Skip to content Skip to content

Site Report: JBER-Ft. Rich SO030 Bldg 974 Special Equip Repair Shop USTA 2 Party

Site Name: JBER-Ft. Rich SO030 Bldg 974 Special Equip Repair Shop USTA 2 Party
Address: Davis Hwy., 5th Street & Circle, Loop Rd., Formerly Fort Richardson before 10/01/2010, Fort Richardson (JBER), AK 99505
File Number: 2102.26.021
Hazard ID: 1232
Status: Cleanup Complete
Staff: No Longer Assigned, 9074655229 dec.icunit@alaska.gov
Latitude: 61.263597
Longitude: -149.698920
Horizontal Datum:WGS84

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

Problems/Comments

Located on Circle Loop Road, Building 974 is the Directorate of Logistics (DOL) Special Equipment Repair Shop (SPERS). Also known as site E, Special Purpose Equipment Repair Shop. A 1,200 gallon underground storage waste oil tank leaked and soil was excavated. Possible contaminated soil remains beneath crib. Additional tanks on other side of building scheduled for closure in 1993. Cleanup levels not exceeded site closed out. ER,A Eligible Response Complete FTRS-07 Bldg 974 Cannibalization Yard NE1/4 Section 31. Site# R091, 1990 RFA SWMU 46, 47. Site# R062, 1990 RFA SWMU 45. 44 Waste Accumulation Areas Near Bldg. 974 45 Waste Solvent Accumulation Area Near Bldg. 974 46 Fuel Blivet Cleanirig Area Near Bldg. 974 47 Oil/Water Separator at Fuel Blivet Cleaning Area 48 Underground Waste Oil Tank Near Bldg. 974 The site was originally reckey 199821X011001, UST Facility ID 788, Event ID 2282, UST # 211, but not covered by 18 AAC 78 since it was an oil water separator hooked to stormwater system. EPA ID: AK6214522157. USTA 2 Party Attach. D UST System Compliance Schedule for Upgrade or Closure USTA 2 Party Attach I Petroleum Contaminated Soil Stockpiles Located at the Landfill

Action Information

Action Date Action Description DEC Staff
5/8/1990 Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other ADEC sent Col. Edwin Ruff letter re: USTs at Fort Richardson. Staff reviewed the draft SOPs for Site Investigation of UST removals dated April 11, 1990. Screening Method: Soil samples collected when HNU [photoionization analyzer] readings are consistently less than 50 ppm. Recommend excavating until the readings with Hnu are non-detectable (or equal to the background readings) and then collecting soil samples for laboratory analysis. Sample location: The department has not been accepting composite sampling from within excavation as a means of determining adequacy of cleanup. Composite sampling has been approved as a method of characterizing spoils piles after excavation. Sample collection procedure: Sample collection jars should be obtained from the laboratory that will perform the analyses. Samples must be stored at 4 degrees celsius from the time of collection until analyzed (within 14 days of collection). Analysis: All soil samples should be analyzed for Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (EPA Method 418.1) and BTEX (EPA Method 8020) unless a hydrocarbon identification test (EPA Method 8015) clearly shows that the contamination is ONLY diesel or another non-gasoline fraction hydrocarbon such as heating fuel. Under these conditions, samples need only be analyzed for TPH. If the tank was used for waste oil, soil samples should be analyzed for PCBs (EPA 8080), total arsenic, cadmium, chromium, and lead as proposed in your SOPs. If the total lead content is above allowable limit, additional sampling and analysis should be conducted following the toxic characteristic leaching procedure (TCLP). Rather than testing the soils for total organic halides by EPA Method 9020, the department is requesting analysis of total organic halides by EPA Method 8010. If a site cannot be cleaned up adequately through the tank removal and initial excavation efforts, a site assessment may be requested including individual work plans and QA/QC plans. For the initial tank removals this letter and your SOP for tank removals, dated April 11, 1990, will suffice as a generic work plan. Ron Klein
