| Action Date |
Action |
Description |
DEC Staff |
| 8/31/1990 |
Update or Other Action |
The AAFES site (Building 21-876) reportedly had two waste oil tanks (1,500 [Tank No. 876A] & 500 [Tank No. 876B] gallons) installed in 1963. Four 6,000-gallon gasoline tanks (Tank Nos. 876A through 876D) & one 10,000-gallon diesel fuel tank (Tank No. 876E) were installed in 1975. In the fall of 1990, some or all of the USTs were tightness tested. No leaks were reported. During UST replacement in fall 1990, the contractor discovered hydrocarbon- contaminated soil around several of the USTs. The diesel UST & the 4 gasoline & 2 waste oil USTs were removed.
During excavation activities, contaminated soil was encountered at various locations around the site. Contaminated soil at the western waste oil UST site was excavated to a depth of 18 feet bgs, which was the excavation limit of the backhoe. Contaminated soil deeper than 18 feet was not excavated. 5 new USTs (Tank Nos. 876F through 876J) were installed to replace the 7 USTs that were removed. The tank replacement report states that limited contamination was found near the junction of the east wall of the garage & the south wall of Building 21-876. It is not known if contaminated soil was removed. The report speculated that soil contamination may exist along the entire east wall of Building 21-876.
During excavation for the five replacement USTs, contaminated soil having a gasoline odor was identified along most of the northern edge of the excavation. Contamination in this area was reported from the top of the excavation to a depth of 15’ bgs. The contaminated soil was removed from the northern end to facilitate the installation of a new fuel tank.
Contaminated soil reportedly remains within the eastern half of the northern end from the surface to the bottom of excavation. Contaminated soil was also encountered from the fuel dispensing island approximately 20’ west of Building 21-876. The contaminated soil was moved to the Elmendorf contaminated soil area for ultimate remediation or disposal.
See site file for additional information. |
John Halverson |
| 8/20/1991 |
Update or Other Action |
Letter from USAF Donald Creighton, Colonel USAF Commander to Svend Brandt-Erichsen Regional Administrator ADEC. As you know, the Air Force (AF), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)-Region 10, & the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC), recently concluded negotiations concerning a Federal Facility Agreement (FFA) for Elmendorf AFB (EAFB). During these negotiations, the parties mutually agreed that certain of the identified contamination sites might be more appropriately addressed outside the FFA.
More specifically, the parties agreed that nonhazardous solid waste disposal sites, releases from petroleum underground storage tanks, & other petroleum contamination not subject to RCRA corrective action, should be investigated &, if necessary, remediated in accordance with regulatory authorities not explicitly integrated into the FFA.
The AF is anxious to begin work at these sites as soon as possible. To that end, the AF believes it would facilitate efforts at these sites if the AF & ADEC were to enter into an agreement outlining the process to be followed at these sites, & containing a tentative schedule for completion of the necessary investigatory work. The AF is prepared to begin negotiating this agreement in mid-August at a time & location of mutual convenience. The AF additionally proposes to invite the EPA's Project Manager under the FFA to participate in these negotiations to further "cement" the team approach that works so well during the FFA negotiations.
Please have your representative contact Mr Joe Williamson (907-552-4157) soon concerning a suggested time & location for this meeting. Any legal questions concerning this proposal may be directed to Captain Richard Myers (907-552-3046).
On behalf of EAFB, I want to express my appreciation for the technical ability & professionalism your representatives brought to the table during the FFA negotiations. Without their assistance & spirit of cooperation- an agreement would not have been concluded so easily. We look forward to reaching a quick agreement concerning the sites identified in this letter so that we can get on with the work necessary to clean up EAFB. |
John Halverson |
| 9/23/1991 |
Update or Other Action |
Notice of release letter (NOR) sent to USAF from ADEC in response to a 9/16/91 report of a petroleum release from underground storage tank (UST) system at site. Reports on site assessment and release investigation to be sent within 30 days after confirmation of the release. Corrective actions to be documented in an interim corrective action report and sent within 60 days after confirmation of the release. |
John Halverson |
| 9/27/1991 |
Interim Removal Action Approved |
(Old R:Base Action Code = REM - Removal / Excavation). DOWL underground storage tank closure quality assurance project plan received. Purpose of the closure program is to remove 7 USTs and associated piping and to apply for permanent closure of site. Facility I.D. for site 0-001525 tank #'s are -876 A, -876 B, -876 C, and -876 D for the gas tanks, and -876 E for diesel tank. |
Louis Howard |
| 11/8/1991 |
Site Added to Database |
Diesel, gasoline, waste oil contaminants. |
Louis Howard |
| 10/2/1992 |
Enforcement Agreement or Order |
State Elmendorf Environmental Restoration Agreement signed by Regional Administrator Svend Brandt-Erichsen. The agreement is designed to remedy environmental contamination due to past practices at the Base and avoid the expense of formal enforcement proceedings. The Air Force will perform the following tasks, if applicable: contamination site assessment work and field work plans, solid waste closure plans meeting the requirements of 18 AAC 60.410, solid waste closure corrective action options, POL (petroleum, oil, and lubricants)/LUST (leaking underground storage tank) contamination site assessment work plans and reports, groundwater monitoring, interim remedial or corrective actions, and final corrective actions. .
The agreement addresses the following program areas: solid waste, underground storage tanks (USTs), and petroleum oil and lubricants (POL) spills.
LUST sites will be remediated pursuant to 18 AAC 78, POL sites will be remediated to levels set forth in 18 AAC 75 (non-LUST petroleum); the interim soil guidance for non-UST soil cleanup levels, dated July 17, 1991; the guidance for storage, remediation, and disposal of non-UST petroleum contaminated soils dated July 29, 1991; and for water the applicable water standards set out in 18 AAC 70; and the applicable federal regulatory requirements for maximum contaminant levels for drinking water; and interim guidance for surface water and groundwater cleanups dated September 26, 1990.
