| Action Date |
Action |
Description |
DEC Staff |
| 6/8/1940 |
Update or Other Action |
The construction of Elmendorf Field on Fort Richardson began when 25 local men hired by Maj Edward M. George, U.S. Army Quarter Master Corps, began unloading equipment and supplies from four Alaska Railroad cars near the Whitney Station House, once located on the east side of Elmendorf AFB at the intersection of the Davis Highway and Talley Avenue. The train brought down four men, a RD-8 Caterpillar tractor and carry-all, a concrete mixer and four dump trucks from Ladd Field.
The construction effort created 1,000 jobs virtually overnight and the population of Anchorage swelled by a factor of four, creating a boomtown atmosphere and straining resources. |
Louis Howard |
| 9/28/1942 |
Update or Other Action |
Letter 470.6 (CWS), 1st Lt. lA. Romanczuk, Asst AG., to C CWS., 28 Sep 42.,subj: Toxic Agents for Alaska Defense Command
I. The Commanding General, Alaska Defense Command has requested the shipment of vesicant agent and airplane spray tanks to stations of his command. He is fully cognizant ofthe War Department instruction, April 25, 1942, prescribing approval of War Department prior to use of toxic chemicals.
2. Recommend early shipment to stations in Alaska as Follows:
STATION Fort Glenn
HS TONS 50
AIRPLANE SPRAY PUMP TANKS M-10 & FILLING LINES, COMPLETE 100
PUMP 6
STATION Fort Randall
HS TONS 50
AIRPLANE SPRAY PUMP TANKS M-10 & FILLING LINES, COMPLETE 100
PUMP 6
STATION Longview
HS TONS 50
AIRPLANE SPRAY PUMP TANKS M-10 & FILLING LINES, COMPLETE 100
PUMP 6
STATION Fort Greely
HS TONS 30
AIRPLANE SPRAY PUMP TANKS M-10 & FILLING LINES, COMPLETE 75
PUMP 4
STATION Fort Richardson
HS TONS 30
AIRPLANE SPRAY PUMP TANKS M-10 & FILLING LINES, COMPLETE 200
PUMP 16
3. Recommend for future planning but not immediate delivery, for stations as follows:
STATION Fort Morrow
HS TONS 15
AIRPLANE SPRAY PUMP TANKS M-10 & FILLING LINES, COMPLETE 50
PUMP 4
STATION Naknek
HS TONS 15
AIRPLANE SPRAY PUMP TANKS M-10 & FILLING LINES, COMPLETE 50
PUMP 4
STATION Bethel
HS TONS 15
AIRPLANE SPRAY PUMP TANKS M-10 & FILLING LINES, COMPLETE 50
PUMP 4
STATION Cordova
HS TONS 15
AIRPLANE SPRAY PUMP TANKS M-10 & FILLING LINES, COMPLETE 50
PUMP 4
STATION Annette
HS TONS 15
AIRPLANE SPRAY PUMP TANKS M-10 & FILLING LINES, COMPLETE 50
PUMP 4
*copy of Historical data sheet transcription in Alaska Files) |
Louis Howard |
| 11/6/1942 |
Update or Other Action |
War Department Office of the Chief of Engineers Washington. Refer to file no. CE 601.1 (Fort Richardson Alaska) SPELA Subject: Acquisition in Fee of Approximately 588 acres of Land, and the Transfer of Approximately 86,412 Acres from Public Domain, Area "C", Fort Richardson, Alaska, Expansion. To: The Commanding General, Services of Supply.
1. There is a military necessity for the acquisition of land indicated under subject above, and described more in detail in paragraph 2 below.
2. Description of land and other pertinent data are as follows:
a. Brief description of the land: The area to be acquired in fee consists of five separate ownerships. One ownership within the ara, the Goose Bay Trading & Manufacturing Company, will be covered by separate application. The land to be acquired in fee or by transfer is in Goose Bay District, across Knik Arm[y] from Anchorage, as indicated on the [i]enclosed directive map and cross-hatched in orange.
b. Proposed Use: For Area "C" of the Fort Richardson Reservation for an impact area.
c. Acreage involved: Approximately 87,000 acres of land.
d. Improvements: none are involved.
e. Estimated cost: $3,100
f. Method of Acquisition : Fee simple title by condemnation or purchase of approximately 588 acres and by transfer to the use and control by the War Department by proper order, the remainder of the entire area to be acquired.
3. The determination of a military necessity is based upon the request of the Commanding General, Fort Richardson, April 21, 1942, and the Commanding General, Alaska Defense Command, June 17, 1942, and approval of the Chief of Staff and Chief of North American Theater, by memorandum for the Commanding General, Services of Supply, dated November 2, 1942.
4. Funds for this acquisition are available from Public Law 528, 77th Congress, approved April 28, 1942, General Reserve Funds.
5. It is recommended that the Under Secretary of War be informed that a military necessity exists for the above mentioned acquistion, and that he be requested to authorize this office to acquire fee simple title to the said land, approximately 588 acres, and the transfer of approximately 86,412 acres from Public Domain. |
Louis Howard |
| 11/16/1942 |
Update or Other Action |
Real Estate Directive Consecutive No. RE-D 1924 November 16, 1942
CE 601.1 (Ft. Richardson, Alaska) SPELA Fort Richardson, Alaska, Expansion. 3rd Ind.
Office, Chief of Engineers, November 14, 1942. To: the Commanding General, Services of Supply.
1. A military necessity for the correction of the boundary lines and area acquired for the expansion of Fort Richardson, Alaska, by Directive 1221, dated July 9, 1942, and for acquisition of an area not includedin said directive, explained in more detail in paragraph 2 below.
2. It is necessary to withdraw the S 1/2 of NW 1/4 and N1/2 of the SW 1/4 of Section 15; S 1/2 of SW 1/4 of Section 15; and the NW 1/4 of Section 22, all in Township 13N R3W., Seward Meridian, and to include all of the land within the area outlined in green on the map.
a. Brief description of the land: Some of the land has been settled by homestead entry, some is owned in fee. Little development has taken place. Not more than 100 acres are cultivated.
b. Improvements: From cheap temporary cabins to fiar frame dwellings.
c. Proposed Use: For expansion of Fort Richardson Reservation for artillery range, secret storage and troop dispersal.
d. Acreage involved: An estimated 4,060 acres are under fee title or homestead entry, the remainder of the estimated 8,000 acres is believed to be Public Domain.
e. Estimated cost: $46,100 in addition to $41,500 alloted in basic correspondence.
f. Method of Acquistion: The privately owned land to be acquired in fee by condemnation or purchase, and the Public Domain land to be transferred to the use and control of the War Department.
g. Remarks: An emergency exists for this acquisition. Information from Alaska does definitely indicate this to be the boundary to be acquired, but there is not complete information as to the private ownerships within the area. It is believed an area of 73,000 acres of Public Domain land to the south and east is desired. Complete information is being requested from Alaska, and when obtained, this directive will be amended if necessary.
3. The determination of a military necessity is based upon the recommendation in the previous directive; the approval of the subject boundary by a Board of Officers of the Alaska Defense Command; the transmittal letter of the Alaska Real Estate Director, September 17, 1942, and the approval of the commanding General Western Defense Command by telegram August 3, 1942, approving purchasse of the private land.
4. Funds for this acquisition have not been included in any budget estimates. However, upon upon approval of the acquisition, susch present obligations as are necessary for this purpose will be incurred against any funds available to the Chief of Engineers, and the project will be included in the next available estimate, unless savings can be utilized.
5. It is recommended that the Under Secretary of War be requested to authorize this office to acquire the additional land.
|
Louis Howard |
| 4/24/1943 |
Update or Other Action |
Public Land Order 253 Signature Date: Dec. 7, 1944, Alaska; withdrawing for military purposes.1 Revoked by PLO No. 1762 (23 FR 9485). FR Citation 11 FR 8362–8370
By the virtue of the authority vested in the President and pursuant to Executive Order No. 9337 of April 24, 1943, it is ordered as follows: Subject to valid existing rights, the public lands in the following described areas are hereby withdrawn from all forms of appropriation under the public land laws, including the mining and mineral leasing laws, and reserved for the use of the War Department for military purposes. Area #16, #14, #13. The areas described include 16,054.95 acres of surveyed land and 68,500 acres of unsurveyed land. The total area aggregates 84,554.95 acres.
This order shall be subject to (1) Air Navigation Site Withdrawal No. 168 or November 5, 1941, (2) Power Site Classification Nos. 107 of June 12, 1925, and 674 of January 24, 1918, (3) a transmission line right of way under Federal Power Commission project no. 350 as amended May 24, 1941, (4) a right of way for a pipe line, dam, and reservoir granted to the City of Anchorage under the act of February 15, 1901 (31 Stat. 790, 43 U.S.C. Sec. 959), (5) Proclamation No. 1519 of April 16, 1919, reserving certain lands with 600 feet on each side of Ship Creek, (6) the right of the public to continue to use that portion of the Anchorage-Palmer Highway through a portion of the area, the right of the Alaska Road Commission to have ample right of way for proper maintenance and improvements and, (7) all rights of the natives to use and occupy the lands in their customary manner and to the continued use by the Eklutna Vocational School of its customary fishing grounds.
The sale of intoxicating liquors shall be prohibited within and about the native village located within the area hereby withdrawn.
The jurisdiction granted by this order shall cease at the expiration of the six months' period following the termination of the unlimited national emergency declared by Proclamation no. 2487 of May 27, 1941 (55 Stat. 1647). Thereupon, jurisdiction over the lands reserved shall be vested in the Department of the Interior or any other Department or agency of the Federal Governement according to their respective interests then of record. The lands, however, shall remain withdrawn from appropriation as herein provided unless otherwise ordered.
Fortas, Acting Secretary of the Interior.
Public Land Order 1762 Signature Date: Dec. 2, 1958 Alaska; withdrawing lands for use of the Alaska Railroad; revoking in part EOs Nos. 19191/2 of Apr. 21, 1914 and 8102 of Apr. 29,
1939; revoking Proclamation No. 1519 of Apr. 16, 1919; see PLO No. 253. Corrected by PLO Nos. 1863 (24 FR 4488) and 2264 (26 FR 1277). FR Citation 23 FR 9485 |
Louis Howard |
| 9/11/1943 |
Update or Other Action |
Letter to Secretary of the Interior dated September 11, 1943. Further reference is made to your letters of January 21 and February 6. The former requested withdrawal of the public lands within certain areas in the Territory of Alaska, designated by you as "Fort Richardson Expansion Area F". The latter requested the withdrawal of the public lands within an area of approximately 73,000 acreas for the military expansion of the Fort Richardson Reservation, which area includes some surveyed land in T. 12 N., R. 3 W. Between the two areas referred to are lands withdrawn for the use of the War Department by Public Land Order No. 5 of June 26, 1942.
A report embodying the recommendations of the representative of the various bureaus of this Department has been received by Mr. George A. Parks, District Cadastral Engineer of the General Land Office of Juneau, Alaska. The Alaska representative of the Office of Indian Affairs recommends that any withdrawal order should provide for the protection of whatever rights the natives may have in and to the areas, and for the continuation of their customary use thereof.
The Chief Engineer of the Alaska Road Commission offers no objection to the proposed withdrawal, provided that the public be permitted to continue the use of that portion of the Anchorage-Palmer Highway, which crosses Expansion Area F, and that the Alaska Road Commission be allowed ample right of way for proper maintenance and improvements.
The Governor of Alaska has withheld his concurrence in the proposed withdrawal until he has further facts as to the need of this additional territory for military purposes. The Governor points out that a enormous amount of land has already been withdrawn for military purposes and much of it was withdrawn on the assumption that Alaska might be invaded; that the military situation has completely changed, the combat zone being now limited to the westernmost Aleutians and will soon cease to exist even there; that there is often a considerable lag in the appreciation of the changed situation and that expenditures and elaborate plans keep on long after their need has passed.
Mr. Parks informs me that while in Anchorage recently he made inquiries regarding the use of the area by the War Department and was informed that a considerable part of it, particularly the mountainous section in the eastern half, is within the range of the defense guns around the Anchorage military base; also, that this mountainous area is used for practice bombing, that the more level portion to the west, partly adjacent to the Alaska Railroad is not being used and that it is possible that further investigation by the War Department would disclose that some these lands could be eliminated from the proposed withdrawal.
In addition to the rights affecting the lands as set forth in our letters to you of February 3 and February 20 our records show that a portion of the larger area is affected by the reservation for water power sites made by the Executive Order of January 23, 1918, Power Site Reserve No. 674 that certain lands within 600 feet on each side of Ship Creek were reserved by Proclamation No. 1519 of April 16, 1919 (41 Stat. 1745); and that the Anchorage-Palmer Highway crosses secs. 10, 11, and 12, T. 13 N., R. 3 W.
Subject to valid existing rights, to the existing withdrawals, and to the matters set forth above, this Department will interpose no objection to the continued use by the War Department of the public lands within the areas described in your letters. It is requested, however, that before a formal order of withdrawal is prepared an investigation be made by your Department to determine whether any of the lands may be eliminated from such an order.
Signed Michael W. Strans, Acting Secretary of the Interior to Honorable Henry L. Stimson, Secretary of War. |
Louis Howard |
| 4/11/1944 |
Update or Other Action |
Letter from Harrison R. Kincaid Real Estate Director to Ernest Gruening Governor of the Territory of Alaska dated April 11, 1944. Reference is made to your letter of June 27, 1941 reserving for the use of the Military certain school sections in the vicinity of Anchorage, Alaska.
A military necessity exists for the reservation of additional school lands for military purposes and it is therfore requested that such steps be taken as are necessary to withdraw the following described land from any use to which school lands are ordinarily subjected other than those required by the Army in the conduct of its activities within this area:
That portion of Section 16, Township 14 North, Range 3 West, Seward Meridian, set aside for Territorial school purposes.
In the evenet there exists any outstanding interests or rights in the lands in question, kindly inform this office as to the manner in which they may be extinguished. |
Louis Howard |
| 4/25/1944 |
Update or Other Action |
Ernest Gruening Governor of the Territory of Alaska to Harrison R. Kincaid Real Estate Director dated April 25, 1944. Referring to your letter of April 11, concerning the desired withdrawal of additional school lands for military purposes in the neighborhood of Anchorage, I would like to inquire whether the Army desires to make temporary use of only this Section 16, or whether the Army plans to occupy it indefinitely.
If the use is only temporary and, let us say, for the period of the emergency, there would be no objection whatsoever to allowing the Army to use it.
If, however, the Army intends to occupy it indefinitely, I believe this should be done under Act of Congress so the Territory could obtain another section in liew of Section 16, the manner provided in the Act of February 28, 1891, 26 Stat. 796, 43 USCA 851-2.
The act of Congress approved February 28, 1891 (26 Stat. 796), was construed
by the land department of the United States for a number of years as a general
adjustment act, alike applicable to all states and territories, and as authorizing
exchanges of lands in school sections within reservation boundaries for lands outside
as well as the selection of lands as indemnity for actual losses to the various grants in
aid of common schools.