4/5/1991 Enforcement Agreement or Order RCRA Federal Facility Compliance Agreement signed. Inspection on June 19, 1985, June 13, 1986, and April 14, 1987 was conducted to determine compliance with RCRA. A Notice of Non-compliance (NON) dated July 28, 1987. Follow-up inspection conducted on April 19, 1988. On June 13, 1989 another Notice of Noncompliance was issued for violations observed during the April 19, 1988 inspection. The Army failed to mark containers of hazardous waste which has accumulated at Building 975 with an accumulation date, in violation of 40 CFR 262.34(a)(2). Fort Richardson also failed to mark containers of hazardous waste at 975 and 974 with the words "hazardous waste (HW)", in violation with 40 CFR 262.34(a)(3). On 6/8-9/89 inspection the Army failed to determine if its waste was a HW at 974. Louis Howard
6/12/1991 Update or Other Action RCRA HW Mgt. Compliance Evaluation Inspection Report received. Although the inspection team did not get the opportunity to visit Building 974, the inspection team wanted to inquire into whether or not the 55-gallon drums under the sign "Dirty Solvent" out in the hazardous waste accumulation point at Building 974 were properly labeled as "hazardous waste" prior to being recycled. During the May 1990 inspection, this was seen as a potential violation of 40 CFR 261.6 and 18 AAC 62.020. Ms. Scott was not aware of this requirement for recyclable materials and she is the Instructor for personnel training per 40 CFR 265.16. Fort Richardson must ensure the relationship between 40 CFR 261.6 and 40 CFR 265 is included in personnel training conducted in accordance with 40 CFR 265.16(a) (1). Louis Howard
7/2/1991 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. 44 Waste Accumulation Areas Near Bldg. 974 45 Waste Solvent Accumulation Area Near Bldg. 974 46 Fuel Blivet Cleanirig Area Near Bldg. 974 (required no further action) 47 Oil/Water Separator at Fuel Blivet Cleaning Area (required no further action) 48 Underground Waste Oil Tank Near Bldg. 974 49 Oil/Water Separator near Bldg. 974 The WAA at Building 974 (SWMU 45) is used to store waste trichloroethane solvent prior to transfer and disposal. During the site visit, as has been noted in the past, the drums were stored on a concrete platform several feet high which was filled in with-gravel and soil. There were no noticeable releases to soil around the solvent drums. The site was well organized and well-labelled. The only potential problem is that the integrity of the concrete platform is unknown. It could not be determined whether the platform did in fact have a bottom to it. Spillage has been noted in the past (reference 2); it should be determined whether this setup is conducive to ground-water contamination through the bottom of the platform. Facility drawings or interviews with past employees may help make this determination. 2) RCRA Facility Assessment PR/VSI Report, U.S. Army Fort Richardson, Anchorage, Alaska, Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region X, by Science Applications International Corporation, Bothell, Washington, January 1990. Louis Howard
7/31/1991 Update or Other Action The underground storage tank (UST) was removed in July 1991. Soil samples taken during the removal contained gasoline range organics, residual range organics (RRO) and benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene and xylene (BTEX) above the ADEC level C clean-up standards specified in 18 Alaska Administrative Code 78. Louis Howard
3/13/1992 Site Added to Database Waste oil contaminant. LUST reckey was 199821X011001 now covered by 199121X030403. Louis Howard
9/2/1993 Update or Other Action Preliminary Release Investigation Report Underground Storage Tank Sites Fort Richardson, Alaska, dated July 6, 1993 received by ADEC for review and comment. The report covers the following sites: Plate 3 Site A, Building 45590, Old Auto Hobby Shop Plate 4 Site B, Building 750, Motor Pool Plate 5 Site C, Building 755, Auto and Crafts Center Plate 6 Site D, Building 756, Motor Pool Plate 7 Site E, Building 974, Special Purpose Equipment Repair Shop Plate 8 Site F, Building 796, Vehicle and Weapons Repair Shop Plate 9 Site G, Building 47811, Veterinary Clinic Plate 10 Site H, Building 47438, Bryant Anny Airfield Fuel Facility Plate 11 Site I, Building 47641, Former Aero Club Plate 12 Site J, Buildi ng 28004, Chlorination Facility Plate 13 Site K, Building 955, Used POL Holding Facility John Halverson
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
