Skip to content Skip to content

Site Report: Tatalina LRRS LF004 Landfill 2

Site Name: Tatalina LRRS LF004 Landfill 2
Address: LF04 Lower Landfill No. 2, ~13.5 Mi. WSW of McGrath, McGrath, AK 99627
File Number: 2655.38.006, 2655.38.001
Hazard ID: 2848
Status: Cleanup Complete - Institutional Controls
Staff: Axl LeVan, 9074512156 axl.levan@alaska.gov
Latitude: 62.911673
Longitude: -156.005422
Horizontal Datum:NAD83

We make every effort to ensure the data presented here is accurate based on the best available information currently on file with DEC. It is therefore subject to change as new information becomes available. We recommend contacting the assigned project staff prior to making decisions based on this information.

Problems/Comments

Lower Landfill No.2 was used since the 1960s to bury garbage, rubbish, metal, plastic, wood, incinerator ash, and some shop wastes. It is located next to the road that connects the airstrip with Lower Camp. Trench and fill disposal methods included trenches typically 8 to 12 feet deep on about 4 acres of land. This landfill was used to dispose of solid waste, including incinerator ash and construction and metal debris until mid-2002, when a new, permitted landfill was constructed over this IRP site. This new landfill also serves as a cap for LF04. Site Closed with ICs. At LF004, biennial cover evaluations will be completed, along with a 5-year inspection for 20 years. Long-term monitoring will be conducted for groundwater every 5 years until contaminants are below ADEC Table C cleanup levels for two consecutive sampling events to ensure no migration of contaminants from the landfill. A 20-year timeframe was used in the FS for the detailed analysis of total costs and is not necessarily the amount of time estimated to achieve clean-up levels. At least two additional monitoring wells will be installed to triangulate groundwater flow and verify no COCs are present in the groundwater. Lower Camp Sites consist of: Hardfill No. 1 and WAA No. 1 (SS-011), POL Tank Farm (SS-003), WAA No. 3 (SS-007), Truck FIll Stand (SS-009), WAA No. 4, Old Sanitary Sewer System, Former Sewage Lagoon, and Former Paint Shop (SS-008), WAA No. 2 (Upper & Lower) and Upper Landfill No. 1 (LF-010), Lower Landfill No. 2 (LF-004), and the Airstrip (OT-006). EPA ID: AK4572728711