43 U.S.C. § 851 : US Code - Section 851: Deficiencies in grants to State by reason of settlements, etc., on designated sections generally
43 U.S.C. § 852 : US Code - Section 852: Selections to supply deficiencies of school lands
|
Louis Howard |
| 5/19/1944 |
Update or Other Action |
Letter to The Honorable Ernest Gruening Governor of Alaska.
In reply to your letter of April 25 concerning School Section 16, it MS been decided by the Alaskan Department, after a thorough study, that this section shou1d become a permanent part of the Fort Richardson Garrison.
All the lands southerly and northeasterly have been purchased and paid for from the respective owners and as it is in the center of an active section of Fort Richardson it is deemed advisable to make it a permanent part thereof.
The Alaskan Department will extend you every assistance in obtaining another section of land in lieu of Section 16. Your cooperation in making this property available to the Army is greatly appreciated.
Yours very truly,
Harrison R. Kincaid
Real Estate Director |
Louis Howard |
| 5/26/1950 |
Update or Other Action |
HQ USARMY Alaska and HQ Alaska Air Command Memo
JOINT AGREENENT ON DIVISION OF RESPOrBIBILITIES IN THE OPERATION SEPARATE ARMY AND AIR FORCE INSTALLATIONS AT FORT RICHARDSON AND ELMENDORF AIR FORCE BASE. To delineate the responsibilitios of the U. S, Army, Alaska (USARAL) and the Alaskan Air Command (AAC), in connection with the establishment and operation of a separate Army installation atFort Richardson, Alaska, on or about 1 July 1950.
This agreement includes the following:
a. The extent of joint utilization cf existing services and facilities and the responsibility for their operation.
b. The extent and method of budgeting for cross-servicing of jointly-utilized facilities,
c. The definition of boundaries dividing the present Fort Richardson Military Reservation into two separate installations--Fort Richardson and Elmendorf Air Forco Base.
a. Letter, Headquarters, Alaskan Air Command, to Chief of Staff,
United States Air Force, Washington, D. C., Subject: "Transfer of Real
(3) Armed Ferces Food Service Scheol: Bldgs T-312 and T-310.
(4) Various terminal bulk fuel storage facilities pertaining tc the Quartermaster Section, Alaska General Depot.
(5) The buildings llsted in (1), (2), and (3), above, will be vacated as soon as suitable faci1ities become available at Fort Richardson.
Those are expected to be included in the FY 1950-FY 1952 construction programs. The use of the terminal bulk fuel storage and distribution facilities operated by the Alaska General Depot will be authorized by an agreement.
Toxic Chemical Storage Area
The area known as the AC Inert Storage Area, near junction of Light Road and Hill Road and approximately 9,000 feet north of Whitney Station, will continue to be used jointly by the Army and Air Force for storage of Army and Air Force Chemical Weaponse. |
Louis Howard |
| 12/22/1978 |
Update or Other Action |
In 1978, Corps of Engineers directed a cleanup and disposal project at the site for Polychlorinated Biphenyl* (PCB)-contaminated oils, transformers, and concrete. Transformers abandoned in the bunker and the transmitter annex building were vandalized for copper and PCB-containing oil was released. The work was done by Crowley Environmental Services and reported to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Transformers were removed from the underground bunker and from the adjacent transmitter annex building. Oil residues were removed from the annex floor and the concrete was triple washed with diesel fuel. (NOTE: The TSCA PCB regulations generally do not identify self-implementing procedures for decontaminating PCB-affected porous media. This is mostly likely due to the difficulty in removing PCBs from the bulk matrix of the porous materials.
There are some exceptions, however. For example, 761.79 allows concrete affected by a PCB-containing oil spill less than 72 hours old to be cleaned using a solvent washing process, and 761.30(p) allows concrete affected by older spills to be cleaned by solvent washing to permit continued use of the surface while it remains in service for its originally intended use. Otherwise, PCB-contaminated porous materials affected by older spills cannot be decontaminated using a self-implementing procedure and must be removed for disposal unless an alternative decontamination process is proposed to and approved by the USEPA. Concrete is a porous medium and not a "Non-Porous" medium. It appears using diesel fuel for decontaminating concrete is in conflict with TSCA. Nonporous surfaces that are not painted should be decontaminated using chemical solvent washing means as described by 40 CFR 761.79. The rules identify several methods depending on the type of material involved.
As described in 761.79(c)(3), equipment in contact with free-flowing mineral oil dielectric fluid should be drained of all oil and allowed to drain for 15 hours. The surfaces to be decontaminated must then be soaked in a solvent such as kerosene, DIESEL, or terpene hydrocarbons for at least 15 hours. Equipment that contains free flowing mineral oil dielectric fluid with greater than 10,000 ppm PCBs should be decontaminated following the same approach, with the exception that an additional 15-hour solvent resoaking should be performed after the initial wash.). Contaminated materials were drummed and shipped to Chem-Nuclear at Arlington, Oregon. PCB-contaminated debris in the bunker including 126 gallons of oil from the vandalized transformers spilled on the bunker floor, was not cleaned up. The bunker was then sealed with concrete and abandoned. The transmitter annex building was later sold and removed from the site.
NOTE TO FILE: *PCBs belong to a broad family of man-made organic chemicals known as chlorinated hydrocarbons. PCBs were domestically manufactured from 1929 until their manufacture was banned in 1979. Aroclors 1016, 1242, 1254, and 1260 are complex mixtures of polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) congeners, prepared by the chlorination of biphenyl. For Aroclors 1242, 1254, and 1260, the chlorination reaction was stopped when the weight percent chlorine of the product had reached 42, 54, or 60%, respectively. By contrast, Aroclor 1016 was prepared by the fractional distillation of Aroclor 1242, which excluded the higher boiling (i.e., more highly chlorinated)
congeners. Aroclors 1016, 1242, 1254, and 1260 were the most widely used PCBs in the United States, and accounted for 92% of all 1958-1977 production (Monsanto, 1980).
Polychlorinated biphenyls were versatile materials which found use in a variety of applications including plasticizers, printing inks, and heat exchange, dielectric, and hydraulic
fluids. The dielectric properties, chemical stability, and noncombustibility of PCB fluids made them a particularly attractive alternative to flammable mineral oils for use in capacitors
and indoor transformers. Concerns in the late-1960s regarding the environmental accumulation of highly chlorinated PCB mixtures resulted, in 1971, in a voluntary cessation of the manufacture of Aroclors 1232, 1248, 1260, 1262, and 1268; the introduction of Aroclor 1016; and to a restriction in PCB usage to totally enclosed systems. The Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976
made the manufacture, importation, sale, or use of PCBs illegal after 1978. |
Jennifer Roberts |
| 10/28/1983 |
Update or Other Action |
US Army Environmental Hygiene Agency GW Quality Survey No. 38-26-K986-91 Evaluation of Solid Waste Management Units Fort Richardson AK 24 June to 2 July 1991. This survey was performed to evaluate and update
the Solid Waste Management Unit (SWMU) information contained in Fort Richardson's RCRA Facility Assessment (RFA); to determine
which SWMU's require further sampling, investigation, or corrective action; and to identify and evaluate any SWMU's not previously documented. Under Potential Solid Waste Management Units: 118-Roosevelt Road Transmitter Site. |
Jennifer Roberts |
| 6/24/1987 |
Update or Other Action |
Site Cleanup Plan for Roosevelt Road Transmitter Site from Alexander Johnston III Col EN Director of Engineering and Housing.
The former transmitter site on Roosevelt Road was reported as a Polychlorinated Biphenyl (PCB) site in the mid-70's and some site restoration work was done. A search of retards and Directorate memory for information of past uses and actions at the site showed that vandalism had caused the release of PCB and required cleanup. Samples taken by the Environmental Office (DEH) in May 1987 showed that low level PCB contamination remains on the site. There is no obvious visible contamination but the levels of PCB found require action.
The site has been encircled by a bulldozed berm, All roads and trails that lead into the site have been marked with a warning sign, Range Control has the coordinates of the site and will issue avoidance warnings to troop units and pass these coordinates to LEC. The main road into the site has been blocked with piles of gravel. Security of the site is commensurate with the potential for harm to personnel. EPA and FORSCOM Environmental (verbal communication) has concurred with the site security precautions.
Forty soil and concrete samples were taken and sent to a contract laboratory on Jun 9, 1987. The site was first surveyed to allow the accurate placement and documentation of the sampling grid. As the results return the test locations and isobaric concentration will be marked. All contaminated soil that is removed from the site must be placed in metal drums and turned in to DEMO for disposal. This is expensive so the mapping will reduce the amount of soil that does not need to be removed. Current cost for disposing of PCB contaminated dirt is five dollars per pound (verbal communication).
The analytical results of the forty samples will be assessed to determine if more samples will be required to accurately determine the site boundaries and level of contamination present. Development of the clean up plan will include mapping of PCB isobaric concentrations, depths of contamination, alternative methods of cleanup for soil and concrete, estimation of costs of time and materials, and point out any deficiencies in the sampling plan. Anticipated time to complete the clean up plan is 60 to 90 days.
|
Jennifer Roberts |
| 9/24/1987 |
Update or Other Action |
Roosevelt Road Transmitter site 1987 sampling report received. The site is a bombproof bunker with support facilities built in the 1940s. The bunker was a high frequency transmitter communication center from World War II through the Korean War era. The final date of operation is not known, however, the complex was decommissioned during the late 1960s. At the time, only one high frequency transmitter was deemed necessary for the region, and the Roosevelt Road Transmitter was removed.
The bunker and transmitter annex, located at the east stairwell to the bunker, were used intermittently after that time for maneuvers, training and assorted staging activities. Several transformers in both the transmitter annex and bunker were apparently vandalized for copper inside the transformers. Most of the equipment and buildings at the site have been removed, leaving only concrete foundations and the underground bunker. Sample results for concrete sampling from concrete in bunker analyses for polychlorinated biphenyls ranged from ND to a maximum value of 73,500 ppm (lab id# 38 and sample id PCB #27 Antenna site 6/8/87). Samples taken from the area by the main pad entrance to the underground bunker had 50,207 ppm PCBs. 51,208 mg/kg of PCBs was detected in sample from an area beneath the overburden.
Sample Results AROCLOR 1260
Concrete: 76,900 ppm
Concrete: 19,700 ppm
Concrete: 49,600 ppm
Concrete: 2,870 ppm
Concrete: 62,100 ppm
Concrete: 25,200 ppm
Concrete: 52,900 ppm
Concrete: 51,300 ppm
Soil: 9.70 ppm
Soil: 52.40 ppm
Soil: 9,850 ppm
Soil: 4,590 ppm
Soil: 2,150 ppm
Soil: 586 ppm
Soil: 238 ppm
Soil: 196 ppm
Soil: 44,400 ppm
Soil: 73,500 ppm
Soil: 28,700 ppm |
Jennifer Roberts |
| 2/24/1988 |
Update or Other Action |
Letter from Colonel Alexander Johnston III Corps of Engineers Director of Engineering & Housing to U.S. EPA Federal Facilities Coordinator Anchorage, AK. A search of the records shows no connection between
the Army and the old creosote plant at Whittier. The site has Environmental Protection Agency Identification Number AKD980664635. The Army has been listed as the responsible party on several lists of potential Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act (CERCLA) sites.
Also attached are a Preliminary Assessment and a current status report for the Roosevelt Road Transmitter Site on Fort Richardson. The Army proposes the following actions at the site: remove all soil contaminated with greater
than ten (10) parts per million polychlorinated biphenyls--the soil to be removed in six-inch lifts with resampling between lifts; remove all debris from the surface of the main concrete pad as PCB-contaminated material, and
encapsulate the contaminated portion of the concrete pad.
All PCB-contaminated material will be disposed of through the Defense Reutilization and Marketing Office.
The Army currently has money for restoration of this site and intends to use a contractor for the work. Due to the limited outdoor work season and that the money must be spent in Fiscal year 1988, time is limited. We intend to proceed with the proposed mitigating actions
described above unless notified otherwise by your office within 20 days of receipt of this letter. |
Jennifer Roberts |
| 3/1/1988 |
Update or Other Action |
From Army to ADEC: Enclosed is a copy of the Letter from the 6th Infantry Division (Light) and U.S. Army Garrison, Alaska to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) notifying them of the Installation Restoration work planned for the Roosevelt Road polychlorinated biphenyl.
(PCB) site on Fort Richardson. The Army is informing the Alaska State Department of Environmental Conservation of our actions at the site (and the reporting and notification of the site as a Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) site to the EPA) in accordance with the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986. |
Jennifer Roberts |
| 4/15/1988 |
Update or Other Action |
Sampling plan for the Investigation of PCB Contaminated Soil at the site prepared by the Corps of Engineers, Materials and Instrumentation Section, April 1988.
Revised Scope of work: drill between 8 to 16 borings, continuous samples shall be taken in each hole unless noted. Hole 1 shall have samples taken to a depth of 15 feet. Samples shall be taken at Holes 2 and 4 to 10 feet in depth, Hole 3 shall have samples taken to a depth of 5 feet. Samples shall be taken as close to the concrete pad as possible for Hole 5 to a depth of 15 feet. Continuous samples shall be taken in Hole 6 beginning at a depth of 3 to 13 feet. A control boring, Hole 0, shall have individual samples taken at dpeths of 5, 10 and 15 feet. All samples not retained by DEH for analysis will be kept frozen in an acceptable manner by the Corps for possible future analysis for a period of 3 months. At the end of 3 months, DEH will be responsible for disposal of the samples.
When surface soil (or sand) is to be sampled the soil should be scraped to a depth of abouL 1. cm with a stainless sreel uowel, scoop, or spatula and a 10 cm x 10 cm (100 cm”) area sampled to yield about 100 g of soil. If more soil is required, the area sl~oulii be expurlded without increasing the depth of soil obtained. When deeper samples of sod or soil are needed, the
samples may be taken using a coring device.
For the Roosevelt Road site the majority of samples will be considered hazardous. Only those samples on the periphery of the contamination plume indicated by non-detectable HNU readings of the diesel, will be considered as as environmental samples.
Sampling Strategy: In addition to the sampling procedures detailed earlier in this section, which provide for a11 uncontaminated sample, there are several sampling methods employed in the collection of a sample which is representative of the material in question. The sampling strategy options are dependent: on whether grab or composite samples are collected and whether
judgment or random sampling is used. At Roosevelt Road grab samples collected using a judgment approach has been selected by the DEH.
Surface and subsurface samples will be collected around the perimeter of concrete slab and analyzed for PCBs. Plume boundary at 10 mg/kg will be delineated. Rationale that since carrier for PCBs is diesel fuel, HNU will be used to screen sample for benzene with 10.2 ev probe. HNU readings will be coorelated with PCB results to determine which additional samples are to be analyzed.