11/12/1993 Enforcement Agreement or Order State-Fort Richardson Underground Storage Tank Compliance Agreement signed by ADEC (Janice Adair Regional Administrator-Southcentral Office) and U.S. Army. The purpose of the agreement is to bring Fort Richardson into compliance with the Underground Storage Tank (UST) regulations and avoid the expense of formal enforcement proceedings. The Army agrees to perform the necessary inventory, record keeping, registration, upgrading or closure, tightness testing, site assessment, release reporting, release investigation, and corrective action (remediation) associated with USTs at Fort Richardson (excluding Alaska Department of Military and Veterans Affairs and Army National Guard USTs). 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. Site Assessment or Svstem Tightness Test 29. The Army shall conduct a site assessment* or a system tightness test, as required by AS 46.03.380(b) and 18 AAC 78.01S(i)(3), on all USTs located at Ft. Richardson, or permanently close the USTs in accordance with 40 CFR 280 and 18 AAC 78. If site assessments or system tests have been conducted, the Army shall submit proof of compliance by the deadlines set forth in the USTMP. Site Assessments or System Tightness Tests shall be conducted under the schedules in 18 AAC 78.015(i)(3) or, in order to come into compliance, as scheduled in the USTMP. All tightness testing work will be conducted by a certified UST worker as required by 18 AAC 78.400. Site Assessment work will be conducted pursuant to 18 AAC 78 and an ADEC-approved Quality Assurance Program Plan (QAPP). With respect to UST recordkeeping requirements, the Army shall compile all required records by the date set forth in the USTMP and shall thereafter maintain and update those records as required by 18 AAC 78 and 40 CFR 280. Release Investigation Reports 31. The Army shall submit to ADEC a Release Investigation* report for each UST site having a documented release* of petroleum products or hazardous substances. These reports will be submitted by the deadlines in the USTMP. The Release Investigation report shall contain all information required by 18 AAC 78.230(b), 18 AAC 78.240(c) and the following: 1) a detailed written or, if applicable, visual description of all work performed and summary of all pertinent data prepared by the Army and its consultants, 2) monitoring well construction data and 3) soil boring logs; 4) site maps detailing existing improvements and (if known) 5) the location of former fuel dispensing equipment, 6) water table elevation maps, 7) petroleum-product level and thickness (isoplot) maps, 8) organic-contaminant concentration maps, 9) aquifer interpretations, 10) other potential source areas within 1/4 mile, 11) data deliverables as outlined in 18 AAC 78, 12) interpretations of field observations and analytical data, 13) a completed Site Assessment/Release Investigation Summary Form, and 14) recommendations for any follow up work. 32. If upon review of a Release Investigation report the ADEC reasonably determines additional contamination assessment is required, ADEC shall notify the Army in writing. This writing will set forth the reason(s) the ADEC concluded that additional assessment is required. 111. "Site" shall mean a distinct area of contamination or potential contamination. 112. "Site assessment" shall mean the investigation of suspected contamination resulting from an unpermitted release of oil or hazardous substance as further defined in 18 AAC 78.090 (Site characterization and assessment). 110. "Release" shall have the meaning in AS 46.03.826 [(9) "release" means any spilling, leaking, pumping, pouring, emitting, emptying, discharging, injecting, escaping, leaching, dumping, or disposing into the environment, including the abandonment or discarding of barrels, containers, and other closed receptacles containing any hazardous substance.] Listed in Attachment B as a site requiring a release investigation for UST 35. Listed on Attachment D as either requiring an upgrade or closure for USTs 36 and 37. Listed in Attachment I as requiring complete treatment of existing stockpile at the Landfill for SP 15. Janice Adair
