

ADEC = Alaska Department of Environmental ConservationDRO = diesel range organicsNA = not applicableND = not detectedPCBs = polychlorinated biphenyls* = duplicatea = Reported concentration exceeds the ADEC cleanup level, but is below or consistent with background concentrations.F = Result is faulty due to problems outside the realm of typical validation rules/flags.M = Duplicate injection precision was not met JOB NO:

Site 6Sample Locations With Constituent

Concentrations Exceeding ADECCleanup Levels

DATE:

DRAWN:

FILE:

22240412

OCT. 2009

LED

SEE PATHFIGURE 2-5

560 E. 34th Ave., Suite 100Anchorage, Alaska 99503(907) 562-3366


Result


Result SS06-SS22Arsenic 5.4a

Result

LEGEND

0 10 205Feet

®1 inch = 10 feet

AnalyteADEC SoilCleanup

Level

BackgroundValue

4-Chloroaniline 0.5 0Total PCB 1 0Mercury 1.4 NDArsenic 2 10.9Cadmium 5 0.87Lead 400 12.2Selenium 3.5 NDBarium 1,100 457Chromium 26 41.4Silver 21 NADRO 250 0


Site 6Former SludgeDrying Pit

ActiveConcrete-linedSludge Drying

Pit

CLE000366.pdf

#Y#Y

# # #

####

# # #

* # *

* * * *

* # *

##

#

#

#


Primary Cell Secondary Cell

S06-SB02S06-SB01

SS-6-9SS-6-8

SS-6-7 SS-6-6 SS-6-5 SS-6-4

SS-6-3SS-6-2SS-6-1

SS-6-10

SS24

SS23

SS19SS18

SS17

SS10SS09SS08

SS04SS05SS06SS07

SS03SS02SS01

#

#

#SS20

SS22

SS21

File

Pat

h Y

:\GIS

\Pro

ject

s\C

lear

_AF_

Sta

tion_

Ala

ska\

Map

s\S

ite6_

RO

D\F

igur

e 2-

6 - S

ite 6

Res

ults

Exc

eedi

ng C

lean

up L

evel

s.m

xd


Sources: USAF, URS

# 2005 Surface Soil/Dried Sludge Sample Locations



#Y Soil Boring

Site Boundary

2007 Test Trench

Sample depths are between 0 - 1.5 feetAll sample locations are approximateAll units in milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg)

ACL = Alternative Cleanup LevelADEC = Alaska Department of Environmental ConservationCOPCs = constituents of potential concernDRO = diesel range organicsPCBs = polychlorinated biphenyls-- = ACL not developed for these constituents as they were not identified as COPCs in the risk assessment. Thus, the presence of the constituent in soil does not represent a health risk based on the current and anticipated future site land use, and no ACL is suggested.M = Duplicate injection precsion was not met JOB NO:

Site 6Soil/Dried Sludge Exceeding Site-

Specific Alternative Cleanup Levels

DATE:

DRAWN:

FILE:

22240412

SEPT. 2009

LED

SEE PATHFIGURE 2-6


LEGEND

0 10 205Feet

®

SS06-SS23 ResultLead 1410 M

SS06-SS24 ResultLead 1180 M

SS-6-7 ResultTotal PCB 183

1 inch = 10 feet

AnalyteSite-

SpecificACL

4-Chloroaniline --Total PCB 18Mercury 387Arsenic 80Cadmium 993Lead 1,079Selenium --Barium 258,081Chromium 3,869Silver --DRO 99,262

Clear Air Force Station, AlaskaCLE000366.pdf

!

!!!!

! ! !

!

!

!! !

!

! !

!! !

! ! ! !

! !

!!#Y

#Y

# # #

####

# # #

* # *

* * * *

* # *

##

#

#

#



SS-6-10Total PCB 3.31 mg/kg



SS-6-5Total PCB 11 mg/kg


SS-6-7Total PCB 183 mg/kg



SS17Total PCB 6.4 mg/kg

SS23Total PCB 13 mg/kg

SS24Total PCB 10 mg/kg

S06-SB02S06-SB01

SS-6-9SS-6-8

SS-6-7 SS-6-6 SS-6-5 SS-6-4

SS-6-3SS-6-2SS-6-1

SS-6-10

SS24

SS23

SS19SS18

SS17

SS10SS09SS08

SS04SS05SS06SS07

SS03SS02SS01

#

#

#SS20

SS22

SS21

File

Pat

h Y

:\GIS

\Pro

ject

s\C

lear

_AF_

Sta

tion_

Ala

ska\

Map

s\S

ite6_

RO

D\F

igur

e 2-

7 - S

ite 6

PC

B C

once

ntra

tions

.mxd


Sources: USAF, URS

# 2005 Surface Soil/Dried Sludge Sample Locations



#Y Soil Boring

Site Boundary

2007 Test Trench

! Unrestricted Use ( 1 mg/kg)

! Commercial/Industrial Use(1.01 to 25 mg/kg)

!Requiring Disposal(>50 mg/kg)

Sample depths are between 0 - 1.5 feetAll sample locations are approximateAll units in milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg)

ACL = Alternative Cleanup LevelADEC = Alaska Department of Environmental ConservationCOPCs = constituents of potential concernDRO = diesel range organicsPCBs = polychlorinated biphenyls-- = ACL not developed for these constituents as they were not identified as COPCs in the risk assessment. Thus, the presence of the constituent in soil does not represent a health risk based on the current and anticipated future site land use, and no ACL is suggested.TSCA = Toxic Substances Control Act (40 CFR 761.61[a][4][i][B])M = Duplicate injection precsion was not met

JOB NO:

Site 6PCB Concentrations

DATE:

DRAWN:

FILE:

22240412

OCT. 2009

LED

SEE PATHFIGURE 2-7


LEGEND

0 10 205Feet

®1 inch = 10 feet


Unrestricted UseADEC Soil Cleanup Level

Commercial/Industrial UseTSCA Cleanup Level

Requiring Disposal at aSubtitle C Facility(TSCA regulated)

PCB Cleanup Level forCommercial and Industrial

Total PCBCleanup Level

1 mg/kg

25 mg/kg

> 50 mg/kg

25 mg/kg

CLE000366.pdf

Primary Cell Secondary CellTest Trench

SS-6-1

SS-6-7

SS-6-8 SS-6-9

SS-6-6SS06-SB01

SS-6-2

SS-6-5

SS-6-10

SS-6-3

SS-6-4

SS24

SS17

SS23

SS02

SS09

SS18SS19

SS06-SB02


8 ft

11.5 ft 11.5 ft

8 ft

1 ft

61 ft39 ft

35

0.8-1.1ft bgs 0.7-1.0ft bgs

12.0-13.5ft bgs

22.0-23.5ft bgs

44.5-46.5ft bgs 46.5-48.5ft bgs

18.5-20.5ft bgs

6.0-8.0ft bgs

0.8-1.3ft bgs

0.3-0.6ft bgs 0.1-0.4ft bgs 0.7-0.9ft bgsArsenic 9.8 MBarium 440 MCadmium 6.7 MChromium 35Lead 430Mercury 8.2 MSelenium 3.4 MSilver 17PCBs 183DRO 240RRO 6504-Chloroaniline 1.1 FBenzo(a)pyrene 0.098 M

Arsenic 15 MBarium 2600 MCadmium 5.3 MChromium 63Lead 460Mercury 9.9 MSelenium 21 MSilver 23PCBs 7DRO 220RRO 6404-Chloroaniline 5.7Benzo(a)pyrene 0.083 M

Arsenic 3.8Barium 76.6Cadmium 0.177 FChromium 14.3Lead 4.83 MMercury 0.036 FSelenium NDSilver 0.109 FPCBs NDDRO 4.5 FRRO 11 F4-Chloroaniline NSBenzo(a)pyrene 0.00086 F

Arsenic 3Barium 81.5Cadmium 0.16 FChromium 12.7Lead 7.24 MMercury 0.036 FSelenium NDSilver 0.085 FPCBs NDDRO 8.4 FRRO 16 F4-Chloroaniline NSBenzo(a)pyrene NSArsenic 3.3

Barium 63.3Cadmium 0.15 FChromium 13.4Lead 3.89Mercury 0.056 FSelenium NDSilver .07 FPCBs NDDRO 10 FRRO 28 F4-Chloroaniline NSBenzo(a)pyrene 0.0013 F

Arsenic 15 MBarium 2400 MCadmium 7.4 MChromium 71Lead 630Mercury 9.6 MSelenium 16 MSilver 28PCBs 11DRO 520RRO 13004-Chloroaniline 4.7Benzo(a)pyrene 0.089 M

Arsenic 28.8Barium 3570Cadmium 13.6Chromium 82.4Lead 1180 MMercury 10.2Selenium 22Silver 43.1PCBs 10DRO 1700RRO 68004-Chloroaniline 6Benzo(a)pyrene 0.16 M

Arsenic 22.7Barium 5140Cadmium 12.6Chromium 98.4Lead 1410 MMercury 10.5Selenium 24.8Silver 48.3PCBs 13DRO 1500RRO 64004-Chloroaniline 3.8Benzo(a)pyrene 0.11

Arsenic 4Barium 94.4Cadmium 0.492Chromium 13Lead 20.2 MMercury 0.219Selenium 0.4 FSilver 1.09PCBs 0.72DRO 8.1 FRRO 41 F4-Chloroaniline 0.12 FBenzo(a)pyrene 0.0015 F

Arsenic 4.4Barium 88.7Cadmium 0.205 FChromium 12.1Lead 6.66 MMercury 0.052 FSelenium NDSilver 0.085 FPCBs NDDRO 3.9 FRRO 5.2 F4-Chloroaniline NSBenzo(a)pyrene 0.00077 F

Arsenic 15.2Barium 77.6Cadmium 0.176 FChromium 16.4Lead 5.75 MMercury 0.03Selenium NDSilver 0.097 FPCBs NDDRO 2.0 FRRO 4.7 F4-Chloroaniline NSBenzo(a)pyrene 0.00098 F

Arsenic 3.8Barium 67.3Cadmium 0.161 FChromium 14.3Lead 3.71 MMercury 0.069 FSelenium NDSilver 0.091 FPCBs NDDRO 3.8 FRRO 6.0 F4-Chloroaniline NSBenzo(a)pyrene NS

SS-6-1SS-6-7SS-6-8

SS-6-2SS-6-6SS-6-9S06-SB01

SS-6-3SS-6-4SS-6-5SS-6-10

SS17SS24

SS02SS09SS18SS23

SS06-SB02SS19

TOP VIEW OF SLUDGE PITS:

- Sludge Pit Embankments

LEGEND

- Visual Depth of Sludge Material

Figure 2-8

Clear Air Force Station

Site 6Generalized Cross-Section Of Maximum

Sample Concentrations At Depth

JOB NO: 22240412

Date: 10/1/2009

DRAWN: GGU

RECORD OF DECISIONNote: The maximum concentration, from the samples taken, per region as shown in the "top view of the sludge pits" schematic was used in developing the cross section

-- NOT TO SCALE --

- Interval of Soil Composite Sample

- 2007 Test Trench (Investigative)

- Surrounding Native Soil (Free Of Sludge)

2700 Gambell Street, Suite 200Anchorage, Alaska 99503(907) 562-3366

- Confirmation Soil Sample Locations (2005 & 2007)- Concentration Exceeding Background and ADEC Cleanup Levels1900

ADEC = Alaska Department of Environmental ConservationF = result is faulty due to problems outside the realm of typicalvalidation rulesM = indicates that the duplicate injection precision was not metmg/kg = milligrams per kilogramND = not detected

Arsenic 10.9 2Barium 457 1,100Cadmium 0.87 5Chromium 41.4 26Lead 12.2 400Mercury ND 1.4Selenium ND 3.5Silver NA 21PCBs 0 1 or 25DRO 0 250RRO 0 10,0004-Chloroaniline 0 0.5Benzo(a)pyrene 0 1

CONSTITUENT BACKGROUND LEVEL (MG/KG) ADEC CLEANUP (MG/KG)

The cleanup level listed is the lowest value in 18 AAC 75.341 Method 2, Table B1 and B2 "Under 40 Inch Zone" (December 30, 2006)(Tables 4-1 to 4-3 from the Draft Final Remedial Investigation Report for Site 6, 2008).

1

1

2

2 The ADEC 18 AAC 75 default soil cleanup level of 1 mg/kg is presented for PCBs; however, a higher cleanup level of 25 mg/kg is permitted under TSCA (40 CFR 761.61[a][4][i][B]) for commercial or industrial land use.


Diesel Range Organics (DRO)Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)

Residual Range Organics (RRO)

CLE000366.pdf

SITE 6Former Sludge

Drying Pit

PrimaryCell

SecondaryCell

Active Concrete-LinedSludge Drying Pit

W-6A

S06-MW01

S06-MW02

S06-MW03

File P

ath Y

:\GIS\

Proje

cts\C

lear_A

F_St

ation

_Alas

ka\M

aps\S

ite6_

ROD\

Figure

2-9 -

Site

6 La

nd U

se C

ontro

ls.mx

d

Albers Conical Equal AreaProjection: AlbersFalse_Easting: 0.000000False_Northing: 0.000000Central_Meridian: -154.000000Standard_Parallel_1: 55.000000Standard_Parallel_2: 65.000000Latitude_Of_Origin: 50.000000GCS_North_American_1927Sources: USAF, URS

Monitoring WellFenceSite BoundaryAccess RoadLand Use Controls Area

JOB NO:

Site 6 Land Use Controls Area

DATE:DRAWN:FILE:

22240412DEC. 2009

JFRSEE PATH FIGURE 2-9


LEGEND

50 0 5025Feet

1 inch = 100 feet


Site 6


CLE000366.pdf

GravelRoad

New

er S

ludg

e R

epos

itor

y

Primary Cell Secondary CellTest Trench

39 ft 61 ft

40 ft

11.5 ft

11.5 ft11.5 ft

24 ft

11.5 ft

4 ft

4 ft

X

X

X

XX X X

X

X X X X

X X X X X

X X X X XX

X

X

X

X

X

B

B'

A

A'

SS-6-7

SS24

SS23

Secondary Cell Will Backfill And RevegetateTo Adjacent Grade After Excavation

Fence (LUCs) Fence (LUCs)

2 ft

8 ft

11.5 ft 11.5 ft

8 ft

40 ft

35

4 ft

Test Trench

4 ft

11.5ft

Synthetic Liner0.75 ft bgs


Will Backfill And RevegetateTo Adjacent Grade After Excavation

New SludgeRepository Gravel Road

Fence (LUCs) Fence (LUCs)

8 ft

11.5 ft 11.5 ft

8 ft

61 ft39 ft

35

4ft

24ft4ft

2ft

SLUDGE PITS

LANDFILLArlington, Oregon

PRIMARYCELL

SECONDARYCELL

EXCAVATION & LAND USE CONTROLS

ChemWaste

[1] TRUCK TO ANCHORAGE

[2] SHIP BY BARGE TO WASHINGTON

[3] RAIL TO ARLINGTON, OR

1

23

Clear AFS

- Sludge Pit Embankments

LEGEND- Approximate Sludge Regions Requiring Excavation

Figure 2-10


Site 6Conceptual Layout of Selected Remedy

JOB NO: 22240412

Date: 7/30/2009

DRAWN: GGU

RECORD OF DECISION

-- NOT TO SCALE --- Existing Grass- Revegetation- Grade After Backfill- Synthetic Liner

X - Fence (Land Use Controls [LUCs])

- Access Road

- 2007 Test Trench (Investigative)- Surrounding Native Soil (Free Of Sludge)

- Soil Sample Location


CROSS-SECTION B-B':CROSS-SECTION A-A':

SITE TOP VIEW: DISPOSAL FLOW DIAGRAM:

CLE000366.pdf

APPENDICES

CLE000366.pdf

Appendix A Alternative Cleanup Level Determination

CLE000366.pdf


W:\Projects\22240412_Clear_Site_6_FS-ROD\Sub_00\6.0_Proj_Deliv\ROD\Appendix\Appendix A_rev1_TC Accepted.doc 10/28/09 A-1

Alternative Cleanup Levels Alaska regulations establish four methods for determining cleanup levels for soil [18 AAC 75.340]. The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) Method Two cleanup levels, the most stringent cleanup levels for soil, are included on Table 1-1 of the Site 6 Record of Decision (18 AAC 75.341, Tables B1 and B2). The ADEC Method Four cleanup levels [18 AAC 75.340(a)(4)], which are based on site-specific risk assessments, are presented in this appendix. Specifically, under Method Four, ADEC will approve a site-specific alternative cleanup level to the default Table B1 and B2 values if the site owner (or other responsible party):



For Site 6, a site-specific risk assessment has been performed. The site-specific Method Four cleanup levels, referred to as Alternate Cleanup Levels (ACLs), are shown on Table A-1 of this appendix. ACLs were calculated using the site-specific equations developed in the risk assessment for Site 6 (USAF 2008, Appendix H) for the two human populations who might be exposed to Site 6 soils/dried sludge under current and reasonably anticipated future land use – construction workers (active digging in soil/dried sludge) and maintenance workers (primarily exposed to surface soil/dried sludge, not active digging). To calculate a site-specific ACL for total diesel range organics (DRO) or residual range organics (RRO), ADEC default percent compositions of aliphatic versus aromatic compounds were applied. The aromatic portion of the total petroleum hydrocarbon (TPH) compounds is the more toxic portion and therefore drives the overall total action-based ACL for DRO or RRO.

The following caveats apply to ACLs:

1. ADEC has identified maximum concentrations allowed to remain in soil for DRO and RRO “..unless a responsible person demonstrates that the petroleum hydrocarbon will not migrate and will not pose a significant risk to human health, safety, or welfare, or to the environment” (Table B2 18 AAC 75.341). The site-specific risk-based ACLs calculated for this site exceed the Table B2 maximums (DRO maximum = 12,500 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg); RRO maximum = 22,000 mg/kg). Therefore, while the ACLs meet the latter portion of the ADEC requirements (i.e., are concentrations that do not pose a risk), further analysis and consultation with ADEC would be required to evaluate contaminant migration if concentrations higher than the maximum Table B2 values would be left on site.

CLE000366.pdf



2. ADEC has identified special considerations for polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) cleanup levels, as noted in footnote number nine on Table B2 as follows:

For unrestricted land use, PCBs in soil shall be cleaned up to one mg/kg or less, unless the department determines that a different cleanup level is necessary as provided in 18 AAC 75.340(i), as, for example, in a subsistence food gathering area. With the prior approval of the department, PCBs in soil may be cleaned up to (A) between 1 and 10 mg/kg if the responsible person:

i. caps each area containing PCBs in soil at levels between 1 and 10 mg/kg; for purposes of this Note 9, “caps” means covering an area of PCB contaminated soil with an appropriate material to prevent exposure of humans and the environment to PCBs; to be approved, a cap must be designed and constructed of a material acceptable to the department and of sufficient strength and durability to withstand the use of the surface that is exposed to the environment; within 72 hours after discovery of a breach to the integrity of a cap, the responsible person or the landowner shall initiate repairs to that breach; and

ii. provides the department within 60 days after completing the cleanup, documentation that the responsible person has recorded a deed notation in the appropriate land records, or on another instrument that is normally examined during a title search, documenting that PCBs remain in the soil, that the contaminated soil has been capped, and that subsequent interest holders may have legal obligations with respect to the cap and the contaminated soil; or

(B) an alternative PCB soil cleanup level developed through an approved site-specific risk assessment, conducted according to the Risk Assessment Procedures Manual, adopted by reference at 18 AAC 75.340.

The ACLs identified on Table A-1 meet requirement “B” of footnote number nine on Table B2 as long as land use remains the same as identified in the site-specific risk assessment.

3. In the application of ACLs, total cumulative risks and hazards must be addressed. The ACL for each chemical of potential concern (COPC) shown on Table A-1 was individually calculated to be protective of the maximum acceptable cancer risk level of 1 x 10-5 for carcinogens or a Hazard Index (HI) of 1 for non-cancer toxic endpoints. However, combined exposures to the COPCs at the ACLs could result in an exceedance of the target health goals. For example, if concentrations of arsenic and Aroclor 1254 are present at the same location at their ACL concentrations, the soil exposure at that specific spot could result in a cumulative cancer risk of 2 x 10-5. However, ACL adjustments downward to account for cumulative exposures are better applied at specific locations, evaluating the specific constituent concentrations at each location. Applications to specific areas of the site are needed because COPCs may not all be present at the same location, nor may the high concentrations of the COPCs be co-located with each other. Therefore, although risk managers should consider potential cumulative exposures to the COPCs when applying the ACLs in evaluating the protectiveness of various remedies during the feasibility study (FS) process, a downward adjustment to account for cumulative exposures may not be necessary. Specific ADEC guidance (ADEC 2002) indicates that residual risk after cleanup must meet cumulative target health goals of 1 x

CLE000366.pdf



10-5 for carcinogens and an HI of 1 for non-carcinogens on a site-wide basis considering all chemicals and exposure pathways.

4. ACLs were developed for the constituents selected as COPCs in the risk assessment and are based on the types of exposures expected to exist at the site, currently and in the foreseeable future. Per the Remedial Investigation (RI) (USAF 2008), site groundwater is not currently used as a drinking water source, and is not expected to be used as groundwater source in the future. Although there were constituents, in addition to those identified as COPCs, that exceeded ADEC cleanup levels based on the migration to groundwater pathway, none are currently present in groundwater at concentrations that exceed applicable ADEC cleanup levels or represent a health concern, as demonstrated in the screening to select COPCs in groundwater. Additionally, groundwater beneath this site is relatively deep (approximately 55 ft below ground surface [bgs]). Although the concentrations of these constituents in soil/dried sludge exceed the migration to groundwater cleanup levels, they are not expected to result in a health concern for the future drinking water pathway. Therefore, the ACLs are based on direct human contact, not on protection of groundwater.

CLE000366.pdf



NOTES: a. The DRO ACL allows that 40 percent of the total value does not exceed the Aromatic ACL. b. The RRO ACL allows that 30 percent of the total concentration does not exceed the Aromatic ACL. c. ADEC 18 AAC 75.341 Table B2 maximum allowable cleanup levels. Source of maximum detected concentrations at Site 6: Draft Final Remedial Investigation Report for Site 6. Clear Air Force Station, Alaska. February 2008. ADEC = Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram NA = Not applicable, the ACL for this compound would exceed 100 percent; therefore no concentrations are a health risk. -- = compound not evaluated for this toxicity endpoint.

Table A-1 Soil Cleanup Level Criteria for Site 6


Maintenance Worker Construction Worker

Chemicals of Potential Concern

Maximum Detected

Concentration at Site 6 (mg/kg)

Non-Cancer Alternative

Cleanup Level (mg/kg)

Cancer Alternative

Cleanup Level

(mg/kg)

Non-Cancer Alternative


Cancer Alternative

Cleanup Level

(mg/kg)

Most Conservative Alternative


Chemical Arsenic 28.8 1,292 80 317 494 80 Barium 5,140 NA -- 258,081 -- 258,081 Cadmium 13.6 3,848 -- 993 NA 993 Chromium 98.4 19,163 -- 3,869 NA 3,869 Mercury 10.5 1,916 -- 387 -- 387 PCBs Aroclor 1248 3.5 -- 46 -- 318 46 Aroclor 1254 140 66 46 18 318 18 Aroclor 1260 43 -- 46 -- 318 46 Benzo(a)pyrene 0.16 -- 6.5 -- 55 6.5 Lead 1,410 1,114 -- 1,079 -- 1,079 Diesel Range Organics (DRO) 1,700 384,789 a 99,262 a 12,500 c

C10-C21 Aliphatic (ADEC Default) 384,789 -- 99,262 -- C10-C21 Aromatic (ADEC Default) 153,916 -- 39,705 --

Residual Range Organics (RRO) 6,800 384,789 b 99,262 b 22,000 c C21-C35 Aliphatic (ADEC Default) 7,695,783 -- 1,985,230 -- C21-C35 Aromatic (ADEC Default) 115,437 -- 29,778 --

CLE000366.pdf



Cumulative Residual Risk Analysis As described in the previous section, in the application of ACLs, total cumulative risks and hazards must be addressed. As indicated on Table A-1, the maximum detected site concentrations exceed ACLs for Aroclor 1254 and lead. Therefore, this cumulative residual risk analysis is provided because ADEC guidance (ADEC 2002) requires that residual risk after cleanup must meet cumulative target health goals of 1 x 10-5 for carcinogens and a HI of 1 for non-carcinogens, on a site-wide basis, considering all COPCs and exposure pathways. The baseline risk assessment for the site (USAF 2008, Appendix H) found the following cumulative risks and hazards:

Maintenance Worker Construction Worker HI Risk HI Risk

Baseline Risks and Hazards non-TPH COPCs: 0.76 2E-05 4.7 4E-06

Baseline Hazards forTPH COPCs: 0.018 0.079

As indicated by these results, non-TPH COPCs (i.e., PCBs and metals) present a potential risk to the maintenance worker (risk greater than 1 x 10-5; HI greater than 1). Of these non-TPH COPCs, Aroclor 1254 is the risk-driving chemical and the only chemical to have risks and hazards that exceeded ADEC target health goals. The cumulative risk and hazard totals listed in the above table were almost entirely attributed to Aroclor 1254 (over 90 percent). As noted in the baseline risk assessment, if the location with the maximum Aroclor concentration were removed (location SS-6-7), then all site concentrations would meet cumulative risk and hazard goals. Table A-2 demonstrates this and provides an analysis of cumulative risks and hazards, and the effects on the cumulative totals if the Aroclor concentrations at location SS-6-7 are removed, as follows:

1. First, cumulative risks and hazards were estimated using ACLs and maximum detected site concentrations for all COPCs1, except Aroclor 1254. Rather than the maximum concentration, the Aroclor 1254 concentration used was the 95 percent Upper Confidence Limit of the mean (95 UCL) from the risk assessment. The 95 UCL was used to calculate risks and hazards in the baseline risk assessment, according to ADEC guidance (ADEC 2000, 2005), because people are not exposed only to the maximum concentration. Therefore, use of the maximum concentration for the other COPCs is a health-protective, conservative approach.

