| Action Date |
Action |
Description |
DEC Staff |
| 7/1/1958 |
Update or Other Action |
General Description of Facilities USARAL Petroleum Distribution System Alaska Dated July 1, 1958, Headquarters United States Army Alaska, APO 949 “General Description of Facilities USARAL, Petroleum Distribution System”, Prepared by USARAL Petroleum Distribution System, Office of the Quartermaster July 1, 1958. This document is the second publication of a description of the existing petroleum storage and distribution facilities operated by the United states Army, Alaska
Organization
Anchorage-Whittier Div1sion:
Anchorage Terminal
Whittier Terminal
USARAL Petroleum Products Laboratory
PERFORMANCE OF MISSION.
a. Bulk petroleum products for installations south of the Alaska mountain range are received at the USARAL PDS terminal at the Port of Whittier during the winter months, and shipped by rail to the Anchorage Terminal by rail tank cars. During the summer months tankers deliver products to the Anchorage Terminal. Distribution 1s made from the Anchorage Terminal to Elmendorf Air Force Base, Fort R1chardson and Wildwood Station by ra1l, barge, tank truck, and pipelines.
GENERAL. Anchorage Petroleum Terminal consists of two sites: Area Nr.l, 52 acres in area, located north of the City of Anchorage, and Area Nr. 2, 5 acres in area, located on Elmendorf Air Force Base, one mile northeast of Area Nr. 1.
4. PRODUCT PIPELINES. The following pipelines are available for discharging cargo to shore tankage:
a. Twelve-inch line, for discharging Jet fuel to Tank Farm Nr. 2.
b. Ten-inch line for discharging *aviation gasoline 115/145 to Elmendorf Air Force Base/Terminal tankage.
c. Ten-inch line for discharging diesel fuel to Tank Farm Nr. 1.
d. Ten-inch line for discharging Jet fuel and *motor gasoline to Tank Farm Nr. 1.
e. Six-inch line for discharging diesel fuel to Tank Farm Nr. 1. This line is in standby status.
8. Pump Stations
b. Pump House Jr. 2, located in Area Nr. 1, is utilized for discharging aviation gasoline* from tank cars to Elmendorf Air Force Base tankage, and jet fuel from tank cars or tankage in Area Nr. 1 to tankage in Area Nr. 2.
d. Pump House Hr. 4, located one mile northeast of the pier on the ten-inch aviation gasoline* line to Elmendorf Air Force Base tankage, is of wood and concrete structure.
(1) Pumping Units: Three Peerless vertical five stage centrifugal pumps driven by Waukesha Manufacturing Company gasoline engines of 165 HP at 1800 RPM. Each pump has a capacity of 60,000 GPR at 65 PSI discharge pressure.
(2) Fire Fighting Equipment: 50-pound and. l5~pound C02 fire extinguishers.
e. Pump House Nr. 5, located one mile northeast of the dock on the twelve-inch jet fuel line to the War Reserve tankage, is of concrete structure. The pump house has a pump room and control room separated by a fireproof wall. Two pumping units consist of a six-inch Fairbanks-Morse pump driven by a United States Electric Motors, Inc., 440 volt, 1800 RPM, 150 HP electric motor. The two units, operating in parallel, have a capacity of 168,000 GPH at 65 PSI discharge pressure.
9. TANK CAR LOADING AND UNLOADING RACK. The tank car loading and unloading rack, located in Area Nr. 1 is of steel construction. Eight risers are available on the rack for loading and/or unloading. A railroad spur on each side of the rack provides a capacity for loading or
unloading. 16 tank cars simultaneously. Loading or unloading capacities vary from 10,000 to 20,000 GPH depending on the product and manifolding arrangement.
SEASONAL PORT OPERATIONS. Tankers are received at Anchorage during the ice-free period mid-May to mid-November. The port is icebound from mid-November to mid-May making it necessary to discharge tankers during this period at Whittier, a year round, ice-free port. Product is transferred to Army and Air Force installations in the Anchorage area by rail tank car during the winter.
PLANNED ADDITIONAL TANKAGE FACILITIES
To provide necessary additional tankage and the replacement of certain existing tanks, plans have been formulated for the construction of the tankage listed below:
USARAL PDS TERMINAL TANKAGE - EXISTING AND PLANNED (M/BBLS)
Anchorage Terminal Existing: 456.2 construction planned: 150.0* total: 556.2.
*50 M/Bbls required as replacement - not included in totals. |
Louis Howard |
| 3/11/1987 |
Update or Other Action |
U.S. Army sent letter to Jim Hayden (ADEC) re: release from the Anchorage Terminal. The existence of this release was brought to our attention by a private contractor who had been performing work for a client in the area of our terminal. On February 20, 1987, the contractor, who is doing work for the Army which is unrelated to this, mentioned the existence of a strong fuel odor coming from a separator box at the Anchorage Terminal. The contractor physically showed us the area he was referring to. There was a noticeable fuel odor in the air, and a very thin sheen was visible on a small area of the water. The following Monday, February 23, 1987, we obtained a water sample.
The water sample was analyzed for various purgeable aromatics using EPA Test Method 602. The results indicated the water contained various dissolved compounds which are components of fuel. A copy of these results is enclosed. Six more samples were obtained February 26, 1987. The separator box that was originally sampled was sampled again and three (3) more samples were taken at other separator boxes located on the terminal. The other two samples were taken from streams which the separator box that was originally sampled empties into. These results are also enclosed.
In an effort to obtain a better understanding of the problem, we are continuing to sample various locations at the terminal. Once we have a better understanding of the problem, we hope to work out a practical solution. In order to obtain an acceptable solution, we would like to coordinate these efforts with your department. Signed Alexander Johnston, III, Colonel, Corps of Engineers, Director of Engineering and Housing. |
Jim Hayden |
| 4/29/1988 |
Site Added to Database |
Petroleum products. |
Louis Howard |
| 1/13/1989 |
Update or Other Action |
Initially complaint of Texaco Tank Farm small culvert release. Army people checked facility oil/water separator and talked with Butler Aviation and Texaco. They could not find any evidence of a spill or oily runoff. |
Jim Hayden |
| 4/25/1989 |
Update or Other Action |
Statement of work for removal and disposal of petroleum contaminated soil encountered during UST system removals/new UST installation. Scope assumes that only five cubic yards of contaminated soil will be encountered, except as otherwise noted in the UST Schedule. Allow fifteen working days after excavation at Fort Richardson and DESC Anchorage Terminal sites for the Army to sample and test the POL contaminated soil stockpile, prepare paperwork for MOA for soil disposal at their landfill. The purpose of the testing is to determine eligibility for soil disposal at the landfill.
Haull alll MOA ineligible soil to the government POL-contaminated soil storage area at Fort Richardson for disposal by the government. Assume that there will be no MOA ineligible POL-contaminated soil present. UST Cleaning Stations: The following UST cleaning stations (including steam and oil water separator) are authorized for use: Fort Richardson - Bldg. 704 Exterior Wash Facility.
Site# (bldg.) 20501-Slop fuel, ID# 610 300 gallon UST a.k.a. the Pump Building. Existing UST floated to the ground surface. Assume 25 cubic yards of POL-contaminated soil. Site# 20517-Slop fuel, ID# 607 3000 gallon UST a.k.a. Valve Building. Assume 175 cubic yards of POL contaminated soil. |
Ron Klein |
| 5/25/1989 |
Update or Other Action |
Directorate of Engineering and Housing (DEH) Fort Richardson fax Memo for Record sent to Ron Klein. RE: Anchorage Terminal Concrete Sump Tank Closures (#612 bldg. 616 2,500 gallons and #613 bldg. 613 2,500 gallons both slop tanks). On 25 May 1989, Mr. Ron Klein of the Alaska Department of Environmental (ADEC) was contacted. He was informed that DEH Fort Richardson was in the process of closing the concrete sump tanks (one that serviced tanks 616 and 617 and another one that serviced tanks 618 and 619).
DEH stated that these tanks were to be cleaned and filled with an inert solid material in accordance with 40 CFR 280.70. DEH also informed ADEC of the existence of contaminated soils surrounding the tanks and asked how much soil DEH should remove from around the tanks.
ADEC's general guidance for tank removals was to dig down to the bottom of the tanks or until you hit ground water. Since this project does not involve a tank removal, it was agreed no further excavation, beyond that necessary to accomplish the work being performed for the tank decommissioning, was necessary. ADEC did recommend DEH sample the bottom of the excavtion, document all work, and remediate any contamination under the current ongoing Installation Restoration Program (IRP) project.
Contaminated soils excavated at the site must not be placed back into the hole. Clean materials should be used to back fill the area. ADEC also expressed a desire to inspect the tank excavation, but has not contacted DEH as to when ADEC will be able to make the site visit. On May 31, 1989 Mr. Ron Klein and Ms. Jennifer Roberts of ADEC inspected the site. |
Ron Klein |
| 5/25/1989 |
Update or Other Action |
Memo for the Record by 6th Infantry Division Fort Richardson for DFSP-Anchorage. Subject: Anchorage Terminal Concrete Sump Tank Closures. On 25 MAY 89 Mr. Ron Klien of the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) was contacted. He was informed that we were in the process of clos1ng the concrete sump tanks (one that serviced tanks 616 and 617 and another one that serviced tanks 618 and 619). I also informed him that these tanks were to be cleaned
and filled with an inert material in accordance with 40 CFR 280.70. I also informed him of the existence contaminated soils surrounding the tanks and asked him how much soil we should
remove around the tanks.
His general guidance for tank removals was to dig down to the bottom of the tanks or until you. hit groundwater. Since this project does not involve a tank removal, it was agreed that no
further excavation, beyond that necessary to accomplish the work being perform for the tank decommissioning, was necessary. He did recommended we sample the bottom of the excavation, document all work, and remediate any contamination under the current, ongoing Installation Restoration Program (IRP) Project. Contaminated soils excavated at the site must not be placed back into the hole. Clean materials should be used to back fill the area. He also expressed a desire to inspect the tank excavation, but has not contacted us as to when he'll be able to make a site visit. On May 31, 1989, Mr. Klien and Ms. Roberts inspected the site.
Signed Beth Rodigari. |
Ron Klein |
| 9/25/1989 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
ADEC letter to ARMY Colonel Edwin R. Ruff, Director of Engineering and Housing, HQ, 6th I.D. (Light), RE: Second Draft IRP Joint Resources Project: Fort Richardson, Fort Wainwright, Fort Greely, Alaska. The Anchorage-Western District Office has been reviewing sections of the Woodward-Clyde Consultants second draft. The District has confined our review to the Anchorage Fuel Terminal and the Fort Richardson Fire Training Pits (see file number 2102.38.004.10 Landfill Fire Training Pit Area), as these areas are under our regulatory jurisdiction. The Roosevelt Road Transmitter Site (see file number 2102.38.001.01 Roosevelt Road Transmitter OU-A) review has been referred to Max Schwenne, ADEC SCRO and U.S. E.P.A. The Fort Wainwright and Fort Greely sites have been referred to ADEC's Northern District Office.
In general this report is poorly written and uncohesive. It is very difficult to locate information and data. It is frustrating to do a technical review of the draft due to the poor quality of the report. The following comments address the report writing and format:
1) The report is extremely disjointed and is not cohesive. Frequently, the report makes references to information that is not included in the report or must be tracked down in other sections of the report.
2) There are references to graphs, tables, charts, and figures throughout the report. None of these visual aids are located close to the written information that explains their function. It is quite difficult to retrace the reference to the visual aid when all the charts, tables, graphs, and figures are at the end of the section and not included within the narrative.
3) The report refers to other sources of information for data and then does not include these sources within the report or appendices. An example is Figure 4-3 Location of Borings. This figure shows numerous U.S. Army Corps of Engineers borings, but the report presents none of the information gained from these borings. It is vital that complete information be included in the report so that a comprehensive technical review can be done.
4) The general layout of the report is very unorganized and confusing. In general there is a lack of organization in the layout and even the organization within the sections is poor.
The department requests that the Army provide it with an improved technical report for our review (and comment). |
Jennifer Roberts |
| 1/1/1990 |
Update or Other Action |
In 1990, two 10,000 barrel underground storage tanks (USTs) were to be replaced with two 25,000 barrel above ground tanks. Public concern expressed about vapor emissions from above ground tanks. |
Louis Howard |
| 1/26/1990 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
EPA comment letter sent to Army RE: Anchorage Terminal Project, draft Sampling/Analysis, QC/QA plan and Subsurface Exploration Plan. The following is in response to the Army's request of January 24, 1990 for comments regarding the proposed work at the Anchorage Terminal, Project WAPL-D-001. Page 2-19, January 11, 1982-The area surrounding the transformer spill should be sampled for the presence of PCBs. The 6th Infantry, COE, or the contractor should undertake a records search to verify the type of transformer oil used prior to any field sampling.
In addition, if the transformer in question, or any other transformers, on site contain PCB oils, the facility should refer to the PCB regulations (40 CFR 761) for compliance requirements. If the area surrounding the spill site is contaminated with PCB oil, the area would need to be cleaned in accordance to the existing PCB Spill Cleanup Policy.
Page 4-8 Groundwater: It is EPA's understanding that the CHEVRON Bulk Facility located adjacent to the AFT also has a established monitoring well network. The contractor should be directed to tie into this monitoring network if possible.
Lastly, as an active facility, EPA recommends that your office or the determined appropriate office, review the compliance requirements for the Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plan (40 CFR 112) and the Underground Storage Tank rules (40 CFR 280, 281). |
Jennifer Roberts |
| 1/28/1990 |
Update or Other Action |
Sampling/analysis and quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) plans for the proposed assessment work at the Defense Fuels Center, Port of Anchorage were received for review by ADEC. No copy in ADEC project file. |
Louis Howard |
| 5/18/1990 |
Update or Other Action |
Anchorage Times: Tank Farm fuels blufftop park fears.
A tiny plot of U.S. Army land sought by a Government Hill neighborhood group as a tourist
overlook may be dangerously close to leaking jet fuel tanks that regularly spew highly volatile
fumes, Army and state officials say. The group for three years has pushed to develop the half-acre tract as a spot where residents and tourists could get a view of the Anchorage port and Cook Inlet.
But military officials say they fear visitors could touch off an explosion or come in contact with fuel-contaminated soil. They want the project delayed. A handful of Government Hill
residents last year, with the help of Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, persuaded the Army to lease the land to the city for five years.
The proposed park is surrounded on three sides by a 100-acre tank farm where 28 tanks are used to store highly flammable JP4 jet fuel. Fuel is piped daily to two underground storage tanks less than 150 feet from the proposed park, and fumes are vented into the air as the tanks fill, the U.S. Air Force said. The tank farm now is surrounded by a high barbed wire-topped fence. The Air Force last year took over management of the farm from the Army.
Lt. Col. Robert Dreyer, commander of the Defense Fuel Supply Center, Defense Fuel Region-Alaska, on May 7 wrote Anchorage parks officials urging a delay until the Air Force can assess the potential for a catastrophic explosion and check soil contamination from past fuel leaks.
"We feel that with that the day-to-day fueling operations, the continued risk of fuel contamination, and the uncontrolled nature of the use of the scenic overlook park, the uses of these two parcels of land are not compatible," Dreyer wrote. Dreyer could not be reached Thursdy for comment |
Jennifer Roberts |
| 5/22/1990 |
Update or Other Action |
Anchorage Times May 22, 1990. Defense Dept. Says proposed park too close to fuel. Putting a park next to the fuel terminal creates the potential for an explosion, McCoy said. The depot holds about 14 million gallons of gasoline, diesel oil and jet fuel.
When the tanks are refilled, fumes escape through vents. A cigarette or open flame downwind might set it off. "It's not so much that there is a risk, but that there has been no analysis of the risk, " McCoy said. But the Army did an informal risk assessment before leasing the land to the city, according to Maj. George Lennon. Fort Richardson spokesman. It is doing a more technical one now as part of the process of turning management of the fuel depot over to the defense agency. "To have that kind of accident is near impossible," Lennon said. "The park
would be in the buffer zone, (around the tanks) not in the danger zone."
Still, red-lettered signs posted on the depot fence along Bluff Road say "Positively No Smoking." Lennon said such perimeter signs are routine, but do indicate the fence borders a
danger zone. |
Jennifer Roberts |
| 6/4/1990 |
Interim Removal Action Approved |
Underground storage tank was removed at Army Anchorage terminal. Contaminated soil was removed from excavation site and stockpiled on site. Excavation zone inspected and large amounts of contamination was found. Entire terminal is suspected to be contaminated with petroleum, oil and lubricants (POL) products and entire terminal will be addressed in the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS). Contaminated soil was used for backfill of excavation. |
Louis Howard |
| 7/3/1990 |
Update or Other Action |
Army sent letter to ADEC. During the week of June 4, 1990, a UST was removed from the Anchorage Terminal. The contaminated soil was excavated and removed from the excavation site and stockpiled at the terminal. The excavation zone was inspected after the tank was removed and large amounts of contamination was encountered.
The Anchorage Terminal is suspected to be highly contaminated by POL products. The entire terminal is in the process of a RI/FS to determine the extent and amounts of contamination. This site will be addressed in this report and methods of remediation will be explored. As discussed with Cristal Fosbrook Cathy Scott and Jennifer Roberts, on Friday June 15, 1990, the Army is putting the contaminated soil back into the excavation zone, and it will be addressed by the RI/FS and the entire site will be remediated in one process.
The Army feels that by backfilling the contaminated hole with clean soil, it would be creating a large amount of newly contaminated soil. The terminal, as ADEC knows, is on a hill and all contamination uphill will migrate through this clean fill and cause this soil to become contaminated. Signed John Toenes for Edwin Ruff, Colonel, U.S. Army-Director of Engineering and Housing. |
Jennifer Roberts |
| 7/23/1990 |
Site Visit |
Ken Rogowski of ADEC performed an initial inspection of the Defense Fuels Center at the Port of Anchorage. Report in file dated 8/28/90. |
Louis Howard |
| 8/18/1990 |
Update or Other Action |
Anchorage Times August 18, 1990. City Renews Plans for Park near fuel tanks. The city has decided to move ahead with plans to build a small overlook park on the edge of a Government Hill tank farm, despite concerns the lot may be contaminated and is dangerously close to tanks containing volatile jet fuel.