Action Information

Action Date Action Description DEC Staff
5/7/1981 Site Added to Database Date the "umbrella" site, Tatalina "umbrella" site, Tatalina LRRS Base Facilities, Reckey 198125X91270, was originally added to the database. Former Staff
9/30/1985 Update or Other Action IRP Phase I Records Search report for the facility states: Landfill No. 2 is located next to the Lower Camp access road from the runway very near the first landfill site. This second and currently operating site uses the trench fill method to depths of 8-12 feet on approximately four acres. Wastes buried at these two sites include garbage, rubbish, wood, metal, plastic, construction and demolition debris, incinerator ash (Landfill No. 2 only), and some shop wastes. Landfill No. I also reportedly received over 1,000 empty, crushed drums. In the early years of operation all fuels were supplied in drums and this resulted in extensive empty containers for burial. A file document notes that during a cleanup activity at Tatalina in 1984, seven transformers were found at Landfill No. 2. Three of the transformers had been leaking to the ground. Burning took place at both landfills. The burning, particularly at Landfill No. 2, has been coupled with fire training activities once or twice a year. Louis Howard
7/22/1988 Update or Other Action Final Technical Support Document for Record of Decision (dated February 29, 1988) It is noted that site 4, the current landfill, is a facility which is currently permitted by the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation and subject to stringent regulation. This site is not included in the scope of studies funded by the Defense Environmental Restoration Account (DERA). Mention of the site (as site 4) is included in this document for informative purposes only and recommendations or conclusions concerning the site are not part of the No Further Action decision. The active landfill exhibited no signs of contamination and appeared to be properly operated. Note attached to this document from ADEC project manager, Ray Burger, remarks that ADEC signed the ROD in 1988 (Bill Lamoreaux) but the ROD was based on almost no sampling of some sites, therefore was deemed inadequate and a RI/FS was necessary. Bill Lamoreaux
1/31/1992 Update or Other Action Final Tatalina Long Range Radar Site Preliminary Assessment. SOURCE 4. LANDFILL NUMBER 2 (LC): Located next to the LC access road from the runway, very near Landfill Number 2. This site has been used since the 1960s, using the trench fill method, with depths of 8 to 12 feet on about four acres of land. Waste buried here included garbage, rubbish, metal, plastic, wood, incinerator ash and some shop wastes. Jennifer Roberts
4/9/1992 Update or Other Action EPA Memorandum April 9, 1992 Reply to the ATTN of ES-098. Subject Toxicity of Fuels. From Carol Sweeney, Toxicologist Health and Environmental Assessment Section. To Wayne Pierre Federal Facilities Superfuend Branch (HW-124). A response has been provided to the frequently-asked question of whether a reference dose or other toxicity information can be provided for fuel mixtures so that these mixtures can be addressed quantitatively in Superfund risk assessments. The memo from ECAO Cincinnati is attached (last attachment). They have developed reference doses for gasoline, JP-5/kerosene, and JP-4, and a cancer potency factor for gasoline. The memo emphasizes that these are provisional numbers and that considerable uncertainty is involved in this quantitative assessment, because of data limitations, and because inhalation studies were used to calculate oral reference doses. I typed up a summary table showing the numbers (first attachment) and calculated some risk-based concentrations (second attachment). On the risk-based concentration table, I also included ordnance compounds, because I hadn't made a table of those before that I can remember. The risk-based concentrations were calculated the same way as table II-1 and II-2 of the Region 10 Supplemental guidance; for soil, the same limitations apply, that the numbers presented do not consider pathways other than soil ingestion. Toxicity Reference Vaules for Fuel Mixtures EPA Region 10 4/9/1992 Non-cancer effects-Gasoline (unleaded) RfD (mg/kg-day) Oral: 2.0E-1, Uncertainty Factor-Oral:1000, Level of Confidence-Oral: Low. Toxicity Data Source-Oral RfD: Memo 3/92. Carcinogenicity-Cancer Potency/(mg/kg/day): Oral 1.7E-3, Unit Risk (/ug/m3) 4.8E-7, Cancer Weight Of Evidence-C, Toxicity Data Source-Oral SF and Inhal. SF: Memo 3/1992. Kerosene/JP-5 RfD2.0E-2, UF Oral: 10,000, LOC Oral: low, TDS Oral RfD: Memo 3/92 JP-4 RfD 8.0E-2, UF Oral: 10,000, LOC Oral: low, TDS Oral RfD: memo 3/92. Screening Values for Water RBCs based on Ingestion, Residential Gasoline-Risk = 10-6 (ug/L) 50, 10-4=5000 HI=1 (ug/L) 7000 JP-5 Kerosene Risk 10-6 10-4=NA HI = 1 (ug/L) 700 JP-4 Risk 10-6 10-4 = NA, HI = 1 (ug/L) = 3,000 Screening Values for Soils- RBCs Based on Soil Ingestion Residential Gasoline-Risk = 10-6 (mg/kg) 400, 10-4 (mg/kg) 40,000, HQ = 1 (mg/kg) 50,000 JP-5 Kerosene Risk 10-6 10-4 NA, HQ =1 5,000 JP-4 Risk 10-6 10-4 NA, HQ = 20,000 USEPA Office of Research and Development, Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office Cincinnati, OH Subj: Oral Reference Doses and Oral Slope Factors for JP-4, JP-5; similar to Kerosene (CAS no. 8008-20-6), Diesel Fuel (CAS No. 68334-30-5), and Gasoline (CAS No. 8006-61-9) (AVGAS) [McChord AFB (Wash Rack/Treatment)/Tacoma, WA]. From Joan S. Dollarhide Associate Director, Superfund Health Risk Techncial Support Center, Chemical Mixtures Assessment Branch TO Carol Sweeney USEPA Region X. This memorandum is in response to your request for oral systemic and carcinogenic toxicity values for JP-4, JP-5, diesel fuel, and gasoline (AVGAS) found to contaminate soil and groundwater at McChord AFB (Wash Rack/Treatment), Tacoma, WA. We have attempted to derive RfDs and slope factors for the above fuel mixtures. We have derived provisional RfDs for gasoline, JP-4, JP-5 and diesel fuel; provisional cancer weight-of-evidence classifications of C for gasoline and D for JP-4, JP- 5 and diesel fuel; and a provisional slope factor (adapted from an interim Agency value) for gasoline Based on the available evidence, unleaded gasoline can be assigned to U.S. EPA (1986) weight-of-evidence Group C: possible human carcinogen. An earlier U.S. EPA document assigned unleaded gasoline to Group B2 as a probable human carcinogen (u.s. EPA, 1987a), but that document predates the U.S. EPA (1991d) conclusion that the male rat kidney tumors produced by gasoline are not predictive for humans, and therefore should not contribute to the weight-of-evidence or dose-response assessment of carcinogenicity. IARC concluded that marine diesel fuel is possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B), but light diesel fuels and jet fuels are not classifiable as to their carcinogenicity in humans (Group 3). Jennifer Roberts
4/19/1993 CERCLA SI EPA letter to Patrick M. Coullahan (LTC), Commander U.S. Air Force, 11th CEOS. This letter is to inform you that EPA Region 10 has completed the review of the Site Inspection (SI) report for the US Air Force Tatalina Long Range Radar Site, Alaska. The SI has been evaluated in accordance with 40 CFR Part 300 Appendix A, which is EPA's Hazard Ranking System (HRS) used to evaluate federal facilities for inclusion on the National Prioritles List (NPL). From our evaluation, EPA has determined that the site does not score high enough to be proposed for inclusion on the NPL. Therefore, a recommendation of no further remedial action planned (NFRAP) on the EPA'S part will be included in our Federal Agency Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket tracking system. If new or additional information becomes available that suggests the facility may score high enough to be proposed for the NPL, EPA must reevaluate your facility accordingly. EPA's NFRAP designation will NOT relieve your facility from complying with appropriate Alaska state regulations (i.e. A.S. 46.03, 18 AAC 75, 18 AAC 78, 18 AAC 60, 18 AAC 70, 18 AAC 80, 18 AAC 62). The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986, Section 120(a) (4)* requires federal facilities to comply with state cleanup requirements and standards when not listed on the NPL. All sources of contamination should be remediated to Alaska State clean-up standards. An alternative water supply should be provided IMMEDIATELY to on site personnel, and the water gallery well should be resampled. Analytical results should be provided to both the EPA and the state of Alaska. This facility will not be removed from the Federal Agency Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket, but as noted earlier, will be listed for no further action by EPA. If you have any questions regarding EPA's evaluatlon of the site, please contact me, at (206)553-1808. *NOTE To File: CHAPTER 103--COMPREHENSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE, COMPENSATION, AND LIABILITY SUBCHAPTER I--HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES RELEASES, LIABILITY, COMPENSATION Sec. 9620. Federal facilities (a) Application of chapter to Federal Government (1) In general Each department, agency, and instrumentality of the United States (including the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government) shall be subject to, and comply with, this chapter in the same manner and to the same extent, both procedurally and substantively, as any nongovernmental entity, including liability under section 9607 of this title. Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect the liability of any person or entity under sections 9606 and 9607 of this title. (2) Application of requirements to Federal facilities All guidelines, rules, regulations, and criteria which are applicable to preliminary assessments carried out under this chapter for facilities at which hazardous substances are located, applicable to evaluations of such facilities under the National Contingency Plan, applicable to inclusion on the National Priorities List, or applicable to remedial actions at such facilities shall also be applicable to facilities which are owned or operated by a department, agency, or instrumentality of the United States in the same manner and to the extent as such guidelines, rules, regulations, and criteria are applicable to other facilities. No department, agency, or instrumentality of the United States may adopt or utilize any such guidelines, rules, regulations, or criteria which are inconsistent with the guidelines, rules, regulations, and criteria established by the Administrator under this chapter. (3) Exceptions This subsection shall not apply to the extent otherwise provided in this section with respect to applicable time periods. This subsection shall also not apply to any requirements relating to bonding, insurance, or financial responsibility. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to require a State to comply with section 9604(c)(3) of this title in the case of a facility which is owned or operated by any department, agency, or instrumentality of the United States. (4) State laws State laws concerning removal and remedial action, including State laws regarding enforcement, shall apply to removal and remedial action at facilities owned or operated by a department, agency, or instrumentality of the United States or facilities that are the subject of a deferral under subsection (h)(3)(C) of this section when such facilities are not included on the National Priorities List. The preceding sentence shall not apply to the extent a State law would apply any standard or requirement to such facilities which is more stringent than the standards and requirements applicable to facilities which are not owned or operated by any such department, agency, or instrumentality. Jennifer Roberts
3/28/1995 Update or Other Action Management Action Plan (draft dated Febraruy 1995, received March 28, 1995, no final received). Ray Burger
2/12/1997 Update or Other Action Site added by Shannon and Wilson, Inc. this date. Site split off from the Tatalina "umbrella" site, Tatalina LRRS Base Facilities, Reckey 198125X912701. All relevant information from the "umbrella" site moved into subordinate sites 10/31/01 by Pikul and Petrik. S&W-Miner
3/7/1997 Site Characterization Workplan Approved Remedial Investigation Workplan and associated plans (draft dated August 1996; final dated June 1997 and received on January 13, 1997; ADEC comment letter dated February 4, 1997; comment resolution meeting on March 7, 1997; no final received following ADEC comment letter and comment resolution meeting. Analytical results for the soil sample from BH10/MW indicated that, with the exception of methylene chloride (0.14 mg/kg) and acetone (0.13 mg/kg), VOCs and pesticides were either not detected or detected below the method reporting limits. No PCBs were detected in the soil samples. Analytical results for the groundwater sample from BH10/MW indicated the presence of a single VOC, chloroform (0.17 ug/L), which was detected below the method reporting limit. No SVOCs, pesticides, or PCBs were detected in the groundwater sample. Analytical results for the sediment sample (THSDI5A1/A2) included VOCs detected at levels below human health or ecological risk-based levels determined in the baseline risk assessments. Pesticides detected in the sample included 4,4'-DDD, 4,4'-DDE and 4,4'-DDT, which were reported at levels that exceeded ecological risk-based levels. The maximum pesticide concentration in the sediment sample was detected for 4,4'-DDD (2.4 mg/kg). No SVOCs or PCBs were detected. Analytical results for the surface water sample included trace levels of 4,4'-DDD and 4,4'-DDT below human health or ecological risk levels. No VOCs, SVOCs or PCBs were detected in the surface water sample. Conclusions and Recommendations- Levels of contaminants detected at LF-004 sampling locations do not indicate that historical disposal activities at the landfill have created a hazardous waste source or released contaminants that migrated in surface water at levels that would pose a risk to receptors. The HHRA did not identify any COCs at this source area. Evaluation of the risks to ecological receptors at LF-004 was limited to the seep and sediment samples collected because the subsurface soil samples collected within BH10/MW were at depths outside the 0 to 5 foot depth range evaluated for ecological receptors. The only COECs identified for this source area were for aquatic organisms and included three pesticides (4,4'-DDD, 4,4'-DDE, and 4,4'-DDT) in the sediment sample. Levels of these pesticides were well below proposed soil cleanup standards listed in draft 18 AAC 75 regulations and likely represent residues left from historical pesticide use at the installation and do not warrant remedial action. To document that there are no future impacts to groundwater and surface-water resources as a result of past disposal activities at LF-004, monitoring of groundwater, surface water, and sediment at the same sampling locations used during the 1997 RI is recommended. Laboratory analyses should include the same analytes as in the 1997 RI. Monitoring should be conducted annually for 3 years. Gretchen Pikul