2. Second, the Aroclor 1254 concentration at location SS-6-7 was removed from the human health data set and the 95 UCLs for maintenance workers (exposed to the top 2 feet of

1 As described in the baseline risk assessment, all detected chemicals are screened against one-tenth their Table B1 or B2 cleanup levels. Chemicals with maximum concentrations exceeding one-tenth the cleanup level are considered COPCs.

CLE000366.pdf



soil) and construction workers (exposed to soil to a depth of 15 feet bgs) were recalculated.

3. Last, when ALL other COPCs are left at their maximum concentration, the cumulative risk and hazard totals after re-calculating Aroclor 1254 concentrations were less than ADEC target health goals.

Therefore, removing the high Aroclor concentration at location SS-6-7 is the only remedial action necessary to bring cumulative risks and hazards at the site below target health goals. As stated in ADEC guidance (ADEC 2002) for cumulative risk, neither TPH compounds nor lead are included in the cumulative risk totals. For TPH compounds, the cumulative hazard totals are presented separately. Table A-2 does not provide a hazard estimate for lead, because lead toxicity is evaluated using an entirely different methodology than other chemicals. The 95 UCLs for lead at the site were calculated in the baseline risk assessment and were 565.7 mg/kg and 619 mg/kg for maintenance workers and construction workers, respectively. These values are well below the ACLs and indicate no remedial actions are necessary at the site to prevent maintenance and construction worker health hazards from lead exposure.

References

ADEC. 2000. Risk Assessment Procedures Manual. Contaminated Sites Remediation Program, Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation. Juneau, AK. June 8.

ADEC. 2002. Cumulative Risk Guidance. Division of Spill Prevention and Response, Contaminated Sites Remediation Program. November 7.

ADEC. 2005. Draft Risk Assessment Procedures Manual. June.

USAF. 2008. Draft Final Remedial Investigation Report for Site 6. Clear Air Force Station, Alaska. Prepared for: 21 SW, Peterson Air Force Base, Texas and Air Force Center for Engineering and the Environmental, Brooks Air Force Base, Texas. February.

USEPA. 2005f. U.S. EPA Technical Review Workgroup for Lead, Adult Lead Committee, Version date 05/19/09. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/superfund/lead/products.htm#alm.

CLE000366.pdf

HI Risk HI Risk1.0 1.00E-05 1.0 1.00E-05

Maintenance Worker

Construction Worker Non-Cancer Cancer Non-Cancer Cancer

Arsenic 28.8 28.8 S06-SS24 1,292 80 0.022287 3.6E-06 317 494 0.091 5.83E-07Barium 5,140 5,140 S06-SS23 (e) 258,081 0.020

Cadmium 13.6 13.6 S06-SS24 3,848 0.0035 993 (e) 0.014Chromium 98.4 98.4 S06-SS23 19,163 0.0051 3,869 (e) 0.025

Lead 1,410 1,410 S06-SS23 1,114 (d) 1,079 (d)Mercury 10.5 10.5 S06-SS23 1,916 0.0055 387 0.027

Aroclor 1248 3.5 3.5 SS-6-2 46 7.6E-07 318 1.10E-07Aroclor 1254 (a) 49.05 83.01 SS-6-7 66 46 0.7 1.1E-05 18 318 4.6 2.61E-06

Aroclor 1260 43 43 SS-6-7 46 9.3E-06 318 1.35E-06Diesel Range Organics (DRO) 1,700 1,700 S06-SS24 384,789 0.0044 99,262 0.017

Residual Range Organics (RRO) 6,800 6,800 S06-SS24 384,789 0.018 99,262 0.069Benzo(a)pyrene 0.16 0.16 S06-SS24 6.5 2.5E-07 55 2.91E-08

Maximum Concentration Cumulative non-TPH Hazards and Risks: 0.78 2.5E-05 4.8 4.7E-06Maximum Concentration Cumulative TPH Hazards: 0.022 0.086

REMOVE LOCATION SS-6-7, recalculate EPCs for risk driver (Aroclor 1254), other COPCs remain at maximum concentrationAroclor 1254 RESIDUAL(b) 6.92 6.5 S06-SS23 66 46 0.10 1.5E-06 18 318 0.36 2.0E-07Aroclor 1260 RESIDUAL(c) 1.5 1.5 SS-6-6 46 3.3E-07 318 4.7E-08

0.16 6.4E-06 0.62 9.7E-07Notes(a) The values in the maximum column for Aroclor 1254 are the 95 UCL's for maintenance worker and construction worker, respectively. (b) The values in the maximum column for Aroclor 1254 are the 95 UCL's for maintenance worker and construction worker, respectively WITHOUT Location SS-6-7. (c) After removal of location SS-6-7, the next highest detected concentration of Aroclor 1260 is shown here. (d) The ACL for lead is calculated using a different process than other chemicals; therefore, it is not appropriate to estimate a hazard. Lead toxicity is not additive with Aroclor toxicity.(e) Where the ACLs were estimated as greater than one million parts per million, no reasonable risk or hazard exists and these ACLs were not included in the risk & hazard estimates.

ACL = Alternative Cleanup LevelHI = Hazard Indexmg/kg = milligrams per kilogramTPH = Total Petroleum HydrocarbonUCL = Upper Confidence Limit

Table A-2: Cumulative Residual Risk AnalysisClear Air Force Station, Alaska

Construction Worker Residual Hazards &

Risks

Chemicals of Potential Concern

Location of Maximum

Concentration

Maximum Concentration Cumulative non-TPH Hazards and Risks After Removal of SS-6-7:

Maintenance Worker ACL

(mg/kg)

Construction Worker ACL

Maintenance Worker Residual Hazards & Risks

Maximum Detected Concentrations at Site 6

(Except for Risk Driver Aroclor 1254)

mg/kg



Appendix A Backup

CLE000366.pdf

Appendix A Backup - Table 1Incidental Ingestion of Site SoilCurrent/Future

Exposure Medium: Soil Noncancer ACL = RfD x THQ / SIFncReceptor Population: Maintenance Worker Cancer ACL = TCR / (CSF x SIFc)Receptor Age: AdultsExposure Point: Surface Soil

RME RfD-O CSF-O ABSoParameter Units Value Chemical (mg/kg-d) (mg/kg-d)-1 unitless

Chemical Concentration in Soil (CS) mg/kg chem-specificIngestion Rate of Soil (IR-S) mg/day 100 Arsenic 3.0E-04 1.5E+00 1Exposure Frequency (EF) days/year 40 Barium 2.0E-01 -- 1Exposure Duration (ED) years 25 Cadmium 1.0E-03 -- 1Conversion Factor (CF) kg/mg 1.0E-06 Chromium 3.0E-03 -- 1Body Weight (BW) kg 70 Mercury 3.0E-04 -- 1Averaging Time (noncancer) (ATnc) days 9125 Aroclor 1248 -- 2.0E+00 1Averaging Time (cancer) (ATc) days 25,550 Aroclor 1254 2.0E-05 2.0E+00 1

Aroclor 1260 -- 2.0E+00 1SIFnc = ((IR-S*EF*ED*CF)/(BW*ATnc)) 1.57E-07 Benzo(a)pyrene -- 7.3E+00 1SIFc = ((IR-S*EF*ED*CF)/(BW*ATc)) 5.59E-08 Diesel Range OrganicsTarget Hazard unitless 1.00E+00 DRO (C10-C21) Aliphatic 1.0E-01 -- 1Target Risk unitless 1.00E-05 DRO (C10-C21) Aromatic 4.0E-02 -- 1kg = kilogram Residual Range Organicsmg = milligram RRO (C21-C35) Aliphatic 2.0E+00 -- 1

RRO (C21-C35) Aromatic 3.0E-02 -- 1mg/kg-d = milligram/kilogram/day

NonCancer CancerMaintenance Worker Soil Level (ACL) Level (ACL)

(mg/kg) (mg/kg)Arsenic 1916 119Barium 1277500 --Cadmium 6388 --Chromium 19163 --Mercury 1916 --Aroclor 1248 -- 89Aroclor 1254 128 89Aroclor 1260 -- 89Benzo(a)pyrene -- 25Diesel Range Organics (a) (a)

C10-C21 Aliphatic (ADEC Default) 638750 --C10-C21 Aromatic (ADEC Default) 255500 --

Residual Range Organics (RRO) (a) (a)C21-C35 Aliphatic (ADEC Default) 12775000 --C21-C35 Aromatic (ADEC Default) 191625 --

(a) Default fractionation data were used to evaluate the aliphatic and aromatic fractions of the TPH compounds.

CLE000366.pdf

Appendix A Backup - Table 2Dermal Contact with Site SoilCurrent/Future

Exposure Medium: Soil Noncancer ACL = RfD x THQ / (SIFnc x AbsD)Receptor Population: Maintenance Worker Cancer ACL = TCR / (CSF x SIFc x AbsD)Receptor Age: AdultsExposure Point: Surface Soil

Parameter Units RME Value RfD-D CSF-D AbsDChemical Concentration in Soil (CS) mg/kg chem-specific Chemical (mg/kg-d) (mg/kg-d)-1

Adherence Factor (AF) mg/cm2-event 0.2Exposure Frequency (EF) events/year 40 Arsenic 1.2E-04 3.7E+00 3.0E-02Exposure Duration (ED) years 25 Barium 1.4E-02 -- --Surface Area Available for Contact (SA) cm2 3,300 Cadmium 1.0E-05 -- 1.0E-03Conversion Factor (CF) kg/mg 1.0E-06 Chromium 6.0E-05 -- --Dermal Absorption (AbsD) unitless chem-specific Mercury 2.1E-05 -- --Body Weight (BW) kg 70 Aroclor 1248 -- 2.0E+00 1.4E-01Averaging Time (noncancer) (ATnc) days 9125 Aroclor 1254 2.0E-05 2.0E+00 1.4E-01Averaging Time (cancer) (ATc) days 25,550 Aroclor 1260 -- 2.0E+00 1.4E-01

Benzo(a)pyrene -- 2.4E+01 1.3E-01SIFnc = ((EF*ED*SA*AF*CF)/(BW*ATnc)) 1.03E-06 Diesel Range OrganicsSIFc = ((EF*ED*SA*AF*CF)/(BW*ATc)) 3.69E-07 DRO (C10-C21) Aliphatic 1.0E-01 -- 1.0E-01Target Hazard unitless 1.00E+00 DRO (C10-C21) Aromatic 4.0E-02 -- 1.0E-01Target Risk unitless 1.00E-05 Residual Range Organicscm = centimeter RRO (C21-C35) Aliphatic 2.0E+00 -- 1.0E-01kg = kilogram RRO (C21-C35) Aromatic 3.0E-02 -- 1.0E-01mg = milligram

mg/kg-d = milligram/kilogram/day

NonCancer CancerMaintenance Worker Soil Cleanup Level Cleanup

(mg/kg) (mg/kg)Arsenic 3968 2.47E+02Barium (a) (a)Cadmium 9678 --Chromium (a) (a)Mercury (a) (a)Aroclor 1248 -- 9.68E+01Aroclor 1254 138 9.68E+01Aroclor 1260 -- 9.68E+01Benzo(a)pyrene -- 8.87E+00Diesel Range Organics (b) (b)


Residual Range Organics (RRO) (b) (b)C21-C35 Aliphatic (ADEC Default) 19356061 --C21-C35 Aromatic (ADEC Default) 290341 --

(a) EPA does not recommend evaluating these chemicals by the dermal pathway in soil. Exposures to these chemicals in soil through the dermal pathway is insignificant.(b) Default fractionation data were used to evaluate the aliphatic and aromatic fractions of the TPH compounds.

CLE000366.pdf

Appendix A Backup - Table 3Summary of Maintenance Worker ACLs

Combined ACL for Ingestion and Dermal Pathways =(ACLing*ACLderm) / (ACLing+ACLderm)

NonCancer Cancer MinimumMaintenance Worker Soil ACL ACL ACL

(mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg)Chemical

Arsenic 1,292 80 80Barium NA -- NACadmium 3,848 -- 3,848Chromium 19,163 -- 19,163Mercury 1,916 -- 1,916Aroclor 1248 -- 46 46Aroclor 1254 66 46 46Aroclor 1260 -- 46 46Benzo(a)pyrene -- 7 7Diesel Range Organics 384,793 (a) 384,793 (a)

C10-C21 Aliphatic (ADEC Default) 384,789 -- 384,789C10-C21 Aromatic (ADEC Default) 153,916 -- 153,916

Residual Range Organics (RRO) 384,793 (b) 384,793 (b)C21-C35 Aliphatic (ADEC Default) NA -- NAC21-C35 Aromatic (ADEC Default) 115,437 -- 115,437

NOTES(a) The DRO ACL ensures that 40% of the total value does not exceed the Aromatic ACL.(b) The RRO ACL ensures that 30% of the total concentration does not exceed the Aromatic ACL. NA = Not applicable, the ACL for this compound would exceed 100%; therefore no concentrations are a health risk.-- = compound not evaluated for this toxicity endpointACLing = Alternate Cleanup Level - ingestionACLderm = Alternate Cleanup Level - dermalmg/kg = milligram/kilogram

CLE000366.pdf

Appendix A Backup - Table 4Incidental Ingestion of Construction Site SoilCurrent/Future

Exposure Medium: Soil Noncancer ACL = RfD x THQ / SIFncReceptor Population: Construction Worker Cancer ACL = TCR / (CSF x SIFc)Receptor Age: AdultsExposure Point: Construction Site Soil

RMEParameter Units Value RfD-O CSF-O ABSo

Chemical Concentration in Soil (CS) mg/kg chem-specific Chemical (mg/kg-d) (mg/kg-d)-1 unitlessIngestion Rate of Soil (IR-S) mg/day 330Exposure Frequency (EF) days/year 60 Arsenic 3.0E-04 1.5E+00 1Exposure Duration (ED) years 1 Barium 2.0E-01 -- 1Conversion Factor (CF) kg/mg 1.0E-06 Cadmium 1.0E-03 -- 1Body Weight (BW) kg 70 Chromium 3.0E-03 -- 1Averaging Time (noncancer) (ATnc) days 365 Mercury 3.0E-04 -- 1Averaging Time (cancer) (ATc) days 25,550 Aroclor 1248 -- 2.0E+00 1

Aroclor 1254 2.0E-05 2.0E+00 1SIFnc = ((IR-S*EF*ED*CF)/(BW*ATnc)) 7.75E-07 Aroclor 1260 -- 2.0E+00 1SIFc = ((IR-S*EF*ED*CF)/(BW*ATc)) 1.11E-08 Benzo(a)pyrene -- 7.3E+00 1Target Hazard (THQ) unitless 1.00E+00 Diesel Range OrganicsTarget Risk (TCR) unitless 1.00E-05 DRO (C10-C21) Aliphatic 1.0E-01 -- 1kg = kilogram DRO (C10-C21) Aromatic 4.0E-02 -- 1mg = milligram Residual Range Organics

RRO (C21-C35) Aliphatic 2.0E+00 -- 1RRO (C21-C35) Aromatic 3.0E-02 -- 1

mg/kg-d = milligram/kilogram/dayNonCancer Cancer

Construction Soil

Alternative Cleanup Level

(ACL)


(ACL)(mg/kg) (mg/kg)

ChemicalArsenic 387 602Barium 258081 --Cadmium 1290 --Chromium 3871 --Mercury 387 --Aroclor 1248 -- 452Aroclor 1254 26 452Aroclor 1260 -- 452Benzo(a)pyrene -- 124Diesel Range Organics (a) (a)




CLE000366.pdf

Appendix A Backup - Table 5Dermal Contact with Construction Site SoilCurrent/Future

Exposure Medium: Soil Noncancer ACL = RfD x THQ / (SIFnc x AbsD)Receptor Population: Construction Worker Cancer ACL = TCR / (CSF x SIFc x AbsD)Receptor Age: AdultsExposure Point: Construction Site Soil

Parameter Units RME Value RfD-D CSF-D AbsDChemical Concentration in Soil (CS) mg/kg chem-specific Chemical (mg/kg-d) (mg/kg-d)-1

Adherence Factor (AF) mg/cm2-event 0.3Exposure Frequency (EF) events/year 60 Arsenic 1.2E-04 3.7E+00 3.0E-02Exposure Duration (ED) years 1 Barium 1.4E-02 -- --Surface Area Available for Contact (SA) cm2 3,300 Cadmium 1.0E-05 -- 1.0E-03Conversion Factor (CF) kg/mg 1.0E-06 Chromium 6.0E-05 -- --Dermal Absorption (AbsD) unitless chem-specific Mercury 2.1E-05 -- --Body Weight (BW) kg 70 Aroclor 1248 -- 2.0E+00 1.4E-01Averaging Time (noncancer) (ATnc) days 365 Aroclor 1254 2.0E-05 2.0E+00 1.4E-01Averaging Time (cancer) (ATc) days 25,550 Aroclor 1260 -- 2.0E+00 1.4E-01

Benzo(a)pyrene -- 2.4E+01 1.3E-01SIFnc = ((EF*ED*SA*AF*CF)/(BW*ATnc)) 2.32E-06 Diesel Range OrganicsSIFc = ((EF*ED*SA*AF*CF)/(BW*ATc)) 3.32E-08 DRO (C10-C21) Aliphatic 1.0E-01 -- 1.0E-01Target Hazard (THQ) unitless 1.00E+00 DRO (C10-C21) Aromatic 4.0E-02 -- 1.0E-01Target Risk (TCR) unitless 1.00E-05 Residual Range Organicscm = centimeter RRO (C21-C35) Aliphatic 2.0E+00 -- 1.0E-01kg = kilogram RRO (C21-C35) Aromatic 3.0E-02 -- 1.0E-01mg = milligram

mg/kg-d = milligram/kilogram/day

NonCancer Cancer

Construction Soil


(ACL)



ChemicalArsenic 1764 2742Barium (a) (a)Cadmium 4301 --Chromium (a) (a)Mercury (a) (a)Aroclor 1248 -- 1075Aroclor 1254 61 1075Aroclor 1260 -- 1075Benzo(a)pyrene -- 99Diesel Range Organics (b) (b)C10-C21 Aliphatic (ADEC Default) 430135 --C10-C21 Aromatic (ADEC Default) 172054 --Residual Range Organics (RRO) (b) (b)C21-C35 Aliphatic (ADEC Default) 8602694 --C21-C35 Aromatic (ADEC Default) 129040 --

(a) EPA does not recommend evaluating these chemicals by the dermal pathway in soil. Exposures to these chemicals in soil through the dermal pathway is insignifican(b) Default fractionation data were used to evaluate the aliphatic and aromatic fractions of the TPH compounds.

CLE000366.pdf

Appendix A Backup - Table 6Inhalation of Fugitive Dust or Volatiles from soilCurrent/Future

Exposure Medium: Soil Noncancer ACL = (RfD x THQ x PEF[or VF]) / SIFncReceptor Population: Construction Site Workers Cancer ACL = (TCR x PEF[or VF]) / (CSF x SIFc)Receptor Age: AdultsExposure Point: Soil

RMEParameter Units Value RfD-I CSF-I PEF/VF

Chemical Concentration in Soil (Csoil) mg/kg chem-specific Chemical (mg/kg-d) (mg/kg-d)-1 m3/kgIngestion Rate of Air (Inh) m3/day 20Exposure Frequency (EF) days/year 60 Arsenic -- 1.5E+01 1.3E+10Exposure Duration (ED) years 1 Barium -- -- 1.3E+10Body Weight (BW) kg 70 Cadmium -- 6.3E+00 1.3E+10Averaging Time (noncancer) (ATnc) days 365 Chromium 2.9E-05 4.2E+01 1.3E+10Averaging Time (cancer) (ATc) days 25,550 Mercury -- -- 1.3E+10

Aroclor 1248 -- 2.0E+00 1.3E+10SIFnc = ((Inh*EF*ED)/(BW*ATnc)) 4.70E-02 Aroclor 1254 -- 2.0E+00 1.3E+10SIFc = ((Inh*EF*ED)/(BW*ATc)) 6.71E-04 Aroclor 1260 -- 2.0E+00 1.3E+10Target Hazard unitless 1.00E+00 Benzo(a)pyrene -- 3.1E+00 1.3E+10Target Risk unitless 1.00E-05 Diesel Range Organics 1.3E+10

DRO (C10-C21) Aliphatic 2.9E-01 -- 1.3E+10kg = kilogram DRO (C10-C21) Aromatic 6.0E-02 -- 1.3E+10m = meter Residual Range Organics 1.3E+10mg = milligram RRO (C21-C35) Aliphatic 2.0E+00 -- 1.3E+10

RRO (C21-C35) Aromatic 3.0E-02 -- 1.3E+10mg/kg-d = milligram/kilogram/day

NonCancer Cancer

Construction Soil


(ACL)



ChemicalArsenic -- 12670735Barium -- --Cadmium -- 30168416Chromium 7873956 4525262Mercury -- --Aroclor 1248 -- 95030509Aroclor 1254 -- 95030509Aroclor 1260 -- 95030509Benzo(a)pyrene -- 61310006Diesel Range Organics (a) (a)




CLE000366.pdf

Appendix A Backup - Table 7Summary of Construction Worker ACLs

Combined ACL for Ingestion, Dermal and Inhalation Pathways =(ACLing*ACLderm*ACLinh) / [(ACLing*ACLderm)+(ACLing*ACLinh)+ACLderm*ACLinh)]

NonCancer Cancer MinimumConstruction Soil ACL ACL ACL

(mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg)Chemical

Arsenic 317 494 317Barium 258,081 -- 258,081Cadmium 993 NA 993Chromium 3,869 NA 3,869Mercury 387 -- 387Aroclor 1248 -- 318 318Aroclor 1254 18 318 18Aroclor 1260 -- 318 318Benzo(a)pyrene -- 55 55Diesel Range Organics 99,262 (a) 99,262 (a)

C10-C21 Aliphatic (ADEC Default) 99,262 -- 99,262C10-C21 Aromatic (ADEC Default) 39,705 -- 39,705

Residual Range Organics (RRO) 99,262 (b) 99,262 (b)C21-C35 Aliphatic (ADEC Default) 1,985,230 -- 1,985,230C21-C35 Aromatic (ADEC Default) 29,778 -- 29,778

NOTES(a) The DRO ACL ensures that 40% of the total value does not exceed the Aromatic ACL.(b) The RRO ACL ensures that 30% of the total concentration does not exceed the Aromatic ACL. NA = Not applicable, the ACL for this compound would exceed 100%; therefore no concentrations are a health risk.-- = compound not evaluated for this toxicity endpointACLing = Alternate Cleanup Level - ingestionACLderm = Alternate Cleanup Level - dermalACLinh = Alternte Cleanup Level - inhalationmg/kg = milligram/kilogram

CLE000366.pdf

Appendix A Backup - Table 8Calculations of Blood Lead Concentrations (PbBs)U.S. EPA Technical Review Workgroup for Lead, Adult Lead CommitteeVersion date 05/19/05

Exposure Variable UnitsConstruction

WorkerMaintenance

Worker Source

PbSug/g or ppm 938.5 525.5

Construction worker - UCL95 for surface and subsurface soilMaintenance worker - UCL95 for surface soil

Rfetal/maternal -- 0.9 0.9 Default Value (USEPA 2003)BKSF ug/dL per

ug/day0.4 0.4

Default Value (USEPA 2003)GSDi -- 2.1 2.1 Default Value for non-hispanic white populations (USEPA 2003)PbB0 ug/dL 1.7 1.7 Default Value for non-hispanic white populations (USEPA 2003)IRS g/day 0.050 0.050 Default Value (USEPA 2003)

IRS+D g/day -- -- Default Value (USEPA 2003)WS -- -- -- Default Value (USEPA 2003)KSD -- -- -- Default Value (USEPA 2003)

AFS, D -- 0.12 0.12 Default Value (USEPA 2003)EFS, D days/yr 219 219 Default Value (USEPA 2003)ATS, D days/yr 365 365 Default Value (USEPA 2003)

PbBadult PbB of adult worker, geometric mean ug/dL 3.1 2.5 Calculated ValuePbBfetal, 0.95 95th percentile PbB among fetuses of adult workers ug/dL 9.4 7.4 Calculated Value

PbBt Target PbB level of concern (e.g., 10 ug/dL) ug/dL 10.0 10.0 Default Value (USEPA 2003)P(PbBfetal > PbBt) Probability that fetal PbB > PbBt, assuming lognormal distribution % 4.2% 2.0% Calculated Value

1 Equation 1 does not apportion exposure between soil and dust ingestion (excludes W S, KSD). When IRS = IRS+D and WS = 1.0, the equations yield the same PbBfetal,0.95. dL = deciliter ug = microgram g = gram ppm = parts per million

*Equation 1, based on Eq. 1, 2 in USEPA (1996).PbB adult = (PbS*BKSF*IRS+D*AFS,D*EFS/ATS.D) + PbB0

PbB fetal, 0.95 = PbBadult * (GSDi1.645 * R)

**Equation 2, alternate approach based on Eq. 1, 2, and A-19 in USEPA (1996).PbB adult = PbS*BKSF*([(IRS+D)*AFS*EFS*WS]+[KSD*(IRS+D)*(1-WS)*AFD*EFD])/365+PbB0

PbB fetal, 0.95 = PbBadult * (GSDi1.645 * R)

Source: U.S. EPA (1996). Recommendations of the Technical Review Workgroup for Lead for an Interim Approach to Assessing Risks Associated with Adult Exposures to Lead in Soil. U.S. EPA (2005). Technical Review Workgroup for Lead, Adult Lead Committee, Version date 05/19/09.

