Division of Spill Prevention and Response


Site Report: JBER-Ft. Rich OUD Grease Pits/Landfill

Site Name: JBER-Ft. Rich OUD Grease Pits/Landfill
Address: Old Ft. Rich. Landfill FTRS-51, Formerly Fort Richardson before 10/01/2010, Fort Richardson (JBER), AK 99505
File Number: 2102.38.004.11
Hazard ID: 430
Status: Cleanup Complete - Institutional Controls
Staff: Louis Howard, 9072697552 louis.howard@alaska.gov
Latitude: 61.275269
Longitude: -149.691975
Horizontal Datum:WGS84

We make every effort to ensure the data presented here is accurate based on the best available information currently on file with DEC. It is therefore subject to change as new information becomes available. We recommend contacting the assigned project staff prior to making decisions based on this information.


This source area is inside the former Fort Richardson landfill north of main cantonment area north of Circle Drive and warehouse/open storage area and southwest of the Landfill Former Fire Training Area. There were at least ten pits reportedly used. Site approved for no further remedial action planned decision for soils and groundwater to go to long term monitoring. FTRS-51 Grease Pits #1 & #2 NE1/4 Section 30, SW1/4 Section 28. Landfill has been inactive since December 1987. Grease Pit #1: Site# R072, 1990 RFA SWMU 92, FRA Landfill (East Side) approx. 1000' SW of FF Pit#2. Grease Pit #2: Site# R073, 1990 RFA SWMU 83, FRA Landfill (East Side) approx. 1000' SW of FF Pit#2. EPA ID: AK6214522157 Fort Richardson-Proposed NPL Listing Date 6/23/1993 FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE of Final NPL Listing Date 5/31/1994

