| Action Date |
Action |
Description |
DEC Staff |
| 9/8/1986 |
Site Characterization Report Approved |
Hazardous waste study #37-26-0725-87 by U.S. Army Environmental Hygiene Agency. Report completed 9/26/86. Unknown when ADEC received report. In 1984, Fort Richardson was cited with several EPA and ADEC violations concerning improper storage of hazardous waste, unlabeled hazardous waste containers, and waste spills. In May 1985, the surface soil in fire training pit 2 had high cadmium, lead, and zinc. Used petroleum products from the motor pools were burned at the fire training pits. These materials were stored on site in 55 gallon drums prior to use in fire training drills. Approximately 1,500 to 2,300 gallons/year of wastes were burned at each fire training pit. The depth to groundwater on most of Fort Richardson ranges from 20 to 40 feet. Fire training pit 1, located at the active landfill, and fire training pit 2, located east of the runway and southwest of the National Guard post, were the pits discussed in the report. Lead was the only potential health concern identified at fire training pit 2. |
Louis Howard |
| 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 (see 2102.38.021 Defense Fuel Support Point-Anchorage) 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 Northern Distric 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 |
| 10/6/1989 |
Update or Other Action |
Ecology and Environment visited Fire Training Pit (FTP)1 and FTP2. FTP1 appeared to be covered with soil. FTP2 showed a distinct shallow fire pit and empty drums and other debris on the site. FTP2 is located about 50 feet from a moderately traveled road. The current data suggests that there are two original fire training pits at Fort Richardson, with a lack of information about pre-1970 pits. |
Louis Howard |
| 12/29/1989 |
Update or Other Action |
Woodward-Clyde site assessment for fire training pit 1 (FTP-1) and fire training pit 2 (FTP-2). Fires were maintained in the unlined pits by saturating the soils with water and then discharging fuel into the pits and igniting them. The pits were put into operation during the initial establishment of the posts and have been used until recently. In 1988, Woodward-Clyde conducted a soil gas survey at the pits. FTP1 is located at a closed landfill near Noone Road. It is reported that FTP1 was filled in with contaminated soils. Originally FTP1 was about 50 feet in diameter and surrounded by a one foot high berm. Three borings were drilled and 12 subsurface soil samples were taken at FTP1. Borings did not exceed 6 feet because landfill debris was encountered. Petroleum hydrocarbon constituents of concern tended to decrease with depth. Fossil Creek is over one mile from FTP1. Based on the results of the soil gas survey, FTP1 does not pose an immediate threat to human health. However, the database is incomplete in terms of the groundwater quality, gradient and hydraulic conductivity.
The relationship of FTP-1 to the landfill on which it is located should be delineated. Relative high levels of methane were detected in the soil gas survey along with the fuel products used for fire training exercises. Migration of the residual fuel products into the landfill has not been adequately evaluated.
FTP2 is located east of Bryant Field and was actively used for fire training until 1985. Three borings were drilled to 20 feet and 20 surface and subsurface samples were obtained. FTP2 is located 2 miles south of Fossil Creek. Groundwater was not encountered in the borings. Subsurface gas survey probes went as deep as 90 feet. TPH readings indicated residual fuel products at three locations. Contamination decreased radially from the pit area.
Based on the qualitative risk screening, FTP-2 at Fort Richardson is designated a Category 2 site requiring additional IRP investigation. The data base is incomplete in terms of groundwater quality, gradient, and hydraulic conductivitiy. At the time of the closure, the area was reportedly cleaned and covered over. However, a significant amount of burned debris, including burned out barrels and cans, was noted during the 1988 WCC investigation. The entire area should be cleaned of debris, the top several feet of surface soil at the pit removed to prevent the tracking of potential contaminants off site and the area covered with clean material. |
Louis Howard |
| 6/28/1991 |
Update or Other Action |
Geotechnical Report for Groundwater Monitoring Network for the central complex of Fort Richardson.
Fuel Identification and Quantification (Modified EPA Method 8015). The data are given in Table II. Although none of the specified compounds in modified method 8015 were detected, chromatograms of samples from wells PR-1, FII-2, and F‘R-3 taken in September 1990 indicate the presence of heavy hydrocarbons. Precise quantification is impossible because the observed detected amount of lead was 47 ug/L. found in the September sample from well ADFG 9.
The Hay-June 1990 sample from Sump A contained 0.005 ppm toluene. This amount of toluene is not significant. It is at the analyte detection limit and no toluene vas found in the September 1990 sample. Toluene vas detected in samples from both Well-2 and Well-3 in September 1990. Three different samples from the September 1990 sampling of Well-2 were tested; only one was determined to contain toluene (23 ug/L). The other two Well-2 samples exhibited a level of toluene lower than the detection limit of 5 ug/L. The September rasp14 from Well-3 contained toluene at 73 ug/L. The MCL for toluene in rater is 5 ug/L. The May-June 1990 samples collected from Well-2
and Well-3 showed no toluene present above detection limits.