The city parks department this month signed off on a plan to remove the 10-foot high chain link fence that separates the tank farm from a residential neighborhood and reconstruct it around the proposed half-acre park, said Connie Jones, city parks director. "We're simply doing some preliminary work," Jones said Friday. "Right now, we're not talking about doing anything
more than moving the fence."
But one resident who opposed the project from the start is angry about the city's plan.
Bob Morgan. a retired Air Force fuels supervisor who said he has worked on the tank farm,
said he has tried to stop the plan but no one will listen. He said he has tried to contact Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens but a secretary keeps rebuffing his efforts. Stevena was instrumental in obtaining the city's lease.
"I don't like it at all," Morgan said. "if for some reason you get a fire going up there, it could go into one of those tanks and blow that off. I don't know, I'm between the devil and the deep blue sea." |
Jennifer Roberts |
| 9/26/1990 |
Update or Other Action |
INTERIM GUIDANCE FOR SURFACE & GW CLEANUP LEVELS SEPTEMBER 26, 1990: Interim cleanup guidance for contaminated surface & GW remediation is necessary to ensure that consistent cleanup levels are being applied by ADEC 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 ADEC based on site-specific conditions. Staff should be aware that if a facility is regulated under RCRA, that RCRA corrective action & cleanup standards should enter into development of final site cleanup levels. GW should be cleaned up to levels not exceeding the more stringent of the final State or Federal Maximum Contaminant levels (MCLs) for Organic & Inorganic Chemicals. If final MCLs have not been adopted for a contaminant, then GW 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 & final Federal MCLs are specified in 40 CFR 141 & 142. Proposed Federal MCLs are specified in the May 22, 1989, Federal Register Vol. 54, No. 97, pages 22155 - 22157 & the July 25, 1990, Federal Register Vol. 55, No. 143, pages 30408 - 30448. Appendix I provides a summary listing of State & Federal Final & Proposed MCLs for selected organic & inorganic contaminants.
For organic & 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 & compounds which have toxic effects on aquatic organisms or toxic & carcinogenic effects on humans.
If GW is being used as a drinking water source & 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 & 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 & inorganic chemicals, as specified above. Under the authority of 18 AAC 70.020, surface waters important to the growth & 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 ADEC is performed & 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 ADEC must make based on results of a quantitative risk assessment & 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 & environmental risks. Specific components of the risk assessment should include an exposure assessment, toxicity assessment, risk characterization, & 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 SF Sites. A site specific risk assessment procedure must be prepared by the RP & submitted to ADEC for review & approval prior to conducting a risk assessment. The RP, at ADEC's discretion, must agree to reimburse ADEC for expenses incurred by ADEC if it chooses to contract for a risk assessment review. |
Louis Howard |
| 10/25/1990 |
Update or Other Action |
Letter to ADEC from W.E. Goode Chief, EQ Div. Directorate of Facilities Mgt. DLA. Amended registration forms for USTs at Anchorage, Fairbanks, Whittier [facilities] whose administration and ownership we assumed from the U.S. Army last year. |
Ron Klein |
| 11/3/1990 |
Update or Other Action |
Anchorage Times. November 3, 1990. Govt. Hill residents fuming over tank farm vapors. "Basically, we want to know if the tanks are venting things that make you sick and whether or not they are explosive," said resident Peg Mentele. People had complained over the years of a rancid smell coming from the tanks, reported to be 40 to 5O years old.
Neighbors asked officials how an area unsafe for use by visitors as a park could be safe (or residents who walk in their yards every day. This summer the municipality canceled construction of Overlook Park, said Linda Weiford, chairwoman of the environmental concerns subcommittee in the community council.
The Parks and Recreation Department put aside a $33,000 state grant for the park on advice from the Defense Fuel Supply Center, the military agency operating the tank farm. 'They told me it would not be advisable to put in the park unless there was a formal risk
analysis of the area done first," said Connie Jones, city director of Parks and Recreation.
At the time, fuel center officials were concerned two tanks closest to the proposed park holding highly volatile fuel could explode. "JP4 (the fuel) is one of the most hazardous fuels because it can flash at any temperature," said Jon Sandstedt, environmental engineer at the DEC in Juneau.
The Fuel Supply Center felt the current homes in the neighborhood were safe (rom the
tanks because they are far enough away. But a park in the area would "push the boundary too close," said Lt. Col. Robert Dreyer, commander of the fuel center. |
Louis Howard |
| 11/27/1990 |
Site Ranked Using the AHRM |
Initial ranking. |
Louis Howard |
| 12/22/1990 |
Update or Other Action |
USATHAMA Property Report: Whittier Anchorage Pipeline dated 12/22/1990 for property number 2876. Name of respondee: Jack Waltee Facility Manager for 15 years. Comments Maintained and operated by Petroleum Directorate. Exclusive use by Defense Logistics Agency since October 1989. Anchorage Fuel Terminal in operation since 1940's. Pipeline handles fuel for various remote federal facilities, Elmendorf AFB, and Fort Richardson. Non-polychlorinated biphyl (PCB) army-owned transformers on Anchorage Fuel Terminal and Whittier Terminal. |
Louis Howard |
| 9/25/1991 |
Enforcement Action |
Joe Sautner issued letter with compliance order by consent (COBC) to W.E. Goode Chief Environmental Quality Division for Directorate of Facilities Management. The order is for the Anchorage Fuel terminal facility. The order is for the Oil Discharge and Contingency Plan submittals. Requested that the signed compliance order by consent (COBCs) be returned to the Department twenty days after Defense Logistics Agency receives the letter. |
Louis Howard |
| 11/12/1991 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
ADEC sent Cristal Fosbrook (US ARMY) letter RE: Draft Project Report for the Anchorage Fuel Terminal "Site Investigation Followup". 2.3.1 The area of the PCB Spill is not noted on maps or elsewhere in the text. Figure 3-1 No site topography is given. This is crucial for site characterization and analysis of various pollutant pathways. 4.2 The meaning of "...most opportunistic location for ...well installation" is unclear. 4.4 Need to elaborate further on well placement i.e. which wells for background and other stated purposes. 5.2.3 Need to elaborate on "CORPS modification of EPA Method 8015" |
Jennifer Roberts |
| 12/27/1991 |
Update or Other Action |
ADEC letter to Colonel Robert Dryer DFS Center DFR-Alaska RE: Port of Anchorage Cleanup Project. ADEC requests your organization's continued support of the cooperative effort to investigate and cleanup Port area petroleum contamination. The Anchorage District Office and Southcentral Regional Office have identified Anchorage's Port, Ship Creek and defense facility area as a region which merits special attention. Hazardous substance contamination within the area poses a risk to the aquatic resources of Ship Creek and Cook Inlet. The contamination also is a damper on future development in the area.
The department has taken action to initiate responsible party contamination investigations and cleanups in the area. The department negotiated a Federal Facility Agreement with Elmendorf
Air Force Base and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to implement a Superfund contamination assessment and cleanup. We are also working with the EPA to initiate a Superfund assessment and cleanup of the Standard Steel site adjacent to Ship Creek.
The department is interested in working with potentially responsible parties to initiate action through the Port Area Petroleum Users Group (PUG) . The cooperative effort embodied by the PUG should facilitate a cost-effective investigation and cleanup of a problem which is not limited to property boundaries. The department would like to avoid a compliance strategy which may necessitate negotiating individual Compliance Orders or using other approaches provided for under Title 46 of Alaska Statutes. The PUG approach will simplify department oversight of PRP activities and will facilitate close communication and coordination between PRPs and the department while implementing a cost-effective investigation and cleanup which is protective of the environment.
We would like to stress that the department expects to be provided with full disclosure of any and all contamination information developed individually by PUG members or contractors on behalf of the PUG. In addition, the department strongly recommends that the PUG develop and implement a community relations plan to keep its neighbor's informed. It has been our experience that failures to elicit and address community concerns and failure to keep the
community informed can lead to unnecessary delays and controversy. The department is ready to assist the PUG in developing a community relations strategy.
The Anchorage District Office will be responsible for managing the port cleanup project for the department. Scott Bailey will serve as project manager under the supervision of Bill H. Lamoreaux, Anchorage District Manager. All technical correspondence, inquiries, and reports should be directed to Mr. Bailey. Ron Klein will continue to represent the region in working with PUG members to facilitate negotiations and the PUG approach. |
Ron Klein |
| 1/16/1992 |
Site Number Identifier Changed |
Old# 88210111901. New# 88210011901. Leaking underground tanks. |
Louis Howard |
| 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 |
| 6/19/1992 |
Update or Other Action |
Defense Fuel Supply staff sent letter to Jennifer Roberts about a "Request for Opinion on Acceptability of Land Parcel for Proposed Park". Government Hill council has been trying to secure a parcel of land within the confines of the DOD operated Anchorage terminal. DFSC has offered an alternate site to that originally proposed. The new site offers nearly double the "comfort zone" to the nearest large fuel tanks, unobstructed view of the Mt. McKinley and the Port of Anchorage, and a larger parcel that originally proposed.
The Government Hill council has also accepted the alternate site. The only concern of the Corps was at bore hole 101 which showed 0.4 mg/L ethylbenzene and 1.5 mg/L benzene at 29 feet below ground surface. In DFSC's opinion, this contamination poses little threat to park users or to personnel who may develop the park through excavation activities, etc. However, before DFSC proceeds further, would ADEC please provide its opinion on this subject. Assuming ADEC agrees with DFSC's low risk assessment, we will proceed with the park issue. |
Jennifer Roberts |
| 7/27/1992 |
Update or Other Action |
Jennifer Roberts was sent a letter from the Government Hill Community Council regarding the Defense Fuel June 19, 1992 letter regarding ADEC's opinion of the environmental information on the site of the proposed port overlook park in Government Hill. Charles Wolhorth President of the council states that after reviewing the information provided to ADEC by Defense Fuels, nothing deters the council from their original desire to have the park project go ahead on the site. The risk posed by the soil or groundwater contamination 29 feet below the surface does not seem large enough to change the council's long standing support for the project.
The council is wholeheartedly in favor of this park, voted in favor of at the site, and want it built as soon as possible. If ADEC has no health or safety reason to deny Lieutenant Colonel Dreyer ADEC's positive opinion about the park site, please communicate your positive opinion to him as soon as possible. The council is still in hopes of seeing the park built during the summer of 1992, after 2 years of delays, but to do so we need to expedite this process. |
Jennifer Roberts |
| 11/4/1992 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Staff provided comments on the remedial action workplans for the Port of Anchorage Facility. Staff requested information on the present and future remedial efforts at the site. Each report to contain at a minimum: description of the work performed during the past 1992 field season, problems encountered along with corrective actions implemented, projected and or scheduled work for the next field season, copies of the laboratory/monitoring data at the site. Response to ADEC's request within 21 days of receipt of the letter. |
Scott Bailey |
| 11/19/1992 |
Update or Other Action |
Rescind letter sent to Army since the facility is in the jurisdiction of the Anchorage District Office, ignore the November 4, 1992 letter. Call Scott Bailey at 349-7755. |
Scott Bailey |
| 12/4/1992 |
Meeting or Teleconference Held |
DLA sent letter for meeting on December 8, 1992. Agenda items: Pollution Prevention actions at terminals, SPCC plans-status and currency, DFSC funding of site cleanups, Clarification on project management-DFSC vs. CORPS, future direction of DFSC in the Environmental Arena, Actions by the PUG concerning site assessment at the Port of Anchorage and ADEC assessment of those actions, Response to spills-funding, jurisdiction and on-scene players, Air monitoring-Government Hill community. |
Louis Howard |
| 12/8/1992 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Staff sent letter to DLA regarding the Coordination of ADEC reviews of DERA and Operations and Maintenance (O&M) work at the Defense Fuel's Sites in the Anchorage District. For site work with DERA funding, point of contact to be Louis Howard. For site work with Operations and Maintenance (O and M) funding, Scott Bailey will be the point of contact. Two sets of documents are requested for all work (DERA/O&M) and staff will coordinate on who will review and provide comments to DLA. |
Louis Howard |
| 12/18/1992 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Staff sent a letter on the review of the acceptability of land parcel for a proposed park. Soil data generated from modified headspace readings are for soil gas and are qualitative and not quantitative, but do give a good indication of contamination and its presence at a sampling depth. Since the exposure pathway from ingestion is not available for this project at this period of time, then it can be said to be a low or non existent risk from the contamination present at this site.
The use of Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) exposure levels is not appropriate to calculate human health risk. The acceptable sources DEC recognizes for calculating human health risk are the Environmental Protection Agency's IRIS (integrated risk information system) or WEAST (health effects
assessment summary tables). OSHA exposure levels are based on exposure levels resulting in acute toxicity or death and not for chronic exposure effects.
Inhalation is not considered an exposure pathway at this time since the levels of contamination are at a considerable depth where volatilization of benzene (1.5 mg/L) would not be considered a factor in whether or not construction of the park would occur.
It is ADEC's understanding that the development of the park will not involve major excavation to the contaminated zone. However, if there is any significant contaminated soil uncovered through excavation activities, then the proper stockpiling, disposal, and investigation actions under 18 AAC 78 Underground Storage Tank regulations will be need to be followed as well as the calculations for the associated risks presented by the contaminated materials. ADEC requests prior notification of at least 30 days before any planned major excavations at the depth where benzene contamination is present. ADEC hereby gives approval for the proposed park site mentioned in the DFSC letter dated June 19, 1992 contingent upon the preceding conditions mentioned above. |
Jennifer Roberts |
| 1/13/1993 |
Update or Other Action |
EPA letter to US Army Fort Richardson (Colonel R. Wrentmore). The letter was to inform the Army that a review has been completed of the Anchorage Fuel Terminal Site Investigation Project Report. This was done in accordance with 40 CFR Part 300 Appedix A, which is EPA's Hazard Ranking System used to evaluate federal facilities for inclusion on the National Priorities Listing (NPL).
From our evaluation, EPA has determined that the facility could score high enough to be proposed for inclusion on the NPL. Therefore, additional information is needed in order for EPA to complete evaluation of the site. Specifically, a SIte Inspection should be completed at the facility. Soil samples (surficial and subsurface) should be collected from the source areas to characterize the type of contamination present and delineate the size of the wetlands located near sources. Background soil and sediment samples should be collected to determine natural background conditions for the area. All samples should be analyzed for the complete EPA Target Compound List (TCL) (organic) and Target Analyted List (inorganic). Data generated should be equivalent to the Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) level 4 data quality. Please include the information requested on Enclosure A in the final Site Inspection Report.
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 (1/23/1987) establishes individual federal facilities as the responsible party to provide sufficient information for EPA to conduct an HRS evaluation. As such, EPA requests you (the Army) to provide EPA with the above information within 180 days of receipt of this letter. |
Jennifer Roberts |
| 6/18/1993 |
Update or Other Action |
CORPS sent in the groundwater sampling and analysis plan for the site. 21 wells to be sampled and analyzed for VOCs (8020), GRO (8015M), DRO (8100), and Lead (7421). Purpose of the investigation is to: collect and analyze groundwater samples to estimate the extent of and degree of petroleum contamination in the groundwater, log physical parameters of the groundwater at each well, record external measurements of the wells at the terminal |
Louis Howard |
| 4/21/1994 |
Update or Other Action |
ADEC letter to Peter Hellstrem Chairman of the Port Users Group (PUG) Technical Committee MAPCO Alaska Petroleum Inc. RE: Determination that use of the Port area shallow groundwater as drinking water need not be considered as a potential exposure pathway for risk assessment development. Based on the information presented in the final PUG Area Perched Water Determination, Port of Anchorage, the department finds that human ingestion by drinking water from the shallow perched aquifer in the Port Area need not be considered as an exposure pathway for the purposes of developing a risk assessment.
Please note that this determination applies only to the shallow Port-Area groundwater body described in the March 9, 1994 "Draft Site-Wide Groundwater Monitoring Report, Port of Anchorage, Petroleum Users Group" and in other documents on file with this office (Anchorage District Office).
The department may rescind the determination under the following conditions: 1) if facts and circumstances on which the determination was based are found to be significantly different than presented, whether or not intentionally misrepresented, so that the determination is not valid (for example, if a previously unknown drinking water well is found to be in use within or adjacent to the impacted POA area, and/or if circumstances change so that the determination is no longer valid [for example, if a drinking water well is drilled in the Port area such that contamination from the PUG/POA could impact that well]).
The department considered the following evidence in making its determination that drinking water from the shallow aquifer is not a plausible pathway:
1) the generally poor water quality in the Port area (water in four of seven monitoring wells tested was brackish),
2) the availability and historic use of the piped municipality water supply,
3) the high cost of using water from the shallow aquifer for a drinking water source relative to the expense of using the available piped supply,
4) existing controls on land use and developement in the Port area,
5) results of a poll of all Port of Anchorage tenants by PUG Technical Committee Chair Peter Hellstrom confirming that none of the Port area tenants intend to use the shallow aquifer as a drinking water source, and
6) hydrogeologic considerations outlined in the EMCON report.
Please note that the MOA standards for water well construction, as defined in Anchorage Municipal Code (AMC Chapter 15.55) only apply to private SINGLE-FAMILY dwellings, and therefore, have limited relevance with respect to possible use of the shallow aquifer. Other source wells, for example-those serving duplexes or restaurants, do not have to meet MOA minimum well depth requirements. Regulations governing Class A, B, C public drinking water sources appear to allow for the use of all aquifers, as well as surface waters. |
Eileen Olson |
| 9/6/1995 |
Update or Other Action |
Letter sent to HQ, US Army Alaska and Defense Fuels Office-Alaska re: Muldoon Area Residence Petroleum Contamination Source Identification and Response. Petroleum contaminated groundwater has been found in a drainage system at Mr. Clemente Aquino's home, 1911 Early View Drive, in Muldoon. The residence is located immediately adjacent to the Fort Richardson property boundary. The Army owns and the Defense Fuel Supply Center (DFSC) operated a petroleum pipeline which runs along the property line.