NOTE: HNU Meter-Measures total organic vapor concentration. Response to VOC varies
with probe used. Insensitive to methane. May detect unsaturated hydrocarbons, chlorinated
hydrocarbons, aromatics, nitrogen and sulfur compounds, aldehydes, ketones, alcohols,
acids, and others. LIMITATIONS: Not able to identify Individual compounds. Total response reported as benzene equivalent. High ambient humidity causes erratic responses (usually low). |
Jennifer Roberts |
| 5/31/1988 |
Update or Other Action |
From April 26, 1988 through May 4, 1988, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) conducted a surface and subsurface investigation on and around the concrete transmitter annex platform after discovering residual PCB contamination left behind from the 1978 cleanup activities. This 1988 investigation determined levels of PCBs to be as high as 76,900 ppm at the east entrance of the underground bunker and in the subsoil. See sample no. 27 (73,500 ppm), 46 (78,900 ppm) 42 (62, 100) and 44 (52, 900 ppm) all from the surface pad. |
Jennifer Roberts |
| 10/31/1988 |
Update or Other Action |
Expedited Response Action and Removal operations undertaken in October 1988. This removal effort was curtailed when PCB contamination was discovered outside the anticipated scope of the cleanup. IRP Site 2 Roosevelt Road transmitter site WCC combination of stage I, II, IV of the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS). Maximum detected levels of PCBs was near 80,000 ppm with depths to 14.5' above 10 ppm in soils. 144.1 tons of contaminated material was trucked to DRMO (141.9 tons of excavated soil).
After DRMO, the soils were disposed of at a regulated landfill. Confirmation samples revealed residual contamination as high as 23,400 parts per million (ppm). Excavations lined with 2 16 mil layers of Permalon 200 and backfilled to prevent contamination of fill in any future remedial efforts. |
Jennifer Roberts |
| 6/7/1989 |
Preliminary Assessment Approved |
Based on results from the risk screening, the Roosevelt Road Transmitter Site is designated Category 2, requiring additional IRP investigations. Recommendation is a result of the level of uncertainty that still exists in regards to the cleanup and disposal of PCBs from the spill site in the late 1970s and the level of contamination that still exists in the soils underneath the transformer pad. The 1988 removal effort has reduced the immediate health and safety threat from PCBs at the site location. |
Jennifer Roberts |
| 9/22/1989 |
Update or Other Action |
(Old R:Base Action Code = CORR - Correspondence (General)). Division of Governmental Coordination letter to Guy McConnell USACOE regarding "Conclusive Consistency Determination" They concurred that the COE's determination that the proposed activity is consistent with the Alaska Coastal Management Program. |
Jennifer Roberts |
| 10/30/1989 |
Update or Other Action |
E&E Inc. and COE project manager visited the bunker in October 1989. Acting on recommendation following site visit, COE collected samples in the bunker. These samples indicated PCBs up to 655,300 mg/kg (ppm) in residual oils from the bunker. |
Jennifer Roberts |
| 12/27/1989 |
Update or Other Action |
(Old R:Base Action Code = RAPR - Remedial Action Plan Review (CS)). ADEC received copy of work plan/QAQC. No copy of Army's document in project file. 100 cubic yards of PCB removed as of 9/89; additional PCB soils remain. Groundwater is at about 100 feet. More remedial work anticipated. |
Jennifer Roberts |
| 1/29/1990 |
Update or Other Action |
R. Klein cc'd on letter from EPA (D. Johnson to Colonel K. W. Northhamer Garrison Commander)-Roosevelt Road Transmitter Site. QC Plan/Sample and Analysis Plan, & Subsurface Exploration Plan. EPA has received and read the documents submitted by the Army in December 1989 regarding the proposed field work to be conducted at the Roosevelt Road Transmitter Site. It would appear that the contractor, E&E Inc. , had adequately designed an appropriate plan to study this site. Please note: It would appear that the 1,000 gallon diesel UST may fall under the State of AK UST rules. Recommend discuss this with Ron Klein within the near future to determine the appropriate applicability of this law. |
Ron Klein |
| 2/15/1990 |
Update or Other Action |
IRP Stage 1 Joint Resources Project Fort Richardson, Fort Wainwright & Fort Greely: Site 2 Roosevelt Road Transmitter Site Volume 2 by Woodward Clyde Consultants February 1990. The Roosevelt Road transmitter site is the location of a large PCB spill in the late 1970s. The spill occurred from large transformers that remained from an underground bunker utilized as a communication center. The soil around the transformer pad was contaminated with to 85,000 ppm PCBs. Approximately 105 cy of material were removed from the site & confirmation testing conducted to verify the removal effort. The transmitter pad & surface soils were cleaned up: however, the concentration of PCB-contaminated soil near the base of the excavation remained above the action level. As a result, the excavation was lined & backfilled for later remediation.
Cleaning & Encapsulation of the Concrete Pad
Martech personnel removed all debris from the top of that portion of the concrete pad, & the gridded cable trenches located in the pad, within the exclusion zone (see Figure 3-6). The debris was removed using hand tools & was placed in the same type of bag used for the excavations. The material consisted of soil, vegetative matter, ceramic tile, & a few pieces of iron pipe. The forklift was used to remove the bags from the exclusion zone & transport them to the staging area where the bags were weighed & processed. -Approximately 10.5 cy of material were removed from the concrete pad & trenches.
After the pad had been cleaned, the top of it was encapsulated using an epoxy resin (Scotchkote by the 3M Company).The foundation pad and cable routing trenches were encapsulated due to three out of four wipe sample results exceeding 100 micrograms per 100 square centimeters as specified in 40 CFR Part 761 (Wipe sample #17 630 ug/100 sq. cm. #19 128 ug/100 sq. cm. and #20 119 ug/100 sw. cm).
The gridded cable routing trenches along the surface of the pad were sealed in one of two ways. Approximately 40% of the trenches were sealed with the epoxy resin brushed on & were then backfilled with clean soil. This method proved to be labor intensive & expensive. (NOTE: the coating was observed on October 14, 1994 to be disintegrating & no longer is encapsulating the pad).
The remainder of the trenches were filled with gravel to a level approximately three inches below the top of the pad & the remaining three inches were filled with castin-place concrete. This method was found to be cost effective, & it provided the added benefits of a solid walking surface & a protective cap to prevent the gravel from being displaced from the trenches.
WCC personnel sampled 36 locations in the exposed surfaces of the excavation using (with modifications) USEPA Report #560/5-86-017, “Field Manual for Grid Sampling of PCB Spill Sites to
Verify Cleanup,” as a guideline (Figures 3-3 & 3-5). This method utilizes a hexagonal grid placed over the surfaces of the excavation which have been diagrammed in a single plane. Constructing this diagram is analogous to cutting & flattening a cardboard box; the resulting diagram is referred to as a fold-out. This approach was used when applicable; the following modifications were implemented to better address this specific site:
-The grid was placed over a fold-out of the design western excavation rather than a fold-out of the actual excavation. The actual excavation differed only slightly from the design, & the somewhat irregular excavation surface would have greatly complicated the fold-out while changing the sample locations an insignificant amount.
-Not all grid points which fell on the vertical face of the concrete pad to the east of western excavation were sampled, but a reduced number of samples & composite samples were taken from the pad. The purpose of sampling the excavations was to determine if all contaminated soil (greater than 10 ppm) had been removed by the excavation, & it was our opinion that a reduced number of samples from the concrete would adequately determine the level of contamination on the pad while allowing additional samples to be taken in the soil.
-Following the same logic as the argument just given, the concrete face was not included in the fold-out for the northern excavation. This had the- effect of concentrating sample points in the soil. Two wipe samples were taken from the vertical face of the pad, in addition to all grid points located using the fold-out for just the soil faces of the excavation.
-Grid points which fell in non-existent space for the northern excavation were adjusted to fall within the excavation.
These modifications were minor & allowed for better coverage without significant departure from the procedure.
See site file for additional information. |
Jennifer Roberts |
| 4/10/1990 |
Update or Other Action |
Construction and specifications for remediation of the Roosevelt Road Transmitter Site "termed Site Investigation Follow-up" by the Corps, is divided into two parts: Field investigation and the remedial design. The field investigation will determine the levels and extent of contamination at a PCB Spill Site. The information obtained from the field investigation will be used to develop detailed plans and specifications for remediation and closure of the site in a manner approved by Federal and State environmental resource agencies.
Boreholes will be situated at four locations on the Roosevelt Road Transmitter Site. These locations were selected based upon results of previous sampling events conducted at the site and background information.
Transmitter Annex
Eleven boreholes will be installed at the Transmitter Annex (Figure 3-l). Eight of the borings will be situated on the concrete foundation of the annex, and will require a 12-inch diameter hole to be drilled through to the soil prior to initiation of sampling and drilling activities. Split-spoon samples will be taken continuously for the first 6 feet (i.e. at O-2’ bgs, 2-4’ bps, and 4-6’ bgs), at 8-10’ bgs, and every 5 feet thereafter, to a total depth of approximately 30 feet. The estimated total number of samples taken at this location will be 88.
Sixteen QA/QC samples will also be collected.
Original Transmitter Annex
Four boreholes will be installed at the original Transmitter Annex (Figure 3-2). Split-spoon samples will be taken at O-2’ bgs, 2-4’ bgs, 4-6’ bgs, and 8-10’ bgs, for a total of 16 samples. Two QA/QC samples will also be collected.
Transformer Annex Platform:
6 grab samples from a 5-foot spacing grid at the northeast corner of the platform;
8 grab samples from a 5-foot spacing grid on the east side of the platform;
8 grab samples from side of the platform;
a 5-foot spacing grid on the west
15 composite samples from the perimeter of the platform;
2 grab samples from cableways on the south end of the platform; and
8 QA and QC duplicates.
The 3 grid locations are areas which were previously identified as having PCB contamination levels above 10 ppm. The remaining perimeter samples are located below cableway exits or in areas not previously sampled. These samples will be collected from stained areas if apparent
or composited as described in Section 4.3.1. Two grab soil samples will be taken from accumulated soil in the cableways south of the sealed surface. All surface soil samples will be analyzed for PCBs and BNAs.
Power Control Hut
Four boreholes will be installed at the Power Control Hut (Figure 3-3). Split-spoon samples will be taken at O-2’ bgs, 2-4’ bgs, and 4-6’ bgs, for a total of 12 samples. Two QA/QC samples will also be collected.
Transformer Hut
Four boreholes will be installed at the Transformer Hut (Figure 3-4). Split-spoon samples will be taken at O-2' bgs, 2-4' bgs, and 4-6' bgs, for a total of 12 samples. Two QA/QC sample will also be collected.
The following samples will be collected in the underground bunker.
23 wipe samples will be collected from concrete floors and walls, and analyzed for PCBs and BNAs;
4 samples will be collected from charred debris and oil residues, and analyzed for dioxin and PCBs;
5 samples will be collected from pipe insulation and floor tiles, and analyzed for asbestos content;
11 samples will be collected from oil residues and debris and analyzed for PCBs and BNAs;
10 samples will be collected from surface soils outside the north entrance and analyzed for PCBs and BNAs;
and 1 sample will be collected from the POL tank if possible.
Six samples will be collected from oily residues in the cableways near the transformers and on the east side of the bunker using stainless steel spoons and will be analyzed for PCBs and BNAs. Three grab samples of accumulated soil material will be collected from the sewer ejector
pit, the well pump pit, and the north stairwell using stainless steel bowls and spoons, and will be analyzed for PCBs and BNAs. Duplicate samples will be collected from one of the locations and submitted as Quality Control (QC) and Quality Assurance (QA) samples to the project laboratory and QA laboratory, respectively.
If the UST can be accessed, three POL samples (including PA and QC duplicates) will be collected using a Teflon or stainless steel bailer, and will be analyzed for PCBs, TPA product identification, metals, total organic halogens, and ignitability.
Ten surface soil samples will be collected outside of the north entrance of the underground bunker, and analyzed for PCBs and BNAs. Previous sampling in this area reported up to 76,900 ppm PCBs (Woodward-Clyde, 1989). A sampling grid will be marked out as shown on Figure 4-2 and grab samples will be collected at each of the grid points. Duplicate samples will be collected from one of the locations and submitted to the project and QA laboratories. |
Jennifer Roberts |
| 4/20/1990 |
Site Added to Database |
Polychlorinated biphenyls, asbestos, waste oil, TCLP constituents(4-methylphenol, trichloroethene, tetrachloroethene, and 1,2-dichloroethane). |
Jennifer Roberts |
| 7/1/1990 |
Update or Other Action |
Environmental assessment by Corps of Engineers identified no significant environmental impacts from removal or disposal of contaminated soil. 400 to 1,200 cubic yards of polychlorinated biphenyl contaminated soil and materials will be removed and packaged in super sacks to be shipped to Seattle, WA. then material will be transported for disposal in a landfill permitted by EPA. |
Jennifer Roberts |
| 12/3/1990 |
Site Ranked Using the AHRM |
Initial ranking. |
Jennifer Roberts |
| 12/14/1990 |
Update or Other Action |
(Old R:Base Action Code = SI - Site Investigation). COE sent in Ecology and Environment's DRAFT 12/14/90 SI contract# DACA85-88-D-0014 delivery order# 12 to the department. Asbestos found in pipe wrapping and majority of floor tiling in bunker that has limited access. 2 samples of charred debris contained dioxin contamination (PDCCs and PCDFs) taken from inside the bunker. Highest level of solid waste sampled from within bunker of soil, oil, animal residues is 1,000,000 ppm. Cesspool VOA results showed many organic solvents present as well as metals in soils and sludges: barium 2,700 ppm, lead 1,200 ppm, mercury 110 ppm, and zinc 2,000 ppm. All samples collected throughout the bunker and all bunker wipe samples were positive for Aroclor 1260 (90RRTS80SL soil sample 1900 mg/kg PCBs). |
Jennifer Roberts |
| 2/13/1991 |
Site Number Identifier Changed |
Old Reckey 19892109355. Changed to add sequence. |
Jennifer Roberts |
| 3/4/1991 |
Meeting or Teleconference Held |
Dept. of Army Memorandum - Project Review Conference: Project# FTW-D-007 Roosevelt Road Transmitter Site, PRE-78 PCB Spill. Minutes from February 8, 1991 meeting room 235 Alaska District. Attendees: Lizette Boyer CENPA-EN-PL-ER, Clare Jaeger CENPA-EN-G-M, Peter Brokx, Michael Schmetzer, Brian Miskill, Lynn Fischer all from E&E Inc., David Williams CENPA-EN-MB-C and Cristal Fosbrook APVE-DE-PS (Environmental).
A large portion of the conference was devoted to the description of the risk of this site to humans, wildlife, and the probability for pollution of either surface or groundwater. The AE recognized that a definitive statement regarding risk was missing, and that the pathways of contamination identified were not substantiated by the condition-s on the site. The AE agreed
to clarify the conditions at the site in the risk considerations, and to define the risk in realistic terms.
Questions were raised as to the reasoning behind not sampling for base-neutral-acid extraditable or volatile organic compounds at more points. The following discussion identified a meeting held on 14 May 1990 at which the cost of investigation was of concern, where the Corps of Engineers directed the contractor to pursue mainly the PCB contamination. This identified a concern of "separable operational units," Those areas which are not PCB
or dioxin contaminated, and which are- separable from other. areas, should be identified for possible additional sampling or remediation in a different manner from the PCB/dioxin
contamination.