Well-1 May 1990 Lead at 18 ug/L (MCL is 15 ug/L). FR-3 Lead at 28 ug/L June 1990. ADF&G 9 Sept. 1990 Lead at 47 ug/L. Well-2 Sept. 1990 Lead at 16 ug/L. Duplicate FR-3 Sept. 1990 Lead at 16 ug/L. Duplicate FR-2 Lead at 15 ug/L. |
Louis Howard |
| 12/4/1991 |
Update or Other Action |
Ecology and Environment preliminary investigation was conducted primarily to investigate the unconfirmed FTPs. The fire training pit located on the Fort Richardson Landfill was eliminated from this project because it is being addressed in a separate IRP project specific to the landfill. Recommended that collection of surface and subsurface samples be done to determine the vertical and lateral extent of contamination. The surface soil sample collected from a stained area, contained tetrachloroethene (PCE) 485 ug/kg, bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 4100 ug/kg, diesel 20000 mg/kg, lead 543 mg/kg. Subsurface samples contained significant levels of acetone 283 ug/kg and TCE 46 ug/kg. |
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
USEPA Office of Research and Development, Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office Cincinnati, OH Subj: Oral Reference Doses and Oral Slope Factors for JP-4, JP-5; similar to Kerosene (CAS no. 8008-20-6), Diesel Fuel (CAS No. 68334-30-5), and Gasoline (CAS No. 8006-61-9) (AVGAS) [McChord AFB (Wash Rack/Treatment)/Tacoma, WA]. From Joan S. Dollarhide Associate Director, Superfund Health Risk Techncial Support Center, Chemical Mixtures Assessment Branch TO Carol Sweeney USEPA Region X.
This memorandum is in response to your request for oral systemic and carcinogenic toxicity values for JP-4, JP-5, diesel fuel, and gasoline (AVGAS) found to contaminate soil and
groundwater at McChord AFB (Wash Rack/Treatment), Tacoma, WA. We have attempted to derive RfDs and slope factors for the above fuel mixtures. We have derived provisional RfDs for
gasoline, JP-4, JP-5 and diesel fuel; provisional cancer weight-of-evidence classifications of C for gasoline and D for JP-4, JP- 5 and diesel fuel; and a provisional slope factor (adapted from an interim Agency value) for gasoline
Based on the available evidence, unleaded gasoline can be assigned to U.S. EPA (1986) weight-of-evidence Group C: possible human carcinogen. An earlier U.S. EPA document assigned unleaded
gasoline to Group B2 as a probable human carcinogen (u.s. EPA, 1987a), but that document predates the U.S. EPA (1991d) conclusion that the male rat kidney tumors produced by gasoline
are not predictive for humans, and therefore should not contribute to the weight-of-evidence or dose-response assessment of carcinogenicity. IARC concluded that marine diesel fuel is possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B), but light diesel fuels and jet fuels are not classifiable as to their carcinogenicity in humans (Group 3). |
Jennifer Roberts |
| 7/16/1992 |
Update or Other Action |
Geotechnical Report for Groundwater monitoring received.
FR-3 May 1991 Method 8015 Modified detected Oil at 5.6 mg/L. Blank was contaminated with oil too.
Sample 9118FRL01WA detected lead at 36 ug/L.
FR-1 May 1991 Method 8015 Modified detected Oil at 5.5 mg/L. Blank was contaminated with oil too. Lead was detected in sample 9118FRL102WA at 26 ug/L (MCL is 15 ug/L). Sample 9118FRL02WA detected lead at 29 ug/L.
ADF&G E November 1991 Lead at 52 ug/L.
FR-1 November 1991 Lead at 18 ug/L, FR-2 Lead at 19 ug/L, FR-3 Lead at 25 ug/L
FR-3 November 1991 Lead at 43 ug/L |
Louis Howard |
| 7/7/1993 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Staff provided comments on the June 1993 draft Site Investigation Project Report for the Fire Training Pits.
Executive Summary
The statement on page ES-l fifth paragraph that groundwater is found at over 100 feet deep conflicts with the statement found on page 3-3, second paragraph, which states that depth to groundwater ranges from 38 to 140 feet (inferred from two wells located 1.5 mi. from RFTP-2). BH-3 had groundwater detected in it at 34.5 feet, but it was more than likely a perched aquifer since there were no other bore-holes that contained groundwater even to depths of 66.5 feet. Inferring the depth to the main water table may not be appropriate given the closest two wells
are located 1.5 miles away. Throughout the document there was no mention of the source of 2, 3, 7, 8-Tetradichlorodibenzo-p-dioxin or how it was generated at RFTP-2. Please elaborate as to where the source of dioxin came from at RFTP-2.
4.4.3 Analytical Methods and Procedures
Table 4-3 on page 4-11 lists EPA 3550/8290 as the method for analyzing for
dioxin/furan, while on page 5-8 section 5.2.1.5 states that dioxin/furan was
analyzed using method 8280 or method 8290. Please explain the exclusion of
8280 in table 4-3 and why two separate methods are used for dioxin/furan
analyses.
5. Results and Significance of Findings
5.1 .l Petroleum, Oil and Lubricants pages 5-l and 5-2
Utilizing the ADEC matrix cleanup level A may not be the most appropriate for the site as stated in the text. If the Army were to have 1 to 3 monitoring wells installed at RFTP-2 the wells would: (1) determine the true depth to groundwater, (2) establish a matrix score that may allow a less stringent cleanup level based on the actual depth to the main water table and its proximity to the deepest known level of contamination, and (3) using a minimum 3 wells be able to start a monitoring program for tracking any migration of contaminants off site based on the site specific hydro-geologic conditions.
5.2.1.5 Polychlorinated Dibenzo-p-Dioxins and Polychlorinated Dibenzofurans
The text states that none of the samples analyzed produced a calculated dioxin Toxic Equivalency Factor (TEF) value above the action level of 1.O ug/kg TEF. The values ranged from 0.000009 to 0.00043 ug/kg TEF and implies that no action is necessary. However, the levels of dioxin detected at RFTP-2 exceeds the EPA Region 10 RBC of 4 X 10-6 (actual values range from 18 X 1O-6 to 37 X 1O-6) with no explanation of exceeding RBCs in 6.2.5 Conclusion or in the Executive Summary at the beginning of the document. Please elaborate as to why the dioxins at RFTP-2 were excluded from remedial options and the rationale behind the decision.
