| 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 |
1985 Phase I Report states: At the Lower Camp an area (Hardfill No. 1) adjacent to Waste Accumulation Area No. 1 was used in the 1960's and 1970's to bury scrap metal, equipment and other hardfill materials. Hardfill No. 2 is located northwest of the Upper Camp; it is a small area used for disposal of construction and demolition material. |
Louis Howard |
| 5/2/1988 |
Update or Other Action |
Historical Overview and Inventory - White Alice Communications System by the US Army Corps of Engineers Alaska District April 1988. This report basically summarizes the findings of a Section 106 review investigation concerning the eligibility of the White Alice System to the National Register of Historic Places, as per the National Historic Preservation Action of 1966, as amended. Section 106 was activated by the Alaskan Air Command's need to demolish their White Alice stations while taking into account their historical value. Thus, this report fulfills a compliance function as well as an informational one.
Site was a tropo link between Sparrevohn, 127 miles away, and Kalakaket Creek, 107 miles away. Both links used two 30' dish antennas. It was constructed in 1956 and 1957 and opened on 27 October 1957. It was deactivated in 1979, but a Minimally Attended Radar (MAR) facility still functions. There is also a microwave link to Galena FAA. The equipment building was 4,160 sq. ft. and POL storage was accomplished by three tanks with a total of 1,325 barrels capacity. Many facilities were available at the neighboring AC&W site. |
Jennifer Roberts |
| 7/22/1988 |
Update or Other Action |
Final Technical Support Document for Record of Decision (dated February 29, 1988) received. Sites 1 (SS001), 2, 3, and 9 are spill/leak sites, sites 5 (DP005), 7, 8, and 10 are previously used dumpsites or waste accumulation areas, site 6 is an area of Lower Camp road oiling, and sites 4 and 11 are the active landfill and waste accumulation area, respectively.
Dump Areas-Upper Camp (Site 5): Two dump sites are included in site 5. One is located near the top of the mountain, and the other is several hundred yards downhill. Both dump sites have been cleaned, graded, and backfilled, with no evidence of contamination or spills remaining or observed by the site visit team. No further action is warranted during Phase II.
Note attached to this document from ADEC project manager, Ray Burger, remarks that:USAF (David Paulsen Colonel March 7, 1988), USEPA (Jacques Gusmano February 21, 1988) and ADEC signed the ROD in 1988 (Bill Lamoreux July 22, 1988) , but the ROD was based on almost no sampling of some sites, therefore was deemed inadequate and a RI/FS was necessary. |
Bill Lamoreaux |
| 5/18/1992 |
CERCLA PA |
This letter is to inform you that EPA, Region 10 has reviewed the Preliminary Assessment submitted for the Tatalina Air Force Station Long Range site in Yukon-Koyukuk.
The documents have 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 Priorities List (NPL).
The reviewed documents indicate that the site could score high enough to be included on the NPL. Therefore, EPA requests that additional information be submitted in order to complete our evaluation. Specifically, all sources identified in the PA should be sampled and measured, and all targets potentially impacted by on site sources should be sampled. Background samples
should be collected to characterize natural soil conditions at the site and to determine natural conditions for surface water.
Section 120 of the Superfund Amendments and reauthorization Act requires EPA to assure that a PA/SI is conducted for all facilities listed on the Federal Agency Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket. Executive Order 12580 (1/23/87) establishes individual federal facilities as the responsible party to provide sufficient information for EPA to conduct an MRS evaluation. As
such, EPA requests that you provide us with the above information within 90 days of receipt of this letter.
If your facility anticipates an inordinate amount of delay in compiling this information, please send us within 30 days of receipt of this letter, a schedule of when we may expect to receive the required information. I would like to be involved in the development of the work plan for the AF sites and would be happy to meet with your representatives to discuss the additional sampling at the earliest convenience. If you have additional questions or wish to discuss this matter, contact either Marcia Combes or me (Mark Ader-Federal Facilities Site Assessment Manager). |
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. |
Jennifer Roberts |
| 7/15/1993 |
Update or Other Action |
Final Site Investigation Report (dated July 1993)/ Source 4: Landfill No. 2 had three subsurface soil samples collected for this source. No stains were seen during the August 1992 sampling. The samples were analyzed for TCL/TAL compounds. No cleanup levels were exceeded (volatile organics, semi-volatile organics, PCBs, dioxins/furans, metals). |
Ray Burger |
| 3/28/1995 |
Update or Other Action |
Management Action Plan (draft dated Febraruy 1995, received March 28, 1995, no final received).