Action Information

Action Date Action Description DEC Staff
7/12/1988 Update or Other Action Site inspection on July 12, 1988 by Carl Gysler. Several waste disposal pits in Fort Richardson Landfill are used for grease trap pumpings and human waste. The human waste trench was opened for use for BRIM FROST 1987 and used since that time. It is unmarked, about two thirds full and has been used for disposal of plastic antifreeze drums. Two other pits, one to the south of the human waste trench was being used for grease from the grease traps on Post. The other pit has water in the bottom and several drums of the plastic antifreeze type, no markings were observed. This pit is currently being used for dumping grease. The pit to the south of the human waste trench is the one where the remains of the tank removed from behind the laundry would have been placed (Building 726 UST). The tank contained an unknown amount of perchloroethylene (aka tetrachloroethylene (PCE)) which was disposed of in the pit in the late summer of 1987. NOTE TO FILE: Tetrachlorethylene, also known as perchloroethylene or PCE, is widely known as a dry-cleaning solvent, but was also used in cleaning and degreasing (particularly when a stable, high-boiling point solvent was needed), in various textile production processes, and in the production of fluorinated compounds such as CFC-113. PCE was first synthesized in 1821 by Michael Faraday. Significant industrial uses in the US are not known prior to the early 1920s, when Dow Chemical began production of commercial quantities. PCE was introduced to the dry-cleaning industry during the 1930s, and became widely accepted due to its low toxicity relative to carbon tetrachloride, and its low flammability and less persistent odor relative to petroleum solvents. By 1950, PCE use in dry-cleaning led carbon tetrachloride by a factor of 3-to-1. PCE production in the US more than tripled in the 1960s. However, improvements in the dry-cleaning process began to significantly decrease the demand for PCE. In 1959, one drum of PCE could clean 500 pounds of clothing; by 1975, the number increased to 8,000; and by 1993, it reached 16,000. PCE production decreased by a factor of eight from 1980 to 1990. Despite the decline, and the effect of environmental regulations and toxicity studies, PCE is still used by 80 to 90 percent of today's dry cleaners. Equipment used today recovers 95 to 99 percent of the PCE used in dry-cleaning. It is used in some adhesives, aerosols, paints, and coatings. The pit that was open when Carl G. was last there, located to the northeast of the human waste trench and in front of the eastern open pit, is now closed. Gene Haroldson (O&M Shop 83X) told Carl that a new pit is opened once a year, the old one closed, and that there were a number of old pits in the area. The dumping of the perchloroethylene was the reason that the southern pit remains open. Louis Howard
9/30/1988 Update or Other Action Past use of the former pits has not been’well documented: A May 1988 US Army Environmental Hygiene Agency (AEHA) (*NOTE:Effective 1 August 1994, AEHA became US Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine (USACHPPM)) inspection noted 55 g drums and liquid grease floating on the surface of the base of the trench. According to facility personnel, past waste disposal to the trenches may have included oil/water separator bottoms, fuel tank water and other materials. Note to File: AEHA's lineage can be traced back over 50 years to the Army Industrial Hygiene Laboratory. That organization was established at the beginning of World War II and was under the direct jurisdiction of The Army Surgeon General. It was originally located at the Johns Hopkins School of Hygiene and Public Health, with a staff of three and an annual budget not to exceed three thousand dollars. Its mission was to conduct occupational health surveys of Army-operated industrial plants, arsenals, and depots. These surveys were aimed at identifying and eliminating occupational health hazards within the Department of Defense's industrial production base and proved to be of great benefit to the nation's war effort. It was known both nationally and internationally as the U.S. Army Environmental Hygiene Agency or USAEHA. Its mission was expanded to support the worldwide preventive medicine programs of the Army, DOD, and other Federal agencies through consultations and supportive services, investigations, and training. Louis Howard
12/3/1988 Site Added to Database petroleum contaminants, metals Louis Howard
11/10/1989 Update or Other Action Ecology and Environment Site Reconnaissance performed on November 10, 1989. Evidence of limited dumping was present at a borrow pit located along the southeastern corner of the landfill. The recent landfill (disposal area 4 and 5) lacked vegetative cover. The asbestos disposal area had potential runoff problem due to its location on a slope on the southern side of the landfill. Four drums labeled ethylene glycol in the trenches. Drums had spilled and their contents were pooling on the trench bottom. An additional 8 unlabeled drums were also noted in the grease pits. Louis Howard