The bunker was not addressed within the project report as a cleanable item or in any manner considered for clean-up. The comments identified this shortfall, and discussion identified
concerns. The 6th Infantry Division (Light) will require costs associated with clean-up of the bunker to determine if it should be cleaned up at this time, remain in-place as a contaminated
structure, or identified as a "operable unit" for clean-up at a future time.
The quantities estimated for PCB clean-up were based upon a 10 ppm in soil appropriate requirement. State requirements allow for up to 25 ppm in soils under some circumstances. The
discussion indicated that a discussion regarding the applicability and appropriateness of the 10 ppm vice the 25 ppm requirements should be included in the project report as a
portion of the Public Health Analysis (subpart 6.3 as identified in addendum E of the delivery order)-
Actions incumbent upon the Alaska District included clarification of the comments from Mr. Robert Flanagan (NPD) regarding bioremediation of PCB's, and clarification of the
comments from Mr. Edward Mead (MRD) on PCB contaminated oil and debris and soil-washing. |
Louis Howard |
| 4/1/1991 |
Update or Other Action |
Roosevelt Road Transmitter Site-Site Investigation Project Report Contract No.DACA85-88-D-0014 Delivery Order No. 12 Prepared by E & E Inc. This report was prepared to satisfy requirements of United States Corps of Engineers (COE), Alaska District, Contract # DACA85-88-D-0014 & D.O. # 12, under which Ecology & Environment, Inc. was tasked to develop construction plans & specifications for remediation of PCB contamination in accordance with Federal & State environmental protection regulations at the RRT Annex Site. COE is implementing this project for the Directorate of Engineering & Housing (DEH) of the 6th Infantry Division (Light) at Fort Richardson, under the IRP of the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD).
The overall objectives of the remedial plan for the RRTS are:
o Prevent PCB contaminant migration from the site by air & surface erosion & prevent direct contact with human & animal populations;
o Achieve soil concentrations of PCBs that satisfy both EPA & ADEC cleanup requirements.
Asbestos-'Samples collected for asbestos analysis were analyzed by EPA Method 600/04-82-020. Two materials were analyzed for asbestos, pipe wrapping, & floor tiling. All samples contained chrysotile asbestos at levels ranging from less than 1% to 60% by volume (NOTE EPA Sample 90RRTS269MI (A-3), pipe insulation collected from the transformer room was found to contain 60% by volume. Aside from chrysotile , no other form of asbestos was detected in any sample collected. Since access to the bunker is limited & the pipe wrapping & the majority at the floor tiling is intact, no action is necessary. However, if remediation is to occur within the bunker, both sources will again need to be inspected. We recommend a warning sign be posted on the bunker entrance stating that asbestos is present inside.
Dioxin-Dioxin samples were analyzed by EPA Method 8280. Dioxin furan analysis was performed to help characterize contamination within the bunker. Charred debris in the underground bunker prompted this analysis; incomplete combustion of PCB recycled paper materials often results in PCDD & PCDF isomers. Two locations were sampled for dioxinifurans. The most toxic isomer, TCDD, was not detected; however, both samples contained various PCDD & PCDF isomers.
PCDDs & PCDFs are unwanted trace contaminants resulting from chlorinated phenols, PCBs, & various other combustion sources. PCDDs & PCDFs are persistent & not very mobile. They exhibit low water solubilities, low rates of biodegradation & a high affinity for soils. PCBs are mobile in non-aqueous phase organic liquids. Due to the location of the PCDD & PCDF contamination, it seems unlikely that non-aqueous phase organic liquids will come in contact with the existing contamination & influence mobilization. As with the asbestos, since access to the bunker is limited a warning sign is recommended on the bunker entrance stating that dioxin contamination is present inside.
Solid Waste-Solid waste samples collected from soil, oil, & animal residues within the bunker were analyzed by EPA Methods 8270 & 8080 for BNAs & PCBs, respectively. The solid waste samples were collected to characterize possible contamination in the residual transformer oils inside the underground bunker. Each of the 11 solid waste samples contained Aroclor 1260 in levels ranging from 4,000 ppb to 1,000,000,000 ppb (100%). PCBs are chemically stable compounds that persist in the environment for long periods of time. Aroclors are soluble in most aliphatic & aromatic solvents, & are highly resistant to the action of strong alkalis, strong acids, & high temperatures.
The BNA compound 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene (reported at 34 ppb), which is commonly used in dielectric fluid mixtures, was detected at a level below the MRL. Only one sample underwent BNA analysis; high chlorobenzene results in the subsurface soil samples suggest that higher chlorobenzene levels may exist within the bunker.
Wipe Samples: Aroclor 1254 was detected in two samples from the power hut concrete pad (W-12, W-13). Aroclor 1260 was detected in wipe samples from sampling locations at both the transmitter annex & the transformer hut at levels ranging from 1.2 Vg/100cm2 to 5.4 Vg/100cm2. Wipe samples inside the bunker had concentrations ranging from 1 pg/100cm2 to 200,000 pg/l00cm2 for Aroclor 1260. In fact, samples were collected throughout the bunker & all the bunker wipe samples were positive for Aroclor 1260.
See site file for additional information. |
Jennifer Roberts |
| 4/11/1991 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Memo for the Commander USACE-AK District CENPA-EN-PM-C (Mr. Williams) RE: Remedial Options of Roosevelt Road Transmitter Site. The report has been reviewed and this Command agrees with the recommended remediation alternative, off-site landfilling. This remedial method will include removal of polychlorinated biphenyl-contaminated soil located outside the underground bunker as well as removal of all debris, asbestos, sludge, and visible contamination from inside the bunker. Signed Edwin R. Ruff Colonel, EN DEH 6th ID (L) and USAG, AK. |
Louis Howard |
| 5/31/1991 |
Update or Other Action |
Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact Roosevelt Road Transmitter Site. AK District Corps of Engineers.
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, (NEPA) as amended, the U.S. Army Engineer District, Alaska, has assessed the environmental effects of the following action:
Installation Restoration Program Roosevelt Road Transmitter Site Fort Richardson, Alaska
The project will excavate approximately 400 to 1,200 cubic yards of PCB-contaminated soil and materials from the site. Excavated material will be packaged in supersacks (6-mil polyethylene-lined containment sacks, each approximately 1 cubic yard in volume) in
preparation for shipping. The material will be shipped to Seattle, Washington, and transported for disposal in a landfill permitted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for hazardous waste. The excavated pit will be backfilled with clean fill, regraded, and revegetated.
The environmental assessment identified that no significant environmental impacts will occur from removal and disposal of the contaminated soil. The appropriate resource agencies have been contacted and informed of the proposed action, and none have indicated objection to the Finding of No Significant Impact. The environmental assessment and document review support the conclusion that the proposed project does not constitute a major
Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. Therefore, an environmental impact statement is not
necessary for cleanup of the Roosevelt Road Transmitter Site. An initial cleanup under the guidance or with the technical assistance of the EPA took place in 1978. The cleanup was performed by Crowley Environmental Consultants, Inc. No records could be found of the actual cleanup, but verbal communication indicated the site was triple-washed with diesel fuel. In September 1987, the Corps of Engineers investigated the surface and subsurface soils on and around the concrete platform. PCB levels were found to be as high as 76,900 ppm at the east entrance of the underground bunker and in the subsoil. The
results of that investigation were the basis for the Expedited Response Action and removal operations undertaken in October 1988
and detailed in the Stage 1 report by Woodward-Clyde (June 1989). This removal effort was curtailed when PCB contamination was discovered outside the anticipated cleanup area.
In April 1989, the Corps reopened the bunker to check reports that contaminated material from the Army cleanup was stored in
the bunker. The Corps determined that no cleanup materials were stored in the bunker, but suggested the bunker still could be
contaminated. The Corps investigation noted dead rabbits in one part of the bunker, general vandalism, and remains of a small fire in one of the rooms. Preliminary samples were taken from the bunker by the Corps in November 1989. Results of this preliminary testing confirmed that high levels of PCB's exist in
oil-stained areas of the bunker.
Alternative 2, off-site land filling, has been chosen for this site based primarily on economic considerations. Its cost is
approximately one-third that of any of the other alternatives. Off-site incineration and on-site incineration (alternatives 3 and 4) were also considered feasible options.
Cleanup of this site will include remediation of the underground bunker. This alternative is described in subsection 5.6 and analyzed in subsection 6.6. Actual cleanup of the bunker (second option) has been chosen rather than passive monitoring. Cleanup activities at the bunker-will consist of removal and disposal of
debris (including asbestos and dioxin contamination), removal and disposal of PCB sludges, and disposal of PCB-contaminated
concrete.
The conclusion of this environmental assessment is that cleanup by the selected alternative (alternative 2, off-site landfill)
can be accomplished with very little negative effect on the human or natural environment at the RRTS. Any impacts will be minor and of short duration. This assessment supports the conclusion that the proposed project does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. Therefore, an environmental impact statement is not necessary for the proposed cleanup of Department of Defense debris at the RRTS. |
Jennifer Roberts |
| 6/15/1991 |
Update or Other Action |
Design Analysis for Remediation Project Roosevelt Road Transmitter Site Contract No. DACA 85-88-D-0014 Delivery Order No. 12 received. There has been much activity at the Roosevelt Road Transmitter Site since the transmitter ceased operations, although much of it is undocumented. Prior to 1987 all electrical equipment that contained Polychlorinated-biphenols (PCB) was removed from the site and some of the contaminated concrete was cleaned with diesel fuel and the bunker was sealed. A removal of soil was conducted under the auspices of the EPA in 1988 after the discovery of additional PCB contamination on the site.
The recommended remedial alternative is soil excavation, concrete demolition and landfilling of contaminated materials. Note that there was some solvent, 1,2,4 Trichlorobenzene, found in the vicinity of the Transmitter Annex. Currently, until June 1992, this material may be placed in a landfill. Contaminated soil will be excavated from around the transmitter annex, north entrance to the bunker, power control hut and original transmitter annex. Contaminated concrete on foundations of the power control hut and transmitter annex will be demolished, as well as portions of the eastern bunker entrance. All contaminated materials will be transported to a TSCA landfill for burial.
Preparation of the Chemical Quality Management Plan must comply with the guidelines presented in the COE document ER 1110-l-263, and the requirements of the Revised Addendum Scope of Work. The 95% Design Plans and Specifications utilized engineering pamphlet EP 310-l-5, Index of Guide Specifications," where applicable. Other standards of design considered during the design preparation included Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities standards and American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) requirements.
The project objectives require the excavation of soil in four, areas:
1. The north entrance to the bunker, 368 cubic feet;
2. The original transmitter annex, 342 cubic feet;
3. The power hut, 565 cubic feet;
4. The transmitter annex/east entrance to the bunker, 7,560 cubic feet.
An excess of approximately 2,195 cubic yards of soil will have to be removed at the transmitter annex to remove the contaminated material. To accomplish this, areas to be excavated will be cleared and grubbed of vegetation. Limits of excavation will be marked in the field. Also required for this project is the removal of approximately 55 tons of contaminated concrete at the transmitter annex and the power-hut pads, also a portion of the east entrance to the bunker will have to be demolished which will amount to a total of 102 tons of concrete, of which 46 tons is considered contaminated. Contaminated materials will be transported to the approved ultimate disposal by approved methods left to the discretion of the Cleanup Contractor.
The objective of this remedial action is to remove all materials contaminated with PCB’s above 10 ppm from the site to an approved RCRA landfill.
Upon completion of the removal, all excavations will be backfilled with unclassified soil, the top four inches of the excavations will be filled with topsoil and the area seeded with grass. All related construction buildings and appurtenances will be removed from the site and these area& seeded as necessary. |
Jennifer Roberts |
| 7/2/1991 |
Update or Other Action |
Dept. of The Army, U.S. Army Environmental Hygiene Agency Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD reply to the attention of HSHB-ME-SG. GROUND-WATERQ UALITY SURVEY NO. 38-26K986-91 EVALUATION OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT UNITS FORT RICHARDSON, ALASKA 24JUNE- 2 JULY 1991 This survey was performed to evaluate and update the Solid Waste Management Unit (SWMU) information contained in Fort Richardson's Resource Conselrvation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Facility Assessment (RFA); to determine which SWMU's require further sampling, investigation, or corrective action; and to
identify and evaluate any SWMU's not previously documented.
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION.
a. SWMU's Identified. One hundred sixteen SWMtJ's and four AOC's were identified in the RF'A report (reference 2). A copy of the original SWMU list is provided as Table 1. Six new SWMU's
were identified during this survey, and are discussed below in paragraph 6b. The following paragraphs discuss the SWMU's in logical categories which are grouped according to the need for
further actions or by site type [for example, underground storage tanks (UST's), waste accumulation areas (WAA's), oil water separators. Potential Solid Waste Management Units include SWMU# 118 Roosevelt Road Transmitter Site.
|
Louis Howard |
| 7/23/1991 |
Update or Other Action |
Edwin R. Ruff Colonel DEH(Directorate of Engineering and Housing) sent in copies of the Debris Cleanup and Site Restoration for site. The 4 enclosures were: specifications, cost estimate, design analysis, and drawings. The project objectives require the excavation of soil in four,
areas:
1. The north entrance to the bunker, 368 cubic feet;
2. The original transmitter annex, 342 cubic feet;
3. The power hut, 565 cubic feet; and
4. The transmitter annex/east entrance to the bunker, 7,560 cubic feet.
An excess of approximately 2,195 cubic yards of soil will have to be removed at the transmitter annex to remove the contaminated material. To accomplish this, areas to be excavated will be cleared and grubbed of vegetation. Limits of excavation will be marked in the field. Also required for this project is the removal of approximately 55 tons of contaminated concrete at the transmitter annex and the power-hut pads, also a portion of the east entrance to the bunker will have to be demolished which will amount to a total of 102 tons of concrete, of which 46 tons is considered contaminated. Contaminated materials will be transported to the approved ultimate disposal by approved methods left to the desecration of the Cleanup Contractor.
The objective of this remedial action is to remove all materials contaminated with PCB’s above 10 ppm from the site to an approved RCRA landfill. |
Louis Howard |
| 1/15/1992 |
Update or Other Action |
Installation Action Plan for Fort Richardson-Roosevelt Road PCB (FTRS-41): The Roosevelt Road Transmitter Site (RRTS) site was the
location of bomb proof communication center, apparently from World War II through the Korean War era. An initial spill of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) occurred in the late 1970s when PCB-laden transformers were apparently vandalized for the recovery
value of copper. In 1978, the COE directed a clean-up and disposal project at the site for PCB-contaminated oils, transforms, and concrete. The work was performed by Crowley Environmental Services and reported
to the EPA. Contaminated materials were removed and shipped to Chem-Nuclear at Arlington, Oregon. The concrete floor of the
transmitter annex was triple-washed with diesel fuel and the building was later sold and removed from the site.
In 1988, DEH conducted a surface and subsurface investigation on and around the concrete transmitter annex platform after
discovering residual PCB contamination left behind from the 1978 cleanup activities. The 1988 investigation determined levels of
PCBs to be as high as 76,900 ppm at the east entrance of the underground bunker and in the subsoil. The results of that investigation were the basis for further cleanup.