While not listed on the NPL, Tatalina LRRS must follow CERCLA process per E.O. 12580 [e.g. CERCLA Sections 104(a), (b), and (c)(4), 113(k), 117(a), and (c), 119, and 121) with respect to releases or threatened releases where either the release is on or the sole source of the release is from any facility or vessel under the jurisdiction, custody, or control of their departments. These functions must be exercised consistent with CERCLA Section 120 Federal Facilities.
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 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.].
|
Ray Burger |
| 2/13/1997 |
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 |
| 2/13/1997 |
Update or Other Action |
(Old R:Base Action Code = RI - Remedial Investigation). RI action added 02/12/1997 by Shannon and Wilson, Inc., based on Air Force Relative Risk Evaluation Worksheet dated 9/18/95. No other information available. |
S&W-Miner |
| 3/7/1997 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
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. |
Gretchen Pikul |
| 12/8/1997 |
Update or Other Action |
Staff provided comments on the draft management action plan (MAP) for the facility. Chapter 3 should include the history and status of community involvement activities, and proactive community relations strategy and description is necessary within Chapter 4. Please include a more detailed list of hazardous substance activities (such as PCB, solvents, etc.) as shown in the draft MAP for Sparrevohn. Please update this section and Table 2-1 with the 1997 field activiues performed on the site and
the RI/FS deliverable. Please include the quantity associated with MOGAS Tank 14 listed under Lower Camp and under Sterling Landing. Ongoing and Planned Removal Actions, 5.1 Environmental Restoration Program, and 5.2 Response Schedule: These sections should update the 1997 field activities performed on the site and the RI/FS dehverable. |
Gretchen Pikul |
| 1/12/1998 |
Update or Other Action |
Final Management Action Plan (dated and received in January 1998).
While not listed on the NPL, Tatalina LRRS must follow CERCLA process per E.O. 12580 [e.g. CERCLA Sections 104(a), (b), and (c)(4), 113(k), 117(a), and (c), 119, and 121) with respect to releases or threatened releases where either the release is on or the sole source of the release is from any facility or vessel under the jurisdiction, custody, or control of their departments. These functions must be exercised consistent with CERCLA Section 120 Federal Facilities.
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 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.]. |
Gretchen Pikul |
| 3/31/1998 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
The Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), DoD Oversight group, received the Draft Remedial Investigation Report (dated February 1998) on February 10, 1997. The Draft Remedial Investigation Report includes a Baseline Risk Assessment, a Human Health Risk Assessment, and Ecological Risk Assessment. ADEC reviewed the Draft Remedial Investigation Report and provided comments below. Please note, the Draft Risk Assessment sections are currently under review. A separate comment letter will be forwarded shortly.
The Department files include the draft Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP) (dated August 1996), the draft Quality Program Plan (QPP) – Addendum for Interim Remedial Actions (dated November 1996), and the final Remedial Investigation / Feasibility Study (RI/FS) Workplan (dated June 1997). During a site meeting on January 13, 1998, DEC received a final copy of the workplan. Requests were made by the DEC on January 13 and February 13, 1998 to obtain final copies of the SAP and the QPP documents; no final copies have been forwarded. Therefore, any DEC comments regarding the SAP are based on the draft SAP, and may not be indicative of final decisions incorporated into the final SAP. With that clarified, any deviations from the SAP need to be clearly stated, with the rationale for the changes recorded in Section 8.0 (RI Results and Recommendations) and other appropriate sections.
