fusrap feasibility study report for the iowa army ammunition plant

532 Pages·2011·60.4 MB·English

FINAL

FUSRAP FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT
FOR THE IOWA ARMY AMMUNITION
PLANT

MIDDLETOWN, IOWA

APRIL 22, 2011

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
St. Louis District Office
Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program

FINAL

FUSRAP FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT
FOR THE IOWA ARMY AMMUNITION
PLANT

MIDDLETOWN, IOWA

APRIL 22, 2011

Prepared by:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St. Louis District Office
Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program

with assistance from:
Science Applications International Corporation
Under Contract No. W912P9-06-D-0534, Task Order 0006
FUSRAP Feasibility Study Report for the Iowa Army Ammunition Plant 04/22/2011
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
FINAL
FUSRAP Feasibility Study Report for the Iowa Army Ammunition Plant 04/22/2011
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................................... iv 
LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................................... iv 
LIST OF APPENDICES ...............................................................................................................v 
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS .................................................................................... vi 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................... ES-1 
1.0  INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................1 
1.1  REGULATORY OVERVIEW ................................................................................1 
1.2  PURPOSE AND SCOPE .........................................................................................3 
1.3  REPORT ORGANIZATION ...................................................................................4 
1.4  COORDINATION WITH OTHER AGENCIES ....................................................4 
2.0  SITE DESCRIPTION ........................................................................................................5 
2.1  SITE LOCATION AND OPERATIONAL HISTORY ...........................................5 
2.1.1  Line 1 Description and Operational History ................................................5 
2.1.2  Firing Sites Area Description and Operational History Summary ..............6 
2.1.3  Storage Yards Descriptions and Operational History Summaries ...............8 
2.1.4  Warehouse 3-01 Description and Operational History Summary ...............9 
2.2  ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING .............................................................................9 
2.2.1  Geology and Hydrogeology .......................................................................10 
2.2.2  Ecological Resources .................................................................................11 
2.3  SUMMARY AND FINDINGS OF THE REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION
AND BASELINE RISK ASSESSMENT ..............................................................12 
2.3.1  Soil Conceptual Site Model for the Formerly Utilized Sites
Remedial Action Program Areas ...............................................................12 
2.3.2  Structural Conceptual Site Model ..............................................................14 
2.3.3  Identification of Potential Contaminants of Concern and Remedial
Investigation Screening Levels ..................................................................15 
2.3.4  Nature and Extent of Contamination .........................................................16 
2.3.5  Contaminant Fate and Transport ................................................................20 
2.3.6  Summary of Baseline Risk Assessment .....................................................29 
3.0  IDENTIFICATION AND SCREENING OF REMEDIAL ACTION
TECHNOLOGIES ...........................................................................................................37 
3.1  DETERMINATION OF PRINCIPAL THREAT WASTES AND LOW-
LEVEL THREAT WASTES .................................................................................37 
3.2  REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES ..................................................................39 
3.2.1  Development of the Remedial Action Objectives .....................................39 
3.2.2  Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements ............................39 
3.2.3  Development of Remediation Goals for DU .............................................42 