Baseline PbB

Soil ingestion rate (including soil-derived indoor dust)

Total ingestion rate of outdoor soil and indoor dust

Averaging time (same for soil and dust)

Exposure frequency (same for soil and dust)

Absorption fraction (same for soil and dust)

Mass fraction of soil in dust

Weighting factor; fraction of IRS+D ingested as outdoor soil

Description of Exposure Variable

Geometric standard deviation PbB

Soil lead concentration

Fetal/maternal PbB ratio Biokinetic Slope Factor

CLE000366.pdf

Appendix A Backup - Table 9Calculations of Preliminary Remediation Goals (PRGs)U.S. EPA Technical Review Workgroup for Lead, Adult Lead CommitteeVersion date 05/19/05

Exposure Variable Units

Construction Worker

Maintenance Worker Source

PbBfetal, 0.95 95th percentile PbB in fetus ug/dL 10.0 10.0 Default Value (USEPA 2003)Rfetal/maternal Fetal/maternal PbB ratio -- 0.9 0.9 Default Value (USEPA 2003)

BKSF Biokinetic Slope Factor ug/dL per ug/day

0.4 0.4Default Value (USEPA 2003)

GSDi Geometric standard deviation PbB -- 2.1 2.1 Default Value for non-hispanic white populations (USEPA 2003)PbB0 Baseline PbB ug/dL 1.7 1.7 Default Value for non-hispanic white populations (USEPA 2003)IRS Soil ingestion rate (including soil-derived indoor dust) g/day 0.050 0.050 Default Value (USEPA 2003)

AFS, D Absorption fraction (same for soil and dust) -- 0.12 0.12 Default Value (USEPA 2003)EFS, D Exposure frequency (same for soil and dust) days/yr 219 219 Default Value (USEPA 2003)ATS, D Averaging time (same for soil and dust) days/yr 365 365 Default Value (USEPA 2003)PRG ppm 1,079 1,114

1 Equation 1 does not apportion exposure between soil and dust ingestion (excludes W S, KSD). When IRS = IRS+D and WS = 1.0, the equations yield the same PRG. dL = deciliter ug = microgram ppm = parts per million yr = year

Source: U.S. EPA (1996). Recommendations of the Technical Review Workgroup for Lead for an Interim Approach to Assessing Risks Associated with Adult Exposures to Lead in Soil. U.S. EPA (2005). Technical Review Workgroup for Lead, Adult Lead Committee, Version date 05/19/09.

Description of Exposure Variable

Region OR Ethnic GSDi and PbBo Data from NHANES III Analysis

CLE000366.pdf

APPENDIX B REFERENCED AIR FORCE INSTRUCTIONS

CLE000366.pdf

NOTICE: This publication is available digitally on the AFDPO WWW site at: http://www.e-publishing.af.mil.

COMPLIANCE WITH THIS PUBLICATION IS MANDATORY

BY ORDER OF THESECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE

AIR FORCE INSTRUCTION 32-1001

1 SEPTEMBER 2005

Civil Engineering

OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT

OPR: HQ AFCESA/CEOK (Mr. Andy Jackson) Certified by: HQ USAF/ILE-2(Col Gus G. Elliott, Jr.)

Supersedes AFI 32-1001, 1 August 1999 Pages: 10Distribution: F

This instruction implements AFPD 32-10, Installations and Facilities. It provides the directive require-ments for the operations management of civil engineering. It establishes a civil engineer worldwide base-line set of definitions, operations process descriptions, and organizational guidance which applies to theobjective operations flight organization for both groups and squadrons (civil engineer groups should usethe appropriate organizational equivalent to flight used in this AFI). Paragraph 2. does not apply whenoperations management functions are cost-compared under OMB Circular A-76 (if cost-compared, oper-ations management functions will be spelled out in a Performance Requirements Document). Addition-ally, major commands (MAJCOM) may elect to further restrict applicability of this AFI based oncompetitive sourcing initiatives and to accommodate MAJCOM-unique requirements and desired flexi-bility. This AFI provides a good basis for defining operations management, regardless of the actual orga-nizational means used to execute. This AFI does not apply to Air National Guard units.

SUMMARY OF REVISIONS

This revision recommends a new organizational section structure below the Operations Flight. The Oper-ations Flight is organized predominately into Air Force Specialty (AFS) named shops. The new flight sec-tions are: Electrical, Mechanical, Pavements/Equipment, Structural, Utilities, Operations Support, andMaintenance Engineering (paragraphs 2. through 2.1.7.). Organizational flexibility is still allowed belowflight level. The requirement for Air Force Information Management Tools (IMT) was eliminated becauseall required IMTs/forms are embedded in the approved automated work control software systems (para-graph 3.1.). Other minor administrative updates were made. A | to the left of a paragraph number indi-cates revisions have been made to that paragraph.

Section A—Objectives

1. Main Objectives. The Operations Flight main objectives are to ensure Air Force installations can sup-port the mission, maintain real property facilities, and develop and implement programs to improve the

CLE000366.pdf

http://www.e-publishing.af.mil

2 AFI32-1001 1 SEPTEMBER 2005

livability of our base communities. Operations management accomplishes the following functions usingeither in-house or contract resources.

1.1. Operates, maintains, repairs, constructs, and demolishes Air Force real property and real propertyinstalled equipment (RPIE) to accomplish the mission in the most timely and economical manner,considering both the total life cycle costs and the impact of facilities on the quality of life.

1.2. Provides trained personnel and technical expertise to support Air Force operations worldwide.

1.3. Maintains capability to respond to and eliminate any emergency condition 24 hours a day.

1.4. Conducts all activities in compliance with applicable environmental, fire, and safety laws, codes,and directives.

1.5. Provides reliable, cost-effective utilities to meet readiness requirements, satisfy installationneeds, and maintain quality of life.

1.6. Provides base support services (e.g., pest control, grounds maintenance, snow removal).

1.7. Establishes quality standards and feedback mechanisms to assess performance in meeting mis-sion requirements and customers’ needs.

1.8. Establishes a system to provide customers the capability to accomplish work requirements usingtheir own resources.

1.9. Develops and annually updates future plans for major work requirements (roofing, pavements,protective coating).

1.10. Effectively allocates in-service resources, including people, facilities, equipment, and vehiclesto meet mission and customers’ needs.

1.11. Provides customers with the costs of work or services performed on their facilities.

1.12. Maintains a time and material accounting system to collect and report the cost of doing busi-ness.

1.13. Provides effective logistics support.

1.14. Provides an effective facility management program.

Section B—Civil Engineering Management Concepts and Controls

2. The Operations Flight within the Objective Squadron. AFI 38-101, Air Force Organization, pre-scribes the Civil Engineer Objective Squadron down to the flight level: Housing, Engineering, Opera-tions, Environmental, Explosive Ordnance Disposal, Fire Protection, Resources, and Readiness. Belowflight level, Air Force organizational policy allows flexibility to establish new organizational sections,move tasks/functions between sections, and move manpower authorizations between sections. The Oper-ations Flight is organized to: maximize training and efficiency with AFS-named shops; sustain operationswith a reduced work force when military personnel deploy; provide centralized customer service; andfocus engineering expertise on infrastructure systems. The flight is composed of sections to processrequirements in an efficient and timely manner. They include Electrical, Mechanical, Pavements/Equip-ment, Structural, Utilities, Operations Support, and Maintenance Engineering. These sections are recom-mended but not required. For example, below flight level there is flexibility to organize to support the

CLE000366.pdf

AFI32-1001 1 SEPTEMBER 2005 3

mission by establishing multiple-AFS teams, combining sections, or moving a function from one sectionto another section. (See Figure 1.)

Figure 1. Example Sections Structure

2.1. The Operations Flight Commander/Chief (or equivalent) is responsible for management of theoperations function to include planning, budgeting, executing, equipping, and training to ensure themost effective and efficient organization. The operations flight commander/chief will ensure all per-sonnel receive training sufficient to meet core peacetime and wartime requirements and to promotemaximum career development.

2.1.1. The Electrical Section, 3E0XX AFS, is responsible for the installation, operation, mainte-nance and repair of high and low voltage power distribution systems, electrical power and gener-ating systems, cathodic protection, fire alarms, intrusion detection systems, airfield lightingsystems, and aircraft arresting systems.

2.1.2. The Mechanical Section, 3E1X1 AFS, is responsible for the installation, operation, mainte-nance and repair of Heating, Ventilation, Air Conditioning and Refrigeration (HVAC/R) systemsand equipment, in-house heat plant operations and Energy Monitoring and Control System(EMCS) and Direct Digital Control (DDC).

2.1.3. The Pavements/Equipment Section, 3E2X1 AFS, is responsible for the operation and main-tenance of heavy construction equipment (e.g., loaders, graders, dozers, backhoes, dump trucks)and the construction and maintenance of concrete and asphalt runways, aircraft parking aprons,surface drainage, parking lots, grounds and roadways.

2.1.4. The Structural Section, 3E3X1 AFS, is responsible for the management, construction,repair, and modification of structural systems and wooden, masonry, metal and concrete buildings.Responsibilities also include the fabrication and repair of components of buildings, utility sys-tems, and real property, as well as locksmith operations. The Work Order Execution Team willaccomplish large, in-house work orders and provide the capability for the military to train and pre-pare for deployment taskings. Facility Maintenance Teams (FMT) will accomplish routine main-tenance of high-use, high visibility facilities.

2.1.5. The Utilities Section, 3E4XX AFS, is responsible for the installation, inspection, mainte-nance, repair, troubleshooting and modification of water and wastewater treatment, distributionand collections systems; plumbing operations; natural gas distribution; liquid fuels distributionsystems; and entomology services.

2.1.6. The Operations Support Section, 3E6X1, 2S0XX, 2T1X1 AFS, is responsible for the man-agement and control of work requirements and logistics support for the in-house workforce.

CLE000366.pdf


Included in this sections are Operations Management, Planning (both in-house and self-help),Vehicle Management, Material Acquisition, and Self-Help.

2.1.7. The Maintenance Engineering Section, 32EX, 3E5X1 AFS, is responsible for engineeringexpertise within the Operations Flight. Included are service and utility contract management,energy management, infrastructure plans, facility project review and engineering assistant tasks.Guidelines for Maintenance Engineering responsibilities can be found in AFPAM 32-1004V2,Working in the Operations Flight: Maintenance Engineering.

3. Work Control. Information management systems are used to manage, control, plan, schedule, andprogram work requirements in the most efficient means. The Air Force model automated systems are theInterim Work Information Management System (IWIMS) and the Automated Civil Engineer System(ACES). The capability of transmitting data to higher headquarters is mandatory.

3.1. Work Control Forms. The automated work control systems contain embedded software/forms tocontrol work requirements

3.2. Accounting System. Use a time accounting system to record hours and costs to work orders andaccount codes. The system should provide the necessary data to assist with managing and analyzingwork force effectiveness. Perform periodic reviews (e.g., work analysis, productivity, workload andmanpower balancing) to eliminate or minimize potential performance problems.

3.3. Collection Work Order Numbers (CWON). The Automated Civil Engineer System Operationsfunctionality (ACES OP) will manage the collection work order process. The collection work orderslisted in Attachment 2 will remain in use to support the logistics functionality.

4. Working in the Operations Flight Pamphlets. Working in the Operations Flight pamphlets providecivil engineers with clear, straightforward text on how to effectively accomplish the mission better, faster,and cheaper. The pamphlets contain information on flight duties and responsibilities, and procedures foraccomplishing the Operations Flight mission (reference http://www.e-publishing.af.mil/).

Section C—Work Requirements

5. Customer Requirements. Work requests are either verbal or written. In the ACES OP application,Air Force forms will no longer be used or required. Base facility managers or other designated personnelwill access and submit work requests electronically to the appropriate customer service location withincivil engineering. Customer service personnel will determine the necessary documentation and establishthe appropriate type of work order (planned work or direct scheduled work).

6. Coordination Requirements. The request must be coordinated with appropriate agencies on workthat requires civil engineer support. ACES OP will support an automated coordination process. Workrequests may be electronically transmitted to the various agencies that need to review and coordinate onall work requests. Civil engineers may opt to perform this coordination.

6.1. Coordinate fire hazards through the fire protection flight for assignment of a Fire Safety Defi-ciency (FSD) code. This includes rating of materials, fire protection access to an area or facility, or fireprotection criteria affected by the proposed work such as personnel emergency egress, fire alarms, orsuppression systems.

CLE000366.pdf

http://www.e-publishing.af.mil/


6.2. Coordinate health or environmental hazards through the base bioenvironmental engineer (usuallyassigned to the base hospital) for assignment of a Risk Assessment Code (RAC).

6.3. Coordinate safety hazards through the base safety office for RAC assignment.

6.4. Coordinate requests through the environmental flight to assess the environmental impact.

6.5. Coordinate requests with Base Communications to assess impact of facility renovations andmajor repairs.

6.6. Work Clearance. Work with other organizations such as Contracting, Security Forces, Communi-cations, and utility companies (e.g., gas, cable) to ensure a tracking system is in place to cover liabilityfor disruption of service and subsequent repairs. ACES OP will support an automated coordinationprocess. Work requests may be electronically transmitted to the various agencies that need to reviewand coordinate on all work requests.

7. Approval of Base Civil Engineer Work Request. The decision to approve or disapprove should bemade promptly. Review and process the request only to the extent necessary to support the decision. Theapproval authority assigns the applicable priority. Refer to AFI 32-1032, Planning and ProgrammingAppropriated Funded Maintenance, Repair, and Construction Projects, and AFI 32-1022, Planning andProgramming of NAF Facility Construction Projects, for work classification and project approval author-ity levels.

8. Work Definitions. Operations management work will generally fall into one of two categories basedon scope and complexity of the requirement (a man-hour threshold may be used to separate work catego-ries). MAJCOMs are the ultimate owners of these definitions for purposes of uniform standards andreporting metrics and may modify these definitions to meet their unique requirements and desired flexi-bility.

8.1. Planned Work. Planned work, to include minor construction and direct scheduled work, requiresdetailed planning or capitalization of the real property records. The planner determines the scope,method, and type of resources and estimates the quantity of resources using approved cost estimatingtools. For example, Engineering Performance Standards (EPS), commercially developed cost estimat-ing models, or locally-approved cost estimating tools can be used to produce reliable standard-hourestimates. The following priorities are used for the planned work orders.

8.1.1. Priority 1–Mission. Work in direct support of the overall base mission that, if not done,would reduce operational effectiveness.

8.1.2. Priority 2–Safeguard Life and Property. Work needed to give adequate security to areassubject to compromise; to eliminate health, fire, or safety hazards; or to protect valuable propertyor equipment.

8.1.3. Priority 3–Support. Work that supports the mission or prevents a breakdown of essentialoperating or housekeeping functions.

8.1.4. Priority 4–Necessary. Not qualifying for higher priority.

8.2. Direct Scheduled Work. This work generally does not require detailed planning. The followingwork classifications are used for direct scheduled work.

CLE000366.pdf


8.2.1. Emergency. Work required to eliminate an emergency condition within 24 hours of notifi-cation that is detrimental to the mission or reduces operational effectiveness.

8.2.2. Urgent. Work that is not an emergency, but must be responded to and completed, or materi-als ordered, within 7 calendar days of receipt. If materials are ordered, completion shall be within7 calendar days after receipt of materials.

8.2.3. Routine. Work that does not qualify as emergency or urgent work, but must be accom-plished within 30 calendar days after identifying the requirement or receipt of material. Materialrequirements must be processed within 14 calendar days of receipt. When practical, group routinerequirements into work packages and accomplish as a single undertaking.

9. Change/Cancellation of Work Orders:

9.1. Change orders are required when:

9.1.1. The work is likely to exceed the approval authority of the individual who originallyapproved the work requirement.

9.1.2. The scope of work changes from that described on the original work order resulting in afunded cost increase of 25 percent or more. A change of scope of work is any additional work notrequested or approved on the original approval document.

9.1.3. There is an additional requirement to install, remove, or replace RPIE or other equipmentthat changes real property records.

9.2. Do not use change orders solely to eliminate variances between the estimated and approval lists.

9.3. Cancel work orders only by the same level of authority, or higher, that approved the original doc-ument.

9.4. Canceled minor construction work orders must be forwarded through real property for adjust-ment to the construction-in-progress account.

10. Recurring Work Program (RWP). Recurring work applies to real property, RPIE, or systems andequipment maintained by the Base Civil Engineer (BCE). Recurring work consists of operations, recur-ring maintenance, service work, and other recurring work for which the scope and level of effort areknown without an earlier visit to the job site each time the work is scheduled. It includes all recurringwork needed to prevent breakdown of critical facilities, equipment, or utilities. The RWP encompasses allwork of a normally recurring nature except utility operations and contracted services. The RWP is man-aged by reserving hours in the schedule. Maintenance Engineering, along with shop personnel, is respon-sible for the annual assessment of the RWP; however, Maintenance Engineering oversees thedevelopment and maintainability of the program.

11. Work Order Closeout. Work order closeout should be completed as promptly as possible. Thisincludes but is not limited to the following:

11.1. Drawings Update. Maintenance engineering will update as-built drawings for all work that cre-ates changes to facilities or utility systems.

11.2. Capitalization. Send work orders that change real property records to the resources flight oncethe job is finished. The planner clearly documents the identity of changes to real and installed prop-

CLE000366.pdf


erty. For self-help work that requires capitalization, the planner provides the total EPS hours multi-plied by the predominant shop rate of the work being performed. Specific capitalization instructionsare contained in AFI 32-9005, Real Property Accountability and Reporting.

Section D—Special Considerations

12. Real Property Similar Equipment (RPSE). RPSE is non-RPIE structures and equipment deployedor permanently assigned to an installation as facility substitutes that support a MAJCOM mission. RPSEis not considered real property, as accountability will be strictly in the control of the user. Examplesinclude (but are not limited to) hush houses, Survivable Collective Protective Systems (SCPS-2 andSCPS-M), uninterruptible power supplies, KMU-450 Chemical Protective Systems, Tactical Shelter Sys-tems, and Chemically Hardened Air Transportable Hospitals. Civil engineer support for RPSE should beprovided according to a memorandum of understanding with the owning organization, reimbursable, andsubject to man-hour availability. Recurring requirements should be addressed and negotiated for contrac-tual support.

13. Appliances:

13.1. Each MAJCOM will ensure the BCE develops an effective appliance program. The BCE shallensure adequate management controls and safeguards are established to preserve appliance warrantiesand execute prudent appliance maintenance and replacement divisions.

13.2. Management of government-owned domestic appliances is the responsibility of the HousingFlight as outlined in AFI 32-6004, Furnishings Management. Government-owned domestic appli-ances are defined as appropriated funded refrigerators, stoves, washing machines, clothes dryers,freezers, portable dishwashers, microwave ovens, and ice machines.

13.3. Management of commercial equipment is the responsibility of the owning organization. Gov-ernment-owned commercial appliances include commercial food service equipment in appropriatedfunded facilities such as dining facilities and flight kitchens. Budgeting and funding to replace com-mercial food service equipment in appropriated funded facilities is the responsibility of the usingorganization.

13.4. In the continental United States (CONUS), the Operations Flight is responsible for contractmaintenance of domestic and commercial appliances unless good business practices determine theresponsibility should be elsewhere. This includes providing the Quality Assurance Engineer (QAE)and technical assistance. Overseas, the Operations Flight is responsible for the maintenance, repair,and replacement of domestic and commercial appliances.

13.5. The BCE will always seek to competitively source the appliance maintenance function. Forsquadrons that have been cost compared, management responsibility will be placed with the serviceprovider.

13.6. Maintenance and repair of unit-owned appliances will be at the discretion of the OperationsFlight.

DONALD J. WETEKAM, Maj General, USAF DCS/Installations & Logistics

CLE000366.pdf


Attachment 1

GLOSSARY OF REFERENCES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION

References

Air Force Publications:

AFPD 32-10, Installations and Facilities

AFI 32-1022, Planning and Programming of NAF Facility Construction Projects

AFI 32-1032, Planning and Programming Appropriated Funded Maintenance, repair, and ConstructionProjects

AFI 32-6004, Furnishings Management

AFI 32-9005, Real Property Accountability and Reporting

AFI 38-101, Air Force Organization

Additional References

Air Force:

AFPAM 32-1003V3, Working in the Resources Flight, Financial Management (Draft)

AFPAM 32-1004V1, Working in the Operations Flight, Functions and Organization

AFPAM 32-1004V2, Working in the Operations Flight, Maintenance Engineering

AFPAM 32-1004V3, Working in the Operations Flight, Facility Maintenance

AFPAM 32-1004V4, Working in the Operations Flight, Material Acquisition

AFPAM 32-1004V5, Working in the Operations Flight, Infrastructure Support

AFPAM 32-1004V6, Working in the Operations Flight, Heavy Repair

Other:

Office of Management and Budget Circular A-76, Performance of Commercial Activities, August 4, 1983

Abbreviations and Acronyms

ACES—Automated Civil Engineer System

ACES OP—Automated Civil Engineer System Operations (functionality)

AFS—Air Force specialty

BCE—Base Civil Engineer

BEEF—Base Engineer Emergency Force

CEMAS—Civil Engineering Material Acquisition System

CWON—collection work order numbers

CONUS—continental United States

CLE000366.pdf


DDC—Direct Digital Control

EAID—Equipment Authorization Inventory Data

EMCS—Energy Monitoring and Control System

EOD—explosive ordnance disposal

EPS—engineering performance standards

FMT—facility maintenance team

FSD—Fire Safety Deficiency

HVAC/R—Heating, Ventilation, Air Conditioning, and Refrigeration

IWIMS—Interim Work Information Management System

MAJCOM—Major Command

QAE—Quality Assurance Engineer

RAC—Risk Assessment Code

RPIE—Real Property Installed Equipment

RPSE—Real Property Similar Equipment

RWP—Recurring Work Program

SCPS—Survivable Collective Protective Systems

CLE000366.pdf


Attachment 2

RESERVED COLLECTION WORK ORDER NUMBERS

A2.1. Work Order 00001: Bench or shop stock issues.

A2.2. Work Order 00002: Base service store issues.

A2.3. Work Order 00003: Bulk delivery items such as sand, gravel, and lumber by actual time accounting(ATA) work centers.

A2.4. Work Order 00004: Issues from base supply individual equipment unit.

A2.5. Work Order 00005: Mobility kits and other Prime Base Engineer Emergency Force (BEEF), Explo-sive Ordnance Disposal (EOD), and Readiness supplies not charged to specific mobility deployment.

A2.6. Work Order 00006: Common-use tools maintained in a tool issue center.

A2.7. Work Order 00007: Tool kits obtained from base supply.

A2.8. Work Order 00008: Individual tools issued from base supply.

A2.9. Work Order 00009: Equipment authorization inventory data (EAID) and shop equipment.

A2.10. Work Order 00010: Residual materials (except in Civil Engineering Material Acquisition System[CEMAS]).

A2.11. Work Orders 00011 through 00020: For use by CEMAS in IWIMS/ACES.

CLE000366.pdf





24 JANUARY 2003

Civil Engineering

PLANNING AND PROGRAMMING MILITARYCONSTRUCTION (MILCON) PROJECTS

OPR: HQ USAF/ILECD (Maj Derrek D. Sanks) Certified by: HQ USAF/ILEC(Col Andrew R. Scrafford)

Supersedes AFI 32-1021, 12 May 1994 Pages: 44Distribution: F

This instruction implements AFPD 32-10, Installations and Facilities. It provides instructions to majorcommands and installations on how to plan, develop, and obtain approval for Military Construction(MILCON) projects. It applies to the active forces, the Air National Guard, and the US Air Force Reserve.It addresses facilities obtained through military construction, unspecified minor construction (P-341),emergency construction, defense access roads, and relocatable building programs. It excludes militaryfamily housing (MFH) and defense-wide military construction programs; non-appropriated fund (NAF)and host nation funded construction programs; operations and maintenance (O&M) funded minor con-struction; Working Capital funds; and construction projects funded with research, development, test, andevaluation (RDT&E) funds. The phrase "to HQ USAF/ILEC" should be replaced with "to HQ USAF/REL" throughout the instruction when referring to the US Air Force Reserve and "to ANG/CE" whenreferring to the Air National Guard. References to "MAJCOM" in this instruction apply to major com-mands, direct reporting units (DRU), and field operating agencies (FOA). This instruction implementsstatutes and DoD Directives outlined in Attachment 1. Users should send comments and suggestedimprovements on AF Form 847, Recommendation for Change of Publication, through MAJCOMs to HQUSAF/ILEC, 1260 Air Force Pentagon, Washington DC 20330-1260.