ADEC and USAF agree to review new ADEC guidance within 60 days of its formal adoption. The parties agree to incorporate new guidance into future remediation actions. Solid waste sites will be remediated pursuant to levels identified in 18 AAC 60.315 and 18 AAC 60.035(4). |
John Halverson |
| 3/26/1993 |
Update or Other Action |
DOD and ADEC joint Technical Memorandum of understanding signed concerning the Base wide Groundwater (GW) signed by: ADEC Jennifer Roberts RPM and USAF Joseph Williamson Chief Environmental Programs & Restoration. Due to the base wide GW study and the FY92 field work that occurred at Operable Units (OUs) 1, 2, and 5 it appears a large portion of the GW flows into OU5 (attach. 1-contour map). Based on this fact, Elmendorf (EAFB) will move all upgradient GW into the OU5 Feasibility Study, Proposed Plan and Record of Decision (ROD). This means addressing all GW from upgradient sources (CERCLA (ST20, OUs 3 and 4) and OUs 1 and portions of OU2) and SERA) at OU5 instead of at each individual source area (see attach. 2-Area Map). Sites with free phased product would be looked at to see if there is an available technology to clean them up in a cost effective way. Soil contamination would be addressed at the source areas. NOTE: addressed at the source areas is interpreted by ADEC as removal through excavation or active treatment systems (e.g. high vacuum extraction, bioventing, etc...). |
Jennifer Roberts |
| 1/4/1994 |
Update or Other Action |
Site Assessment Report UST Closure Program for EAFB Service Station (DOWL Engineers). East Used Oil UST: TCE ranged from 0.033 to 0.036 mg/kg (November 7, 2017 18 AAC 75 MTGW 0.011 mg/kg. Gas UST: benzene 0.07 mg/kg to 1.91 mg/kg (MTG 0.022 mg/kg, toluene ranged from 0.587 to 29 mg/kg (MTG 6.7 mg/kg); product pipe N end USTs 115 mg/kg, ethylbenzene ranged from 0.487 to 20.1 mg/kg; to maximum detect at product pip near N ends of USTs at 37.4 mg/kg (MTG 0.13 mg/kg) and xylenes ranged from 57.1 to 394 mg/kg; product pipe N end USTs-275.4 mg/kg (MTG 1.5 mg/kg Human Health 57* mg/kg. *These levels are based on soil saturation level (Csat) using the equations set out in Procedures for Calculating Cleanup Levels, adopted by reference in 18 AAC 75.340. Refer to the Procedures for Calculating Cumulative Risk, adopted by reference in 18 AAC 75.325, for inhalation risk screening levels).
Based on the analytical results of soil samples collected during this UST closure site
assessment program, some contamination remains in soils at the site. Based on field screening conducted during excavation for the new USTs, some elevated levels of contamination exist in soil at the north extent of the new UST excavation which is located west of the old diesel and gasoline UST excavations.
See site file for additional information.
|
John Halverson |
| 1/20/1994 |
Enforcement Agreement or Order |
Janice Adair Regional Administrator Southcentral Regional Office signs the November 29, 1993 Underground Storage Tank Agreement. The Parties enter this Agreement to perform necessary inventory,registratIon, upgrading or closure, and tightness testing associated with USTs at Elmendorf. All draft final work plans for field work must be submitted to ADEC a minimum of 30 days prior to the start of field work or consuuction. Site Assessment draft reports for closures mUS1: be submitted to ADEC within 60 days after completion of field work. .
All reports of confirmed leaking USTs, or the need for further investigation, will be forwarded to 3 SPTG/CEVR (or its) successor organization) for possible inclusion into the SERA*. Initial
abatement activities required under 18 AAC 78.230 wIll be conducted by the Air Force prior to
transfer of any site to the SERA.
*SERA=Environmental Restoration Agreement between ADEC and the Air Force dated October 1992.
Discovered USTs-All USTs discovered during the life of this Agreement will be addressed under this Agreement and will be added to Attachment A The Air Force will notify ADEC by next day mail of any discoverv withm five days of the discovery of an UST, unless release notification is required under 18 AAC 78 220, in which case those provisions will control.
Installation: Any new USTs installed by the Air Force shall be installed in accordance with 40 CFR 280 and 18 AAC 78.022 through 18 AAC 78.090 and will have leak detection, corrosion protectlon, overfill protectIon, and spill protection. The Air Force will notify ADEC at least 30 days prior to initiating installation of an UST. UST installation work will be conducted by a certified UST worker as required by 18 AAC 78.030 and 18 AAC 78.400.
Release Detection: The Air Force shall install and perform release detection in accordance with
the schedules outlined in Attachment A. If release detection is not installed or the tank not
previously permanently closed by the date in Attachment A, the Air Force will close the tank in
accordance with the closure requirements in 18 AAC 78. All tightness testing performed to
satisfy these requirements will be conducted bv a certified UST worker as required bv 18 AAC
78.030 and 78.400
Operation and Maintenance of Corrosion Protection: The Air Force shall meet the requirements of 18 AAC 78.045 and 40 CFR 280.31 for any steel USTs, that have corrosion protection systems The testing of the corrosion protection systems shall be done by a certified UST worker as required by 18 AAC 78.400.
Site Assessment or System Tig:htness Test: The Air Force shall either conduct a system tightness test on all regulated USTs located at the Base or permanently close the USTs in accordance with Attachment A. If site assessments or system tests have been conducted, the Air Force shall submit proof of compliance by the deadlines set in Attachment A. All tightness testing work will be conducted by a certified UST worker as required by 18 AAC 78.400.
Release Investigation and Corrective Action: Release investigations, interim corrective action and corrective action on petroleum contamination identified in work conducted pursuant to this Agreement is not within the scope of this Agreement. These activities will be conducted pursuant to the Environmental Restoration Agreement between ADEC and the Air Force dated October 1992. |
Janice Adair |
| 2/15/1994 |
Underground Storage Tank Site Characterization or Assessment |
SERA Phase 1A and 1B Site Assessment Report received. Soil samples collected from borings 48BH02,48BH03, and 48BH09 indicated high concentrations of hydrocarbon compounds. Samples submitted for analysis from the boring locations around the storage tank excavation perimeters showed low levels of BTEX compounds and low levels of DRO and GRO. None of the samples analyzed for PCBs indicated concentrations above the laboratory detection limits. VOC analysis of several samples indicated low concentrations of acetone and methylene chloride; however, these compounds are frequently interpreted as laboratory contaminants when their concentrations are less than 10 times the concentration found in the associated method blank. TCE was detected at an estimated concentration of 9 mg/kg in the soil sample collected from boring 48BH01 at a depth of 23.0 feet bgs.
Soil samples analyzed from 48BH04 and 48BH05 had trace detections of toluene and total
xylenes. Samples collected from 48BH05 did not have detectable concentrations of any of the
targeted analytes. Boring 48BH07 had detectable concentrations of toluene, ethylbenzene,
xylenes, DRO, and GRO. Boring 48BH08 also had detectable concentrations of BTEX.
The analytical results of the groundwater samples indicated the presence of trans 1,2-
dichloroethene and TCE in well 48WL01. No other targeted analytes were detected in the
groundwater samples.
A third well should be installed south of 48BH09 to assess if POL contaminants from the former
western waste oil tank are impacting groundwater and migrating off site. The site requires further investigation at the former waste oil tank location to assess the western and eastern extent of soil contamination. The impact of the release on groundwater also needs to be assessed. The former gasoline tank area should be considered for risk assessment. The interpreted extent of the contaminated soils suggests that the leak affected a small area and groundwater was not affected.