Include whether any DEC-permitted landfills were/are located at this site, and whether appropriate closure program were completed. It is stated that no seeps were identified in the area during RI field work. Other site location seeps were observed and collected during September. Include whether seeps were observed in September, and the sample collection rationale. The SAP proposed two test pits at the MK Debris site. Include the rationale for completing only one test pit. |
Gretchen Pikul |
| 6/2/1998 |
Site Visit |
ADEC participated in a facility-wide site visit. |
Gretchen Pikul |
| 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. The objective of the RI at this source area was to confirm that past construction and demolition debris disposal did not create a source area for contamination, and identify and characterize the presence of potential surface water migration pathways at the source area. At Hardfill No. 2, the analytical results do not indicate that contaminants were released in the area as a result of past disposal activities.
At the MK Construction Camp Debris Area and Northeast Landfill the objective of the RI was to confirm that past construction and demolition debris disposal activities did not create a source area for contamination and to check f'or potential surface water pathways from the source area. the analytical results do not indicate that contaminants were released in the area as a result of past disposal activities.
Analytical results from the Hardfill No. 2, MK Debris area, and Northeast Landfill test pits indicated contaminants were detected at very low levels that pose little or no potential risk to human or ecological receptors. The baseline risk assessment did not identify any chemicals as COCs or COECs for the DP-005 source area. In addition, all levels of detected contaminants were below current ADEC non-UST cleanup guidelines and proposed cleanup standards (for ingestion, due to lack of groundwater migration pathway) in draft 18 AAC 75 regulations. No further action is recommended for the DP-005 source area. |
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 |
| 12/4/1998 |
Meeting or Teleconference Held |
Record of Decision template reviewed and discussed. |
Gretchen Pikul |
| 12/24/1998 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
The Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), DoD Oversight group, received the Draft Proposed Plan for No Further Action (dated December 1998) on December 8, 1998. The Draft Proposed Plan for No Further Action covers IRP Sites DP-005, OT-012, SS-001, SS-007, SS-009, LF-010, and OT-006, Tatalina LRRS, Alaska
ADEC has completed our review and provided comments below. A State of Alaska Memorandum dated December 9, 1998 has also been submitted in response to this draft Proposed Plan; similar comments were noted but not reiterated in this comment letter.
Within this Proposed Plan and the upcoming Record of Decision (ROD), a deed notice/land record (and dissemination of this information to current and future site workers), documentation of adequate cover, and an annual cover maintenances chedule (for 2-3 years following the final ROD) will be necessary at several sites. These sites include SS-009,LF-010, DP-005, and SS-007. In addition, site SS-001 will require a deed notice, as well as a mechanism to distribute this information to current and future site workers.
The design and setup of the Recommended actions section stands out nicely and is easily read.
While reviewing this Proposed Plan, several RI figures present "-" within the petroleum hydrocarbon analyses (GRO, DRO, and RRO). On the figures, the "-" indicates that the sample was not analyzed or reported for this parameter. However the laboratory data indicates that many of these sample data is "R" flagged; this information is not clearly discussed within the RI text. For example, SS-00 the MAR site, presents extremely limited data on the petroleum hydrocarbon compounds which was the potential contaminant of concern within this area. This flagged data and the rationale for no conclusive petroleum hydrocarbon data needs to be discussed during the comment resolution meetings on the Proposed Plan and the upcoming ROD.
Table 1: The site descriptions do not adequately capture the actual site description and site activities to sufficiently inform the intended readers (community members). For example, LF-004 is an active landfill, and WAA No. 3 had drum storage.
Truck Fill Stand (SS-009): The distinction between sites SS-008 and SS-009 needs to be more clearly defined within this plan. The reference to the petroleum hydrocarbon contamination (23,900 mg/kg in BH8) exceeding ADEC cleanup levels within SS-008 (Waste Accumulation Area No.4, Old Sanitary Sewer System, Former Sewage Lagoon, and Former Paint Shop) needs to be removed from this proposed plan. As agreed upon in a meeting on December 2nd, further subsurface investigation will be conducted within this exceedence area. The NFA decision needs to incorporate site SS-009 only. |
Gretchen Pikul |
| 2/18/1999 |
Proposed Plan |
Proposed Plan for No Further Action: IRP Sites DP05, OT12, SS01, SS07, SS09, LF10, and OT06 (draft dated December 1998, final dated February 1999); ADEC internal briefings on December 10 and 21; ADEC comment letter dated December 24, 1998; comment resolution meeting dated January 11, 1999; public meeting on February 18, 1999.