1/12/1998 Update or Other Action Final Management Action Plan (dated and received in January 1998). Gretchen Pikul
6/2/1998 Site Visit ADEC participated in a facility-wide site visit. Gretchen Pikul
10/12/1998 Update or Other Action Lower Landfill No. 2 (LF-004) is the current solid waste landfill for the Tataline LRRS and has been in use since the 1960s. The sampling objective for the RI at this site was to assess potential migration of contaminants from the landfill area from historical disposal activities. The active portion of the landfill was not investigated during the RI. No contaminants were detected at levels that pose a risk to humans, no COCs were identified in the human health risk assessment. Three COECs (4,4'-DDD, 4,4'-DDE, and 4,4'-DDT) were identified in the ecological risk assessment for sediment samples collected downgradient of the landfill. [NOTE to file: it appears that chromium results were not speciated and therefore all results are assumed to be chromium +6 and exceedances exist. 35 mg/kg primary sample 9/26/1997). The pesticides are likely residues left from historical use of pesticides at the installation and not past disposal activities at the landfill. Concentrations of the pesticides and other detected chemicals were well below ADEC non-UST guidance and proposed soil cleanup standards. No further action is recommended for this site. Louis Howard
10/13/1998 Site Characterization Report Approved Remedial Investigation Report (draft dated February 1998, final dated and received in October 1998) includes a risk assessment; ADEC comment letter dated March 31, 1998; comment resolution meeting on May 15, 1998. Gretchen Pikul
10/13/1998 Risk Assessment Report Approved Risk Assessment, a part of the Remedial Investigation Report (draft dated February 1998, final dated October 1998); ADEC comment letter dated April 6,1998; comment resolution meetings on May 11, 1998; ADEC Memorandum on Response to Comments dated August 3, 1998. Gretchen Pikul
4/16/1999 Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC), DoD Oversight group, received the Draft Decision Documents for 7 No Further Response Action Planned (NFRAP) IRP Sites: DP- 005, OT-012, SS-001, SS-007, SS-009, LF-010, and OT-006 (dated February 1999) on March 9, 1999. We have completed our review and provided comments below. The labeling for LF-004 as "Lower Landfill No. 2 (Active Landfill)" is confusing, and leads the reader to believe the LF-004 is an active landfill, whereas the active permitted landfill is within the area vicinity. Gretchen Pikul
8/3/1999 Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC), DoD Oversight group, received the Remedial Investigation / Feasibilty Study Sampling and Analysis Plan Addendum(dated July 1999) on July 30, 1999. We have acknowledge the expedited rewew period to meet field work and public meeting deadlines, have completed our review, and provided comments below. General comments 1. Based on this SAP, Sites LF-004, SS-008, and SS-002 will have follow-on investigations. It is the Department’s understanding through meetings and comment letters that the contamination encountered at Sles SS-003 (POL Tank Farm) and SS-011 (Hardfill No.1 and Waste Accumulation Area No 1) will be addressed m the future, and prior to site closure. Based on meetings, comment letters, and telephone conversations three borings at Site SS-008 were to be completed as monitoring wells if a productive groundwater zone was reached within a reasonable depth from the ground surface. If monitoring well installation were not possible, then seep and sediment samples would be collected downgradlent of the BH-8 area. The soil and groundwater samples collected for laboratory analysis would be analyzed for the complete suite of analytical methods based on the contaminants of concerns within a drum storage area. This information needs to be incorporated into this work plan for ADEC concurrence. In addition, outfall areas were to be sampled. There appears to be 2 or 3 outfall locations within the Lower Camp area; these locations need to be sampled for the full suite of analyses as part of the remedial investigation. Table 3.1-2: It should be noted that the collection of TOC samples within a contaminated area will be bias high and would not serve as a representatwe TOC sample of the site. TOC samples should be collected within similar soil in a background location. 5.7 Waste Handling: Clarify that the IDW will be disposed off-site at an approved disposal facility, if deemed necessary from the analytical results. Appendix B, Soil Cuttings: It is stated if the borehole remains open, augerlng will not be required and the generation of soil cuttings can be minimized or eliminated. Based on the soil characteristics of these sites, this is not a recommended process since it may result in soil samples that are not representative of specific depths. It is stated that the disposition of drummed cuttings will depend on sampling results. Please be advised that all sampling results of drummed soil will need ADEC review and approval prior to on-site or off-site disposal. It is stated that soil cuttings above Method 3 will be sent off-site for disposal through DRMO these calculations will need to be reviewed and approved prior to on-site or off-site disposal. Appendix B, Monitoring well development and purge water: It is stated that development and purge water will first be containerized in 55-gallon drums and place over a propane-fired weed burner. If using this method, analytical samples will need to be collected and analyzed prior to placing on the burner. It should be noted that the process of treating the development and purge water through the carbon filter with appropriate post-treatment analyses is sufficient. Gretchen Pikul
10/14/1999 Site Ranked Using the AHRM Initial ranking. Gretchen Pikul
11/3/1999 Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other Remedial Investigation / Feasibility Study Sampling Plan Addendum - follow-on Remedial Investigation at Sterling Landing, Lower Camp, and LF04 (draft dated July 1999, no final received); ADEC comment letter dated August 3, 1999; comment resolution meeting and public meeting dated August 4, 1999; preliminary results data meeting on November 3, 1999. Gretchen Pikul
2/25/2000 Update or Other Action 1999 Tatalina LRRS Follow-on Remedial Investigation and Closure Evaluation of Source Area LF-004. Landfill closure evaluation results-Three test holes were excavated inot the cover of LF-004 to a depth of at least 2 feet each. No waste was encountered in any of the test holes; therefore the final cover is at least two feet thick. Cover soils consist of gravelly silt. The soil is poorly graded, consisting of a variety of soil partical sizes. Gradations range from 4-inch diameter gravel to fine grained silt. Cover soils of this composition compact well with minimal pore space, which minimizes infiltration and resists erosion. The cover soils are capable of sustaining plant growth; however, the final cover was bare of vegetation. No seeps were present at the landfill, therefore, no samples were collected. A surface water sample was collected from the closed water body adjacent to the landfill. The sample was collected from a small stream about 650 feet from the closed landfill at a sampling station established during the 1997 RI effort. A background sample was collected along the road to Takotna during the 1997 field activities and was used for comparison purposes. Results for the background sample and the field sample collected from LF-004 are both 18 AAC 70 ambient water quality criteria. The closed portion of the landfill meets the landfill closure regulatory requirements that were in place at the time of closure, except for the small amount of debris along the toe of the fill. The exposed waste does not pose an immediate environmental public health threat; however, additional cover should be applied along the toe when the currently active landfill cell is closed. There is no evidence to indicate that past landfill activities are adversely affecting the water quality in the stream. Recommendations- In accordance with 18 AAC 60.395, addlhonal cover should be applied to provide an erosion layer that contains a minimum of 6 inches of earthen material capable of sustaining native plant growth Besides adhering to this regulation and addmg minimal fill to cover exposed debris along the toe, no further action or monitoring is recommended for LF-004. Gretchen Pikul
3/14/2000 Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC), DoD Oversight group, received the Draft Results of 1999 Follow-on Remedial Investigation and Closure Evaluation of Source Area LF-004 dated February 25, 2000 on March 1, 2000. We acknowledge the expedited review period to meet release of the draft report to the community and the subsequent public meeting deadlines, have completed our review, and provided comments below. Figure 3: A background surface water sample column is presented within the 1999 surface water sample table. Include the location of the background sample. Also, within the table notes include the meaning of the quotes symbol shown in this analytical results table. 1992 Site Investigation: The subsurface soil sampling locations are unclear. Were the samples collected within the landfill or surrounding the landfill? Also, it is stated that the specific analytical results were detected at low levels. Please compare the results to the soil cleanup levels in 18 AAC 75. 1997 RI Sampling Results: It is stated that the analytical results for the sediment sample collected in 1997 included pesticides at concentrations exceeding ecological risk-based levels. Please include whether these levels were determined to be an ecological risk within the site risk assessment. It is not acceptable to compare soil cleanup levels to sediment data. ARARs and TBCs, such as 18 AAC 70, NOAA SQuiRTs, and USEPA Risk-based concentrations and Ecotox thresholds, are appropriate comparisons. If there is no ARARs or TBCs appropriate for comparison, which is the case with DRO in sediment, then simply state that there are no comparison data. It is stated that no SVOCs or PCBs were detected above method detection limits. Including the EPA analytical method numbers will support this statement of using the most appropriate analytical tests with appropriate detection limits. The first sentence of the surface water bullet should state that pesticide concentrations were below levels based on human health and ecological risk. If this is not correct, then more discussion is needed. It is stated that the pesticide concentrations detected in surface water and sediment samples are likely residual levels from past routine use at the installation. Include whether these levels were determined to be an ecological risk within the site risk assessment. 5.2 Recommendations: Prior to site closure, LF-004 also needs a vegetative cover. Appendix D Chain-of-Custody Forms: The actual completed C-O-Cs are necessary. Information such as the cooler temperature, containers received intact, and signatures to show proper chain-of-custody are not provided. Gretchen Pikul
4/27/2000 Update or Other Action Results of 1999 Tatalina LRRS Follow-on Remedial Investigation and Closure Evaluation of Source Area LF-004 (draft dated 2-25-00; ADEC comment letter dated 3-14-00; received response to comments and final report on 4-27-00 (dated February 25, 2000 same date as the draft version). Gretchen Pikul
8/10/2000 Meeting or Teleconference Held Public meeting in Takotna, and site visit to Sterling Landing. Gretchen Pikul
5/17/2001 Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC), DoD Oversight group, received the final documents entitled the Results of 1999 Tatalina LRRS Follow-on Remedial Investigation and Closure Evaluation of Source Areas LF-O04 (dated February 25, 2000) and the Results of 1999 Tatalina LRRS Follow-on Remedial Investigation of Source Areas SS-008/WAA No.4 (dated May 22, 2000) on April 27, 2000 and May 26, 2000. We provided comments on the draft documents within 2 separate comment letters on March 14, 2000 and April 12, 2000 The Air Force response to comments were provided on April 24, 2000 and May 11, 2000. Based on our review of the draft documents and the response to comments, ADEC concurs with the follow-on investigation reports conclusions and recommendations, and therefore approves these documents based on resolution of the Department e-mail dated May 12, 2000 regarding Source Area SS-008. The May 12, 2000 e-mail is outlined below. The response to AFCEE General Comment # 5 point #2 includes "soil and groundwater samples should be submitted for a full analyhcal suite including fuel constituents (DRO and GRO)",etc. RRO should be included within the analytical suite, or information to support not including RRO should be reported. Response to ADEC Specific Comment# 2 is unclear. As stated in the comment and required by 18 AAC 78, soil sample containers must immediately be cooled to 4 + or - 2°C and this temperature must be maintained throughout delivery to laboratory, until samples are analyzed. The response states below 4°C, which is not correct. The response to ADEC comment #5 is not completely accurate. Please review the following information taken from the Final RI, and adjust the response and final text. SS-008 contains Waste Accumulation No.4 in which the Final RI figures (specifically Figure 8.8-1) encompass the garage, vehicle storage, and the power plant areas. SS-008 was used from the 1950s to 1984 to store waste oil drum from the former motor pool SS-008 is located within 100 feet of SS-009 (Truck Fill Stand). The same sample locations and sampling activities were conducted to supply RI information for both SS-008 and SS-009. These areas are interrelated. Based on the WAA No.4 and associated buildings, solvents and other hazardous materials were most likely used, stored, and possibly disposed within this IRP site. Response to ADEC Specific Comment #9 reports incorrect soil cleanup levels for lead and silver. Please adjust for the final response to comments. Please note ADEC review and concurrence on these documents is to ensure that the work is done in accordance with State of Alaska environmental conservation laws and regulations. While ADEC may comment on other state and federal laws and regulations, our concurrence on these documents does not relieve responsible persons from the need to comply with other applicable laws and regulations. Gretchen Pikul