This document is substantially revised and must be completely reviewed.

Revisions include updated and expanded discussions of the MILCON planning and programming pro-cesses, host and tenant MAJCOM responsibilities, MILCON submittal procedures, cost estimating, andthe Defense Medical Facility and Defense Access Roads construction programs. New project compliancecertification, demolition policy, and antiterrorism force protection (AT/FP) requirements for MILCONprojects are also included.

CLE000366.pdf


2 AFI32-1021 24 JANUARY 2003

Chapter 1—PRINCIPLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES 4

1.1. Facility Project Planning and Programming Objective. ............................................ 4

1.2. Principles. .................................................................................................................. 4

1.3. Responsibilities. ......................................................................................................... 4

Chapter 2—MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROJECT PLANNING 6

2.1. Planning. .................................................................................................................... 6

2.2. Planning Actions. ....................................................................................................... 6

2.3. Certificate of Compliance. ......................................................................................... 6

Figure 2.1. Certificate of Compliance for Critical Planning Actions. .......................................... 11

Chapter 3—MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAMMING 21

3.1. MILCON Programming. ............................................................................................ 21

3.2. Definition of MILCON. ............................................................................................. 21

3.3. MILCON Project Development. ................................................................................ 21

3.4. MILCON Program Development. ............................................................................. 23

3.5. MILCON and Program Objective Memorandum Schedules. .................................... 24

3.6. Project Files. .............................................................................................................. 25

3.7. Special Military Construction Authorities. ................................................................ 25

Chapter 4—UNSPECIFIED MINOR CONSTRUCTION PROGRAMMING 29

4.1. Unspecified Minor Construction. .............................................................................. 29

4.2. Minor Construction Project Criteria. ......................................................................... 29

4.3. Project Justification and Submittal. ........................................................................... 29

4.4. Project Approval. ....................................................................................................... 30

Figure 4.1. Certificate of Compliance for Minor Construction Projects Carried Out Under Authority of 10 U.S.C. 2805. (Per 10 U.S.C. 18233a, the below Certification of Compliance is not required for reserve components). .............................................. 31

Chapter 5—EMERGENCY, DAMAGED OR DESTROYED, AND CONTINGENCY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAMS 32

5.1. Purpose of Chapter. .................................................................................................... 32

5.2. Special Emergency Programs Available. ................................................................... 32

Chapter 6—RELOCATABLE AND TEMPORARY FACILITIES 35

6.1. Relocatable and Temporary Use Facilities Background. ........................................... 35

CLE000366.pdf

AFI32-1021 24 JANUARY 2003 3

6.2. Relocatable Facilities. ................................................................................................ 35

6.3. Temporary Facilities Incident to MILCON. .............................................................. 38

6.4. Forms Prescribed. ...................................................................................................... 38

Attachment 1—GLOSSARY OF REFERENCES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION 39

CLE000366.pdf

4 AFI32-1021 24 JANUARY 2003

Chapter 1

PRINCIPLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

1.1. Facility Project Planning and Programming Objective. The objective of facility project planningand programming is to provide facilities needed to perform the Air Force mission. All commanders shallsupport this objective by ensuring project requests meet validated requirements; are in compliance withall applicable standards; are programmed at the lowest life cycle cost; achieve optimum resource effi-ciency and minimize damage to the natural and human environments; and are within authorities and avail-able resources.

1.2. Principles. Planning and programming facilities follows these principles.

1.2.1. Facility Project Planning. Facility project planning identifies facilities needed to satisfy cur-rent and future mission requirements and determines the most economical means of providing thosefacilities. This determination shall always begin with an evaluation of existing facilities for their suit-ability to satisfy mission requirements.

1.2.2. Military Construction (MILCON) Programming. MILCON programming is the process ofacquiring both the authority and resources necessary to provide facility requirements identified by theplanning process. A construction project with an estimated cost greater than $750,000 is normallyfunded through the MILCON Program.

1.3. Responsibilities.

1.3.1. Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force (Installations), SAF/IEI. Provides Air Forcepolicy development and oversight; and advocates for the MILCON program through the Office of theSecretary of Defense (OSD), Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and Congress.

1.3.2. The Civil Engineer, HQ USAF/ILE. Formulates policy governing the Air Force MILCONprogram, directs development of Air Force capital investment strategies, and advocates for resourcesthrough the Air Force Corporate Structure, OSD, OMB, and Congress.

1.3.3. The Engineering Division, HQ USAF/ILEC. Formulates policy and procedures governingthe Air Force MILCON program, develops Air Force capital investment strategies, and validates andintegrates Total Force (Active Air Force, Air National Guard, Air Force Reserve) facility projectrequirements into a corporate Air Force MILCON program. Advocates for MILCON resourcesthrough the Air Force Corporate Structure, OSD, OMB, and Congress. Coordinates construction pro-grams requiring interagency approvals, such as defense access roads, medical facilities, defense fuels,and energy conservation.

1.3.4. US Air Force Reserve Installations and Logistics Directorate, HQ USAF/REL. I s s ue sguidance to Air Force Reserve Command (AFRC) for submitting its MILCON program, reviews andvalidates the submittal, assists Air Staff in determining size and content of their MILCON program,and advocates for AFRC MILCON program through OSD and Congress.

1.3.5. Air National Guard, ANG/CE. Provides instructions to ANG installation commanders forplanning and preparing construction programs, reviews and validates cost estimates, validates and pri-oritizes facility requirements, reviews and validates cost estimates, and program documents. Prepares

CLE000366.pdf

AFI32-1021 24 JANUARY 2003 5

and submits the ANG MILCON portion of the President’s Budget. Advocates for the ANG MILCONprogram through National Guard Bureau, OSD, and Congress.

1.3.6. Major Commands. Develop and submit MILCON programs in accordance with guidanceissued by HQ USAF, and all applicable Air Force Instructions. Provide instructions and guidance toinstallation commanders for planning and submitting MILCON programs, to include review and vali-dation of cost estimates, and validation and prioritization of all facility requirements. Coordinate withthe MAJCOM/SC to verify all communication requirements are documented and cost estimates areaccurate.

1.3.7. Installation Commanders. Identify, plan, and program facilities to support their assigned mis-sions. Determine whether existing facilities are available to meet the requirement (see AFI 32-9001,Acquisition of Real Property); ensure existing facilities are used economically and efficiently and thatexcess space is evaluated for demolition. Prioritize and submit MILCON programs to their MAJ-COMs.

1.3.8. Host, Tenant, and Supported Unit Responsibilities. The host installation will provide ser-vices to tenant and supported units in accordance with AFI 25-201, Support Agreement Requirementsand AFI 65-601, Vol 1, Budget Guidance and Procedures. These services include, but are not limitedto, preparing program documents, obtaining required certifications, and providing Base Civil Engi-neer services.

1.3.8.1. Projects for On-Base Tenants and Supported Units. Host installations will providefacilities and/or space needed by on-base tenants or supported units from existing assets, if avail-able. If adequate existing facilities are not available, or if the tenant otherwise requires construc-tion or renovation of facilities for its sole use, the host installation will prepare program-relatedproject documentation on behalf of the tenant or supported unit's mission. The host installationwill then forward documentation concurrently to the host MAJCOM’s and tenant or supportedMAJCOM’s Civil Engineers. Any MILCON requirements and siting programmed or planned byother organizations must be coordinated by the host base MAJCOM/CV. This level of authoritywill not be delegated below the host MAJCOM/CV. Additionally, for mission beddown MILCON,the host base MAJCOM must participate in the beddown planning and the host MAJCOM/CVwill coordinate on the beddown plan. The tenant or supported unit’s command will validate theproject, establish its priority, and submit the project as part of its MILCON submittal to HQUSAF/ILEC. ANG should reference AFI 32-1012, Reserve Component Facilities Programs.

1.3.8.2. Air Force Reserve Command Units. Host Installations will follow AFI 25-201, Sup-port Agreements Requirements, on host-tenant relationships when reserve component units aretenants on Air Force installations.

1.3.8.3. Joint Use of Installations with Other Agencies. Host installations will follow AFI25-201, Support Agreements Requirements, in cases where units of other government agencies,departments, or military services use facilities or portions of an Air Force installation. Each MIL-CON project must be reviewed for joint use potential and certified in the certificate of complianceand stated on the DD Form 1391. (See Chapter 2.)

1.3.8.4. Installations in Foreign Countries. In foreign countries, installations will follow guide-lines outlined in status of forces or country-to-country agreements.

CLE000366.pdf

6 AFI32-1021 24 JANUARY 2003

Chapter 2

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROJECT PLANNING

2.1. Planning. Effective planning establishes facility requirements critical for mission accomplishmentand proposes the most effective and economical means of satisfying those requirements.

2.2. Planning Actions.

2.2.1. Determine Requirements. Installations identify facility needs and determine which needscannot be met with existing facilities. Installation commanders review, validate, and prioritize instal-lation MILCON facility requirements. Requirements shall be based on Air Force Handbook 32-1084,Facility Requirements, which provides typical requirements for a given facility type. Reference toother Air Force or DoD publications or a detailed study of unique user requirements may also be nec-essary to determine complete needs.

2.2.2. Evaluate Alternative Solutions. Installations evaluate existing assets and determine the mosteconomical and effective means of satisfying facility needs. New construction may require justifica-tion based on an economic analysis performed in accordance with AFI 65-501, Economic Analysis.

2.2.3. Initiate Programming Actions. When it is determined a facility shall be constructed orupgraded, the Base Civil Engineer (BCE) will prepare and submit DD Forms 1391, and all otherapplicable documentation, and enter the project into the Automated Civil Engineering System –Project Management module (ACES-PM). Documentation (typically obtained from facility users)shall include a fully justified, indisputable case for accomplishing the project.

2.3. Certificate of Compliance. Installations shall accomplish several planning actions for every MIL-CON project. A Certificate of Compliance (as shown in Figure 2.1.) signed by the installation com-mander, documents completion of these actions. MAJCOMs review these certificates to ensureinstallations have fulfilled all compliance requirements, and retain them for future reference and use.Although this certificate is only completed once, MAJCOMs shall ensure required actions take placewhen and as needed. The following paragraphs, listed in the same order on the certificate, briefly describethe actions being certified. If more detailed information is required to ensure compliance, referenced doc-uments should be reviewed.

2.3.1. Environmental Impact Analysis Process. (Figure 2.1., Item 1). Installations shall completethe environmental impact analysis process (EIAP), or have it underway, for each MILCON projectsubmitted to HQ USAF. See AFI 32-7061, The Environmental Impact Analysis Process.

2.3.2. Wetlands. (Figure 2.1., Item 2). Before MILCON projects are submitted to the MAJCOM,they shall comply with Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands and Guidelines of the USWater Resources Council. See also AFI 32-7064, Integrated Natural Resources Management. Projectswith potential impact to wetlands may require special permits and authorizations. Installation programmanagers shall consult with the US Army Corps of Engineers, Regulatory District Office for theirregion prior to initiating any actions affecting wetlands. Additionally, before undertaking any projectsin or adjacent to wetlands, installations shall prepare a “Finding of No Practicable Alternative(FONPA),” based on qualified expert opinion. The FONPA shall be submitted and signed by the MAJ-COM before the project is initiated.

CLE000366.pdf

AFI32-1021 24 JANUARY 2003 7

2.3.3. Floodplains. (Figure 2.1., Item 3). Before projects with potential impact to floodplains aresubmitted to the MAJCOM, they shall comply with the Clean Water Act, Executive Order 11988,Floodplains Management and AFI 32-7064. Projects with potential impact to floodplains may requirespecial permitting and authorizations. Installation program managers shall consult with the US ArmyCorps of Engineers, Regulatory District Office for their region prior to initiating any actions affectingfloodplains. Additionally, before undertaking any projects in a floodplain, installations shall prepare a“Finding of No Practicable Alternative,” based on qualified expert opinion. The FONPA shall be sub-mitted and signed by the MAJCOM before the proposed project is initiated. See AFI 32-7064, Inte-grated Natural Resources Management.

2.3.4. Coastal Zone Management. (Figure 2.1., Item 4). See AFI 32-7064, Integrated NaturalResources Management.

2.3.5. Coastal Barrier Resources. (Figure 2.1., Item 5). See AFI 32-7064, Integrated NaturalResources Management.

2.3.6. Threatened and Endangered Species. (Figure 2.1., Item 6). Installations shall consult withthe US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), according to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act,for MILCON actions potentially affecting threatened or endangered species. See AFI 32-7064, Inte-grated Natural Resources Management. Early in project development, installations shall arrange for aqualified/certified expert to perform a survey within the region for potential effect on threatened orendangered species. Information on the project's potential for affecting threatened or endangered spe-cies or critical habitats shall be provided in the EIAP. If the project jeopardizes threatened or endan-gered species, initiate formal consultation with the USFWS and take appropriate action.

2.3.7. Cultural Resources Management. (Figure 2.1., Item 7). Areas of potential effect shall besurveyed to identify historic buildings, archaeological sites, and other cultural resources. This surveyshall be performed by a person qualified in identifying cultural resources and evaluating eligibility forlisting in the National Register of Historic Places. Complete survey prior to submitting MILCONproject to HQ USAF.

2.3.7.1. Survey Results. Installations shall report survey results, regardless of the findings, to theState Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) for consultation in accordance with Section 106 of theNational Historic Preservation Act. Further consultation with the Advisory Council on HistoricPreservation (ACHP) may be required, depending on the finding of the SHPO. This process shallbe completed prior to project construction. See AFI 32-7065, Cultural Resources Management.

2.3.7.2. Unexpected Discovery of Archaeological Sites. Installations shall be aware of therequirement to stop work for 30 days after inadvertent discovery of objects as defined in theNative American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1991. Installations shall include pro-visions in construction contracts for possible delays in areas where inadvertent discovery is possi-ble.

2.3.8. Interagency and Intergovernmental Coordination for Environmental Planning. (Figure2.1., Item 8). Installations shall submit data to state and local review agencies on proposed construc-tion projects and real property acquisition plans that may affect local, regional (area-wide), and statecommunity plans, programs, and projects as outlined in AFI 32-7060, Interagency and Intergovern-mental Coordination for Environmental Planning.

2.3.9. Environmental Permits.

CLE000366.pdf

8 AFI32-1021 24 JANUARY 2003

2.3.9.1. Environmental Compliance. (Figure 2.1., Item 9). Permits required by applicable fed-eral, state, interstate, or local regulations shall be obtained before constructing or operating a facil-ity that emits or generates pollutants. Permits may be required for construction or modification ofwastewater, drinking water, storm water runoff systems, and when installing or removing under-ground storage tanks. Applicable federal laws are the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7491; Clean WaterAct, 33 U.S.C. 1251; Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C. 6901; and Safe Drink-ing Water Act, 42 U.S.C. 300.

2.3.9.2. Permits. MAJCOMs shall obtain environmental permits required for MILCON projects,or make certain the appropriate government contractor has obtained the required permits. ForMILCON projects, the Base Civil Engineer shall ensure funds are included in the project to meetall environmental requirements.

2.3.10. Potentially Regulated Substances at Existing Sites. (Figure 2.1., Item 10). Before alter-ations to construction sites or existing structures begin, installations shall survey the site/structures tofind out whether hazardous and toxic substances are present. These substances include, but are notlimited to, asbestos, lead-based paint, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), ozone-depleting substances,and radon.

2.3.11. Radon at New Construction Sites. (Figure 2.1., Item 11). Installations shall determine if aproposed construction site is likely to generate radon gas and include appropriate mitigation measuresin design.

2.3.12. Environmental Restoration Program (ERP). (Figure 2.1., Item 12). Installations shallensure project siting and construction will not adversely affect ERP activities and there are no land useconstraints impacting siting and construction.

2.3.13. Air Pollutants. (Figure 2.1., Item 13). Installations shall obtain construction and operatingpermits for air pollution sources according to paragraph 2.3.9. Installations shall ensure facilitydesigns incorporate appropriate pollution control technology and perform a conformity determination,if required, according to AFI 32-7040, Air Quality Compliance and AFI 32-7061, EnvironmentalImpact Analysis Process.

2.3.14. Water Pollutants. (Figure 2.1., Item 14). Installations shall obtain construction and operat-ing permits for water pollution sources according to paragraph 2.3.9. Installations shall also ensurefacility designs incorporate appropriate pollution and erosion control technologies and plans consis-tent with local, state, and national environmental requirements.

2.3.15. Solid and Hazardous Wastes. (Figure 2.1., Item 15). Installations shall apply for and obtainconstruction and operating permits for facilities to be used for managing solid and hazardous wastesaccording to paragraph 2.3.9.

2.3.16. Underground Storage Tanks (UST). (Figure 2.1., Item 16). Installations shall apply for andobtain construction and operating permits for installing, upgrading, or removing underground storagetanks according to paragraph 2.3.9., if required by federal, state, or local regulatory agencies.

2.3.17. Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ). (Figure 2.1., Item 17). When applicable,installations shall ensure siting and design of all facility projects conform to AFI 32-7063, Air Instal-lation Compatible Use Zone Program.

2.3.18. Base General Plan. (Figure 2.1., Item 18). Installations should comply with their GeneralPlan when siting MILCON projects. Further guidance on base comprehensive planning is contained in

CLE000366.pdf

AFI32-1021 24 JANUARY 2003 9

AFI 32-7061, The Environmental Impact Analysis Process and AFI 32-7062, Air Force Comprehen-sive Planning.

2.3.19. Airfield Clearance Criteria. (Figure 2.1., Item 19). Installations shall ensure all facilitiesand structures conform to the airfield and airspace clearance criteria and airfield frangibility require-ments in Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC) 03-260-01, Airfield and Heliport Planning and Design.Prior to submitting projects, installations shall obtain a waiver from their MAJCOM for any proposedproject creating an obstruction or intrusion that will violate airfield and airspace criteria. Installationsshall coordinate on projects affecting terminal instrument procedures (TERPS) with the installation’sTERPS authority (AFMAN 11-226, United States Standards for Terminal Instrument Procedures).Refer waivers for projects planned in the clear zone or within accident potential zone I or II to theMAJCOM staff; and maintain a record of all such waivers.

2.3.20. Air Space Use. (Figure 2.1., Item 20). Installations located within the US and its territoriesshall file FAA Form 7460-1, Notice of Proposed Construction or Alterations. Coordinate projectsaffecting navigable air space (see Federal Aviation Regulations, Parts 77 and 77.13) with the properFederal Aviation Administration (FAA) region through the regional Air Force representative. (SeeUFC 03-260-01, Airfield and Heliport Planning and Design, paragraph 1.2.2 and Attachment 6; AFI13-201, US Air Force Airspace Management; and AFI 32-7060, Interagency and IntergovernmentalCooperation for Environmental Planning, for procedures). Installations outside the US and its territo-ries shall refer to the status of forces agreement for specific procedures.

2.3.21. Explosives Quantity/Distance Siting and Safety Clearance Criteria. (Figure 2.1., Item21). All projects to construct facilities used for storage, handling, testing, and maintenance of explo-sives or related items require explosive safety siting approval by the Department of Defense Explo-sives Safety Board (DDESB) prior to construction. Other facilities located within an identifiedexplosive quantity-distance zone may also require DDESB site plan approval. Installations shallobtain DDESB siting approval before their MAJCOM submits the project to HQ USAF. Refer toAFMAN 91-201, Explosive Safety Standards.

2.3.22. Air Base Survivability, Conventional Hardening, Chemical Protection Levels and Prior-ities, Camouflage, Concealment and Deception. (Figure 2.1., Item 22). When constructing, sub-stantially altering, or renovating facilities, installations shall follow the air base survivability criteriacontained in War Mobilization Plan 1, Annexes J and L.

2.3.23. Allowance for the Physically Handicapped. (Figure 2.1., Item 23). Installations shallensure all new facilities are planned to be readily accessible to and usable by handicapped persons.Alterations to existing facilities shall be planned, to the maximum extent feasible, to be readily acces-sible to and usable by handicapped persons. When accessibility cannot be achieved without causing asubstantial impairment of significant historic features, forward a request for modification or waiver ofaccess standards to HQ USAF/ILEC, or ANG/CE for ANG facilities. For further guidance, see DoDDirective 1020.1, Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Handicap in Programs and Activities Conductedby the Department of Defense.

2.3.24. Real Estate Requirements. (Figure 2.1., Item 24). Installations shall determine whether anyproposed construction project requires acquisition of real estate interests and what such interestswould cost. Refer to AFI 32-9001, Acquisition of Real Property, for additional information.

2.3.25. Antiterrorism/Force Protection (AT/FP). (Figure 2.1., Item 25). All military constructionshall comply with DoD Antiterrorism Construction Standards except when the local Commander sets

CLE000366.pdf

10 AFI32-1021 24 JANUARY 2003

more stringent standards to meet specific AT threats. Installations shall coordinate antiterrorism/forceprotection facility requirements through the Installation Security Council and/or the Antiterrorism/Force Protection Officer. Analyses conducted during the project planning and programming phasesshall assess potential threats and vulnerabilities, review design opportunities and constraints, and inte-grate protective strategies into the facility and its surroundings. Refer to AFH 32-1084, FacilityRequirements; and AFI 31-210, The Air Force Antiterrorism/Force Protection (AT/FP) Program Stan-dards; and annual HQ USAF/ILEC MILCON program call letters for additional information. Docu-ment the Certificate of Compliance and DD Form 1391 when protective measures, provided underparagraph 2.3.21., also satisfy AT/FP requirements.

2.3.26. Excess Space. (Figure 2.1., Item 26). Installation commanders shall certify existing excessspace cannot be used to satisfy a new requirement in lieu of a MILCON project.

2.3.27. Temporary Facilities Incident to Construction. (Figure 2.1., Item 27). Installation com-manders shall certify temporary facilities required incident to MILCON will be demolished or other-wise removed upon completion of the project. See Chapter 6 of this AFI for more information.

2.3.28. Communications and Information Systems. (Figure 2.1., Item 28). Installation command-ers shall certify common user communications equipment, information systems, and other prewiringrequirements were identified and their costs included in MILCON project documentation and basecommunications budgets as required by AFI 65-601, Vol 1, Budget Guidance and Procedures. Thisincludes all MILCON-funded communication items and communications items funded from othersources. A copy of the communication cost estimate provided by the base communications office shallbe provided with the DD 1391.

2.3.29. Energy and Water Conservation. (Figure 2.1., Item 29). Installation commanders shall cer-tify the project complies with minimum energy and water conservation performance standards.

2.3.30. Seismic Considerations. (Figure 2.1., Item 30). All projects shall be planned and designedto withstand seismic loading in accordance with TI 809-04, Seismic Design for Buildings. Installa-tions shall evaluate renovation projects with respect to seismic considerations. Any seismic deficien-cies shall be mitigated as a result of project completion.

2.3.31. Joint Use Facilities. (Figure 2.1., Item 31). Congressional Authorization and Appropriationcommittees directed all MILCON projects include a certification that the project was evaluated forjoint use or unilateral construction. The selected recommendation must be stated on DD Form 1391.

2.3.32. Sustainable Design and Development. (Figure 2.1., Item 32). Installation commandersshall ensure sustainable development concepts are applied in the planning, design, construction, envi-ronmental management, operation, maintenance, and disposal of facilities and infrastructure projects,consistent with budget and mission requirements. The United States Green Building Council’s(USGBC) “Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED™)” Green Building Rating Sys-tem is the Air Force preferred self-assessment metric. The goal is to have all MILCON projects in theFY09 program and beyond capable of achieving LEED™ certification. Unspecified Minor Construc-tion (P-341) projects should also be considered when implementing sustainable development. Thispolicy does not apply to Host Nation or NATO funded projects.

CLE000366.pdf

AFI32-1021 24 JANUARY 2003 11

Figure 2.1. Certificate of Compliance for Critical Planning Actions.

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

FOR CRITICAL PLANNING ACTIONS

Command:

Base, State, Country (if Overseas):

Project Title:

Project (Automated Civil Engineering System) Number:

I. INSTRUCTIONS:

Place one X in the most appropriate response for each topic area to show status of compliance. When responding to a statement requiring additional data, fill in the blank with appropriate information. If none of the printed statements are appropriate, add or attach an appropriate comment. For MILCON projects, the BCE and installation commander shall sign the certificate and submit it to the MAJCOM where it will be updated and readily available to HQ USAF.

II. PLANNING:

1. Environmental Impact Analysis Process (AFI 32-7061):

____ Categorical exclusion (CATEX) number ____________________ applies.

____ Environmental Assessment/Finding of No Significant Impact

signed ________ (date).

____ Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) started. Expected completion date is:_______________.

____ Draft EIS filed on _________ (date).

____ Final EIS filed on _________ (date).

____ Record of Decision signed on _________ (date).

____ Foreign nation or protected global resource exemption number _________ applies.

____ Environmental study (or review underway) under preparation. Expected completiondate is ___________.

____ Environmental study (or review) completed on ___________ (date).

2. Wetlands (AFI 32-7064):

____ Project is not sited in or adjacent to a wetland.

CLE000366.pdf

12 AFI32-1021 24 JANUARY 2003

____ Requirements of Clean Water Act, Section 404 & 401 in progress. Estimatedcompletion date is ________.

____ Requirements of Clean Water Act, Section 404 & 401 completed on ___________(date).

____ Section 404 & 401 Permits issued __________ (date).

____ Finding of No Practicable Alternative signed ___________ (date).

3. Floodplains (AFI 32-7064):

____ Project is not sited in a 100-year flood plain.

____ Requirements of EO 11988 in progress. Estimated completion date is _______.

____ Project is sited in a 100-year flood plain. Requirements of EO 11988 completed on___________ (date). Finding of No Practicable Alternative signed ___________(date).

4. Coastal Zone Management (AFI 32-7064):

____ Project does not directly affect a state coastal zone.

____ Consistency determination is being developed. Estimated completion date is____________.

____ Consistency determination completed on _________ (date).

5. Coastal Barrier Resources (AFI 32-7064):

____ Project is not sited within the Coastal Barrier Resources System.

____ Project exempt from the Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA).

____ Consultation with the Regional Director, United States Fish and Wildlife Service(USFWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) in progress. Estimatedcompletion date is ___________. Consultation with the Regional Director, USFWS,concluded _________ (date).

6. Threatened and Endangered Species (AFI 32-7064):

____ Project has no potential for affecting threatened or endangered species or criticalhabitats.

____ Based on consultation with USFWS/NMFS or host nation liaison on ___________(date), threatened or endangered species in the vicinity of the project will not beaffected.

____ Consultation with USFWS/NMFS underway in accordance with the EndangeredSpecies Act.

CLE000366.pdf

AFI32-1021 24 JANUARY 2003 13

____ Formal consultation with the Regional Director, USFWS completed on___________ (date).

____ Biological Assessment is required. Estimated completion date is ___________.

____ Biological opinion issued by USFWS on ___________ (date).

7. Cultural Resources Management (AFI 32-7065):

____ Properties affected by project are addressed in a Programmatic Agreement that wasfully executed with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and the AdvisoryCouncil on Historic Preservation (ACHP) on ____________ (date).

____ Project area has not been surveyed for historic properties. Survey requirements areidentified in the A-106 system and the estimated completion date is ____________.

____ Project area has been surveyed and no historic properties were identified; the SHPOwas notified by letter dated ___________.

____ Survey identified historic properties but the project will have no effect on them;written concurrence by the SHPO is dated ____________.

____ After consultation, SHPO concurred the project will have no adverse effect onhistoric properties by written correspondence dated ____________.

____ Project will have an adverse effect on historic properties. A memorandum ofagreement (MOA) mitigating the adverse effect was executed

on ___________ (date).

____ Estimated date to execute the MOA is ___________ (date) or no MOA wasdeveloped and the formal comments of the Council were sought in a memo dated____________.

____ Project will affect a site or property of interest to Native Americans. AppropriateNative American Tribe or Group contacted on ___________ (date).

8. Interagency and Intergovernmental Coordination for Environmental Planning (AFI32-7060):

____ Coordination of proposed project with the state Single Point of Contact or otheragencies is not required.

____ Coordination with the state Single Point of Contact is in progress. Expected date ofcompletion is ___________ (date).

____ Proposed project was coordinated with the state Single Point of Contact or otheragencies on ___________ (date). (Specify any other agencies.)

9. Environmental Permits (AFIs 32-7040, 7041, 7042, 7044):

CLE000366.pdf

14 AFI32-1021 24 JANUARY 2003

____ No permits are required.

____ No permits required, but regulatory agency notification required prior toconstruction (e.g., underground storage tank removals)

____ The following permits are required prior to construction: (List the construction andoperating permits).

1.

2.

Etc.

10. Potentially Regulated Substances at Existing Sites (AFIs 32-1052, 7042)

a. Asbestos:

____ Not present

____ Survey underway

____ Present (Describe mitigation, or state why mitigation is not necessary.)

b. Lead-Based Paint:

____ Not present



c. Ozone depleting substance:

____ Not present



d. Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs):

____ Not present



e. Radon:

____ Not present

CLE000366.pdf

AFI32-1021 24 JANUARY 2003 15



f. Other known hazardous or toxic substances and pollutants (e.g., contaminated soils):

____ Not present



11. Radon at New Construction Sites:

____ Not Present


12. Environmental Restoration Program:

____ Facility is not sited on or near an ERP site.

____ Facility is sited near an ERP site approximately _________ feet away.

____ Facility is on an ERP site.

____ A Request for Waiver was submitted to MAJCOM on _________ (date).

____ The site is projected to be remediated and/or closed out on _________ (date), priorto commencement of construction activities.

____ The nature of the site contamination does not preclude the type of constructionactivity proposed.

____ There is a Compliance Agreement associated with this site.

____ A Remedial Investigation Feasibility Study was completed on _________ (date) toaccurately delineate the extent of the contamination.

____ Cost of remedial action is included as part of MILCON project

13. Air Pollutants (AFI 32-7040):

a. Generation:

____ Will not be generated by the operation or construction of this facility.

____ Will be generated by the operation or construction of this facility. Describe type andamount of substances expected to be generated, existing control systems, and theneed for additional controls.

b. Conformity:

CLE000366.pdf

16 AFI32-1021 24 JANUARY 2003

____ Conformity analysis required.

____ Conformity analysis not required.

14. Water Pollutants (AFI 32-7041):

____ Facility will not generate water pollutants.

____ Facility construction will not cause soil erosion.

____ Facility will generate water pollutants. Describe type and amount along withminimization, treatment, and disposal plan.

____ Facility construction will cause erosion and require an erosion control plan.

15. Solid and Hazardous Wastes (AFIs 32-7042, 7080):

____ Facility will not be used for managing solid or hazardous wastes.

____ Facility will be for managing solid or hazardous wastes.

16. Underground Storage Tanks (AFI 32-7044) (Check all that apply):

____ No underground storage tanks are involved.

____ New underground storage tanks will be installed.

____ Existing tanks on the project site will be removed.

____ Regulatory agency was notified on _________ (date).

____ Contamination exists.

____ Cost of contamination clean up is included as part of MILCON project.

____ Contamination does not exist.

____ Contamination unknown.

____ Existing tanks on the project site will be retained.

____ Contamination exists.

____ Contamination does not exist.

____ Contamination unknown.

17. Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AFI 32-7063):

____ Facility is sited within acceptable noise level according to the Air InstallationCompatible Use Zone Study. No noise level reduction is required.

CLE000366.pdf

AFI32-1021 24 JANUARY 2003 17

____ Facility is not sited in compliance with Air Installation Compatible Use Zone Study.Noise level reduction of _________ will be provided in design and construction.

18. Base General Plan (AFI 32-7062):

____ Facility is sited in accordance with the General Plan and is within a compatible landuse area.

____ Facility is not sited in accordance with the General Plan and is not within acompatible land use area for the following reason: _____________________.

19. Airfield Clearance Criteria (UFC 03-260-01):

____ Facility is in compliance with airfield clearance criteria, including clear zone,accident potential zones, frangibility requirements, and airfield airspace (heightobstruction) criteria and poses no potential threat to flight safety.

____ A request for waiver to airfield/air space clearance criteria is being prepared.Expected completion date is _________.

____ A temporary waiver for construction activity in the airfield vicinity was approved on_________ (date).

____ A permanent waiver of airfield/air space clearance criteria was obtained on_________ (date).

20. Air Space Use:

____ Project does not affect air space use and does not require submittal of FAA Form7460-1 to the Regional Office of the FAA.

____ Project sent to Regional FAA on _________ (date). Obstruction marking andlighting recommendations are included in the project.

21. Explosives Quantity/Distance Siting and Safety Clearance Criteria:

a. Projects (new construction, facility modification, or change in use) involving explosivesstorage or handling.

____ Explosives safety siting approval obtained on __________ (date).

____ Request for explosive safety siting approval sent to MAJCOM

on ____________ (date). Expected approval date is ____________.

____ Request for Waiver/Exemption sent to MAJCOM on ____________ (date).Expected approval date is ____________.

b. Projects not involving explosives (new construction, facility modification, or change inuse).

CLE000366.pdf

18 AFI32-1021 24 JANUARY 2003

____ Project is not sited within explosives clear zones.

____ Explosives safety siting approval obtained on ____________ (date).

____ Request for explosive safety siting approval sent to MAJCOM on ___________(date). Expected approval date is ____________.

____ Request for Waiver/Exemption sent to MAJCOM on ____________ (date).Expected approval date is ____________.

22. Air Base Survivability, Conventional Hardening, Chemical Protection Levels andPriorities, Camouflage, Concealment and Deception:

____ Project does not affect air base operability

____ Facility is sited or constructed in compliance with criteria contained in WMP-1

____ Waiver or exemption required; request submitted to MAJCOM Civil EngineeringReadiness Office, in accordance with WMP-1 on _________ (date).

____ Waiver or exemption granted on _________ (date).

23. Allowance for the Physically Handicapped:

____ Project provides all design features for handicapped.

____ Project provides access and limited features.

____ Project provides access but no other features.

____ Design features for handicapped are not required.

____ Design features will not be provided for the following reason: ______________.

24. Real Estate Requirements (AFI 32-9001):

____ Project does not require acquisition of real estate interest.

____ Project requires acquisition of a real estate interest over $500,000.

____ Land interest is to be acquired through minor land authority.

____ Other (explain): _________________________________.

25. Antiterrorism/Force Protection:

____ Antiterrorism/force protection measures included in this project are based on acompleted installation terrorist threat assessment and a completed Command or JointStaff Installation Vulnerability Assessment.

CLE000366.pdf

AFI32-1021 24 JANUARY 2003 19

____ Antiterrorism/force protection measures included in this project satisfy requirementsestablished by a completed installation Physical Security and Force Protection Plan(DoD 2000.16. Standard 15).

____ Project meets or exceeds the requirements of DoD Antiterrorism ConstructionStandards.

26. Excess Space:

____ Excess space is not available to satisfy the requirement.

27. Temporary Facilities Incident to Construction:

____ Temporary facilities are not required for this project.

____ Temporary facilities are required for this project and will be demolished or removedupon completion.

28. Communications and Information Support:

____ The communications equipment, information technology systems, prewiring costs,and other requirements for this project have been identified and are included in theproject cost estimate and all other applicable project documents. A copy of thecommunication cost estimate is attached to the DD 1391.

29. Energy and Water Conservation:

____ Project complies with the minimum energy and water conservation performancestandards.

30. Seismic Considerations:

____ Seismic planning and design complies with TI 809-04.

____ Seismic evaluations performed for existing facilities.

____ Seismic deficiencies identified by the seismic evaluations are mitigated by projectcompletion.

31. Joint Use Certification (include selection on DD Form 1391):

____ Mission requirements, operational considerations, and location are incompatiblewith use by other components.

____ This is an installation utility/infrastructure project, and does not qualify for joint useat this location. However, all tenants on this installation are benefited by this project.

____ This facility can be used by other components on an “as available” basis; however,the scope of the project is based on Air Force requirements.

CLE000366.pdf

20 AFI32-1021 24 JANUARY 2003

____________________ __________________________

Base Civil Engineer (date) Installation Commander (date)

____ This facility is programmed for joint use with _______ (identify the component thefacility is jointly used with); however, it is fully funded by the Air Force.

____ The facility is programmed for joint use with ______ (identify the component(s) thefacility is jointly used with) and is conjunctively funded by ______ (identify theparticipating component(s)).

32. Sustainable Design and Development:

____ Project includes sustainable development concepts.

____ Project will qualify for LEED™ certification.

____ Project does not include sustainable development concepts.

I concur with the above statements.

CLE000366.pdf

AFI32-1021 24 JANUARY 2003 21

Chapter 3

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAMMING

3.1. MILCON Programming. Programming is the process of developing and obtaining approval andfunding for Military Construction (MILCON) projects. Installations identify, develop, and validate MIL-CON projects, and MAJCOMs compile, validate, and submit command MILCON programs according tothis AFI and instructions provided in HQ USAF MILCON program call letters. HQ USAF/ILEC inte-grates MAJCOM inputs in the development of the Air Force-wide MILCON Program and advocates forMILCON resources through the Air Force Corporate Structure, OSD, OMB, and Congress while the AirForce Panels advocate for specific MILCON requirements. ANG/CE and AF/REL establish submittaldates and issues annual guidance to ANG and AFRC installations for the separate submittal of their MIL-CON programs to OSD.

3.2. Definition of MILCON. Military Construction, as defined in 10 U.S.C. 2801, includes any con-struction, development, conversion, or extension of any kind carried out with respect to a military instal-lation. MILCON includes construction projects for all types of buildings, roads, airfield pavements, andutility systems costing $750,000 or more. The Air Force MILCON program objective is to provide qualityfacilities to support Air Force missions. A MILCON project includes all construction work necessary toproduce a complete and usable facility or complete and usable improvement to an existing facility. Addi-tionally, instances may occur when maintenance and repair work will be accomplished as MILCON,either because it is part of a large project or a decision has been made to use MILCON instead of O&Mfunds.

3.2.1. Project Authority. Authority to carry out a MILCON project includes authority for surveysand site preparation; acquisition, conversion, rehabilitation, or installation of facilities; acquisitionand installation of equipment and appurtenances integral to the project; acquisition and installation ofsupporting facilities (including utilities) and appurtenances incident to the project; and planning,supervision, administration, and overhead incident to the project.

3.2.2. Project Limitations. Each MILCON project shall result in a complete and usable facility or acomplete and usable improvement to a facility. Avoid combining work on multiple facilities of differ-ent types into a single project. Combining multiple projects into a single, “lump sum” request is pro-hibited, except when each project is in the same general facility category (i.e. supply facilities,maintenance and production facilities, etc.) and the required completion date of each facility necessi-tates programming all of them in the same fiscal year.

3.3. MILCON Project Development. Project development is one of the most important actions in MIL-CON programming and is documented using a DD Form 1391. The DD Form 1391, by itself, shallexplain and justify the project to all levels of the Air Force, OSD, OMB, and Congress. Justification datashall clearly describe the impact on mission, people, productivity, life-cycle cost, etc., if the project is notaccomplished.

3.3.1. Automated Civil Engineer System – Project Management Module (ACES-PM).ACES-PM is the single official Air Force-wide database management system used to create, store,retrieve, and update MILCON project records. It is used to develop the Air Force MILCON programfrom MAJCOM submittals, support the MILCON submittal to Congress, answer Congressionalinquiries, provide an audit trail and historical record of project activity, and as an information source

CLE000366.pdf

22 AFI32-1021 24 JANUARY 2003

for Air Force managers. Program managers will use the data in ACES-PM to update and monitorproject progress, cost, and schedule. This unique and essential relational database requires allACES-PM users ensure project data for which they are responsible is accurate and current. ACES-PMdoes not currently apply to the ANG and AFRC.

3.3.2. Project Identification. With the exception of HQ USAF-directed projects, installation com-manders determine which facility needs cannot be met with existing facilities. Installation command-ers review, validate, and prioritize installation MILCON facility requirements. In accordance withschedules established by the MAJCOM, the BCE prepares and submits the DD Forms 1391 with allsupporting documents and enters the project into the ACES-PM system. For ANG projects, the BCEsubmits DD Forms 1391s/1390s to ANG/CEP. AFRC submits forms to AF/REL.

3.3.3. Project Validation. HQ USAF, MAJCOMs, and installations shall validate each MILCONproject by verifying the requirement that creates the need for the proposed project and confirming theproposed project is the most cost effective means of satisfying the requirement. Projects justified onan economic basis, and all projects costing over $2 million, require an economic analysis in accor-dance with AFI 65-501, Economic Analysis. The MAJCOM/CEP or equivalent confirms DD Form1391 data is accurate and complete by signing the form in block 9.

3.3.4. Project Cost Estimates. Accurate project cost estimates are essential to successful MILCONproject development and execution. Cost estimates must be closely scrutinized to ensure they arein-line with the OSD Pricing Guide or fully justified with historical cost data. Installations and MAJ-COMs should prepare cost estimates using parametric estimating tools (defined as being equivalent to15% design completion) or based on 35% conventional design. The basis for parametric project costestimates shall be a completed Requirements Document, as defined by the USAF Project Manager’sGuide for Design and Construction. Use the Tri-Service Parametric Cost Engineering System(PACES) as a tool to develop parametric cost estimates; however, PACES cost estimates for primaryfacilities shall be consistent with unit prices published in OSD Pricing guide or AFCESA HistoricalConstruction Cost Handbook. Major differences between PACES and the OSD Pricing Guide (e.g.,clay tile roof versus standing seam metal roof) shall be fully justified to HQ USAF/ILEC. Captureunique requirements of a project as separate line items under Primary or Supporting Facility cost. Thecost of force protection within the facility should be identified under Primary Facility as “Antiterror-ism Force Protection” and outside the facility identified under Supporting Facilities as “Passive ForceProtection Measures”.

3.3.5. Design Schedules. MAJCOMs shall document design and construction schedules in Block 12of the DD Form 1391 for each MILCON project. The schedule shall show design will be complete intime to award the construction in the fiscal year that funding is requested. Projects not achieving thisstatus at the time of the Budget Estimate Submission (BES) by HQ USAF/ILEC risk being deletedfrom the program.

3.3.6. Demolition. Demolition funded as part of a MILCON project shall be directly related to theproject (e.g., in the footprint of the new construction or no longer needed as a result of the new con-struction). Once the project is appropriated and authorized by Congress, the scope of demolition work(total square meters/footage) identified shall be accomplished to complete the project.

3.3.7. MAJCOM MILCON Program Submittals. MAJCOMs shall prioritize validated projectsand submit their Commander-approved program in accordance with MILCON program call lettersissued by HQ USAF/ILEC. AFRC and ANG shall submit projects to their respective Joint Service

CLE000366.pdf

AFI32-1021 24 JANUARY 2003 23

Reserve Component Facility Board in accordance with instructions found in AFI 32-1012, ReserveComponent Facilities Programs.

3.4. MILCON Program Development. HQ USAF/ILEC, in conjunction with other HQ USAF func-tional offices, will review each MILCON project in detail and validate the need, engineering feasibility,economic benefits, compliance with Air Force objectives, and project cost. In developing the MILCONprogram, HQ USAF/ILEC integrates projects from the MAJCOMs and lists projects in priority order, inaccordance with “Fact-of-Life” requirements, Corporate Adjustments, and the MILCON InvestmentStrategy Scoring Model (ISSM).

3.4.1. “Fact-of-Life” Projects. Fact-of-Life projects are required to achieve compliance with laws,treaties, and international agreements. Projects are intended solely to fund initial construction, modi-fication, or upgrade of a facility, system, or component(s) to comply with new Federal and/or Stateenvironmental laws or regulations. Other infrastructure projects must compete for MILCON or O&Mfunding as applicable on their own merits. MAJCOMs should include environmental projects in a fis-cal year MILCON program early enough to prevent non-compliance. Project narrative and data shallidentify project requirements and justify them as Level I, “Fact of Life” requirements, and includeinformation on violations (see AFI 32-7001, Environmental Budgeting).

3.4.2. Corporate Adjustments. Corporate Adjustments are projects approved and placed in theMILCON program by Chief of Staff of the Air Force (CSAF) or the Secretary of the Air Force(SECAF) due to their overriding importance to the Air Force. Examples include Quality of Liferequirements from the Dormitory and Fitness Center Master Plans. These projects are so necessarythat they are considered “must pay” bills and do not compete with other MAJCOM requirements.MAJCOM/CCs and HAF Directors with MILCON requirements that cannot be met through the nor-mal MAJCOM scoring and prioritization process may submit a written request to CSAF or SECAFfor a Corporate Adjustment. Since Corporate Adjustments impact the TOA available for scoredprojects, the requesting MAJCOM must indicate where the corporate-adjusted project fits into theMAJCOM’s existing priorities of previously submitted projects.

3.4.3. The MILCON Investment Strategy Scoring Model (ISSM). For all validated projects otherthan Fact-of-Life and Corporate Adjustment projects as identified in 3.4.1 and 3.4.2 above, HQUSAF/ILEC calculates project rankings (or priorities). Numerical scores are derived from the MAJ-COM commander’s project priority, the HQ USAF MILCON ISSM, Air Force Corporate Structuremission panel points, and MILCON IPT points. The MILCON ISSM considers each project for itsmission category and mission impact. Mission panel points are assigned based on the merit of individ-ual projects and whether they shall be funded or should be funded in the programmed year. The MIL-CON IPT points address efficiencies, mission timing, demolition, and overseas presence.

3.4.4. The Integrated Priority List (IPL). All MILCON projects are integrated into a single TotalForce list, which includes active Air Force, ANG, and AFRC. After Fact-of-Life and CorporateAdjustment projects are determined, the remaining project rankings are derived from ISSM scores.Based on the MILCON budget authority available, projects on the IPL are included in the MILCONprogram in descending order beginning with the highest ranking IPL project.

3.4.5. Changes to the Integrated Priority List. After the Air Force Civil Engineer approves theIPL, changes to project priority, scope, and cost must be approved by the Air Force Corporate Struc-ture. Project substitutions will not be accepted. Projects that cannot be executed at the programmed

CLE000366.pdf

24 AFI32-1021 24 JANUARY 2003

amount (PA) will be deferred unless the increase in PA is offset at the expense of other MAJCOMprojects.

3.5. MILCON and Program Objective Memorandum Schedules. The Air Force submits a biennialMILCON budget (two fiscal years at one time) to OSD and Congress each even numbered fiscal year.OSD reviews both years in detail and issues decisions on each. Congress, however, does not normallyreview the second year program, and therefore, that program is resubmitted by the Air Force to OSD thenext year as an amended program. OSD reviews the amended program, and after approval, it is submittedto Congress as part of the President's Budget (PB) for that respective year. Additionally, each even num-bered year, a six-year MILCON program or Future Year Defense Program (FYDP) is developed for theProgram Objective Memorandum (POM), which outlines the forces and resources proposed for the nextsix years. Scheduling of these submittals is subject to change and is provided annually by HQ USAF.

3.5.1. Office of the Secretary of Defense Budget Review. The Air Force submits the MILCONbudget to OSD by facility category (such as operations and training facilities, maintenance and pro-duction facilities, research and development facilities, etc.). OSD reviews every project submitted andissues Program Budget Decisions (PBDs) that transmit their proposed decision on every project(approve, disapprove, revise, or defer to a future year). OSD provides reasons for their decisions. Ifthe Air Force is not satisfied with these decisions and a strong case can be made to rebut the proposeddecision, a reclama is developed and submitted. OSD review and consideration of these reclamas,along with senior level negotiations, determine the final PBD decision and ultimately the content andsize of the MILCON program to be included in the President's Budget. The total Air Force budgetgoes through a similar process. After approval by OMB and the President, the budget is submitted toCongress.

3.5.2. Congressional Review. The Secretary of Defense submits the MILCON portion (for all ser-vices and DoD Agencies) of the President's Budget to Congress in listings aggregated by country andstate. The Secretary of Defense requests both authorization and appropriation from Congress.

3.5.2.1. Congressional Authorization. Authorization of MILCON projects is provided by theDefense Authorization Bill that includes authorization requests for other Defense accounts such asProcurement; Research, Development, Test and Evaluation; Operations and Maintenance; andMilitary Personnel. Normally, all projects that comprise the MILCON total obligation authorityare included in the authorization request. However, items authorized in a prior year for which onlyappropriation is being requested are not included in the authorization request. They are included inthe appropriation request only.

3.5.2.1.1. Armed Services Committees: The House and Senate Armed Services Committeesreview the MILCON authorization request and hold hearings attended by witnesses from eachservice. These two committees then issue reports detailing their recommendations. The fullHouse and Senate then act on the committees’ recommendations and each passes its own ver-sion of the authorization program (referred to as committee marks).

3.5.2.1.2. Congressional Authorization Conference Actions : Differences between theHouse and Senate versions are resolved by an Armed Services Conference Committee whichalso issues a report that shows how the differences were resolved. Congress then passes theauthorization program approved by the conference that becomes the authorization act. Afterthe act is signed by the President, it becomes law (National Defense Authorization Act).

CLE000366.pdf

AFI32-1021 24 JANUARY 2003 25

3.5.2.1.3. Authorization Expirations : If no obligation is made for a project within threeyears after an authorization act becomes law, the authorization for that project will expire,unless an authorization extension is included in the authorization act passed at the end of thethird year. MAJCOM staffs shall submit requests for extensions to HQ USAF/ILEC describingthe circumstances that prevented obligation. HQ USAF/ILEC will validate the request and askOSD, through SAF/IEI, to include requests for the extension in the authorization bill submit-ted to Congress.

3.5.2.1.4. Other Matters Included in Authorization Request : The authorization requestmay include proposed changes to the existing United States Code that the Secretary of Defensesubmits for legislative consideration. MAJCOMs can propose legislative changes to HQUSAF/ILEC for consideration and staffing through SAF/IEI to OSD.