Basewide water level data indicate groundwater flow direction is from north to south. Detectable concentrations of TCE and trans 1,2-dichloroethene were measured in the groundwater sample collected from well 48WL01. These compounds may be migrating from an upgradient source such as Operable Unit 3. The absence of these compounds from well 48WL02, located downgradient, suggests that the former tanks are not the source of groundwater TCE contamination. |
John Halverson |
| 3/16/1994 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
John Halverson ADEC sent letter to Dept. of Air Force, James Spell, Jr. 3 SPTG/CEVR RE: SERA Phase 1A and 1B; Site Assessment Report Final February 15, 1994. Overall the report is
acceptable as meeting the requirements for site assessments under the SERA. However, there are a few issues and recommendations in the report on which the department does not
concur. Below is a summary of the status of each of the sites. Areas of concern with the report are addressed along with requests for additional work where it was determined
necessary.
Sites Recommended for No Further Action- The final report recommended no further action on several of the sites. The following sites appear be suitable for such a decision: SS35; SS34; and, LF01. If the Air Force would like to pursue closure of these sites, the department requests submittal of a separate letter for each site requesting closure (similar to the August 31, 1992 closure letters used for other SERA sites). This would help clearly document no further action decisions.
Sites Recommended for No Further Action- However, Additional Work Requested. The report recommended closure of additional sites, however, based on the information provided to date, the department can not concur with the recommendations. Sites included in this category are listed below along with a brief discussion of additional work that is necessary and a request for work plans.
Sites with Recommendations for Additional Work-Based on the results of Phase I site assessment work the report recommends additional work at several sites. Each of these sites is listed below with a request for submittal of work plans.
SS62-The conclusions/recommendations section of the report states one soil sample from boring 48BH03 exceeded the cleanup matrix level for GRO, indicating a release of gasoline may
have occurred. The December 1991 Site Assessment Report, prepared by DOWL Engineers, states approximately 230 cubic yards of petroleum contaminated soil were removed from
beneath the former gasoline USTs. DOWLs report also states soil samples collected at the limits of the excavation (approximately 14 feet below the ground surface) contained up to 1940 ppm volatile petroleum hydrocarbons (method 8015 mod) and 1.91 ppm benzene (method 8020). Therefore, it is evident a release of gasoline has occurred.
The report recommends installation of an additional MW to further investigate the potential for groundwater contamination from the former western waste oil tank. The department concurs with this recommendation and requests installation of another MW south of 48BH07, which appears to be more directly downgradient of the area of gasoline contamination identified in the 1991 report. The department requests this work be conducted this summer
in order to allow for a determination on the need for any corrective action prior to the end of the year. |
John Halverson |
| 3/8/1995 |
Update or Other Action |
Remedial investigation/feasibility study received and approved as final version on March 8, 1995. Table 4-23 SERA Site SS62 Groundwater Data, (ENSR 1993) lists the following COC exceedances: trichloroethene 78 ug/L sample ID 48WL01WGN5. The value of 78 ug/L exceeds the health-based screening level of 3 ug/L and the MCL of 5 ug/L. The presence of elevated TCE concentrations at SERA site SS62 with respect to upgradient locations at OU 3 East (this includes: soils areas of interest SD16, SS21, East Intersource Area [including SD31], and the east groundwater area), suggests the presence of a source of TCE contamination at this site.
Furthermore, TCE and DCE concentrations observed at well MW2 could theoretically be associated with contaminant migration downgradient from the eastern portion of source SD16. However, it is also possible that a localized source for TCE exists in the vicinity of well MW2.
Contaminant migration into the subsurface from soil contaminant sources is believed to be almost vertical due to the coarse, porous nature of soil at SD16. Contaminated soil lying above the water table may represent a "smear zone" of contamination. The smearing is caused by residual fuel and solvent constituents adsorbed onto soil when the water table was higher and were left in the vadose zone as the water table receded. This smearing of contamination may occur between seasons as the water table elevation changes. |
John Halverson |
| 4/17/1995 |
Update or Other Action |
USAF sent action memorandum regarding State Concern about source of contamination at or near SS57 and SS62. One of John Halverson's comments, dated 28 February 1995, on the draft SERA Phase I corrective action plan was the possible lack of continuity between the CAP and the RI/FS for OU3. The comment questioned where the source was on a trichloroethylene (TCE) hit in the groundwater at or near SS57 and SS62.
During a meeting with the meeting on April 5, 1995 with Mr. Halverson, Mayer, and Underbakke, they agreed that the monitoring wells up gradient and down gradient of SS62 would be placed into our long-term monitoring program. These wells will be monitored to establish a trend in the TCE concentrations. Data from the monitoring wells will be gathered for a minimum of four rounds of biannual sampling (two years). At the end of this sampling period, the four sample rounds will be used to establish a trend and a decision made if the source still exists.
The wells that will be included in these rounds of sampling will be up gradient: OU3MW11, 49MW02, at site: 48WL01 and 48WL03; and down gradient: OU5MW-01, SP1-02 and OU5MW-02. Sampling of wells 49WL02 and 48WL01 is pending funding. |
Jennifer Roberts |
| 4/18/1995 |
Update or Other Action |
AF memo: 18 April 1995 UST Meeting. Elmendorf AFB will accomplish the following actions regarding UST Projects. These actions are based upon conversation between, John Mahaffey, Larry Opperman and yourself. EAFB will make every effort to accomplish a clean closure of a UST removal site if possible.
UST removal locations requiring cleanup action will be transferred into the State-Elmendorf Environmental Restoration Agreement (SERA). A list of sites requiring cleanup will be coordinated with your office. The presumptive remedy for contaminated UST sites in the outwash plain only will be bioventing technology. Contaminated soils exceeding cleanup levels may be placed back into the excavation only if the site assessment (SA) indicates a need for further cleanup action.
Contaminated UST sites not in the outwash plain will require further investigation to determine appropriate cleanup options. We will make every attempt possible to assure new USTs or new aboveground tanks are not installed in any way that would hamper future access for cleanup. The project will first accomplish removal of all of the USTs. SA information will be used to prioritize sites for cleanup using existing project funds. Additional funding will be requested to complete cleanup if available. Sites not addressed for cleanup due to exhausted funding will be placed into SERA Phase IV. John Halverson signed on April 21, 1995. Memo was signed by Douglas G. Tarbett, Maj, USAF, Chief, Environmental Compliance. CC: 3 WG/JA and 3 SPTG/CE. |
John Halverson |
| 5/3/1995 |
Update or Other Action |
ADEC J. Halverson sent comment letter to USAF J. Williamson & C. Mayer 3 SUG/CEVR RE: Review Comments SERA Phase I Corrective Action Plan April 1995. General Comments-As noted in comments on the draft workplan, the corrective action plan needs to include schedules for conducting field work, monitoring and maintaining equipment, and submittal of interim and/or final corrective action reports. We have previously requested quarterly
reporting of remedial efforts at each site where free product has been identified (ST 43 and ST36).
The Air Force has proposed changes to the several of the tables that outline groundwater monitoring plans. Unless specifically noted below, the department does not object to these changes. The locations of substituted wells need to be shown on figures in the plan, if not already present.