8/14/1994 Update or Other Action Site Assessment received. Under Work Release R3021 0/513 issued by Brown & Root Service Corporation, Oil Spill Consultants collected samples and performed a site assessment during the removal of a 1,500-gallon underground storage tank (USl) at Building 974 at Ft. Richardson, Alaska. The UST (Tank 35) was removed by Alcan Environmental on July 14, 1994. It was taken to a storage area behind Building 955 for cutting and cleaning. Following this, the tank was given to the Defense Reutilization and Marketing organization for disposal. Five (5) project samples and one (1) quality control sample were collected to determine if the soil over and around the UST was contaminated with petroleum hydrocarbons. Additionally, the tank contents were sampled to assess which contaminants would likely be in the soil if a release occurred. Samples were taken to Analytical Technologies, Inc., in Anchorage, Alaska, for analysis. Laboratory results show that the diesel range organics for the soil over and around Tank 35 ranged from < 11 ppm to a maximum of 210 ppm. The gasoline range organics were consistently less than 5 ppm. The maximum benzene level was less than 0.027 ppm. The maximum BTEX level was 0.061 ppm. By comparison, the DRO level for the background sample was 240 ppm. No GRO or benzene was detected in the background samples. The BTEX results for the background sample was 0.122 ppm. Based on the laboratory analysis, it is apparent that Tank 35 did not release petroleum hydrocarbons to the environment. This assertion is supported by the following observations at the project site: 1) the UST was in excellent condition, 2) the soil appeared to be clean and did not have a petroleum odor, and 3) no significant readings were obtained while soil screening using a calibrated HNU photoionization detection instrument. The State of Alaska's regulations for underground storage tanks are published in 18 AAC 78. Under the most stringent criteria 'established by the state, the maximum allowable levels for DRO, GRO, benzene and BTEX contamination for underground storage tanks are 100 ppm, 50' ppm, 0.1 ppm, and 10 ppm respectively. Since the detected levels of petroleum hydrocarbons for Tank 35 were significantly below this regulatory threshold, no further action is required for site closure. Soil excavated during tank removal can be used for backfill at the project site. Louis Howard
9/28/1994 Update or Other Action Soil samples taken during a July 1994 removal of the two underground storage tank systems (USTs) showed levels of petroleum contamination below Level "C" criteria (500 mg/kg GRO, 1000 mg/kg DRO, 2000 mg/kg RRO, and 50 mg/kg BTEX). No further action requested and approved. Louis Howard
9/28/1994 Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other Staff reviewed and commented on the Site Assessment Report for Facility No. 0-00788 Building 974 Fort Richardson, AK August 14, 1994 The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation-Defense Facilities Oversight group (ADEC) has received, on September 12, 1994, a copy of the above referenced report. The text states the site is recommended for closure. Based on the data presented in the report, ADEC concurs with the recommendation. Louis Howard
6/16/1995 Site Ranked Using the AHRM Initial ranking. Action code added because it wasn't when the site was originally ranked. Louis Howard
8/9/1995 Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other ADEC's comments and requests for further information regarding the most recent submittal on the USTMP quarterly report. Please send FY 97,98,99,2000 budget regarding LUST work anticipated at Fort Richardson so ADEC can budget man hours for review periods. Page 3 Bldg. 974 ust 35 has been closed out after review of August 14, 1994 site assessement received by ADEC on 09/12/94 refer to 9/28/94 letter from ADEC. Bldg. 27054 tank 50 no record of site assessment ever received here and no comments in files. Please resubmit SA for review by ADEC. Louis Howard
4/20/1998 Update or Other Action On April 20, 1998, the 2,000-gallon UST associated with an oil/water separator removed from the ground. Contaminated soil found in a confirmation soil sample collected from the bottom of the UST excavation (470 ppm DRO). Confirmation samples not tested for PCBs, chlorinated solvents or metals. Tim Stevens
8/7/1998 Update or Other Action Tim Stevens received the Tank Closure Report Building 974 Oil Water Separator which is 2000 gallons in capacity. 120 cubic yards were screened and not shown to be impacted with soil. No soil samples from excavation were shown to be above level "C" criteria. The site was backfilled due to the excavation endangering the adjacent building foundation. Confirmation soil samples were not taken from the stockpile. If tank is not connected to the sewer system it would be regulated under 18 AAC 78, if not then it is overseen by contaminated sites (storm water or waste water collection system-which an o/w separator hooked up to sewer or stormwater outfall is considered). This excludes from UST regulations any wastewater treatment tank system that is part of a wastewater treatment facility regulated under section 402 or 307(b) of the Clean Water Act (40 CFR 280.10 Applicability). Tim Stevens