i FINAL
FUSRAP Feasibility Study Report for the Iowa Army Ammunition Plant 04/22/2011
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
SECTION PAGE
3.3  ESTIMATED VOLUME OF MATERIAL EXCEEDING
REMEDIATION GOALS .....................................................................................47 
3.4  IDENTIFICATION AND SCREENING OF GENERAL RESPONSE
ACTIONS, TECHNOLOGIES, AND PROCESS OPTIONS ...............................48 
3.4.1  No Action ...................................................................................................48 
3.4.2  Land Use Controls .....................................................................................49 
3.4.3  Monitored Natural Attenuation ..................................................................50 
3.4.4  Reclamation/Recovery ...............................................................................51 
3.4.5  Containment ...............................................................................................51 
3.4.6  Removal by Excavation .............................................................................53 
3.4.7  Disposal......................................................................................................53 
3.4.8  Treatment ...................................................................................................54 
3.4.9  Structural Remediation Technologies ........................................................59 
3.5  EVALUATION OF TECHNOLOGIES AND PROCESS OPTIONS ..................61 
3.5.1  No Action ...................................................................................................61 
3.5.2  Land Use Controls .....................................................................................62 
3.5.3  Reclamation/Recovery ...............................................................................63 
3.5.4  Removal .....................................................................................................64 
3.5.5  Disposal – On-Site Landfill Containment..................................................65 
3.5.6  Disposal – Off-Site Landfill Containment .................................................67 
3.5.7  Physical Treatment – Soil Sorting .............................................................68 
3.5.8  Chemical Treatment – Soil Washing .........................................................70 
3.5.9  Physical/Chemical Treatment – Solidification/Stabilization .....................72 
3.5.10  Biological Treatment – Phytoremediation .................................................73 
3.5.11  Containment Using Surface Barriers .........................................................75 
3.5.12  Decontamination ........................................................................................76 
3.6  SUMMARY ...........................................................................................................78 
4.0  DEVELOPMENT OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES ..............................................79 
4.1  REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES FOR SOIL .........................................................79 
4.1.1  Alternative 1, No Action for Soil ...............................................................79 
4.1.2  Alternative 2, Land Use Controls for Soil .................................................81 
4.1.3  Alternative 3, Excavation of Depleted Uranium Contaminated Soil
with Off-Site Disposal ...............................................................................81 
4.1.4  Alternative 4, Excavation of Depleted Uranium Contaminated Soil
with Physical Treatment and Off Site Disposal .........................................82 
4.2  REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES FOR STRUCTURES.........................................84 
4.2.1  Alternative S1, No Action for Structures ...................................................84 
4.2.2  Alternative S2, Land Use Controls for Structures .....................................84 
4.2.3  Alternative S3: Decontamination/Replacement of Structures ...................85 
5.0  DETAILED ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES ..........................................................87 
5.1  OVERVIEW OF CERCLA CRITERIA ................................................................87 
5.1.1  Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act Threshold Criteria .................................................................87 
ii FINAL
FUSRAP Feasibility Study Report for the Iowa Army Ammunition Plant 04/22/2011
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
SECTION PAGE
5.1.2  Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act Primary Balancing Criteria ...................................................87 
5.1.3  Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act Modifying Criteria ................................................................88 
5.2  INDIVIDUAL ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES ..............................................89 
5.2.1  Alternative 1, No Action for Soil ...............................................................89 
5.2.2  Alternative 2, Land Use Controls for Soil .................................................90 
5.2.3  Alternative 3, Excavation of Depleted Uranium Contaminated Soil
with Off Site Disposal ................................................................................91 
5.2.4  Alternative 4, Excavation of Depleted Uranium Contaminated Soil
with Physical Treatment and Off Site Disposal .........................................93 
5.2.5  Alternative S1, No Action for Structures ...................................................94 
5.2.6  Alternative S2, Land Use Controls for Structures .....................................95 
5.2.7  Alternative S3, Decontamination/Replacement of Structures ...................97 
6.0  COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES ................................................99 
6.1  COMPARISON OF THE ALTERNATIVES USING THE
COMPREHENSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE,
COMPENSATION, AND LIABILITY ACT THRESHOLD AND
BALANCING CRITERIA.....................................................................................99 
6.1.1  Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment .......................99 
6.1.2  Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate
Requirements ...........................................................................................105 
6.1.3  Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence .............................................105 
6.1.4  Reduction in Contaminant Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume through
Treatment .................................................................................................105 
6.1.5  Short-Term Effectiveness ........................................................................105 
6.1.6  Implementability ......................................................................................107 
6.1.7  Cost ..........................................................................................................108 
6.1.8  State and Community Acceptance ...........................................................108 
6.2  PROPOSED PLAN AND RECORD OF DECISION .........................................108 
6.2.1  Proposed Plan...........................................................................................108 
6.2.2  Record of Decision ..................................................................................109 
7.0  REFERENCES ...............................................................................................................111 
iii FINAL
FUSRAP Feasibility Study Report for the Iowa Army Ammunition Plant 04/22/2011
LIST OF TABLES
PAGE
Table 2-1. Selected Screening Levels for Radiological Surveys of Structures .......................16 
Table 2-2. Summary of Field Activities and Human Health and Ecological
Contaminants of Potential Concern by Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial
Action Program Area .............................................................................................17 
Table 2-3. Summary of Baseline Risk Assessment Results for Formerly Utilized Sites
Remedial Action Program Investigation Areas .....................................................31 
Table 3-1. Dose- and Risk-Based Derived Concentration Guideline Levels for
Consideration as Soil Remediation Goals for Depleted Uranium
(Uranium-238) .......................................................................................................44 
Table 3-2. Soil and Structural Remediation Goals for the Formerly Utilized Sites
Remedial Action Program Areas ...........................................................................46 
Table 3-3. Human Health Protectiveness of Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action
Program Area Remediation Goals .........................................................................46 
Table 3-4. Estimated In-situ Volume of Soil Exceeding the RG for DU ................................47 
Table 4-1. Summary of Remedial Alternatives Development ................................................80 
Table 6-1. Summary of Detailed Analysis of Alternatives for Soil ......................................100 
Table 6-2. Summary of Detailed Analysis of Alternatives for Structures ............................103 
Table 6-3. Documentation of Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
for the Remedial Alternatives for Soil .................................................................106 
Table 6-4. Documentation of Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
for the Remedial Alternatives for Structures .......................................................106 
Table 6-5. Comparison of Costs for Remedial Alternatives for the Formerly Utilized
Sites Remedial Action Program Areas ................................................................108 
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1-1.  Location of IAAAP 
Figure 2-1.  Location of FUSRAP Areas 
Figure 2-2.  FUSRAP Firing Sites Area 
Figure 2-3.  FUSRAP Firing Sites 1 and 2 Area 
Figure 2-4.  FUSRAP Firing Sites 3, 4, 5, and 14 Area 
Figure 2-5.  FUSRAP Firing Site 6 Area 
Figure 2-6.  FUSRAP Firing Site 12 Area 
Figure 2-7.  Conceptual Site Model for the FUSRAP Feasibility Study at IAAAP –
Soil Pathways 
Figure 3-1.  Exceedances of the Human Health RG for DU (150 pCi/g) in FSA Soil 
Figure 3-2.  Estimate of the Areal Extent of Soil Exceeding the DU RG at the Firing
Sites Area 
Figure 3-3.   Initial Screening of Technologies and Process Options 
Figure 3-4.  Evaluation of Technologies and Process Options 