In a meeting with DFSC, EPA, Army and MOA on September 5, 1995, DFSC agreed to have its contractor take over pumping water and any petroleum from the Aquino's sump into an above ground holding tank, to empty the tank every four or five days, and to properly dispose of the pumped liquids at no cost to the home owner.
Six test pits to further characterize the property adjacent to the pipeline and between the pipeline and the Aquino residence will be dub. The pipeline has been empty and out of service for several years. ADEC requests documentation on the exact dates the pipeline from Indian to Anchorage/Ft. Richardson was taken out of service, when the product was removed, and the amount and type of any product that may remain in the pipeline. Teleconference is requested on September 7, to discuss the preliminary findings from the field work and the results of the continued pumping from the drainage system. A meeting is also requested with the Army on September 11, 1995 to discuss the results and decide on further actions. |
Louis Howard |
| 9/8/1995 |
Update or Other Action |
Shannon & Wilson on behalf of DFO-A sent in the preliminary chemical data reports and diesel range organics chromatograms for water/product samples from the 1911 Early View Drive sump and for the retain sample of pipeline product. The sump product is identified as a light mineral oil. It is the opinion of CT&E's technical director Mr. Stephen Ede, that the sump product and JP-8 retain sample are different products and the differences cannot be explained by the effects of age or weathering.
Neither the U.S. Army or Defense Fuels Office Alaska have used the Anchorage to Whittier Pipeline for light mineral oils. This pipeline has been used in the past as multiple fuel product line, carrying diesel fuel, automotive gasoline, JP-4, and JP-8. Since analytical results indicate that none of these products is the contaminant of concern, USARAK will consider this site closed upon receipt of the quality assurance/quality control package from CT&E.
Most likely source is a from the sump pump itself and not the pipeline. The pump seal had failed about a month before the site was reported. |
Louis Howard |
| 9/14/1995 |
Update or Other Action |
No. DACA85-1-95-81 Whittier-Anchorage P.O.L. Pipeline lease agreement filed with Commission on October 13, 1995 was executed on September 14, 1995, and is for lease of a pipeline system, "consisting of an eight (8) inch diameter pipeline for use, transportation, maintenance, repair and delivery of natural gas to rural areas South of, and from Anchorage to Whittier Alaska." The term of the lease agreement is 33 years commencing September 15, 1995 and ending September 14, 2028, however, it is revocable at will by the Secretary of the Army. In consideration for the lease, Alaska Pipeline Company (APLC) is required to pay, in advance, $76,000 per annum. Sanctions are imposed for late payment. According to Ms. Patty Moore, Reality Specialist for the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers (COE), the lease was competively advertised in local newspapers on several occasions during the month of August 1995. There were two respondents to the advertisements, namely APLC/ENSTAR and AIGC. The proposals were opened on September 5, 1995, and evaluated them. The COE and Army reviewed the proposals, and jointly determined that APLC/ENSTAR was the most responsive proposer. The pipeline was consequently leased to the applicants. The Army will be preparing an environmental assessment report which will document the amount of environmental damage which has occurred as a result of the Army's operation of the pipeline. It is stated in the agreement that the Army has retained its responsibility for environmental cleanup of damages resulting from its past use of the pipeline. |
Louis Howard |
| 4/4/1996 |
Update or Other Action |
ADEC SPAR Tanks and Tank Farms Section sent DLA EQ Division a comment letter RE: intended closures of DFSC bulk fuel storage facilities at Anchorage and Whittier. Your letter also requests that the Department waive the requirements of 18 AAC 75.005 -- 18 AAC 75.090 for a few months beyond the January 1, 1997 deadline for the Whittier facility in order to facilitate complete deactivation of the tanks. Subsequent to your request for a waiver the Department has learned from DFSC staff in Anchorage that defueling of the Whittier terminal will begin in the first week of April and is expected to be completed by the end of August. The waiver was intended as cushion in the event there was a disruption of the train schedule and deactivation of the faciiity could not be accomplished before January 1, 1997.
In accordance with 18 AAC 75.015(c) the Department may waive a requirement of 18 AAC 75.005 -- 18 AAC 75.090 provided an equivalent level of protection is provided. However, DFSC letter has requested additional time to defuel the facility, and has not proposed any equivalent level of protection. Therefore a waiver could not be granted at this time.
In the event it is not possible to deactivate the DFSCNVhittier facility before January I , 1997 under the provisions of 18 AAC 75.015(b) DFSC may request approval for an Alternate Compliance Schedule (ACS) for meeting the requirements of the referenced regulations.
Be advised, once deactivated the facilities will have to meet the requirements of a new installation in the event of any reactivation effort. Additionally, ownership of the DFSC plans for these facilities cannot be transferred once deactivated. Furthermore, it will be necessary to subject any application for a plan approval for these facilities to the Alaska Coastal Management Program (ACMP) review process. Signed Ted Moore for Larry Katkin, Manager, Terminals and Tank Farms. |
Louis Howard |
| 5/2/1996 |
Site Number Identifier Changed |
Changed workplan from X0 to 01. |
Louis Howard |
| 5/13/1996 |
Update or Other Action |
David Allen sent DLA DFSP Ft. Belvoir VA ref. Fac. Id. 1063. RE: concerning your letter of October 31, 1995. Thank you on your appraisal of our database as grossly inaccurate. We have serveral USTs on the database up for which we have no supporting documentation. We also have several USTs that various people registered. We have enclosed copies of the registration forms for your review.
To clarify DEC's registration requirements, we define an UST "... including the volume of the underground pipes, is 10 percent of more beneath the surface of the ground." A UST with field constructed tanks is exempt from the State of Alaska 18 AAC 78 regulations. Spill tanks are not regulated IF they do NOT contain petroleum product for more than 24 hours and currently contain de-minimis amounts of a petroleum product.
To complete your request to remove USTs from our database, please document your statement that the listed tank is deferred from registration and why, e.g.: is an Aboveground storage tank (AST), or the tank does not exist, using the form provided in file 1063.xls on the enclosed disk. Attach your signature and return the original to Dave Allen at ADEC. Upon receipt and approval, ADEC will remove those tanks from the UST database. |
David Allen |
| 5/13/1996 |
Update or Other Action |
ADE letter to DLA RE: your letter of October 31, 1985. Thank you for your appraisal of our data base as grossly inaccurate. We have several underground storage tanks (UST) on the data base up for which we have no supporting documentation. We also have several UST's that various people registered. I have enclosed copies of the registration forms for your review. To clarify DEC's registration requirements, we define an underground storage tank
" ... including the volume of the underground pipes, is 10 percent of more beneath the surface of the ground." A UST with field constructed tanks is exempt from the State of Alaska 18 AAC 78 regulations. Spill tanks are not regulated if they do not contain a petroleum product for more than 24 hours and currently contain de-minimis amounts of a petroleum product.
To complete your request to remove UST's from our data base, please document your statement that the listed tank is deferred from registration and why, is an AST, or the tank does not exist, using the form provided in file 1063.xls on the enclosed disk. Attach your signature and return to the original to me at the above address. Upon receipt I and approval, I will remove those tanks from the UST data base. |
David Allen |
| 7/25/1996 |
Site Number Identifier Changed |
Combined 9221X118201 into this Reckey. |
Louis Howard |
| 8/12/1996 |
Update or Other Action |
Letter to Defense Fuel Supply Center DFSP Cameron Station Alexandria, VA for Facility ID# 1063 Tank ID#616 RE: requirement to close UST that has been temporarily out of service for more than 12 months (Tanks 803, 804 ASTs and not regulated Tank 606-Field constructed tank not regulated). The purpose of this letter is to thank you for replying to the Notice of Violation (NOV) that you recently received from ADEC. The NOV, dated June 28, 1996, outlines requirements necessary to properly decommission an UST which has been temporarily out of service for more than 12 months. Based on the information you provided the ADEC has determined that the subject tank(s) is hereby: Not Subject to Violation. Based on information you provided, ADEC has determined that you were inadvertantly sent a NOV letter (June 28, 1996). We apologize for this error and any inconvenience it may have caused you. |
Ron Klein |
| 8/19/1996 |
Update or Other Action |
Letter from DLA DFSC Ft. Belvoir VA to UST Program D. Allen. The DFSC is submitting the updated notification forms and diskette for USTs located at DFSP Anchorage and Whittier. The DFSP Anchorage Terminal only operates one UST Tank #20-627, that is required to be registered. All other tanks listed for the facility are either: spill containment tanks, process flow through tnaks, ASTs or field constructed cut and cover bulk storage tanks. All are deferred/exempt from registration requirements. For your information, DFSC will be closing both terminals later this year. Certified UST contractors will be directed to complete closure action on these facilities if required. |
David Allen |
| 9/26/1996 |
Update or Other Action |
Dave Allen received updated notification forms from DLA DFSC W.E. Goode. The DFSP Anchorage facility has only one UST, Tank 20-627 which require registration. All other tanks are either: spill containment tanks, process flow through tanks, aboveground tanks or field constructed cut and cover bulk storage tanks. All are deferred from registration requirements.
For your information DFSC will be closing out Anchorage terminal this year. Certified UST contractors will be directed to complete closure action on these facilities if required. All USTs at the Anchorage facility (registered and non-registered) will be closed following ADEC guidelines. Shannon & Wilson Inc. soon will be submitting closure notices on four non-registered bulk underground tanks at the Anchorage site. |
David Allen |
| 12/13/1996 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
ADEC sent DFS Center a letter RE: Draft Site Characterization Work Plan Defense Fuel Supply Point-Anchorage November 1996. ADEC requests further clarification on why a leaching model for petroleum is being proposed for the site if the groundwater is already shown to be contaminated with petroleum hydrocarbons.
Normally, one would do the leaching assessment to model the possibility of levels present in the soil would not cause contamination of the groundwater at a site. If there are areas at the facility where free product is present in: any wells, boreholes, and excavations, then DFSP will report to ADEC in the manner and at the times described in 18 AAC 78.240 (b). DFSP will remove all measurable free product encountered following parameters outlined in 18 AAC 78.240.
Numerous references are made to soil samples being above or below ADEC Category B Criteria. Use of Category B Criteria is not appropriate since there are groundwater impacts from petroleum hydrocarbons at the site as noted in the text throughout the document. Please note 18 AAC 78.3 15.(I). Soil Cleanup Levels states: "... soils at a site where groundwater has been impacted by petroleum leachate must meet soil cleanup levels for category A as established in Table E, Part B, unless an alternative cleanup level is approved under 18 AAC 78.3 10(a)(2)(C)"
ADEC requests information on whether or not any visible sheens were present on the surface of the water during the sampling of weir boxes in August 1996. If there were sheens present, then
please provide information on any initial abatement or corrective action implemented to contain the sheen (i.e. sorbent booms, skimmers, etc). Analytical results from Table 3 show detections of diesel range organics DRO) in all ten samples, ranging from 0.473 to 8.14 ppm. BTEX, detected in one sample (W5), exceeds water quality standards for fresh water use under 18 AAC 70. 18 AAC 70.020 Surface Water Quality Criteria Standards Table references specific standards for TAqH in the water column which may not exceed 15 ug/L. Total aromatic hydrocarbons (TAH) in the water column may not exceed 10 ug/L. The methods for analyzing TAqH (602 + xylenes and 610) and TAH (602) found in 18 AAC 70.020 (Water Quality Criteria Table note 8).
The text asserts that property management will return to the owner, the U.S. Army, and that the property will continue to be used as an industrial site. ADEC was notified by DFSC in March
1996 of a decision to close the Defense Fuel Support Points in Anchorage and Whittier. Please provide more information on the future industrial uses are anticipated for the Anchorage Support
Point site and whether it is envisioned if the future land use will involve recreational or other non-industrial uses. It should also be noted that a May, 1991 Municipality of Anchorage Department of Economic Development and Planning "Ship CreektWaterfkont Land Use Study" proposed portions of this area as a greenbelt for recreational, buffer and habitat use. The Characterization Report should summarize recent municipal studies or reports regarding nearby land use proposals. The report should also summarize current and proposed zoning restrictions for lands adjacent to the site.
The text indicates that analytical data from previous investigations for risk assessment purposes were summarized in Appendix C. But the Appendix C summary does not evaluate potential exposure of nearby residents to soil gas contaminants. An exposure assessment provided in the January 1992 Site Investigation Report by Ecology and Environment quantitatively evaluated this pathway to provide a preliminary estimate of the degree of risk to human health. ADEC requests further elaboration on whether or not the E&E exposure assessment data will be evaluated as part of this particular site characterization and to what extent. |
Louis Howard |
| 2/26/1997 |
Update or Other Action |
Kent Patrick-Riley (KPR) sent a letter to Peg Mentele of the Government Hill Community Council regarding an ADEC review of information on Cherry Hill Creek/Ditch. Cherry Hill Creek had been on the impaired waterbodies list prior to 1996. In spring of 1996, Division of Air and Water Quality removed it from the list of impaired water bodies list.
1) Extensive removal and control of contaminants had occurred since preparation of the list, therefore, pollution of the Creek had been significantly reduced.
2) Information had been obtained by Elmendorf Air Force Base to suggest that the Cherry Hill Ditch was a stormwater ditch and not a "waterbody." It appeared clear that most of its course was a constructed channel, but it was somewhat unclear that the stretch running through the bluff area was constructed and not natural in origin. Two points lead ADEC to make its determination that this stretch was also constructed:
a) interpretation remarks on EPA aerial photographs indicated that the present channel down the bluff was not the historical channel; and
b) a winter site visit and information from the Elmendorf AFB staff indicated that the bluff stretch ran through fill.
Is Cherry Hill Creek/Ditch a natural stream or constructed in origin? ADEC compared information which Peg had presented at the 1996 council meeting to its files. The comparison suggests that the interpretative information from the EPA aerial photos in our files may be incorrect. ADEC believe all of the parties are in agreement that other stretches of Cherry Hill Ditch/Creek are constructed channels and not natural watercourses.
Is Cherry Hill Creek/Ditch considered a "waterbody" or only a stormwater ditch?
ADEC reasons if part of the Cherry Hill Creek is natural in origin and has all the other characteristics of a stream then a stretch of it may be considered to be a "waterbody" and not solely a stormwater ditch. In addition to determine if the bluff segment is a natural stream, there is also the problem of reconciling that the water flow above the bluff is through a constructed ditch and the water flow below the bluff is through a storm sewer. This situation is highly infeasible (impracticable) and must be considered in resolving this question.
Is the water quality in Cherry Hill Creek/Ditch impaired?
For the past several years, EAFB has conducted extensive removal of pollutant sources basewide, including those which would impact Cherry Hill Creek/Ditch. For the past several years, they have also monitored the flows of the Cherry Hill Creek/Ditch. ADEC will review the monitoring data collected, particularly that obtained in the last year, to clarify what is known about the current water quality in the Creek/Ditch. Next step: Peg provided at the 1996 meeting that the bluff stretch of Cherry Hill Creek/Ditch may be a "waterbody" and not a stormwater ditch. In order to resolve this question, ADEC agreed to a follow-up meeting.
ADEC tentatively agreed to have it in late April, as that would provide time for gathering further information and also provide an opportunity to visit the site after the snow has melted. ADEC also agreed to invite the current and potential landowners adjacent to the Creek/Ditch. As ADEC is unsure of the ownership boundaries, we will work with the Army and Elmendorf staff to identify the landowners adjacent to the bluff segment and also to coordinate a site visit on their property. Signed Kent Patrick-Riley Watershed Protection. |
Kent Patrick-Riley |
| 3/5/1997 |
Update or Other Action |
ADEC staff sent a letter to Susanne DiPietro from the Government Hill Community Council. RE: February 7, 1997 comments on the draft Site Characterization Work Plan. The work plan is not considered by the department to be a proposed plan, but merely a site characterization plan on how Defense Fuels will conduct their site characterization. The site is an industrial use area and will be held up to those particular cleanup standards if Defense Fuels chooses to use a risk assessment approach to determine risk based cleanup levels. This is not to say that the future land use in the area will not change to something other than industrial land use. The decision to change any land use on the property resides with the land owner which in this case is the U.S. Army-Fort Richardson.
Any historical use that may have occurred on the land prior to becoming an industrial land use area does not have any significant part in determining cleanup levels or land use at this particular facility. It is reasonable to assume that likely future site uses may include either commerical/industrial uses or potential recreational uses. At this time, future onsite residential use appears to be unlikely. Both onsite and offsite recreationist will be evaluated as potential receptors (during the risk assessment). The department has requested any risk assessment performed at the facility consider nearby offsite residents as potential receptors. Again, thank you for your comments and interest in the site characterization work plan. |
Louis Howard |
| 3/12/1997 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
ADEC sent DFS Center a letter RE: Comment Resolution Site Characterization Plan. There are two areas which will require further development as the corrective action phase at the facility nears.
1) Granted groundwater was classified by ADEC staff to not be considered a pathway via human consumption in any risk assessment for the facility, it is reasonable to assume the groundwater eventually makes it to Cook Inlet proper. Ecological receptors may evenentually be affected by groundwater discharging into the Inlet. This pathway and the receptors will need to be addressed in any risk assessment conducted at the facility.
2) ADEC concurs the present land use will be industrial. However, the likelihood is high the future land use may involve a combination of industrial and light recreational use given the level of local community groups and municipality interest in obtaining access to the use of some of the property. As a result of this interest, it seems prudent to look at both industrial and recreational use scenarios in any risk assessment that is conducted for the facility. |
Louis Howard |
| 5/14/1997 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
DFS Center was sent a letter from ADEC RE: Draft Site Characterization Report Volumes I and II April 1997. The text states that MW20 was not sampled since it had several inches of free product (at a prior event) and had subsequently frozen after placing a sorbent sock in it. ADEC requests additional sampling be done and determine whether or not there is free product present in MW20 at this time since the weather is watermer and it is unlikely that the well would be frozen at this time.
Be aware that the 18 AAC 75 regulations are draft and therefore subject to change prior to being formally promulgated. The department's preference is for Defense Fuels to use those levels found therein as "to be considered" (TBCs) and not for determining absolute cleanup levels.