3/5/1999 Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other RE: April 20, 1998 Closure of UST Alternate ID 974, located near the west side of Building 974 on Fort Richardson Alaska. Facility ID 0-000788, ADEC Tank 211 UST Database Event ID 2282. The Department of Environmental Conservation (Department) has reviewed the site assessment report received on August 7, 1998, documenting the closure of the above mentioned underground storage tank (UST). The report summarizes the information collected during closure of the 2000-gallon UST oil water separator located at Building 974. Based on the information presented in the site assessment document, the Department is requesting the following information be submitted: • Please provide the Department with an explanation as to why confirmation samples were not collected from the untreated stockpile. Information contained in the report indicates approximately 120 cy of soil was excavated from the UST excavation. The soil was temporarily stockpiled and field screened to help determine if hydrocarbon contamination was present. Figure #2, on page 5, lists the field screening results, ranging from 0.0 to 0.8 units. However, it appears no confirmation samples were collected from the stockpile before the soil was returned to the excavation. 18 AAC 78.320(c) [now 18 AAC 78.605(c)] requires a minimum of two grab samples be collected and analyzed for untreated stockpiles of 50 cy or less, and one additional sample for each additional 50 cy of soil. • Please provide an explanation why neither the UST excavation soil nor the stockpiles soil was analyzed to determine the presence metals, chlorinated solvents, or PCBs as required by section 6.3 of Storage Tank Program Procedure Manual, dated September 22, 1995. • Please reevaluate the ADEC Matrix Score Sheet submitted in the site assessment report, and either provide an explanation justifying the score submitted by the contractor, or submit a new matrix score sheet to reflect the issues discussed below. The Department believes a matrix score of 26 is inappropriate for this site. The Department believes an incorrect value of “0” was assigned to the “Volume of Contaminated Soil” category. Because the 120 cy stockpile had positive field screening results, and no confirmation samples were collected to verify the stockpile was not contaminated, the Department has to assume all 120 cy of excavated soil is contaminated. This volume of contaminated soil equates to a category score of eight, (8) and changes the over all matrix score to 32. A 32 score would make this site a level “B” site, instead of a level “C” as reported. • The report contains a listing of field screening sample locations and results. The highest field screening result, 28.7 PID units, was from a sample collected from a nearby “disturbed” slough. I reviewed the site drawing and was not able to locate the slough. Since the slough had the highest field screening results, and the report did not mention where the oil water separator discharged to, the Department is requesting additional information about the disposal of the oil water separator effluent. Please provide the Department with information indicating whether the oil water separator discharged to an approved waste water treatment facility, or to the land. Upon review of the information requested, the Department may request additional sampling of the slough area. Upon receipt of the requested information the Department will review all the information submitted and make a determination whether correction action will be required at this site. Tim Stevens
6/28/2004 Institutional Control Record Established Proper soil management required for any soil excavated from this area. Land use controls noted Postwide IC tracking map for dig permit reviews. Louis Howard