7.5.1 Recommendation of Remedial Options
The text states that vacuum extraction/bio-venting is the recommended remedial option for POL contamination present at the site. ADEC requests that the Army submit remedial action plans for review and approval before implementing any remedial action and explain what target cleanup levels will be used to address the POL and dioxin contamination present at the RFTP-2.
Appendix D Chemical Quality Assurance Reports
9.(d) Lessons Learned/Problems Encountered
The text states that the project and QA laboratories were requested to analyze dioxin/furan analyses by non-compatible methods (project lab-8280 and QA lab used 8290). Please explain why separate methods were used for analyses instead of both labs utilizing the same method for dioxin/furan. |
Louis Howard |
| 9/21/1993 |
Update or Other Action |
A.G. letter (Breck Tostevin) to Tamela J. Tobia OS Judge Advocate for the Army. Letter states that a separate petroleum site compliance agreement should be separate from the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) federal facility agreement. The petroleum site restoration agreement would function as a "two-party agreement" under the FFA. It would track the basic provisions of the UST Agreement but be tailored to the State's contaminated site regulations and would interface with the FFA. All petroleum sites addressed under the Two Party agreement would be reviewed in the final operable unit of the FFA and actions taken would be memorialized in a Record of Decision (ROD) under the FFA. |
Louis Howard |
| 9/6/1994 |
Update or Other Action |
Workplan for OUD preliminary source evaluation received. Fire training pit is poorly defined. The exact location is not known because clean soil from UST excavations and other construction activities has been stockpiled in this area. The location will be determined from the stained area indicated in an air photo. The size and location of the pit will be determined from the air photo and its location determined via survey prior to field activities. If pit is inaccessible to a drill rig, the stockpiled soil may be smoothed out or moved. |
Louis Howard |
| 11/2/1994 |
Update or Other Action |
Technical memorandum for OU D. ENSR staked out 3 pits. October 26, Travis Barber identified a second area formerly used as a Fire Training Area. This area is clearly identifiable and could be sampled as a fire training area.
Memorandum from ENSR to Jim Levine US Army CORPS. Some new information has been identified for two of the Operable Unit D sites (the grease pits and the Fire Training Area). A focused investigation is taking place at a third site (Building 955). The new information, or in the case of Building 955, historical information, is summarized below.
Grease Pits
ENSR’s original scope of work identified one human waste (sewage disposal) pit and two cooking grease disposal pits. The two grease pits were to be investigated because of drums observed during a visual site inspection. The pits were located with help from Mr. Dennis Hubbard (Building 704) of Ft Richardson’s Department of Public Works (DPW).
On October 26 I was staking out the locations of the one human waste pit and two grease pits,
preparing for field sampling. After staking the locations in the now snow-covered ground I
contacted personnel at Building 704 to confirm the pit locations. On October 27 Travis Barber
(Building 704) and I visited the grease pit area. Travis said that there never was a specific pit excavated for old cooking greases. Grease was apparently dumped at random throughout the
landfill. However, there were “several” human waste pits in the area (seven?, more?). It is not
known in which pits the drums were seen.
About one-half of the human waste pits can be identified with a fair degree of reliability. I do
not know of written records or visual signs that would accurately locate the other pits. A
magnetometer or other geophysical survey could be used to locate buried metal objects (drums?). Exploration trenches could be advanced with a backhoe or excavator.
Recommended Approach
Prior to sampling a magnetometer or other geophysical survey is recommended to identify to
the extent possible buried metal objects. Buried metal objects would likely be located in a
former pit.
ENSR recommends that initial pit investigation be performed with a backhoe. The use of a
backhoe should allow for greater “feel” than a drill rig; therefore being able to work around
buried debris (drums?) while minimizing the potential for further releases at the site.
For the pits with “known” locations, the backhoe could trench down, confirm the location was
a former pit, and collect a sample from about 5 to 6 feet bgs. For the trenches with only
approximate locations known, the backhoe could be used to excavate exploratory trenches,
locate the pits, and then collect samples.
At least three samples should be collected from each pit, at about 5 to 6 feet below ground
surface (bgs). According to present information, most of the pits were constructed with a
bulldozer to about 6 feet bgs. At least one pit was constructed with a backhoe and is reported
to be deeper than 6 feet bgs. Based on the results of the initial sampling, additional samples
should be collected from soil borings. The soil borings would be advanced as currently
planned, using a hollow-stem auger to retrieve soil samples to depths up to about 20 feet bgs.
Excavated soils would be replaced back into the trenches.
Fire Training Area
During Travis Barber’s visit to the grease pits/human waste pits he identified a second area
formerly used as a Fire Training Area. This area is clearly identifiable and could be sampled
in a similar manner to the other Fire Training Area; 10 samples from 6 inches bgs and (based
on these preliminary analytical results) 3-20 foot soil borings in the former Fire Training Area
with l-20 foot soil boring outside the former Fire Training Area.
Building 955
Based on my report to Jim Levine that ENSR was investigating only one former sludge bin at
Building 955, Jim requested I review our information. This is the summary of our current
information.
ENSR’s investigation at this facility has been focused on the area of a former sludge bin
identified on an aerial photograph from 1974. At least three sludge bins have been used,
including the new building constructed for sludge handling purposes.
