| Action Date |
Action |
Description |
DEC Staff |
| 12/5/1963 |
Update or Other Action |
Letter from RCA Service Company, White Alice Project To Thomas P. Gargetta, Administrative Contracting Officer, White Alice Communications System. Subj: Contract AF 30(635) 35559. "Request for disposition instructions on Carbon Tetrachloride Fire Extinguishers". Subject extinguishers are no longer authorized for use as they are considered dangerous to personnel safety and should be disposed of in the most expedient and economical Manner. The only value of these fire extinguishers is there material content and in most cases the cost of returning them to Anchorage would exceed their worth. It is requested that we be authorized to dispose of these extinguishers on site and turn in to Redistribution and Marketing those (that are) in warehouse stock. Signed: R.E. Ryan Manager. Project Administration.
Locations: Aniak (22 1 qt. size), Anvil Mountain (17 1 1/2 qt. size), Bear Creek (1 1qt. & 1 1 1/2 qt. size), Bi8 Mountain (7 1 qt. & 7 1 1/2 qt. size), Boswell Bay, (5 1 qt. & 7 1 1/2 qt. size), Fort Yukon (2 1 qt. size), Kalakaket Creek (9 1 qt. & 12 1 1/2 qt. size), King Salmon (5 2 qt. size), Newenham, (3 1 1/2 qt. size), Soldotna (4 1 qt. size), Tatalina (5 1 1/2 qt. & 1 2 qt size), Yakataga (1 1 1/2 qt. size).
See page 519 of 1970 Logistics of WACS (1970). |
Louis Howard |
| 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 |
| 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, 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.
The White Alice site (site 12), determined in Phase I as having no potential for contamination, had been demolished and buried; the area was not visited by the team. There had reportedly been oil spills and leaks during site operations.
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 |
| 9/26/1990 |
Update or Other Action |
INTERIM GUIDANCE FOR SURFACE AND GROUNDWATER CLEANUP LEVELS SEPTEMBER 26, 1990
Interim cleanup guidance for contaminated surface and groundwater remediation is necessary to ensure that consistent cleanup levels are being applied by district and regional program staff. The following guidelines should be implemented under 18 AAC 75.140 which specifies that a "discharge must be cleaned up to the satisfaction of the Regional Supervisor or his designee.
Final cleanup levels shall be determined by the Regional Supervisor or his designee based on site-specific conditions. Staff should be aware that if a facility is regulated under RCRA, that RCRA corrective action and cleanup standards should enter into development of final site cleanup levels.
Groundwater should be cleaned up to levels not exceeding the more stringent of the final State or Federal Maximum Contaminant levels (MCLs) for Organic and Inorganic Chemicals. If final MCLs have not been adopted for a contaminant, then groundwater should be cleaned up to levels not exceeding proposed Federal MCLs. The group of compounds collectively identified as total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) should be cleaned, up to non-detectable levels as measured by EPA Method 418.1.
Final State MCLs are specified in 18 AAC 80.050 and final Federal MCLs are specified in 40 CFR 141 and 142. Proposed Federal MCLs are specified in the May 22, 1989, Federal Register Vol. 54, No. 97, pages 22155 - 22157 and the July 25, 1990, Federal Register Vol. 55, No. 143, pages 30408 - 30448. Appendix I provides a summary listing of State and Federal Final and Proposed MCLs for selected organic and inorganic contaminants.
For organic and in organic contaminants that have not been assigned a final or proposed MCL, cleanup levels should be based on criteria cited in EPA's Water Quality Criteria. 1986 using a health risk factor of 10-6. EPA's water quality criteria identify concentrations of elements and compounds which have toxic effects on aquatic organisms or toxic and carcinogenic effects on humans.
If groundwater is being used as a drinking water source and alternative water supplies or point of use water treatment cannot be provided, then final or proposed secondary maximum contaminant levels (SMCLs) may be used as cleanup target levels. SMCLs are based on aesthetic properties such as taste and odor, whereas MCLs are based on human health risks. For compounds such as xylenes, the SMCL maybe several hundred times lower than the MCL.