6/28/2004 Update or Other Action The 5 March 1999 letter from ADEC requested that the Army provide additional information regarding the closure of an unregulated oil/water separator (OWS) at Building 974 on Fort Richardson. The OWS was unregulated and the Army was under no regulatory obligation to submit a closure notification or closure report for this tank. However, in response to the Department's request for information, the following information is provided. 1. The Department requested that the Army reevaluate the ADEC Matrix Score Sheet for the site based on the assumption that the entire 120 cubic yards (cyds) of excavated soil was contaminated: The Army has reevaluated the matrix score and determined that the contractor was in error concerning several applicable items. The new score, including the assumption that the entire 120 cyds of soil were contaminated, now totals to 24. The revised Matrix Score Sheet is provided as an attachment to this email. The Category C cleanup levels are still applicable to the site. 2. The Department requested information concerning the effluent discharge point for the OWS: The report clearly states that the OWS discharged into a 6-inch diameter sanitary sewer line located at the west end of the tank. The Army has confirmed this by reviewing as-built diagrams for the facility. In addition, there was a question concerning a field screen sample was collected from disturbed "slough", or an area of loose soil located below the floor drain piping. The term "slough" was not used to reference a drainage area or waterway at the site. Thus, contamination was not detected outside of the tank excavation. 3. The Department requested an explanation why confirmation soil samples were not collected from the untreated stockpile: Because the tank was unregulated, there was no requirement to collect samples at the site during tank closure. However, the Army's contractor did field screen the excavated soil and did collect confirmation soil samples from the bottom of the excavation. Field screen data did not indicate the presence of contamination in the soil (PID readings never exceeded 1 ppm) and confirmation samples indicated that contaminant levels did not exceed applicable Category C cleanup levels. In addition, the pit was immediately backfilled because the excavation was endangering the adjacent building foundation. 4. The Department requested that the Army provide an explanation why samples were not collected and analyzed to determine the presence of metals, solvents, or PCBs as required by the Procedures Manual: Please review the response listed under item three regarding sampling requirements for unregulated tanks. The Army's contractor did collect a product sample from the OWS that was analyzed for the presence of metals, solvents, and PCBs. Only metals were detected in the sample, but at levels not likely to cause soil contamination that would exceed applicable cleanup standards. The Army does not feel that corrective action is warranted at this site and requests closure with no further action. Please let me know if you need further information on this OWS closure. Mark Prieksat DPW-FRA Louis Howard
6/28/2004 Conditional Closure Approved Site closure approved for Level "C" criteria and however, confirmation sampling showed 400 mg/kg DRO (*6,347 mg/kg (TRPH) also noted). Louis Howard
8/30/2007 GIS Position Updated 61.2645 N latitude -149.6961 W longitude Louis Howard
6/6/2012 Update or Other Action Draft project management plan received. Performance Objective Site Closure Performance Indicators · Complete an approved Characterization/Cleanup Plan by May 2013 · Coordinate, mobilize, and execute characterization/cleanup by September 2013 · Complete an approved Characterization/Cleanup Report by March 2014 · Achieve SC in 2014 Potential Risk The nature and extent of soil contamination in the upper 25 feet is greater than anticipated. Groundwater impacts are discovered during site characterization. Risk Mitigation Excavate soil as needed (estimate 250 yd3) to achieve SC. Monitoring wells will be installed, and groundwater contamination will be addressed with a technology that is appropriate to the nature and extent of the plume to achieve SC within the POP. Date of Achieving Performance Objective 2nd Quarter FY 2014 Planned Approach Prepare an approved Characterization Workplan. Coordinate, mobilize, and execute Characterization Workplan by installing and sampling two soil borings and collect one hydropunch groundwater sample. Use HRC to evaluate SC based on risk to future residential receptors for all pathways. Prepare an approved Site Characterization Report documenting HRC risk evaluation. Prepare an approved Site Closure Report requesting Cleanup Complete without ICs. Receive concurrence from ADEC that site has achieved Cleanup Complete without ICs and provide documentation to AFCEE. Louis Howard