SS62 - AAFES Service Station-Table 2.3-2 -A note on the table recommends former monitoring well IS-7 be replaced an added back into the monitoring plan. A sample collected from the well in 1988 contained 76 micrograms/liter TCE. It is not clear whether another well will be placed near the for the location of IS-7 or near ST71. This needs to be clarified in the work plan. |
John Halverson |
| 8/11/1995 |
Update or Other Action |
ADEC (John Halverson) sent letter to Air Force (L. Opperman) RE: Disposition of petroleum contaminated soil generated during underground storage tank (UST) Closures at Elmendorf AFB. I met with you and Mr. John Mahaffey on April 18, 1995, to discuss UST closures planned at Elmendorf this summer and the issue of how contaminated soil would be handled. We agreed that if "clean closure" could be reached through excavation, all contaminated soil should be removed and taken to an off-site treatment facility.
We also agreed that petroleum contaminated soil could be placed back in the ground, on the condition bioventing systems would be installed starting this year, if clean closure was not feasible. However, it has become apparent the Air Force has not been able to implement corrective action at leaking underground storage tank sites in a timely manner.
Therefore, our April 21, 1995 agreement on soil management must be revoked. Starting immediately, the department requests that all contaminated soil removed from the ground during closure or upgrade of USTs be completely contained in accordance with our petroleum contaminated soil stockpiling guidelines referenced in the UST regulations. Please notify your project managers, the Army Corps of Engineers project manager and all of your UST contractors of this change. The rationale behind the need to contain all excavated petroleum contaminated soil is provided below.
Failure to implement Corrective Action-Tank #805, at building 24-805, failed a tightness test in 1994 and was removed from the ground. Tanks #96-104 were also removed from the ground in 1994. Petroleum contaminated soil was excavated during removal of the tanks. The Air Force requested approval to place contaminated soil back in the ground at both sites. Department approval was granted on the condition corrective action be started at each site no later than June 30, 1995.
The Air Force had committed to doing this work under Phase IV of the SERA. However, we have been informed that contracts for SERA Phase IV have not yet been awarded, work plans have not been developed, and it does not appear the field work will be started this year. This is a violation of the corrective action requirements outlined in the UST regulations and our prior agreements.
Management Action Plan (MAP) for transfer of LUST sites into the SERA-On several occasions the department has requested a formalized process for transfer of leaking UST sites from the UST agreement into the SERA. The January 3 1, 1995 annual UST report states that a MAP was being prepared to formalize such a process and that a copy would be forwarded to us as soon as it was completed. We have not received a copy of the MAP. Numerous LUST sites have been identified during the past two years and transfer of sites between the UST and SERA compliance agreements has not been working.
It appears the UST agreement needs to be amended to address release investigation and corrective action requirements. Based on the above and the fact that funding for DoD environmental cleanups is being reduced, we are no longer in a position to allow contaminated soil to be placed back in the ground with the hope it will be remediated in a timely manner.
|
John Halverson |
| 4/15/1996 |
Update or Other Action |
Remedial investigation/feasibility study received and approved as final version on March 8, 1995. Table 4-22 SERA Site SS57 Groundwater Data (ENSR 1993). AK DEC GRO ug/L maximum result detected: 2500 ug/L Sample ID 54WL02WGN (2.5 mg/L vs. current GRO limit of 1.3 mg/L almost double the cleanup level). |
John Halverson |
| 10/17/1996 |
Update or Other Action |
Air Force memo: Restricted Use of the Shallow Aquifer on EAFB signed by William R. Hanson P.E. GM-14 Chief Environmental Flight dated October 17, 1996 Memorandum for 3 SPTG/CEC/CEO from 3 SPTG/CEV
1) Due to the contamination and commitments to EPA/DEC the use of the shallow aquifer for any purpose on is not allowed. Attached Facilities Board minutes-03/29/1994 0930 Item 9 has Mr. William Hanson, briefing the Board on the policy to not use the shallow aquifer due to contamination. The Board approved this policy. Minutes approved by Thomas R. Case Brigadier General USAF Commander. The IRP has RODs for OUs 3 and 6 which require, the aquifer remain unused. 2) Personnel in the review process within CES must be aware of these policies and review them on a recurring basis. It is imperative this restriction be recognized and observed during engineer reviews and operations. |
Louis Howard |
| 2/10/1997 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
ADEC letter to AF Sharon Stone 3 SPTG/CEVR RE: Basewide Support and Groundwater Monitoring Program Draft Annual Report of Groundwater Sampling Activities at EAFB January 1997. 3.5.6 Validate Predictions Made in the Groundwater Modeling Report page 3-14: This section states if the results from the 1994 GW model does not correlate with current trends, the model may be recalibrated and ran to update predictions to year T30.
The GW data from OU5 and SERA Phase I and III sites had COCs with increasing trends which conflicted with the predictions made by the 1994 model. The TCE trend prediction made in the OU5 ROD and the 1994 model for wells located next to Ship Creek also was not consistent with the analytical data collected.
The data showed TCE increasing in five out of seven locations. SERA Phase I wells had six wells out of eight with increasing trends for benzene and increasing TCE in wells where the MCL was exceeded. SERA Phase III sites, in comparison to the baseline, show increasing trends outnumbering decreasing trends for both benzene and TCE. It is assumed that the 1997 model is to be recalibrated and run to update new predictions since the 1994 model did not predict the trends observed at OU5, SERA Phase I and II sites. |
Louis Howard |
| 8/7/1997 |
Update or Other Action |
Site closure approved for soils and MW 48WL03 is being monitored for non-site related contaminant TCE. Well is upgradient of OU5.
7/7/2015 release of gasoline from dispenser pump has caused this site to be changed from CC with ICs to ACTIVE/OPEN. |
John Halverson |
| 8/15/1997 |
Update or Other Action |
TECHNICAL DOCUMENT TO SUPPORT NO FURTHER ACTION signed by USAF (William R. Hanson) and ADEC (John Halverson)
SITE NAME AND LOCATION
Installation Restoration Program Site, Site SS62-AAFES Service Station, Elmendorf Air Force Base, Alaska
Statement of Basis-This decision is based on the results of Installation Restoration Program (IRP) State-Elmendorf Environmental Restoration Agreement (SERA) Phase I Corrective Action Plan (CAP), Final, April 95 and Basewide Support and Groundwater Monitoring Program, Analytical Results. See attached References sheet for documentation used to support this declaration.
Description of the Selected Remedy-Based on the current conditions at IRP Site SS62, it has been determined that no significant risk or threat to public health or the environment exists. Therefore, no further action (NFA) at this site is required.
DECLARATION
Contamination occurs primarily within the zone of water table fluctuation*, consisting of diesel range hydrocarbons [otherwise known as diesel range organics (DRO)] in soil and groundwater. Monitoring wells 48WL01 (on site-upgradient) and 48WL03 (on site-downgradient) have been sampled twice a year since 5 Jun 95. POL contamination [currently] is below maximum contaminant levels.
