| 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 |
| 2/29/1988 |
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, 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. Site 1 is referred to as Spill/Leak Nos. 6 & 7 - Upper Camp.
Diesel fuel leaks have occurred near an Upper Camp garage (site 1). One reported leak in 1985 resulted in 500 gallons draining onto the unvegetated rocky soil. An earlier leak at this site (1980s) was reported as being of a larger volume (1,000 gallons). The garage area was recently demolished and the area covered with fill. The survey team did not observe any remaining contamination. No further action is considered warranted.
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 |
| 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 |
| 2/3/1997 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Staff reviewed and commented on the Tatalina LRRS, Draft Work Plan and Draft Sampling & Analysis Plan, August 1996 received on August 8, 1996. The Department acknowledges that no drilling or installation of monitoring wells is proposed for the site, and requests that the proposed work plan be adjusted to include subsurface investigations to define if groundwater exists at the site. If groundwater is present, then groundwater samples should be collected for laboratory analysis. If groundwater is not present, then soil samples (and, if possible, seep samples) should be collected at the bedrock interface for laboratory analysis.
The Department acknowledges the proposed use of a 75 percent numeric value of the ADEC matrix cleanup guideline for diesel fuel contamination. However, please be aware that the subsequent field screening results are not directly applicable for final cleanup; only laboratory analysis can be used for final cleanup levels. If the field screening data does not correlate well with the laboratory data, then additional samples may be necessary for confirmatory laboratory analysis. This screening guideline of 75 percent is not applicable for sediment samples. |
Gretchen Pikul |
| 2/10/1997 |
Update or Other Action |
Draft Conceptual Site Model & Human Health & Ecological Risk Assessment Portions of the Tatalina Long Range Radar Stanon (LRRS) Remedial Investigation Report (RI), Tatalina, Alaska received.
Upper Camp: includes Minimally Attended Radar (MAR) Site (SS-001) & two other sites-WACS Site (OT-012), Hardfill No. 2, Northwest Landfill, Morrison Knudsen (MK) Debris Site (DP-005),
Lower Camp & Airstrip: Hardfill No. I & Waste Accumulation Area (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, & Former Paint Shop (SS-008), WAA No. 2 & Upper Landfill No. 1 (LF-010), Lower Landfill No. 2 (LF-004), & Airstrip (OT-006).
These groupings of sites, or areas, are referred to as the Upper Camp, the Lower Camp, the Airstrip, & Sterling Landing. Aggregate human health risks were estimated for each of these four areas based on potential exposure to sample type (that is, surface soil, subsurface soil, sediment, sludge, & groundwater alone & in combination) as defined by the selected exposure scenario. These aggregate estimated risks were derived using aggregate data sets for each area & sample type (for example, all surface soil data from all sample sites at the Upper Camp were combined & evaluated in aggregate).
This assessment evaluated the following current exposure scenario to determine the potential health risks for the Upper Camp, the Lower Camp, the Airstrip, & Sterling Landing:
• On-site resident/worker. This exposure scenario includes contractor caretakers who reside onsite for a few years. On the basis of interviews conducted with site personnel during the RI, caretakers have worked on part-time or full-time schedules anywhere from zero (new workers) to over 20 years. A reasonable average of full-time employment at the site was estimated to be approximately 7 years, for purposes of estimating risk. Currently, there are 4 year-round staff, & 10 to 25 seasonal & temporary-duty workers. No children live at the site. Resident/workers are assumed to perform routine operations & maintenance activities consistent with the LRRS's mission.
A reasonable maximum exposure (RME) was estimated & evaluated for this exposure scenario. The RME is defined as the highest exposure that is reasonably expected to occur at a site. Reasonable maximum exposures are estimated for individual exposure pathways. If a population is exposed via more than one pathway, the combination of exposures across pathways must also represent an RME. The intent of the RME is to develop a conservative estimate of exposure (that is, exposure that is well above the average case) that is still within the range of possible exposures (EPA, 1989b).
The onsite resident/worker was assumed to spend the greatest amount of time at the Lower Camp; therefore, the RME used in this assessment was based on estimated exposure at the Lower Camp. For consistency, this RME was also used to assess exposure at the other three areas. Potential noncarcinogenic risks were evaluated for a chronic (7-year) exposure. Potential carcinogenic risks were evaluated for the same (7-year) exposure but averaged over a lifetime (70 years). Risks to the seasonal & temporary-duty workers were not evaluated because the year-round resident/worker scenario is based on a higher exposure frequency & duration.