Some sampling and remediation work has been performed in this area. If you need ENSR to
evaluate the adequacy of previous efforts for PSE2 purposes then I will need information
concerning the remediation and sampling work that was performed this summer, including:
. Scope of work:
. Site history that developed the scope of work;
. Sampling program;
and Analytical results |
Louis Howard |
| 11/3/1994 |
Meeting or Teleconference Held |
Federal Facility Agreement project managers meeting. Landfill Fire Training Area: The former fire training area 1 is located west of Roosevelt Rd. and north of the borrow pit. The
fire training area was used between 1985 and 1988, however a 1983 aerial photo clearly shows
the 50 ft diameter frre training area with drums located adjacent to the access road and a tanker trailer to the southeast adjacent to the access road.
In 1989 a soil gas survey was conducted in the area which determined the following soil gas
concentrations:
benzene - 820 ppm
toluene - 910 ppm
xylenes - 480 ppm
Woodward Clyde Consultants (1993) investigated the site and noted that in 1986 the AEHA
reported unlabeled drums at the site. AEHA drilled three borings to six feet where landfill debris was encountered. Analysies were performed for toxic metals, explosives, acid extractable
organics, BNAs and pesticides.
The following compounds were detected:
2 - methylnaphthalene
Bis(2-ethylexyl)phthalate
BTEX
Update on sites for Operable Unit D received. Ten shallow samples have been collected from the area. Preliminary results have not been received. Based on preliminary results, three 20 foot soil borings will be located in the fire training area. Majority of the samples had a strong petroleum odor. Field PID readings were high (1 at 2,500 units). |
Louis Howard |
| 11/4/1994 |
Update or Other Action |
State-Fort Richardson Environmental Restoration Agreement signed by ADEC and U.S. Army. Purpose of the agreement is to remedy environmental contamination due to past practices at the Post and avoid the expense of formal enforcement proceedings. Source areas where petroleum contamination was identified were referred to the Two-Party Agreement between the Army and the State of Alaska. The Two-Party Agreement is actually two separate agreements which focus on source areas at Fort Richardson contaminated with petroleum from underground storage tanks (UST) and petroleum source areas not associated with USTs. These Two-Party Agreements, which represent the petroleum cleanup strategy, document all known historical petroleum sources on Fort Richardson and their current cleanup status. The Army agrees to perform the necessary assessment, monitoring, remediation and closure of source areas not from underground storage tanks.
The Army and ADEC signed the State-Fort Richardson Underground Storage Tank Compliance
Agreement for USTs (Two-Party Agreement) in 1993. The agreement defines the process by which the Army agrees to investigate and remediate petroleum-contaminated areas. These areas are associated with USTs that have leaked or with surface spills of petroleum products,such as lubricating oils/grease, heating fuels, and motor fuels.
Fort Richardson also negotiated the State-Fort Richardson Environmental Restoration Agreement (Two-Party Agreement) for Non-UST source areas with ADEC for petroleumcontaminated source areas not associated with USTs on November 3, 1994. This Agreement sets the framework to cooperatively address known or suspected non-UST petroleum contaminated source areas. The Two-Party agreement, officially designated as the State-Fort Richardson Environmental Restoration Agreement, is a companion agreement to the FFA that guides parallel track investigations under the auspices of the CERCLA FFA between the Army, EPA, and ADEC for Fort Richardson. These source areas are not included in the work being conducted under CERCLA.
The Two-Party Agreements guide how the Army performs necessary site assessments, monitors, remediates, and closes petroleum contaminated source areas not subject to CERCLA oversight. These agreements verify the Army’s commitment to adequately address these source areas in a manner consistent with the State of Alaska Administrative Code, Title 18, Chapters 75, Oil & Hazardous Substances Pollution Control, and 78, Underground Storage Tanks. |
Louis Howard |
| 12/5/1994 |
Update or Other Action |
Federal Facility Agreement under CERCLA 120 Administrative Docket # 1093-05-02-120 signed by U.S. Army, U.S. EPA, and ADEC. The agreement ensures that the environmental impacts associated with past and present activities at the Post are thoroughly investigated and that appropriate removal and/or remedial action(s) is/are taken as necessary to protect the public health, welfare, and the environment.