*NOTE TO FILE: "This is commonly referred to as the smear zone. The smear zone is the area of soil contamination that may exist, at varying extents, within the zone of water table fluctuations that have occurred since the time of the petroleum release. Petroleum product
floating on top of the water table can become sorbed onto the soils within this zone as the water table fluctuates, potentially leaving a large amount of petroleum product mass that has adhered to the soil grains. This product can remain trapped below the water table as the water table rises. As of April 11, 1997 the standard for cleanup in 18 AAC 75.327 (Cleanup) is (a) Immediately upon becoming aware of a discharge of a hazardous substance to land or waters of the state, any person responsible for that discharge shall contain, clean up, and dispose ofthe material collected, using methods for which approval has been given by the department. The discharge must be cleaned up to the department's satisfaction.
(b) Upon request, the department, in consultation with federal officials, as appropriate, will
waive the requirements of (a) of this section if the department determines that it is technically not feasible to contain or clean up the discharge or that the containment or cleanup effort would result in greater environmental damage than the discharge itself."
Monitoring well 48WL03 is included in the Operable Unit 5 (OU5) Groundwater monitoring requirements. Therefore, groundwater contamination will continue to be monitored under OU5 testing.
It has been determined that the selected remedy of no further action is protective of human health and the environment. attains federal and state requirements that are applicable or relevant and appropriate, and is cost-effective. The statutory preference for further treatment is not satisfied because further treatment was not found to be necessary. |
John Halverson |
| 8/15/1997 |
Update or Other Action |
No current receptors exist for the groundwater at the Base due to the institutional controls (ICs). As a requirement of previously signed RODs for Operable Units (OUs) at the Base, ICs have been established to restrict the use of the shallow aquifer in the outwash plain on Base for both SERA and CERCLA sites. These restrictions are enforced through the Base Comprehensive Plan (BCP).
Projects and other activities are reviewed during the planning stage to ensure compliance with the BCP. In addition, construction projects and other activities also undergo an environmental review. This review helps ensures compliance with groundwater use restrictions.
7/7/2012 release of petroleum from fuel dispenser pump changed status to ACTIVE. Future work is planned in 2016 by Air Force to address release. |
Louis Howard |
| 8/15/1997 |
Long Term Monitoring Established |
Groundwater monitoring established since trichloroethene is present above action levels. |
Louis Howard |
| 4/21/1998 |
Site Ranked Using the AHRM |
Ranking action added now because it was not added when the site was originally ranked. |
Bill Petrik |
| 10/21/2002 |
Update or Other Action |
J. Roberts sent a letter to Joe Williamson dissolving the State Elmendorf Environmental Restoration Agreement. The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) has reviewed the issue of abolishing the State Elmendorf Environmental Restoration Agreement (SERA) per your recommendation. Elmendorf Air Force Base and DEC entered into the SERA in 1992. The agreement was developed as a tool to bring the Base into compliance with Alaska's regulations addressing underground storage tanks, oil and other hazardous substance releases and solid waste.
Since that time, Elmendorf has made significant progress in investigating and cleaning up historic contamination problems. Many of the sites covered by the SERA have been successfully cleaned up and closed. Cleanup is underway at the remaining sites.
Additionally, Alaska has amended the regulations addressing fuel storage tanks, oil and other hazardous substance spills and solid waste. We concur with you that the SERA is no longer a necessary or beneficial. This letter serves as notice that DEC will end oversight on environmental work at Elmendorf by using the SERA. Instead, it is understood that the sites and programs formerly addressed by SERA: solid waste, underground storage tanks (UST), and oil and other hazardous substance discharges will be addressed in accordance with 18 AAC 60, 18 AAC 78 and 18 AAC 75. |
Jennifer Roberts |
| 7/7/2011 |
Leaking Underground Storage Tank Release Confirmed - Petroleum |
LUST site created in CSP database for source area autogenerated pm edit - Elmendorf - SS62 SERA AAFES Service Station, 79098 |
Louis Howard |
| 7/7/2011 |
Exposure Tracking Model Ranking |
Initial ranking with ETM completed for source area id: 79098 name: autogenerated pm edit - Elmendorf - SS62 SERA AAFES Service Station |
Louis Howard |
| 12/22/2011 |
Leaking Underground Storage Tank Cleanup Initiated - Petroleum |
Adminstrative action addition for grant reporting purposes.
|
Evonne Reese |
| 7/7/2012 |
Update or Other Action |
Mechanical malfunction within the fuel pump, the fuel pump meter within the fuel pump failed because of gasket failure/seal failure at Building 6210 (Elmendorf Gas Station) on 11415 Fighter Drive. In addition to electrical issues within the red box station. 1,022 gallons unleaded gasoline was released with 600 gallons recovered. 422 gallons were unaccounted for. JBER Spill team vacuumed up the spill and used spill pads to contain and recover the spill. Recovered product was disposed of at the JBER HAZWASTE Center Building# 4310 Kenny Avenue. Spill # 12239918901.
Postscript: Based on Veeder Root reports, about 1022 gallons of fuel had been released, however, there is no exact computation of the amount released and cleaned up. Records show that a majority of the fuel was contained (based on disposal records and eye witness accounts) except about 10 gallons may have entered the storm drain. Contaminated fuel and absorbents were disposed through the JBER hazardous waste center and remainder of fuel was recycled. In accordance with 18 AAC 78.210, AAFES had Alaska Fuel Systems replace the electrical relay and repair the dispenser, then conduct a system test. The UST was determined to be compliant and was placed back into service.
|
Louis Howard |
| 4/1/2015 |
CERCLA PA |
Preliminary Assessment received for multiple U.S. Air Force (Air Force or USAF) and Air National Guard (ANG) Fire Training Areas (FTAs) to determine probable environmental release of perfluorinated compounds (PFCs). Specifically, HGL is completing PA activities consistent with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Guidance for Preparing Preliminary Assessments under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) (USEPA, 1991) to determine potential releases of PFCs at 82 Air Force and ANG installations from FTAs and other known and suspected PFCs or aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF) usage or storage areas.
Small-scale nozzle tests at the facility have resulted in discharges to the pavement south of Fire Suppression Foam Storage (Building 6210), and these discharges then pooled in a low area of the pavement. These tests used approximately 5 to 10 gallons of AFFF concentrate, which were
allowed to dry up after pooling on the pavement. Observations by fire department staff indicate
that the AFFF discharged during these tests has not been observed to drain away from the building beyond the low spot in the paved area, even during rain events (Bakker, 2014a, personal
communication; Appendix C). Although the AFFF-contaminated runoff was generally observed
to dry up after pooling on the pavement, runoff from the area to nearby grassy or gravel areas may have occurred.