Surface waters used for drinking water should also be cleaned up to levels not exceeding the final or proposed MCLs for organic and inorganic chemicals, as specified above. Under the authority of 18 AAC 70.020, surface waters important to the growth and propagation of aquatic life should be cleaned up to the listed criteria which includes EPA's Water Quality Criteria. 1986. These criteria identify concentrations of specific elements or compounds which have toxic effects on aquatic organisms. The group of compounds collectively identified as total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) should be cleaned up to non-detectable levels as measured by EPA Method 418.1.
Alternative Cleanup Levels (ACLs) may be adopted for a site if a risk assessment approved by the department is performed and cleanup to levels identified above is technically infeasible. Risk assessments will not by themselves establish ACLs. Determination of cleanup levels is a risk management decision that the department must make based on results of a quantitative risk assessment and other pertinent information.
The responsible party (RP) may prepare at its own expense a risk assessment which shall include an assessment of both human health and environmental risks. Specific components of the risk assessment should include an exposure assessment, toxicity assessment, risk characterization, and justification of ACLs. A general description of these risk assessment components is provided in Appendix II.
General technical requirements for risk assessments should be based on EPA risk assessment guidance for superfund sites. A site specific risk assessment procedure must be prepared by the RP and submitted to the department for review and approval prior to conducting a risk assessment. The RP, at the department's discretion, must agree to reimburse the department for expenses incurred by the department if it chooses to contract for a risk assessment review. |
Louis Howard |
| 10/29/1991 |
Update or Other Action |
Request for Submission of Preliminary Assessments for the Enclosed List of sites sent to the Air Force from EPA (Reply to ATTN: HW-113).
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is issuing this request for information concerning several sites (Ten sites including Tatalina AFS EPA ID# AK4572728711) under the authority of Section 104(e) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. § 9604(e). EPA is now requiring this information because your agency has not submitted Complete preliminary assessments which EPA requires to complete the evaluation of the sites.
The preliminary assessments also may indicate the need to
complete a site inspection, which includes sampling. Your
agency's performance of the preliminary assessments, and perhaps a site inspections, is necessary in order for EPA to evaluate whether to include the facilities on the National Priorities
List.
This formal request for submittal of information is being made to assure that a preliminary assessment is conducted for each facility that was listed on the original Federal Facilities
Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket, pursuant to the statutory
requirement set forth in Sec. 120(d) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C.
9620(d). In a judicial Order dated January 15, 1991, in the case
entitled Conservation Law Foundation of New England v. EPA, C.A. No. 89-2325-Y. D. Mass., EPA was ordered to conduct e preliminary assessment of certain facilities by July 15, 1992, and to
complete evaluations of each facility for the National Priorities
List by July 15, 1993.
EPA has an obligation to use its utmost dlligence to meet the Court order by assuring that a preliminary assessment is conducted for each facility on the docket. The cooperation of your asency and timely assessment of each site is essential if EPA is to meet these Court-ordered deadlines.
You also should be aware that Sec. 116(a) of CERCLA, 42
U.S.C. 9616(a), requires your agency to complete preliminary
assessments and site investigations within specified times. The
President delegated to the heads of Executive departments and
agencies the authority to conduct such assessments with respect
to facilities under the jurisdiction, custody or control of those
departments and agencies, in Sec. 3(a) of Executive Order 12580
of January 23, 1987.
Therefore, pursuant to the authority of Section 104(e) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9604(e), you are hereby requested to respond
to the information request titled "Preliminary Assessment (PA)/
site Inspection (SI) Data Requirements for Federal Facility
Docket Sites," set forth in Enclosure A to this letter. You only
need to respond to the hiqhlighted items for each site. Your
responses to this request for information mus be submitted
(postmarked or hard delivered) to EPA within 60 calendar days of
receipt of this letter. To comply with this request, you must
provide a response to each question.