In 1990, the COE directed and investigation to assess the contamination left from previous cleanup. The contractor E&E developed clean-up levels for the RRTS, The recommended remedial alternative is soil excavation, concrete demolition andlandfilling of contaminated material. This action occurred in July 1992. A subsequent follow-on investigation for the leach field and inside
the bunker is planned to be awarded during the fourth quarter.FY92 with investigations in FY 93.
In 1990 a Notice of Violation was issued from the EPA for improper storage of PCB wastes. |
Jennifer Roberts |
| 8/17/1992 |
Update or Other Action |
Laidlaw Environmental Services (retained by the U.S. Army COE) Chemical Quality Control Report Received for PCB remediation. Sampling covered depths to 33' (E. Bunker Entrance). Originally 600 tons of PCB material was thought to be contaminated. Contaminated surface structures under the scope of work for this contract included the foundation from the power hut, a portion of the transmitter annex concrete pad, and a portion of the bunker entrance directly adjacent to the transmitter annex and 15' or more of contaminated soils.
Laboratory analysis of samples D14 and D15 obtained from the Power Control Hut yielded 429 ppm and 144 ppm Aroclor 1260, respectively. The Corps instructed Laidlaw to excavate and bag two additional feet and resample. Additionally, if the samples at the 4’ depth showed > 10 ppm by the L2000TM PCB/Chloride Analyzer, excavation and screening would continue until samples were shown to contain < 10 ppm. However, excavated soil from depths greater than 4’ would be stockpiled in a 50 yard stockpile, and a composite of the stockpile would be sent directly to the laboratory.
Laboratory analysis of samples 13210, B220, and B230 obtained from the East Bunker Entrance, Limit of Excavation 0 to 5’ Depth, yielded 315 ppm, 41.9 ppm, and 997 ppm Arxlor 1260, respectively. The Corps instructed Laidlaw to excavate and bag two additional feet and resample according to the grid shown in figure 17. The portion of the excavation containing < 10 ppm at a depth of 5’ would be stockpiled for backfill. As previously instructed, samples obtained at the 7’ depth would be screened with the L2OOO tm. Any further excavation mandated by the L2OOOm results would result in 50 yard stockpiles until a clean depth was obtained. The stockpiles were. to be sampled and sent directly to the laboratory.
Laboratory analysis of samples B5002, B10002, and BlOOO5 obtained at 5’ and 10’ depths on the walls of the East Bunker Entrance, yielded 15.2 ppm, 42.4 ppm, and 118 ppm Aroclor 1260, respectively. The Corps instructed Laidlaw to excavate and bag an additional two feet into the
wall and resample according to figure 20. The walls would then be resampled and screened. Any further excavations of these areas would be stockpiled and sampled as previously instructed.
Laboratory analysis of samples B13002, B13003, B13004, B13005, and B13009 obtained at thirteen feet on the floor of the East Bunker Entrance, yielded 76.5 ppm, 471 ppm, 1280 ppm, 184 ppm, and 17.1 ppm Aroclor 1260, respectively. Laidlaw was instructed to excavate and bag an
additional two feet and resample according to the grid. If samples at 15’ depth showed > 10 ppm according to the L2OOO, further excavation of these areas would be stockpiled and sampled as previously instructed.
Laboratory analysis of samples B3301, B3302, B3303, obtained on the floor of the East Bunker Entry at approximately 33’ (figure 11, Phase I), yielded 70.5 ppm, 777 ppm, and 42.9 ppm Aroclor 1260, respectively. Laboratory analysis of samples B3305-10, and B3306-10, obtained at approximately 25’ depth on the walls of the East Bunker Entry excavation (figure 11, Phase I), yielded 11.3 ppm and 2300 ppm Aroclor 1260, respectively. The re-excavation of the entry
would begin by cutting the walls back 2’ according to figure 22, and bagging the material. If preliminary screening indicated further excavation was necessary, the walls would again be cut back an additional 2’, excavated material stockpiled, and the walls resampled. Once preliminary screening showed the walls to contain < 10 ppm, they would be sloped back at a 1:1.5 ratio, which would allow for the backhoe to safely continue excavation at thirty three feet. The floor would be excavated to 35’ and resampled according to figure 25. If further excavation was necessary due to preliminary screening results, excess material would be stockpiled and sampled.
The PCB and petroleum contaminated soil was excavated from the site and transported to a permiteed landfill for disposal. NOTE to file: The soil removal was conducted prior to the 1997 signature of the record of decision for operable units "A/B" and as a result was considered no further action (NFA) under CERCLA. |
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 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 |
| 11/30/1993 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Staff received on November 15, 1993 a copy of the DRAFT Interim Site Assessment/Remedial
Investigation Site 4, building 35752 High Frequency Transmitter Site, HLA Project No. 24212 and provided comments.
3.1.1 Deviations from the Release Investigation Plan pages 13 & 14
The text states that the two inch standpipe near monitoring well AP-3232 was investigated through geophysics by Harding Lawson Associates. A conclusion was reached that an underground storage tank was not associated with this standpipe. Although the standpipe was not considered for further investigation by HLA, ADEC requests that the Army further investigate and/or remove it from the site to prevent it from becoming a conduit of contamination to the subsurface soils.
5.2.2 Soil Boring Sampling Results page 36 2nd paragraph
The text s%tes that Diesel Range Organics (DRO) and Gasoline Range Organics (GRO) concentrations were in excess of ADEC Level A cleanup levels mainly in borings AP-3227 .and AP-3228. ADEC is concerned that the presence of petroleum contaminants in the subsurface soils: in particular, at the fifteen foot depth interval along with Polychlorinated BiphenyIs (PCBs) may pose a signiticant risk to the environment through increased mobilization. ADEC requwts that any corrective action plans or interim removal actions for this site incorporate an appropriate method of dealing with PCB contaminated soils (i.e. TSD facility).
The document also states that a qualitative risk assessmenfto r risk based concentrations (RBCs) and potential receptors at the site be conducted to determine actions levels for PCBs. ADEC requests that the risk assessment cover: the potential multiple pathways and contaminants present at the site, potential migration to groundwater since it appears that the some of the contaminants are at thesoil/groundwater interface, and an ecological assessment.
5.2.3 Groundwater Sample Results page 38 third paragraph
The text states that the significant decrease of contaminant concentrations in wells AP-2982 and AP- 2987 and lack of detected contaminants in other nearby downgradient wells suggests that the contaminants detected during the 1990 USACE investigation are dissipating. This assumption cannot be substantiated with the current data set given the qualifications listed in 4.2.1 on page 25. The text states that no duplicates or MS recoveries for Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) were submitted for several of the aqueous samples so the data precision and accuracy could not be assessed. Subsequently, the data is suspect and should be viewed with caution. ADEC requests that additional sampling be conducted to verify the absence or presence of VOCs in all of the monitoring wells at the site.
5.2.4 Surface-Water and Sediment Sampling Results Page 39 first paragraph
The text states that cleanup levels are not established for sediment, however there are sediment quality criteria (SQC) available that the U.S. EPA recommends be considered in establishing remediation goals for contaminated sediments. The SQC were designed to be protective of aquatic life and animals that consume aquatic life. The PCB SQC is not a fixed value; rather, it is dependent on the total organic carbon (TOC) concentration in the sediment. In order for the appropriate SQC level to be determined, the TOC will have to be calculated from another round of sediment sampling. ADEC requests that a sampling plan be submitted outlining specificly what sediment sampling will be done and exactly how the sample will be collected.
Appendix F Chemical Quality Assurance Report Use of the detection limits for PCBs water samples of 0.5 to 1.0 ug/L (ppb) is not low enough to determine if the National Ambient Water Quality Criteria of 0.014 ug/L was exceeded. ADEC requests that additional water sampling of all monitoring wells at the site for PCBs (in addition to the VOCs mentioned in section 5.2.3) be performed with methods that are able to detect this level of concern. |
Louis Howard |
| 6/1/1994 |
Update or Other Action |
Press Release- Army officials in Alaska welcomed today's announcement by the Environmental Protection Agency, which added Fort Richardson to the National Priority List. The move came as no surprise to Army officials here. One year ago this month, the EPA had proposed adding the
Army post to its NPL for environmental cleanup.
The placement of Fort Richardson on the list will allow the installation to receive additional Defense Environmental Restoration Account funds dedicated to the cleanup of the environment. Public participation in the cleanup process will also be encouraged. The post was officially added to the list today primarily because of three contaminated sites on the post, These include (1) the Eagle River Flats Artillery Impact Area, (2) Roosevelt Road Transmitter Site and (3) Pole Line Road Chemical Disposal Site.
The environmental staff at Fort Richardson, numerous contractors, Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation and EPA have been working together, in some cases for years, to clean up these sites and will continue to do so until all are restored. The NPL designation will substantially assist in these efforts. The Army, EPA and ADEC also have been working for the past year on a federal facilities agreement, which is now in final draft, awaiting signatures at the three agencies. The agreement formalizes the Fort Richardson sites restoration process. It sets deadlines, objectives, responsibilities and procedural framework for implementing investigation and restoration of the contaminated sites.
The program 1s already well underway. At Eagle River Flats, a joint task force of five agencies (ADEC, EPA, Army, Alaska Department of Fish and Game and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) was formed in 1988 to discover the cause of waterfowl deaths and to remediate the site. Since then, many other agencies, contractors and environmental specialists identified the cause of
the mortality in 1991 as white phosphorous and have been working to determine the best method of cleanup.
Roosevelt Road Transmitter Site was a bomb-proof communication center during World II and the Korean War. An initial spill of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) occurred in the late 1970s when transformers at the site were vandalized. Following a 1978 Corps of Engineers cleanup and disposal project, a 1988 investigation by a government contractor revealed residual PCB
contamination, resulting in further cleanup. A 1990 investigation of leftover contamination form previous cleanups resulted in a 1992 cleanup. A follow-up remedial investigation will be initiated this summer to assess the adequacy of previous remediation and determine any additional cleanup requirements.
At the Pole Line Road Chemical Disposal Site, identified in 1989 by a former soldier assigned here in 1950, previous investigation confirmed the presence of volatile organic compounds in the soil and shallow ground water. During site excavations in October 1993, the contractor unearthed chemical warfare training components from the late 1940s/early 1950s. Additional
information from subsequent investigations has resulted in plans to continue restoration at the site beginning in summer 1994. The NPL designation is the result of old sites on Fort Richardson dating back in some cases to the 1940s and 195Os, not current operations. The Army in Alaska is committed to good stewardship of the lands entrusted to its care including cleanup of old practices. The NPL designation is a major step in that direction. |
Louis Howard |
| 9/26/1994 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Staff reviewed and commented on the RI/FS Management Plan for OU A. Staff requested documentation for statement on groundwater being 145 ft. below ground surface at Roosevelt Road Transmitter Site.
ARARs will be addressed for OUA under a separate cover letter pending Attorney General's review by 09/30/1994. |
Louis Howard |
| 10/3/1994 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Staff reviewed and commented on the Contract No. DACA85-93-D-0009 Delivery order No. 16 RI/FS
Management Plan: Operable Unit A-ARARs Fort Richardson. ADEC received on August 29, 1994 a fax of the above referenced document. ADEC has the following comments regarding ARARs:
Chemical-Specific ARARS beginning on page 12
This section should list the following as chemical-specific ARARs:
1) Identification and listing of hazardous wastes-40 CFR Part 261 Subpart C and D, 40 CFR 261.24, 261.31, 261.32, 261.33(e) and 261.33 (fj State citation-18 AAC 62. These citations cover wastes having the characteristics of ignitablity, corrosivity, reactivity, and toxicity (TCLP). They also list TCLP constituents and the maximum concentration of contaminants; listed hazardous wastes: F and K listed wastes, discarded commercial wastes.
2) Federal Groundwater Protection Standards-40 CFR Part 264.
3) Drinking Water Standards 40 CFR Part 141 and State citation-18 AAC 80.
4) Alaska Federal Water Quality Standards-40 CFR Part 131, USEPA Quality Criteria for Water 1991 and 18 AAC 70. The State water quality standards identify desired uses for water in the State and establish in-stream criteria for organic and inorganic constituents which are deemed necessary for the protection of the designated uses of the at water body.
5) Alaska Oil & Hazardous Substances Pollution Control-AS 46.04, AS 46.09 / 18 AAC 75. The Alaska Oil and Hazardous Substance Control statute governs discharge of oil and hazardous substances and are necessary cleanup requirements.
6) Underground Storage Tank Regulations-40 CFR Part 280 State citation-18 AAC 78. The Alaska Underground Storage Tank Regulations provides standards for owners and operators of RCRA regulated underground storage groundwater tanks (USTs), soil and cleanup standards are set forth in 18 MC 78.
7) Alaska Solid Waste Management Regulations-18 AAC 60. These regulations set forth standards for waste disposal facilities, including accumulation and storage limitations land spreading restrictions, and requirements for special waste disposal. Permitting standards as well as monitoring and reporting requirements are set forth in these regulations.
8) Hazardous Waste Management Regulations-40 CFR Part 261, 40 CFR Part 268 State citations 18 AAC 62 and 18 AAC 63. The Alaska Hazardous Waste Management Regulations include the federal RCRA Subtitle C requirements with additional criteria and standards promulgated by the State of Alaska. The State adds requirements regarding:
1) the identification of hazardous waste;
2) reporting requirements for generators and transporters;
3) standards for owners and operators of treatment, storage, disposal faciIities;and
4) requirements for hazardous waste delisting petitions.
The Federal regulations in 40 CFR part 261 address the requirements for identification of hazardous wastes, which is critical during any remediation activity that may result in generation of hazardous wastes. Also critical in remediation activities are: the land disposal restrictions (Land Ban), 40 CFR Part 268, which require treatment standards for certain wastes generated during remedial actions. |
Louis Howard |
| 2/2/1995 |
Update or Other Action |
Management Plan documents for Remedial Investigation study OU A for site received to gather information sufficient to support an informed risk management decision regarding appropriate remedial action. |
Louis Howard |
| 3/2/1995 |
Site Characterization Workplan Approved |
Staff reviewed and approved the Management Plan for Operable Unit A. Data Gaps:
Location of all underground structures that could be contaminant sources: Proposed actions-Geophysical survey using EM-31, Data Types-Subsurface terrain conductivity, Data Uses-Define optimum boring and monitoring well locations.
Presence of contaminants in septic tank and leachfield drains:Proposed Actions-Excavation of structures to allow sludge sample collection, Data Types-Type and concentration of contaminants, Data Uses-Define primary sources, evaluate remedial alternatives.
Presence and extent of contaminants in subsurface soil: Proposed Actions-Drilling and sampling of boring around known and potential contaminant sourcesl; Data Types-Type, concentration, and depth of contaminants; Data Uses-Define extent of subsurface soil contamination, evaluate remedial alternatives.
Depth to groundwater, presence of perched groundwater, and groundwater flow direction(s): Proposed Actions-Installation of monitoring wells in all aquifers encountered and collection of static water levels; Data Types-Groundwater elevations; Data Uses-Define groundwater migration pathways, evaluate potential risks associated with exposures to groundwater.