9/26/1990 Update or Other Action INTERIM GUIDANCE FOR SURFACE AND GROUNDWATER CLEANUP LEVELS SEPTEMBER 26, 1990 Interim cleanup guidance for contaminated surface and groundwater remediation is necessary to ensure that consistent cleanup levels are being applied by district and regional program staff. The following guidelines should be implemented under 18 AAC 75.140 which specifies that a "discharge must be cleaned up to the satisfaction of the Regional Supervisor or his designee. Final cleanup levels shall be determined by the Regional Supervisor or his designee based on site-specific conditions. Staff should be aware that if a facility is regulated under RCRA, that RCRA corrective action and cleanup standards should enter into development of final site cleanup levels. Groundwater should be cleaned up to levels not exceeding the more stringent of the final State or Federal Maximum Contaminant levels (MCLs) for Organic and Inorganic Chemicals. If final MCLs have not been adopted for a contaminant, then groundwater should be cleaned up to levels not exceeding proposed Federal MCLs. The group of compounds collectively identified as total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) should be cleaned, up to non-detectable levels as measured by EPA Method 418.1. Final State MCLs are specified in 18 AAC 80.050 and final Federal MCLs are specified in 40 CFR 141 and 142. Proposed Federal MCLs are specified in the May 22, 1989, Federal Register Vol. 54, No. 97, pages 22155 - 22157 and the July 25, 1990, Federal Register Vol. 55, No. 143, pages 30408 - 30448. Appendix I provides a summary listing of State and Federal Final and Proposed MCLs for selected organic and inorganic contaminants. For organic and in organic contaminants that have not been assigned a final or proposed MCL, cleanup levels should be based on criteria cited in EPA's Water Quality Criteria. 1986 using a health risk factor of 10-6. EPA's water quality criteria identify concentrations of elements and compounds which have toxic effects on aquatic organisms or toxic and carcinogenic effects on humans. If groundwater is being used as a drinking water source and alternative water supplies or point of use water treatment cannot be provided, then final or proposed secondary maximum contaminant levels (SMCLs) may be used as cleanup target levels. SMCLs are based on aesthetic properties such as taste and odor, whereas MCLs are based on human health risks. For compounds such as xylenes, the SMCL maybe several hundred times lower than the MCL. Surface waters used for drinking water should also be cleaned up to levels not exceeding the final or proposed MCLs for organic and inorganic chemicals, as specified above. Under the authority of 18 AAC 70.020, surface waters important to the growth and propagation of aquatic life should be cleaned up to the listed criteria which includes EPA's Water Quality Criteria. 1986. These criteria identify concentrations of specific elements or compounds which have toxic effects on aquatic organisms. The group of compounds collectively identified as total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) should be cleaned up to non-detectable levels as measured by EPA Method 418.1. Alternative Cleanup Levels (ACLs) may be adopted for a site if a risk assessment approved by the department is performed and cleanup to levels identified above is technically infeasible. Risk assessments will not by themselves establish ACLs. Determination of cleanup levels is a risk management decision that the department must make based on results of a quantitative risk assessment and other pertinent information. The responsible party (RP) may prepare at its own expense a risk assessment which shall include an assessment of both human health and environmental risks. Specific components of the risk assessment should include an exposure assessment, toxicity assessment, risk characterization, and justification of ACLs. A general description of these risk assessment components is provided in Appendix II. General technical requirements for risk assessments should be based on EPA risk assessment guidance for superfund sites. A site specific risk assessment procedure must be prepared by the RP and submitted to the department for review and approval prior to conducting a risk assessment. The RP, at the department's discretion, must agree to reimburse the department for expenses incurred by the department if it chooses to contract for a risk assessment review. Louis Howard
9/30/1990 Update or Other Action Louis Howard
12/3/1990 Site Ranked Using the AHRM Initial ranking. Louis Howard
3/11/1993 Update or Other Action Letter from Army received referring to March 4, 1993 meeting regarding the closure of the Fort Richardson landfill. The Fort Richardson Landfill Report developed by E and E and provided during the meeting is the Post's closure plan for the landfill. The Army states that the plan submitted on March 4, 1993 allows the Army to close the landfill in accordance with the current state regulations (18 AAC 60) and not require the Army to meet the new regulations becoming effective later this year (40 CFR 257 and 258). ADEC is expected to review and provide its comments on the plan no later than April 4, 1993. The Army has the option of using the remediated POL contaminated soil as cover for the landfill. The continued storage of the POL contaminated soils in the landfill area will not be a factor in the closure of the landfill. Once top cover requirements are met, for the areas of concern, reduced analytical testing will be required. Areas of concern are those areas that contain solid wastes which may be leachable. Construction debris sites are not considered areas of concern by the Army. Concerns addressed by E and E's proposed closure plan, yet to be submitted, the ADEC are as follows: lack of appropriate cap on landfill over solid potentially leachable wastes, monitoring well locations in respect to the areas of concern in the landfill, methane monitoring, and sewer line systems near the landfill. The plan will also address additional concerns identified on April 4, 1993 by ADEC. The Army also intends to continue efforts in obtaining a topographical map of the landfill area and investigate areas of concern to determine cover requirements. 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