Proposed listing on NPL was 06/23/1993 and Final listing on NPL was on 05/31/1994. |
Louis Howard |
| 5/1/1995 |
Update or Other Action |
Comments on the OUD draft preliminary source evaluation (PSE) 2 Document 9000-036-420 dated April 1995. Staff commented on the fact that burning of pressure treated wood and chlorinated organics generates dioxins and furans. Additional investigation is needed at this source area. |
Louis Howard |
| 10/15/1996 |
Site Characterization Report Approved |
(Old R:Base Action Code = PSE - Preliminary Source Evaluation). PSE 2 report states that 10 shallow soil samples were taken and 4 borings to 24'. Maximum detected DRO was up to 5,370 mg/kg and GR up to 12,000 mg/kg. No EPA Region III RBCs were exceeded using the most stringent residential land use scenario. RCRA landfill closure under subtitle D of the Solid Waste Regulations currently underway. |
Louis Howard |
| 1/9/1997 |
Update or Other Action |
Site transferred from CERCLA to Solid Waste program due to information gathered from the preliminary source evaluation efforts showing no further action is needed under CERCLA. |
Louis Howard |
| 2/17/1997 |
Site Added to Database |
DRO, GRO and lead contamination.. |
Louis Howard |
| 12/2/1997 |
Site Ranked Using the AHRM |
Site ranked by staff based on new information. |
Louis Howard |
| 1/14/1998 |
Update or Other Action |
As a part of a presumptive remedy for the landfill at the Post which includes the Old landfill fire training site, a cap of soil was completed in the summer of 1997 as a part of the RCRA subtitle D of solid waste landfill regulations. Groundwater sampling has been conducted since 1989 and no contaminants of concern have been identified. Monitoring to continue for thirty years and ICs to be maintained on the cap. |
Louis Howard |
| 7/2/1998 |
Update or Other Action |
Updated USARAK institutional control policies and procedures received. The draft USARAK Command Policy Memorandum, ICs standard operating procedure and revised excavation clearance request have been finalized. To ensure the effectiveness of institutional controls, all organizational units and tenant activities will be informed on an annual basis of the institutional controls on contaminated soils and groundwater in effect on USARAK property. Where institutional controls are applicable to any organization, tenant, or activity, land use restrictions shall be incorporated into either a lease or Memorandum of Agreement, as appropriate. Costs for any and all remedial actions and fines and/or stipulated penalties levied as a result of a violation of an established institutional control shall be funded by the violating activity or organization. |
Louis Howard |
| 11/23/1998 |
Update or Other Action |
Staff sent letter to Kevin Gardner re: Draft Proposed Plan OU D. DEC requests clarifying the first sentence regarding whether the former landfill or the sanitary cell was closed before 1996. A suggestion on rephrasing sentence as follows: The former landfill fire training area was constructed in a closed section of the Fort Richardson landfill. Delete text "situated over the Fort Richardson Landfill" since it is redundant to state given the previous sentence. If no groundwater impacts are from fire training activities, then it should be stated soon after the description of soil contaminantion. DEC requests the following revision for the text on the soil cap: "In 1997, a soil cap was installed...fire training area. Therefore, the fire training area has been recommended for no further action, since the cap prevents further exposure." |
Louis Howard |
| 3/29/1999 |
Proposed Plan |
Preferred alternative for contaminated groundwater at buildings 35-752, 796 and 45-590 is monitored natural attenuation combined with natural attenuation. Soil and sediment PCB contamination preferred alternative at Building 35-752 is phytoremediation and if not effective after two seasons-thermal desorption will be implemented. Additionally, windows and doors of Building 35-752 will be sealed with plywood and 8 foot security fence to prohibit access to PCB contaminated dust inside the building. Cooling pond and trench will be filled in and the source of water rerouted to sanitary sewer. COCs in GW include benzene, trichloroethene, iron, manganese, aluminum. |
Louis Howard |
| 3/1/2000 |
Update or Other Action |
Hart Crowser Research Results of Chemical Materiel at PACAF Bases Installations in Alaska (Contract No. DACA85-95-D-0010 Deliv. Order No. 30 A-8534: "Although no disposal records have been found showing that these agents or kits were intentionally landfilled, the CAIS kits may be found in pre-1970 landfills. One should be prepared for the possible occurrence of CAIS discovery when 3 excavating landfill of that era. The personnel performing the excavation should be familiarized with the kits, their hazards, and appropriate protection against them. "Empty" cylinders or containers formerly containing H also may be found in pre-1970 military landfills." |
Louis Howard |
| 9/28/2000 |
Update or Other Action |
As part of the landfill closure plan, groundwater sampling has been conducted in wells located around the perimeter of the source area since 1989. Monthly inspection of the landfill caps integrity is required and an annual report for groundwater monitoring and cap integrity is provided to the State of Alaska.
The groundwater monitoring program is expected to continue for thirty years under the landfill closure plan. No further remedial action necessary under CERCLA or Contaminated Sites Program.
Per 18 AAC 60 under the Solid Waste Program, AT052 will continue to have long-term monitoring of the groundwater and institutional controls will remain in place to ensure that the site remains an industrial land use area. Land use planning documents and the U.S. Army Environmental and land planning database delineates this area as a restricted area off limits to any digging or construction. |
Louis Howard |
| 9/28/2000 |
Conditional Closure Approved |
No further remedial action required for this site. This source area was subsequently closed under RCRA Subtitle D of Solid Waste Landfill Regulations and State of Alaska Solid Waste Regulation 18 AAC 60. Monthly inspection of the landfill caps integrity is required and an annual report for groundwater monitoring and inspection results are provided to the State of Alaska’s Solid Waste Program. This data and other site information will be reviewed as a part of the five-year review to ensure that the remedy chosen is protective of human health and the environment. Under the Solid Waste Program the site will continue to have long-term monitoring of the groundwater and institutional controls in place to ensure that the site remains an industrial land use area. Land use planning documents and database delineates this area as a restricted area off limits to any digging or construction. |
Louis Howard |
| 9/28/2000 |
Record of Decision |
OUD ROD signed memorializing decision to transfer site to the solid waste program for compliance monitoring. The source area was transferred out of CERCLA to the Solid Waste Program at the end of 1995 since it is part of the Old Fort Richardson Landfill. This source area was subsequently closed under RCRA Subtitle D of Solid Waste Landfill Regulations and State of Alaska Solid Waste Regulation 18 AAC 60. A soil cap was installed in 1997 as a part of a presumptive remedy for the Fort Richardson landfill, which includes this source area. This action creates an incomplete pathway for contact with any contaminants at this site. As part of the closure plan, groundwater sampling is required to ensure that no contaminants are leaching into the groundwater above cleanup levels and is expected to continue for 30 years. Sampling has been conducted in wells located around the perimeter of the source area since 1989. No contaminants have been detected in the groundwater in either the upgradient and downgradient monitoring wells installed from 160-204 feet below ground surface. |
Louis Howard |
| 12/12/2001 |
Update or Other Action |
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 |
| 2/20/2003 |
CERCLA ROD Periodic Review |
ADEC signs off on first review. ADEC’s concurrence with the findings of this five year review is based on the information presented in the accompanying Five-Year review Report, First Five-Year Review Report for Fort Richardson, Alaska. This statutory review is required by the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) since all of the RODs for this site were signed after the effective date of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA) and some of the remedial actions result in hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remaining at the site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure.