1/31/2013 Update or Other Action Draft UFP-QAPP received. One boring (SO030-SB01) will be drilled to a depth up to 100 feet bgs at the center of the approximate former OWS UST location to investigate the area of residual contamination, define the nature of contamination & vertical extent, & collect source area data. Soil samples will be collected every 5 feet from ground surface to 25 feet bgs & every 10 feet from 25 feet bgs to 100 feet bgs. If the boring is advanced to GW, HydroPunch GW samples will be collected at the water table to confirm contamination has not migrated to GW. However, if visual observations indicate the presence of potential contamination at or near the water table, a monitoring well will be installed in the soil boring. One boring (SO030-SB02) will be drilled within the UST footprint & advanced to a depth up to 50 feet bgs to collect additional source area data & further define the nature of contamination. Soil samples will be collected every 5 feet from ground surface to 50 feet bgs. These proposed new borings are located where the vadose zone is interpreted to be contaminated. If, based on PID field screening & visual/olfactory evidence, the boring reaches the maximum vertical extent of the soil contamination, two samples will be collected beyond the last evidence of contamination, & the boring will be terminated. Both borings will be drilled to at least 25 feet bgs. Based on field observations & the results of the PID screening, soil samples within each 5-foot interval throughout the boring will be selected for laboratory analyses. All soil samples (up to 22 primary samples) will be analyzed for GRO, DRO, RRO, VOCs, metals, PCBs, & pesticides. To facilitate HRC calculations, a subset of soil samples will be collected & analyzed as follows: • Approximately three samples (excluding QC) from more heavily contaminated soils (as observed at the time of sampling based on PID readings & visual/olfactory evidence of contamination) will be analyzed for PAHs, VPH, & EPH. • Approximately one sample from uncontaminated soils that are representative of the source zone will be analyzed for foc. • Approximately one sample representative of the site subsurface conditions will be analyzed for bulk density, grain size distribution, specific gravity, & moisture content. SO030-SB03, SO030-SB04, SO030-SB05, & SO030-SB06 Four borings will be drilled to the NE, NW, SE & SW of the former OWS UST location & advanced to depths up to 25 feet bgs to define the lateral extent of residual contamination. Soil samples will be collected every 5 feet from ground surface to 25 feet bgs. Based on field observations & the results of the PID screening, soil samples within each 5-foot interval throughout the boring will be selected for lab analyses. All soil samples (up to 20 primary samples) will be analyzed for GRO, DRO, RRO, VOCs, metals, PCBs, & pesticides. GW If borings are advanced to GW (not anticipated), HydroPunch GW samples will be collected from a few feet below the water table from each boring to confirm that contamination has not migrated to GW. However, if visual observations indicate the presence of potential contamination at or near the water table, monitoring wells may be installed in the soil borings. GW samples will be analyzed for GRO, DRO, RRO, VOCs, PAHs, PCBs, dissolved metals, pesticides, VPH, & EPH. Observations of odor, turbidity, & color will be recorded on the GW sample collection log. If, for petroleum hydrocarbons, potential risk is indicated by the HRC or if vadose zone soils exceed MACs, then remedial options that address the COC & associated exposure routes that contribute enough risk to cause the cumulative risk estimate to exceed the risk standard will be evaluated. If excavation is the selected alternative, the contaminated soil will be excavated up to a depth of 25 feet bgs, where possible, & thermally treated at Alaska Soil Recycling, Inc. (ASR). The following decision rules will be used to determine whether excavation is necessary: • Soil contamination in the upper 15 feet bgs with levels > approximately 10,250 mg/kg DRO will be the target of excavation. • Soil contamination creating unacceptable VI or MGW risk up to 25 feet bgs will be excavated if soil contamination below 25 feet bgs does not create unacceptable risk. If excavation is selected as the remedial approach, field screening & soil sampling will be performed in accordance with ADEC Field Sampling Guidance (ADEC, 2010). During excavation, the PID will be used to screen soil using a level of 20 ppm to separate “dirty” soil from “clean” soil at a rate of one field screening sample per every 10 yards of soil. SOP-05 (Appendix B) provides the methodologies to be followed for field screening. Louis Howard