6/20/2001 Update or Other Action ADEC received CD copy of Tatalina LRRS Administrative Record (dated April 2001) Disk 1. Gretchen Pikul
6/20/2001 Meeting or Teleconference Held Public meeting in Takotna, site visits to all sites with new 611th project manager. Gretchen Pikul
10/10/2001 Update or Other Action Year 2000 Clean Sweep Environmental Survey Report (final dated September 5, 2001, received on October 10, 2001). Gretchen Pikul
10/10/2001 Update or Other Action Air Force field visit and work (including land surveys for institutional controls required by Decision Documents) delayed until mid-September due to in-house crew work conflicts (August 9, 2001); delayed to October due to September 11th terrorist attacks (September 17, 2001); was cancelled for this field season due to bad weather and impassable road conditions (October 10, 2001); field work is scheduled for FY02. ADEC received final Clean Sweep Environmental Survey Report (dated September 2001). Gretchen Pikul
10/19/2001 Meeting or Teleconference Held ADEC participated in a community meeting in Takotna with Air Force. Gretchen Pikul
1/3/2002 Meeting or Teleconference Held Meeting with ADEC Solid Waste and Contaminated Sites DoD Oversight, and Air Force Environmental Restoration and Compliance on proposed new landfill directly on top of LF04. Gretchen Pikul
1/4/2002 Update or Other Action 611 CES/CEVR faxed letter RE: Draft report for approval of Tatalina SW Fac. Modifications. Based on the results of past IRP site investigations, the Air Force has determined that installing a top-cap on LF004 could serve as a means of preferred remedial action for eventual site closure (NOTE: conditional since it is a landfill and will always have institutional controls on it). Subject report provides the technical specs. and objectives to build a new solid waste landfill on top of a portion (approximately 90%) of the existing LF004. It is the Air Force's intent to have the construction of the new landfill to meet ADEC requirements for solid waste permitted disposal and contaminated sites remediation. Whereas this an Air Force combined new construction and IRP remedial action effort, the 611th will need concurrence from both ADEC departments to ensure that the proposed technical specifications are adequate for the combined regulatory requirements. Additionally, it is important for ADEC to review and comment on this report for the aspect of IRP Site LF004 selected remedial action, potential long-term monitoring, and long-term site closure objectives. These factors are necessary consideration for possibly modifying our programmed objectives for the scheduled summer 2002 field mobilization, and attaining approval for the forthcoming proposed plan and decision document. Gretchen Pikul
1/22/2002 Cleanup Plan Approved Solid Waste Disposal Facilities - Request for Approval of Tatalina Solid Waste Facility Modifications - dated December 2001 and received on January 3, 2002 during preliminary meeting; CS DoD Oversight comment letter dated January 10, 2002; Solid Waste comment and approval letter dated January 22, 2002; no final report submitted since plan was approved. ADEC Solid Waste Approval of Solid Waste Facility Modifications for the Tatalina (9740-BA007-TA1)a nd Sparrevohn (9740-BA007-SP1)L ong Range Radar Sites letter to Major Brian A. Pollock, Commander, Environmental Flight USAF. The ADEC Solid Waste Program received plans dated January 2, 2002 for modifications of the solid waste facilities at two sites approved for coverage under the Solid Waste Statewide General Permit for United States Air Force Long Range Radar Sites (LRRS). We received a plan for each of the following sites: Tatalina Long Range Radar Site, Alaska - 9740-BA007-TAI and Sparrevohn Long Range Radar Site, Alaska - 9740-BA007-SP1. Each plan contains an Operations and Maintenance Plan and an Active Landfill Closure Plan, as well as other supporting documentation. We have reviewed each of the plans and hereby approve both plans, with the foltowmgs tipulation for the Tatahna site. The current Tatalina landfill site is partially sited on top of historic landfill site LF-004, and appears to be adjacent to another site, LF-010. Both historic sites have been studied under the Air Force Installation Restoration Program (IRP) and closure of the sites either has been or will be conducted under the IRP program with oversight by ADEC’s Contaminated Sites Program. ADEC Solid Waste’s approval of the Tatalina plan is contingent on the Air Force performing any remedial action required by the Contaminated Sites programm areas where sites regulated by the Contaminated Sites Program coincide with the landfill site. Gretchen Pikul
1/28/2002 Site Ranked Using the AHRM Changed Observed Environmental Impacts value from 3 to 0 because an entry exists for Surface Water Environments. Changed Surface Water Environments value from 2 to 3. Former Staff
1/29/2002 Meeting or Teleconference Held ADEC CS DoD Oversight and Air Force Environmental Restoration and Compliance meeting on 2002 field work. Gretchen Pikul
3/4/2002 Update or Other Action Final Environmental Assessment for Property Disposal (dated August 1997, received on March 4, 2002). Gretchen Pikul
3/19/2002 Meeting or Teleconference Held ADEC and Air Force meeting on upcoming LF04 Proposed Plan; March 19, 2002 teleconference with Air Force and their attorney on delaying the LF04 Proposed Plan until after LF04 cap is completed this field season. Gretchen Pikul
4/24/2002 Update or Other Action ADEC comment letter Draft Work Plan Remedial Actions and Investigation which was received on April 19, 2002. 8.2 Former LF-004: Note within the second paragraph that the landfill plans prepared by CH2MHill has been approved by the ADEC Solid Waste Management Program as documented in the ADEC comment letter dated January 22, 2002. The field activities should also include a detailed plan of action for the area of concern within LF-004 described by the community in past community meetings where transformers were reportedly buried. Gretchen Pikul
6/7/2002 Meeting or Teleconference Held Site visit, inspections, and meetings at facility with Air Force. Public meeting with Takotna community on June 3, 2002. Gretchen Pikul
6/11/2002 Meeting or Teleconference Held ADEC and Air Force meeting on 2002 field work and work plan; draft work plan dated April 2002 and received on April 19, 2002; comment resolution meeting on April 30, 2002; 2nd draft work plan received May 9 and 10, 2002; 3rd draft received May 28, 2002; 4th draft received on and comment resolution meeting on June 4, 2002; ADEC approval letter dated June 11, 2002. Gretchen Pikul
2/5/2003 Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC), DoD Oversight group, received the Draft Annual Report - Remedial Action and Monitoring Program (dated November 2002) on December 9, 2002. We appreciate the extended review period, have completed our review, and provided comments below. General Comments: Deviations from the work plan should be noted within a specific section of the report. Throughout the facility numerous split-spoon samples were collected below the groundwater table and submitted for laboratory analysis. If these soil samples were truly collected within the saturated zone then these results will not be indicative of true subsurface soil concentrations within the vadose zone and capillary fringe. The rationale for the collection of these samples is unclear and should be clearly stated within the report. Information on the IDW treatment and discharge should be included within a specific section of this report. Photos of the drum containment and auger decontamination area, as well as drum cleaning activities, should be included within the report. Analytical data tables should include the specific cleanup level used in comparison since up to three cleanup levels are listed in Table B1 and B2, and depending on the sample information, the most applicable cleanup level varies. It is also helpful to include the MDL or PQL in parentheses adjacent to the undetected analyte symbol for future trend analysis and comparison to risk assessment data. In addition, all analytical data qualifiers, such as ‘F’ for the 1999 BH16/MW groundwater sample in Table 1.5, should be noted. Based on the approved work plan and noted in the ADEC comment letter, the visual inspections of cover material at specified disposal areas (as documented in the individual Decision Documents) was to be conducted and documented to verify that healthy vegetation exists and no erosion of the cover is occurring. Please include a brief section on these inspections and the associated inspection forms (if used) in the appendices. The Department requests 2 hardcopies of the final report, along with an electronic version if available. The second copy will be forwarded to ADEC Juneau project manager, Mike Jaynes, who is assisting with the community tank farm construction and cleanup activities for Takotna and Sterling Landing. The Department requests the inclusion of the signed agency comment letters, the Air Force ‘response to comments’, and the ADEC report approval letter within the final report. 1.0 Introduction: It is stated that 2002 activities completed involved drum removal from areas surrounding an active landfill. For clarification purposes, please add that the area also includes LF-004, and provide a reference to the LF-010 Decision Document which details this drum removal requirement. 8.2 Former LF-004: Based on the approved work plan, this investigation included field screening using PetroFLAG and chlorides; the PetroFLAG data needs to be reported within this section. Figure 4 does not include sample locations and field screening/analytical data within the area excavated and explored for alleged buried transformers, as shown for the drum sample areas; please include this information on the figure and within text, if appropriate. It is not clear how the field screening data for chlorides relates to PCBs and chlorinated pesticides; please address within this section. As stated in the approved FSP include (or refer to specific field notes) the field observations, sample and sampling point description, etc. Clarify how the sample numbers identified in Table 1.2 correspond to the sample locations on Figure 4. Based on the approved work plan, “chloride specific electrode sensitive to 10-ppm chloride ion shall be used to determine if PCBs or chlorinated pesticides are present.” Table 1.2 reports chloride values as elevated as 210.1 ppm. More descriptive text is necessary for this information to be comprehendible to the reader. Figure 4 was not provided in color; therefore the sample location symbols are indistinguishable. Gretchen Pikul
5/22/2003 Meeting or Teleconference Held ADEC participated in a kick-off meeting for Sterling Landing (SS-002) and LF-004 Proposed Plan and ROD; Bob Blankenburg (ADEC Solid Waste) attended because of new permitted landfill built on top of LF-004. Tatalina (LF004): The new landfill is currently covering approximately 80 percent of LF004. LF004 was closed under 18 AAC 75, not 18 AAC 60, as LF004 is not a permitted landfill but in fact a disposal site under IRP. That section of LF004 not covered by the new landfill is being visually monitored by the Tatalina Base Operations Contractor. LF004 is being closed through the No Further Remedial Action Planned (NFRAP) process. The USAF has a NFRAP process, however, ADEC recommended following an already ADEC/USAF approved NFRAP DD, and 611 CES/CEVR concurs. Remedial Action Summary-LF004: NFRAP, institutional controls (ICs) - No construction on top of land fill. Survey information will be recorded in the USAF Master Plan and the State of Alaska land records. Visual monitoring of the landfill every other year (’04, ’06, ’08) and a 5 year review ’08. Gretchen Pikul
5/31/2003 Meeting or Teleconference Held ADEC participated in a public meeting at Takotna and site visits for 2003 field work and general inspections. Gretchen Pikul
7/1/2003 Update or Other Action The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC), DoD Oversight group received the Draft Proposed Plan for Cleanup (dated June 2003) on June 14, 2003. Lower Landfill No.2: The first sentence is confusing and should be revised. The word ‘ash’ should be clarified as ‘incinerator ash’ as recorded in the 1998 RI/FS. Past Investigations:The first sentence should clarify whether ‘surface’ is soil or water. It should be noted that there are two past investigations. Restoration Plan: It is stated that there are no further restoration activities planned for LF-004 because it is completely covered with soil as required by the ADEC. This is not the reason no further restoration activities are planned for this site; please revise. Include a brief explanation on what institutional controls are planned so that the public understands that this site will be noted as a former disposal area and there are restrictions and documentation required. Past Investigations: For clarification purposes, the cleanup levels being applied to the site should be noted as simply as the most stringent or as a specific notation to the cleanup level method. The 1999 RI/FS also included surface water samples which should be briefly discussed within this section. Restoration Plan: Many proposed plans present the remedial alternatives screened as well as the preferred remedial alternative so that the public can review all the alternatives and provide input. At the least, a notation should be added that the Focused Feasibility Study was distributed at the May 29, 2003 public meeting and specifics on the screened alternatives can be discussed at the August 13, 2003 public meeting, if desired. A description of monitored natural attenuation is necessary.For completeness, the 5-year review should be included within the third paragraph. Gretchen Pikul