The text states the absence of fuel seeps near former UST 20-624 and the small amount of free product in MW20 leads to the conclusion that the quantity of product is small. ADEC requests additionaly groundwater investigation to prove or disprove this assumption by installing wells in or around UST 20-624 since the closes wells in the vicinity (MW10, MW13, and MW17) are inadequate to determine the extent of free product near UST 20-624. One monitoring well (MW20) does not adequately address the total extent of free product nor provide a solid basis for estimating total volume. |
Louis Howard |
| 5/20/1997 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Staff sent DFSP Center a letter RE: Draft proposal for product recovery beneath tank 20-624. Staff reminded DFSP Center of the 30 day review and comment period required by ADEC prior to field work being conducted. The document was faxed on May 20, 1997 and a followup phone call was received stating field work was commencing today. This is not acceptable to ADEC. The work plan does not address what criteria will be used to determine when the scrubber bucket or sorbent material have reached the end of their usefulness for removing petroleum hydrocarbons. ADEC requests BTEX, GRO, DRO analyses of the "treated" water at the manway or at weir box 4 be conducted at periodic intervals (i.e. a weekly basis) during the proposed free product recovery operation.
DFS Center should be aware that if the discharge of water from weir box 4 is directed into a surface water body (i.e.Ship Creek or Cook Inlet) that supports the growth and propagation of fish, shellfish, other aquatic life and wildlife, then there are stringent criteria as to maximum levels that can be allowed in the water (18 AAC 70.020. Protected Water Classes; Water Quality Criteria; and Water Quality Standards Table). |
Louis Howard |
| 5/21/1997 |
Update or Other Action |
Staff sent DFS Center a letter RE: Comment Resolution Meeting May 21, 1997 Draft Proposal for Product Recovery Beneath Tank 20-624 at DFSP dated May 9, 1997. After meeting and discussing with you concerning the full scope of the project, it appears the concerns with the contaminated soils and potentially contamianted water the department had was premature. THis project is more of a compliance issue for managing stormwater discharges and not a remedial or corrective action to an environmental problem (i.e. free product recovery). The soils encountered by excavation work for the drain trench have been sampled previously and were below the department's most stringent cleanup critieria and thus are suitable for reuse at the facility. |
Louis Howard |
| 6/23/1997 |
Site Characterization Report Approved |
ADEC sent letter to DFS Center RE: Response to Comments Site Characterization Report dated April 1997. ADEC considers the document final as is and to move forward with the submittal of a work plan for our review and comment prior to implementing corrective action and/or conducting a risk assessment at the facility. |
Louis Howard |
| 9/11/1997 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Staff sent comments to DFSP Center RE: Draft CSM DFS Point-Anchorage, Alaska. The text states that current and future land use will remain industrial after the property is closed and the conceptual site model (CSM) will be based on industrial only. ADEC does not concur and requests, at a minimum, the evaluation of a potential recreational land use scenario at DFS Point-Anchorage (DFSP-A) be included in the CSM and risk assessment.
Predicting the likelihood of future changes in land use can be uncertain. Anticipating which military facilities/installations may face closure in the future is beyond the scope of a "superfund" risk assessment. The recreational land use scenario is more likely to occur than residential land use scenario at DFSP-A given the prevelant surrounding land use of this highly industrialized area.
Including a recreational land use in the risk assessment does not dictate that DFSP-A will be cleaned up for recreational us on an area wide basis nor imply that recreational land use will occur. IN fact, the industrial alternative cleanup levels (yet to be determined) may be more stringent (i.e. more protective) than recreational cleanup levels depending on site-specific conditions and assummed exposure pathways. |
Louis Howard |
| 9/16/1997 |
Update or Other Action |
DFSC sent request for disposal of a stockpile at DFSP-Anchorage facility at 1217 Port Road. Tank 623 stockpile originated in November 1995 during closure assessment investigations related to Tanks: 20-621, 20-622, 20-623 and 20-624. With ADEC approval, the Tank 20-621 Stockpile was landspread on site after ASTs 20-611 through 20-614 were removed in June 1996. The hydrocarbon concentrations in the Tank 623 stockpile were above Category B matrix-based cleanup levels and were held in the long-term stockpile pending further site characterization and risk assessment study to develop site-specific risk-based alternative cleanup-levels. The stockpile will be disposed of off-site because the two-year life span of the stockpile will lapse before ACLs can be achieved.
DFSP proposes to dispose of the stockpile by low temperature thermal desorption at the Second Avenue Plant of Anchorage Soil Recycling (ASR) in Anchorage. Mr. Ron Johnson of ASR met at the site to confirm the feasibility of burning the stockpile. |
Louis Howard |
| 9/17/1997 |
Offsite Soil or Groundwater Disposal Approved |
ADEC sends a letter to DFSP Center approving the petition to dispose of a soil stockpile at DFSP-A 1217 Post Road (18 AAC 75.325(i)). The soil was from Tank 20-623. All loads must be covered and secured during transportation. Sampling will be conducted on post-treated soils to ensure cleanup levels are met. Remediated soils will be returned to original site or disposed of properly. Total amount of soil treated and post treatment sampling results will be submitted to ADEC for its records. |
Louis Howard |
| 9/22/1997 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
ADEC sent letter to DFSP Center approving the Feasibility Test Work Plan as submitted. |
Louis Howard |
| 10/13/1997 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Staff provided comments to DFSP Center Mr. Randy Banez RE: Draft Work Plan for Soil Screening, Sampling and Stockpiling - Repair of South Jet Fuel Pipeline at DFS Point-Anchorage AK October 1997. ADEC approves the proposal with the following conditions: The plan, as submitted, lists a 12-mil minimum thickness reinforced plastic liner for the top cover. Based on this, the soil will be required to be disposed of within 180 days after the stockpile is constructed.
Permanent stockpiling of contaminated material is not acceptable to ADEC. A plan must be prepared for ultimate treatment and disposal of the contaminated material, if DFS Center does not obtain a required solid waste permit.
For stockpiling soil more than 180 days and not more than 2 years, a thicker liner is required (i.e. no less than 20 mil) as well as other ADEC requirements found in 18 AAC 78.311 Table D. |
Louis Howard |
| 10/21/1997 |
Interim Removal Action Approved |
Interim surface water remediation system scope of work faxed to ADEC on 10/20/97 and approved on 10/21/97. Plan is to clean existing weir boxes: W5 and W10, intercept leaking abandoned sewer line and place a HDPE pipe rerouting flow into weir box W5. Finally a bubbler basin with sufficient depth will be constructed to aerate the surface water will be installed in a ditch extending NE from W5 outfall for approximately 100 feet. An as-built letter report 1-2 pages will be sent the DFSP-A restoration advisory board (RAB) describing the system, a schematic of the system and results of samples collected during construction of the system. This is an "interim action" which will serve to control the releases occurring off site until the source area remediation systems are implemented. |
Louis Howard |
| 1/30/1998 |
Site Number Identifier Changed |
Changed workplan back to X1 from 01. |
Louis Howard |
| 1/30/1998 |
Update or Other Action |
Staff sent a comment letter to DES Center R. Banez re: Draft Risk Assessment Work Plan January 1998. Overall, this document is well-written and technically sound. Most of the following comments are either minor technical points or editorial clarifications. Section 1.1: There is a 1997 version of the Region 10 Supplemental Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment. Figure 1-3: A few of the drainages do not show direction of flow; please add this to the illustration (i.e. from USTs 20-622 and 20-623). Section 2.3 The second bullet states that the confined aquifer is not expected to be impacted by site contamination. Additional text should be added to show that no data has been collected directly from the confined aquifer below the Bootlegger Cove formation to positively verify that there is no contamination of the confined aquifer.
Section 3.1 The third bullet indicates that the soil gas data will not be used. Please elaborate on whether this is because the data did not meet data quality objectives. If not, be aware that the data may possibly be used to model concentrations of vapors in air. In the fourth bullet, clarify that soil samples at depths greater than 10 feet below ground surface (BGS) were excluded. Groundwater samples from deeper than 10 feet BGS should be considered in the risk assessment.
Section 5.3.4.1: The second paragraph states that oral toxicity values may be converted to dermal toxicity values by dividing by the gastrointestinal absorption factors; this is correct for slope factors, but reference doses are multiplied by the gastrointestinal absorption factors. Also note that the new polychlorinated biphenyl cancer assessment (United States Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] 1996) includes a recommended dermal slope factor, so this modification is not needed.
Tables 5-5 and 5-9: The equation for estimating dermal exposure to surface water should reflect information from Section 5.3 of Dermal Exposure Assessment (EPA 1992d). The equation for estimating dermally absorbed dose per event depends on how the exposure time compares with the chemical-specific t* provided in Table 5-8 of this guidance (EPA 1992d).
|
Louis Howard |
| 2/2/1998 |
Site Characterization Workplan Approved |
Staff reviewed, commented, and accepted with minor revisions, the Draft Risk Assessment Workplan for fuel terminal facility. The workplan outlined the two land use scenarios that will be used in the risk assessment: Industrial and potential recreational land users. |
Louis Howard |
| 2/20/1998 |
Update or Other Action |
ADEC is following up to its previous letter of February 26, 1997 and subsequent meetings amd conversations to address Government Hill Community Council's concerns regarding Cherry Hill Ditch/Creek, which flows through Elmendorf AFB, Army Defense Fuels, and Port of Anchorage land just north of the Government Hill Community Council area boundaries. Our meetings have focused on three related questions: 1. Is Cherry Hill Creek/Ditch natural or constructed? 2. Is Cherry Hill Creek/Ditch considered a waterbody or simply a stormwater ditch? 3. Is the water quality in Cherry Hill Creek/Ditch impaired?
Background: In 1996, ADEC updated its list of impaired waterbodies. This list is updated every two years to show those waterbodies which have pollution exceeding State Water Quality Standards. Cherry Hill Creek had previously appeared on our earlier lists. In preparing the 1996 list, our department examined whether any actions were taken or any new information was available to indicate that previously listed waterbodies should be removed from the list.
With the assistance of other department staff, in the spring of 1996, Water Quality staff conducted the initial review of information on Cherry Hill Creek/Ditch. Two important points emerged in the review: 1. Extensive removal and control of contaminants had occurred since preparation of the previous list, therefore, pollution of the Creek had been significantly reduced. 2. Information had been obtained by Elmendorf Air Force Base to suggest that the Cherry Hill Ditch was a stormwater ditch and not a waterbody. It appeared clear that most of its course was a constructed channel, but it was somewhat unclear that the stretch running through the bluff area was constructed and not natural in origin. Two points led me to conclude this stretch was also constructed: A. interpretation remarks on EPA aerial photographs indicated that the present channel down the bluff was not the historical channel; and B. a winter site visit and information from Elmendorf AFB staff indicated that the bluff stretch ran through fill.
For these reasons, in 1996 the department decided not to continue listing Cherry Hill Ditch/Creek on the list of impaired waterbodies. Are stretches of Cherry Hill Creek/Ditch natural in origin and a waterbody or is it entirely a stormwater conveyance?
During our February 1997 meeting, information was presented by the council: historical photos, USGS maps, and USGS publications which suggested that the stretch of Cherry Hill Ditch/Creek which ran through the bluff is natural in origin and not a constructed waterway. We compared the information which was gathered with the information in our files. The comparison suggested that the interpretative information on the EPA aerial photographs in our files was incorrect.
Following the meeting, we collected information to help resolve whether the bluff stretch is natural or constructed in origin. We also walked the stretch which ran through the bluff area.
During our inspection, staff observed the geology, vegetation, and land cover of this stretch, in addition to the conditions in the stream channel. Based on these observations and the other information collected, WQ Staff have concluded that the stretch which runs through the bluff is natural in origin and this stretch is therefore considered to be a waterbody. Note that staff believe all of us are in agreement that other stretches of Cherry Hill Ditch/Creek are constructed channels used as storm water conveyances and are not natural watercourses.
Is the water quality in Cherry Hill Creek/Ditch impaired? For the past several years, Elmendorf AFB has conducted extensive removal of pollutant sources basewide, including those which would impact Cherry Hill Creek/Ditch. For the past several years, they have also monitored the flows of Cherry Hill Creek/Ditch. In coordination with Elmendorf AFB staff and our department's oversight staff, Water Quality staff have reviewed the monitoring data collected to clarify what is known about the current water quality in the Creek/Ditch. Based on this information, the water quality does not appear to be limited and therefore, the waterbody does not warrant listing on our state's 303 (d) lists. |
Kent Patrick-Riley |
| 6/16/1998 |
Update or Other Action |
Tim Stevens sent letter to Defense Energy Alaska re: waiver of 15 day notification period for closure of one UST located at DFSP at Anchorage Port Facility Fac. ID# 1063 Tank #20-627 (#23). ADEC grants the waiver allowing the UST closure to begin on June 24, 1998 as requested. Submit the Post-Closure notice to David Allen at ADEC within 30 days of completing closure activities. Any release and corrective action must be done in accordance with 18 AAC 78.220-18 AAC 78.280. |
Tim Stevens |
| 6/29/1998 |
Update or Other Action |
Tim Stevens sent letter to Defense Energy Alaska re: waiver of 15 day notification period for closure of one UST located at DFSP at Anchorage Port Facility Fac. ID# 1063 Tank #20-631 (#24). ADEC grants the waiver allowing the UST closure to begin on June 30, 1998 as requested. Submit the Post-Closure notice to David Allen at ADEC within 30 days of completing closure activities. Any release and corrective action must be done in accordance with 18 AAC 78.220-18 AAC 78.280. |
Tim Stevens |
| 11/30/1998 |
Update or Other Action |
Letter from DLA DEO-Alaska to STP David Allen. Re: Change of ownership for USTs at DFSPs Fairbanks, Whittier, and Anchorage. The Defense Energy Support Center (DESC) request a change of Ownership for the USTs listed in the UST database under DESC be transferred to the US Army Ft. Richardson, Dept. of Public Works, Real Property. The Defense Fuel Support Points (DFSPs) Fairbanks, Whittier, and Anchorage are owned by the U.S. Army and were operated by DESC until their closures in 1993, 1994 and 1995 respectively. As explained in our meeting on October 23, 1998, DESC no longer operates these DFSPs. Also that the U.S. Army is the owner of the DFSP's real estate, facilities, ASTs and USTs. Mr. Thorson also received from ADEC a Notification of Change of Ownership Form to be signed by the owner, U.S. Army and returned to you. This signed form, as agreed upon by all parties in attendance, would have rightfully transferred ownership of the mentioned USTs to the U.S. Army. |
David Allen |
| 3/15/1999 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Staff sent DESC a letter RE: Draft-Final Risk Assessment DFS Point-Anchorage January 1999. The document title states it is a draft-final version, since ADEC has not seen the draft document, it will treat this as a draft copy. Appendix C: SESOIL modeling requires calibration of the hydrocycle to site-measured soil moisture values. The report does not mention that this was done. ADEC requests the report discuss the calibration performed for the SESOIL modeling, the degree to which the model was successfully calibrated, and should present the final hydrologic parameters necessary to balance the model.
Air (Volatilization and Particulate Emission)-Health risks associated with inhalation of chemicals that volatilize from soil or groundwater and eventually enter indoor air were not evaluated. This exposure pathway was eliminated because on two occasions in 1988, workers were exposed to airborne chemicals at levels that were below OSHA Permissible Exposure Limits. For the following reasons, it may be inappropriate to eliminate this exposure pathway: 1) OSHA limits are often based on acute, and not chronic exposures, 2) OSHA limits may not be protective at the acceptable risk level defined in the Alaska cleanup rules, 3) the workers may not have experienced a reasonable maximum exposure (RME), which is the exposure considered in risk assessment and remediation under the Alaska cleanup rules, and 4) the measured worker exposure may not be predictive of future exposures.
ADEC requests the inclusion of the soil-to-indoor air pathway in quantitative risk assessment. Exposure point concentrations and health risks associated with this exposure pathway can be estimated using standard risk assessment methods. Alternatively, explain how the 1988 study of DFSP-A workers demonstrates that acceptable health risks (e.g., cancer risk estimates less than 1 x 10-5) are expected both now, and in the future, if workers experience a reasonable maximum exposure to chemicals that may enter indoor air from contaminated soil or groundwater.
Addressing Data Limitations-If metals were determined to be present at background levels in soil, it was assumed that these metals were not present at elevated levels in groundwater and the chemicals were eliminated as COPCs. This process for eliminating metals as background contaminants is inconsistent with ADEC technical guidance (Technical Guidance Document on Determination of Background Concentrations, May 1998). This screening process may be inappropriate because there are mechanisms by which groundwater may be impacted even though current concentrations of a chemical in soil are not significantly elevated. For example, a relatively large proportion of soluble metals from a particular release may leach to groundwater, and although concentrations in soil may not be significantly elevated, waterborne concentrations may be elevated. In general, chemicals in groundwater are more mobile than chemicals in soil. As a result, the spatial extent of a soil impact may be much smaller than an associated groundwater impact, and some important soil impacts may not have been detected during site characterization.
ADEC requests that if no appropriate data are available for identifying background levels in groundwater, screen these chemicals using risk-based criteria. Review and discuss the spatial pattern of metals concentrations in soil and groundwater. Presumably, concentrations of metals in soil and groundwater resulting from a metals release should vary in a predictable manner over space. The lack of spatial patterning, or the type of patterning, may suggest metals concentrations in groundwater are structured by natural levels in soil.
Elimination of Chemicals Never Detected in a Given Medium and Exposure Area-“Chemicals never detected in a given medium and exposure area were not retained as COPCs for that medium and exposure area.” This practice differs from USEPA guidance (RAGS Part A, 1989) which recommends that chemicals detected in any medium at a site be retained as preliminary COPCs for other media.