Presence and extent of contaminants in groundwater: Proposed Actions-Collection of groundwater samples from monitoring wells, Data Types-Type and concentration of contaminants, Data Uses-Evlauate remedial alternatives, evaluate potential risks associated with exposures to groundwater.
Presence of groundwater discharge to nearby surface water bodies and associated contaminant deposition: Proposed Actions-Collection of surface water and sediment samples from nearby aquatic environment. Data Types-Type and concentration of contaminants. Data Uses-Define groundwater to surface water discharge migration pathway, evaluate remedial alternatives, evaluate potential risks associated with exposures to surface water or ingestion of fish or waterfowl.
Determine physical and chemical characteristics of site soil: Proposed Actions-Collection of soil for grain size, Atterburg limits, specific gravity, moisture content, total Kjeldahl nitrogen, total organic carbon, potassium, and phosphorus, Data Types-Physical and chemical parameters of soil, Data Uses-Evaluate remedial alternatives. |
Louis Howard |
| 8/8/1995 |
Update or Other Action |
The Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) has received on August 3, 1995, a request
for waiver of site assessment requirements of a underground storage tank (UST) 1 at Roosevelt Road. The waiver will not be granted on the UST and the requirements of 18 AAC 78.90 will apply. It is recommended the UST be included in the UST manangement plan for followup and scheduling. |
Louis Howard |
| 4/19/1996 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Staff reviewed and provided comments on the Draft Remedial Investigation Report Plan OU A March 1996, Fort Richardson, Alaska.
3.5 Nature and Extent of Contamination page 3-11
The text states concentrations of petroleum at the site were compared to non-UST matrix level A as a screening criteria A more appropriate category for screening based on the site conditions would be level C if one were to estimate that over 500 cubic yards of contaminated soils were present at the site.
3.5.1 Cesspool Contamination page 3-12
The text states petroleum hydrocarbons were detected from 2 samples that were quantitated as an
unknown fuel. There is no criteria or cleanup level for unknown fuel. Method 8015 was used to
identify fuel types in this investigation and it is unfortunate that GRO, DRO and TPH analyses were not used instead of 80 15. DEC requests the Army identify which specific range of hydrocarbons are represented by “unknown fuel”. Specifically identify if the fuel falls within the alkane range for gasoline: C6-Cl0 boiling point (bp) 60 C- 170 C, diesel: C10 - C25, bp 170 C - 400 C, residual range organics C25-C45 400 C and 550 C.
If this cannot be done using the available information, then the site may be a good candidate for the State-Fort Richardson Two Party agreement (NON-UST) to better identify what fuel constituents are present using specific analyses pending concurrence by all the project managers.
4.5 Nature and Extent of Contamination page 4-12
The text states category A cleanup criteria was used for screening petroleum hydrocarbons detected in the soils. Using the matrix scoring for site conditions a more realistic category would be category C cleanup criteria: 500 mg/kg gasoline range organics, 1000 mg/kg diesel range organics, and 2000 mg/kg residual range organics.
5.5 Nature and Extent of Contamination page 5-9
The text states category A cleanup criteria was used for screening petroleum hydrocarbons detected in the soils. Using the matrix scoring for site conditions a more realistic category would be category C cleanup criteria: 500 mg/kg gasoline range organ&, 1000 mgkg diesel range organics, and 2000 mg/kg residual range organ&. This would screen out all other results except for the one sample from AP-3619 that exceeds the category C cIeanup criteria for DRO and GRO.
DEC requests these sites be discussed as to what remedial action the Army intends to propose in its feasibility study during the next RPM meeting scheduled in May at Fort Richardson. |
Louis Howard |
| 11/13/1996 |
Site Ranked Using the AHRM |
Reranked site. Changed Toxicity Value from 4 to 2. |
Louis Howard |
| 11/30/1996 |
Site Characterization Report Approved |
Final Remedial Investigation report for OUA. Results of the RI field investigation indicate that extent of contamination at the site is limited to subsurface soils in the area immediately surrounding the RRTSL plumbing system.
Contaminants detected during the RI include diesel-range organics (DRO), PCBs, and
polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in subsurface soils and in the cesspool. No site related contaminants were detected in groundwater at the site. Subsurface soil contamination (DRO) is present at depths from 5 to 15 feet below ground surface (BGS) in three soil borings within the leachfield. Soil from one boring within the leachfield contained a single PAH compound at a depth of 50 feet BGS, but the presence of this contaminant is not suspected to be indicative of a contaminant source. One boring located near the underground bunker contained trace concentrations of PCBs, but this contamination is likely related to past PCB clean-up operations at the site.
In conclusion, RRTSL contains site-related contaminants in the leachfield cesspool
and in subsurface soils. The spatial distribution of contaminants in subsurface soils does not
indicate that the leachfield area is homogeneously contaminated; rather, isolated locations contain contaminant concentrations slightly exceeding the screening criteria. Groundwater is not impacted by site-related contaminants. The most likely pathway for contaminant transport
is lateral and vertical migration of contaminants through subsurface soil via infiltration of
precipitation and snowmelt. The OU-A risk assessment addresses the potential risks posed by
3-15
OUA 0020694
on-site contaminants to human health and the environment. No further investigations are
necessary to determine the need for remedial action at the site. |
Louis Howard |
| 1/9/1997 |
Proposed Plan |
Proposed plan for Operable Unit A/B lists all OU A sites as being addressed under the two party agreement for NON UST site (SFRERA). The residual petroleum and PCBs at the transmitter site leachfield represents a potential excess cancer risk to future hypothetical residents (which is not likely at this site) if cleanup does not occur of 2 in 10 million (2 x 10-6). The Army, ADEC, and EPA have elected to place this site in the Two Party Agreement and remove it from the FFA CERCLA agreement for the purposes of cleanup. |
Louis Howard |
| 3/13/1997 |
Update or Other Action |
UPD added on 3/13/97, based on Army Risk Data Report dated 11/8/96. Pathways: Contaminants observed in lab samples of groundwater; also vegetative uptake of contaminant. Receptors: Potential exposure under recreational/industrial scenario; herbivorous moose uptake and human uptake of moose. |
Louis Howard |
| 4/2/1997 |
Update or Other Action |
Staff reviewed and commented on the draft Record of Decision for OUA and Poleline Road Disposal Area-OUB dated January 17, 1997. Description of the Selected Remedies page ii
In the section where institutional controls are first mentioned, plea-se define the terms: SDWA and MCLs for the reader.
Statutory Determination page ii
In this section it may be appropriate to mention a phased approach for the selected remedy and alternate treatment technologies. Other points to mention in this section are how and why the selected remedy will be phased and what triggers or sets forth in motion when the Army will consider looking for another treatment technology.
1.1.2 Hydrogeology and Groundwater Use pages 2 and 3
This section is too vague and does not give the reader the impression that it applies specifically to OU A source areas. The description needs to mirror or be more like section 1.2.2 for OU B or
incorporate information from previous investigations concerning hydrogeology and groundwater usage.
3.1.2.1 Roosevelt Road Transmitter Site Leachfield page 17 first, third and fourth para.
Text in first paragraph and third paragraph needs to relate analytical results to Alaska cleanup matrix (ACM) levels, EPA’s Region III RBCs and possibly TSCA (for soil samples that contain
PCBs). DEC requests changes to language in fourth paragraph on this page from "...concentrations exceeding screening criteria. . . .” to “the concentrations exceeding MCLS in the . . . groundwater samples.” |
Louis Howard |
| 9/18/1997 |
Record of Decision |
OU-A/OU-B signed by EPA's Regional Administrator Chuck Clarke and Army staff, ADEC Director. No digging without a permit will be allowed based on site history: PCBs which have not been excavated during the removal action may still be present. Area will be delineated on a map as having institutional controls and requiring approval action by Public Works Environmental staff prior to any action being taken by any entity. |
Louis Howard |
| 11/28/1997 |
Update or Other Action |
Institutional controls (ICs) were established under the State Fort Richardson Environmental Agreement (Two-Party Agreement) to prevent exposure to residual petroleum contamination at the site. Warning signs were placed around the perimeter of the site and fencing was installed to prevent access to the site.
NOTE TO FILE: § 300.430 Remedial investigation/feasibility study and selection of remedy.(a) General—(1) Introduction. The purpose of the remedy selection process is to implement remedies that eliminate, reduce, or control risks to human health and the environment. Remedial actions are to be implemented as soon as site data and information make it possible to do so.
Accordingly, EPA has established the following program goal, expectations, and program management principles to assist in the identification and implementation of appropriate remedial actions.
(iii) Expectations. EPA generally shall consider the following expectations in developing appropriate remedial alternatives:
(D) EPA expects to use institutional controls such as water use and deed restrictions to supplement engineering controls as appropriate for short- and long-term management to prevent or limit exposure to hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants. Institutional controls may be used during the conduct of the remedial investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS) and implementation of the remedial action and, where necessary, as a component of the completed remedy. The use of institutional controls shall not substitute for active response measures (e.g., treatment and/or containment of source material, restoration of ground waters to their beneficial uses) as the sole remedy unless such active measures are determined not to be practicable, based on the balancing of trade-offs among alternatives that is conducted during the selection of remedy.
|
Louis Howard |
| 12/15/1997 |
Cleanup Plan Approved |
(Old R:Base Action Code = RAPA - Remedial Action Plan Approval). Staff reviewed and commented on draft workplan for closure of a leachfield at Roosevelt Road which has Diesel and residual range organic contaminated soils. Also included in the workplan was the Ruff Road treatment system demonstrations and design verification study to address petroleum contaminants present in the soil. At Roosevelt Road the plan in 1998 is to: excavate to two feet below bottom of cesspool, all connecting pipes will be cut and filled with grout, excavated soils/debris to be mixed with cement and backfilled into the cesspool. Finally the cesspool will be capped with a six-inch reinforced concrete slab. For Ruff Road the Army will install a bioventing system in the summer of 1998 to remediate the petroleum contaminated soils present at the site. |
Louis Howard |
| 1/20/1999 |
Update or Other Action |
1998 Summary Report Delivery Order No. 0026, Contract No. DACABS-95-D-0008 Treatment System Demonstration & Design Verification Study, Ruff and Roosevelt Road, Fort Richardson, Alaska Draft memorandum.
The purpose of this report is to provide a year-end summary on the remedial activities conducted at the Roosevelt Road Transmitter Site leachfield (RRTSL) located at Fort Richardson, Alaska (see
Attachment 1, Vicinity Map). Remedial activities were conducted at this site by DOWL/Ogden Joint
Venture (DOWL/Ogden JV) in the 1998 construction season.
All work performed under this contract. complies with the Comprehensive Environmental Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) and~ Federal Facility Agreement (FFA) entered into in
1994 by the U.S. Department of' the Anny, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC}, and the U.S. Department of Defense
(DOD).
The objective for treatment at this site was to contain the waste by stabilizing and solidifying the contaminated material using a bentonite based grout and slurry. This was accomplished by exposing the underground pipe network related to the concrete cesspool and bunker and plugging each individual pipe with bentonite grout. Sediments and other sloughed materials contained Within the cesspool were removed, mixed into a concrete slurry, and placed back into the cesspool.
Work commenced with clearing and excavating the area surrounding the cesspool and the west edge of
the bunker. Upon excavation of the pipe network, an unmarked S1D11p vault, located approximately 55 feet south of the cesspool, was discovered. Exposed pipes were cut and pressure filled with a bentonite grout until refusal and then capped. In all, eleven pipe openings we.re filled. The excavated area were backfilled, compacted, and leveled with a backhoe.
Approximately 1/2 cubic yard of sediment was then removed from within the cesspool and mixed into a slurry with five bags of cement The cement-rich slurry was reintroduced into the cesspool. The cesspool was then backfilled with clean sand and gravel which was compacted and topped off with an 8'x 8' x6" wire reinforced concrete cap. This completed the containment of the areas of concern.
Earlier investigations have indicated migration and dispersion of contaminated material from the
leachfield area, from the cesspool and associated piping. Containment of the contaminants has been achieved by effectively stabilizing and solidifying material in place. A bentonite grout
and slurry mixture has been added to the areas where leaching is most likely, thus minimizing the
potential for transport of the contaminants.
Based on the apparent success of the stabilization and solidification process, DOWL/Ogden JV
recommends that no further treatment be performed at the Roosevelt Road site. We do, however,
support ongoing monitoring of the site by periodic sampling of the soil along the periphery and near the leachfield Groundwater and/or surface waters may also 6e sampled on occasion as a precaution.
|
Louis Howard |
| 3/31/1999 |
Update or Other Action |
US Army Corps of Engineers Cold Regions Research & Engineering Laboratory (CRREL): Investigation of the Roosevelt Road Transmitter SIte Fort Richardson, Alaska Using Ground Penetrating Radar March 1999. CRREL conducted a ground-penetrating radar (GPR) investigation of the site in June 1996, at the request of the Directorate of Public Works on Fort Richardson. Nine transect lines were established, each being profiled with 100- and 400-MHz antennas. Both antennas systems defined the extent of the bunker and identified the presence of buried utilidors. The 100-MHz antenna provided large-scale resolution of the bunker, limits of site excavation, and large stratigraphic horizons in the undisturbed sediments.
The 400-MHz antenna provided finer resolution that allowed identification of steel reinforcement in the bunker ceiling, utilidor walls and floor, and the walls of the inner and outer bunker. High amplitude resonance and hyperbolas in the record characterize the response from the Transmitter Annex foundation, buried pipes, and utilities. The GPR survey shows its utility for detecting the extent of abandoned underground structures and identifying the extent of original ground excavations.
Investigations of the Roosevelt Road Transmitter Site show that GPR can delineate underground structures and associated excavation surfaces. The technology has broad application for
investigating buried underground structures and anthropogenic surfaces. The analyses presented in this report demonstrate the utility of using GPR data to delineate such features. The following is a summary of our observations:
1. The 100-MHz antenna provides general details on larger subsurface structures, while the 400-MHz antenna defines features at shallower depth and in greater detail.
• 100 MHz: delineates limits of excavation,
presence of buried structures, and largescale
stratigraphic horizons.
• 400 MHz: delineates shallow excavation
surfaces, buried pipes, inner and outer
walls of buried structures, and utilidor
walls and floors.
2. Vertically stacked hyperbolas in the GPR data represent edges of the concrete walls of the bunker and utilidors.
3. Multiple, closely spaced hyperbolas in the 400-MHz data reflect the wire mesh used to reinforce the concrete in the bunker ceiling.