The Proposed Plan (February 1999) states at the Upper Camp threee sites made up DP-005: Hardfill No. 2, Northeast Landfill, MK Debris Site. These sites were three pits, adjacent to the minimally attended radar (MAR) and white alice communications system (WACS) sites, that received construction, operation, and demolition debris in the 1970s and 1980s. The USAF has conducted partial cleanups of material that had been disposed of in the past at Hardfill No. 2 area.
The 1997 remedial investigation (RI) focused on sampling soils, seeps (surface water) and sediment downgradient of the landfill areas to determine whether potential contaminants left from past disposal have traveled through soil or surface water in the area. Site observations and analytical data do not indicate that these landfill areas contain contamination. The analytical data documented that no contaminants exist above ADEC-recommened cleanup levels or risk management standards.
For DP-005, the human health and ecological risks at this site were below ADEC risk-management standards, indicating the site does not pose a risk. All detected contaminants also were below the ADEC-recommended cleanup levels. Recommended action: No Further Remedial Action Planned (NFRAP). |
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. General comments 1. General comment #1 from the ADEC comment letter (dated December 24, 1998) for the draft Proposed Plan was not addressed and is as follows:
"Within this Proposed Plan and the upcoming Record of Decision (ROD), a deed notice/land record (and dissemination of this information to current and future site workers), documentation of adequate cover, and an annual cover maintenance schedule (for 2-3 years following the final ROD) will be necessary at several sites. These sites include SS-009, LF-010, DP-005, and SS-007. In addition, site SS-001 will require a deed notice, as well as a mechanism to distribute this information to current and future site workers." In addition, sites where waste is left in place require a 5-year review. For these draft Decision Documents these sites include DP-005, SS-001, SS-007, SS-009, and LF-010.
2. General comment #3 from the ADEC comment letter (dated December 24, 1998) for the draft Proposed Plan was not addressed and is as follows: "While reviewing this Proposed Plan, I noticed that several RI figures present "-" within the petroleum hydrocarbon analyses (GRO, DRO, and RRO). On the figures, the "-" indicates that the sample was not analyzed/reported for this parameter. However,the laboratory data indicates that many of these sample data is "R" flagged; this information is not clearly discussed within the RI text. For example, SS-O01 the MAR site, presents extremely limited data on the petroleum hydrocarbon compounds which was the potential contaminant of concern within this area. This flagged data and the rationale for'no conclusive petroleum hydrocarbon data needs to be discussed during the comment resolution meetings on the Proposed Plan and the upcoming ROD."
Hardfill No. 2: RRO was included within the analytical parameter list, but is not mentioned within this analytical description of Hardstand No. 2. This omission needs to be addressed prior to finalizing the DD. |
Gretchen Pikul |
| 10/14/1999 |
Site Ranked Using the AHRM |
Initial ranking. |
Gretchen Pikul |
| 8/10/2000 |
Meeting or Teleconference Held |
Public meeting in Takotna, and site visit to Sterling Landing. |
Gretchen Pikul |
| 1/17/2001 |
CERCLA ROD Approved |
7 Decision Documents signed by ADEC on November 21, 2000, and by Air Force on January 17, 2001 - received February 14, 2001. Sites include OT012, SS001, SS007, LF010, OT006, SS009, and DP005. DP005 Decision Document of no further remedial action planned status. Institutional control in the form of notice in land records will be developed by the Air Force, with ADEC concurrence, for waste left in place and within a base master plan. The state of Alaska supports and concurs with the selected remedy of no further action.
Based upon investigations conducted at IRP Site DP-005 to date, there is presently no unacceptable risk or threat to public health or the environment. Therefore, the selected remedy for IRP Site DP-005 is no further action under CERCLA. Institutional control in the form of notice in land records will be developed by the Air Force, with ADEC concurrence, for waste left in place and within a base master plan. The State of Alaska supports and concurs with the selected remedy of no further action.