3/7/1994 Update or Other Action Comment letter sent on closure plan for Fort Richardson Landfill (ADEC Project Number 9321-SWM-004). The following section were not accepted: Groundwater monitoring, determination of landfill cover thickness, methane and gas survey. ADEC disagrees with comments that ADEC has not established guidelines for vadose zone monitoring. Baseline data is required for each season and the extent of the 1st and 3rd aquifers' gradient and the 2nd aquifer's extent throughout the landfill. Recommend that the Army conduct a review of all monitoring data and use 18 AAC 70 in determining if there is a water quality problem as a result of the leachate from the landfill migrating into the three known aquifers. Cover thickness sampling grid needs to be modified to not include sampling of roads, or compacted areas which have stockpiled recyclable material in Areas 4, 5, and 6. Finally, ADEC reiterated from a July 6, 1993 letter to the Army that two feet of cover is the minimum amount ADEC would accept not eighteen inches. The top six inches will need to be able to sustain plant growth. The cover material will need to be as impermeable as possible, no matter what the thickness is. The permeability coefficient that is noted in the plan (10 X -5 cm/sec) is a federal requirement that the State is not enforcing at this time. July 6, 1993 issues not resolved by closure plan submitted: inventory of existing vegetation to include detailed mapping of herbaceous ground cover/woody stemmed under story and over story (trees) will need to be species specific if additional cover will not be proposed. Storm water pollution prevention plan used during closure and after closure. August 18, 1993 inspection of landfill revealed the Army failed to respond to July 8, 1993 letter. The August inspection noted area A found in appendix A of July 1993 letter was cleaned up, no cleanup plan was submitted to office as requested. Access control is still not addressed. Louis Howard
8/22/1994 Update or Other Action Staff commented on the draft OU D PSE 2 workplans received on August 3, 1994. Staff noted that there are not any naturally occurring concentrations of: PCBs, VOCs, pesticides, herbicides, GRO, DRO, TRPH, SVOCs. Usually naturally occurring constituents are limited to inorganics such as lead. Staff noted that Elmendorf Air Force Base has done a basewide background sampling investigation for metals and the Army's effort should mirror theirs for ease of comparison. Louis Howard
11/2/1994 Update or Other Action 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 remedial project managers meeting to discuss activities conducted to date for operable unit (OU) D. Grease Pits 1 and 2: The former Grease Pits are located west of Fire Training Area 1 and north of the main cantonment. The pits are located over a former landfill area. The pits may be as wide as 20 feet and as long as 30-40 feet. Dennis Hubbard escorted a VSI conducted by ENSR personnel in June of 1994. Mr. Hubbard indicated that the width of the pits was approximately one width of a bulldozer blade (8 to 10 feet). Although the pits have been covered with native backfill, an approximately 15 ft wide area of apparently disturbed soils can be located in the area of the two grease pits and a third pit used for human waste disposal. Past use of the former pits has not been’well documented: A May 1988 AEHA inspection noted 55 g drums and liquid grease floating on the surface of the base of the trench. According to facility personnel, past waste disposal to the trenches may have included oil/water separator bottoms, fuel tank water and other materials. A VSI reported by SAIC (1990) noted four drums labeled ethylene glycol in the trenches. The drums had spilled and their contents were pooling on the trench bottom. An additional 8 unlabeled drums were also noted in the grease pits. One of the primary objectives of this investigation will be to pinpoint the location of the trenches. The locations of the trenches were determined during a VSI. The locations visited do not match the present site locations as delineated on base maps. This may be because road positions have not remained stationary over time. Review of aerial photos has shown that the network of gravel roads have changed near the former landfills. One of the two grease pits identified in the work plan has been located with a good degree of reliability. The location of the second grease pit is confused because several pits have been located in the area. All the pits in the area have since been identified as human waste (sewage disposal) pits. No sampling has occurred at this site. One of the primary objectives of the preliminary source evaluation is to pinpoint the location of the trenches. The locations of the trenches were determined during a visual site inspection. The locations do not match the present site locations as delineated on the base maps. Road positions have not remained stationary over time and air photos show this to be the case. Louis Howard
4/10/1995 Update or Other Action ENSR's update to scope of work for PSE 2 investigation. Grease Pits Numbers 1 and 2: installed one grouping of tensiometers March 28 and 29. Louis Howard