Recommendation is to initiate a site inspection. A SI is defined as an investigation to collect and analyze waste and environmental samples to support an evaluation (USEPA, 1992). |
Louis Howard |
| 8/19/2015 |
Update or Other Action |
ADEC SPAR PPR Program staff (Cheryl Paige) sent JBER AAFES Gas Station Mgr a Site Assessment & Release Investigation required letter for ADEC Facility 1525, Tank # 252 Owner Tank # 876J gasoline UST 10,000 gallon volume, compliance tag# 0683. ADEC received notice 7 July 2012 that a release occurred at the following UST system, in accordance with Title 18 Alaska Administrative Code (AAC) 78, USTs. The required release investigation (RI) was not performed, & the Site Assessment (SA) & RI Report was not submitted.
The root cause of the release was the failure of the submersible turbine pump (STP) relay switch, which was stuck in the closed position, causing the pump to continue to operate, putting continuous pressure on the fuel line. The automatic line leak detection could not then test the line to provide automatic shutoff. A gasket in the dispenser meter also failed, which allowed the fuel to fill up the STP piping sump & overflow approximately 1,000 gallons, some into the storm drain.
Base spill response personnel recovered approximately 600 gallons. Your UST service provider repaired the STP & other UST system components about 11July2012. At that time, you were misinformed that no further action was required. In fact, a SA & RI are required in accordance with 18 AAC 78.200-78.280 (18 AAC 78.200(a)(1), 78.200(b) & 78.235).
This is your notice of non-Compliance #2922 for the following deficiencies: 1) Failure to complete a SA & RI following discovery of a petroleum release from a UST system (78.200(a)), 2) Failure to investigate for release impacts to soil & water (78.200(b)), 3) Failure to conduct a SA when approximately 422 gallons of free product were not accounted for (approximately 600 gallons were recovered) (78.210(c)), 4) Failure to meet RI requirements in response to a confirmed release of petroleum from the UST #253, as required by 78.230-78.270(78.220(e)), 5) Failure to complete & submit a SA & RI Report within 45 days of a confirmed release (78.235(g)), 6) Failure to provide corrective action & schedule (78.240), 7) Failure to submit a corrective action workplan with elements of 78.250(e)(1)-(13) (78.250), 8) Failure to submit a corrective action workplan for department approval (78.250(f)), 9) Failure to submit the SA & RI Report (78.100(b)(2)(A)) , 10) Failure to submit the corrective action plan described in 78.250 (78.100(b)(2)(F)).
You are required to: 1) Complete a SA & RI (78.200(a)), 2) Investigate for release impacts to soil & water (78.200(b)), 3) Conduct a RI under 18 AAC 78.235 (78.210(c)), 4) Conduct a RI as required by 78.230-78.270(78. (220(e)), 5) Complete & submit an interim SA & RI Report within 45 days (78.235(g)) no later than 2 October 2015, 6) Provide corrective action & schedule (78.240) no later than 1 September 2015, 7) Submit a corrective action workplan for department approval (78.250(f)) with elements 78.250(e)(1)-(13) (78.250) no later than 14 September 2015 (78. 100(b)(2)(F)), 8) Submit the final SA & RI Report on the schedule required by the Contaminated Sites project manager, Louis Howard (78.100(b)(2)(A)).
See site file for additional information. |
Cheryl Paige |
| 9/4/2015 |
Site Reopened |
Email communication: CSP-DoD program and UST Prevention Unit agreed that remaining release investigation and any required remediation would be handled by the Contaminated Sites Program (DoD Oversight). UST Prevention Unit no longer involved in this action and will rescind notice of non-compliance as well as the dates outlined in the letter. |
Louis Howard |
| 4/11/2016 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Staff provided comments on the draft PFC Site Inspections work plan for JBER-E and JBER-R.
Main comments were regarding obtaining prior approval from ADEC and EPA project managers before making changes to the approved QAPP and that the EPA RSSLs are less stringent than the human health soil cleanup levels and migration to ground cleanup levels ADEC will be promulgating this winter (2016). It was noted that WS# 10 is especially vague: "Based on the above, the best available screening criteria for PFOA and PFOS releases are the EPA PHAs for groundwater and RSSLs for soil. Because ADEC has proposed lower concentration limits that are in the public
comment process, the ADEC levels should also be considered."
It states that ADEC levels should also be considered, however in WS # 11, it states the concentrations of PFOA and PFOS in soil and groundwater will be compared to project screening levels based on the most conservative risk based EPA or ADEC values.
For determining presence or absence of PFOS and PFOA using solely risk based screening levels is not acceptable to ADEC. If the migration to groundwater cleanup level is adopted by ADEC and it exceeds for PFOS or PFOA, a release is confirmed and it is deemed to be contaminated by ADEC. 18 AAC 75.990 Definitions.
(23} "contaminated soil" means soil containing a concentration of a hazardous substance that exceeds the applicable cleanup level determined under the site cleanup rules. If AFCEC chooses to proceed with risk based values (as it is apparent upon review of Table 10-2 Steps 2, 4, & 5), then ADEC reserves the right to require further investigation/cleanup under 18 AAC 75 for all areas of concern/source areas where AFC EC determined no addition action was necessary at an area of concern/ source area, but the PFC levels detected exceed migration to groundwater cleanup levels for PFCs.
See site file for additional information. |
Louis Howard |
| 10/3/2016 |
Update or Other Action |
UST Removal & Site Assessment Report received for review and comment - OWS Closure. Building 6210, Service Station #1 and Maintenance Shop is located on Arctic Warrior Drive and was previously used to provide vehicle service and maintenance. The service bay has been taken out-of-service for several years. There was one OWS unit located inside the building and was covered with a metal plate. A 500-gallon waste oil UST was connected to the OWS unit. The UST is registered with the ADEC as Tank 249, Tag 0679 and was stated as being a fiberglass double walled tank. Building 6210 is now being operated by the JBER Fire Department, with the change in facility operations the OWS and UST were no longer necessary at this facility.
Due to the unsafe nature of the excavation and sloughing of pea gravel, field screening of the
excavation area was not conducted. PID screenings were collected at soil sampling locations
from the excavator bucket. These locations included the excavation bottom where native soil was
reached and below the pipe run from the OWS in the facility to the UST.
For the pipe run, one sample was collected between the where the pipe entered the tank and the
building foundation. The distance between the building and the UST manhole was approximately
7 feet and placed at approximately 3ft below ground surface (bgs). PID field screening was
collected at the sample location as well.
The excavated tank was found to be in
excellent condition. One field screening samples, one primary confirmation soil sample (6210-
SO01-08122016), and one duplicate sample (6210-SO02-08122016) was collected from the
excavation pit area. The PID field screening for this location was 0.2 ppm. Samples collected
from beneath the used oil tank were analyzed for GRO, VOC, BTEX, EDB, DRO, RRO, RCRA
metals, PAH, and PCBs.
The stockpiled soil for this excavation totaled approximately 68 cubic yards. Ambient air PID
screenings of the soil as it was removed from the excavation were at 0.0ppm with no deviations.
The stockpile consisted of pea gravel, there was relatively no native soil excavated from around
the UST. Stockpile screening and sampling was not conducted, as it was pea gravel.