3.5.2.2. Congressional Appropriation. The Secretary of Defense requests, for all services,appropriations for all items in the MILCON total obligation authority. The MILCON appropria-tion is a separate bill from all other DoD appropriations. The House and Senate AppropriationsCommittees follow the same procedure outlined for the Armed Services Committees in Paragraph3.5.2.1. in reviewing the appropriation request. After the bill is signed by the President, it becomeslaw (Military Construction Appropriations Act). MILCON appropriations expire five years afterthey are appropriated; however, from time to time, general reductions and rescissions reduce fundsavailable in prior years. See AFI 32-1023, Design and Construction Standards and Execution ofFacility Construction Projects, for additional information on MILCON appropriation expiration.

3.5.3. Construction of Projects. After both the authorization and appropriation acts are signed, HQUSAF/ILEC will arrange funding for construction of projects on a project-by-project basis. See AFI32-1023, Design and Construction Standards and Execution of Facility Construction Projects (Chap-ter 5 and Chapter 6).

3.6. Project Files. Installations, MAJCOMs, and HQ USAF/ILEC should maintain MILCON projectfiles according to AFMAN 37-139, Records Disposition Schedule.

3.7. Special Military Construction Authorities.

3.7.1. Defense Medical MILCON.

3.7.1.1. Authority. This program is managed by the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defensefor Health Affairs, OASD(HA), and is funded by the Defense Health Program, not the Air ForceTotal Obligation Authority (TOA). This section applies to all active Air Force medical and medi-cal related facilities; it does not apply to ANG medical facilities. The following directives apply:DoD Directive 6015.16, Department of Defense Policies for the Acquisition of Military HealthFacilities; DoD Instruction 6015.17, Procedures for the Planning, Programming, Budgeting andExecution for Construction of Military Health Facilities; and MIL-HDBK-1191, Department ofDefense Medical and Dental Treatment Facilities Design and Construction Criteria.

3.7.1.2. Project Justification, Submittal, and Program Development. OASD(HA) issues anannual call to the services for medical MILCON projects. Installations, with assistance from theRegional Health Facility Office (RHFO), develop MILCON requirements. The RHFO, with assis-tance from the Medical Treatment Facility Commander (MTF) and the BCE, develop DD Forms1391. The BCE prepares supporting documents in accordance with Chapter 2 of this Instruction.

CLE000366.pdf

26 AFI32-1021 24 JANUARY 2003

Installations forward completed DD Forms 1391 to the MAJCOM Civil Engineer and SurgeonGeneral. They, in turn, jointly validate and prioritize all projects, and submit them to the Air ForceMedical Support Agency (HQ USAF/SGSFW) with information copies to the Air Force Centerfor Environmental Excellence (HQ AFCEE/CMM) and HQ USAF/ILEC. HQ USAF/SG priori-tizes the MAJCOM projects, develops the DoD Medical MILCON Program, and forwards theprojects to OASD(HA) as part of the unified medical POM submission.

3.7.1.3. Medical Unspecified Minor Construction Requirements. Instal lat ions and MAJ-COMs shall process Medical Unspecified Minor Construction (UMC) requirements in the samemanner as medical MILCON projects. OASD(HA) funds approved projects from the DefenseHealth Program. Projects programmed under the unspecified minor construction authority shallcomply with DoD Instruction 6015.17. UMC programming further is described in Chapter 4 ofthis Instruction.

3.7.1.4. Medical Relocatable Facilities. Medical relocatable facilities are provided in accor-dance with guidance in Chapter 6 of this Instruction.

3.7.2. Defense Access Road (DAR) Program.

3.7.2.1. General. This program provides a means for DoD to contribute funding to improve pub-lic highways serving defense installations and activities. The program is authorized by 23 U.S.C.210, Defense Access Roads, and implemented by Army Regulation 55-80, Highways for NationalDefense. The DAR Program is managed by Military Traffic Management Command (MTMC),Department of the Army, and co-administered by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA),Department of Transportation. The FHWA is the link to State and local transportation agenciesthat normally execute the projects.

3.7.2.2. DAR Project Justification and Submittal. The DoD expects State and local transporta-tion agencies to develop and maintain public highways that serve permanent defense installations.Before requesting funds through the DAR Program, an installation shall first request the jurisdic-tional authority to fund and accomplish the required improvements. However, some defense-gen-erated impact may be too sudden or unusual to be incorporated into normal civil highwayimprovement programs. Such impacts could include traffic increases due to major on-base facilityexpansions, addition of a new entrance gate, a requirement to move unique defense vehicles onlow-volume roads, or realignment of public roads due to new facility development (e.g., runwayextension). When it is understood that State and local authorities cannot or will not fund the nec-essary improvements, installations shall submit an Access Road Needs Report through their MAJ-COM to HQ USAF/ILEC for requirement validation.

3.7.2.3. DAR Project Programming and Execution. Upon validation, HQ USAF/ILEC willcoordinate the requirement with MTMC for eligibility determination and certification that theroad is important to national defense. With HQ USAF/ILEC validation and MTMC certification,the MAJCOM shall include the project in the next command MILCON submittal, and clearlyidentify the requirement on the DD Form 1391 as a DAR project. Air Force funds are transferredto the FHWA via Standard Form 1151, Non-expenditure Transfer Authorization, to proceed withproject design and construction.

3.7.3. Energy Conservation Program. Public law 10 U.S.C. 2865 allows the installation to share insavings from energy reductions. One-half of the savings remain at the installation to be used for main-tenance and repair; minor alterations to existing military family housing units (with family housing

CLE000366.pdf

AFI32-1021 24 JANUARY 2003 27

energy savings); unspecified minor construction projects that enhance quality of life; or morale, wel-fare, or recreation (MWR) facilities/services that can be supported with appropriated funds. The otherhalf of the savings is to be used for additional energy conservation measures. This portion is to beaccumulated and managed by the MAJCOM.

3.7.3.1. Normal MILCON. Energy projects may be MILCON-funded as outlined in paragraph3.4. of this Instruction.

3.7.3.2. Energy Conservation Investment Program (ECIP). ECIP is a special MILCON pro-gram centrally managed by OSD for all services. The program is submitted to Congress by OSDas a lump sum amount without base or project identification. The services compete for portions ofthe lump sum amount by submitting candidate projects with detailed justifications to OSD. Theprogram is intended to provide projects that reduce energy consumption and utility costs. OSDreviews the projects, determines which are to be funded, and transfers funds to the service forproject accomplishment. HQ USAF and the Air Force Civil Engineering Support Agency (AFC-ESA) issue annual guidance letters to MAJCOMs for implementing this program.

3.7.4. Liquid Fuels Facilities. Liquid fuels facilities handling Defense Energy Support Center(DESC) owned product are the responsibility of the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) for MILCONfunding and advocacy. MAJCOMs submit MILCON fuels projects to DESC, documented in accor-dance with 30 AM 4270.1, DLA Facilities Projects Manual. Also, see ETL 01-15, ProgrammingFuels Projects, for additional guidance. Submit information copies to HQ USAF/ILEC/ILEV/ILSP.

3.7.5. Productivity Investment Fund (PIF).

3.7.5.1. Fund Description. Air Force TOA allocated for the PIF program may be used to fundMILCON projects that result in hard savings or cost avoidance in operations and maintenance(O&M) and manpower. Normally, only projects with a payback period of less than two years areapproved and funded.

3.7.5.2. Project Justification and Submittal. Air Force Productivity Investment Funds may beused to fund MILCON projects meeting the criteria established in AFI 38-301, ProductivityEnhancing Capital Investment Programs. HQ USAF/XPMR issues special guidance on submittalof PIF projects. MAJCOMs submit MILCON projects to HQ USAF/XPMR in response to theircall for PIF candidates, and shall provide an information copy to HQ USAF/ILEC clearly markedas PIF. HQ USAF/XPMR and ILEC review PIF candidates and determine whether PIF fundingcan be anticipated. Commands shall not include PIF projects in their command MILCON submit-tals. If warranted, HQ USAF/ILEC will authorize design. No design funds are provided in the PIFprogram, therefore, MAJCOMs shall fund design of PIF projects from funds made available forMILCON design. Upon HQ USAF approval, the PIF funds will be transferred and the project willbecome part of the MAJCOM’s MILCON program.

3.7.6. Land Acquisition. Land acquisition is accomplished in one of two ways:

3.7.6.1. Land Acquisition Only. Land acquisitions not associated with any facility constructionand estimated to cost more than $500,000 are programmed as separate MILCON projects. Exam-ples include lands purchased for Air Installation Compatible Use Zones (AICUZ) or for explosivequantity/distance safety zones.

3.7.6.2. Land Acquisition with Facility Construction. When land acquisition is required inconjunction with facility construction, the land acquisition is programmed one of two ways:

CLE000366.pdf

28 AFI32-1021 24 JANUARY 2003

3.7.6.2.1. If the estimated land cost is greater than 30 percent of the estimated total projectcost (land plus facility construction), land acquisition is programmed as a single and separateMILCON project from the construction project.

3.7.6.2.2. If the estimated land cost is 30 percent or less of the estimated total project cost, theproject is programmed together with the construction and the words "land acquisition" areincluded in the project title on the DD Form 1391.

CLE000366.pdf

AFI32-1021 24 JANUARY 2003 29

Chapter 4

UNSPECIFIED MINOR CONSTRUCTION PROGRAMMING

4.1. Unspecified Minor Construction. Unspecified minor construction (UMC) projects are authorizedby 10 U.S.C. 2805, Unspecified Minor Construction, and DoD Directive 4270.36, DoD Emergency, Con-tingency, and Other Unprogrammed Construction.

4.2. Minor Construction Project Criteria. UMC projects are MILCON projects having a funded costbetween $750,000 and $1,500,000. However, if the UMC project is intended solely to correct a life-threat-ening, health-threatening, or safety-threatening deficiency, the funded cost is between $1,500,000 and$3,000,000. These projects are funded from the P-341 account. AFI 32-1032, Planning and Programmingof Real Property Maintenance Projects, describes minor construction (funded from the O&M account)projects costing less than $750,000 (or less than $1,500,000 where the project corrects a life-, safety-, orhealth-threatening deficiency).

4.2.1. Types of Projects. UMC includes constructing, erecting, or installing a new facility or system;work that expands the current size of an existing building by constructing additional functional space(e.g., by constructing a building addition or adding an additional level); converting a building fromone primary function to another; and repair-type work that exceeds 70 percent of a building's replace-ment cost. Note: when the estimated cost to repair a building exceeds 70 percent of the replacementcost, a replacement building should normally be programmed through the MILCON process. How-ever, when other factors dictate retention and restoration of the existing building (e.g., in the case of abuilding on the National Register of Historic Places), such repair-type work is referred to as rehabili-tation and is programmed as construction class work. SAF/IEI may approve exceptions to this on acase-by-case basis. Repair work in the same facility may be programmed as a separate project andexecuted with the UMC project. The programming documents for both projects shall be cross-refer-enced and Congress shall be notified of intent to proceed with an UMC project and companion repairwork.

4.2.2. Project Limitations. Unspecified minor construction requirements should be unforeseen andso urgent it cannot wait for the next MILCON program submittal. Each project shall provide a com-plete and usable facility or improvement to an existing facility. Splitting requirements to keep projectcosts below the UMC threshold is prohibited. An UMC project shall not be accomplishment concur-rently with a MILCON project in the same facility. Combining UMC funds with other fund types toaccomplish a single requirement is prohibited. An UMC project may precede a MILCON project fora new mission requirement when the UMC will provide a complete and usable facility to meet a spe-cific need during a specific time frame. An UMC project may follow a MILCON project when newmission requirements are identified after the MILCON project was completed.

4.3. Project Justification and Submittal. MAJCOMs submit project requests under the UMC authorityto HQ USAF/ILEC using a DD Form 1391. Project requests shall describe the requirement; explain theproject urgency; why it was not included in a prior year MILCON program; and why it cannot wait for thenext MILCON program. Each project request shall explain how the new requirement is to be satisfied inthe interim. Requests shall identify any land acquisition and temporary facilities; indicate the date whenthe requirement was first known; and identify unit or activity relocations in submittal documents. Providethe required completion date and justification for that completion date. Include a schedule of related

CLE000366.pdf

30 AFI32-1021 24 JANUARY 2003

equipment delivery and any steps taken to expedite design and construction. If requesting minor construc-tion funding for a project previously denied by Congress, provide new information justifying the urgencyand what changed since the original request. Describe all actions taken to satisfy the requirement andidentify all other reasonable alternatives considered. Explain why the alternatives were not adopted. Iden-tify any O&M funded work associated with the total project scope and provide copies of DD Form 1391for any companion O&M project and cross-reference DD Forms 1391 to each other. The MAJCOM/CEPshall sign the following statement, included on the DD Form 1391, for all projects submitted to HQ USAFfor authority approval: “I have reviewed the DD Form 1391 and assure the document is complete andaccurate, and have validated the primary and supporting costs. The scope has been fully coordinated withthe user and the Civil Engineer Squadron Commander.” In the submittal, include a Certificate of Compli-ance (Figure 4.1.) signed by the host installation commander and endorsed by the MAJCOM commander,or designated representative.

4.4. Project Approval. HQ USAF/ILEC validates UMC projects and submits validated projects to SAF/IEI for approval. SAF/IEI (together with the OSD Comptroller) approves the projects and notifies theHouse and Senate Armed Services and Appropriations Committees of the intent to accomplish theproject. If no committee raises an objection within 30 calendar days after notification, the notification pro-cess is complete, and HQ USAF/ILEC advises the MAJCOM to proceed with the project. For the AirForce Reserve component, AFRC/CE and ANG/CE have unspecified minor construction project approvalup to $1,500,000. Projects exceeding $1,500,000 require SAF/IEI approval and the same Congressionalnotification.

CLE000366.pdf

AFI32-1021 24 JANUARY 2003 31

Figure 4.1. Certificate of Compliance for Minor Construction Projects Carried Out Under Authority of 10 U.S.C. 2805. (Per 10 U.S.C. 18233a, the below Certification of Compliance is not required for reserve components).

CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE FOR

MINOR CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS UNDERTAKEN UNDER AUTHORITY OF TITLE 10, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 2805

Project description and cost:

(Insert the project title, location or installation, funded cost, and a brief statement describing the singleundertaking.)

I certify that the project described above complies with 10 U.S.C. 2805 and Department of Defenseregulations as implemented by Air Force Instruction 32-1021. Further, the project is essential andrepresents the minimum requirements. I have taken every reasonable action to verify the accuracy of thesestatements.

Responsible Official:

Name, Signature, Date Name, Title, Signature, Date (Installation Commander) (MAJCOM Commander or Designated Representative)

CLE000366.pdf

32 AFI32-1021 24 JANUARY 2003

Chapter 5

EMERGENCY, DAMAGED OR DESTROYED, AND CONTINGENCY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAMS

5.1. Purpose of Chapter. This chapter provides guidance for obtaining MILCON projects under certainspecial emergency program authorities. This chapter implements United States Code and DoD Directive4270.36, Emergency, Contingency, and Other Unprogrammed Construction.

5.2. Special Emergency Programs Available. Special programs include: Emergency Construction (10U.S.C. 2803), Restoration or Replacement of Damaged or Destroyed Facilities (10 U.S.C. 2854), Secre-tary of Defense (SECDEF) Contingency Construction (10 U.S.C. 2804), and Construction Authority inEvent of Declaration of War or National Emergency (10 U.S.C. 2808). MAJCOMs should submit projectscosting more than $1,500,000 for these programs. Use the procedures in Chapter 4 for requirements cost-ing less than $1,500,000, but more than $750,000. If minor construction cannot be used, MAJCOMs willexplain the circumstances in their submittal.

5.2.1. Emergency Construction (10 U.S.C. 2803). This provision is used for projects vital tonational security or for the protection of health, safety, or the quality of the environment, so urgentthey cannot be deferred to the next MILCON submittal.

5.2.1.1. Project Justification and Submittal. MAJCOMs submit project justifications to HQUSAF/ILEC. The submittal shall include all DoD Directive 4270.36 requested information, a DDForm 1391, and a DD Form 1391c. The urgency of the project shall be explained, including thedate the emergency arose and why it was not known in time for inclusion in the MILCON budgetcurrently before Congress. The submittal shall also explain the impact on the installation missionif the urgent requirement is deferred until the next MILCON budget submission. Include designand contract award schedule data showing project award will be prior to availability of the nextyear's MILCON funds.

5.2.1.2. Funding. Emergency construction projects are funded from unobligated balances madeavailable from authorized and appropriated MILCON programs. MAJCOMs will identify and usethe oldest savings and cancellations from their MILCON projects, first. If these funds are insuffi-cient to cover the cost of the emergency project, HQ USAF/ILEC will work to identify the balanceof the requirement.

5.2.1.3. Approvals Required. HQ USAF/ILEC validates the requirement and submits projects toSAF/IEI for approval and notification to the appropriate congressional authorization committees.Simultaneously, HQ USAF/ILEC, through SAF/FMB, requests OSD Comptroller seek approvalfrom the Senate and House Appropriations Committees to reprogram the identified offsets to theemergency project. Correspondence is delivered to all committees simultaneously. A project maybe carried out only if: (1) no objection is raised by the Armed Services Committees within 30 cal-endar days after they were notified, and (2) approval from the Appropriations Committees isobtained for reprogramming funds. Emergency projects shall be accomplished within approvedfunds. If variations in cost occur that could not have been anticipated at the time of approval, thecost flexibility provision under 10 U.S.C. 2853 applies.

5.2.2. Restoration or Replacement of Damaged or Destroyed Facilities (10 U.S.C. 2854). T hi sauthority is used for facilities damaged or destroyed by fire, flood, wind, crashes, explosions, torna-

CLE000366.pdf

AFI32-1021 24 JANUARY 2003 33

does, hurricanes, volcanoes, earthquakes, typhoons, etc. 10 U.S.C. 2854 provides authorization only(no appropriations). There is no annual dollar limit.

5.2.2.1. Criteria for Projects. The destroyed or damaged facility shall have been in use orplanned for use at the time of the damage or destruction. Restoration or replacement shall not pro-vide larger facilities than those damaged or destroyed, except that MAJCOMs may provide forlimited increases as a result of economy of design or compliance with new criteria. MAJCOMscannot use these projects to correct space deficiencies.

5.2.2.2. Operations and Maintenance Funds for Clean Up. MAJCOMs may clean up the dam-age and minimally restore the facility with Operations and Maintenance funds, provided construc-tion class work does not exceed $750,000. MILCON funds, if subsequently approved forrestoration or replacement of the facility, will not reimburse Operations and Maintenanceaccounts.

5.2.2.3. Project Justification and Submittal. The submittal process for MAJCOMs is the sameas for emergency projects (see paragraph 5.2.1.1.). In addition, the submittal shall explain theurgency and indicate, for each facility, the cause of damage or destruction. Include the buildingnumber, name, value before damage or destruction, size, and construction type. MAJCOMs shallcertify the project is for restoration or replacement of facilities damaged or destroyed, and anyscope increase is a result of economy of design or compliance with new criteria.

5.2.2.4. Funding. Project funding is accomplished under the same procedures as for emergencyconstruction projects (see paragraph 5.2.1.2.).

5.2.2.5. Project Approval and Cost Limits. The approval process and limits on project cost arethe same as for emergency projects (see paragraph 5.2.1.3.).

5.2.3. Secretary of Defense Contingency Construction (10 U.S.C. 2804). Use of this authority israre and requires a determination that the project is so urgent that use of other authorities is inconsis-tent with national security.

5.2.3.1. Project Justification. The Air Force shall first consider using its Emergency Construc-tion Authority (10 U.S.C. 2803) and provide reasons to the Secretary of Defense why that author-ity cannot be used. Use of Contingency Construction Authority does not require identification offunding from project cancellations or savings since appropriations are provided to the Secretary ofDefense for this authority.

5.2.3.2. Project Submittal. MAJCOMs shall submit requests according to DoD Directive4270.36. Requests should include the same information as required in paragraph 5.2.1.1. In addi-tion, requests shall include Unified and Specified Commander's certification the project is vital toUS Security. Factors making the project vital to the security of the United States shall be describedin detail. Reasons the project cannot be programmed in accordance with established planning, pro-gramming, and budgeting system procedures, or accomplished using Air Force emergency con-struction authority shall be listed. Also, provide anticipated contract award and design completiondates.

CLE000366.pdf

34 AFI32-1021 24 JANUARY 2003

5.2.4. Construction Authority in the Event of Declaration of War or National Emergency (10U.S.C. 2808). The Secretary of Defense may authorize the services to undertake military constructionprojects not otherwise authorized by law. The Air Force may undertake these projects only within theamount of funds appropriated. The Secretary of Defense will provide guidance at the time this author-ity is needed.

CLE000366.pdf

AFI32-1021 24 JANUARY 2003 35

Chapter 6

RELOCATABLE AND TEMPORARY FACILITIES

6.1. Relocatable and Temporary Use Facilities Background. This chapter pertains to relocatable andtemporary use facilities purchased or leased as equipment. For the purpose of this chapter the terms “tem-porary” and “relocatable” are used interchangeably. The temporary facility-use (relocatable) authoritywas a concession on the part of Congress to provide the DoD a way to satisfy (for very short periods withunsubstantial buildings) requirements that were so urgent they could not wait for normal processes toobtain construction. Over time, temporary structures were erected that were more like permanent facilitiesthan austere, relocatable structures. Austere refers to both the exterior and interior appearance and isdefined as the basic structure without ornamentation or luxury and without the appearance of permanence.Current DoD and AF policy is to keep temporary facilities to an absolute minimum; as short-term as pos-sible; and only in use until the permanent facility is built or the mission no longer requires their use. Thischapter provides guidance on satisfying interim facility requirements using relocatable or temporary facil-ities. Interim facilities are requirements resulting from transitory or peak military missions, deployments,contingency operations, disaster relief operations, or urgent requirements pending approval and construc-tion of permanent facilities through the normal MILCON process.

6.2. Relocatable Facilities. DoD Instruction 4165.56, Relocatable Buildings, authorizes the purchase orlease of relocatable buildings to meet interim facility requirements. It provides the authority to acquire,store, and use relocatable facilities when they are the most feasible and economical means of satisfyinginterim facility requirements.

6.2.1. Definition. Relocatable facilities are designed to be erected, disassembled, stored, readilymoved, and reused. They can be reused by another organization at the same site or at another site onanother installation. Approval is required for each use and reuse. Trailers suitable for offices and stor-age space can serve as relocatable facilities.

6.2.2. Approval Authority. SAF/IEI delegated authority to The Civil Engineer, HQ USAF/ILE, toapprove the use of relocatable facilities longer than three years for interim, transitory, or peak situa-tions. Relocatable facilities may be approved for and granted extensions of use for longer than fiveyears. HQ USAF/ILE further delegated this authority to the MAJCOM/CE (including ANG/CE). Thisauthority may not be further delegated.

6.2.3. Restrictions on Relocatable and Temporary Facilities. MAJCOMs shall keep temporaryand relocatable facilities to a minimum. MAJCOMs shall ensure these facilities are neat in appear-ance, functional yet austere, and readily removable. There shall be no appearance of permanence, suchas brick exteriors, brick building signs, automatic sprinkler systems, or extensive landscaping. Paint-ing is permitted.

6.2.4. Facilities Not Classified as Relocatable. The following facility types are not classified asrelocatable:

6.2.4.1. Facilities required solely for military training associated with facility use and assembly.

6.2.4.2. Buildings that are part of organizational unit mobility equipment, War Reserve Material(WRM), or an integral part of a mobile equipment item such as shop, communications, and instru-mentation vans or trailers.

CLE000366.pdf

36 AFI32-1021 24 JANUARY 2003

6.2.4.3. Portable facilities that can be moved intact (such as shelters for workmen), skid-mountedbus shelters, contractor owned construction project offices, small storage sheds not connected to autility system, and unconnected sanitary facilities or sentry shelters.

6.2.4.3.1. Stress tension shelters or fabric covered structures having a rigid frame cannot bepurchased as equipment by specific direction of Congress. Therefore, they cannot be pur-chased with O&M or 3080 funds for temporary or short-term requirements, under the relocat-able authority. However, stress tension shelters can be leased to meet interim facilityrequirements. If stress tension shelters are purchased as facilities, the shelters, foundations,utilities, and site preparation shall be completely funded as construction (MILCON, P341, orO&M funded minor construction).

6.2.5. Program Management. To improve visibility of peak and short-term facility management, allMAJCOMs shall submit a comprehensive list of short-term facilities highlighting those approved forlonger than five years or which have been on the installation less than five years, but were granted anextension to exceed five years. This list shall be submitted to HQ USAF/ILEC no later than 15November each year. HQ USAF/ILEC shall consolidate and submit this report to SAF/IEI by 15 Jan-uary each year. RCS: HAF-ILE(A)0211. This report has been designated emergency status code C-2.Continue normal reporting during emergency conditions. The program management procedures out-lined in this instruction apply to all relocatable facilities purchased or leased as equipment.

6.2.5.1. Approval for Relocatable Facilities Interim to MILCON. The requiring MAJCOMshall identify the permanent MILCON or UMC project for which the relocatable facility isinterim. The MILCON project shall be identified in the next available MILCON budget submittalto HQ USAF/ILEC.

6.2.5.2. Approval of Relocatable Facilities for Peak or Transitory Purposes. I ns t a l l a t i o nsshall submit requests for use of relocatable buildings for peak or transitory purposes to MAJ-COMs. The MAJCOM validates the requirement, and if warranted, the MAJCOM/CE approvesthe purchase or lease. The Command shall identify the mission for which the temporary relocat-able facility is required.