If information relevant to a question already has been provided to EPA, your answer may precisely cite the previous submittal by title, date, page and paragraph number rather then resubmit the information. To asslst in your efforts a copy of EPA's draft "Guidance for Performing Preliminary Assessment Under CERCLA"[Publlcatlon 9345.O-01A, September 1991] was provided at the October 8th meeting in Anchorage.
Please be aware that compliance with this information request is mandatory. Failure to respond within 60 days of receipt or to adequately justify failure to respond can result in
enforcement action by EPA pursuant to Section 104(e). |
Jennifer Roberts |
| 4/9/1992 |
Update or Other Action |
EPA Memorandum April 9, 1992 Reply to the ATTN of ES-098. Subject Toxicity of Fuels. From Carol Sweeney Toxicologist Health and Environmental Assessment Section. To Wayne Pierre Federal Facilities Superfuend Branch (HW-124). A response has been provided to the frequently-asked question of whether a reference dose or other toxicity information can be provided for fuel mixtures so that these mixtures can be addressed quantitatively in Superfund risk assessments. The memo from ECAO Cincinnati is attached (last attachment). They have developed reference doses for gasoline, JP-5/kerosene, and JP-4, and a cancer potency factor for gasoline. The memo emphasizes that these are provisional numbers and that considerable uncertainty is involved in this quantitative assessment, because of data limitations, and because inhalation studies were used to calculate oral reference doses.
I typed up a summary table showing the numbers (first attachment) and calculated some risk-based concentrations (second attachment). On the risk-based concentration table, I also
included ordnance compounds, because I hadn't made a table of those before that I can remember. The risk-based concentrations were calculated the same way as table II-1 and II-2 of the Region
10 Supplemental guidance; for soil, the same limitations apply, that the numbers presented do not consider pathways other than soil ingestion.
Toxicity Reference Vaules for Fuel Mixtures EPA Region 10 4/9/1992 Non-cancer effects-Gasoline (unleaded) RfD (mg/kg-day) Oral: 2.0E-1, Uncertainty Factor-Oral:1000, Level of Confidence-Oral: Low. Toxicity Data Source-Oral RfD: Memo 3/92. Carcinogenicity-Cancer Potency/(mg/kg/day): Oral 1.7E-3, Unit Risk (/ug/m3) 4.8E-7, Cancer Weight Of Evidence-C, Toxicity Data Source-Oral SF and Inhal. SF: Memo 3/1992.
Kerosene/JP-5 RfD2.0E-2, UF Oral: 10,000, LOC Oral: low, TDS Oral RfD: Memo 3/92
JP-4 RfD 8.0E-2, UF Oral: 10,000, LOC Oral: low, TDS Oral RfD: memo 3/92.
Screening Values for Water RBCs based on Ingestion, Residential
Gasoline-Risk = 10-6 (ug/L) 50, 10-4=5000 HI=1 (ug/L) 7000
JP-5 Kerosene Risk 10-6 10-4=NA HI = 1 (ug/L) 700
JP-4 Risk 10-6 10-4 = NA, HI = 1 (ug/L) = 3,000
Screening Values for Soils- RBCs Based on Soil Ingestion Residential
Gasoline-Risk = 10-6 (mg/kg) 400, 10-4 (mg/kg) 40,000, HQ = 1 (mg/kg) 50,000
JP-5 Kerosene Risk 10-6 10-4 NA, HQ =1 5,000
JP-4 Risk 10-6 10-4 NA, HQ = 20,000
IARC concluded that gasoline is possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B). IARC concluded that marine diesel fuel is possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B), but light diesel fuels and jet fuels are not classifiable as to their carcinogenicity in humans (Group 3). |
Louis Howard |
| 5/18/1992 |
Update or Other Action |
EPA letter to Patrick Coullahan 5099th CEOS. 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 i0 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: SEC. 120. FEDERAL FACILITIES.(a) APPLICATION OF ACT 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 Act in the same manner and to the same extent, both procedurally and substantively, as any nongovernmental entity, including liability under section 107 of this Act.
Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect the liability of any person or entity under sections 106 and 107.
(2) APPLICATION OF REQUIREMENTS TO FEDERAL FACILITIES.—
All guidelines, rules, regulations, and criteria which are applicable to preliminary assessments carried out under this Act 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 Act.
(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 Act shall be construed to require a State to comply with section 104(c)(3) 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) 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 |
| 7/15/1993 |
CERCLA SI |
Final Site Investigation Report (dated July 1993).
Source 12: White Alice
In 1984, a cleanup of the White Alice site was undertaken, including demolition of all structures. Drums and other debris around the site were picked up and disposed in burial pits at the site. Testing was done on soils around door openings and around transformer areas; PCB
concentrations ranging from 36 to 6000 ppm were found in 8 of 24 samples. There were no
traces of the White Alice structures or stains found during the 1992 site visit. File data indicated that drums were used to collect oils for shipment to off-site disposal locations.
Three surface soil samples and three co-located subsurface soil samples were collected from the
White Alice site. No stains were seen. The samples were analyzed for pesticides/PCBs and
organics. TL-K005-A210 Surface soil sample 0.5' bgs Aroclor 1260 1.5 mg/kg.
|
Ray Burger |
| 3/28/1995 |
Update or Other Action |
Management Action Plan (draft dated Febraruy 1995, received March 28, 1995, no final received). |
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 = SI - Site Investigation). SI action added by Shannon and Wilson, Inc., on 2/20/97, based on Relative Risk Evaluation Worksheet dated 9/16/95. |
S&W-Miner |
| 3/6/1997 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
ADEC reviewed and commented on the Tatalina LRRS Draft Quality Program Plan Addendum for Interim Remedial Actions November 1996 received on February 14, 1996. White Alice Communications System Site Cleanup: Please add information regarding the contents (if any) of the drums removed from the WACS site. The location of the onsite disposal pits, if known, should be included in this paragraph. If the location is unknown, then this should be stated.
Please include the concentrations and ranges of the laboratory results for the polychorinated biphenyl (PCB) contaminated soil sampled within this area.
The Appendix B Air Force memo identifying the discharge contaminant levels should to be consistent with the drinking water MCLs and proposed groundwater cleanup standards. Therefore, the following concentrations should be achieved: 0.005 ppm benzene, 0.7 ppm ethylbenzene, 1.0 ppm toluene, and 10 ppm total xylenes. A concentration of 1.0 ppm should also be achieved for GRO, DRO and RRO.
It is stated that the treatment or disposal of the proposed soil in the cells is anticipated by 1999. PCB contaminated soil should not be stockpiled on-site for two years. If such material is generated, it will need to be treated or disposed of using approved methods in a shorter time frame. Please elaborate on the treatment/disposal and the proposed liner maintenance.
The frequency of confirmation sampling should be based on the amount of soil removed and the surface area of the excavation. Please refer to the DEC Interim Guidance for Non -lIST Contaminated Soil Cleanup Levels, dated July 17, 199l, which specifies a minimum of one sample for each 250 square feet of surface area in an excavation. |
Gretchen Pikul |
| 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 |
Update or Other Action |
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 was to perform confirmation sampling to assess past PCB cleanup activities, determine if past storage of waste oils in drums created a source area for contamination, identify and characterize contents of an old septic tank located at the site, and determine the presence and character of surface water migration pathways from the
source area. The sampling locations used during the 1992 SI could not be determined; therefore, analytical results from the 1992 SI were used as general guidance and not in a direct comparison to 1997 RI data.
GRO levels ranged from below the reporting limit to 58 mg/kg (TP7). DRO levels ranged from below the reporting limit to 865 mg/kg (TP7). With the exception of the 865 mg/kg result, a review of the DRO laboratory chromatogram data did not indicate a
pattern match for diesel, indicating biogenic material contributed to the result. Benzene was reported below the method detection limit and BTEX values were detected at trace levels for all test pits.