Visual inspections of cover material will be conducted and documented over a 5 year period (the first, third, and fifth years) to check that no erosion of the cover is occurring. After the last inspection, a 5-year review will be conducted to review the results of the inspections. If the cover material has remained in good condition, no further inspections will be required.
The selected remedy is protective of human health and the environment, complies with federal and state requirements that are legally applicable or relevant and appropriate, and is cost-effective. The statutory preference for treatment is not satisfied because treatment was not found to be necessary. Contaminant levels at the site have been determined to present no unacceptable threat to human health or the environment; thus, no treatment is necessary.
This decision may be reviewed and modified in the future if new information becomes available which indicates the presence of previously undiscovered contamination or exposure routes that may cause a risk to human health or the environment. |
Jennifer Roberts |
| 2/14/2001 |
Conditional Closure Approved |
7 Decision Documents signed by ADEC on November 21, 2000, and by Air Force on January 17, 2001- received February 14, 2001. Sites include OT012, SS001, SS007, LF010, OT006, SS009, and DP005. DP05 Decision Document of no further remedial action planned status. Institutional control in the form of notice in land records will be developed by the Air Force, with ADEC concurrence, for waste left in place and within a base master plan. Visual inspections of cover material will be conducted and documented over a 5 year period (the first, third, and fifth years) to check that no erosion of the cover is occurring. After the last inspection, a 5-year review will be conducted to review the results of the inspections. If the cover material has remained in good condition, no further inspections will be required. |
Gretchen Pikul |
| 6/20/2001 |
Site Visit |
Site visits/inspections new 611th project manager were performed in June 2001 in accordance with the signed Record of Decision. Inspection letter reports are anticipated Winter 2001. Institutional Controls are being developed with ADEC input and approval. ADEC received CD copy of Tatalina LRRS Administrative Record (dated April 2001) Disk 1. |
Gretchen Pikul |
| 6/20/2001 |
Meeting or Teleconference Held |
A public meeting was held in June to discuss upcoming work, and the signed Record of Decisions for 7 sites. |
Gretchen Pikul |
| 8/29/2001 |
Update or Other Action |
Impartial Third Party Requirement Waiver – 2001 Work Plan, Tatalina LRRS, Alaska letter sent to Douglas Wootten RPM USAF, 611 ASG, Environmental Restoration Section.
The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC), DoD Oversight group, received your e-mail requesting a waiver of 18 AAC 75.355(b) in order to use qualified Air Force personnel for the 2001 fieldwork at Tatalina LRRS as outlined in the draft final workplan dated August 2001.
The proposed qualified sampler is Mr. Joe Millhouse of the 611th Civil Engineer Squadron / CEVO. Mr. Millhouse was place on the ADEC qualified persons on April 27, 1999.
A waiver of the impartial third party requirement is granted and the 2001 fieldwork sampling by Mr. Millhouse is approved. This waiver only applies to this specific project at Tatalina LRRS and does not extend to other projects or samplers. Signed Jennifer L. Roberts Section Manager. |
Jennifer Roberts |
| 10/8/2001 |
Update or Other Action |
Impartial Third Party Requirement Waiver – 2001 Work Plan, Tatalina LRRS, Alaska letter to Douglas Wootten RPM USAF 611 ASG ER Section.
The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC), DoD Oversight group, received your letter (dated October 5, 2001) requesting a waiver of 18 AAC 75.355(b) in order to use qualified Air Force personnel for the 2001 fieldwork at Tatalina LRRS as outlined in the draft final workplan dated August 2001; the field work is currently scheduled for October 11 – 19, 2001.
The proposed qualified samplers are Mr. Carl Hornig and Mr. James Linne of the 611th Civil Engineer Squadron / CEVO; both individuals are recorded on the ADEC qualified persons list.
A waiver of the impartial third party requirement is granted and the 2001 fieldwork sampling by Mr. Hornig and Mr. Linne is approved. This waiver only applies to this specific project at Tatalina LRRS and does not extend to other projects or samplers. Signed Jennifer L. Roberts Section Manager |
Jennifer Roberts |
| 10/10/2001 |
Site Visit |
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 particpated in a community meeting in Takotna with Air Force. |
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 |
| 3/11/2002 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Impartial Third Party Requirement Waiver – 2002 Work Plan, Tatalina LRRS, Alaska letter to Douglas Wootten RPM USAF, 611 ASG Envir. Restor. Section.