ADEC requests for the purposes of COPC screening, retain all chemicals detected at least once at the site. If a chemical was not detected in an exposure medium, use one half the sample quantitation limit as a surrogate concentration and compare this value to risk-based screening criteria (see RAGS Part A, 1989). Before characterizing COPCs for each exposure area, review the data quality objectives to confirm that sample size and other factors are adequate to characterize the nature and extent of contamination in each exposure area. |
Louis Howard |
| 5/28/1999 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Staff sent DES Center re: Draft work plan and petition, demolish Tank 20-624 DFS Point-Anchorage May 27, 1999. Note that thirty days for review and comment are expected to be provided to ADEC for any documents/work plans/scopes of work. Setting aside the concrete pending analysis of the subsurface conditions is acceptable to ADEC. Our concerns regarding the concrete also include the following: if concrete were to be placed back in the excavation, it would hinder or obstruct any future remediation or monitoring systems needed to monitor or treat any contamination in the vicinity of Tank 20-624. ADEC realizes this knowledge will not be needed until the tank is demolished and removed.
ADEC requests the field screening PID readings for "clean" versus "dirty" be 750 ppm and not 1,000 ppm for determining if contamination level requires off-site treatement. |
Louis Howard |
| 7/26/1999 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
ADEC sent R. Banez (DES Center) a letter RE: Response to Comments on the Draft Risk Assessment DFS Point-Anchorage May 28, 1999. ADEC has no objections to finalizing the risk assessment by incorporation of the changes proposed in response to comments. ADEC requests DESCA incorporate any risk management decisions in the draft Proposed Plan for the facility. It is anticipated DESCA will work together with ADEC to develop the Proposed Plan and any risk management decisions will be presented in the document. Please coordinate with ADEC to setup a time to begin the scoping process of the Proposed Plan for the facility.
ADEC requests further refinement of the modeling presented in the risk assessment. This modeling is needed to estimate the time necessary to meet cleanup levels in groundwater after the soil contamination has been cleaned up to maximum allowable levels in Table B2 for diesel range organics and gasoline range organics. Currently, in the draft risk assessment, the fate and transport modeling shows after 1,000 years, xylenes and ethylbenzene will still exceed total aromatic hydrocarbons (if one were to assume xylenes and ethylbenzene are aromatic hydrocarbons) surface water quality criteria of 10 ug/L in Cherry Hill's drainage. Granted, the model is overly conservative, but a refined modeling effort is needed to provide a basis for estimating natural attenuation time frame and long term monitoring costs. These costs will need to be accruing until cleanup levels are met in the groundwater, which is hydrologically connected to surface water bodies and the surface drainages which eventually feed into Cherry Hill Creek. |
Louis Howard |
| 8/31/1999 |
Risk Assessment Report Approved |
Staff accepted risk assessment draft final as final and commented on refining groundwater modeling in upcoming proposed plan. |
Louis Howard |
| 9/30/1999 |
Meeting or Teleconference Held |
Staff attended a restoration advisory board meeting at CH2MHILL offices. Minutes from last meeting in May were approved and an update from R. Banez DESCA staff was given on the field season's work. Shannon and Wilson gave a presentation on the proposed plan process and record of decision. Staff agreed with DESCA to give the RAB the draft proposed plan for their comment and input prior to finalizing it for public comment. |
Louis Howard |
| 11/18/1999 |
Meeting or Teleconference Held |
Staff attended a restoration advisory board meeting at CH2MHILL office. The army discussed land transfer policy and procedures if and when the land at the terminal were to become available as excess property. Proposed plan is delayed until January/February 2000 timeframe to allow DESCA to draft the document. Contractor who will be doing work may or may not be the current contractor. DESCA is contemplating dig and haul and monitoring for less than ten years vs. monitored natural attenuation for 90 years. |
Louis Howard |
| 1/7/2000 |
Update or Other Action |
Staff received monitoring well and surface water sampling results from October 1999 timeframe. 3.6 mg/L gasoline range organics (GRO) and 1.2 mg/L BTEX are down from April 1999 sampling event of 17 mg/L GRO and 6.3 mg/L BTEX. The following exceed the "10 times rule" for benzene value of 50 ug/L (0.050 mg/L): MW4 160 ug/L and MW15 85 ug/L. |
Louis Howard |
| 1/18/2000 |
Meeting or Teleconference Held |
Staff attended a restoration advisory board meeting at CH2MHILL office. The draft proposed plan was discussed and the DESCA will be excavating soil to level C criteria rather than to maximum allowable levels and monitoring for more than 100 years. The cost benefit ratio of digging vs. monitoring is greater such that it makes more sense to dig and treat than wait for the time to meet cleanup levels in the soil and groundwater. |
Louis Howard |
| 2/10/2000 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Staff sent a letter commented on the draft proposed plan for the facility. ADEC concurs with the preferred remedy for the contaminated soils which is to excavate and treat the soils to Level C criteria. Main comments centered on the description of soil, groundwater and surface water contamination and including a description of their detected levels regardless of whether or not they were above or below the cleanup criteria. |
Louis Howard |
| 2/17/2000 |
Meeting or Teleconference Held |
Staff attended a restoration advisory board meeting at CH2MHILL. Purpose of the meeting was to discuss the draft proposed plan and take final comment from RAB prior to the official public comment period in March. No comments received, but members may submit them in writing to DESC-A. Land disposal process was presented by the Army for the property DESC-A currently has a lease on. |
Louis Howard |
| 6/13/2000 |
CERCLA Proposed Plan |
Proposed Plan approved.
Preparation of this Proposed Plan & the associated public comment period are required under Section 117(a) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation & Liability Act (CERCLA, also known as the Superfund Program, as well as under 18 AAC 75 of the Alaska Administrative Code. The DFSC’s cleanup program follows CERCLA guidance, although Defense Fuel Support Point-Anchorage is not a Superfund site. The DoD is delegated authority & responsibility to carry out response actions, including clenaup, for hazardous substance releases on or from DoD facilities under Executive order 12580, Superfund Implementation. At sites under its control, the DoD has the lead agency authority to select remedial actions consistent with CERCLA Section 120.
This Proposed Plan presents the remedial alternatives evaluated to address contaminated soil and
water at the former Defense Fuel Support Point-Anchorage (DFSP-A) bulk fuel terminal and
identifies the preferred cleanup method. The Defense Energy Support Center (DESC), the lead
agency, and the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC), the support agency,
are requesting public comments on this Proposed Plan. After the public comment period has
ended and the information submitted during this period has been reviewed and considered, the
DESC and ADEC will select a final remediation method(s).
The remedial alternatives evaluated address the soil, groundwater, and surface water media at
DFSP-A. In general, the remedial alternatives were limited to proven technologies for which onsite experience or feasibility testing suggested the methods were practicable and an
understanding of the needs of the community as expressed at the DFSP-A restoration advisory
board (RAB).
Out of the Proposed Plan process, DESC has identified a preferred alternative that it believes
provides the best value while addressing ADEC and community concerns. DESC's preferred
alternative is the excavation and treatment of site soils to an aggressive low-level goal, which
achieves ARARs in all site media in the shortest possible timeline. If this alternative is selected as the remedy at DFSP-A, it is DESC's intent to remove the existing tanks and piping so that no site features remain that could delay regulatory approval by ADEC or eventual transfer of responsibility for the site from DESC to the U.S. Army.
Pending comments on this Proposed Plan and funding to facilitate removal of the existing tanks and piping, DESC is prepared to implement remedial activities in 2000. A preliminary schedule suggests that site work, including tank and piping removal, could be completed in two field seasons. |
Louis Howard |
| 8/14/2000 |
Update or Other Action |
Defense energy contractor begins digging up tanks at the facility. Tanks will be cut up for scrap metal and recycled at local metals recycling facility. The tanks were installed in the 1950s and until 1996 stored up to 2.1 million gallons of jet fuel each. Those two tanks and a 500,000-gallon concrete fuel tank built in the 1940s will be removed by November.
The Defense Energy Support Center is committed to removing all nine tanks it once operated in the area. Four have been taken out already. The last two will be removed in spring 2001. Defense Energy closed the farm in 1996 and the tanks are now clean and clear of any fuel. |
Louis Howard |
| 10/12/2000 |
Update or Other Action |
Email to Ben Thomas from DPW Environmental RE: Defense Fuel Support Point-Anchorage Tank #9 3,000 gallon diesel UST. All the USTs at the Anchorage terminal have been removed. Louis Howard (ADEC DOD oversight) is familiar with the site and can verify that there are no USTs at the terminal. We are still working with Dave Allen to clear up the discrepancies in the UST database.
RE: Defense Fuel Support Point - Fairbanks
Tank #4 (6264) 500 gallon diesel
Tank# 10 (1056) 1000 gallon diesel
Tank #4 was an above ground tank that was mistakenly registered as a UST. The tank has been removed. Tank #1O is not located at the Fairbanks terminal, it is located at building 1056 on Fort Wainwright. Tank is still in service and has undergone the third party inspection. A new registration has been sent to Dave Allen to correct the facility id.
|
Ben Thomas |
| 1/17/2001 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Staff commented on the Fall 2000 Groundwater and surface water monitoring report. Comments were on methylene chloride lab contamination and use of line graphs for comparison purposes on past data vs. present data. |
Louis Howard |
| 2/15/2001 |
Meeting or Teleconference Held |
Staff attended a restoration advisory board (RAB) meeting on Thursday February 15th. Contractor for Defense Energy Support briefed the RAB on past summer/fall tank demolition activities and upcoming field work to remove contaminated soils from the site. Defense Energy Support staff stated that it appears that the RAB is coming to an end and after this field season's work, there is nothing else to discuss except long term groundwater/surface water monitoring results and land reuse issues. The RAB members concurred and it was agreed that October 2001 would be the last official RAB meeting and after that time it will be dissolved. Land reuse issues at the site and groundwater/surface water monitoring updates will be presented at an annual stakeholders meeting. |
Louis Howard |
| 3/12/2001 |
Update or Other Action |
USARAK letter to Stuart Hall Government Hill community council regarding information concerning possible transfer of Anchorage terminal land to the Municipality of Anchorage. USARAK is not involved with the process of determining who the potential future owners of excess military property may be. The land at the terminal is withdrawn from the Public Domain for the purpose of supporting military mission requirements. The property is "owned" and held in trust, by the federal government through the Bureau of Land Management. Once the Army makes a determination the property is excess to its requirements, the land is returned to the underlying landowner, BLM.
The Army has declared the Anchorage Terminal excess to Army requirements. As part of the declaration of excess process, the Army is required to remove all Army owned facilities and appurtenances and environmentally remediate known or suspected contamination of the property caused as a result of the Army use of the property. Remediation of the property must meet or exceed standards agreed to by the ADEC, BLM and U.S. Army. In the case of the Anchorage terminal, the level of remediation must meet light industrial standards (which is protective of a recreational use).
Additionally, USARAK must report contaminated property, such as the Anchorage Terminal, to the U.S. Army Environmental Center, Aberdeen Proving grounds, Maryland for a Statement of Clearance. Once the property has been evaluated, the determination will be made as to whether the property may be safely returned to the Public Domain. This reporting process establishes parameters under which suspected contaminated property may be returned to underlying landowners. Excessing of the property cannot take place until such time as the property can be certified as being environmentally remediated. Concurrently, the property must be reported to the U.S. Army Pacific as excess to USARAK requirements. USARPAC must report the property to the Armed Services Committee of Congress for excessing authority. Upon receipt of such authority, USARAK will be directed to excess the property through normal channels. This process is based on the schedule of the Armed Services Committee can be a very time consuming process.
Once approved for excess, the property is reported to the U.S. Corps of Engineers, who by law, are required to screen the property through other DOD and federal agencies to determine if a valid requirement for the property exists by those agencies. This screening process normally takes 30 days to complete. Should a valid DOD or other federal agency requirement for the property be identified, the property is transferred to the DOD or federal agency identifying the requirement. Should a valid requirement not be identified, the property may then be made available, by sale, to state and local governments, commercial interests, or private individuals through the General Services Administration. BLM and GSA make this determination jointly.
The Alaska District COE and BLM manage transfer of excess Army property to other DOD agencies. GSA manages transfer of excess property to other than DOD or Federal Agencies. The timeline for this process is determined by GSA, but under normal conditions, requires approximately 180 days. Your request for the Army to consider either removal or relocation of the existing fence, whether by the Army or by community volunteers, cannot be favorably considered.
For additional information see site file. |
Louis Howard |
| 5/22/2001 |
Cleanup Plan Approved |
Staff approved the preferred cleanup alternative consists of excavation and treatment of site soils, continuation of institutional controls to address human risks, and water quality monitoring to track contaminant trends in site perched water and surface water. The preferred alternative included removal of remaining tanks and piping within the impacted areas. The excavation workplan calls for the removal of 20,000 cubic yards of contaminated soil and subsequent treatment at Alaska Soil Recycling (ASR) treatment facility.
The excavation will be recontoured to blend in with the surrounding topography. The slope that divides the Upper Bluff Area from the Slope Deposits Area will be maintained. Contaminant free soil (or imported clean soil) will be used to backfill site excavations and regrade the site as appropriate. The gradual slope of the Slope Deposits Area will be maintained such that surface water drainage is not disrupted. The disturbed areas will be revegetated to decrease soil erosion and airborne dust. Native grass will be hydroseeded.
DFSP-A is an old facility with many unused underground pipelines. If a former pipeline is encountered, the portion of the exposed pipeline in the excavation will be cut and plugged approximately 18 inches bgs. |
Louis Howard |
| 10/4/2001 |
Meeting or Teleconference Held |
Staff attended the last Restoration Advisory Board meeting for DESCA Facility at the Port of Anchorage. DESCA will now host annual stakeholders meeting with adjacent property owners and the government entities (Alaska railroad/port of anchorage) in lieu of a RAB meeting. 20,000 cubic yards removed the majority of the source of petroleum contamination and now the site is in a monitored natural attenuation phase. |
Louis Howard |
| 12/12/2001 |
Institutional Control Record Established |
1. All organizations conducting activities on United States Army Alaska (USARAK) controlled land are responsible for complying with established institutional controls (ICs). ICs are administrative, procedural, and regulatory measures to control human access to and usage of property. They are applicable to all known or suspected contaminated sites where contamination has been left in place.
2. These controls have been established to implement the selected remedial actions agreed upon by the U.S. Army (Army), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), and the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) in accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) as amended by the Superfund Amendment Reauthorization Act (SARA). These controls also apply to remedial actions agreed upon under Two-Party Compliance Agreements. These agreements are concluded between USARAK and ADEC and apply to petroleum/oil/lubricants- (POL) contaminated sites.
3. ICs such as limitations on access, water use, excavations, and property transfers will supplement engineering controls as appropriate for short-term and long-term management to prevent or limit human and environmental exposure to hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants. Specific ICs include, among other things: limitations on the depth and location of excavations, prohibition of or restrictions on well drilling and use of ground water, requirements for worker use of personal protective equipment, site monitoring, and prohibition of certain land uses, types of vehicles, etc.
4. Organizational units, tenants, and support/contractor organizations must obtain an Excavation Clearance Request (ECR) for all soil disturbing activities impacting soils six inches or more below the ground surface. The review process for approval of an ECR begins with the identification of the current status (known or suspected hazardous waste site or “clean” site) of a work location. ECR’s for work in known or suspected hazardous waste sites:
a. will include specific limitations and controls on such work;
b. will include specific IC procedures, and notification, monitoring, reporting, and stop work requirements;
c. may include procedures for management, characterization, and disposal of any soil or groundwater encountered or removed;
d. will identify “project managers” for both the unit/contractor requesting the work and DPW Environment Resources.
5. The DPW project manager will conduct on-site inspections of each work site (at which ICs apply) to determine continued compliance with the terms and conditions of the approved ECR. DPW has the authority to revoke ECR approval if the specified terms and conditions are not being met. ECR forms are available at the Customer Service Desks at: a. Building 730 at Fort Richardson; b. Building 3015 at Fort Wainwright; c. Building 605 at Fort Greely.
6. USARAK has negotiated (with USEPA and/or ADEC) decision documents and/or Records of Decision (RODs) that mandate the implementation of ICs USARAK Directorate of Public Works, Environmental Resources Department (PWE), maintains copies of all decision documents and RODs requiring ICs in its real property files. PWE provides regularly updated post maps showing all areas affected by ICs. These maps can easily be accessed by using an approved intranet mapping interface application. Copies of these maps will be available to each directorate, activity, and tenant organization. To ensure the effectiveness of ICs, all organizational units and tenant activities will be informed on an annual basis of ICs on contaminated soils and groundwater in effect near their facilities.
7. ICs are enforceable by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC). Failure to comply with an IC mandated in a decision document or ROD will violate the USARAK Federal Facility Agreement and may result in stipulated fines and penalties. This does not include the costs of corrective actions required due to violation of an established IC.
|
Louis Howard |
| 12/28/2001 |
Update or Other Action |
Public Law 107-107 Dec. 28, 2001. Subtitle D-Land Conveyances. Section 2831. Land Conveyance. Whittier-Anchorage Pipeline Tank Farm, Anchorage, Alaska.
(a) CONVEYANCE AUTHORIZED.—The Secretary of the Army may convey to the Port of Anchorage, an entity of the Municipality of Anchorage, Alaska (in this section referred to as the ‘‘Port’’), all right, title, and interest of the United States in and to two adjoining parcels of real property, including any improvements thereon, consisting of approximately 48 acres in Anchorage, Alaska, which are known as the Whittier-Anchorage Pipeline Tank Farm, for the purpose of permitting the Port to use the parcels for economic development.
(b) CONSIDERATION.—As consideration for the conveyance under subsection (a), the Port shall pay to the United States an amount, in cash or in-kind, equal to not less than the fair market value
of the conveyed property, as determined by the Secretary. The Secretary may authorize the Port to carry out, as in-kind consideration, environmental remediation activities for the property to be conveyed.
(c) TIME FOR CONVEYANCE.—The Secretary may delay the conveyance under subsection (a) until such time as the Army studies relating to the Alaska deployment of the Interim Brigade Combat Team in Alaska are completed.
(d) DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY.—The exact acreage and legal description of the real property to be conveyed under subsection (a) shall be determined by a survey satisfactory to the Secretary. The cost of the survey shall be borne by the Port.