7/31/2003 Proposed Plan Proposed Plan for Cleanup (draft dated June 2003 and received June 17; ADEC comment letter dated July 1; internal briefing meeting July 8; comment resolution meeting July 15; Air Force Comment Response July 21; final dated July 2003 and received July 31, 2003). Addressed LF-004 and SS-002 (Sterling Landing). This Proposed Plan focuses on two locations at the Tatalina LRRS: Lower Landfill No. 2 (USAF site designation LF-004) and the former USAF tank farm at Sterling Landing (USAF site designation SS-002). Investigations conducted in 1997 and 1999 showed that surface and groundwater were not impacted by LF-004. No leachate seeps or stained soil were identified. Additionally, a landfill cover evaluation was performed in 1999 and determined that the final cover of LF-004 is greater than 2 feet thick, with no indications of water ponding or low spots. A small amount of exposed concrete and construction debris was identified along the toe of LF-004 during the investigation. This debris has since been covered and the area revegetated. Restoration Plan. Remedial alternatives considered for LF-004 included monitoring, additional cover, and inspections. Because LF-004 is adequately covered and previous studies concluded that additional monitoring is not necessary, the preferred remedial alternative selected for LF-004 is site inspections. LF-004 will be visually inspected every 2 years for settling of debris, soil cover integrity, and erosion. At the end of 5 years, a review will be conducted to determine if additional action is necessary at LF-004. Possible future actions may include monitoring, additional cover, and further inspections. As a former land disposal area, the location of LF-004 will be noted in permanent land records restricting future land use. The USAF will also implement land-use controls at LF-004 to ensure that USAF land-use activities remain compatible with former landfills. Gretchen Pikul
8/14/2003 Meeting or Teleconference Held ADEC participated in public meeting at Takotna and general site visits. Gretchen Pikul
9/19/2003 Meeting or Teleconference Held ADEC participated in an all day meeting with Air Force attorney, project manager, and consultants on LF004 and SS002 1st draft RODs (received via e-mail on September 11). Gretchen Pikul
11/4/2003 Update or Other Action 2002 Annual Report, Remedial Action and Monitoring Program; draft dated November 2002 and received December 9, 2002; ADEC comment letter dated February 5, 2003; Air Force response to comments received on February 19 and ADEC response sent on February 21; comment resolution meeting on March 17, 2003; draft final received on April 3, 2003; ADEC commented via e-mail on April 16, 2003; final dated April 2003 and received May 2, 2003; ADEC conditional approval letter dated September 25, 2003; final report received October 27, 2003 and CD on November 4, 2003. Gretchen Pikul
2/5/2004 Update or Other Action SS02 and LF04 ROD - 1st draft dated September 2003; 2nd draft received on October 6, 2003 via e-mail; ADEC comments dated October 15 and 23, 2003. On February 5, 2004, ADEC participated in an all day comment resolution meeting on LF04 draft ROD using new Air Force ROD guidance. Gretchen Pikul
9/16/2004 Update or Other Action SS02 and LF04 ROD - 3rd draft received on March 8, 2004; ADEC sent comments on March 19. On May 6, 2004, ADEC participated in a comment resolution meeting, and on May 13, 2004, ADEC participated in a teleconference. On May 20, 2004, ROD Declaration Pages were submitted for review; ADEC comments were sent on May 24; an expedited review was requested so that the RODs could be forwarded to Air Staff and PACAF quickly. In June 2004, the Air Force project management changed from Doug Wootten to Dave Longtin. On July 15, 2004, ADEC received a call from Jim Klasen (Air Force attorney) on ROD LUCs; it was decided to add recently-developed ROD guidance template language to RODs. On July 22, 2004, Air Force submitted draft final ROD versions with Jim Klasen edits; however, the March 2004 was used instead of the latest version dated May 2004. ADEC received August 2004 version of LF04 and SS02 RODs on September 16; continuing discussion with PACAF on format and contents of LF04 ROD. Gretchen Pikul
9/22/2004 Meeting or Teleconference Held ADEC participated in calls/e-mails from September 14 – 22, 2004 regarding PACAF comment that the LF04 ROD should be a No Action CERCLA ROD. Teleconference on September 22 decision was made to prepare an integrated ROD using State Law for the required ICs, landfill inspections, and 5-year review. Gretchen Pikul
4/28/2005 Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other ADEC Comments for Record of Decision (ROD). Declaration-According to the new landfill permit, the Air Force must maintain a vertical separation distance of at least four to six feet between the wastes and the seasonal high groundwater. 1) What is the depth to groundwater in relation to the wastes at the bottom of the 12 foot trenches at LF-004? Please include an aerial photo/site photos to ROD which delineate former boundaries of LF-004 in relation to current boundaries of new landfill. Description of Remedy: According to Oct 2004 version of the ROD, "without completed excavation and removal of the landfill, it is difficult to know the entire contents and migration potential of such contents contained within LF-004. In spite of analytical results from samples taken from the outside the landfill, the history of the landfill suggests that there may be chemicals of concern from transformers or shop wastes that were left undiscovered by the investigations at LF-004." It is unclear why this key information was deleted from the most recent revision. The land use controls (LUCs) associated with the new landfill permit are not sufficient to address all historical concerns related to Site LF-004 (e.g., does not prohibit the installation of drinking water wells, post closure). Statutory Determinations: Please include an aerial photo/site photos to ROD which delineate former boundaries of LF-004 in relation to current boundaries of new landfill. This permit was replaced by General Permit # SWG0307000 which became effective on 14 February 2003 and expires on 31 January 2008. Although there are currently no drinking water sources in this area, without creating LUCs, there is nothing prohibiting the installation of drinking water wells in the future. The existing landfill permit does not restrict future land use pertaining to drinking water wells post closure. Documentation of Significant Changes: This statement is incorrect. LUCs or institutional controls (ICs) are not only required for areas with CERCLA listed wastes. ICs are also required for leaving state regulated wastes in place above applicable clean-up levels, in accordance with 18 AAC 75.375. Since the new landfill made it impracticable to characterize the waste within LF-004, LUCs for this site need to be noted in all applicable federal and state documents for Tatalina LRRS. Although the existing landfill permit restricts future land use which would result in a disturbance of the final cover, cap or other structures or devices installed as part of the closure; it does not prohibit the installation of drinking water wells. A LUC must be added to this ROD which restricts the use of groundwater for drinking water purposes. Jeff Norberg
8/29/2005 Meeting or Teleconference Held ADEC and Air Force project managers conducted a site visit to Tatalina LRRS from August 23 to August 26, 2005. The purpose of this visit was to provide an opportunity to view and to discuss the status of ongoing contaminated sites work being performed by the Air Force. Jeff Norberg
1/5/2006 Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other Email memo for the record by Jeff Norberg to USAF Todd Fickel RE: Tatalina LRRS RODs- ADEC position for Sites SS002 and LF004. It is not ADEC's intentions to slow down the Record of Decision (ROD) proceedings for Tatalina Sites SS-002 and LF-004. Please review the following email that I sent you on October 19, 2005 related to the ROD for Site LF-004 (Landfill No. 2) at Tatalina. I have also emailed you the most recent Draft of the ROD that you submitted on September 20, 2005. Representatives from ADEC Contaminated Sites Program and Solid Waste Program met last week to discuss the ramifications of having an existing permitted landfill superimposed on a non-permitted historic contaminated site. Based on historical use of LF-004, ADEC does not believe that this site has been sufficiently characterized for potential of contaminants leaching from the historic site; therefore, ADEC will not agree with the proposed remedy selected in the Draft ROD of "No Remedial Action" under CERCLA or Alaska regulations 18 AAC 75. To address this issue, we request the Air Force install a sufficient number of on-site monitoring wells and implement a monitoring program to adequately characterize the potential for possible contaminants of concern leaching from Site LF-004. Text within the Draft ROD reads that: "the intent of the proposed administrative activities (biennial inspections and implementation of Land Use Controls (LUCs) will be satisfied by applicable State solid waste regulations (18 AAC 60) and general permit SWG0307003 requirements." Also, "The LUCs will be managed outside of this ROD." LUCs implemented for a landfill under this General Permit are not applicable to a site where there was disposal of shop wastes, transformers, or had fire training activities; therefore the Air Force will need to address the applicable LUCs within this ROD. Jeff Norberg
2/1/2006 Update or Other Action File number issued 2655.38.006. Aggie Blandford
2/27/2006 Update or Other Action Record of Decision: Sterling Landing - LF-004 Lower Landfill No. 2; draft version September 19, 2005 received on September 20, 2005 for review; ADEC submitted comments via email on October 19, 2005; meeting with the Air Force to discuss issues with the ROD on January 26, 2006; February 27, 2006 ADEC issued letter to Air Force indicating that based on a review of historical documentation the department has determined that the site has not been sufficiently characterized and therefore does not agree with the selected remedy proposed in the ROD. Jeff Norberg
6/6/2006 Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other FYI entry: John Halverson (ADEC) denies 611 CES/CEVR request for waiver of the requirement that an "Impartial Third Party" conduct sampling. We received your request for a waiver of the state requirement that a qualified, impartial third party conduct sampling, analysis, interpretation and reporting of characterization and cleanup data for work planned at Barter Island this summer. Specifically, the request was for the Civil Engineering Squadron, Environmental Operations Section (CES/CEVO) staff to be approved for collecting soil, sediment and concrete samples at Installation Restoration Program and Clean Sweep sites. However, ADEC has several concerns over past work conducted by the CES/CEVO, which lead to our denial on the request for a waiver. It has come to our attention that the CEVO work crew allegedly discovered releases of oil or other hazardous substances and failed to report the releases to DEC in a timely manner as required by 18 AAC 75.300; assessment/cleanup reports prepared by the CEVO lack detail and required information; the field crew has reportedly not followed approved work plans. A few examples of this include: - Point Lay where "gross petroleum contamination" was found during removal of bulk fuel tanks in 2005. We have found no record of a spill report being submitted, our contaminated sites staff working on the site was not informed, the draft report submitted this year failed to describe the release or extent of contamination clearly and instead described sampling in downgradient test pits and recommended natural attenuation for the area. - Point Lonely, where several large fuel tanks, a pumphouse and associated piping, and petroleum contaminated soil were removed in 2005. The draft report does not adequately describe fieldwork that was conducted during the characterization and removal of the contaminated soil and lacks required information (no data quality review, lack oflaboratory data). DEC comments on the draft report have yet to be addressed and no final report has been submitted. • North River RRS - Fieldwork was not conducted in accordance with the approved work plan (no field screening to guide excavation); the draft report lacked detail describing the field work and lacked laboratory reports and a quality assurance review, there were QA/QC problems. DEC comments on the draft report have only been partially addressed, and a final report has not been submitted. The excavation was left open with a liner placed in the bottom and rocks on it; the excavation was not properly backfilled and secured nor is it being inspected and maintained as requested by the department. A survey of our project managers indicates there has a consistent problem with the CEVO reporting information in a clear, understandable and complete manner. Based on these issues, we regrettably must deny your request for a waiver ofthe impartial third party sampler. As discussed with Mr. David Longtin of the 611 CES/CEVR, Air Force staff may conduct field screening and sampling to evaluate whether a release of oil or hazardous substances has occurred; however, a qualified impartial third party must conduct or oversee sampling, data collection and interpretation and reporting for contaminated site characterization and cleanup work on sites where releases have been confirmed. John Halverson
2/19/2008 Exposure Tracking Model Ranking Initial ranking with ETM completed. Louis Howard