The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC), DoD Oversight group, received your letter (dated February 20, 2002) requesting a waiver of 18 AAC 75.355(b) in order to use qualified Air Force personnel for the 2002 fieldwork at Tatalina LRRS. The site project objectives include USAF CES/CEVO employees obtaining soil and groundwater samples at Installation Restoration Program sites SS-002, SS-003, SS-008, and SS-011, as specified in the project’s forthcoming work plan that will be reviewed and approved, prior to field work, by this Department; the field work is currently scheduled from July through September, 2002.
Per your letter, the proposed qualified samplers are Mr. Joseph Millhouse, Mr. Carl Hornig, and Mr. James Linne of the USAF 611th CES/CEVO. These individuals are currently listed on the ADEC qualified persons website as qualified samplers, and were previously granted a waiver of the 18 AAC 75.355(b) Impartial Third Party Requirements within ADEC letters dated August 29, 2001 and October 8, 2001.
A waiver of the Impartial Third Party requirement is granted and the 2002 fieldwork sampling by Mr. Millhouse, Mr. Hornig, and Mr. Linne is approved. This waiver only applies to this specific project at Tatalina LRRS and does not extend to other projects or samplers. Signed Jennifer L. Roberts, Section Manager. |
Jennifer Roberts |
| 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 |
| 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 |
| 11/4/2003 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
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 |
| 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 |
| 9/15/2005 |
Institutional Control Record Established |
Institutional controls for DP-05 established in Base General Plan restricting excavation and surface grading at the site. See notation on 17 Jan 2001 regarding residual contaminaton left in place. |
Jeff Norberg |
| 12/28/2005 |
Update or Other Action |
Five Year Review for IRP Sites DP-005, LF-010, OT-012, SS-001, SS-007, and SS-009.
This is the first five-year review conducted at Site DP-005. The triggering action for the review is the signing of the Record of Decision (ROD) document for Site DP-005 on January 17, 2001. A five-year review is required because potentially hazardous debris or substances may remain buried at the site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure.
Site DP-005 is located at the top of Takotna Mountain and consists of three separate former
landfill areas situated north of the existing minimally attended radar (MAR) building. The
landfills have been designated as Hardfill No. 2, Morrison-Knudsen (MK) Debris area, and
the Northeast Landfill.
Analytical results from the Hardfill No. 2, MK Debris area, and Northeast Landfill test pitsI
that were sampled during the 1997 RI indicated contaminants were detected near method
reporting limits at very low levels that pose no unacceptable risk to human or ecological
receptors. The Baseline Risk Assessment did not identify any chemicals as contamninants of
concern or contaminants of ecological concern for the Site DP-005 source area.
In addition, all levels of detected contaminants were below the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) cleanup standards for ingestion because of the lack of a groundwater migration pathway. Analytical results did not indicate that contaminants were released to the area as a result of past disposal activities. Therefore, no further remedial action, other than maintaining the soil material cover over the buried debris, was deemed required. This determination was found to be protective of human health and the environment and in compliance with applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs) establishedI
for Site DP-005.
To ensure the cover material remained intact, visual inspections were scheduled to be conducted and documented at Site DP-005 every other year for 5 years. The inspections were to verify that healthy vegetation existed and no erosion of the cover was occurring. If at the end of five years the cover material remained intact at Site DP-005, no further inspections would be required.
With the successful completion of this five-year review, no further five-year reviews are
required for Site DP. If future land use changes or physical impacts to the landfill soil
material covers have occurred, future five-year reviews may be required. |
Jeff Norberg |
| 1/30/2006 |
Update or Other Action |
File number issued 2655.38.005. |
Aggie Blandford |
| 1/30/2006 |
CERCLA ROD Periodic Review |
Five-Year Review – Installation Restoration Sites DP-005, LF-010, OT-012, SS-001, SS-007, and SS-009; Final dated November 2005 received December 28, 2005; The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC), Federal Facilities Oversight group, received the Five-Year Review of Installation Restoration Program Sites DP-005; LF-010; OT-012; SS-001; SS-007; and SS-009 Tatalina LRRS, Alaska (dated November 2005) on December 28, 2005. ADEC have completed our review and concur with the contents of this document, with the following exception.