The pipe run leading from the tank to the building and connecting to the interior OWS was
removed to the building foundation and capped and plugged using Jetcem rapid setting cement.
One field screening samples and one primary confirmation soil samples (6210-SO03-08122016)
were collected from the excavation and analyzed for GRO, VOC, BTEX, EDB, DRO, RRO,
PAH, RCRA metals, and PCBs.
See site file for additional information. |
Robert Weimer |
| 11/1/2016 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Staff reviewed the JBER Building 6210 - October 2016 Draft UST Removal and OWS Removal Site Assessment Report. The site work conducted does not meet the closure site assessment requirements of 18 AAC 78.090 and require supplemental assessment to meet those requirements.
1. There were no field screening or analytical samples collected from the 68 cubic yard excavated soil stockpile. While mostly pea gravel the stockpile also contained at least one bucket load of native soil from the base of the excavation. All excavated soil stockpiles, including pea gravel, is required to have field screening and analytical samples.
2. Only one field screening sample and only one analytical sample was collected from the tank excavation. The regulations require a minimum of 3 field screening and 3 analytical samples for the reported excavation of 264 square feet in surface area.
3. The vent piping and product piping did not have the required field screening and analytical samples. Only one field screening sample and one analytical sample was collected for the product piping, which were not collected from native soils as required. There were no field screening samples collected at every joint and 10 foot section as required for the vent piping.
There were not field screening samples collected at every joint and 10 foot section of the product piping as required, which would include all of the piping to the oil/water separator.
While we understand that the sloughing soils and nearby building foundation made it difficult to conduct the required field screening and analytical samples in items 2 and 3 above from the open excavation it does not relieve meeting those requirements. The required site assessment field screening and analytical samples can still be collected with soil borings and/or smaller test pits in accordance with a site specific DEC approved work plan.
The one analytical sample and its duplicate collected from the base of the tank excavation (0.013 mg/kg and 0.014 mg/kg respectively) exceed the November 6, 2016 cleanup levels (0.011 mg/kg) for Trichloroethene (TCE). DRO and RRO contamination was also detected in analytical samples. Because there is detectable contamination at this site it will need to be added to the DEC CS database as a new leaking underground storage tank (LUST) site. |
Robert Weimer |
| 11/16/2016 |
Update or Other Action |
AFCEC Response to 11/1/16 ADEC Comments:
1) Due to the exposed footings and instability of the nearby structure, the decision was made to stabilize the building as soon as the tank was removed. Once the tank was removed the stockpile was immediately used to backfill to support the exposed footing to the building.
2) For safety reasons, only one sample was obtained from the excavation. The excavation was highly unstable and threatened the nearby structure.
3) Pea gravel extended from 1ft bgs to 7ft bgs. The pipe run was located at 3ft bgs.It wasn't possible to collect the sample from native soil. The remainder of the pipe run to the OWS is inside the building under the building foundation. Both ends of the pipe run were capped and closed in place. It was not possible to collect samples for this section of the pipe run. The vent pipe was parallel and adjacent to the pipe to the OWS. |
Robert Weimer |
| 11/16/2016 |
Meeting or Teleconference Held |
Meeting with AFCEC: Restoration & Compliance staff, ADEC UST Compliance & CS Staff, CORPS and consultant to discuss path forward on UST Site Assessment Bldg. 6210
Meeting notes:
1. Submit the W911KB-14-D-0020 TO0002 Draft Report as an interim report under 18 AAC 78.235 (include the elements of 78.235(g)) with the statement that this is submitted with deficiencies, no later than close of business 23 November 2016.
2. The required corrective action plan must be submitted to Louis Howard for approval no later than 23 January 2017 (18 AAC 78.240-78.260).
3. ADEC understands that the supplemental site field screening and analytical sampling will take place in the 2017 field season under the Remediation program, with sampling as agreed in this meeting and as approved in the corrective action workplan approved by CS (Louis Howard).
4. ADEC expects the final Site Assessment and Release Investigation Report, in accordance with 18 AAC 78.090, to be submitted no later than 31 August 2017.
This plan should make the best use of resources to complete the permanent closure of Tank #249. |
Louis Howard |
| 6/1/2017 |
Update or Other Action |
Draft site inspection (SI) at aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) areas on JBER-E and JBER-R was received for review and comment. The purpose of the SI was to determine the presence or absence of perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) in the environment. These compounds are a class of synthetic fluorinated chemicals used in industrial and consumer products, including defense-related applications. This class of compounds is also referred to as per- and polyfluorinated alkyl substances (PFAS).
Soil Results - Soil boring FSFS-1 was continuously logged to a depth of 15 feet bgs. From ground surface, FSFS-1 encountered silty sands to 1 foot bgs, and then well-graded gravels with sand and well-graded sands with gravel.
One soil sample from ground surface to 15 feet bgs was collected. PFBS was detected at a concentration below the EPA RSL. PFOA was detected at concentrations below the EPA RBSL and ADEC human health cleanup level but above the ADEC MTGW cleanup level. PFOS was detected at concentrations below the EPA RBSL and ADEC cleanup levels.
Groundwater Results- One permanent groundwater well was installed. The groundwater flow direction could not be confirmed from this single well, but groundwater flow is thought to be to the south-southwest based on existing potentiometric surface maps.
One groundwater sample was collected from 30 to 40 feet bgs in new monitoring well FSFS-1. PFBS was detected at a concentration below the EPA RSL. PFOA and PFOS were detected at concentrations above the EPA HA and ADEC cleanup level.
See site file for additional information. |
Louis Howard |
| 6/13/2017 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Staff reviewed the Draft SI Report for AFFF Areas on JBER-E and JBER-R sites. PFOS and/or PFOA were detected in soil at concentrations above the ADEC MTGW cleanup levels. PFOS and/or PFOA were detected in groundwater at concentrations above the ADEC Table C groundwater cleanup levels. It appears there are documented releases of PFOS and/or PFOA at these areas which require additional investigation through a remedial investigation/feasibility study under CERCLA or as required by 18 AAC 75.335 Site Characterization.
See site file for additional information. |
Louis Howard |
| 7/17/2017 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
EPA received the Draft Site Inspection Report for Aqueous Film Forming Foam Areas, Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, Alaska, May 2017 for review the week of June 2, however Appendix B2 (App B2) laboratory data was not included. EPA received App B2 for review the week of June 20. EPA preliminary comments were sent to the Air Force on July 17, 2017.
EPA Office of Research and Development staff, as well as EPA Region 5 Laboratory chemists, reviewed App B2. EPA has asked the Air Force for clarification regarding what level of report and data review was done by the government prior to submittal of the report to EPA and have not received a clear response. EPA’s initial review has identified a number of data quality issues and that the government data review should be completed and submitted to EPA before we are asked to finalize our comments. The comments submitted in this table reflect only those requiring clarification on the narrative or figures and do not concern data quality or final conclusions on the source areas based on the data.