4. Strong subhorizontal reflections that truncate apparent depositional surfaces reveal compacted surfaces produced when the site was excavated and backfilled. |
Louis Howard |
| 2/15/2000 |
Conditional Closure Approved |
Conditionally closed with capping action at cesspool in 1998 and the closing of the vault at the bunker and communication annex. |
Louis Howard |
| 2/15/2000 |
Update or Other Action |
1998 Summary report received. 5/28/98 -5/30/98 soil was cleared and removed from around cesspool and west side of the bunker exposing buried pipes. Pipes from west side of bunker were disconnected, grouted to refusal and capped then backfilled with native fill. Sediment was removed from cesspool, mixed with cement, and reintroduced into the unmarked sump vault. Cesspool was backfilled, compacted and topped with six inch concrete cap. |
Louis Howard |
| 2/15/2000 |
Cleanup Complete Determination Issued |
Conditionally closed with capping action at cesspool in 1998 and the closing of the vault at the bunker and communication annex. Site status update to reflect Cleanup Complete with Institutional Controls (CC with ICs). |
Louis Howard |
| 4/30/2001 |
Update or Other Action |
Final Environmental Project Management Plan received for the Track Realigment Project - Military Segment. Ongoing military environmental programs have documented locations where contamination is anticipated along the existing & proposed ROWs. Environmental subcontractors will be present during excavation in these areas to facilitate the identification of potential contaminants. The existing & proposed ROWs are within 1,000 & 400 feet of RRTS, respectively. RRTS had known PCB contamination & the site has been formerly closed under the CERCLA process (US Army, 2000). Besides PCBs, contaminants included VOCs, petroleum hydrocarbons, heavy metals, & base, neutral, & acids (BNAs).
Based on the GW & soil studies performed at RRTS, minimal impacts would be expected to either the proposed or existing ROW. However, given the potential of encountering previously unknown PCB contamination during construction at the proposed ROW ARRC agreed to conduct a limited soil sampling investigation which is described in Section 4 & the FSP.
A preliminary investigation, which includes soil boring & testing, will be completed prior to excavation at this site. ARRC will have an ADEC-qualified person (ESO) present during excavation at RRTS. The soil evaluation program will be followed, & at this site will be supplemented with PCB field screening kits. If necessary, the construction contractor will separate contaminated soil into PCMSA under the direction of the ESO.
Because of the existence of previously documented contamination at this site, & the fact that a significant amount of excavation is planned, ARRC will conduct a limited subsurface soil investigation prior to excavation activities. The investigation procedures are described in the FSP .
The purpose of the subsurface investigation will be to identify potential subsurface contaminants prior to their disturbance by excavation. Soil borings will be located such that they adequately screen that area which will be excavated. The preliminary scope of work will include the following tasks.
Task 1 - Soil Boring Installation. Four soil borings will be installed using a track-mounted auger drill rig. Once the analytical results are received from the first four soil borings, the need for additional soil borings will be assessed based on potential health risks to the workers. The locations for the soil borings will be selected along the proposed ROW, as mutually agreed upon by ARRC & Fort Richardson, based on available information from previous studies to ensure that the excavation area is adequately characterized. The soil borings will be advanced approximately 5 feet past design grade & will not extend into GW.
Task 2 - Soil Sampling & Analysis. In each borehole. a split-spoon sampler will be used to collected soil samples every 2.5 feet for lithologic characterization & laboratory analysis.
Soil samples will be analyzed for the following analytes:
• DRO by AK 102; &,
• PCBs by EPA Method 8082.
Soil cuttings will be contained in geo-membrane super sacks in the vicinity of the borehole, pending laboratory results. After sampling is complete, each borehole will be secured but will remain open until laboratory results are received. If no contaminants are encountered the soil cuttings will be placed back into their respective borings. If contamination is indicated the boreholes will be backfilled using hydrated bentonite chips & the full super sacks will be staged onsite adjacent to the nearest materials storage area pending disposal.
Task 3 - Reporting. A brief letter report will be prepared to document the results of the investigation. The report will include a summary of work completed & a site layout figure with boring locations & depths. Analytical results will be presented in tabular form. Boring logs & analytical lab reports will be provided as an appendix to the report.
Excavation activities will proceed based on the results of the investigation.
The limited subsurface investigation does not preclude the possibility that contamination will be found elsewhere within RRTS during construction. In addition to visual observations & ongoing evaluation for the presence of petroleum-contaminated soil, field test kits, which can be used to quickly screen for the presence of PCBs in soils will be employed. These test kits will be available for screening of soils, which are suspected of containing PCBs.
A reliable test for PCBs can be performed in less than 30 minutes using these kits. Suspected soil within the boundaries of RRTS that is disturbed by excavation will be screened. Diesel fuel was reportedly used as a solvent in historic cleanup operations, & soil, which is contaminated with PCBs, will likely be darkly stained & has a diesel-like odor. Extreme care will be taken when handling soils, which are suspected of being contaminated with PCBs. |
Louis Howard |
| 12/12/2001 |
Institutional Control Record Established |
1. All organizations conducting activities on United States Army Alaska (USARAK) controlled land are responsible for complying with established institutional controls (ICs). ICs are administrative, procedural, and regulatory measures to control human access to and usage of property. They are applicable to all known or suspected contaminated sites where contamination has been left in place.
2. These controls have been established to implement the selected remedial actions agreed upon by the U.S. Army (Army), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), and the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) in accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) as amended by the Superfund Amendment Reauthorization Act (SARA). These controls also apply to remedial actions agreed upon under Two-Party Compliance Agreements. These agreements are concluded between USARAK and ADEC and apply to petroleum/oil/lubricants- (POL) contaminated sites.
3. ICs such as limitations on access, water use, excavations, and property transfers will supplement engineering controls as appropriate for short-term and long-term management to prevent or limit human and environmental exposure to hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants. Specific ICs include, among other things: limitations on the depth and location of excavations, prohibition of or restrictions on well drilling and use of ground water, requirements for worker use of personal protective equipment, site monitoring, and prohibition of certain land uses, types of vehicles, etc.
4. Organizational units, tenants, and support/contractor organizations must obtain an Excavation Clearance Request (ECR) for all soil disturbing activities impacting soils six inches or more below the ground surface. The review process for approval of an ECR begins with the identification of the current status (known or suspected hazardous waste site or “clean” site) of a work location. ECR’s for work in known or suspected hazardous waste sites:
a. will include specific limitations and controls on such work;
b. will include specific IC procedures, and notification, monitoring, reporting, and stop work requirements;
c. may include procedures for management, characterization, and disposal of any soil or groundwater encountered or removed;
d. will identify “project managers” for both the unit/contractor requesting the work and DPW Environment Resources.
5. The DPW project manager will conduct on-site inspections of each work site (at which ICs apply) to determine continued compliance with the terms and conditions of the approved ECR. DPW has the authority to revoke ECR approval if the specified terms and conditions are not being met. ECR forms are available at the Customer Service Desks at: a. Building 730 at Fort Richardson; b. Building 3015 at Fort Wainwright; c. Building 605 at Fort Greely.
6. USARAK has negotiated (with USEPA and/or ADEC) decision documents and/or Records of Decision (RODs) that mandate the implementation of ICs USARAK Directorate of Public Works, Environmental Resources Department (PWE), maintains copies of all decision documents and RODs requiring ICs in its real property files. PWE provides regularly updated post maps showing all areas affected by ICs. These maps can easily be accessed by using an approved intranet mapping interface application. Copies of these maps will be available to each directorate, activity, and tenant organization. To ensure the effectiveness of ICs, all organizational units and tenant activities will be informed on an annual basis of ICs on contaminated soils and groundwater in effect near their facilities.
7. ICs are enforceable by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC). Failure to comply with an IC mandated in a decision document or ROD will violate the USARAK Federal Facility Agreement and may result in stipulated fines and penalties. This does not include the costs of corrective actions required due to violation of an established IC.
|
Louis Howard |
| 8/30/2002 |
Interim Removal Action Approved |
The utility tunnels were closed during the railroad realignment in 2002. Utility trenches associated with the site were filled with native soil and the entire site capped with approximately 4 to 6 feet of compacted fill.
The railroad wanted to use an area to the west of the Roosevelt Road Transmitter Site (RRTS) as a staging area, so the Army made an agreement with the ARRC to have their contractor close the tunnels. The ARRC's contractor (URS) used an excavator to break up the rotted wood planking covering the utilidors, filled the utilidors with clean soil, placed fill over the entire site (including over the bunker), and fenced the area. That was accomplished as part of the ARRC's restoration and remediation project. This work was accomplished prior to the ARRC using the staging area and was also a safety measure due to the danger of a vehicle falling into the tunnels. |
Louis Howard |
| 2/20/2003 |
CERCLA ROD Periodic Review |
Army's first Five Year Review signed by ADEC. 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. The purpose of this review is to ensure that remedial actions selected in the Records of Decisions (RODs) for the Fort Richardson Operable Units (OUs) are being implemented and that they continue to be protective of human health and the environment. To achieve this purpose, this review evaluates the status of implementation of the selected remedies, identifies significant variances from the RODs, and makes recommendations for reconciling variances and/or for improving performance of remedial actions.
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.
The OUA ROD included the following three source areas: Roosevelt Road Transmitter Site Leachfield, Ruff Road Fire Training Area and Building 986 Petroleum Oil and Lubricant (POL) Laboratory Dry Well. The Army, EPA, and ADEC determined that the source areas included within OU-A did not represent unacceptable risk to human health or the environment, based on EPA criteria for residential use. Thus, no remedial action was necessary to ensure protection of human health and the environment under CERCLA.
However, the levels of petroleum contamination in the soil did exceed the ADEC soil cleanup criteria. Accordingly, the sites were transferred to the Non-UST POL Environmental Restoration Agreement (Two-Party Agreement) between the Army and ADEC. Two of the sites, Roosevelt Road Transmitter Site Leachfield and Ruff Road Fire Training Area, have undergone remedial action and have been closed under the Two-Party Agreement. The Building 986 POL Laboratory Dry Well site was undergoing active remediation at the time of this review.
A description of these sites and NFA decisions can be found in the OUA/OUB ROD. During the Five-Year Review process, the remedies conducted under the Two Party Agreement were reviewed and determined to be protective. A summary of remedial actions at the OU source areas can be found in the Administrative Record and are presented on Table 3-1. In addition, Table 3-1 contains updated information for all sites listed in the FFA. Because the OUA POL source areas are addressed through the Two-Party Agreement, they are not discussed further in this Five-Year Review. |
Jennifer Roberts |
| 2/23/2007 |
Exposure Tracking Model Ranking |
|
Louis Howard |
| 8/31/2007 |
GIS Position Updated |
61.2902 N latitude -149.6843 W longitude |
Louis Howard |
| 2/7/2011 |
Exposure Tracking Model Ranking |
Initial ranking with ETM completed for source area id: 71619 name: Septic Leachfield |
Bianca Reece |
| 5/19/2011 |
Update or Other Action |
Wing Instruction 32-7003 dated May 19, 2011 Land Use Control Management. OPR: 673 CES/CEANR Certified by: 673 CEG/CC (Col Russell R. Hula). This instruction implements AFPD 32-70, Environmental Quality, & is used in conjunction with AFIs 32-7020, The ERP, 32-7066, Environmental Baseline Surveys in Real Estate Transactions, & 673ABWI 32-1007, Safeguarding Utilities From Damage. It prescribes the processes & responsibilities for the management of & compliance with land use controls on Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson (JBER) & applies to all military & civilian organizations that occupy facilities, or conduct business, on the installation. This publication does not apply to the USAF Reserve or Air NG units & members. The current land use control areas can be found on the Environmental Restoration map located on the GeoBase webpage.
General:
1.1. Land use controls (LUC), such as limitations on access, water use, excavations, & property transfers, will supplement engineering controls as appropriate for short-term & long-term mgt to prevent or limit human & environmental exposure to hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants. Examples include limitations on the depth & location of excavations, prohibition of or restrictions on well drilling & use of GW, mgt. of excavated soils, & prohibition of certain land uses. LUCs, often used interchangeably with (ICs), are administrative, procedural, engineering, & regulatory measures to control human access to & use of property.
1.2. LUCs were established at JBER to prevent exposure to contaminated soil & water, based on agreements between the military services & the EPA & the ADEC. LUCs are used to reduce the potential for exposure to hazardous substances or to enhance the protectiveness of a soil &/or water cleanup remedy. They include restrictions on the use of portions of the shallow aquifer south of the Elmendorf Moraine, limitations on the types of buildings allowed in certain areas – primarily occupancy limitations, & land use designations for certain areas as recreational use only.
The LUCs have been implemented at several sites & operable units (OU) as part of the ERP. LUCs were established for DP98 & OUs 1, 2, 4, 5, & 6 on former Elmendorf AFB property in their respective records of decision (ROD), as a component of the selected cleanup remedy. LUCs were also established for restoration & compliance sites formerly part of Fort Richardson in their respective RODs or Decision Documents. LUCs must be in place as long as a property is not available for UU or UE & may include temporary or permanent restrictions or requirements. When all cleanup goals have been achieved for a given site, temporary controls, such as GW use restrictions, may be removed.
2. Responsibilities:
2.1. JBER personnel, tenants, or contractors whose projects or activities require excavation in areas where site-specific LUCs are in effect will comply with all LUCs, 673ABWI 32-1007, & applicable AF instructions. Base contractors & tenant organizations will have LUC compliance requirements incorporated into their contracts & interagency agreements, as will be necessary. Failure to comply with LUCs will be grounds for penalty, in accordance with provisions specified in applicable contract documents. At project completion, the JBER organization or contractor will sign a certification of LUC compliance & return the compliance statement to 673 CES/CEANR.
2.2. The 673d Civil Engineer Squadron (673 CES):
2.2.1. Asset Management Flight (673 CES/CEA):
2.2.1.1. Natural Resources Management (673 CES/CEAN):
2.2.1.1.1. Environmental Restoration (673 CES/CEANR):
2.2.1.1.1.1. Will provide GW & site-specific LUC requirements throughout the installation & identify any known soil contaminated sites & monitoring wells for the area of the proposed project.
2.2.1.1.1.2. Will conduct annual site visits to ensure compliance with LUCs during project implementation.
2.2.1.1.1.3. Will conduct 5-year reviews, at 5-year intervals, or as required by any subsequent RODs.
2.2.1.1.1.4. Will prepare annual LUC compliance reports & submit reports to ADEC & USEPA by 1 February each year.
2.2.1.1.1.5. Will disseminate LUC information to personnel involved in LUC mgt, including real property & 673 CES/CEPT for inclusion into GeoBase.
2.2.1.1.1.6. Will operate an active educational program that includes disseminating updated fact sheets & LUC information, providing notices through the installation intranet & the Arctic Warrior newspaper, & by briefing LUC mgt at project kick-off meetings; Environmental, Safety & Occupational Health Council meetings, & CEB meetings.
2.2.1.1.1.7. Will coordinate any changes in the base general plan (BGP), or real estate transactions, with USEPA & ADEC.
2.2.1.1.1.8. Will maintain copies of signed certificates of compliance, indicating requestor’s adherence to LUCs during project execution.
See site file for additional information. |
Louis Howard |
| 5/16/2014 |
Update or Other Action |
Draft WP received for comment.
Soil borings will be advanced using a direct-push drill rig (SOP-15). The exact soil sample intervals will be adjusted based on field conditions and the type of sampling device used. Soil cores will be examined for evidence of hydrocarbons (e.g., staining or odor) and will be screened for organic vapors using a PID (SOP-23). Lithologic descriptions, observations of staining or odor, and the results of field screening with the PID will be recorded on borehole log forms in accordance with the procedures in SOP-18. Discrete soil samples will be collected using the methods described in SOP-16. Direct-push sampling will be conducted, and field screening for petroleum hydrocarbons using headspace organic monitoring will be performed in accordance with SOP-16.