Similarly, risks to site visitors or trespassers were not evaluated. Risks to the subsistence food gatherer also were not evaluated because most subsistence exposure pathways are considered incomplete. If a subsistence exposure pathway is complete, exposure frequency & duration are considered lower for the subsistence food gatherer than the site resident/worker.
Future use of the Tatalina LRRS is not expected to be significantly different from the current use. If the future use does change, it is expected that there will be less human activity at the LRRS as the facilities are automated further or phased out.
Current exposure to local groundwater is limited to the site water supply, which is not contaminated. Therefore, risks due to groundwater exposure are applicable only if site related contaminants migrate to the Tatalina water supply well. As a conservative measure and as an indication of potential future risks associated with exposure to contaminated groundwater, the groundwater pathways were evaluated for the Lower Camp and Sterling Landing, using the RI groundwater data collected for each area. Surface water pathways were not evaluated because standing water on the installation is intermittent, and human contact is minimal. Any site-related contaminants entering the rivers would be diluted to insignificant concentrations. No exposure pathway exists for surface water.
For additional information see site file.
|
Louis Howard |
| 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 = SI - Site Investigation). SI action added on 02/13/1997 by Shannon and Wilson, Inc. Based on Air Force Relative Risk Evaluation Worksheet dated 8/28/95, Site Investigation is the current phase. |
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. |
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 |
| 6/4/1998 |
Update or Other Action |
Site SS011 was a waste accumulation area at Tatalina LRRS. The area is located in the
approximate northwestern comer of the installation (see Figure 1-1). The waste accumulation
area was suspected to contain a disposal trench approximately 16 feet deep by 50 feet long. Up
to 50 to 100 drums containing motor oil, transformer oil, fuel, and glycol were suspected to be
buried at this location
Upon the completion of the geophysical survey on June 13, 1997, exploratory trenching was
conducted in areas suspected of containing drums. The exploratory trenches were dug by
backhoe to 8 to 12 feet bgs. Concrete and metal debris were encountered in one area, but no
drums were discovered and the excavated soil appeared to be free of contamination (no
significant PID readings, drums, or soil staining). A bulldozer was then used to remove 4 to 5
feet of clean over-burden soil in order to explore the site at a greater depth. Upon further
excavation at depths of up to 16 feet bgs, a total of 180 crushed and rusted drums were
discovered. However, the drums did not contain product and no visible signs of contamination
were observed. Headspace PID readings did not indicate a significant volatile organic presence.
The highest PID reading was 1.2 parts per million.
A total of four soil samples were collected and field screened using the EnSys immunoassay kits.
The EnSys specifications are presented in Appendix B. EnSys test results are presented on
Table 4-1. All PCB field screen results were less than 1 mg/kg for PCBs; therefore, no soil was
removed due to PCB contamination. Sample 97TATSSOl1003SS was collected and submitted
for analysis for PCBs to verify the accuracy of the PCB field screen. The [discrete] sample was non detect for all PCBs.
Two confirmation samples (97TATSSOII00ISS and 97TATSSOII002SS) were collected and
submitted for laboratory analysis prior to backfilling to ensure that cleanup objectives have been met for PCBs and TPH. In addition, these samples were analyzed for GRO, VOCs,SVOCs, pesticides, and metals to provide a thorough characterization of final site conditions. A third sample was also collected and submitted for PCB/pesticide analysis only.
All excavations at site SS011 were backfilled. No contamination was present above the project
cleanup objectives in the confumation samples, and no indication of contamination was present
in the excavated soils. Therefore, the original material was used as backfill. The site was used as a laydown area for excess materials and equipment and was comprised of a gravel surface.
Therefore, no revegetation of this site was performed.
Approximately 7,000 cubic yards of material were excavated at site SSO 11 in search of buried
drums. The excavation was as deep as 16 feet in some areas and averaged 8 to 12 feet in depth.
It covered a surface area of approximately 20,000 square feet. The excavation was guided by the
geophysical survey, PID readings, and visual evidence of contamination. Excavation of SS011
continued until it was determined that the site was sufficiently explored for buried drums. No
drums of oil or potentially hazardous waste were located. Site restoration was completed upon
the end of excavation activities.
Soil sampling at SS011 indicated that TPH and PCB contamination was not above cleanup
objectives. All drums that were located at this site were rusted and crushed and contained no
hazardous material. As a result of the investigation findings, no further action is recommended
for this site. |
Louis Howard |
| 7/6/1998 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
The Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), DoD Oversight group, received the Draft Interim Remedial Action Report (dated March 1998) on June 4, 1998. We have completed
our review and provided comments below.