8/31/2011 Update or Other Action Draft Proposed Plan received for SS003, SS008, SS011 & LF004. SS003. The primary area of LF004 consists of Lower Landfill Number 2 & is approximately 4 acres in size. This site is located at Lower Camp. Between 1992 & 1999 three Rls were conducted at LF004. No contaminants of concern were detected above ADEC method two cleanup levels. The 1997 RI did not investigate the active portions of the landfill. One soil boring was drilled & converted to a monitoring well, & then sampled for subsurface soil as well as GW. In 1999, test holes were excavated into the cover of the landfill to verify that it was at least 2' thick. A new landfill was constructed in 2002, covering approximately 80% of the former landfill. The remaining 20% is being visually inspected by the Tatalina Base Operations Contractor on a regular basis. In 2003, a small area of exposed debris was covered. A risk assessment completed in indicated contaminant concentrations were below human health risk-based levels. Ecological risk drivers were determined to be 4,4 dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane (DOD), 4,4 dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene (DOE), & 4,4 - dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethylene (DDT). No analytes included in CERCLAs definition of hazardous substances have been detected at this site, therefore, LF004 is not subject to CERCLA reporting, response, or liability requirements; therefore, no action is proposed under CERCLA. The four ERP sites contain no occupied structures & the Air Force uses the lands at SS003 & LF004 for daily operations. There are no current plans for future development at any of the sites. The current land use is expected to remain the same over the foreseeable future. The preferred remedial alternative is ICs with Long-term Monitoring (including cover inspections). The landfill is currently capped with a soil cover to prevent human & ecological exposure to the landfill waste & to reduce precipitation infiltration & leaching. However, the landfill is not lined &, there, for ICs alone do not meet the Long-term effectiveness criteria as a potential leachate problem would ICs to prevent disturbance of the land fill wastes & LTM, consisting of cover inspections to ensure its integrity & downgradient GW & surface water sampling to detect possible contaminant migration, meet all of the criteria except reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume through treatment. Due to the volume of waste involved & the remoteness of the site, removing the waste would be exceedingly expensive. It also ranks only moderate on short-term effectiveness & implementability due to potential exposure risks during excavation & transportation. See site file for additional information. Louis Howard
12/22/2011 Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other Air Force responses to ADEC comments received. General Comments:The number of acronyms will be reduced. Acronyms that are not used multiple times will be eliminated. A glossary will be added to the end of the document. Page 2 and 3: Disagree. The PRGs, which based on risk –based cleanup levels (RBCLs) calculated according to ADEC methods, were not part of the baseline risk assessment, but were presented in the FS (RBCLs calculated in Appendix A of the final FS). The PRGs are considered preliminary until they are finalized as cleanup standards in the Record of Decision. Page 8: A. The following sentence will be inserted to describe the depth to groundwater: “Depth to groundwater at this site ranged from 12.85 ft bgs to 7.70 ft bgs in 2003” The text will be modified to indicate the subsurface soil pathway is incomplete and will not be considered further. Figure 3: A note will be placed in the legend that all results exceed PRGs and the PRG table will be referenced. The following text will be added: “The source of this DRO contamination is unknown, but was evident by the petroleum odor and staining found in 1997. No further delineation or surface water samples were collected.” Figure 4: A. Investigations into PCE and PCB contamination indicated that these contaminants were not found throughout the site. These individual locations were not well delineated and will need to be field screened and/or laboratory tested during remedial action. With respect to PCE, the sediment sampling location was at the outlet of a drain pipe. The following text will be added: “Surrounding boreholes to the sediment sample did not encounter groundwater, but there was no PCE present in the soil samples.” BH-21: The following text will be added: “Eleven boreholes were completed in 1997 and 1999. Only one had PCB contamination. This is likely an isolated occurrence due to the borehole’s isolated location in a small clearing.” Page 12 LF004: The text will be corrected to say: “No contaminants of concern were detected above ADEC method two cleanup levels for surface soil, subsurface soil, groundwater, or downgradient surface water and sediment samples.” Page 13: E. The RAOs section will be modified to more accurately summarize the RAOs that were included in the final FS. Table 2: The tables will be modified to reflect use of TSCA-permitted facilities for PCBs in soil and non-TSCA permitted facilities for petroleum-impacted soil. Page 15: Details of soil treatment methods will be specified in Remedial Action Work Plans, to be developed after the alternatives are selected and the Record of Decision is finalized. Page 16: The cited sentence will be modified to read: “This would result in a reduction of COPC concentrations through volatilization and enhanced microbial metabolization of hydrocarbons adsorbed to soil.” Page 17: C. The cited sentences will be modified to read: “…community acceptance will be evaluated after the comment period, and public comments will be addressed in the ROD. The preferred alternatives may change in response to public comment or new information.” Table 3: A. Tables for comparative analysis of groundwater will be added for sites SS003 and SS008. Table 3 Natural Attenuation: Natural attenuation is a passive remedy that utilizes naturally-occurring treatment mechanisms to degrade contaminants and decrease concentrations. Although it is not an active treatment method, it does include treatment as well as monitoring. The scoring for natural attenuation will not be modified, consistent with the Final FS, although a footnote will be added to the scoring for “Reduction of Toxicity…” noting that passive treatment mechanisms are utilized. Table 4: A. The basis of PRGs is listed in the key “PRG – preliminary remediation goal, based on the risk-based cleanup level.” There is no reference to Table C because the PRGs for groundwater are based on the risk based cleanup levels. See response to comment 2, part D. PRGs will be finalized as cleanup levels to be specified in the ROD. The values in the Proposed Plan are “Preliminary” because they have not been finalized, and because this is the opportunity for state and public comment on these values. Table 7: B. PCE was not carried through as a COPC/COPEC during the HHERA because the screening benchmarks were not exceeded. PCE results will be removed from Figure 4. Lead will be added to Table 7 with ADEC Method 2, Table C cleanup goal of 0.015 mg/L. Page 22 LF004: Text will be modified to say “The landfill is not lined; therefore, ICs alone do not meet the long-term effectiveness criteria as a potential leachate problem would go undetected.” Louis Howard
6/13/2012 Update or Other Action Pre-Draft ROD for SS003, SS008, SS011, LF004 received via electronic mail. Sites SS003, SS008, SS011, & LF004 at Tatalina LRRS cannot support unlimited use & unrestricted exposure due to hazardous substances & contaminants remaining in place after implementation of the selected remedy. Land use restrictions are required as part of this response action & will be achieved through imposition of LUCs that limit the use &/or exposure to those areas of the propery, including water resources, that are contaminated. At ERP Site LF004, biennial cover evaluations will be completed, along with a 5-year inspection for 20 years. Long-term monitoring will be conducted for groundwater every 5 years for 20 years, or until contaminants are below ADEC Table C cleanup levels for two consecutive sampling events. At least two additional monitoring wells will be installed to triangulate groundwater flow & verify no COCs are present in the groundwater. To restrict current & future access or exposure to soil & groundwater at all four ERP Sites, the following proposed ICs would be implemented: - The Tatalina LRRS comprehensive map & Base Master Plan would be updated to show the boundaries of each site to restrict excavation of soil & disturbance of soil covers, as well as to prevent access to groundwater. The Base master Plan would contain a map indicating site location, with restrictions on any invasive activities that could potentially expose contaminants. Dig permits issued by the Base Operating Contractor are required for any excavation at Tatalina LRRS. Excavation, disturbance, or relocation of contaminated soil & groundwater; & excavation or drilling in areas of groundwater contamination, will be restricted by the ICs. Relocation of petroleum-contaminated soil will require prior ADEC approval. Use or removal of petroleum-contaminated groundwater will require characterization & be managed by the applicable regulations. Prior to approving a permit, the Tatalina LRRS comprehensive map & Base Master Plan would be reviewed to ensure that invasive activities are not taking place within the boundary of the sites where land use has been restricted. A Notice of Environmental Contamination will be placed on State (Alaska Department of Natural Resources) land records. The Air Force would obtain prior concurrence from ADEC to terminate the ICs, modify current land use, or allow anticipated actions that might disrupt the protectiveness of the ICs. In the unlikely event that the property is to be transferred, the Air Force would notify ADEC prior to any transfer taking place & would ensure any ICs are incorporated into the land transfer documents. 5-year reviews would be conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of the remedies. See site file for additional information. Louis Howard
1/24/2013 Exposure Tracking Model Ranking Initial ranking with ETM completed for source area id: 73824 name: Dump. This is an auto action that was triggered by an administrative fix to correct reporting problems in the Unranked Sites Report. This is not an actual ETM ranking and no answers were altered within the ETM. The only part of the record affected by this fix may be the ranking dates. (Reese) Kristin Thompson
1/31/2013 CERCLA ROD Approved Record of Decision signed by John Halverson (ADEC). At LF004, the selected remedy is long-term monitoring of groundwater with ICs for all media.At LF004, biennial cover evaluations will be completed, along with a 5-year inspection for 20 years. Long-term monitoring will be conducted for groundwater every 5 years until contaminants are below ADEC Table C cleanup levels for two consecutive sampling events to ensure no migration of contaminants from the landfill. A 20-year timeframe was used in the FS for the detailed analysis of total costs and is not necessarily the amount of time estimated to achieve clean-up levels. At least two additional monitoring wells will be installed to triangulate groundwater flow and verify no COCs are present in the groundwater. The land at these sites is designated as industrial use only currently and in the future in the Base Master Plan. However, to assess the need for ICs, contamination present at the site was assessed for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure, in particular recreational and/or residential use. Groundwater is not safe for drinking as it is contaminated above maximum contaminant levels (MCLs). Accordingly, the radar facility must impose ICs to ensure the groundwater is not used for potable purposes until it is remediated to MCL levels. The objectives of ICs are to: prevent access or use of groundwater until cleanup levels are met; maintain the integrity of any current or future remedial or monitoring system such as monitoring wells; prohibit the development and use of property for residential housing, schools, child care facilities, or playgrounds; and prevent the use of contaminated soil for restricted uses in the event of excavation and implementation of a soils management plan. The Air Force will implement, monitor, maintain, and enforce the ICs identified below in accordance with State of Alaska 18 Alaska Administrative Code (AAC) 75.375 Institutional Controls. The 611th Civil Engineering Squadron will be the point of contact for ICs. The major components of the selected response action will be implemented to restrict current and future access or exposure to soil and groundwater at these two ERP Sites. The RAOs for LF004 are: Prevent ecological exposure to 4,4’-DDD, 4,4’-DDE, and 4,4’-DDT that exceed 7.2 mg/Kg, 5.1 mg/Kg, and 7.3 mg/Kg, respectively. Five-Year Review Requirements Pursuant to CERCLA §121(c) and NCP §300.430(f)(5)(iii)(C), because the selected remedy, at completion, will not result in hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remaining onsite above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure, a statutory review will not be required within 5 years after initiation of the remedial action to verify that the remedy is, or will be, protective of human health and the environment at ERP Site SS003. Pursuant to Air Force and ADEC policy, because the selected remedy, which at completion will remain onsite hazardous substance levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure, will not attain this result within 5 years of the remedy construction complete, a policy review will be required within 5 years after initiation of the remedial action to verify that the remedy is, or will be, protective of human health and the environment at ERP Sites SS008, SS011, and LF004. The approval and signature of this ROD will signify the initiation of remedial action (FIRST Five-Year Review is due on January 31, 2018). Five-Year Reviews will be conducted until concentrations of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remaining onsite are reduced to levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure. John Halverson