Specific laboratory methods, bottle requirements, field preservation requirements, and sample volumes for these analyses are provided in Worksheet #19. Quality assurance / quality control (QA/QC) samples will be collected as specified in Worksheet #20. Sample handling will follow procedures listed in SOP-02.
At least two new soil borings will be drilled as follows.
SS041-SB01 and SS041-SB02
One boring (SS041-SB01) will be drilled near former boring AP-3598 to investigate the nature of residual DRO contamination within the leachfield. The proposed new boring is located where the vadose zone is interpreted to be contaminated.
To facilitate HRC calculations, a subset of soil samples will be collected at this location and will be analyzed as follows:
• Approximately three primary samples from more heavily contaminated soils (as observed at the time of sampling based on PID readings and visual/olfactory evidence of contamination) will be analyzed for VPH and EPH.
• Approximately one sample from uncontaminated soils representative of the source zone will be analyzed for foc.
• Approximately one sample representative of the site subsurface conditions will be tested for bulk density, grain size distribution, specific gravity, and moisture content.
To assess the lateral extent of DRO contamination, one boring (SS041-SB02) will be drilled northeast of former boring AP-3598.
Both soil borings will be advanced using a direct-push technology drill rig to depths up to 30 feet bgs (contamination is expected between 11 and 21 feet bgs). Soil samples will be collected at 5-foot intervals to the total depth of the boring. |
Louis Howard |
| 5/21/2014 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Staff commented on the draft work plan.
Executive Summary
The text states: “Fuel hydrocarbons present in the soil at SS041 resulted from the use of diesel fuel to wash the foundation of a building in which transformers were stored and leaked.”
The text should state: “Fuel hydrocarbons present in the soil at SS041 resulted from the use of diesel fuel to wash the foundation of a building in which PCB transformers were stored and leaked.”
Site-Specific Work
The text states: “One of the soil samples will be collected from below the contaminated soil source and will be analyzed for fraction of organic carbon (foc).”
Page A-14 of HRC User Manual states:
“The default ADEC foc may be used in calculations OR the soil foc values may be measured in (FOUR OR MORE) soil samples collected from the impacted soil strata and near or below the water table depth, outside the NAPL-contaminated soil source area …”
Where the Hydrocarbon Risk Calculator User Manual and the ADEC 08-002 Technical Memorandum differ, the 08-002 Technical Memorandum shall be followed
Project Planning Session Summary
ADEC was not part of this planning session on April 16, 2014. The text states: “The objective at SS041 is to perform site characterization to: (1) define the lateral and vertical extent of residual petroleum contamination and (2) use the Hydrocarbon Risk Calculator (HRC) to determine whether soil contamination presents unacceptable risks.”
The soil contamination is not just petroleum associated with the former Operable Unit A Roosevelt Road Transmitter PCB site. The cesspool has been capped and contains both PCBs and petroleum which means the site is “cleanup complete with institutional controls”. Any HRC risk evaluation will not change the site status to “cleanup complete without institutional controls.” ADEC will not grant a partial closure or cleanup complete designation for the cesspool area based on any HRC evaluation of petroleum contamination.
Project/Data Quality Objectives
The text states: “Additional data are needed for HRC evaluation and to determine whether site conditions meet ADEC risk criteria.”
This is not relevant to the site since existing capped PCBs exist at the source area (cesspool/leachfield) and will not change the status of the site from “cleanup complete with ICs.” ADEC questions the rationale for evaluation of any DRO risk in the presence of PCBs on-site with institutional controls that are not going to be eliminated by this evaluation.
Project Tasks/Project Schedule
The text states: “DOT-approved drums for analysis of DRO, RRO, GRO, petroleum-rated VOCs, PAHs, and PCBs by the methods listed in Worksheet #18.” There is a history of VOCs (TCE, PCE) at the cesspool site. See Section 6.1 Waste Characterization 1991 RRTS Site Investigation Project Report: “Limited sampling from the soil near the cesspool inlet pipe also indicates the presence of 388,800 ng/kg trichloroethene, 250,000 ug/kg, tetrachloroethene,…”
ADEC requests that the full suite of VOCs be analyzed for in the IDW waste from the soil borings. It may be prudent to sample for the full suite of VOCs from the soil with the highest field screening result in both soil borings. Both low-level and methanol preserved samples with Method 8260 are requested. EPA no longer recommends the use of sodium bisulfate preservative; instead use VOC/VOA vials with a water carrier (SW5035/SW8260-low level method). It is unlikely in June 1994 that soil samples were preserved with methanol as currently required by ADEC for VOCs.
Project Action Limits and Laboratory-Specific Detection/Quantitation Limits
Add laboratory methods for PCBs and VOCs.
The text states: “Detections above a screening level are not an indication of unacceptable risk. Rather, a risk evaluation during site characterization will identify potential risks at a site and provide the basis for risk management decisions.”
A decision has already been made for the site in 2000: cleanup complete with ICs. The evaluation of risk by Method Three HRC will not change this status.
|
Louis Howard |
| 7/10/2014 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
ADEC has reviewed the responses to its comments on the SS041 work plan and finds them acceptable. Please finalize the work plan. |
Louis Howard |
| 2/27/2015 |
Update or Other Action |
SS041 Draft SC report received for review and comment.
DRO was identified as the primary contaminant in soil based on historical data (Figure 4-1) within
the leachfield. In 1995, DRO was detected at a concentration (470 mg/kg) above the screening level (250 mg/kg) in boring AP-3598. Soil samples collected at 2014 site characterization borings
SS041-SB01 and SS041-SB02 (installed at the approximate location of AP-3598 and to the northeast of that location, respectively) showed detected concentrations of DRO below the screening level in both borings. This suggests that DRO has likely attenuated to concentrations below the screening level.
In 1995, TCE was detected at a concentration (0.022 mg/kg) above the screening level (0.020 mg/kg) in soil boring AP-3604 from 15 to 16.5 feet bgs (Figure 4-1). During the 2014 site
characterization, TCE was detected above the screening level at concentrations of 0.108 mg/kg (~five times higher than in 1995) and 0.0737 mg/kg (~three times higher than in 1995) at SS041-SB01 and SS041-SB02, respectively, at a depth of 15 to 20 feet bgs in both borings, similar to that of the 1995 investigation (the depth that is, not the concentration).
The lateral extent of TCE contamination is delineated to the south and west by numerous historical borings and to the northeast by historical boring AP-3614. The vertical extent of TCE in soil extends to approximately 20 feet bgs as defined by soil boring AP-3604 which was advanced to 51.5 feet bgs (Table 4-1).
PCBs were analyzed in the 15-to-20-foot interval of SS041-SB01 and SS041-SB02 and were not
detected in either boring.
In 2014, no other petroleum hydrocarbons (i.e., GRO, RRO, BTEX, and PAHs) or VOCs were detected above screening levels. Several VOCs were reported as nondetects (at the LOD) above the project screening levels, as shown in Table 4-4. LODs below the project screening levels for these analytes were identified in the Basewide UFP-QAPP as unachievable in methanol preservation; therefore, the results are not unexpected. None of the VOCs included in Table 4-4 were identified as COCs in previous investigations under CERCLA.
Groundwater was not analyzed during the 2014 field effort because data collected during the 1996
RI indicate that contamination has not reached groundwater and groundwater migration is not a
pathway of concern at the site (Ecology and Environment, 1996). Groundwater was estimated at
approximately 95 feet bgs (more than 75 feet below the depth of contamination at SS041) based
on water level monitoring conducted in 1995 at nearby monitoring wells AP-3658, AP-3659, and
Well B (located approximately 1,300 feet north/northwest of the leachfield).
Existing data show that TCE contamination in the soil at SS041 is at depths greater than 15 feet
bgs; therefore, the incidental ingestion and dermal contact pathway as well as outdoor air
inhalation are considered incomplete for TCE contamination. Because no buildings are located
within 100 feet of contaminated soil, the vapor intrusion pathway is considered currently
incomplete.
Consistent with the Vapor Intrusion Guidance for Contaminated Sites (ADEC, 2012d), inhalation of volatiles migrating from soil into indoor air within future overlying buildings (vapor intrusion
pathway) was analyzed by comparing screening level exceedances with ADEC Table B1 levels (Table 5-2). TCE was detected above its most conservative Table B1 cleanup level from one historical sample (AP-3604 from 15 to 16.5 feet bgs) and two 2014 samples (SS041-SB01 from 15 to 20 feet bgs, and SS041-SB02 from 15 to 20 feet bgs). VOCs detected in other locations are below 18 AAC 75 Table B1 cleanup levels.
Although concentrations of PCBs remain on the site at concentrations above the screening level, the contaminated sediment has been mixed with cement and capped in the cesspool. Concentrations of PCBs were not detected above the screening levels in soil samples collected outside the cesspool at SS041. Therefore, PCBs do not pose a current risk to human health or the environment
Ecological exposure pathways are considered incomplete, which demonstrates that ecological risk is not of concern (see the Ecoscoping form in Appendix C).
Based on the risk evaluation, the following are recommended for SS041:
• Remove groundwater LUCs.
• Revise soil LUC boundaries and develop LUC language.
• Continue annual LUC inspections and reporting. |
Louis Howard |
| 4/27/2015 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
ADEC has reviewed the Air Force's response regarding the PCB-contaminated pad at Roosevelt Road:
1) restrict access to the pad by securing the secondary gate, 2) add signage (one on each of four sides of the secondary fence), 3) add note in GeoBASE identifying PCB contamination, 4) continue managing land use controls (LUCs), and 5) continue conducting annual LUC inspections.
Additionally, current land use is not proposed to change in the future; however, revised LUC language will be developed to prohibit the construction of manned facilities within 100 feet of the recently identified trichloroethylene (TCE)-contaminated soils until the vapor intrusion pathway has been evaluated at SS041.
|
Louis Howard |
| 5/13/2015 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation has received the Final 2015 Site Characterization Report SS041 Roosevelt Road Transmitter Site, JBER Alaska dated May 2015 on May 4, 2015.
ADEC has reviewed it and will approve it without further comments. The Air Force’s response on April 27, 2015 to ADEC's comments regarding PCB-contaminated pad at Roosevelt Road is acceptable to ADEC. ADEC concurs with the Air Force revising land use control language to prohibit the construction of manned facilities within 100 feet of the recently identified TCE-contaminated soils until the vapor intrusion pathway has been evaluated at SS041. |
Louis Howard |
| 10/5/2016 |
Update or Other Action |
Letter sent regarding the concrete pad at the Roosevelt Road Transmitter site.
1990 IRP report
4.3 Significance of Findings
Page 4-5
Clean-up verification sampling found 20 out of a total of 32 soil samples exceeded
the 10 ppm clean-up level for soils and three out of four wipe samples exceeded 100
micrograms per 100 square centimeters, the maximum concentration allowable on low contact outdoor, non-impervious surfaces prior to encapsulation (clean-up levels specified in 40 CFR Part 761).
4.3.3 Alternative Remedial Actions
The evaluation of the Roosevelt Road Transmitter site for this project was limited to the results of a previous investigation completed by the COE and the confirmation testing completed after the 1988 removal. The confirmation testing was completed after the transmitter pad surface was sealed and a predetermined volume of contaminated soil was removed. The removal program was based on information from drilling and sampling by the COE and the need to prevent the spreading of contaminants.
The confirmation testing completed after the removal action indicated that target clean-up levels were not achieved and that significant contamination still existed in the subsurface soils near the transmitter pad. The removal action did eliminate the potential for further spread of PCB contamination by wildlife and eliminated the potential for exposure at the ground surface near the transmitter pad. However, the information required to evaluate alternative remedial actions was not available. As a result, no alternative remedial actions were identified for the Roosevelt Road Transmitter site. Instead, further investigations are recommended.
ADEC concerns:
In October 1994, it was observed that the epoxy resin coating had failed on the transmitter pad. These findings from 1990 indicate that contamination remains at the site and maintaining the coating on the concrete pad and the trenches is part of the ongoing institutional controls necessary to protect human health and the environment. ADEC is requesting AFCEC take all necessary actions to request and obtain funding to address any failure of the encapsulation at the concrete pad and other areas where it was used conduct annual institutional control inspections at the Roosevelt Road Transmitter site which include the pad and trenches.
If additional action has been taken at the concrete pad since 1994, then please provide a written response within thirty (30) days of receipt of this letter outlining the actions taken and whether or not they are protective of human health, safety, welfare and of the environment.
See site file for additional information. |
Louis Howard |
| 10/5/2016 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Staff commented on the Concrete Pad at Roosevelt Road which was coated with an epoxy resin in 1990, viewed as deteriorated in October 1994 and requires follow up action to ensure site conditions remain protective of human health and the environment.
Staff requested AFCEC take all necessary actions to request and obtain funding to address any failure of the encapsulation at the concrete pad and other areas where it was used conduct annual institutional control inspections at the Roosevelt Road Transmitter site which include the pad and trenches.
If additional action has been taken at the concrete pad since 1994, then please provide a written response within thirty (30) days of receipt of this letter outlining the actions taken and whether or not they are protective of human health, safety, welfare and of the environment.
See site file for additional information. |
Louis Howard |
| 4/12/2021 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
DEC submitted comments on Draft JBER Basewide UFP-QAPP dated February 2021. |
William Schmaltz |
| 5/19/2021 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
DEC Reviewed and approved of Basewide Uniform Federal Policy - Quality Assurance Project Plan. QAPP summarizes general activities for a 5 year period on JBER. |
William Schmaltz |
| 2/7/2023 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
DEC reviewed the 2023 Letter Work Plan Remedial Action Operations and Long-Term Management, Draft, dated January 2023. The work plan describes the site inspections, maintenance activities, and groundwater, seep, and surface water monitoring, at multiple sites located on Joint Base Elmendorf- Richardson (JBER), Anchorage, Alaska. The scope of work briefly summarizes the site locations, sampling/monitoring schedules, and activities such as free-product removal from monitoring wells and monitoring/maintenance activities at the Operable Unit 5 wetlands. The details regarding the procedures for the remedial action operations and long-term management activities will remain consistent with the 2021 Uniform Federal Policy Quality Assurance Project Plan (UFP-QAPP). |
Ginna Quesada |
| 4/25/2023 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
DEC approved the 2023 Letter Work Plan Remedial Action Operations and Long-Term Management, Final, Dated April 2023. The work plan describes the site inspections, maintenance activities, and groundwater, seep, and surface water monitoring, at multiple sites located on Joint Base Elmendorf- Richardson (JBER), Anchorage, Alaska. The scope of work briefly summarizes the site locations, sampling/monitoring schedules, and activities such as free-product removal from monitoring wells and monitoring/maintenance activities at the Operable Unit 5 wetlands. The details regarding the procedures for the remedial action operations and long-term management activities will remain consistent with the 2021 Uniform Federal Policy Quality Assurance Project Plan (UFP-QAPP). |
Ginna Quesada |