6.2.6. Acquisition of Relocatable Facilities. Installations shall submit a DD Form 1391 to the MAJ-COM for acquisition of a relocatable facility showing all costs (funded and unfunded) associated withthe purchase or lease, with a separate entry for the construction support costs. An economic analysis(see paragraph 6.2.6.3.) and “20 percent rule” calculations (see paragraph 6.2.7.) shall be included inthe submittal.

6.2.6.1. Funded Costs (Non-recoverable costs). Funded costs may not exceed $750,000 foreither purchased or leased relocatable facilities. These costs cannot be included in a lease; theyshall be funded as a Minor Construction project. Funded (Non-recoverable) facility componentsinclude, but are not limited to; foundations, concrete mounting slabs, site preparation, utility con-nections, stairways, porches or breezeways between units, extra wall covering and paneling,ceramic works, lighting and sound systems, and other interior and exterior finishes and featuresnot included in the original facility package or unit. Non-recoverable facility components alsoinclude estimates for the cost of disassembly, repackaging, and normal component repair andrefurbishment.

6.2.6.2. Unfunded Costs (Acquisition Costs). Unfunded costs include relocatable facility acqui-sition, leasing, delivery to the site, erection, assembly, disassembly, packaging, transporting,

CLE000366.pdf

AFI32-1021 24 JANUARY 2003 37

maintenance, operation, and refurbishment. Relocatable facilities are purchased as equipmentusing Other Procurement funds (3080) or with Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation(RDT&E) funds (3600) when appropriate. When relocatable facilities are leased, installations andMAJCOMs will lease them as equipment with Operations and Maintenance funds (3400) (3830and 3730 for ANG and AFRC, respectively) or RDT&E funds (3600).

6.2.6.3. Economic Analysis Requirement. Installations shall prepare an economic analysis tosupport acquisition of relocatable facilities according to the guidelines in AFI 65-501, EconomicAnalysis. Prior to exercising annual options to continue leasing interim facilities, the economicanalysis shall be updated and revalidated.

6.2.6.4. Engineering Evaluation Requirement. An engineering evaluation shall be performedto ensure the relocatable facility meets safety requirements and normal construction standardsestablished by the Air Force.

6.2.7. The 20 Percent Rule. Prior to approving a request for a relocatable facility, MAJCOMs shallcalculate the percentage of non-recoverable (funded) costs to facility acquisition (unfunded) costs.This percentage shall not exceed 20 percent. The 20 percent calculation equals "non-recoverable facil-ity component cost" divided by "facility acquisition cost" times "100". If the facility is not new(including facilities acquired from other governmental agencies), apply the "20% rule" to the currentcost of a similar new facility instead of the original cost of the facility or its current cost to the AirForce. The 20% calculation shall also be performed for leased relocatable facilities (obtain appropri-ate data from the lessor). If the calculation results in a percentage greater than 20%, consider a differ-ent type of relocatable that complies with the 20% rule.

6.2.8. Conversion to Real Property. Conversion of a purchased or leased relocatable building to AirForce real property requires SAF/IEI approval.

6.2.8.1. Conversion of Purchased Relocatable Facilities Where Funded and Unfunded CostsExceed $750,000. MAJCOMs shall submit a DD Form 1391 to HQ USAF/ILEC describing theproject and showing all costs. ILEC will request SAF/IEI approval. SAF/IEI approves the projectand notifies the House and Senate Armed Services and Appropriations Committees of the AF’sintent to convert the facility. If no committee raises an objection within 30 days after notification,the notification process is complete, and HQ USAF advises the MAJCOM to proceed with theproject. HQ USAF/ILEC will resolve any objection, if raised, prior to proceeding. ANG installa-tions will submit documentation described above to ANG/CE for processing to SAF/IEI.

6.2.8.2. Conversion of Purchased Relocatable Facilities Where Funded and Unfunded Costis Less than $750,000. MAJCOM staffs shall submit detailed justifications, including data onfunded and unfunded costs, to HQ USAF/ILEC for conversion approval. HQ USAF/ILEC willnotify commands of approval or disapproval. ANG installations will submit documentationdescribed above to ANG/CE for approval.

6.2.8.3. Conversion of Leased Relocatable Facilities. This type of conversion involves com-plex fiscal and legal procedures and should rarely arise. MAJCOM staffs shall submit requests forsuch conversions to HQ USAF/ILEC for appropriate processing.

6.2.9. Maintenance of Relocatable Facilities. Purchases or leases of relocatable facilities, as equip-ment and not real property, dictate O&M funds or RDT&E funds pay the cost of maintenance. Whenleased, the lease can stipulate that the lessor provides maintenance. The using organization is respon-sible for funding the maintenance cost of their relocatable facilities. The BCE is responsible for fund-

CLE000366.pdf

38 AFI32-1021 24 JANUARY 2003

ing the maintenance cost of the real property associated with the relocatable (e.g., the foundations, sitepreparation, and utility connections). The BCE can perform maintenance on the remainder of thefacility, on a reimbursable basis.

6.2.10. Inventory, Reuse and Disposition of Relocatable Facilities. Purchased relocatable facili-ties are accounted for as equipment. MAJCOMs shall keep an accurate and current inventory of pur-chased, stored, and inactivated relocatable facilities. Installations shall determine if a suitablerelocatable asset is available through the MAJCOM before purchasing any new relocatable building.

6.3. Temporary Facilities Incident to MILCON. These are short-term facilities required to accommo-date activities displaced by an approved and funded MILCON project during the period of project execu-tion. Facilities shall be of non-permanent construction and removed when the MILCON project iscompleted and the permanent facility occupied. Relocatable facilities can be used to satisfy these tempo-rary requirements. The cost of temporary facilities (building, foundations, site preparation, and utilities) isa funded cost and shall be included as a supporting facility on the DD Form 1391 for the MILCONproject. If leased, the full cost of the lease shall be included on the DD Form 1391. The lease cost willreflect the period when the facility being constructed will not be available. If the requirement for tempo-rary facilities arises after award of the MILCON project, it must be handled as a construction modificationaction. Temporary facility costs shall be included in the project life cycle cost analysis used to validate theconstruction project.

6.4. Forms Prescribed. DD Form 1390, FY___ Military Construction Program; DD Form 1391,FY___ Military Construction Project Data; DD Form 1391C, FY___ Military Construction ProjectData (Continuation).

MICHAEL E. ZETTLER, Lt General, USAF Deputy Chief of Staff, Installations and Logistics

CLE000366.pdf

AFI32-1021 24 JANUARY 2003 39

Attachment 1

GLOSSARY OF REFERENCES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION

References

10 U.S.C. 2672, Acquisition: interests in land when cost is not more than $500,000

10 U.S.C. 2672a, Acquisition: interests in land when need is urgent

10 U.S.C. 28, Military Construction and Military Family Housing

10 U.S.C. 2803, Emergency Construction

10 U.S.C. 2804, Contingency Construction

10 U.S.C. 2805, Unspecified Minor Construction

10 U.S.C. 2807, Architect and Engineer Services and Construction Design

10 U.S.C. 2808, Construction Authority in the Event of a Declaration of War or National Emergency

10 U.S.C. 2854, Restoration or Replacement of Damaged or Destroyed Facilities

10 U.S.C. 2865, Energy Savings at Military Installations

10 U.S.C. 18233, Acquisition

23 U.S.C. 210, Defense Access Roads

33 U.S.C. 1251, Clean Water Act

42 U.S.C. 300, Safe Drinking Water Act

42 U.S.C. 6901, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

42 U.S.C. 7491, Clean Air Act

National Historic Preservation Act, Section 106

Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands

Executive Order 11988, Flood Plain Management

DoD Directive 1020.1, Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Handicap in Programs and Activities Con-ducted by the Department of Defense

DoD Instruction 4165.56, Relocatable Buildings

DoD Directive 4270.36, DoD Emergency, Contingency, and Other Unprogrammed Construction

DoD 2000.16 Standard 15, Physical Security and Force Protection Plan

DoD Directive 6015.16, Department of Defense Policies for the Acquisition of Military, Health Facilities

DoD Instruction 6015.17, Procedures for the Planning, Programming, Budgeting and Execution for Con-struction of Military Health Facilities

Federal Facilities Pollution Abatement Report A-106

Guidelines of the United States Water Resources Council

CLE000366.pdf

40 AFI32-1021 24 JANUARY 2003

OMB Circular A-76

MIL-HDBK-1165, Water Conservation

MIL-HDBK-1191, Department of Defense Medical and Dental Treatment Facilities Design and Con-struction Criteria

AFI 13-201, Air Force Airspace Management

AFI 25-201, Support Agreements Procedures

AFI 31-210, The Air Force Antiterrorism/Force Protection (AT/FP) Program Standards

AFPD 32-10, Installations and Facilities

AFI 32-1012, Reserve Component Facilities Programs

AFI 32-1023, Design and Construction Standards and Execution of Facility Construction Projects

AFI 32-1032, Planning and Programming Appropriated Funded Maintenance, Repair, and ConstructionProjects

AFI 32-1052, Facility Asbestos Management

AFH 32-1084, Facility Requirements

AFI 32-7001, Environmental Budgeting

AFI 32-7020, The Environmental Restoration Program

AFI 32-7040, Air Quality Compliance

AFI 32-7041, Water Quality Compliance

AFI 32-7042, Solid and Hazardous Waste Compliance

AFI 32-7044, Storage Tank Compliance

AFI 32-7060, Interagency and Intergovernmental Coordination for Environmental Planning

AFI 32-7061, The Environmental Impact Analysis Process

AFI 32-7062, Air Force Comprehensive Planning

AFI 32-7063, Air Installation Compatible Use Zone Program

AFI 32-7064, Integrated Natural Resources Management

AFI 32-7065, Cultural Resources Management

AFI 32-7080, Pollution Prevention Program

AFI 32-9001, Acquisition of Real Property

AFI 38-301, Productivity Enhancing Capital Investment Programs

AFI 65-501, Economic Analysis

AFI 65-601, Vol 1, Budget Guidance and Procedures

AFMAN 11-226, United States Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures

AFMAN 37-139, Records Disposition Schedule

CLE000366.pdf

AFI32-1021 24 JANUARY 2003 41

AFMAN 91-201, Explosives Safety Standards

Army Regulation 55-80, Highways and National Defense

Federal Aviation Regulations, Part 77, Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace

USAF Project Manager’s Guide for Design and Construction

War Mobilization Plan Annexes J and L, April 1993

30 AM 4270.1, DLA Facilities Projects Manual

TI 809-04, Seismic Design for Buildings

UFC 03-260-01, Airfield and Heliport Planning and Design

Abbreviations and Acronyms

ACES-PM—Automated Civil Engineer System - Project Management Module

ACHP—Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

AFI—Air Force Instruction

AFMAN—Air Force Manual

AFPD—Air Force Policy Directive

AFRC—Air Force Reserve Command

AICUZ—Air Installations Compatible Use Zone

ANG—Air National Guard

AT/FP—Antiterrorism/Force Protection

BCE—Base Civil Engineer

BES—Budget Estimate Submission

CBRA—Coastal Barrier Resources System

CSAF—Chief of Staff of the Air Force

DDESB—Department of Defense Explosives Safety Board

DoD—Department of Defense

DoDI—Department of Defense Instruction

DESC—Defense Energy Support Center

DLA—Defense Logistics Agency

DRU—Direct Reporting Unit

ECIP—Energy Conservation Investment Program

EIAP—Environmental Impact Analysis Process

FAA—Federal Aviation Administration

FOA—Field Operating Agency

CLE000366.pdf

42 AFI32-1021 24 JANUARY 2003

FONPA—Finding of No Practicable Alternative

FYDP—Future Year Defense Program

HQ USAF—Headquarters United States Air Force

HQ USAF/ILEC—Engineering Division

HQ USAF/ILEV—Environmental Division

HQ USAF/PE—Director of Programs and Evaluation

HQ USAF/SG—Air Force Surgeon General

IPL—Integrated Priority List

ISSM—Investment Strategy Scoring Model

MAJCOMs—Major Commands

MILCON—Military Construction

MTF—Medical Treatment Facility

MTMC—Military Traffic Management Command

NATO—North Atlantic Treaty Organization

OASD(HA)—Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Health Affairs)

OMB—Office of Management and Budget

OSD—Office of the Secretary of Defense

O&M—Operation and Maintenance

PA—Programmed Amount

PB—President’s Budget

PBD—Program Budget Decision

P-341—Portion of MILCON funds used for unspecified minor construction

PIF—Productivity Investment Fund

POM—Program Objective Memorandum

PRIME BEEF—Prime Base Engineer Emergency Forces

RED HORSE—Rapid Engineer Deployable Heavy Operations Repair Squadron, Engineer

RDT&E—Research, Development, Test and Evaluation

RHFO—Regional Health Facility Office

SAF/FMB—Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force (Budget)

SAF/IEI—Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force (Installations)

SECAF—Secretary of the Air Force

SECDEF—Secretary of Defense

CLE000366.pdf

AFI32-1021 24 JANUARY 2003 43

SHPO—State Historic Preservation Officer

TOA—Total Obligation Authority

UMC—Unspecified Minor Construction

U.S.C.—United States Code

USFWS—United States Fish and Wildlife Service

UST—Underground Storage Tank

WIMS—Work Information Management System

Terms

Funded and Unfunded Costs—Definitions of funded and unfunded costs are as follows:

Funded Project Costs—Costs incurred during the construction phases are funded costs and are fundedfrom MILCON appropriations or O&M funded minor construction accounts. Funded costs include, butare not limited to, the following:

Materials—All materials, supplies, and services applicable to the project.

Equipment—All items of installed capital equipment.

Transportation—Transportation costs applicable to materials, supplies, installed capital type equipment,and government-owned equipment.

Labor—All civilian labor costs including labor costs of construction units composed of foreign nationals.These funded civilian labor costs for a project are determined by the accounting system in WorkInformation Management System (WIMS)/ACES that uses the appropriate shop rate in its calculation.Installation staffs shall not use any method other than this WIMS/ACES accounting procedure to computecivilian labor funded costs. Otherwise, incomplete project costs and subsequent non-compliance withminor construction funding limits might occur.

Overhead—That portion of installation overhead or support costs that can be identified as representingadditional costs incurred as a result of the project.

Supervision, Inspection and Overhead—The costs charged by the Corps of Engineers, the NavalFacilities Engineering Command, and the Air Force when serving as the design and/or construction agent.

Travel—All travel and per diem costs.

Equipment Operation—That portion of costs applicable to the operation and maintenance ofgovernment-owned equipment. Such costs shall be computed on an hourly rate (shown in AFI65-601V1).

Unfunded Costs—Some efforts in support of military construction are identified as unfunded costs.Unfunded costs are those that (a) are part of the construction effort associated with a military constructionor O&M funded minor construction project, (b) are financed from appropriations other than MILCON orO&M funded minor construction, and (c) are not reimbursed by appropriations available for MILCON.Unfunded costs are capitalized as part of the real property investment and include the following:

Military Labor—Military labor costs used for a project are unfunded. These unfunded military laborcosts are determined by the accounting system in WIMS/ACES that uses the shop rate in its

CLE000366.pdf

44 AFI32-1021 24 JANUARY 2003

calculation. Installation staffs shall not use any method other than the WIMS/ACES accountingprocedure to compute these unfunded military labor costs. Otherwise, incomplete project costs andsubsequent noncompliance with minor construction funding limits might occur.

RED HORSE and Prime BEEF Units—The labor costs of Red Horse and Prime Beef units areunfunded. These are costs for all labor performed by these units on a project. These costs arecomputed directly from the labor performed and use of the shop rate is not applicable.

Depreciation—Costs applicable to the depreciation of government-owned equipment in accordancewith hourly rates determined in Chapter 26 of DoD Manual 7220.9-M, "Asset Use Charge."

Materials—Materials, supplies, and items of installed capital equipment obtained specifically for aproject on a non-reimbursable basis, either as excess distributions from another Military Departmentof Defense Agency or as excess distributions from other Government agencies. A militaryDepartment of Defense Agency is precluded from using materials, supplies, or items of installedcapital type equipment on its own minor construction projects on a non-reimbursable basis.

Fringe Benefits—Unfunded civilian fringe benefit rates as prescribed in Chapter 26 of AFI 65-601,Volume I, for DoD civilian personnel.

Gifts—Gifts from private parties.

CLE000366.pdf





1 OCTOBER 1997

Civil Engineer

AIR FORCE COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING

OPR: HQ AFCEE/ECC (Mr. Roger D. Blevins) Certified by: HQ AFCEE/EC(Col Thomas H. Gross)

Supersedes AFI 32-7062, 18 April 1994 Pages: 23Distribution: F

This Air Force Instruction (AFI) implements Air Force Policy Directive (AFPD) 32-70, EnvironmentalQuality, by establishing the Air Force Comprehensive Planning Program for development of Air Forceinstallations. It contains responsibilities and requirements for comprehensive planning and describes pro-cedures for developing, implementing, and maintaining the General Plan within the installation Compre-hensive Plan.


This document is substantially revised and must be completely reviewed.

This revision supersedes Air Force Instruction (AFI) 32-7062, 18 April 1994. The revised AFI specifiesrequirements for General Plan submittals; provides minimum level of mapping details for General Plans;provides map and graphic layers for Comprehensive Plans; identifies proponents for plan products;changes term Elements to Special Plans and Studies, and provides guidance and references on site plan-ning explosives facilities.

Chapter 1— BACKGROUND, CONCEPT, AND RESPONSIBILITIES 3

1.1. Background ................................................................................................................ 3

1.2. Concept. ..................................................................................................................... 3

1.3. Responsibilities: ......................................................................................................... 3

Chapter 2— COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING REQUIREMENTS 5

2.1. Purpose. ...................................................................................................................... 5

Certified Current 13 November 2009

CLE000366.pdf


2 AFI32-7062 1 OCTOBER 1997

2.2. Process. ...................................................................................................................... 5

2.3. Comprehensive Plan. ................................................................................................. 5

2.4. Master Statement of Work. ........................................................................................ 6

2.5. General Plan Template and Guide. ............................................................................ 6

2.6. Plan Updating, Reporting, and Approval. .................................................................. 6

Chapter 3— SITE PLANNING REQUIREMENTS 7

3.1. Site Planning Criteria. ................................................................................................ 7

3.2. Urban Planning and Design Standards and Requirements. ....................................... 7

Attachment 1— GLOSSARY OF TERMS 9

Attachment 2— COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING GUIDES 11

Attachment 3— OUTLINE OF THE GENERAL PLAN DOCUMENT 12

Attachment 4— COMPONENT PLAN DESCRIPTIONS 13

Attachment 5— COMPONENT PLAN ADVOCACY 14

Attachment 6— GENERAL PLAN MINIMUM LEVEL OF DETAIL FOR PLAN AND MAP GRAPHICS 15

Attachment 7— COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AND GRAPHIC LAYERS 19

CLE000366.pdf

AFI32-7062 1 OCTOBER 1997 3

Chapter 1

BACKGROUND, CONCEPT, AND RESPONSIBILITIES

1.1. Background This instruction provides guidance on implementing the Air Force ComprehensivePlanning Program. It furthers the policies and goals of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969(Public Law 91-190) to improve and coordinate plans, and to use the physical and social sciences in plan-ning and decision-making.

1.2. Concept. This instruction defines major command (MAJCOM) and installation comprehensiveplanning requirements and responsibilities for executing the Air Force Comprehensive Planning Pro-gram. It gives MAJCOMs and installations the flexibility to develop and maintain comprehensive plandocuments necessary to execute their planning program.

1.3. Responsibilities:

1.3.1. The Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Manpower, Reserve Affairs, Installations,and Environment (SAF/MI). Promulgates and oversees policy for the Air Force ComprehensivePlanning Program, environmental planning, and related areas.

1.3.2. Headquarters United States Air Force (HQ USAF):

1.3.2.1. The Civil Engineer (HQ USAF/ILE). Issues policy, allocates resources, and overseesexecution of the Air Force Comprehensive Planning Program.

1.3.2.2. HQ USAF/RE. Provides policy and oversight to ensure reserve installations complywith comprehensive planning requirements.

1.3.3. National Guard Bureau (NGB). Ensures NGB Civil Engineers comply with comprehensiveplanning policy, and provides oversight for NGB installations.

1.3.4. Field Operating Agencies (FOAs)

1.3.4.1. Headquarters Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence (HQ AF CEE). For-mulates comprehensive planning guidance. Provides technical planning assistance and support toinstallations, MAJCOMs, FOAs, and HQ USAF. Organizes and manages planning assistanceteams to help installations address unique and challenging problems. Prepares criteria, standardsand guidance to implement program policy. Supports development of computer-aided design anddrafting and geographic information systems, and other interactive computer graphics systems.Maintains copies of General Plans.

1.3.4.2. Headquarters Air Force Civil Engineer Support Agency (HQ AFCESA). Providestechnical support for those component areas of comprehensive planning in which it has expertise,to include readiness and survivability, energy, fire protection, systems engineering, and operationsand maintenance.

1.3.5. MAJCOM Responsibilities. All references to MAJCOMs in this AFI include the Air NationalGuard Readiness Center (ANGRC), Headquarters Air Force Reserve (HQ AFRES), and other agen-cies designated as "MAJCOM equivalent" by HQ USAF. MAJCOM Civil Engineers will:

• Ensure comprehensive planning documents are completed, maintained, and implemented formajor installations; and issue guidance to supplement this AFI, as needed.

CLE000366.pdf

4 AFI32-7062 1 OCTOBER 1997

• Review comprehensive planning documents and subsequent amendments to ensure they com-ply with Air Force criteria and standards and effectively support mission goals and objectives.

1.3.6. Installation Commander Responsibilities. Air Force installation commanders ensure appro-priate comprehensive plan documents are developed, maintained and implemented to optimize facil-ity investments in support of their installation’s mission requirements. The installation commanderapproves the General Plan

CLE000366.pdf

AFI32-7062 1 OCTOBER 1997 5

Chapter 2

COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING REQUIREMENTS

2.1. Purpose. Comprehensive planning establishes a systematic framework for decision-making withregard to the development of Air Force installations. It incorporates Air Force programs such as, opera-tional, environmental, urban planning, and others, to identify and assess development alternatives andensure compliance with applicable federal, state and local laws, regulations, and policies. See Attach-ment 1 for definitions of planning terms.

2.2. Process. The comprehensive planning process incorporates a wide range of data and informationwhich allows commanders to logically and thoroughly analyze a variety of factors before making a deci-sion that affects the installation or the surrounding community. The process generally involves mostinstallation agencies who provide or can acquire information and data that is needed in developing spe-cific planning documents or products. The process consolidates plans and programs related to the man-agement and development of Air Force lands, facilities, and resources into a document that is used toguide future growth and development. It encompasses all land areas under Air Force control and regionsof influence, as well as the current and projected capability of local communities to provide services toAir Force people. The comprehensive planning process includes an analysis of the current, short- andlong-range development potential of the installation. Attachment 2, Comprehensive Planning Guides,provides further information on topics related to the Air Force comprehensive planning process; particu-larly, the bulletin entitled Comprehensive Planning Approach and Process.

2.3. Comprehensive Plan. A term referring to the cumulative data sources in the form of documents andgraphics that provide pertinent information used in the planning and decision-making processes. TheComprehensive Plan is comprised of four basic parts: (1) General Plan, (2) Component Plans, (3) SpecialPlans and Studies, and (4) Maps.

2.3.1. General Plan. A decision-makers summary document that contains text, maps, plan graphics,photographs, and other information, in a condensed format. It provides this information at an appro-priate level of detail for the installation, the command, and other decision-makers to understand thecharacter and structure of the installation, and its development potential. The General Plan generallysynopsizes information from the Component Plans as well as other planning documents. The GeneralPlan is easily updated, and provides flexibility in responding to command and installation missionchanges. The General Plan is the only required plan document for completion by all major installa-tions under this instruction. Attachment 3 is an outline of the General Plan document.

2.3.2. Component Plans. There are four Component Plans under the comprehensive plan structure:

(1) Composite Constraints and Opportunities

(2) Infrastructure

(3) Land Use and Transportation

(4) Capital Improvements Program (CIP)

The Component Plans provide detailed information in the form of graphics, textual data, narrative,and maps that focus on specific functional areas. They provide an extended level of information and

CLE000366.pdf

6 AFI32-7062 1 OCTOBER 1997

detail as needed to support execution of other Air Force Civil Engineer programs. Attachment 4describes the four Component Plans.

2.3.3. Special Plans and Studies. The data bases, documents, and graphics required to be preparedand maintained under other Air Force programs. Examples include Air Installation Compatible UseZone Studies, Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan and Housing Community Plans. Por-tions of Special Plans and Studies are generally used in developing the General Plan, ComponentPlans and Maps. Attachment 5 illustrates the general relationship between Special Plans and Studiescategories and Component Plans.

2.3.4. Maps. The informational data bases that graphically depict features, such as unique natural andcultural resource boundaries, utility systems, airfield pavements, buildings, and roads. Maps help tovisually explain the narrative contained in the General Plan, Component Plans, and Special Plans andStudies. Attachment 6 provides the minimum level of detail for plan and map graphics in the Gen-eral Plan. Attachment 7 is a listing of various maps for comprehensive planning use.