The Fort Richardson NPL site is comprised of five OUs, OUA, OUB, OUC, OUD, and OUE. Records of Decision (RODs) have been written and signed for four of these OUs, OUA through OUD. The Five-Year Review found that the remedies for all Fort Richardson OUs are expected to be protective of human health and the environment upon completion, and in the interim, exposure pathways that could result in unacceptable risk are being controlled. The OUE ROD will describe selected remedies for two source areas currently undergoing investigation. In the interim, institutional controls are in place at these sites that prevent exposure to contaminated soil and/or groundwater.
OUD Source Areas Requiring No Further Action (NFA)-The NFA decision was recommended for source areas if: no visible sign of contamination was observed during the source area inspection; a removal action eliminated existing and potential risks to human health and the environment; or environmental sampling results showed that contamination, if present, is at levels below the protective human health-based levels for unrestricted use. The NFA decisions for seven of the sites identified in the ROD are intended to document that the risk to human health and the environment associated with contamination from past activities at Fort Richardson is not present at these sites. Two of these source areas, the landfill fire training area and the grease pits, are being monitored in accordance with the requirements of the Fort Richardson Landfill Closure Plan (see Section 7.4). Institutional controls established for these source areas are shown on Figure 7-2. The NFA decision under CERCLA was made in the OUD ROD for the following source areas: Building 726 Laundry Facility, Storm water Outfall to Ship Creek, Dust Palliative Locations (four separate areas), Landfill Fire Training Area, Grease Pits, Building 45-590, Circle Road Drum Site.
OUD Source Areas Subject to RCRA Closure Requirements-An additional goal of the FFA was to integrate the Army’s CERCLA response obligations and RCRA Corrective Action requirements resulting from the EPA’s and Army’s 1991 Federal Facilities Compliance Agreement. As stipulated in the OUD ROD, six source areas are subject to RCRA Closure in accordance with the FFCA. Those six sites are: Circle Road Drum site, Building 700/718, Building 704, Building 955, Building 35-752, and Building 45-590.
The former landfill fire training source area and the grease pits source area were recommended for NFA under CERCLA with unrestricted use and have been closed in accordance with RCRA Subtitle D of Solid Waste Landfill Regulations and State of Alaska Solid Waste Regulation 18 AAC 60.
As part of the closure plan, groundwater sampling has been conducted in wells located around the perimeter of the landfill since 1989. The depth to groundwater under the landfill is 180 feet. An annual report for groundwater monitoring and cap integrity is provided to the State of Alaska. To date, no contamination has been detected in either the down gradient or up gradient wells. This monitoring program is expected to continue for thirty years under the landfill closure plan. Documents detailing the analytical results for long-term monitoring at the landfill are located in the Administrative Record.
The Army’s evaluation indicates that ICs for the landfill area remain protective. Institutional controls established for these source areas are shown on Figure 7-2. No new RCRA rules have been promulgated specific to post-closure procedures for the former landfill fire training source area or the grease pits source area. |
Jennifer Roberts |
| 1/8/2004 |
Site Number Identifier Changed |
Changed Workplan from X1 to X9 to reflect metals contamination. |
Former Staff |
| 2/20/2004 |
Update or Other Action |
Jennifer Roberts signed the five year review document for the Post. The objectives of the Five-Year Review are to answer the following questions:
•Are the remedies functioning as intended by the decision document?
•Are the exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels, and remedial action objectives (RAOs) used at the time of the remedy still valid?
•Has any other information come to light that could call into question the protectiveness of the remedy?
The former landfill fire training source area and the grease pits source area were recommended for NFA under CERCLA with unrestricted use and have been closed in accordance with RCRA Subtitle D of Solid Waste Landfill Regulations and State of Alaska Solid Waste Regulation 18 AAC 60.
As part of the closure plan, groundwater sampling has been conducted in wells located around the perimeter of the landfill since 1989. The depth to groundwater under the landfill is 180 feet. An annual report for groundwater monitoring and cap integrity is provided to the State of Alaska. To date, no contamination has been detected in either the down gradient or up gradient wells. This monitoring program is expected to continue for thirty years under the landfill closure plan. Documents detailing the analytical results for long-term monitoring at the landfill are located in the Administrative Record.
The Army’s evaluation indicates that ICs for the landfill area remain protective. Institutional controls established for these source areas are shown on Figure 7-2. No new RCRA rules have been promulgated specific to post-closure procedures for the former landfill fire training source area or the grease pits source area. |
Louis Howard |
| 8/31/2007 |
GIS Position Updated |
61.2746 N latitude -149.6905 W longitude |
Louis Howard |
| 2/22/2008 |
CERCLA ROD Periodic Review |
Second Five Year Review signed by ADEC.
OUD SOURCE AREAS WITH NO FURTHER ACTION DECISIONS IN OUD ROD-The NFA decision was recommended for source areas if: no visible sign of contamination was observed during the source area inspection; a removal action eliminated existing and potential risks to human health and the
environment; or environmental sampling results showed that contamination, if present, was at levels below the protective human health-based levels for unrestricted use. The NFA decisions for seven of the sites identified in the ROD were intended to document that the risk to human health and the environment associated with contamination from past activities at Fort Richardson was not present at these sites. Two of these source areas, the landfill fire
training area and the grease pits, are being monitored in accordance with the requirements of
the Fort Richardson Landfill Closure Plan (see Section 7.4). The NFA decision under CERCLA was made in the OUD ROD for the following source areas: Building 45-590 – Auto Hobby Shop, Building 726 - Laundry Facility, Circle Road Drum Site, Dust Palliative Locations (four separate areas),
Grease Pits, Landfill Fire Training Area, Storm water Outfall to Ship Creek.