The Protectiveness Statement within Section 5.8 indicates that “no contaminants of concern exist at SS-001” and “there is no need for further remedial action.” As stipulated in the ROD for Site SS-001, “petroleum contaminated soil adjacent to the MAR facility has not been fully delineated due to the risk of compromising the structural integrity of the MAR facility. When the current MAR facility is decommissioned and removed in the future, the extent of subsurface contamination remaining beneath the building will be assessed to determine if remedial action is necessary.” Although summarized in Section 5.3, this information should also be emphasized in Section 5.8.
Please note that the ADEC review and concurrence on this document is to ensure that the work is done in accordance with State of Alaska environmental conservation laws and regulations. While the ADEC may comment on other state and federal laws and regulations, our concurrence on this document does not relieve responsible persons from the need to comply with other applicable laws and regulations. |
Jeff Norberg |
| 1/30/2006 |
Long Term Monitoring Complete |
In accordance with the ROD for this site and based on the results of the Five-Year Review, no further cap inspections are required unless physical impact to the soil cap is identified in the future that may pose a risk to human or ecological receptors. |
Jeff Norberg |
| 9/18/2007 |
Update or Other Action |
Workplan approval requirements and quality assurance oversight on Performance Based Contracts letter from John Halverson (ADEC) to Scott Hansen (611 CES). ADEC is writing to remind you of contaminated site workplan approval requirements in Alaska’s oil and hazardous substance pollution control regulations and underground storage tank regulations. Additionally, the department is concerned over quality assurance on Performance Based Contracts (PBCs).
Work Plan Approval-Several 611 CES environmental restoration projects were implemented this summer without obtaining prior workplan approval from DEC. The site cleanup rules require department approval on workplans before beginning interim removal actions (18 AAC 75.330), site characterization work (18 AAC 75.355), or cleanup operations (18 AAC 75.360). Similarly, the underground storage tank regulations specify the department may require a corrective action plan be submitted for approval prior to conducting corrective action at an underground storage tank release site (18 AAC 78.250).
Department staff strives to complete plan reviews and respond to responsible parties within thirty (30) days after receipt of plans, although this is not always possible nor is it a requirement. At times expedited plan reviews are feasible based on project manager work load, adequate up-front planning, and contractors providing complete, well written plans. However, if significant workplan revisions are required, additional review and comment resolution time will be needed. To facilitate successful project implementation, I recommend DoD project managers and contracting staff:
• Coordinate schedules with DEC project managers in advance and throughout projects.
• Include DEC project managers in project planning meetings (DQO meetings, UFP QAPP development meetings, Triad and other Technical Project Planning team meetings, etc.).
• Plan and maintain project schedules that include a sixty (60) days for reviewing draft work plans, comment resolution, any necessary revisions and a final review and approval.
• Review contractor planning documents prior to submission to DEC to ensure compliance with state and federal regulations consistency with agreements made during project planning meetings.
Failure to obtain workplan approval before implementing site work described above is considered a violation of Alaska regulations and may result in field work not being approved or additional work being required and may subject responsible parties and/or contractors to a Notice of Violation (NOV).
Independent QA oversight on Performance Based Contracts-As DoD transitions more ER projects to Performance Based Contracting (PBC) concerns have risen regarding the level of Quality Assurance (QA) oversight. The site cleanup rules require that “collection, interpretation, and reporting of data, and the required sampling and analysis is conducted or supervised by a qualified, impartial third party”. Depending upon the specific terms in a PBC, a contractor may no longer be considered an impartial third party with respect to collecting, interpreting and reporting data. This should be taken into consideration when preparing scopes of work. DEC strongly recommends the Air Force provide an on-site Quality Assurance Representative or a third party QA oversight contractor to monitor fieldwork for consistency with approved plans and contract requirements.