2.4. Master Statement of Work. The Air Force document that provides specific details regarding thestructure, content, symbology, and other guidance for preparing Air Force Comprehensive Plan docu-ments and related planning products. Each installation preparing plan documents and data bases shouldcomply with the specifications contained in the Master Statement of Work to ensure Air Force-wide con-sistency, and accommodate information exchange and networking requirements.

2.5. General Plan Template and Guide. The General Plan Guide and Template assists installations andMAJCOMs in preparing a General Plan by providing information and insight on developing appropriatesections of the plan. The guide serves as a reference for structuring content and format to ensure consis-tency for all Air Force General Plans.

2.6. Plan Updating, Reporting, and Approval. General Plans should be reviewed periodically andupdated as information and data changes occur. At a minimum, the General Plan will be reviewed annu-ally to ensure it accurately reflects current information regarding the installation’s conditions and pro-grams. Component Plans and Maps should also be reviewed and updated annually. MAJCOMs willestablish procedures to review, validate, and approve each of their installation’s General Plans. Subse-quent to MAJCOM approval, General Plans and General Plan updates will be submitted to HQ USAF/ILEVP and HQ AFCEE/ECC as they are completed. Submittals will be either booklet or electronic for-mat with the latter being the preferred. MAJCOMs will provide a status of their General Plans to HQAFCEE/ECC by 31 March each year.

CLE000366.pdf

AFI32-7062 1 OCTOBER 1997 7

Chapter 3

SITE PLANNING REQUIREMENTS

3.1. Site Planning Criteria. Site planning criteria governs the placement of facilities. It is Air Forcepolicy to manage the lands, facilities, and resources under Air Force control in a manner that providesmaximum mission effectiveness. The site planning process recognizes the importance of conservation ofresources, preservation of the quality of the natural and human environment, cost effectiveness, personnelsafety, and functional efficiency.

3.1.1. Explosives Safety Siting. Proposed facilities which are intended for the storage, maintenance,processing, and handling of explosives, or facilities proposed within explosives safety clear zones asdefined in AFMAN 91-201, Explosives Safety Standards, require special siting approval. These facil-ities must be approved at the appropriate Air Force and/or DOD level before expending funds on anyconstruction activity. AFMAN 91-201, Explosives Safety Standards, Chapter 4, describes proceduresand requirements for preparing and submitting explosives safety site plans. Coordinating proposedfacility site plans with the base safety office will help to preclude building facilities which adverselyimpact the net explosive weight capacities of existing explosives facilities, or jeopardize usingnewly-constructed facilities for their intended purpose. An accurate MAP C-1 must be used whenpreparing explosives safety site plans. The MAP C-1 and MAP M-3 should be reviewed annuallywith the base safety office to ensure that areas encompassed by inhabited building distance clear zonesaccurately reflect the location of existing facilities.

3.1.2. Airfield and Heliport Planning Criteria. Airfields and heliports require certain clear areas tominimize the risk of injury or damage in the event of an aircraft malfunction or mishap. AFJMAN32-1013, Airfield and Heliport Planning and Design, provides guidance on siting facilities and struc-tures in the airfield environs.

3.1.3. Environmental Siting Constraints. The site planning process must address and consider thelocation of buildings and archeological sites on, or eligible for the National Register of HistoricPlaces, cultural and natural resources, floodplains and wetlands, threatened and endangered specieshabitats, environmentally-impacted sites, noise, and similar issues. All environmental requirementsshould be satisfied or resolved before expending funds on any construction activity. Refer to specificenvironmental program guidance for applicable criteria governing facility site planning.

3.1.4. Security Security should be a major consideration in facility site planning; particularly at over-seas installations. High occupancy and critical mission facilities exposed to base boundaries could bepotential targets for terrorist activities. These facilities should be located away from base boundariesand comply with the respective governing criteria for the theater of operations.

3.2. Urban Planning and Design Standards and Requirements. Base-wide development can begreatly enhanced by following established planning principles and approaches. Urban planning anddesign considerations include land use compatibility, spatial and functional relationships, area develop-ment, vehicle and pedestrian circulation, landscape architecture, and architectural compatibility. Several

CLE000366.pdf

8 AFI32-7062 1 OCTOBER 1997

of the documents referenced in Attachment 2 provide more information on these planning and develop-ment subjects.

WILLIAM P. HALLIN, Lt General, USAFDCS/Installations and Logistics

CLE000366.pdf

AFI32-7062 1 OCTOBER 1997 9

Attachment 1

GLOSSARY OF TERMS

Terms

Comprehensive Planning—The ongoing, iterative, participatory process addressing the full range ofissues affecting or affected by an installation's development. Through this process, goals and objectivesare defined, issues are identified, information is gathered, alternative solutions are developed, and a sounddecision-making process is employed to select a preferred alternative for implementation.

Comprehensive Plan—The combination of the General Plan, Component Plans, Special Plans andStudies, and Maps that document a wide range of information necessary for decision-making. Itencompasses those specific resource documents and processes determined to be essential for planning andmanaging an installation's physical assets in support of the mission. The comprehensive plan is theall-encompassing description of the products, whereas comprehensive planning is the action associatedwith the process and implementation.

General Plan—The document that provides the installation commander and other decision-makers acondensed picture of an installation's capability to support the mission with its physical assets anddelivery systems. It is a general assessment of the installation’s infrastructure and attributes for thepurpose of gauging development potential.

Component Plan—A detailed document comprised of graphics, textual data, and narrative that focuseson functional areas that support the General Plan and the overall comprehensive planning effort.Preparation of Component Plans is not specifically required by this instruction. Other installationprograms may require the preparation and maintenance of a Component Plan. Component Planinformation should be incorporated into the General Plan at an appropriate level of detail.

Special Plans and Studies—A source of planning information on a functional area required by a specificAir Force program. Examples include Housing Community Plans, Integrated Natural ResourcesManagement Plans, Air Quality Studies, and Transportation Studies.

Map—A graphic representation, usually on a plane surface, and at an established scale, of natural or builtfeatures on the earth surface, that generally encompasses the installation, surrounding area, and region.The features are positioned relative to a coordinate reference system. Maps in most cases will becomputer generated. Maps support the General Plan, Component Plans, and Special Plans and Studies.

Long-Range Planning—The planning phase that offers the widest view and the broadest level of detail.This planning phase typically covers a period extending to 20 years in the future. It is the most dynamicphase where the greatest amount of change can be introduced and absorbed with the least expense.Long-Range planning is accomplished through requirements analysis, and the development of future landuse and transportation plans.

Short-Range Planning—The planning phase which coincides with the lead time for facility constructionprograms, generally extending 5 years into the future. It is at this phase that planning decisions areintegrated with the appropriate construction and funding programs.

Current Planning—This phase covers active construction programs, extending approximately one yearinto the future. This phase can be viewed as the implementation phase, where the Long-Range andShort-Range Plans are translated into physical development. While the information will be the most

CLE000366.pdf

10 AFI32-7062 1 OCTOBER 1997

detailed available, the opportunity to accommodate changes becomes limited and potentially costly.

Digital Electronic Data and Systems—Examples include Geographic Information Systems (GIS),Computer Aided Design and Drafting (CADD), Automated Facility Mapping (AF/FM), Computer AidedFacility Management (CAFM), Multimedia (MM), databases, spreadsheets, graphic interfaces, and otherdistributed multimedia systems such as the Internet and World Wide Web (WWW). These tools are usedin managing, manipulating, and maintaining comprehensive planning information.

CLE000366.pdf

AFI32-7062 1 OCTOBER 1997 11

Attachment 2

COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING GUIDES

A2.1. Purpose. Comprehensive planning guides provide detailed information and guidance on plan-ning-related topics. They have been issued to assist in the development of Comprehensive Plan docu-ments and the execution of the Air Force Comprehensive Planning Program.

A2.2. Planning Bulletins, Instructions, Regulations, Manuals, Pamphlets, Hand books, and Guid-ance:

1. TRANSPORTATION PLANNING

2. LAND USE PLANNING (AFP 86-7)

3. AICUZ HANDBOOK

4. ARCHITECTURAL COMPATIBILITY

5. AIR FORCE LANDSCAPE DESIGN GUIDE

6. PLANNING AIRBASES FOR COMBAT EFFECTIVENESS

7. UTILITY SYSTEMS PLANNING

8. FIRE PROTECTION PLANNING

9. LONG RANGE FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT PLANNING

10. COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING APPROACH AND PROCESS

11. COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING DATABASES, INFORMATION SOURCES

12. ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY PROTECTION PLANNING

13. COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS PLANNING

14. QUALITY OF LIFE PLANNING

15. PASSIVE SOLAR ENERGY PLANNING

16. AREA DEVELOPMENT PLANNING

17. MASTER STATEMENT OF WORK FOR AIR FORCE PLANNING DOCUMENTS

18. GENERAL PLAN GUIDE & TEMPLATE

19. AIR FORCE ENGINEERING TECHNICAL LETTERS

A2.3. Availability. Contact HQ AFCEE/ECC for more information on the availability of these docu-ments

CLE000366.pdf

12 AFI32-7062 1 OCTOBER 1997

Attachment 3

OUTLINE OF THE GENERAL PLAN DOCUMENT

1. COMMANDER'S COVER LETTER (Approves/Endorses the General Plan)

2. TABLE OF CONTENTS

3. INTRODUCTION (Goals and objectives of the plan including vision statement, mission statement,

and a brief, general description of the Comprehensive Planning Process)

4 PLAN FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5. INSTALLATION AND VICINITY PROFILE

6. GENERAL PLAN--COMPONENT PLAN OVERVIEW

- Composite Constraints and Opportunities

- Infrastructure

- Land Use and Transportation

- Capital Improvements Program

7. PLAN MAINTENANCE AND REVISION

8. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

CLE000366.pdf

AFI32-7062 1 OCTOBER 1997 13

Attachment 4

COMPONENT PLAN DESCRIPTIONS

A4.1. COMPOSITE CONSTRAINTS & OPPORTUNITIES PLAN. Integrates natural and culturalresources information, environmental quality issues, airspace restrictions, and operational and safetyrequirements with other issues that potentially influence planning decisions. Through this integration ofinformation, critical areas having limited or specialized development potential are highlighted and fac-tored into the planning process. The document addresses development potential with respect to existingenvironmental attributes. It supports decision-making and compliance with environmental laws and man-dates.

A4.2. INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN. Consolidates all utility delivery systems and infrastructure invest-ments into one source to provide a concise overview of the state of these systems throughout the installa-tion. Emphasis is placed on capacity analysis, systems details, age and condition of facilities, and locationof facilities with a clear and understandable graphic presentation. This macro view of these detailed engi-neering systems provides the decision-maker with the information necessary to clearly comprehend thelinkages between these critical engineering systems and the capability to support development identifiedin the other Component Plans. The document also addresses communications systems and navigationalaids as they affect development opportunities.

A4.3. LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION PLAN. Analyzes and identifies the functional relation-ship of all activities that occur on the installation. It defines the process in arriving at future land usedeterminations by analyzing planning factors that influence land use compatibility. The document evalu-ates the relationships between activities and defines their importance in terms of proximity to each other.The culminating product is a future land use plan that defines and governs the growth of the installation.This component plan also integrates public and private plans, projects, and developments that can poten-tially affect the installation. It analyzes the transportation networks both on and off the installation andarrives at recommendations on traffic movement and road development in order to improve efficiency.The plan focuses on the future development of the installation.

A4.4. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM (CIP) PLAN. Integrates all the primary elementsof traditional physical planning, current land use, vicinity land use, existing base layout and facilities,existing transportation systems, and each of the corresponding future plans into one document. Land useand transportation significantly influence development of the CIP Plan. The CIP Plan identifies in moredetail the physical location of projects approved for funding or programmed for funding. The CIP inte-grates the Military Construction (MILCON) Program; Operations and Maintenance (O&M); MilitaryFamily Housing (MFH); Nonappropriated Funds (NAF); Morale, Welfare, and Recreation (MWR); depotmaintenance industrially funded; and other sources-funded projects that significantly affect facilities andland development. The plan also addresses a number of other programs associated with facility develop-ment such as architectural compatibility and landscape development. The CIP can be developed toaddress alternatives to facility requirements and development in response to EIAP. The quality of AirForce facilities is affected through the programs that are part of this plan.

CLE000366.pdf

14 AFI32-7062 1 OCTOBER 1997

Attachment 5

COMPONENT PLAN ADVOCACY

Component Plan information is more detailed and specific compared to the General Plan. It is structuredto accommodate user needs by providing an appropriate level of detail necessary to manage and executeCivil Engineer program requirements. Given their specificity and increased level of detail, the Compo-nent Plans generally align themselves with a primary Civil Engineer functional area. The primary func-tional manager typically advocates developing, maintaining and updating Component Plans as needed tosupport their program requirements. The following table associates the general functional area with therespective four Component Plans:

FUNCTIONAL AREA COMPONENT PLANPRIMARY: EnvironmentalSecondary:

• Planning

COMPOSITE CONSTRAINTS & OPPORTUNITIES PLAN

• Natural & Cultural Resources • Resource Management Areas (Forest, etc.)• Environmental Quality • Clean Air & Water • Airfield & Explosives Safety• Noise/AICUZ

PRIMARY: EngineeringSecondary:

• Communications• Airfield Management• Fire Safety

INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN

• Utility Systems• Communication System• Fire Protection• NAVAIDS

PRIMARY: Planning LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION PLAN

• Base Layout• Regional & Vicinity Location • Existing & Future Land Use • AICUZ• Transportation Systems

PRIMARY: PlanningSecondary:

• Programming• Design• Housing

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM (CIP) PLAN

• Short- & Long-Range Development Plans• Area Development Plans• Housing Community Plan• Architectural Compatibility Guidelines• Landscape Development Plan

CLE000366.pdf

AFI32-7062 1 OCTOBER 1997 15

Attachment 6

GENERAL PLAN MINIMUM LEVEL OF DETAIL FOR PLAN AND MAP GRAPHICS

The following table lists the different map and plan graphics that are used in developing the GeneralPlan. Certain map layers are Mandatory (M) and will be included in each General Plan, other maplayers are important but Optional (O) and can be incorporated as needed to support text information. Ifdesired, information from individual map layers can be consolidated on a composite map.

GENERAL PLAN MAP LAYER M or OLAYER

LEVEL OF DETAIL OF THE MAP LAYER

OPP ORTUNITIES &CONSTRAINTSOpportunities & ConstraintsComposite Map

M A single map integrating overlay information on anyvariety of specific map and plan topics in this category

Hi s to r i c Bu i l d ings andArcheological Sites

M Single point or boundary delineation of affected area

Threatened and EndangeredSpecies

M Single point or boundary delineation of affected area

Wetlands & Floodplains M Wetlands delineated by specific areas. Floodplaindesignated by 100 year flood

State Coastal Zones M Boundary delineation of affected area

Lakes, Rivers, Streams, andWater Bodies

O Shoreline and groundplane locations

Soils Borings and Soil Types O Single point and boundary delineation of soil type

Geology O Single point or boundary delineation for appropriatecategory of geological feature (mineral deposits,geothermal, etc.)

Topography & Physiography O 5 ft contour interval

Hydrology & Surface Drainage O Boundary delineation and groundplane location ofdrainage patterns and basins

Vegetation Types O Boundary delineation of designated vegetation area

Forest (Commercial Timber) O Boundary delineation of designated forest area

Agricul tura l Grazing/Crops(Outleasing)

O Boundary delineation of designated grazing & croplandoutleased areas

Fish & Wildlife O Boundary delineation of designated areas

Prime & Unique Soils O Boundary delineation of USDA/state agriculture soils

Grounds Categories O Boundary delineation of improved, semi-improved,unimproved grounds

BASH O Boundary delineation of designated BASH areas

Outdoor Recreation O Boundary delineation of outdoor recreation areas

CLE000366.pdf

16 AFI32-7062 1 OCTOBER 1997

Env i ronmen ta l Regu l a to ryHazardous Waste and HazardousMaterials (HWHM) GenerationPoints

M Single point delineation of sites

Env i ronmen ta l Regu l a to ryHazardous Waste and HazardousMaterials (HWHM) PermittedStorage Facilities

M Single point delineation of sites

Solid Waste Disposal Points andL o c a t i on s a n d R e c y c l i n gLocations

M Boundary delineation and single point

Resource Conservat ion andRecovery Act (RCRA) Sites

M Single point or boundary delineation of impacted areas

Installation Restoration Program(IRP) Sites

M Single point or boundary delineation of impacted areas

Air Emissions O Single point of generating source

Waste Water (NPDES) Discharge O Single point of generating source

Storm Water (NPDES) Discharge O Goundplane drainage flow pattern

Drinking Water Supply Source O Single point of supply source

E lec t romagne t i c (EM) andRadiation

O Single point delineation of sources

EM--Antenna Look Angles O Groundplane delineation

Radon Emissions O Locations/sources exceeding 30 picocuries/1

Ai r f i e l d C lea r ances andImaginary Surfaces

M Primary surface, clear zones, and approach-departurecorridors of active runways

Explosives Safety Zones M Quantity-Distance (Q-D) Arcs

INFRASTRUCTUREComposite Utility System Map M A single map integrating overlay information on any

variety of specific map and plan topics in this category

Water Supply M Single point or groundplane delineation of wells,storage locations, and six inch pipe and abovedistribution lines

Sanitary Sewerage M Main trunk line and lift stations

Storm Drainage M Main trunk line

Electrical Distribution M Above and underground primary distribution lines andsubstations

Central Heating and Cooling O Underground pipe

Natural Gas Distribution M Storage and distribution

Liquid Fuel O Primary lines

CLE000366.pdf

AFI32-7062 1 OCTOBER 1997 17

Fuel Storage Tanks M Below and above ground tanks 10,000 gallons orgreater

Cathodic Protection O Mains/lines and protection

Industrial Waste and Drain O Groundplane delineation of lines, manholes, pumpingstations., treatment plants, and outfalls

Other Utility Systems O Mains/Lines

Communications & NAVAID M Groundplane de l inea t ion of government andnon -gove rnmen t ma jo r f i be r op t i c s , c ab l e ,communication, telephone lines

Fire Protection O Fire Station Locations

LAND USEInstallation Layout M Existing facilities, streets, roads and airfield pavements

Off-Base Sites O Off-base layout of existing facilities, streets, roads andairfield pavements

Regional Location O Reference to nearest major city

Vicinity Location O Within 5 miles of the installation

Existing Land Use M Existing land uses delineated in color or pattern

Future Land Use M Future land uses delineated in color or pattern

Vicinity Existing Land Use O Off base existing land use plan and Transportation planthat defines and governs the growth of the adjacentvicinity in color or pattern

Vicinity Existing Zoning O Existing zoning of the adjacent vicinity in color orpattern

Air Installation Compatible UseZone (AICUZ) and No i seContours

M APZ I , I I , CZ, noise contours in LDN at 5dBincrements

JLUS-Adjacent Community LandUse

O Existing land use or zoning plan as presented in JLUSstudy

Transportation Systems M Interstate (limited access), arterials, collectors, feederson base

Contingency Plans O Single point or boundary delineation of facilitiesdesignated for use in mobilization or emergency

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTSPROGRAM (CIP) PLANAircraft Pavement Plan O Layout, type of pavement, and bearing capacity, as well

as condition of runways, taxiway and aprons by color orsymbol

Airfield Pavement Details O Details, cross sections, elevations

CLE000366.pdf

18 AFI32-7062 1 OCTOBER 1997

Aircraft Parking Plan O Aircraft parking positions by block or figures

Energy O Facilities targeted for reduced energy consumption

Architectural Compatibility O Architectural districts for: paint plans, treatment relatedcompatibility issues

Landscape Development O Landscape districts for special treatment

Current Development Plan; Oneto two (1-2) year program

O Projects or facilities programmed for construction,addition or alteration over the next one to two FY onmap and include project chart

Short-Range Development Plan;Six (6) year program

M Physical location of those projects approved orprogrammed for funding. Show and list facilitiesapproved for construction, addition or alteration overthe next six (6) years on map and include project chart

Long-Range Development Plan;Min imum twen ty (20) yea rprogram

M Facilities planned for construction, addition oralteration over a minimum of the next twenty (20) yearson map and include project chart

Quality of Life O Facilities targeted for commanders QoL program

CLE000366.pdf

AFI32-7062 1 OCTOBER 1997 19

Attachment 7

COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AND GRAPHIC LAYERS

The following is a list of map and plan graphics associated with Air Force Comprehensive Planning. They are used to support comprehensive planning efforts and supplement information presented in Gen-eral Plans, Component Plans, and Special Studies. Standards and specifications for preparing most of these products are found in the Air Force Master Statement of Work.

A-Natural and Cultural Resources

A-1 Areas of Critical Concern

- Historic Preservation and Archeology

- Threatened and Endangered Species

- Wetlands & Floodplains

- State Coastal Zones

- Lakes, Rivers, Streams, and Water Bodies

- Soil Borings & Soil Types

A-2 Management Areas

- Geology, Including Surface Features

- Topography & Physiology

- Hydrology

- Vegetation Types

- Forest (Commercial Timber)

- Agriculture Grazing/Crops

- Fish and Wildlife

- Prime & Unique Soils

- Grounds Categories

- Climate & Weather

- Bird Aircraft Strike Hazard (BASH)

- Outdoor Recreation

- Pest Management

B-Environmental Quality

B-1 Environmental Regulatory

CLE000366.pdf

20 AFI32-7062 1 OCTOBER 1997

- Hazardous Waste Generation Points

- Permitted Hazardous Facilities

- Solid Waste Generation Points

- Solid Waste Disposal Locations

- Fuel Storage Tanks

- Installation Restoration Program (IRP)

B-2 Environmental Emissions

- Air Emission

- Waste Water NPDES Discharge

- Storm Water NPDES Discharge

- Drinking Water Supply Sources

- Electromagnetic and Radiation Sources

- Radon Sources

C-Layout and Vicinity Maps

C-1 Installation Layout

C-2 Off-base Sites

C-3 Regional Location Map

C-4 Vicinity Location Map

C-5 Aerial Photographs

C-6 Installation Layout-Half Scale

D-Land Use Planning

D-1 Existing Land Use Plan

D-1.1. Future Land Use Plan

D-2 Off-base Sites Land Use

D-2.1. Off-base Sites Future Land Use

D-3 Vicinity Existing Land Use

D 4 Vicinity Existing Zoning

D-5 Real Estate

D-6 Composite Installation Constraints and Opportunities

D-7 Functional Relationship

CLE000366.pdf

AFI32-7062 1 OCTOBER 1997 21

D-8 Explosive Safety Quantity-Distance

D-9 Hazard Analysis Constraints

D-10 Area Development Plan (ADP)

E-Airfield Operations

E-1 On base Obstruction to Airfield and

Airspace Criteria

E-2 Approach and Departure - Zone Obstructions

to 10,000 Ft

E-3 Approach and Departure Zone Obstructions

Beyond 10,000 Ft

E-4 Airspace Obstruction - Vicinity

E-5 Terminal Enroute Procedures (TERPS) Automation Plan

E-6 Airfield and Airspace Clearances

- Waivers

- Clear Zones

- Primary Surfaces

- Transitional Surface (7:1)

- Approach and Departure Surface (50:1)

- Approach and Taxiway Clearances

E-7 Airfield Pavement Plan

E-8 Airfield Pavement Details

E-9 Aircraft Parking Plan

E-9.1 Proposed Aircraft Parking Plan

E-10 Airfield Lighting Systems

F-Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ)

*(NOTE: May include in the D-6 as D-6/F)

F-1 Compatible Use Districts

F-2 On-base Noise Contours Development

CLE000366.pdf

22 AFI32-7062 1 OCTOBER 1997

G-Utilities System Plan

G-1 Water Supply System

G-2 Sanitary Sewerage System

G-3 Storm Drainage System

G-4 Electrical Distribution System (Street & Airfield)

G-5 Central Heating and Cooling System

G-6 Natural Gas Distribution System

G-7 Liquid Fuel System

G-8 Cathodic Protection System

G-9 Cathodic Protection System Details

G-10 Industrial Waste and Drain System

G-11 Composite Utility System Constraints

G-11.1 Central Aircraft Support System

G-12 Other Utility Systems

H-Communication and NAVAID Systems

H-1 Basewide Communication (Air Force

communications units and others)

H-2 NAVAIDs and Weather Facilities

I-Transportation System

I-1 Community Network Access to Base

I-2 On-base Network

I-2.1 Future Transportation Plan

J-Energy Plan

K-Architectural Compatibility

- Architectural Districts

- Architectural Themes

CLE000366.pdf

AFI32-7062 1 OCTOBER 1997 23

L-Landscape Development

M-Future Development Plan

M-1 Current Plan

M-2 Short-Range Development Plan

M-3 Long-Range Development Plan

N-Fire Protection

N-1 Systems and Utilities

N-2 Composite Fire Protection Planning Data

O- Contingency Planning

O-1 Surge Capability (Beddown and Support of

Deployed Forces)

O-2 Physical Security

O-3 Disaster Preparedness Crash Grid Map

O-4 Air Base Survivability and Theater-

Specific Requirements

CLE000366.pdf

Record of Decision for Site 6 (Final-Signed)

Documents

Transcript of Record of Decision for Site 6 (Final-Signed)