5/1/1995 Update or Other Action Staff commented on the OUD draft PSE-2 document received on April 28, 1995. General comments were to request a table summarizing the soil, groundwater and sediment sample results compared to known benchmarks (Risk-based concentrations or hazard indices). Staff requested elaboration on what would be addressed under any additional investigation being recommended for the sites since the extent or scope cannot be evaluated with specifics. Louis Howard
10/15/1995 Update or Other Action Closure Plan Fort Richardson Landfill E&E, Inc. for the Corps of Engineers Alaska District Contract # DACA 85-91-D-0003 Delivery Order # 29. This site was generally referred to as Disposal Area 5 with trenches approximately 20 to 30 feet deep. Disposal Area 5, opened in 1982, was the first of the disposal areas to be permitted as a sanitary landfill by ADEC. This permit also included other active operations for the landfill. It included an open pit for construction and demolition debris, an area for metal and wood piles, and an area for asbestos material. E and E site visit later revealed that asbestos was disposed of in disposal area 4 rather than disposal area 5. Small amounts of explosives and toxic and infectious wastes were disposed of in disposal area 5 until 1987 (AEHA 1988 and ESE 1983). The explosives subsequently were removed and taken to Fort Wainwright (ESE 1983). Disposal area 5 still accepted sanitary waste and mess hall grease after 1987, when the Municipality of Anchorage began operating a regional landfill that accepts solid waste from the Post on land acquired from the Army (AEHA 1988). Plan includes installation for final cover, vegetative cap, monitoring program and maintenance of cover, written documentation of results of monitoring, and maintenance/repair operations, correct any problems observed with final cover or monitoring program. Louis Howard
10/27/1995 Update or Other Action Sampling and Analysis plan from E&E, Inc. received. Sampling plan is a part of the closure plan. It provided sampling methodology and analytical procedures to implement the five-year groundwater monitoring program mandated by ADEC. The plan does not include sampling the landfill cover for the physical properties nor sampling on and around the landfill for methane. Louis Howard
6/24/1996 Update or Other Action Staff commented on the draft final PSE2 evaluation for OUD dated June 1996. Table 4-l Analytes Lacking Current RBCs from EPA Region III (1996) page 4-4: EPA has come out with an updated list of RBCs effective June 20, 1996 which include listings for analytes previously listed as lacking a risk-based concentiation (RBC). For semi-volatile organic compounds: if acenaphthylene is equivalent to acenaphthene, then correct this discrepancy. Lf Di-n-butyl Phthalate listed in the table is the equivalent of Di-butyl Phthalate then it must be corrected. The new RBCs does include levels for iron and a soil screening level tiansfer level from soil to groundwater for thallium. Please correct the text and table to reflect this. Finally, while there are no specific RBCs for the specific PCBs listed in table 4 - 1 there is a general category for PCBs listed and it may be appropriate to compare levels detected to the RBC. 5.9-4 Figure Frame page 5.9-25: No figure was found showing the conceptual site model for the grease pits, please include one. Louis Howard
11/15/1996 Update or Other Action Preliminary Source Evaluation 2 for OUD finalized which includes the Grease Pits at the Old Landfill. Field investigation activities included excavating seven trenches ranging 5 to 10 feet below ground surface and 12 to 50 feet in length, to locate some representative pits, prior to drilling soil borings; screening headspace vapors with an OVM and drilling four soil borings to depths of 30 to 60 feet below ground surface. Suction lysimeter arrays were installed in borings AP-3522 and AP-3525 at approximately 25, 45 and 60 feet below ground surface. A suction lysimeter and gypsum block were installed at each depth. These devices collect water from surrounding soil spore spaces. The resistance changes with the moisture content present in the gypsum blocks. Soil contamination SB AP 3522 95GP1203SL 17.8-18.6' bgs Toluene 39 mg/kg (6.5 mg/kg MTGW October 2012 18 AAC 75), PCE 2.2 mg/kg (0.024 mg/kg MTGW), Ethylbenzene 25 mg/kg (6.9 mg/kg MTGW), Total Xylenes 94 mg/kg (63 mg/kg MTGW & Outdoor inhalation), 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 38 mg/kg (23 mg/kg MTGW), 95GP1290GW 27' bgs Benzene 760 ug/kg (MTGW 25 ug/kg), vinyl chloride was detected at 92 ug/kg (MTGW 8.5 ug/kg) and at 22' bgs 9.2 ug/kg. Benzene was the key constituent of concern; detected in water from Iysimeter AP-3522 at 760 ug/L at 27 ft bgs, and 18 ug/L at 43 ft bgs. Varying concentrations of other VOCS were detected up to 190 ug/L in samples from AP-3522. The analytical results for these samples indicated that VOCS generally attenuate at least 1 order of magnitude between 27 and 43 ft bgs. The majority of VOCS were reported below the method reporting limits for samples from AP-3525. The PSE had conducted a risk evaluation of the risks from carcinogens present in the surface and subsurface soil. The residential risk was 5.1 X 10-8 and Occupational carcinogenic risk for soil ingestion at 5.9 X 10-9. Noncarcinogenic hazard indices for soil ingestion is < 1.0 (0.11 residential and 0.0045 for Occupational). Louis Howard