Site SS011 Remedial Activities: It is stated that the excavation went as deep as 16 feet in some areas, and averaged 8 to 12 feet deep. Include whether native, undisturbed soil was encountered, and incorporate within appropriate sections throughout the report. Also, the IRA workplan (page 15) states that the drums are estimated to be buried up to 18 feet bgs. Explain how this area has been fully characterized. In addition, pertinent information collected during the RI/FS in 1997 should be incorporated into this report. Specifically, sample SL144 within the site area that had a detection of 50,000 mg/kg DRO, and the recommendations within this sample area.
3.1 Geophysical Survey of Site LF010 and SS011: Appendix A legends/descriptions should include an explanation of the color-coding. SS011 appears to have an anomaly within the area of 0-0 and 50N-50E. Explain how this area has been characterized.
4.1.2 Field Screening and Analytical Results: Include the reasoning for 49 samples at LF010 and 3 samples at SS011.
4.2.4 Recommendations/Conclusions: According to the draft RI/FS and discussions with the 611th Project Manager, an isolated area of contaminated soil (sample SL144 at 50,000 mg/kg DRO) was encountered on the hillside downgradient from the SS011 excavation area. This contaminated soil is planned for removal, potential further investigative efforts, and confirmation soil sample
analysis. And as previously stated, a 3 to 5 year monitoring program should be implemented to develop a trend. In addition, a 5-year review should also be conducted to reevaluate the monitoring program. |
Gretchen Pikul |
| 10/12/1998 |
Update or Other Action |
Twelve IRP sites were investigated. Upper Camp: Minimally Attended Radar (MAR) Site (SS-001), WACS Site (OT-012), Hardfill No. 2, Northwest Landfill, Morrison Knudsen (MK) Debris Site (DP-005) Lower Camp & Airstrip: Hardfill No. I & Waste Accumulation Area (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, & Former Paint Shop (SS-008), WAA No. 2 & Upper Landfill No. 1 (LF-010), Lower Landfill No. 2 (LF-004), Airstrip (OT-006) & Sterling Landing: Truck Fill Stand (SS-002).
MAR Site SS-001
Pesticides, PCBs, & volatile/semivolatile organic compounds detected in soils from Test Pit No. 1 were at trace levels &, in most cases, were at or below the analytical method reporting limit. None of the chemicals were detected at levels exceeding risk-based levels developed in the baseline risk assessment.
Test Pit No. 2 had elevated GRO levels (110 to 360 mg/kg) & DRO levels (5,810 to 12,000 mg/kg). The highest DRO levels were detected at the bottom of the excavation where the former diesel tank was located. PID readings were at 52 ppm at 4’ bgs for the highest DRO level = 12,000 mg/kg and GRO = 360 mg/kg. PID reading from 3.5’ bgs > 1,000 ppm but no DRO and GRO only detected at 110.
The samples from Test Pit No. 3 showed low residual levels of Aroclor 1260 (PCBs) at 2.8 mg/kg (1.5’ bgs) & 4.2 mg/kg (3’ bgs). The maximum concentration (4.2 mg/kg) was detected at the bottom of the test pit, where bedrock was encountered. Test Pit No. 4 analytical results also detected VOC contamination at very low levels below risk-based levels. DRO levels ranged from 20 to 22 mg/kg; however, a review of the laboratory chromatogram data did not indicate a pattern match for diesel, indicating biogenic material in the soil may have contributed to the result. GRO was detected in a single sample at 2.1 mg/kg.
Based on available information gathered during the RI, it appears that residual soil contaminants extend vertically from near the ground surface to the top of the bedrock surface. The lateral extent of petroleum hydrocarbon contamination in subsurface soil at test pit No. 2 (TP2) is likely bounded on the west by the existing MAR dome & on the north, east, & south by the summit access roadway.
Given the granular nature of the soils beneath the graded MAR pad, it is probable that the contaminants in TP2 extend from the former diesel tank source to the nearest point where the soils have a significant increase in organic matter content (especially native tundra soils). Movement of organic contaminants is anticipated to slow significantly because the organic matter would tend to trap & hold them. Biodegradation of the contaminants can occur; however, the rate would be very limited by site conditions such as low temperatures & infrequent summer precipitation.