Section 4.2 acknowledges that “Groundwater at JBER [Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson] is used as a backup drinking water source, and PFAS are present in groundwater above screening levels;” however, the text states that the water supply wells “are unlikely to be affected by PFAS.” This does not appear to account for potential changes to groundwater flow conditions, the fact that extent of PFAS in groundwater has yet to be defined, and that use of the backup water source could draw contaminants toward the supply wells. Therefore, it is premature to conclude that supply wells will not be affected by PFAS in groundwater. In addition, Section 4.2 states that drinking water wells sampled in December 2016 under a separate investigation had no PFAS detected above screening levels, but the SI Report does not summarize the drinking water wells sampled. For completeness, the SI Report should identify the drinking water wells sampled, as well as the results. Please revise the SI Report to remove the statement that water supply wells are unlikely to be affected by PFAS until additional information can be collected during the RI. Please also revise the SI Report to summarize the results of the drinking water well sampling conducted in December 2016.
See site file for additional information. |
Louis Howard |
| 8/28/2017 |
Exposure Tracking Model Ranking |
Initial ranking with ETM completed for source area id: 72210 name: Elmendorf SS62 Bldg 6210 |
Louis Howard |
| 11/21/2017 |
Update or Other Action |
Per AFCEC email: A memo from the USACE summarizing issues found in their review should be in hand on the 4th of December. |
Louis Howard |
| 2/8/2018 |
CERCLA SI |
SI responses to ADEC's comments are satisfactory and may be incorporated into the final report. with the exception of lack of clarity in the response on which program the PFAS contamination will be investigated under at JBER: RI/FS in accordance with CERCLA as new source areas under the Federal Facility Agreements OR as new sites under State Authority (i.e. 18 AAC 75).
ADEC is requesting specific responses as to which path the investigation will occur (RI/FS per the FFA or Site Characterization per 18 AAC 75..335). Please respond. Additionally, ADEC is reviewing the Data Quality Evaluation Report AND the Technical Memorandum for Data Quality Findings Perfluorinated Compound Site Inspection for Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson |
Louis Howard |
| 2/26/2018 |
Update or Other Action |
Staff reviewed and commented on the draft management plan. 2016 500 gallon UST attached to oil/water separator removed and soil sampled. DRO and RRO did not exceed the ADEC migration to
groundwater cleanup level, while the TCE concentrations were 0.013 and 0.014 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg), respectively, which exceeded the ADEC migration to groundwater cleanup level of 0.011 mg/kg. December 2016 SS117 Building 6210 Service Station added as new source area to FFA. In 2017, 3 soil borings drilled and sampled. The maximum TCE result of 0.071 mg/kg was collected from a depth of 8 to 10 feet bgs along with 0.024 mg/kg at the same depth in a different boring. TCE was also found at 0.03 mg/kg at 6-8' bgs. RI tasks in 2018 will investigate soil and groundwater for GRO, DRO, RRO, VOCs, semivolatile organic
compounds (SVOCs)/PAHs, PCBs, and metals. Groundwater will also be sampled for ethylene dibromide (EDB).
See site file for additional information.
NOTE: RI mgt. plan does not address the PFOS and PFOA soil and groundwater contamination above ADEC cleanup levels in boring FSFS-1 detected as part of the Site Inspection of AFFF Areas on JBER (2017). |
Louis Howard |
| 7/3/2018 |
Update or Other Action |
Milestone Federal Facility Agreement updates: Draft Remedial Investigation report October 23, 2019, Draft Feasibilty Study report August 30, 2020, Draft Proposed Plan August 30, 2021 and Draft Record of Decision March 30, 2022. Signed by EPA, Air Force and ADEC remedial project managers on July 3, 2018. |
Louis Howard |
| 7/18/2018 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Staff responded to responses from Air Force on ADEC comments for the RI/RA management plan. Comments on background metals were added by ADEC: "Please be aware that UTL and 95% UCL (EPC) are not comparable as they are different statistics as noted in the technical EPA ProUCL guidance. UTLs are used for point by point comparison. If 95%UCL is being compared to background a 95%UCL from background should be developed."
Additional comments were made regarding mutagenic risk for TCE and vinyl chloride. "Since TCE requires the use of different toxicity values for cancer and mutagen equations, a toxicity value adjustment factor for cancer and mutagens can be apply. The same concept for the vinyl chloride. The approach would cover the cumulative cancer assessment for the combine (adult and child residential receptor). "
See site file for additional information. |
Louis Howard |
| 8/8/2018 |
Risk Assessment Workplan Approved |
Staff approved the SS117 Focused VOC Remedial Investigation work plan responses to comments and incorporation of those changes into the final document. The work plan contained a risk assessment portion which was included in the approval. The risk assessment will go forward without consideration for PFAS contamination that remains an unknown and it will have to be redone when the PFAS investigation is begins in 2020 and is finalized in a report (2020 winter or 2021).
See site file for additional information. |
Louis Howard |
| 1/15/2019 |
CERCLA ROD Periodic Review |
Fifth draft five-year review received which does not directly address sites with AFFF contamination (PFOS/PFOA). Site Interviews: Generally, comments regarding the overall remediation process at JBER-E were positive, with the following comments applicable to JBER-E CERCLA sites as a whole: Reporting of groundwater (GW) monitoring results is often delayed by 1 or 2 years following a sampling event, which could result in missed opportunities to react or change procedures in subsequent monitoring events. Perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS)/ perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) contamination was recently detected in soil & GW above ADEC cleanup levels & GW contamination above EPA Health Advisory levels. *Note: PFOS/PFOA sampling was conducted at JBER in 2016. These activities are briefly noted in this FYR (Section 6.5.3); however, results were not available at the time of the report, & results will be addressed in the next FYR (March 2024).
In 2014, a Preliminary Assessment (PA) was performed at FT023 and, in 2016, a follow-up site
inspection was conducted into the presence of PFOS/PFOA at JBER locations where aqueous
firefighting foams (AFFFs) were historically used (ADEC, 2018a). Final results from the site
inspection were not available at the time of this FYR and will be addressed in the next FYR (March 2024).
See Site file for additional information. |
Louis Howard |
| 7/17/2019 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Staff provided comments on the draft VI Assessment Addendum - SS117 Focused VOC RI Mgt. Plan dated June 2019. Main comments were to sample in the summer and fall for air sampling, whether passive indoor air samplers will be deployed over two weeks or not.
See site file for additional information. |
Louis Howard |
| 2/3/2020 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Staff commented on the Draft vapor intrusion work plan addendum. Staff reiterated concerns about the lack of characterization of the nature and extent of PFOS/PFOA contamination at SS117. Staff also made notice that the departure point for individual lifetime cancer risk is 1 x 10-6 for establishing cleanup levels based on potential cancer effects not 1 x 10-4.
See site file for additional information. |
Louis Howard |
| 5/2/2022 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
DEC received SS117 VOCs Focused RI/RA report and provided comments to USAF. |
William Schmaltz |