OUD SOURCE AREAS SUBJECT TO RCRA CLOSURE REQUIREMENTS-An additional goal of the FFA was to integrate the Army’s CERCLA response obligations and RCRA Corrective Action requirements resulting from the EPA’s and Army’s 1991 FFCA. As stipulated in the OUD ROD, the following six source areas are subject to RCRA Closure in accordance with the FFCA: Building 700/718, Building 704, Building 955, Building 35-752, Building 45-590, Circle Road Drum site.
The former landfill fire training source area and the grease pits source area were recommended
for NFA under CERCLA with unrestricted use and have been closed in accordance with RCRA
Subtitle D of Solid Waste Landfill Regulations and State of Alaska Solid Waste Regulation 18
AAC 60.
As part of the closure plan, groundwater sampling has been conducted in wells located around
the perimeter of the landfill since 1989. The depth to groundwater under the landfill is 180 feet. An annual report for groundwater monitoring and cap integrity is provided to the State of Alaska. To date, no contamination has been detected in either the down gradient or up gradient wells.
This monitoring program is expected to continue for thirty years under the landfill closure plan. Documents detailing the analytical results for long-term monitoring at the landfill are located in the Administrative Record. The Army’s evaluation indicates that ICs for the landfill area remain protective. Institutional controls established for these source areas are shown on Figure 3-1. No new RCRA rules have been promulgated specific to post-closure procedures for the former landfill fire training source area or the grease pits source area. |
Jennifer Roberts |
| 6/13/2013 |
Exposure Tracking Model Ranking |
Initial ranking with ETM completed for source area id: 73769 name: Landfill/FTA |
Louis Howard |
| 4/28/2015 |
CERCLA PA |
Final Preliminary Assessment received. Under authority of CERCLA and the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986, CH2M HILL conducted a PA visit at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson (JBER) during the week of December 15, 2014, with a follow-up visit on January 12 and 13, 2015, to secure additional information. Based on background research and visits to JBER, a total of four FTAs, seven fire stations, seven hangars, five crash locations, four areas where AFFF spray testing has occurred, and three additional “miscellaneous” locations have been identified as being active during the timeframe when AFFF has been used by the USAF for fire suppression.
AT052 Landfill FTA was active from the 1940s to 1983. Records and interviews did not confirm that AFFF was used during fire training; however, not enough information was available to confirm that AFFF was never applied. It is likely that impacted media could occur.Because the operational history and potential for release of AFFF during the years prior to the current Assistant Fire Chief is unclear, it is assumed that the potential for an AFFF release to the environment is present.
Recommendation: initiate a site inspection as an investigation to collect and analyze waste and environmental samples to support an evaluation. |
Louis Howard |
| 4/11/2016 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Staff provided comments on the draft PFC Site Inspections work plan for JBER-E and JBER-R.
Main comments were regarding obtaining prior approval from ADEC and EPA project managers before making changes to the approved QAPP and that the EPA RSSLs are less stringent than the human health soil cleanup levels and migration to ground cleanup levels ADEC will be promulgating this winter (2016). It was noted that WS# 10 is especially vague: "Based on the above, the best available screening criteria for PFOA and PFOS releases are the EPA PHAs for groundwater and RSSLs for soil. Because ADEC has proposed lower concentration limits that are in the public
comment process, the ADEC levels should also be considered."
It states that ADEC levels should also be considered, however in WS # 11, it states the concentrations of PFOA and PFOS in soil and groundwater will be compared to project screening levels based on the most conservative risk based EPA or ADEC values.
For determining presence or absence of PFOS and PFOA using solely risk based screening levels is not acceptable to ADEC. If the migration to groundwater cleanup level is adopted by ADEC and it exceeds for PFOS or PFOA, a release is confirmed and it is deemed to be contaminated by ADEC. 18 AAC 75.990 Definitions.
(23} "contaminated soil" means soil containing a concentration of a hazardous substance that exceeds the applicable cleanup level determined under the site cleanup rules. If AFCEC chooses to proceed with risk based values (as it is apparent upon review of Table 10-2 Steps 2, 4, & 5), then ADEC reserves the right to require further investigation/cleanup under 18 AAC 75 for all areas of concern/source areas where AFC EC determined no addition action was necessary at an area of concern/ source area, but the PFC levels detected exceed migration to groundwater cleanup levels for PFCs.
See site file for additional information. |
Louis Howard |
| 7/26/2016 |
Update or Other Action |
Technical Memorandum – Annual Inspection and Maintenance of Sites AT052, DP051, SS013, and SS090 received for review and comment. A site inspection for perfluorinated compounds (PFCs) is being conducted in 2016. If no further action is recommended for PFCs based on that investigation, then a technical memorandum will be prepared to summarize the status of DP051 and to administratively close the site. |
Louis Howard |
| 8/25/2016 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Staff approved the Draft Technical Memorandum – Annual Inspection and Maintenance of Sites AT052, DP051, SS013, and SS090 on JBER-Richardson. |
Louis Howard |
| 6/1/2017 |
Update or Other Action |
Draft Site inspection (SI) at aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) areas on JBER-E and JBER-R waa received for review and comment. The purpose of the SI was to determine the presence or absence of perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) in the environment. These compounds are a class of synthetic fluorinated chemicals used in industrial and consumer products, including defense-related applications. This class of compounds is also referred to as per- and polyfluorinated alkyl substances (PFAS).