1/31/2013 Institutional Control Record Established Institutional Controls established and entered into the database. Maintain the landfill cover at LF004 in order to prevent direct exposure and water infiltration. The ICs will be maintained until the concentration of hazardous substances in the soil and groundwater are at such levels to allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure per ADEC concurrence. ? Description of ICs and Performance Responsibilities. The specific mechanism for achieving the performance objectives are: a) The Base well permitting system will prevent any use of groundwater for drinking water. b) The Base construction review process will prevent damage to existing monitoring wells. c) All ROD use limitations and exposure restrictions will be entered in the Base Master Plan and the Geographical Information System. d) The Base construction review process will be used to avoid ground-disturbing construction activities and to ensure safe soil management procedures in areas with residual contamination. e) The Base digging permit system will be used to avoid activities that could breach the landfill cover. f) The Base Environmental Impact Analysis Process will be used to assess the potential environmental impact of any action proposed at the site. These mechanisms will be implemented and overseen by the 611th Civil Engineer Squadron. The Air Force is responsible for implementing, maintaining, monitoring, reporting and enforcing ICs. The Air Force is obligated to inform, monitor, enforce and bind, where appropriate, authorized lessees, tenants, contractors and other authorized occupants of the site of ICs impacting the site. ? Location and Notice of Environmental Contamination. The Tatalina LRRS comprehensive map and Base Master Plan will be updated to show the boundaries of each site to restrict excavation of soil, as well as to prevent access to groundwater. As part of the update to the Base Master Plan, the Air Force will produce maps showing locations of the residual contamination, and will provide these maps to ADEC. The Base Master Plan will contain a map indicating site location, with restrictions on any invasive activities that could potentially result in exposure of contaminants. The ICs will be documented in the Air Force Real Property Records, Tatalina LRRS General Plan, and 611th IRP Records. This will include: information about current land uses and allowed uses (prohibiting future residential land use), geographic boundaries of the ICs, an inspection of the site and submittal of performance reports. A Notice of Environmental Contamination will be placed in the Alaska Department of Natural Resources’ land records. ? Notification of Transfers and Corrective Measures. Timely notification to ADEC of planned transfers, to include federal-to-federal transfers, of property subject to ICs. The Air Force must provide notice to ADEC at least six (6) months prior to any transfer or sale of property containing ICs so that ADEC can be involved in discussions. John Halverson
1/31/2013 Long Term Monitoring Established At LF004, the selected remedy is long-term monitoring of groundwater with ICs for all media. Long-term monitoring will be conducted for groundwater every 5 years until contaminants are below ADEC Table C cleanup levels for two consecutive sampling events to ensure no migration of contaminants from the landfill. At least two additional monitoring wells will be installed to triangulate groundwater flow and verify no COCs are present in the groundwater. Long-term monitoring for SS003, SS008, and LF004 groundwater would be utilized to track both CERCLA and non-CERCLA contaminant concentrations over time. John Halverson
3/20/2013 Update or Other Action Environmental Long-Term Mgt Technical Project Report received. This Technical Project Report details the implementation of Environmental Long Term Management (LTM) actions for Sites LF004, SS002, SS003, and SS008, Tatalina Long Range Radar Station (LRRS) in Sterling Landing, Alaska. The LF004 land survey performed 8 August 2012 included the boundary of site LF004, the active landfill cell perimeter, and the outline of a biopile that was installed south of the Sterling Landing access road. There were 22 coordinate points collected at LF004. Louis Howard
11/14/2014 Update or Other Action Draft LTM Tatalina LRRS SS002/LF004 report received for review & comment. LF004 GW samples were collected from each of the three monitoring wells at LF004 & analyzed for pesticides. Pesticide concentrations detected in GW samples collected from all three monitoring wells are all less than respective ADEC GW cleanup levels. • Pesticides were below the cleanup level for the second time in BH10/MW. The last time the well was sampled for pesticides was in 1997, & pesticides were not detected in that sampling event. • Pesticides were not detected in monitoring wells installed in 2014 (MW-30 & MW-31) The landfill cover evaluation at LF004 consisted of a site visit, photo documentation, & collection of GPS data for relevant site features. The results of the evaluation showed the following: • No evidence of settling or ponding on the cover was observed. • Approximately 80% of the inactive landfill is encompassed by the active portion of the landfill. • All areas outside of the active landfill area were vegetated with a variety of plants, including various grasses, wildflowers, & alder. • Evidence of wildlife on the landfill cover was observed, including moose, fox, & birds. • No exposed debris was observed on the landfill cap. However, miscellaneous inert debris was identified in the densely vegetated area east of the landfill. This material did not appear to be recently exposed but was highly weathered. Overall, the results of the landfill cover evaluation indicate that the remedy is effective in reducing contact with contents of the landfill & exposure to potential contaminants associated with the landfill The following actions are recommended to maintain compliance with the ROD: • Conduct a GW sampling event in 2019 o GW sampling frequency of once every five years was established in the ROD o GW sampling may be discontinued if contaminant concentrations are below the ADEC Table C cleanup levels for two consecutive sampling events. • Complete the next biennial cover evaluation of the inactive landfill in 2016. • Conduct a five year review evaluating the effectiveness of the selected remedy in 2018. See site file for additional information. Louis Howard
3/18/2015 Institutional Control Update One of several sites with Land Use Controls in effect (LUC Mgt Plan 2015 Pacific Air Forces Regional Support Center Installations, JBER, AK) March 13, 2015. In addition to ICs established as part of LUCs of the ERP for landfill sites with LUCs in effect, both ERP landfill and non-ERP landfill sites in Alaska under the management of PRSC must also comply with regulations set forth by the ADEC solid waste regulations in 18 AAC 60. Furthermore, landfill sites under the management of PRSC but not categorized as an ERP site must also comply with ADEC 18 AAC 60. Table 1-3 describes PRSC non-ERP landfill sites. Landfills are defined in 18 AAC 60 as “an area of land, or an excavation in which solid wastes are placed for permanent disposal, and that is not an application site, injection well, reserve pit, or waste pile.” This definition applies to most PRSC ERP and non-ERP sites in Alaska designated as landfills, dumps, or caches. Small PRSC ERP and non-ERP landfill sites at remote installations, such as the long-range radar stations, are regulated as Class III landfills as defined by ADEC. General requirements to manage landfills in place are established by ADEC and included in Table 2-2. However, alternative criteria can and often are adopted through negotiation with ADEC (see 18 AAC 60.900, Waivers). Post-closure notification requirements for Class III landfills, including notifications to ADEC and to potential future landowners, are summarized in Table 2-3. Tables 2-2 and 2-3 both generally assume the subject landfill is closed, has been reasonably well characterized, and a monitoring program for media of concern has been established and approved by ADEC. One of several sites with Land Use Controls in effect (LUC Mgt Plan 2015 Pacific Air Forces Regional Support Center Installations, JBER, AK) March 13, 2015. In addition to ICs established as part of LUCs of the ERP for landfill sites with LUCs in effect, both ERP landfill and non-ERP landfill sites in Alaska under the management of PRSC must also comply with regulations set forth by the ADEC solid waste regulations in 18 AAC 60. Furthermore, landfill sites under the management of PRSC but not categorized as an ERP site must also comply with ADEC 18 AAC 60. Table 1-3 describes PRSC non-ERP landfill sites. Landfills are defined in 18 AAC 60 as “an area of land, or an excavation in which solid wastes are placed for permanent disposal, and that is not an application site, injection well, reserve pit, or waste pile.” This definition applies to most PRSC ERP and non-ERP sites in Alaska designated as landfills, dumps, or caches. Small PRSC ERP and non-ERP landfill sites at remote installations, such as the long-range radar stations, are regulated as Class III landfills as defined by ADEC. General requirements to manage landfills in place are established by ADEC and included in Table 2-2. However, alternative criteria can and often are adopted through negotiation with ADEC (see 18 AAC 60.900, Waivers). Post-closure notification requirements for Class III landfills, including notifications to ADEC and to potential future landowners, are summarized in Table 2-3. Tables 2-2 and 2-3 both generally assume the subject landfill is closed, has been reasonably well characterized, and a monitoring program for media of concern has been established and approved by ADEC. Tatalina LRRS Hardfill No. 2, Morrison-Knudsen Debris Area, Northeast Landfill DP005 Tatalina LRRS Landfill No. 2 LF004 Tatalina LRRS WAA No. 2 and Upper Landfill No. 1 LF010 Tatalina LRRS Former WACS Facility OT012 Tatalina LRRS Minimally Attended Radar Site SS001 Tatalina LRRS Barge Landing and Fuel Storage Area SS002 Tatalina LRRS Spill/Leak No. 1, 2 ,3, 4, Lower Camp Former T/F SS003 Tatalina LRRS WAA No. 3 SS007 Tatalina LRRS WAA No. 4 SS008 Tatalina LRRS Former Truck Fill Station SS009 Tatalina LRRS WAA No. 1 SS011 LUC_RESTRICTION a) The site well permitting system will prevent any use of groundwater for drinking water. b) The site construction review process will prevent damage to existing monitoring wells. c) All ROD use limitations and exposure restrictions will be entered in the Base Master Plan and the Geographical Information System. d) The site construction review process will be used to avoid ground-disturbing construction activities and to ensure safe soil management procedures in areas with residual contamination. e) The site digging permit system will be used to avoid activities that could breach the landfill cover. f) The site Environmental Impact Analysis Process will be used to assess the potential environmental impact of any action proposed at the site. Louis Howard
4/20/2015 Update or Other Action Draft environmental long-term monitoring work plan received for review and comment. The scope of this investigation is limited to the following tasks and associated analytical sampling: • IC inspections for Sites SS002, SS003, SS008, SS011, and LF004. The results of these inspections will be documented on a field form and accompanied by photographs. • Landfill cap inspection for Site LF004. The landfill inspection form is included in Appendix B. • Site SS002: Groundwater samples will be collected from six wells: BH16/MW, BH24/MW, MW-26, MW-27, MW-28, and MW-29. All samples will be submitted for laboratory analysis of DRO, PAHs, and VOCs. TAH and TAqH concentrations will be calculated and presented in the LTM Report. • Site SS008: Groundwater samples will be collected from eight wells: BH2/MW, BH3/MW, BH11/MW, BH37/MW, BH/MW02-25, BH/MW02-26, BH/MW02-29, and BH/MW02-30. All samples will be submitted for laboratory analysis of DRO. Louis Howard
4/20/2015 Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) has received the Draft Tatalina Long Range Radar Station Environmental Long Term Management Work Plan, Tatalina LRRS, AK dated April 2015, on April 20, 2015. ADEC will approve the work plan for implementation as submitted for sites SS002, SS003, SS008, SS011, and LF004. Louis Howard
5/13/2015 Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other ADEC will approve the final work plan and has no further comments on it. ADEC’s review and comment on this work plan is to ensure that the work is done in accordance with State of Alaska environmental conservation laws and regulations. While ADEC may comment on other state and federal laws and regulations, our comments on the work plan does not relieve responsible persons from the need to comply with other applicable laws and regulations. The Air Force is responsible for the actions of contractors, agents, or other persons who perform work to implement the approved work plan. For any activity that significantly deviates from the approved plan, the Air Force shall notify the ADEC and obtain written approval in the form of a work plan amendment before beginning the activity. Louis Howard
1/5/2016 Update or Other Action Report for Environmental Long Term Monitoring at Tatalina Long-Range Radar Station Sites received for review and comment. LF004 The landfill cap and IC inspection of Site LF004 noted that the site is accessed frequently to manage and deposit waste into the active landfill. Areas of exposed liner and surface cap erosion were found on the inactive landfill cell. Exposed debris was also found across the site. Warning signs and area restriction postings were found on-site. No unauthorized digging or excavation activities were observed. Louis Howard
2/4/2016 Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other Staff provided comments on the draft report for environmental long-term monitoring at several sites which includes this one. After reviewing the information presented, it appears the institutional controls at LF004, SS002, SS003, SS008, and SS011 are working as designed. See site file for additional information. Louis Howard