(e) ADDITIONAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS.—The Secretary may require such additional terms and conditions in connection with the conveyance under subsection (a) as the Secretary considers
appropriate to protect the interests of the United States. |
Louis Howard |
| 1/16/2002 |
Update or Other Action |
DESC-A is proposing to use the 10 times rule (e.g. 18 AAC 75.341(b)(2) because the groundwater has been determined not to be a drinking water source in the Port Area. This determination was mainly based on a 1994 E. Olson (ADEC) letter which stated "ADEC finds that human ingestion by drinking water from the shallow perched aquifer in the Port Area need not be considered as an exposure pathway for the purposes of a risk assessment." (see attachment)
Other supporting factors for not considering the shallow perched aquifer as drinking water:
1) the shallow perched aquifer is located in a glaciofluvial, tidal flat and tidal marsh depositional area; and
2) the salinity of the shallow subsurface water along the western border of the Port Area where DFSPA is located is greater than 6,000 mg/L (3000 to 10000 mg/L is brackish & unfit for human consumption); and area wide contamination from other Port users including DESCA;
3) the gw is not used for any private/public drinking water system;
4) the gw is not within a zone of contribution of an active private or public drinking water system;
5) the high cost of using water from the shallow aquifer for drinking water relative to the lower expense of using available piped supply;
6) the gw is not within a recharge area for private/public drinking water well, wellhead protection area, or sole source aquifer;
7) Institutional controls will prevent and limit access to the perched gw for use as drinking water source and will be implemented by the property owner (US ARMY);
8) existing land use is to remain industrial and surrounding tank farms and facilities downgradient of site is industrial/commercial use;
9) other alternative water resources are available & are being used by existing facilities (piped municipality water). |
Louis Howard |
| 11/18/2002 |
Update or Other Action |
Staff reviewed and commented on the Draft Record of Decision for the facility. Introduction
The Department requests the last sentence for this section state: No objections to the selected remedy and cleanup levels have been raised by the public neither in meetings nor during the comment period for the Proposed Plan.
Table 1-Soil and Groundwater Cleanup Levels
The Department requests the table be corrected to show the most stringent cleanup levels regardless of pathway for soil (in mg/kg) for the following polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs): benzo(b)fluoranthene (11), benzo(k)fluoranthene (110), benzo(a)pyrene (1), dibenzo(a,h) anthracene (1), and indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene (11).
Points of Compliance-Groundwater and Surface Water The text states that the three areas for alternative points of compliance will be monitored for compliance with groundwater and surface water cleanup levels. The Department reserves the right to request additional monitoring points, increase/decrease in monitoring frequencies or additional remedial action which shows the remedy is not protective of human health, safety or the environment.
Evaluation of Cleanup Alternatives-Public Input
The Department requests changes in the first sentence to state: “DESC and ADEC have met regularly with…” The Department requests the third sentence to state “DESC and ADEC provided the public …”
Treatment of Contaminated Soil-The Department requests including text in this section regarding transfer criteria from DESC to the Army. Suggested text: “Transfer criteria will be identified in the water monitoring program which will be drafted by DESC within three (3) months of signature of the ROD.”
Groundwater and Surface Water Monitoring
The Department requests including text to further elaborate why water quality monitoring is employed at the site. The suggested text is as follows: “…to confirm that contaminant migration: is not occurring off-site, does not cause unacceptable risk to human health or the environment and to evaluate the effectiveness of site cleanup.”
Additionally, the Department requests changes to the text as follows: “A water monitoring program will be prepared and evaluated annually to determine whether progress is being made by the selected remedy toward clean goals and whether site cleanup goals have been achieved. If problems are identified, then future remedial action will be considered. When cleanup levels are achieved in groundwater monitoring wells for, a minimum of four (4) consecutive sampling events, then the groundwater sampling at the site may be ceased. The same conditions apply for discontinuing surface water sampling at the site.”
The Department requests the Army and DESC consider the following language be included in the ROD or in the Water Monitoring Program for an exit strategy that DESC may use: After three (3) continuous years of water monitoring on a twice yearly basis, the ADEC and DESCA will review the data from the monitoring for trend analysis and discuss the adequacy of the monitoring and the need for revising the frequency and sampling protocols. At that time, if appropriate, the ADEC may consider granting a “No Further Remedial Action” (NFRA) determination for remedial action.
The NFRA determination by the ADEC and subsequent release of the property back to the Army will be based on the DESC demonstrating that the size of the dissolved plume is steady state or shrinking, not migrating off-site, and concentrations of the hazardous substance must be decreasing. A minimum of two years (four consecutive sampling events) of water sampling results demonstrating these trends must be presented by DESC in its petition to ADEC for a NFRA determination.
For additional information see site file. |
Louis Howard |
| 4/4/2003 |
350 Determination |
Upon signature of the Record of Decision, this memorializes ADEC approval of groundwater not being used for drinking water purposes at the former Defense Fuels Support Point-Anchorage per 18 AAC 75.350. "The shallow perched water is not suitable as drinking water. The perched water is not currently used for private/public drinking or domestic purposes. The perched water is not within a recharge area for a private/public drinking water well, a well protection area, or a sole source aquifer. The perched water on the FTFA is brackish and unfit for human consumption. The perched water was determined not suitable for drinking water by the ADEC in a letter from Ms. Eileen Olson on April 21, 1994." |
Louis Howard |
| 4/9/2003 |
CERCLA ROD Approved |
Record of Decision for Cleanup at Defense Fuel Support Point - Anchorage signed by Jennifer Roberts DoD section manager. Cleanup level for soils contaminated with petroleum contaminants is set at level "C", groundwater must meet 10 times Table C groundwater cleanup levels in 18 AAC 75, surface water must meet Alaska's water quality criteria found in 18 AAC 70. Long term monitoring is in place for the facility after a 20,000 cubic yard removal action of contaminated soils took place at the facility in 2001. All aboveground and underground storage tanks, dispensers and associated piping have been removed from the facility.
With a minimum of two years of monitoring showing decreasing trends in groundwater/surface water, the DESC may petition to have the site assigned a "no further remedial action" action by the Department and subsequently relinquish the property back to the Army who is the ultimate property owner of the facility. The Army would then continue with the monitoring at the facility until cleanup levels are achieved. Any future lease-holders may use the site if the land use is "industrial or commercial" and any excavation of soils with contamination must be dealt with by the lease-holder and remediated to Level "C" criteria.
To the maximum extent practicable, institutional controls developed for Fort Richardson will be utilized for the site since the Army is the ultimate land owner and has existing institutional controls that are in place for Fort Richardson that are readily transferable to the site. Unless other arrangements are made, any long-term surface water or groundwater monitoring will be the responsibility of the land owner (ARMY) if the property is leased out or the new land owner if the property is transferred outright.
Additionally, the Army shall notify the Department of any conveyance of title, easement, or other interest in the site to other agencies of the United States, to private parties, and to state and local governments at least ninety (90) days prior to such conveyance.
“Since the selected remedy will result in contaminants remaining on-site above cleanup levels, a review will be conducted within five (5) years after signature of the ROD and every five (5) years thereafter. The review is to insure that the remedy continues to provide adequate protection of human health and the environment and will include an evaluation of any changed site conditions, as long as contamination remains above cleanup levels.
Under section 18 AAC 75.380(d)(1) of the site cleanup rules, ADEC may require additional action if new information is discovered which leads ADEC to make a determination that the cleanup is not protective of human health, safety, and welfare, or the environment. Therefore, after cleanup activities are completed in accordance with this Record of Decision, the site may be reopened for further action if the cleanup is not protective of human health, safety, and welfare or the environment. |
Jennifer Roberts |
| 10/23/2003 |
Update or Other Action |
2003 Fall Sampling Report received. Monitoring wells and surface-water samples were analyzed for GRO, DRO, and BTEX. Two samples, MW25 and MW501, exceeded the ROD clean-up level of 15. 0 mg/L for DRO (29 mg/L and 49 mg/L respectively).
MW4 exceeded the cleanup level of 0.050 mg/L for benzene at 1.7 mg/L. Surface-water samples did not contain compounds of concern at levels in excess of cleanup levels. |
Louis Howard |
| 1/28/2004 |
Site Number Identifier Changed |
File number changed from CS76.04 to 2102.38.021 |
Former Staff |
| 6/4/2004 |
Update or Other Action |
2004 Spring Sampling Report received. Monitoring wells and surface-water samples were analyzed for GRO, DRO, and BTEX. Two samples, MW25 and MW501, exceeded the ROD specified clean-up level for DRO of 15 mg/L (25 mg/L and 18 mg/L respectively). MW4 exceeded the ROD specified cleanup level of 0.050 mgL for benzene at 2.8 mg/L.
|
Louis Howard |
| 11/1/2004 |
Update or Other Action |
2004 Fall Sampling Report received. Monitoring wells and surface water samples were analyzed for GRO, DRO, and BTEX. Benzene decrease in MW4 from 2.8 mg/L in the Spring to 1.59 mg/L (ROD cleanup leve 0.050 mg/L). MW25 had increased slightly from 25 mg/L to 31.5 (D 37.9 mg/L). MW501 increased from 18 mg/L to 26.0 mg/L for DRO. ROD specified clean up level is 15.0 mg/L for DRO. |
Louis Howard |
| 6/24/2005 |
Update or Other Action |
2005 Spring sampling report for Defense Fuel Support Point - Anchorage received. Nine groundwater monitoring wells were sampled and none of them exceeded DRO, GRO, BTEX ROD established cleanup levels (spring 2004 exceeded DRO cleanup levels so this is a decrease).
Surface water samples SS12 was at 0.0124 mg/L and SS14 0.0193 mg/L for TAH and 0.0209 mg/L and 0.0205 mg/L for TAqH respectively. |
Louis Howard |
| 11/30/2005 |
Update or Other Action |
2005 Fall Sampling Report Defense Fuel Support Point-Anchorage received. Monitoring well MW15R had benzene at 0.223 mg/L above the Record of Decision cleanup level of 0.050 mg/L. MW25 had 17.4 mg/L diesel range organics which was a decrease from fall 2004 sampling result of 31.5 mg/L. Eleven groundwater wells were sampled.
Out of the five surface water locations sampled four were below surface water quality criteria and one only slightly exceeded the criteria. Surface water sample SS14 had TAH of 0.0187 mg/L and TAqH of 0.0209 mg/L. NOTE: this sampling event for surface water is a decrease in concentration from the Spring 2005 sampling event. |
Louis Howard |
| 2/28/2006 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Staff reviewed and commented on the R&M Consultants' letter re: Transfer of the Defense Fuels Property Letter dated February 15, 2006. The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) has received the above letter on February 16, 2006. The letter is soliciting comments and information on the transfer of approximately forty-eight (48) acres commonly known as the Defense Fuels property to the Port of Anchorage. ADEC has reviewed the letter and has the following comments on the proposed action (property transfer).
Environmental Documentation Page 2 - 1. Confirmed or suspected off-site contamination, spills, and/or any registered underground or aboveground fuel storage tanks that may affect the property transfer during or after the transfer. None identified.
2. Identify any permits and/or clearances to be obtained from ADEC for the proposed action. No permits are required from ADEC for the proposed action. No clearances are required for the property transfer to take place, however, the property has been subject to a release and subsequent cleanup of oil or other hazardous substances, regulated under 18 AAC 75, Article 3 (eff. October 16, 2005) and has the following conditions associated with the property.
In the event the remaining contaminated soil (currently defined as above Method One Category “C” from Table A1 18 AAC 75.341) becomes accessible at the property (e.g. but not limited to: utility excavation work, road and rail improvements, building activities or through some other action that disturbs the soil), or other information becomes available which indicates the property may pose an unacceptable risk to human health, safety, welfare or the environment, the land owner and/or operator will be required under 18 AAC 75.300 to notify ADEC and evaluate the environmental status of the contamination in accordance with applicable laws and regulations. Further cleanup would be necessary under 18 AAC 75.325-.390. Also, any transport or disposal of contaminated soil at or from the property requires prior review and approval from ADEC in accordance with 18 AAC 75.325(i).
Groundwater in the unconfined aquifer and surface water at the property will not be used for any purpose at the property unless prior monitoring data shows it meets cleanup levels for the intended use; dewatering activities shall comply with all wastewater discharge permit requirements and not result in any exceedance of surface water quality criteria listed in 18 AAC 70 Water Quality Standards (eff. June 26, 2003).
Monitoring of groundwater and surface water will occur twice a year at the property (Spring and Fall) for petroleum constituents (i.e. DRO, GRO, RRO, BTEX, TAH, TAqH) unless otherwise previously agreed on by ADEC.
These restrictions and the current ongoing surface water/groundwater monitoring program will remain in effect until a written determination from ADEC is recorded that states: soil, groundwater and surface water at the property has been shown to meet: Method One Category “C” of 18 AAC 75.341 Table A1, groundwater meets the cleanup levels in 18 AAC 75.345 Table C and surface water meets TAH and TAqH cleanup levels in 18 AAC 70.020(b) water quality standards table and off-site transportation of soil, groundwater and surface water is not a concern.
ADEC will be notified in writing of any subsequent conveyance of title, easement, or other interest in the property to (but not limited to): agencies of the United States, private parties, or other state agencies, and state or local governments at least ninety (90) days prior to such conveyance. |
Louis Howard |
| 5/16/2006 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Staff received the information provided on 05/16/2006 from R&M Consultants Inc. After review, ADEC concurs with the procedures outlined in the memorandum regarding contaminated soil or *groundwater. Prior ADEC approval will be required for transport of soil off-site for treatment and proof of ADEC approval will likely be required by the treatment facility prior to accepting contaminated soil. Transport of soil will need to be consistent with 18 AAC 75.360. Cleanup operation requirements (4)(D): provisions for transporting contaminated soil as a covered load in compliance with 18 AAC 60.015. 18 AAC 60.015. Transport. (a) A person who transports solid waste shall keep the waste contained during transport. (b) A person who spills solid waste during transport shall promptly pick up the waste and any waste residue resulting from the spill (Eff. 1/28/96 Register 137).
*ADEC requests a copy of the approval given by the Municipality of Anchorage/POA for discharge of contaminated groundwater into the storm sewer system (MS4). Any free phase product encountered will NOT be discharged into the MS4, but require proper disposal. Please provide copies of treatment sampling results and tare receipts when processing is completed for our records. ADEC may comment on other state and federal laws and regulations, our concurrence on the proposed action does not relieve R&M Consultants, Port of Anchorage, its contractors, sub-contractors, agents acting on its behalf, or other personnel associated with this project from the need to comply with other applicable laws and regulations or statutes. |
Louis Howard |
| 5/24/2006 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Staff received via electronic mail: re-“Soil & Groundwater Contamination – Security Checkpoint 3 Project” Project #1014.03.11 on May 23, 2006. R&M is providing services to the Port of Anchorage for a new security checkpoint at Checkpoint 3.
Soil excavated and found to contain contamination levels greater than Table B1 Method Two (under 40 inch zone migration to groundwater) soil cleanup levels for: benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene & total xylenes (BTEX) will require treatment as well as those soils above level “C” cleanup criteria listed in your request. Please provide any certificate(s) of disposal if provided by the treatment facility (ASR) when treatment is completed and tare receipts when transport of soil is completed. Also, provide ADEC with a copy of the final approved sanitary sewer discharge permit of potentially contaminated groundwater from AWWU for our records.
While ADEC may comment on other state and federal laws and regulations, our approval of the request does not relieve the Port of Anchorage staff or its hired consultants, contractors, sub-contractors, agents acting on its behalf from the need to comply with other applicable laws and regulations. |
Louis Howard |
| 6/5/2006 |
Conditional Closure Approved |
The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) received your March 10, 2006 letter requesting a “No Further Remedial Action Required” determination for the Defense Fuel Support Point-Anchorage (DFSP-A) former bulk fuel terminal in Anchorage. DFSP-A is located at 1217 Port Road, at the Port of Anchorage in Anchorage, Alaska. DFSP-A is located in the North 1/2 and Southwest 1/4 of Section 7, Township 13 North, Range 3 West, Anchorage (A-8) NW Quadrangle, Seward Meridian and within the Municipality of Anchorage (MOA) Grids 1030, 1031, and 1130. Your letter included a summary of the remedial actions taken to date at the DFSP-A site.
The 2003 Defense Fuel Support Point Anchorage Record of Decision (ROD) between ADEC and the Defense Energy Support Center established the following remedial action objectives: 1) Treatment of Contaminated Soil to method one category C levels for petroleum hydrocarbons and method two levels for benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene as defined in 18 AAC 75.341; 2)Monitoring groundwater and surface water to verify natural attenuation of contaminants to meet ten times the groundwater cleanup levels specified in 18 AAC 75.345 Table C and the surface water quality criteria (10 µg/l TAH and 15 µg/l TAqH) in surface water; 3) Establishing institutional controls to limit excavation of contaminated soil and restrict use of the shallow groundwater until cleanup levels are achieved. Please note that institutional controls limiting groundwater use will need to remain in place until such time the Table C cleanup levels are achieved.
While elevated levels of soil and groundwater contamination remain on-site, the remedy has been successfully implemented and with effective on-going implementation of institutional controls the site does not pose an unacceptable risk to human health, welfare, safety, and the environment. ADEC has determined the remedy has been successfully implemented and DESC has met its requirements under the ROD to obtain a no further remedial action planned determination and return the property management back to the Army.
Until officially notified otherwise or an alternative plan is approved, ADEC understands DESC will continue the long-term groundwater monitoring in accordance with the August 2003 Long-Term Monitoring Plan. Any contaminated soil encountered at the site must be managed properly in accordance with the State cleanup rules in 18 AAC 75.
Per the ROD, unless other arrangements are made, any long-term surface water of groundwater monitoring will be the responsibility of the landowner (USARK) if the property is leased out or the new landowner if the property is transferred outright. The Army shall notify ADEC of any conveyance of title, easement, or other interest in the site to other agencies of the United States, to private parties, or to state and local governments at least ninety days prior to such conveyance. This is to allow ADEC and the Department of Law to participate in the transfer process to ensure appropriate institutional controls are established and the responsibilities for any additional groundwater monitoring, use restrictions and contaminated soil management are clearly defined and meet state requirements.