Aroclor 1260 (PCB) was not detected above the reporting limit in any of the test pits except TP3, where it was detected at 2 9 mg/kg. No chlorinated solvents were detected. The analytical results for PCBs in soil at OT-012 indicate that the previous remedial activities for PCB-contaminated soils were successful. The baseline risk assessment did not identify any chemicals as COCs or COECs for this source area. In addition, the levels of
organic and inorganic contamination detected at the WACS site test pits are 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.
The old septic tank should be properly abandoned in place by filling with native soft or concrete to prevent further accumulation of precipitation and runoff and to prevent unintentional disposal of wastes through the open top. No further action is recommended
for OT-012 on the basis on the RI results. |
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 |
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.
WACS Site (OT-012). The human health and ecological risks for the site were below the ADEC risk-management standards, indicating the site does not pose a risk. Levels of detected contaminants also were well below ADEC recommended cleanup levels.
Recommended action: No Further Remedial Action Planned. |
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.
3.1 Remedial Action Obiectives: The PCB cleanup levels listed are designated for commercial or industrial land use. The appropriate PCB cleanup levels for unrestricted land use are based on residential land use which are 1 mg/kg (surface soil) and 10 mg/kg (subsurface soil). These cleanup levels are listed in 18 AAC 75 on page 29, footnote 9. Please make this change within all the draft DDs for the 7 NFRAP sites.
17. (pg. 5) 3.2 RI Results:
• It is stated that the surface and subsurface soil, surface water, and sediment samples were collected and analyzed for petroleum hydrocarbons, solvents, PCBs, pesticides, and metals; and the analytical methods are listed in a table. However, Figure 4 displays "-" for the septic tank sample indicating that the sample was not analyzed/reported for this parameter. The SS-001 DD displays the individual parameters for each sample. Include this more complete presentation within all of the site DDs.
• It is stated that Aroclor 1260 was not detected above the reporting limit in any test pit except TP3, where it was detected at 2.9 mg/kg. Based on the appropriate PCB cleanup levels, the depth of this test pit sample location should be noted to demonstrate that the TP3 detection level is below the regulations. Also, Aroclor detects axe shown on Figure 4 only for TP6; the other test pit sample location analytical results should also be presented on Figure 4.
• As requested in the January 11, 1999 comment resolution meeting and clarified in the ADEC January 12, 1999 e-mail, all of the analytical results for the septic tank sample needs to be presented on the figure. Based on Figure 4, the appropriate analytical methods were not run for this sample. |
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.
IRP Site OT-012 received demolition debris during the IRP Site OT-012 facility demolition.
The estimated depth of cover is approximately 2 to 4 feet. On the basis of the 1997 RI and
risk assessments conducted at IRP Site OT-012, there are currently no contaminants of concern (COC) at this site and there is no need for further remedial action. This determination is protective of human health and the environment and complies with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) for the site.