6/21/2017 Update or Other Action 2017 FIVE-YEAR REVIEW Report for LF004, SS002, SS003, SS008, SS011 received for review & comment. LF004: Groundwater (GW) is being monitored in accordance with the ROD, & data indicate that COCs are not present above cleanup levels. However, in order for the remedy to be protective in the long-term, a NEC must be filed in the ADNR’s land records to ensure protectiveness. Exposed, inert debris northeast of the active landfill at LF004 was observed during the 2016 site inspection. This debris should be removed, relocated, or covered. SS002: There are no immediate threats from SS002, & the remedy is being implemented in accordance with the Decision Document. However, the USAF must coordinate with ADNR & DOT to ensure that the required use designation is in place & to cooperatively manage the ICs, in accordance with the Decision Document. Wells at SS002 & SS008 should be re-marked for ease of visual identification. SS003: The remedy is in progress, & bioremediation was initiated in 2016. However, the groundwater LTM component of the remedy has not yet been initiated as required by the ROD. In order for the remedy to be protective in the long-term upon completion, a NEC must be filed in the ADNR’s land records to ensure protectiveness. Damaged wells should be abandoned & replaced prior to initiation of the required LTM program at the site. SS008: The remedy is in progress. Long-term, the remedy will be protective because soil contaminants will be remediated & GW contaminants will be monitored & because ICs are in place at Site SS008. However, in order for the remedy to be protective in the long-term upon completion, a NEC must be filed in the ADNR’s land records to ensure protectiveness. SS011: The remedy is being implemented in accordance with the ROD. However, in order for the remedy to be protective in the long-term upon completion, a NEC must be filed in the ADNR’s land records to ensure protectiveness. A vapor intrusion exposure pathway does not currently exist at LF004, SS002, SS003, SS008, or SS011. However, an exposure assessment would be appropriate prior to changes in land use (i.e., future construction). This FYR addresses only five of the 11 sites for which FYRs are required. The USAF should consider including all sites that have not achieved UU/UE in future FYRs. See site file for additional information. Louis Howard
8/8/2017 Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other Staff reviewed and commented on the draft Five-Year Review. Staff requested additional text be provided regarding the timeframe for placing a notice of environmental contamination in ADNR's land records for LF004, SS003, SS008 & SS011. Benzene and naphthalene in groundwater exceed 1/10th Table C cleanup levels and need to be addressed or revisited for cumulative risk. See site file for additional information. Louis Howard
8/14/2017 Update or Other Action Draft 2017 Supplemental Work Plan W911KB-14-D-0007-0008 Remedial Action Operations, Land Use/Institutional Control received for review and comment. Conduct and document a visual inspection of Institutional Controls (ICs) and the landfill cap by completing the Visual Inspection Checklist provided in Appendix F. The inspection will be conducted in general accordance with 18 AAC 75.375 ICs and the Land Use Control Management 673D Air Base Wing Instruction 32-7003, dated 19 May 2011. See site file for additional information. Louis Howard
8/14/2017 Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other Staff provided comments on the draft remedial action operations, land use controls, institutional controls supplemental work plan. Main comments were regarding justification on why GW monitoring wells will not be installed as previously agreed to in a previous work plan and to perform M-Kendall statistical analysis on groundwater contamination trends. See site file for additional information. Louis Howard
8/24/2017 Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other ADEC has reviewed the responses to its comments on the pre-draft work plan for Tatalina and approves the comment responses for incorporation into the final document. Louis Howard
2/12/2019 Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other Staff approved the draft project report and requested future sampling of groundwater for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) not use a peristaltic pump or bailer which would bias the results low. Louis Howard
1/29/2020 CERCLA PA Draft PA for AFFF areas received. The historical storage, use, or release of AFFF at Tatalina LRRS cannot be eliminated as a possibility due to the absence of records. The FTA site identified in Section 3 (LF004) allow for the potential that AFFF was potentially stored, used, or released at Tatalina LRRS at some point during the operation history of the installation. Therefore, in accordance with the EPA and CERCLA PA and SI Guidance documents (Guidance for Performing Preliminary Assessments under CERCLA; EPA, 1991), Tatalina LLRS is recommended for an SI based on the findings of this PA report. The SI is recommended in order to confirm or deny the presence of PFOS/PFOA contamination and to evaluate potential exposure pathways. Based on the information sources reviewed during this PA. See site file for additional information. Louis Howard
6/16/2020 Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other DEC provide comments for the Draft PFOA, PFOS, and PFBS site inspections, UFP-QAPP Work Plan, Six Remote Long Range Radar Stations, Alaska, May 2020. The UFP-QAPP work plan was prepared for the U.S. Air Force (USAF) to support the Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA), Perfluorooctane Sulfonate (PFOS), and Perfluorobutane Sulfonate (PFBS) Site Inspections (SIs) at six remote radar sites in Alaska including: Tatalina LRRS, Point Barrow LRRS, Indian Mountain LRRS, Sparrevohn LRRS, Cape Newenham LRRS, and Cape Romanzof LRRS. Dennis Shepard
7/15/2020 CERCLA PA DEC provided evaluation via email of the U.S. Air Force's response to comments on the "DRAFT PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT REPORT FOR AQUEOUS FILM FORMING FOAM AT TATALINA LONG RANGE RADAR STATION, ALASKA" dated January 2020. Melinda Brunner
7/25/2020 CERCLA SI DEC approved the “Final Perfluorooctanoic Acid, Perfluoroctane Sulfonate, and Perfluorobutane Sulfonate Site Inspections, Uniform Federal Policy-Quality Assurance Project Plan Work Plan, Six Remote Radar Stations, Alaska” dated July 2020. This work plan was prepared by United States Air Force to guide investigation of the potential presence of perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS), and perfluorobutane sulfonate (PFBS) at six remote radar sites in Alaska through the sampling of surface water, groundwater, soil and sediment. Sampling is planned for Cape Newenham, Cape Romanzof, Indian Mountain, Point Barrow, Sparrevohn and Tatalina, Melinda Brunner
12/16/2020 Institutional Control Periodic Reporting Groundwater monitoring and institutional control (IC) inspections were conducted at Sites LF004 and SS003 in August 2020. Three monitoring wells were sampled in association with LF004: BH10-MW, MW-30, and MW-31. These samples were analyzed for the pesticides 4,4'-dichlorodiphenyldichloroethene (4,4'-DDD); 4,4'-Dihlorodiophenyldichloroethylene (4,4'- DDE); 4,4'-dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (4,4'-DDT) by method 8270D-Selected Ion Monitoring (SIM). One monitoring well was sampled in association with SS003, MW02-24. This sample was analyzed for diesel-range organics (DRO) by Alaska method (AK) 102. The other two monitoring wells planned for sampling at this site were either inaccessible due to excessive vegetation (MW02-23) or were full of bentonite chips and the inner polyvinyl chloride (PVC) casing could not be located (BH1-MW). Darren Mulkey
2/3/2021 Update or Other Action Bulk action entry - all Tatalina LRRS sites x-referenced with the general file, 2655.38.001, on this date. Cascade Galasso-Irish
5/3/2021 Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other Staff provided comments on the Draft 2021 Remedial Action-Operation and Long-Term Management Work Plan, Tatalina Long Range Radar Station, Sites LF004, SS002, SS003, SS008, and SS011, March 2021. The Work Plan described the approach and procedures for site-specific long-term management and remedial action-operation activities at Tatalina long-range radar site, including annual groundwater sampling for sites SS002 and SS008. The Work Plan covers work being performed over a 5-year period and will be reviewed on an annual basis between field seasons. Axl LeVan
6/22/2021 Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other DEC provided comments for the Draft 2020 Remedial Action-Operation, Institutional Control/Land Use Control Report, Tatalina Long Range Radar Station, Alaska, Sites LF004, SS002, SS003, SS008, and SS011, March 2011. The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Contaminated Sites Program received a copy of the above referenced document on May 24, 2021. The report presents the results and recommendations of the 2020 Environmental Long-Term Management (LTM) program at the Tatalina Long Range Radar Station (LRRS). The 2020 LTM activities included annual visual inspection of site intuitional controls/land use controls at Sites SS002, SS003, LF004, SS008, and SS011. Annual groundwater sampling also took place at Site SS002 and Site SS008. All efforts took place in August of 2020. Axl LeVan
9/8/2021 Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other DEC approved the Final 2020 Remedial Action-Operation, Institutional Control/Land Use Control Report, Tatalina Long Range Radar Station, Alaska, Sites LF004, SS002, SS003, SS008, and SS011, September 2021. The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Contaminated Sites Program received a copy of the above referenced document on September 7, 2021. The report presents the results and recommendations of the 2020 Environmental Long-Term Management (LTM) program at the Tatalina Long Range Radar Station (LRRS). The 2020 LTM activities included annual visual inspection of site intuitional controls/land use controls at Sites SS002, SS003, LF004, SS008, and SS011. Annual groundwater sampling also took place at Site SS002 and Site SS008. All efforts took place in August of 2020. Axl LeVan
3/11/2022 CERCLA SI DEC reviewed and provided comments on the "Draft Site Inspection Report for Perfluorooctane Sulfonate, Perfluorooctanoic Acid, and Perfluorobutane Sulfonic Acid at Tatalina Long Range Radar Station, Alaska, November 2021" recieved February 3, 2022. The Site Inspection (SI) report for Tatalina Long Range Radar Station (LRRS) has been prepared to report the results of activities performed as part of the SI and recommend future activities at the installation. The goals of the SI were to gain further understanding of project site conditions and determine if a release of perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS), perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), and perfluorobutanesulfonic acid (PFBS) may have occurred to groundwater, surface water, sediment, or surface soil at a fire training area (FTA) where aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF) may have been present as identified in the Preliminary Assessment (PA) report. The report recommends a Remedial Investigation (RI) to delineate the extent of contamination in surface water, groundwater, and surface soil at the FTA #1 due to exceedances of EPA’s Health Advisory limits in surface water. The exceedances are currently not delineated upstream, and the potential impact to base drinking water sources is currently unknown. DEC agreed with this recommendation. Axl LeVan
7/26/2022 Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) Contaminated Sites Program received a copy of Draft-Final 2021 Remedial Action-Operation and Long-Term Management Report, Tatalina LRRS Sites LF004, SS002, SS003, SS008, and SS011, Alaska, June 2022 on June 30, 2022. This report presents the long-term management and remedial action-operation (RA-O) activities performed at sites LF004, SS002, SS003, SS008, and SS011 at Tatalina long range radar site (LRRS) between 13 September and 15 September 2021. Axl LeVan
8/24/2022 Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) Contaminated Sites Program received and approved a copy of Final 2021 Remedial Action-Operation and Long-Term Management Report, Tatalina LRRS Sites LF004, SS002, SS003, SS008, and SS011, Alaska, August 2022 on August 23, 2022. This report presents the long-term management and remedial action-operation (RA-O) activities performed at sites LF004, SS002, SS003, SS008, and SS011 at Tatalina long range radar site (LRRS) between 13 September and 15 September 2021. All DEC comments were addressed and appropriate changes were integrated into the document. In the approval letter DEC noted that landfill ponding, an unidentified well at SS003, and riverside erosion near SS002 should be closely monitored moving forward. Axl LeVan
8/17/2023 Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other DEC approved the Final 2022 Five-Year Review for Sites LF004, SS002, SS003, SS008, and SS011 at Tatalina Long Range Radar Station, Alaska, June 2023. The Five-Year review describes the progress since the last Five-Year Review and documents issues and recommendations for the five sites. Axl LeVan
8/22/2023 Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other DEC provided comments on the "Draft-Final 2022 Remedial Action-Operation and Long-Term Management Report, Tatalina LRRS". The report presents the long-term management and remedial action-operation (RA-O) activities performed at sites LF004, SS002, SS003, SS008, and SS011 between 11 August and 13 August 2022. Axl LeVan
1/18/2024 Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other DEC reviewed and approved the "Final 2022 Remedial Action-Operation and Long-Term Management Report, Tatalina LRRS Sites LF004, SS002, SS003, SS008, and SS011, Alaska, January 2024". The report presents the long-term management and remedial action operation (RA-O) activities performed at sites LF004, SS002, SS003, SS008, and SS011 at Tatalina Long Range Radar Site (LRRS) between 11 August and 13 August 2022. Axl LeVan

Contaminant Information

Name Level Description Media Comments
Chromium +6 Between Method 2 Migration to Groundwater and Human Health/Ingestion/Inhalation Soil Chromium was not speciated as CR+6 so all are assumed to be CR+6.

Control Type

Type Details
Land Use Plan / Maps / Base Master Plan The land at these sites is designated as industrial use only currently and in the future in the Base Master Plan.

Requirements

Description Details
Advance approval required to transport soil or groundwater off-site.
Maintenance / Inspection Of Engineering Controls At LF004, biennial cover evaluations will be completed, along with a 5-year inspection for 20 years.
Groundwater Monitoring At least two additional monitoring wells will be installed to triangulate groundwater flow and verify no COCs are present in the groundwater.

No associated sites were found.

Missing Location Data

Because the GIS location data for this site has not been entered, we cannot direct you to its position on the map. Click "Continue" to proceed to the Contaminated Sites Web Map or "Close" to return to the site report.
Continue     Close