The subsurface DRO contamination at TP2 (12,000 mg/kg at 4-foot depth) likely extends to the base of, & possibly beneath, the existing MAR dome, which effectively restricts soil excavations. Although bedrock was not reached at the maximum depth excavated at this location, it is expected that bedrock is very close to the bottom of the excavation. The spills in tins area occurred prior to the removal the old MAR facilities in the 1980s. The current migration of contaminants from this area is expected to be very slow because much of the contamination will be bound with soil organic matter. The source of the diesel fuel contamination has been removed & the levels of petroleum hydrocarbons in the soil are expected to continue to decrease. GRO levels at depth in the test pit were relatively low (360 mg/kg); BTEX & benzene were not detected. Excavation of contaminated soils in this area is likely not feasible at this time because of the need to protect the foundation integrity for the existing MAR building.
No excavation or additional investigation is recommended at this site at this time. The extent of DRO contamination at the test pit is limited by shallow underlying bedrock & surrounding soils. In addition, excavation of contaminated soils in this area is likely not feasible to protect the foundation integrity of the existing MAR building. If the MAR facility is decommissioned & removed in the future, the extent of subsurface contamination remaining beneath the building should be reassessed to determine potential remedial needs. |
Louis Howard |
| 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 |
| 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 |
| 12/4/1998 |
Meeting or Teleconference Held |
Record of Decision template reviewed and discussed. |
Gretchen Pikul |
| 12/9/1998 |
Update or Other Action |
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. Theses ites 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.
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 |
CERCLA 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.
MAR Site (SS-001). The human health and ecological risks for the site were below the ADEC risk-management standards, indicating that the site does not pose a risk. At one test pit location, diesel-range organics were measured at 12,500 mg/kg, which is greater than the ADEC recommended cleanup level.
No excavation or additional investigation is recommended at this site at this time. Because the extent of diesel-range organic contamination at the test pit is limited by shallow underlying bedrock and surrounding soils, the existing contamination is not expected to move. In addition,
excavation of contaminated soils in this area is not feasible because of the need to protect the foundation integnty of the existing MAR building. If the MAR facility is decommissioned and removed in the future, the USAF will reassess the extent of subsurface contamination remaining beneath the building and determine if cleanup is necessary.
Recommended action: No Further Remedial Action Plannned (UNTIL the MAR Building is removed). |
Gretchen Pikul |
| 4/16/1999 |
Update or Other Action |
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.
2.1 Site History: The description for Spill No. 6 does not include whether a cleanup action occurred or if there was no record and it is unknown.
3.1 Remedial Action Obiectives: The correct PCB cleanup levels are addressed above in the OT-012 specific comments. Also, comment # 9 of the ADEC March 31, 1998 comment letter on the draft RI report was not addressed. The rationale for analyzing
the soil sample collected from transformer vault area for PCBs only and not including petroleum hydrocarbons has not been addressed.
3.2 RI Results: It is stated that no test pit was excavated adjacent to the northeast side of the dome, where a third former diesel tank had been located. It should be clarified that TP2 is situated downgradient of the former third tank location, and depicts
a representative downgradient sample location. The analytical parameters for the test pit samples are presented; the seep and
sediment sample analytical parameters must also be outlined.
It is stated that septic tanks at other radar stations have contained petroleum hydrocarbons, solvents, and metals from waste oils; therefore, those contaminants were included as analytes at the former septic tank location. Include an explanation to why the analytical parameters for septic tank at OT-012 were
limited. The fourth paragraph discusses all of the analytical methods with the exception of metals. Include the metals discussion.
The last paragraph states that if the current MAR facility is decommissioned and removed in the future, the subsurface contamination remaining beneath the building should be re-assessed to determine potential remedial needs. The
"should" needs to be replaced with "will", as it is in the following paragraph. Also, the "if" the current MAR facility is decommissioned, needs to be changed to "when". |
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. Sites include OT012, SS001, SS007, LF010, OT006, SS009, and DP005. Based upon investigations conducted at IRP Site SS-001 to date, there "is presently no unacceptable risk or threat to public health or the environment. Therefore, the selected remedy for Site SS-001 is no further action under CERCLA. However, 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.
If soil is excavated from the site, the soil must be handled consistent with the current ARARs
at the time of excavation and be coordinated with ADEC. 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, with the extent of subsurface contamination to be
assessed when the MAR facility is decommissioned and removed in the future.