4/29/1997 Update or Other Action Staff sent letter to Kevin Gardner RE: Draft approach document risk assessment. Text states the chemicals will be compared to EPA Region 9 PRGs to further identify those chemicals that warrant inclusion in the baseline HHRA. DEC is concerned that the PRGs in some cases will not adequately address those chemicals which may have been included in a baseline risk assessment using RBCs from EPA Region III. For example, the following chemicals have been found to have a higher soil screening level for protection of groundwater than those levels found in EPA Region III RBCs: Trichloroethylene, 1,2-Dichloroethane, 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, and benzo(b)fluoranthene. If the Army wishes to use Region 9 PRGs it must use a dilution attenuation factor of 1 for protection of groundwater. This is based on the data gathered from the Poleline Road Disposal Area which shows little or no dilution or attenuation from natural processes. If this approach is not one the Army wishes to use, then it may be more appropriate to use the latest EPA Region III RBCs for screening purposes since the State's draft 18 AAC 75 regulations and risk assessment guidance are based on these RBCs. 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 the text describing the history of the grease pits not being well documented instead read: "The date the pits began accepting waste is unknown and the history is not well documented; however, the grease...." Strike the sentence on Page 9 describing the start date. If there are no impacts to groundwater from the grease pits, then it should be stated in the description of the contaminants identified during the investigation of the pits. The contaminants must identify the media type which is contaminated (i.e. soil, groundwater, etc.). 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
9/28/2000 Institutional Control Record Established 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. Site to remain an industrial use area and institutional controls are in place to enforce this land use. Louis Howard
9/28/2000 Conditional Closure Approved No further remedial action necessary under CERCLA or Contaminated Sites Program. Under the Solid Waste Program, the site will continue to have long-term groundwater monitoring and institutional controls to ensure it 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. This site 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. The site status No Further Remedial Action Planned has been changed to Conditional Closure. A Conditional Closure is a determination by the Department that residual contamination remaining at a site, based on a specific landuse, does not pose a significant risk to human health and the environment. Conditions for closure under this designation may include a notice that residual contamination must be managed in accordance with applicable regulations (i.e., it should not be dug up and moved off-site without prior DEC approval) or that land use controls or other measures are in place to limit exposure to residual contamination that could pose a risk in the future. In general, conditional closures are granted by the Department when it is not practicable to remove contamination or cost effective to treat contamination using active methods. 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. Groundwater monitoring wells installed and dept to water is 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
8/31/2007 GIS Position Updated 61.2746 N latitude -149.694 W longitude Louis Howard
4/5/2010 Exposure Tracking Model Ranking Initial ranking with ETM completed for source area id: 71409 name: Grease Pits/Landifll Louis Howard
7/5/2016 Report or Workplan Review - Other The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) has reviewed the Draft Technical Memorandum: Summary of Site Status – DP051 – Grease Pits (CS DB HazID 430). ADEC concurs with the memorandum regarding administratively closing the site under CERCLA. Signing of the 2000 Record of Decision for Operable Unit D (OUD) memorialized the decision to transfer DP051 out of CERCLA to the Solid Waste Program since it is part of the Old Fort Richardson Landfill. No further remedial action under CERCLA is required. DP051 was 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 included DP051. This action created an incomplete pathway for contact with any contaminants at DP051. As part of the post-closure care, landfill monitoring (groundwater, landfill gas, and visual) and land use controls by AFCEC’s Compliance Program continues to be required under 18 AAC 60 for DP051 until at least 2025. 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 technical memorandum is being prepared to summarize the status of DP051 and to administratively close the site; therefore, future inspections for the site are not recommended. Louis Howard

Contaminant Information

Name Level Description Media Comments

Control Type

Type Details
Land Use Plan / Maps / Base Master Plan The Army has established Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) and a Geographic Information System (GIS) based tracking system to ensure that the land use restrictions are enforced. The IC system has been incorporated into the post wide Master Plan, and compliance with ICs is reported in the Annual Monitoring Reports. The IC policy applies to all USARAK units and activities, Military and Civilian Support Activities, Tenants Organizations and Agencies and Government and Civilian Contractors.


Description Details
Maintenance / Inspection Of Engineering Controls The cover is composed of coarse, permeable glacial till material. The cover is already in place and vegetated. The existing cover uses naturally occurring soils. Five year review in 2008 or annual report to SW Program staff.

There are no documents for this site report.