DEC is beginning to conduct more frequent independent Quality Assurance site inspections to evaluate conformance to approved work plans and regulatory compliance. Because we lack staff resources to conduct independent QA on all of the anticipated PBC projects, we intend to include contracting support for field QA oversight in the DSMOA Joint Execution Plans and budget.
|
Louis Howard |
| 6/14/2013 |
Exposure Tracking Model Ranking |
Initial ranking with ETM completed for source area id: 73828 name: auto-generated pm edit Tatalina LRRS DP05 |
Louis Howard |
| 3/18/2015 |
Institutional Control Update |
One of several sites with Land Use Controls in effect (LUCMP) in 2015 Pacific Air Forces Regional Support Center Installations, JBER, AK, March 13, 2015.
This LUCMP covers the following sites:
• ERP sites & landfills determined to contain hazardous waste, waste assumed hazardous, or nonhazardous waste
• Sites regulated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC), & the ERP
• ERP sites for which information regarding the contamination & LUC status was readily available during the development of this LUCMP
• Landfill sites managed by PRSC determined to contain hazardous waste, waste assumed hazardous, or nonhazardous waste that are not regulated by the ERP
“CZ” is the abbreviation for the Environmental Engineering Directorate of AFCEC, & “CZOP” is the abbreviation for Environmental Engineering Directorate, Operations Division, Pacific.
LUCs on active installations are not recorded in deeds. The USAF uses existing land use planning & management systems to track & manage LUCs at its installations. These systems typically involve including LUC boundaries & attributes into GIS layers, incorporating LUCs into the installation master plan, & filing LUCs with the installation offices that are responsible for managing the buildings & grounds, utility systems, & construction.
Once LUCs are implemented, they must be maintained as long as site conditions exist that prevent unrestricted land use &/or unlimited exposure. LUCs can be maintained using a variety of separate & collective processes, including the site approval process, LUC boundary markers, periodic site inspections, environmental self-audits, training, internal notices, & 5-year reviews. If it appears a LUC is being violated, then appropriate installation officials should be notified immediately. Furthermore, regulatory agencies may be notified of the violation as applicable & as detailed in DDs, RODs, signed action memoranda, or ADEC letters of concurrence. The officials should take steps to ensure the integrity of the LUC is restored & the necessary corrective action & notifications are made. In addition, if the type of land use at an ERP site changes, the LUCs for the site should be reviewed to ensure that the new land use is compatible with the LUCs. If it is not, then the site remedy & DDs may need to be revised before implementing a land use change.
In addition to ICs established as part of LUCs of the ERP for landfill sites with LUCs in effect, both ERP landfill & non-ERP landfill sites in AK under the management of PRSC must also comply with regulations set forth by the ADEC SW 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.
Landfills are defined in 18 AAC 60 as “an area of land, or an excavation in which solid wastes are placed for permanent disposal, & that is not an application site, injection well, reserve pit, or waste pile.” This definition applies to most PRSC ERP & non-ERP sites in AK designated as landfills, dumps, or caches. Small PRSC ERP & 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. However, alternative criteria can & often are adopted through negotiation with ADEC (see 18 AAC 60.900, Waivers).
Hardfill No. 2, Morrison-Knudsen Debris Area, Northeast Landfill DP005
Landfill No. 2 LF004
WAA No. 2 and Upper Landfill No. 1 LF010
Former WACS Facility OT012
Minimally Attended Radar Site SS001
Barge Landing and Fuel Storage Area SS002
Spill/Leak No. 1, 2 ,3, 4, Lower Camp Former T/F SS003
WAA No. 3 SS007
WAA No. 4 SS008
Former Truck Fill Station SS009
WAA No. 1 SS011
LUC_RESTRICTION IC in the form of notice in land records will be developed by the Air Force, with ADEC concurrence, for waste left in place and within a base master plan. The State of AK supports and concurs with the selected remedy of no further action. Visual inspections of cover material will be conducted and documented over a 5-year period (the first, third, and fifth years) to check that healthy vegetation exists and no erosion of the cover is occurring.
After the last inspection, a 5-year review will be conducted to review the results of the inspections. If the cover material has remained in good condition, no further inspections will be required. The ICs that are in place include restrictions on excavating and surface grading at the site. |
Louis Howard |
| 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 |