Once it is demonstrated that soil and groundwater consistently meet the applicable cleanup levels throughout the site, ADEC will discontinue the groundwater monitoring requirement and close the site. |
Jennifer Roberts |
| 8/29/2006 |
Update or Other Action |
The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) has reviewed the Final Environmental Assessment for the Whittier-Anchorage Pipeline Tank Farm (WAPTF) Property Transfer. ADEC has no objections to the selection of Alternative 1, the Proposed Action (Transfer WAPTF property to the Port) as its intended action. However, ADEC does have concerns regarding the zone designation of Heavy Industrial (I-2) listed in the Municipality of Anchorage zoning regulations which allows for residential public used development (PUD), with conditions, on parcels of at least ten acres (WAPTF covers 46.99 acres).
In addition, a residential PUD may be allowed in zoning districts I-1, I-2 and I-3; provided, however, that any residential uses must be situated on an area of at least ten acres including dedicated streets, and screening landscaping shall be planted along each boundary of the residential planned unit development, except for vehicular and pedestrian ingress and egress points. A residential PUD which is located in zoning district I-1, I-2 or I-3 must conform to all of the standards required for a residential PUD in the R-3 zoning district. In addition to meeting standards set forth in the general provisions for all PUD's, an industrial PUD shall meet the following minimum standards:
1. Screening landscaping shall be planted along each boundary of an industrial planned unit development adjoining a residential district.
2. Principal vehicular access points shall be designed to permit smooth traffic flow with controlled turning movements and to minimize hazards to vehicular or pedestrian traffic. Access points shall be located in relation to major thoroughfares so that traffic congestion will not be created by the proposed development.
ADEC requests that transfer documents either prohibit residential use (including language that any residential PUD are not allowed) at the WAPTF indefinitely or until cleanup levels are achieved in both the soil and water at the WAPTF.
|
Louis Howard |
| 11/21/2006 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Staff reviewed and commented on the 2006 Fall Sampling Report Defense Fuel Support Point-Anchorage, MLFA Job No. DESC-DESC-005-0005 November 14, 2006.
3.3.3 Data Representativeness Page 7 - The data for some samples collected on September 27, 2006 should be qualified or flagged in Table 3 since they were not received within 4 degrees Celsius, plus or minus 2 degrees or in some cases a sample container was noted to have a bubble in the sample container. The footnote to chain of custody (COC) form (Appendix A COC page 1 of 1 and sample receipt form) shows Cooler #1 had both cooler (C) and temperature blank (B) at 6.5 degrees Celsius and in Cooler #3 the temperature blank (TB) temperature was 6.7 degrees Celsius.
Additionally, the chain of custody form for Work Order 1065867 collected September 28, 2006, Page 1 of 2 shows two coolers were received outside of the required 4 degrees Celsius, plus or minus 2 degrees Celsius. The footnotes to the COC form shows temperature exceedances as follows: Cooler ID #1 TB= -1.9 and Cooler ID #2 TB= -1.0 and C= 6.6 degrees Celsius. Finally, the sample receipt for stated there were problems with Cooler ID #1 having bubbles in the samples.
Appendix B Lab QA Review Checklist - Work Order 1065832 Collected September 27, 2006 - Item 3(d) should be checked yes (sample temperature WAS outside of acceptance range for certain coolers). Item 3(e) should be qualified for those samples in coolers with temperatures outside of the acceptance range.
Appendix B Lab QA Review Checklist Work Order 1065867 Collected September 28, 2006 - Item 3(a) - The text states that one of the four coolers was 6.6 degrees. It should also state that the cooler temperature blanks were at -1.9 and -1.0 and whether or not there were any cracked sample containers due to freezing temperatures. Item 3(d) should be checked yes (sample temperature WAS outside of acceptance range for certain coolers). Item 3(e) should be qualified for those samples in four coolers with temperatures outside of the acceptance range and sample containers with bubble(s) present.
|
Louis Howard |
| 4/5/2010 |
Exposure Tracking Model Ranking |
Initial ranking with ETM completed for source area id: 71407 name: Former UST/ASTs |
Louis Howard |
| 4/29/2011 |
Update or Other Action |
2011-018733-0
Recording Dist: 301 - Anchorage
4/22/2011 2:49 PM
QUITCLAIM DEED WHITTIER-ANCHORAGE PIPELINE TANK FARM ANCHORAGE, ALASKA TRACTS Q & Y
ADEC received the conformed copy of the executed deed transferring ownership of the property from the Department of the Army/Government to the Port of Anchorage/Municipality of Anchorage.
This QUITCLAIM DEED is made between the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (hereinafter the "GRANTOR), acting by & through the Director of Real Estate, pursuant to a delegation of authority from the SECRETARY OF THE ARMY (hereinafter the "ARMY"), under the authority of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 (Pub. L. No. 107-107), C/O District Commander, United States Army Corps of Engineers, Alaska District, ATTN: CEPOA-RE, P.O. Box 6898, JBER, Alaska 99506-0898, & the PORT OF ANCHORAGE, an Entity of the Municipality of Anchorage, Alaska (hereinafter the "GRANTEE") 2000 Anchorage Port Road, Anchorage Alaska 99501.
WHEREAS, Section 2831 of Pub. L. No. 107-107 authorized the ARMY to convey to the
GRANTEE all of the GRANTOR's right, title, & interest to certain real property, including any
improvements thereon;
WHEREAS, as consideration for the conveyance, the GRANTEE has agreed to pay in cash or in kind an amount not less than the fair market value of the real property hereby conveyed; &
WHEREAS, a form of the in-kind consideration offered by the GRANTEE may consist of environmental remediation activities for the real property conveyed.
NOW THEREFORE, the GRANTOR, for & in consideration of $10,305,000.00 in other good & valuable consideration as set forth in Section.3 herein, & in the CONSIDERATION AGREEMENT attached hereto as Exhibit D the receipt of all of which is hereby acknowledged, does hereby REMISE, RELEASE & FOREVER QUITCLAIM unto, the GRANTEE, its successors & assigns, all its right, title, & interest in the property identified as the Whittier-Anchorage Pipeline Tank Farm, located at 1217 Port Road at the Port of Anchorage in Anchorage, AK, situated, lying & being in the Municipality of Anchorage in the State of AK, located as shown on Exhibit A.I Sheet I & 2, attached hereto & made a part hereof (hereinafter referred to as the "Property") being described as follows:
The Property is comprised of two adjoining parcels ofland, Tracts Q & Y, within Government
Lots 10 & 15, of Section 7, Township l3 North, Range 3 West, Seward Meridian, Anchorage
Recording District, Third Judicial district in the State of Alaska; said parcels more specifically described by metes & bounds based on Alaska State Plane Coordinates for Zone 4, NAD27 are as follows:
Note: Basis of bearing from "GLO, 1935" C1I4 Cor. Sec. 7 (North 2642249.92 & East 520955.32) to USACE Monument "C-5, 1948" (North 2642293.86 & East 521958.l3) is North 87°29'28" East, a distance of 1,003.87 feet.
1. PROPERTY COVERED BY NOTICE, DESCRIPTION, ACCESS RIGHTS, & COVENANTS MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 120(h)(3)(A) of the COMPREHENSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE, COMPENSATION, & LIABILITY ACT (CERCLA) OF 1980 (42 U.S.C. § 9620(h)(3)(A):
For the property, the GRANTOR provides the following notice, description, & covenants & retains the following access rights:
a. Notices Pursuant to Section 120 (h)(3)(A) (i) (I) & (II) of the CERCLA (42 U.S.C. § 9620(h)(3)(A)(i)(I) & (11):
Pursuant to section 120(h)(3)(A)(i)(I) & (II) of the CERCLA(42 U.S.C. § 9620(h)(3)(A)(i)(I) & (11), available information regarding the type, quantity, & location of hazardous substances & the time at which such substances were stored, released, or disposed of, as defined in section 120(h), is provided in Exhibit B, attached hereto & made a part hereof.
b. Description of Remedial Action Taken, if Any, Pursuant to Section 120(h)(3)(A)(i)(lII) of CERCLA (42 U.S.C. § 9620(h)(3)(A)(i)(lII»: Pursuant to section 120(h)(3)(A)(i)(III) of CERCLA (42 U.S.C. § 9620(h)(3)(A)(i)(III), a description of the remedial action taken, if any, on the property is provided in Exhibit B, attached hereto & made a part hereof.
c. Covenant Pursuant to Section 120(h)(3)(A)(ii) & (B) of CERCLA (42 U.S.c. § 9620(h)(3)(A)(ii) & (B):
Pursuant to section 120(h)(3)(A)(ii) & (B) of CERCLA (42 U.S.C. § 9620(h)(3)(A)(ii) & (B), the GRANTOR warrants that-
(i) all remedial action necessary to protect human health & the environment with respect to any hazardous substance identified pursuant to section 120(h)(3)(A)(i)(I) of CERCLA remaining on the Property has been taken before the date of this deed,
For additional information see site file. |
Louis Howard |
| 11/1/2011 |
Update or Other Action |
R&M Consultants, Inc. (R&M) has recently completed the annual sampling event for the former
Defense Fuel Support Point – Anchorage (DFSP-A) site located within the Port of Anchorage
(Port). Sampling activities were based on recommendations outlined in the Updated Long-Term
Monitoring Plan, April 28, 2008 (2008 LTMP) and the Record of Decision for Cleanup, Defense
Fuel Support Point-Anchorage, U.S. Defense Energy Support Center, February 18, 2003 (2003
ROD) issued by the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) in cooperation
with the Defense Energy Support Center.
A total of eight monitoring wells (MW) and two surface water sampling locations (SS) were sampled. This most recent phase of sampling was conducted to further quantify existing contamination at the site and to determine the extent of natural attenuation that is taking place.
Enclosed please find the results of the 2011 DFSP-A sampling activities, which were conducted
on August 29-30, 2011. The eight wells that were sampled are designated MW2-R, MW4-R, MW15-R, MW22, MW23, MW25A, MW25B, and MW25C; surface water sample locations are designated SS14 and SS12 (Figure 1). Water samples taken from the monitoring wells and surface locations were submitted to SGS North America, Inc. of Anchorage, Alaska (SGS) for laboratory analyses on August 30, 2011.
Laboratory analysis detected benzene above ADEC site-specific cleanup levels in groundwater
from MW15-R at 0.249 mg/L. Other BTEX constituents were detected at levels below cleanup levels in groundwater from MW15-R, MW22, MW25A, MW25B, and MW25C.
Detected levels of GRO were below ADEC site-specific cleanup standards in groundwater collected from MW15-R, MW22, MW25A, MW25B, and MW25C. GRO was not detected at the remaining wells.
Detected levels of DRO were above the ADEC site-specific cleanup standard of 15.0 mg/L in
groundwater collected from MW25A, MW25B, and MW25C (18.8 mg/L, 30.1 mg/L, and 114 mg/L, respectively). DRO was detected below cleanup levels in wells MW2-R, MW4-R, MW 15-R, and MW23.
Laboratory analysis of water from SS14 detected TAH and TAqH above cleanup levels (0.0209
mg/L and 0.0220 mg/L respectively). Detected levels of TAH and TAqH at SS12 were below
cleanup levels.
Current groundwater sampling results indicate that the contamination levels continue to show a
general decline. Most detectable analytical results fall well below site-specific cleanup levels
with the exception of MW15-R, MW25A, MW25B, and MW25C. Benzene levels continue to exceed cleanup levels in MW15-R at 0.249 mg/L. DRO levels in MW25A, MW25B, and MW25C are fluctuating at concentrations above cleanup levels.
Based on the information presented herein, no change is recommended to the annual monitoring well sampling regimen.
Analytical results from the surface sampling locations have been variable over the past three
years with TAH and TAqH results exceeding cleanup levels at SS14. No change is recommended for the annual sampling regimen at SS12 and SS14; SS04 has already been removed from the sampling plan. |
Louis Howard |
| 11/1/2011 |
Update or Other Action |
R&M Consultants, Inc. (R&M) has recently completed the annual sampling event for the former
Defense Fuel Support Point – Anchorage (DFSP-A) site located within the Port of Anchorage
(Port). Sampling activities were based on recommendations outlined in the Updated Long-Term
Monitoring Plan, April 28, 2008 (2008 LTMP) and the Record of Decision for Cleanup, Defense
Fuel Support Point-Anchorage, U.S. Defense Energy Support Center, February 18, 2003 (2003
ROD) issued by the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) in cooperation
with the Defense Energy Support Center.
A total of eight monitoring wells (MW) and two surface water sampling locations (SS) were sampled. This most recent phase of sampling was conducted to further quantify existing contamination at the site and to determine the extent of natural attenuation that is taking place.
Enclosed please find the results of the 2011 DFSP-A sampling activities, which were conducted
on August 29-30, 2011. The eight wells that were sampled are designated MW2-R, MW4-R, MW15-R, MW22, MW23, MW25A, MW25B, and MW25C; surface water sample locations are designated SS14 and SS12 (Figure 1). Water samples taken from the monitoring wells and surface locations were submitted to SGS North America, Inc. of Anchorage, Alaska (SGS) for laboratory analyses on August 30, 2011.
Laboratory analysis detected benzene above ADEC site-specific cleanup levels in groundwater
from MW15-R at 0.249 mg/L. Other BTEX constituents were detected at levels below cleanup levels in groundwater from MW15-R, MW22, MW25A, MW25B, and MW25C.
Detected levels of GRO were below ADEC site-specific cleanup standards in groundwater collected from MW15-R, MW22, MW25A, MW25B, and MW25C. GRO was not detected at the remaining wells.
Detected levels of DRO were above the ADEC site-specific cleanup standard of 15.0 mg/L in
groundwater collected from MW25A, MW25B, and MW25C (18.8 mg/L, 30.1 mg/L, and 114 mg/L, respectively). DRO was detected below cleanup levels in wells MW2-R, MW4-R, MW 15-R, and MW23.
Laboratory analysis of water from SS14 detected TAH and TAqH above cleanup levels (0.0209
mg/L and 0.0220 mg/L respectively). Detected levels of TAH and TAqH at SS12 were below
cleanup levels.
Current groundwater sampling results indicate that the contamination levels continue to show a
general decline. Most detectable analytical results fall well below site-specific cleanup levels
with the exception of MW15-R, MW25A, MW25B, and MW25C. Benzene levels continue to exceed cleanup levels in MW15-R at 0.249 mg/L. DRO levels in MW25A, MW25B, and MW25C are fluctuating at concentrations above cleanup levels.
Based on the information presented herein, no change is recommended to the annual monitoring well sampling regimen.
Analytical results from the surface sampling locations have been variable over the past three
years with TAH and TAqH results exceeding cleanup levels at SS14. No change is recommended for the annual sampling regimen at SS12 and SS14; SS04 has already been removed from the sampling plan. |
Louis Howard |
| 7/16/2013 |
Update or Other Action |
Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report received for review and comment.
In accordance with ADEC’s recommendation on November 7, 2011, the 2012 groundwater monitoring event included sampling for ethylene dibromide (EDB) and 1,2-Dichloroethane (1,2- DCA) in addition to the other contaminants of concern. ADEC’s Draft Field Sampling Guidance (May, 2010) requires these two contaminants be analyzed if leaded gasoline or aviation gasoline are product types that may have been released at a site. Sampling for EDB and 1,2-DCA was not included in either the 2003 or 2008 Long-Term Monitoring Plans.
These constituents were not previously analyzed for in prior groundwater monitoring efforts and therefore could not be dismissed by ADEC as contaminants of concern at the site. All monitoring wells were visually inspected prior to sampling. Locks installed in 2011 were intact and all monitoring wells appeared to be in relatively good condition.
All groundwater sampling was performed in accordance with the procedures presented in ADEC’s Draft Field Sampling Guidance (May, 2010). Prior to purging and sampling, the groundwater levels and well depths for each monitoring well were measured with a water level indicator precise to 0.01 feet. The water level indicator was decontaminated between wells by soaking in a diluted phosphate solution (Alconox) and rinsing with deionized water. Water levels were compared with 2011 survey elevations and are presented in Table 1. No free product was encountered in the wells; however, a hydrocarbon sheen and odor was observed at MW15-R, MW25A, MW25B, and MW25C.
Current groundwater sampling results continue to show a general decline in contamination levels with fluctuations among some contaminants. Most detectable analytical results fall well below site-specific cleanup levels with the exception of MW15-R, MW25A, MW25B, and MW25C. Benzene levels continue to exceed cleanup levels in MW15-R at 0.321 mg/L. DRO levels in MW25A, MW25B, and MW25C are fluctuating at concentrations above cleanup levels.
Based on ADEC correspondence, if EDB and 1,2-DCA are not detected above ADEC cleanup levels (EDB
0.00005 mg/L and 1,2-DCA 0.005 mg/L), they may be eliminated as contaminants of concern. Continued sampling for EDB, 1,2-DCA or additional testing for the presence of lead in groundwater is not recommended.
Based on the information presented herein, it is recommended that the annual groundwater sampling regimen continue for all monitoring wells at the DFSP-A to include analysis for GRO, DRO, and BTEX.
Analytical results from the surface sampling locations have been variable over the past years with TAH and TAqH results typically exceeding cleanup levels at SS14. However, analytical results from this year for SS12 and SS14 were below established cleanup levels. Continued sampling is recommended to further characterize contaminant attenuation and no change is proposed for the surface water sampling regimen for SS12 and SS14. |
Louis Howard |
| 7/16/2013 |
Update or Other Action |
Monitoring report with results of the 2012 DFSP-A sampling activities received. Sampling was
conducted on August 28-29, 2012. The eight wells that were sampled are designated MW2-R, MW4-R, MW15-R, MW22, MW23, MW25A, MW25B, and MW25C; surface water sample locations are designated SS14 and SS12.
Each monitoring well was purged up to three well volumes – unless the well was bailed dry – utilizing a 36-inch long polyethylene bailer (diameters ranged depending on size of well). A new bailer was used for each well and was disposed of after sampling was complete. Purge water was collected in 5-gallon buckets and transported to 55-gallon drums staged near MW15-R until laboratory analysis was complete. Water that exceeds the site specific ADEC cleanup levels listed in Table 2 is planned for disposal by Emerald Services, Inc. Purge water determined to fall below cleanup levels will be disposed of via on-site surface spillage.