iv FINAL
FUSRAP Feasibility Study Report for the Iowa Army Ammunition Plant 04/22/2011
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A Supplemental Investigation Report
Appendix B Supplemental Ecological Risk Evaluation for the Firing Sites Area
Appendix C* Radiological RG Development for Soil
Appendix D* Radiological RG Development for Structures
Appendix E Detailed Information for Cost Analysis of the Remedial Alternatives
Appendix F Ground-Water Transport Calculations for RDX and TNT at the Firing Site 6 Area
BACK COVER
* CD-ROM Appendix A Attachments A-1 through A-9 and Appendices C and D

v FINAL
FUSRAP Feasibility Study Report for the Iowa Army Ammunition Plant 04/22/2011
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
% percent
oC degrees Celsius
oF degrees Fahrenheit
$ U. S. dollars
µg/L microgram per liter
ACR acre(s)
AEC Atomic Energy Commission
AF attenuation factor
ALARA as low as reasonably achievable
ANL Argonne National Laboratory
ANSI American National Standards Institute
ARAR applicable or relevant and appropriate requirement
ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
AUF area use factor
BCY bank cubic yard(s)
BERA baseline ecological risk assessment
bgs below ground surface
BRA baseline risk assessment
BRAC Base Realignment and Closure
CC critical concentration
CEMVS PM/ED U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Mississippi Valley Division, Project
Management/Engineering Division
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
cm/s centimeter per second
COC contaminant of concern
COPC contaminant of potential concern
CR carcinogenic risk
CSM conceptual site model
CWCCIS Civil Works Construction Cost Index System
CY cubic yard
DAF dilution attenuation factor
DCGL derived concentration guideline level
decon decontamination
DF dilution factor
DoD U.S. Department of Defense
DOE U.S. Department of Energy
DOT Department of Transportation
dpm/100 cm2 disintegrations per minute per 100 square centimeters
DU depleted uranium
EA each
EDTA ethylene diamine tetraacetic acid
EPC exposure point concentration
ERA ecological risk assessment
vi FINAL