Based upon investigations conducted at IRP Site OT-012 to date, there is presently no
unacceptable risk or threat to public health or the environment. Therefore, the selected
remedy for IRP Site OT-012 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 |
| 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. OT012 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 |
Update or Other Action |
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 |
Year 2000 Clean Sweep Environmental Survey Report (final dated September 5, 2001, received on October 10, 2001). |
Gretchen Pikul |
| 10/10/2001 |
Update or Other Action |
Air Force field visit and work (including land surveys for institutional controls required by Decision Documents) delayed until mid-September due to in-house crew work conflicts (August 9, 2001); delayed to October due to September 11th terrorist attacks (September 17, 2001); was cancelled for this field season due to bad weather and impassable road conditions (October 10, 2001); field work is scheduled for FY02. ADEC received final Clean Sweep Environmental Survey Report (dated September 2001). |
Gretchen Pikul |
| 10/17/2001 |
Site Number Identifier Changed |
Changed Workplan form X1 to X9 to account for presence of PCBs. |
Former Staff |
| 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 |
| 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 |
Update or Other Action |
2002 Annual Report, Remedial Action and Monitoring Program; draft dated November 2002 and received December 9, 2002; ADEC comment letter dated February 5, 2003; Air Force response to comments received on February 19 and ADEC response sent on February 21; comment resolution meeting on March 17, 2003; draft final received on April 3, 2003; ADEC commented via e-mail on April 16, 2003; final dated April 2003 and received May 2, 2003; ADEC conditional approval letter dated September 25, 2003; final report received October 27, 2003 and CD on November 4, 2003. |
Gretchen Pikul |
| 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 OT-12 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 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 OT-012, located at the Tatalina Long-Range Radar
Station (LRRS) continues to be protective of human health and the envirornment. The methods, findings, and conclusions of the reviews conducted for IRP Site OT-012 are documented. 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 five year review and subsequent site inspection (SI) was performed by CH2M HILL between August and September 2005 on behalf of the 611th Civil Engineering Squadron (CES) as contracted by the Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence.
This is the first five-year review conducted at Site OT-012. The triggering action for the
review is the signing of the record of decision (ROD) document for Site OT-012 on January 17, 2001. The five-year review is required because potentially hazardous debris or substances may remain at the site above levels that allow for unlim-ited use and unrestricted exposure.
Inspections at Site OT-012 were conducted on August 8, 2004 by Montgomery Watson and again on August 24, 2005, by Matt Flynn/CH2M HILL, Stacey Re/CH2M HILL, Todd Fickel/611kh CES, and Jeff Norberg/ADEC. The purpose of the inspections was to assess the protectiveness and integrity of the landfill soil material covers.
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 have been no changes in the physical conditions of the site that would affect the
protectiveness of the remedy.
The cleanup levels for PCBs established by the State of Alaska have changed since the remedy was selected. However, the Risk Assessment of the PCBs conducted for Site OT-012 should still remain valid as the exposure assumptions and toxicity factors for PCBs 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.
Pursuant to the Base Risk Assessment, no contamidnants of concern were found at Site OT-012. In addition, with the landfill soil material cover in place and protected by land use controls there is no need for additional 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 OT-012. 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 |
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.
Thank you for providing a copy of 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. |
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 |
| 2/1/2006 |
Update or Other Action |
File number issued 2655.38.009. |
Aggie Blandford |
| 6/14/2013 |
Exposure Tracking Model Ranking |
Initial ranking with ETM completed for source area id: 73880 name: auto-generated pm edit Tatalina LRRS OT12 |
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. 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 |
| 9/17/2018 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Staff sent a letter notifying Air Force of Action Levels for PFAS in Water and Guidance on Sampling Groundwater and Drinking Water Technical Memorandum dated August 20, 2018. Action levels for UCMR3 PFAS compounds in groundwater and surface water used as drinking water are as follows: Where one or more of the PFAS compounds, PFOS, PFOA, PFNA, PFHxS, or PFHpA are detected in a water sample analytical result, the sum of the concentrations for all detected compounds will be compared to an action level of 0.07 µg/L. Where PFBS is present in a water sample analytical result, the detected concentration will be compared to an action level of 2.0 µg/L. Please note that all future sampling results for PFAS-impacted groundwater, surface water, and pore water must include results for all six UCMR3 PFAS compounds.
See site file for additional information.
|
Louis Howard |
| 2/5/2020 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Staff provided comments on the draft preliminary assessment report for AFFF. Main comments were regarding the regulatory authority of ADEC to develop site specific PFAS contaminant cleanup levels in soil and water that are not listed in Table B1 and Table C per 18 AAC 75.340(g). Additional comments were made on the ability of PFAS contamination to travel hundreds, thousands of feet from the point of release/discharge/spill at a source area.
See site file for additional information. |
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 |