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 |
| 1/17/2001 |
Conditional Closure Approved |
7 Decision Documents signed by ADEC on November 21, 2000, and by Air Force on January 17, 2001. Sites include OT012, SS001, SS007, LF010, OT006, SS009, and DP005. SS001 Decision Document has a no further remedial action planned status. However, 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. If soil is excavated from the site, the soil must be handled consistent with the current ARARs at the time of excavation and be coordinated with ADEC. 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, with the extent of subsurface contamination to be assessed when the MAR facility is decommissioned and removed in the future. |
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 |
| 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 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 |
| 4/24/2002 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
ADEC comment letter Draft Work Plan Remedial Actions and Investigation which was received on April 19, 2002. 8.7 SS-001, LowerCamp Hardfill No. 1 and WAA No.1 : It is stated that soil and water samples will be analyzed for GRO, DRO, RRO, VOC, and SVOC, however, since this is a disposal area with unknown contents and unknown potential contaminants,a full suite of analytical tests are required for adequate characterization.
The amount of soil samples, and the depth of soil sample collectlon and selection for analytical testing needs to be detailed. |
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 |
| 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 |
| 8/29/2005 |
Site Visit |
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 SS-01 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 beneath MAR Facility. |
Jeff Norberg |
| 12/28/2005 |
CERCLA ROD Periodic Review |
Five Year Review for IRP Sites: DP-005, LF-010, OT-012, SS-001, SS-007 and SS-009 Tatalina Long Range Radar Station received for review and comment.
The purpose of the five-year review is to determine whether the remedy selected for the installation restoration program (IRP) Site SS-001, located at the Tatalina Long-Range Radar
Station (LRRS) continues to be protective of human health and the environment. The methods, findings, and conclusions of the reviews conducted for IRP Site SS-001 are documented in this Five-Year Review Report. In addition, this report identifies any issues found during the reviews and provides recommendations for addressing the issues.
The U.S. Air Force (USAF) is preparing this Five-Year Review Report consistent with the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and to the extent practicable with the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (40 Code of Federal Regulations 300). This is the first five-year review conducted at Site SS-001. The triggering action for the review is the signing of the Record of Decision (ROD) document for Site SS-001 on January 17, 2001. The five-year review is required because potentially hazardous substances may remain at the site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure.
An inspection at Site SS-001 was conducted on August 24, 2005, by Mail Flynn/CH2M HILL
and Stacey Re/CH2M HILL, Todd Fickel/611th CES, and Jeff Norberg/ADEC. The purpose of the inspection was to assess the protectiveness and integrity of the landfill soil material cover.
Land use controls (also known as institutional controls) were evaluated by verifying their
existence within the Tatalina Base General Plan and their location presented on the Tatalina
Base Map. The institutional controls that are in place include restrictions on excavating and
surface grading at the site. No activities were observed during the SIs that would have violated the land use controls. The soil material cover on the landfill was intact, undisturbed, and naturally revegetating.
There is no other information that calls into question the protectiveness of the remedy.3
According to the data reviewed and the SIs conducted at Site SS-001, the remedy is functioning as intended by the ROD. There have been no changes in the physical conditions of the site that would affect the protectiveness of the remedy. The exposure assumptions and toxicity factors for the contaminants of concern used to develop the Human Health Risk Assessment have not changed. There is no other information that calls into question the protectiveness of the remedy.
No issues were identified that could impact the effectiveness of the selected remedy.
There are no recommendations or additional remediation or follow-up actions identified for
Site SS-001 at the time of this five-year review.
Pursuant to the Base Risk Assessment, no contaminants of concern exist at Site 88-001. In
addition, with the soil material cover in place and protected by land use controls there is no
need for further remedial action. This remedy is protective of human health and the environment and recent inspections verify the effectiveness of the selected remedy.
With the successful completion of this five-year review, no further five-year reviews are
required for Site SS4JO1. If future land use changes or physical impacts to the landfill soil material covers have occurred, future five-year reviews may be required. |
Louis Howard |
| 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; ADEC issued approval letter on January 30, 2006.
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. Also 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." |
Jeff Norberg |
| 2/1/2006 |
Update or Other Action |
File number issued 2655.38.010. |
Aggie Blandford |
| 6/14/2013 |
Exposure Tracking Model Ranking |
Initial ranking with ETM completed for source area id: 73832 name: auto-generated pm edit Tatalina LRRS SS01 |
Louis Howard |
| 3/18/2015 |
Update or Other Action |
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 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, with the extent of subsurface contamination to be assessed when the MAR facility is decommissioned and removed in the future. The institutional controls 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 |