One soil sample from ground surface to 15 feet bgs was collected. PFBS was not detected in soil. PFOA and PFOS were detected in soil at concentrations below the EPA RBSLs and ADEC cleanup levels. One groundwater sample was collected from 189.5 to 199.5 feet bgs in new monitoring well AT052-1. PFBS was detected at concentrations below the RSL. Neither PFOA nor PFOS were detected in groundwater
See site file for additional information. |
Louis Howard |
| 6/13/2017 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Staff commented on the draft SI for JBER-E and JBER-R sites which included this site. It appears there are documented releases of PFOS and/or PFOA at these areas which require additional investigation through a remedial investigation/feasibility study under CERCLA or as required by 18 AAC 75.335 Site Characterization.
The 1991 Elmendorf Federal Facility Agreement Part II Definitions. Paragraph 2.1 states: “(y) "Site” shall mean the areal extent of contamination and shall include sources of contamination subject to this Agreement at the Elmendorf (Elmendorf AFB), which occupies approximately thirteen thousand one hundred and thirty (13,130) acres, bordered by the Municipality of Anchorage,- Alaska, to the south. The Site includes ANY OFF-BASE area(s) contaminated by the MIGRATION of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants FROM Elmendorf AFB;”
See site file for additional information. |
Louis Howard |
| 7/17/2017 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
EPA received the Draft Site Inspection Report for Aqueous Film Forming Foam Areas, Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, Alaska, May 2017 for review the week of June 2, however Appendix B2 (App B2) laboratory data was not included. EPA received App B2 for review the week of June 20. EPA preliminary comments were sent to the Air Force on July 17, 2017.
EPA Office of Research and Development staff, as well as EPA Region 5 Laboratory chemists, reviewed App B2. EPA has asked the Air Force for clarification regarding what level of report and data review was done by the government prior to submittal of the report to EPA and have not received a clear response. EPA’s initial review has identified a number of data quality issues and that the government data review should be completed and submitted to EPA before we are asked to finalize our comments. The comments submitted reflect only those requiring clarification on the narrative or figures and are not inclusive of review of the laboratory data, and therefore cannot substantiate any conclusions drawn on the presence/absence of PFAS at the 26 AOCs.
EPA review of the laboratory data packages has raised a number of concerns with deviations from workplan approved standard operating procedures, laboratory methods, and data validation.
EPA requests the Air Force clarify the level of governmental data review conducted on the JBER Site Inspection laboratory packages, and provide a copy of the Air Force data review to EPA.
Additional EPA comments on the laboratory data are pending receipt of the Air Force data review.
See site file for additional information. |
Louis Howard |
| 11/1/2017 |
Update or Other Action |
Tech memo received for review and comment. The site was closed under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act as part of the Landfill. AT052 is located within the Landfill, and as part of the Landfill post-closure care, LUCs are in place for the landfill to prevent access or damage to landfill cover. The current status of AT052 within the ADEC contaminated sites program database, Hazard ID 2793, is cleanup complete with ICs. A site inspection for perfluorinated compounds (PFCs) was conducted in 2016. If no further action is recommended for PFCs based on that investigation, then a technical memorandum will be prepared to summarize the status of AT052 and to administratively close the site.
See site file for additional information. |
Louis Howard |
| 11/2/2017 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Staff reviewed and commented on the draft tech memo for annual inspection and maintenance at AT052, SS013 and SS090. Main comments were to clarify that ADEC has assigned a "cleanup complete with institutional controls" for the site and to achieve a "cleanup complete" determination as a landfill, the landfill would have to be completely removed and confirmation sample results were below applicable cleanup levels. There is no change in status at this time and AFEC may "administratively" close the site but it will remain CC w/ICs in the CS Database.
See site file for additional information. |
Louis Howard |
| 11/21/2017 |
Update or Other Action |
Per AFCEC email: A memo from the USACE summarizing issues found in their review should be in hand on the 4th of December. |
Louis Howard |
| 5/1/2018 |
CERCLA SI |
Final site inspection report received documenting Perfluorooctanesulfonic Acid (PFOS) and Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) are below current (October 27, 2018) 18 AAC 75 migration to soil cleanup levels as found in Table B1. FYI: the levels of Perfluorobutane Sulfonic Acid (PFBS), Perfluoroheptanoic Acid (PFHpA), Perfluorohexane Sulfonic Acid (PFHxS) and Perfluorononanoic Acid (PFNA) as well as lower levels of PFOA & PFOS are below the proposed revised levels of PFAS in pending regulatory update of 18 AAC 75 (October 1, 2018 public comment draft). |
Louis Howard |
| 1/14/2019 |
Update or Other Action |
Tech Memo received. Solid Waste Program is currently overseeing post closure care, land use controls, monitoring of groundwater per 18 AAC 60. AT052 does not pose an unacceptable risk to human health or the environment; and the site was closed in 1995 under RCRA. Access to the Landfill area, which includes AT052, is restricted by fencing and locked gates; land use is limited to industrial use, and must be nonintrusive in capped areas. Monitoring includes annual visual assessment of the landfill cover, annual groundwater monitoring to detect potential changes in groundwater chemistry, and quarterly landfill gas monitoring
Therefore, a Cleanup Complete (site closure) determination is requested.
See site file for additional information. |
Louis Howard |
| 1/25/2019 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
ADEC concurs with the administrative closure of AT052 by the Contaminated Sites Program and transfer regulatory oversight (per 18 AAC 60) to the Solid Waste Program upon receipt of the final technical memorandum document.
See site file for additional information. |
Louis Howard |