Groundwater samples were submitted to SGS for laboratory analyses of the following:
• Gasoline Range Organics (GRO) by Alaska Method 101
• Diesel Range Organics (DRO) by Alaska Method 102
• Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, and Total Xylenes (BTEX) and 1,2-DCA by EPA 8260C
• EDB by EPA 8011 (Analysis performed at SGS, North Carolina)
Laboratory analysis detected benzene above ADEC site-specific cleanup levels in groundwater from MW15-R at 0.321 mg/L. Other BTEX constituents were detected below cleanup levels in groundwater from MW4-R, MW15-R, MW25A, MW25B, and MW25C.
Detected levels of GRO were below the ADEC site-specific cleanup standard of 13.0 mg/L in groundwater collected from MW15-R, MW22, MW25A, MW25B, and MW25C. GRO was not detected in the remaining wells.
Detected levels of DRO were above the ADEC site-specific cleanup standard of 15.0 mg/L in groundwater collected from MW25A, MW25B, and MW25C (28.6 mg/L, 110 mg/L, and 67.4 mg/L, respectively). DRO was detected below cleanup levels in wells MW2-R, MW4-R, MW 15-R, MW22, and MW23. EDB and 1,2-DCA were not detected in any groundwater samples.
Laboratory analysis of water from SS12 and SS14 detected TAH and TAqH below cleanup levels. |
Louis Howard |
| 8/2/2013 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
ADEC Comments on the Annual groundwater monitoring report.
Annual Report Text states:
All groundwater sampling was performed in accordance with the procedures presented in ADEC’s Draft Field Sampling Guidance (May, 2010). Prior to purging and sampling, the groundwater levels and well depths for each monitoring well were measured with a water level indicator precise to 0.01 feet. The water level indicator was decontaminated between wells by soaking in a diluted phosphate solution (Alconox) and rinsing with deionized water.
Water levels were compared with 2011 survey elevations and are presented in Table 1. No free product was encountered in the wells; however, a hydrocarbon sheen and odor was observed at MW15-R, MW25A, MW25B, and MW25C.
Each monitoring well was purged up to three well volumes – unless the well was BAILED dry – utilizing a 36-inch long polyethylene BAILER (diameters ranged depending on size of well). A new BAILER was used for each well and was disposed of after sampling was complete. Purge water was collected in 5-gallon buckets and transported to 55-gallon drums staged near MW15-R until laboratory analysis was complete.
ADEC’s Draft Field Sampling Guidance states:
IV. Groundwater Sampling
A. General Guidelines
Peristaltic pumps (section D2 of Groundwater Sample Equipment) and BAILERS (section D1) are NOT the preferred method for the collection of VOLATILES or other air sensitive parameters. Rather the use of bladder pumps (section D3), positive pressure submersible pumps (section D4), gear pumps (section D5), passive diffusion bag samplers (section D6), or samplers like HydraSleeve (section D8) or Snap Samplers (section D9) are preferred to reduce the loss of volatiles during sampling.
D. Groundwater Sampling Equipment
1. Bottom Fill Bailer
Disadvantages
• Cannot provide reliable or reproducible data for air sensitive parameters, e.g., dissolved oxygen, pH, carbon dioxide or iron and its associated forms.
• Volatile organic analytical results may be biased low (due to aeration)
While it may have been approved in the past, please discontinue use of bailers for all future groundwater monitoring of GRO, BTEX, and any VOCs (EDB/DCA).
It is requested that groundwater wells be resampled at the next scheduled sampling event for BTEX, GRO, EDB and DCA using either bladder pumps, positive pressure submersible pumps, gear pumps, hydrasleeve or snap samplers. Bailers shall not be acceptable for sampling volatile constituents. The results from groundwater sampling with bailers for volatiles (GRO, BTEX, VOCs, EDB and DCA) will not be accepted for elimination of COCs for future sampling events. As such EDB and DCA are requested to be analyzed once more in 2014 due to issues surrounding the use of bailers.
|
Louis Howard |
| 5/5/2014 |
Update or Other Action |
Groundwater/Surface water monitoring program received.
Current groundwater sampling results continue to show a general decline in contamination levels with fluctuations among some contaminants. Most detectable analytical results fall well below site-specific cleanup levels with the exception of MW15-R where benzene levels continue to exceed cleanup levels at 0.371 mg/L.
DRO levels in MW25A, MW25B, and MW25C are below cleanup levels for the first time. Based on ADEC correspondence, if EDB and 1,2-DCA are not detected above ADEC cleanup levels (EDB 0.00005 mg/L and 1,2-DCA 0.005 mg/L), they may be eliminated as contaminants of concern. Continued sampling for EDB, 1,2-DCA or additional testing for the presence of lead in groundwater is not recommended.
Based on the information presented herein, it is recommended that the annual groundwater sampling regimen continue for all monitoring wells at the DFSP-A to include analysis for GRO, DRO, and BTEX. Analytical results from the surface sampling locations have been variable over the past years with TAH and TAqH results typically exceeding cleanup levels at SS14. Analytical results from 2012 were below cleanup levels; however both TAH and TAqH at SS14 exceed cleanup levels for 2013. Continued sampling is recommended to further characterize contaminant attenuation, and no change is proposed for the surface water sampling regimen for SS12 and SS14 |
Louis Howard |
| 7/26/2016 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Staff provided comments on the annual GW monitoring report. Main comments requested a periodic review of remedy protectiveness for human health and the environment be conducted in 2016 or 2017. Other comments were regarding a Mann-Kendall analysis of the groundwater and surface water historical results to be included in the review. Finally staff rejected the proposal to remove 5 wells from the monitoring program at the site.
See site file for additional information. |
Louis Howard |
| 7/26/2016 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Staff commented on the GW monitoring report. Main comment was for a periodic review to be conducted in 2016/2017 and every 5 years thereafter for reviewing the protectiveness of the remedy and conduct a statistical analysis of the historical surface water and groundwater results. Staff commented on the need to retain monitoring wells MW2-R, MW4-4, MW22, MW23, and MW25C for future GW monitoring.
See site file for additional information. |
Louis Howard |
| 12/8/2016 |
Update or Other Action |
Staff reviewed and commented on the annual groundwater monitoring report. Main comments were to inform the Port of Anchorage regarding the discontinuation of the 10X Rule cleanup levels and adoption of the 11/6/16 18 AAC 75 cleanup levels for any future cleanup complete determination at the site.
See site file for additional information. |
Louis Howard |
| 3/22/2017 |
Update or Other Action |
Investigation work plan received for review.
This investigation is designed to support civil construction activities that will potentially disturb contaminated soil and groundwater associated with two known contaminated sites. The
following field objectives have been developed to guide work performed under this plan to
mitigate risks associated with known contamination.
• Enforce institutional controls (IC) associated with the ROD and conditional closure of the former DFSP-A site (NFRAP) (ADEC, 2003 and ADEC, 2006).
• Ensure construction activities do not increase the potential for contamination to migrate or otherwise adversely affect human health or the environment.
• Reduce the potential for contamination related delays during trenching activities.
• Provide guidance to field staff for project specific screening and handling of soil and/or
groundwater for backfilling, stockpiling, or offsite disposal, as necessary.
• Establish documentation and “first response” procedures should contaminated soil or
groundwater be encountered.
• Analytical and field monitoring of groundwater effluent for discharge to the sanitary sewer.
• Field screening of soil for site worker health and safety and for reuse and disposal determinations.
See site file for additional information. |
Louis Howard |
| 3/30/2017 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Review comments on the Draft WP for 2017 ML&P 35kV feeder loop project. Main comments were regarding to require PAHs for analysis do to their presence in many fuels released at the site. Other comments were to use 15 ppm as a screening tool for separating excess material that can't be used as backfill at the site and needs to be transported offsite and to not use silica gel cleanup for analysis since naturally occurring material is not suspected to be present at the site that would cause elevated sample results.
See site file for additional information. |
Louis Howard |
| 6/30/2017 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Staff commented on the draft work plan for proposed jet fuel tankage. Main comments were on not homogenizing soil samples for VOC analyses at all to avoid biasing the results "low".
See site file for additional information. |
Louis Howard |
| 10/25/2017 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Staff reviewed the Draft geotech and environmental work plan for proposed tank farm construction. Main comments were to use ingestion cleanup levels for GRO and DRO and not migration to groundwater cleanup levels.
See site file for additional information. |
Louis Howard |
| 11/27/2017 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Staff provided comments on the first Five-Year Review (5YR) for the site. Main comments were made regarding discontinuing groundwater monitoring at the site since the GW is not potable, not a source of drinking water and 2003 ROD stated it need not be considered a source of drinking water. Other comments were made regarding the need to conduct VI assessment prior to any planned construction of manned facilities and either design mitigation measures as part of construction design or remediate the contamination if the VI pathway is deemed complete.
See site file for additional information. |
Louis Howard |
| 1/9/2018 |
CERCLA ROD Periodic Review |
ADEC approves the responses to comments made for the First Five Year Review (FYR) to be incorporated into the final document. ADEC will eliminate the requirement that groundwater monitoring be conducted at the site. Surface water will require to be monitored in accordance with a revised monitoring plan for the site. Any contaminated soil and groundwater encountered at the site must be properly managed in accordance with the current State cleanup rules in 18 AAC 75 (ADEC currently amended through November 7, 2017). |
Louis Howard |
| 1/31/2018 |
Offsite Soil or Groundwater Disposal Approved |
Based on a review of the information provided, ADEC has reviewed the request for transport and will approve transport and disposal of IDW (purge water and drill cuttings) to NRC Alaska LLC for the water and Columbia Ridge Landfill for the soil. |
Louis Howard |
| 2/19/2018 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Staff reviewed the draft monitoring report and concurred with the recommendations in the document: 1) Suspend annual groundwater in accordance with ADEC recommendations from the First Five-Year Review (5YR). 2) Continue yearly sampling of surface water until results from sampling locations are below cleanup levels for four consecutive sampling events as specified by the ROD and in accordance with the First FYR. 3) Prepare an updated monitoring plan in accordance with the First 5YR recommendation that groundwater monitoring be suspended and surface water sampling continue.
See site file for additional information. |
Louis Howard |
| 7/9/2018 |
Update or Other Action |
Updated long-term monitoring (LTM) plan for facility received for review and comment. Periodic surface water monitoring in accordance with the Record of Decision. During review of the
five-year review (FYR), ADEC determined that GW at the Port is not considered a drinking water source and recommended that periodic groundwater monitoring be discontinued.
Long-term monitoring objectives for the former DFSP-A are as follows:
• Sample surface water at remaining monitoring locations annually.
• Analyze surface water samples for contaminants of concern (COC).
• Compare surface water chemical sample results and field screening results with water
quality standards in 18 AAC 70 (2017) and with results from past sampling events.
• Report findings to ADEC on an annual basis.
• Assess the selected remedy on a five year basis by preparing a FYR for ADEC. The next FYR
is due in 2022.
See site file for additional information. |
Louis Howard |
| 7/17/2018 |
Update or Other Action |
DLA Letter to ADEC. The Defense Fuel Supply Center (DFSC) is submitting an updated notification form and diskett for its UST located at Defense Fuel Support Point (DFSP) Anchorage. The UST
information was prepared using Microsoft EXCEL, Version 5.0 for your convenience in updating
your database.
The DFSP Anchorage is owned by the U.S. Army, however, it has been operated by DFSC since 1989. During the late 1980s, the Army registered all of its underground tanks including spill containment, bulk underground, and cut-and-cover tanks. All of these are deferred from the UST regulations.
The terminal only operates one UST that is required to be registered. It was installed by the Army in 1983 for use in collecting residual petroleum product from tank trucks prior to receiving fuel at the terminal loading rack facility. The tank, numbered 20-627, is a cathodically protected double-walled steel tank equipped with a leak detection system.
This information has been entered into the new database on the diskett. The existing data in your database for our DFSP Anchorage terminal is grossly inaccurate. In addition to containing tanks deferred from the regulations, it also lists aboveground tanks and identification numbers of tanks that do not exist. We recommend replacing your database entirely with the information contained on the diskett.
We hope that this will clear up the confusion regarding the USTs at our DFSP Anchorage
terminal. |
David Allen |
| 3/19/2019 |
Update or Other Action |
Monitoring report received. TAH & TAqH values were below the cleanup levels between 2009 (beginning of this data set) & 2016 & in 2018 for surface water location SS12 & since 2012 for surface water location SS14. Location SS12 exceeded TAH & TAqH cleanup levels in 2017. Surface water has met the TAH & TAqH water quality criteria from 2012 through 2016 & in 2018. Location SS12 exceeded TAH & TAqH cleanup levels in 2017. Recommendations: Continue yearly sampling of surface water until results from sampling locations are below cleanup levels for four consecutive sampling events as specified by the ROD & in accordance with the First Five-Year Review. The second five-year review is due to be initiated in February 2022.
See site file for additional information.
|
Louis Howard |
| 3/21/2019 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Staff agreed with the recommendations in the Draft Groundwater Monitoring Report Former Defense Fuel Support Point – Port of Alaska Dated February 25, 2019 to continue yearly sampling of the surface water. The sampling will continue until results from sampling locations are below cleanup levels for four consecutive sampling events as specified by the Record of Decision and in accordance with the 2017 First Five-Year Review. |
Louis Howard |
| 6/10/2019 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
ADEC approves the work plan for the proposed ML&P 35KV Feeder Loop Project at the Port of Alaska, Municipality of Anchorage (MOA) contract number 2018001307, dated May 24, 2019. |
Louis Howard |
| 1/24/2020 |
Update or Other Action |
Annual monitoring report received for review. Results for 2019 appear to be impacted by the drier than typical conditions in Anchorage (0.90 inches of rain from June through August compared to a typical average of 5.63 inches). The drier conditions may have resulted in
increased concentrations as less water was present in the sampling locations in 2019. Due to the
dry conditions, the significant spikes in TAH and TAqH are considered outlier data.
Recommendations for the site: Continue yearly sampling of surface water until results from sampling locations are below cleanup levels for four consecutive sampling events as specified by the ROD and in accordance with the First Five-Year Review. Sampling results from 2020 will assist with interpretation of elevated 2019 TAH and TAqH results. Ideally, 2020 will have precipitation closer to the long-term average. The second five-year review is due to be initiated in February 2022. |
Louis Howard |
| 2/5/2020 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Staff reviewed the Annual Groundwater Monitoring report. Main comments were regarding ensuring that chain of custody seals are placed on sample coolers even if sampled and analyzed the same day. Other comments disagreed with the sample data being considered outlier data due to drier than normal climatic conditions in 2019.
See site file for additional information. |
Louis Howard |
| 1/25/2021 |
Institutional Control Periodic Reporting |
Surface water monitoring activities were conducted on 19 and 26 of August 2020 by R&M
Consultants, Inc. (R&M) at the Former Defense Fuel Support Point – Anchorage (DFSP-A) in
Anchorage, Alaska. Monitoring included collecting two surface water samples. The surface water
samples were analyzed for volatile organic compounds (VOC) and polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAH) to allow calculation of total aromatic hydrocarbons (TAH) and total aqueous
hydrocarbons (TAqH) values. Annual monitoring for 2020 was based on the 2018 Updated Long-
Term Monitoring Plan and 2003 Record of Decision (ROD). |
Darren Mulkey |
| 11/28/2022 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
On 11/28/2022DEC provided comments for the 2021 Annual Monitoring Report, Port of Alaska, Tract J Monitoring- Former Defense Fuel Support Point Dated November 2022.
The 2021 annual surface water sampling was conducted as part of the ongoing monitoring of contaminant loads associated with the Former Defense Fuel Support Point site, in Anchorage, Alaska.
Sampling was conducted on October 23, 2021, with samples collected at existing sample locations SS12 and SS14. The results of the 2021 surface water sampling indicate that Total Aqueous Hydrocarbons were below applicable cleanup levels at site SS14 but above applicable cleanup levels at site SS12.
Based on the analytical results, the annual surface water sampling is recommended to continue in 2022 and beyond.
|
Daniela Fawcett |
| 2/3/2023 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
on 02.03.2023 DEC approved the 2021 Annual Monitoring Report, Port of Alaska, Tract J Monitoring- Former Defense Fuel Support Point, Dated November 2022, revised February 2023. |
Daniela Fawcett |
| 3/13/2023 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
DEC reviewed and provided comments regarding the 2022 Annual Monitoring Report Former Defense Fuel Support Point Port of Alaska. The report describes the long term management monitoring conducted during the fall of 2022 for the SS12 and SS14 site at the Former Defense Fuel Support Point Port site located in Anchorage, Alaska. Surface water samples were collected from each site. Total Aqueous Hydrocarbons (TAH) exceeded the applicable cleanup level at site SS12. Continued annual monitoring was recommended for both SS12 and SS14. |
Ginna Quesada |
| 3/29/2023 |
Compliance Advisory Letter |
DEC sent a compliance advisory letter to the Port of Alaska regarding a failure to notify DEC about planned excavation at Port of Alaska - Former Defense Fuel Support Point in accordance with 18 AAC 75.375(d)(3) and 18 AAC 75.370(b). DEC requested the Port of Alaska provide a written corrective action plan by April 30, 2023 describing how the Port of Alaska will ensure DEC is notified of any proposal to use the site in a manner that is inconsistent with the institutional controls in place at the site. |
Erica Blake |
| 4/26/2024 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
DEC approves Geotechnical Exploration Work Plan, Former DFSP-A Tank Farm, Port of Alaska (dated April 2024). This work plan describes geotechnical investigations to support design and construction of a proposed battery bank and control building at the Port of Alaska - Former Defense Fuel Support Point (DFSP) in Anchorage, Alaska. Nine soil borings will be advanced, and field screened with a photoionization detector (PID). Since this is an investigative geotechnical project, soil cuttings will be returned to the borehole in accordance with DEC’s Managing Petroleum-Contaminated Soil, Water, or Free Product during Public Utility and Right-of-Way Construction and Maintenance Projects (September 2018). QEP resumes will be provided prior to beginning work. |
Brian Watts |