1/31/2013 Update or Other Action Draft UFP-QAPP received. One boring (SO030-SB01) will be drilled to a depth up to 100’ bgs at the center of the former OWS UST location to investigate the area of residual contamination, define the nature of contamination & vertical extent, & collect source area data. Soil samples will be collected every 5’ to 25’ bgs & every 10’ from 25’ bgs to 100’ bgs. If the boring is advanced to GW, HydroPunch GW samples will be collected at the water table to confirm contamination has not migrated to GW. However, if visual observations indicate the presence of potential contamination at or near the water table, a monitoring well will be installed in the soil boring. One boring (SO030-SB02) will be drilled within the UST footprint & advanced to a depth up to 50’ bgs to collect additional source area data & further define the nature of contamination. Soil samples will be collected every 5’ to 50’ bgs. These proposed new borings are located where the vadose zone is interpreted to be contaminated. If, based on PID screening & visual/olfactory evidence, the boring reaches the maximum vertical extent of the soil contamination, two samples will be collected beyond the last evidence of contamination, & the boring will be terminated. Both borings will be drilled to at least 25’ bgs. Based on field observations & the results of the PID, soil samples within each 5-foot interval throughout the boring will be selected for lab analyses. All soil samples (up to 22 primary samples) will be analyzed for GRO, DRO, RRO, VOCs, metals, PCBs, & pesticides. To facilitate HRC calculations, a subset of soil samples will be collected & analyzed as follows: • Approximately 3 samples (excluding QC) from more heavily contaminated soils (as observed at the time of sampling based on the PID & visual/olfactory evidence of contamination) will be analyzed for PAHs, VPH, & EPH. • Approximately 1 sample from uncontaminated soils that are representative of the source zone will be analyzed for foc. • Approximately 1 sample representative of the site subsurface conditions will be analyzed for bulk density, grain size distribution, specific gravity, & moisture content. SO030-SB03, SO030-SB04, SO030-SB05, & SO030-SB06 Four borings (SO030-SB03 through SO030-SB06) will be drilled to the NE, NW, SE, & SW of the former OWS UST location & advanced to depths up to 25 feet bgs to define the lateral extent of residual contamination. Soil samples will be collected every 5’ to 25’ bgs. Based on field observations & the results of the PID screening, soil samples within each 5-foot interval throughout the boring will be selected for lab analyses. All soil samples (up to 20 primary samples) will be analyzed for GRO, DRO, RRO, VOCs, metals, PCBs, & pesticides. If borings are advanced to GW (not anticipated), HydroPunch GW samples will be collected from a few feet below the water table from each boring to confirm that contamination has not migrated to GW. However, if visual observations indicate the presence of potential contamination at or near the water table, monitoring wells may be installed in the soil borings. GW samples will be analyzed for GRO, DRO, RRO, VOCs, PAHs, PCBs, dissolved metals, pesticides, VPH, & EPH. Observations of odor, turbidity, & color will be recorded on the GW sample collection log. If, for POL, potential risk is indicated by the HRC or if vadose zone soils exceed MAC, then remedial options that address the contaminants of concern and associated exposure routes that contribute enough risk to cause the cumulative risk estimate to exceed the risk standard will be evaluated. If excavation is the selected alternative, the contaminated soil will be excavated up to a depth of 25’ bgs, where possible, and thermally treated at Alaska Soil Recycling, Inc. (ASR). The following decision rules will be used to determine whether excavation is necessary: • Soil contamination in the upper 15' bgs with levels > approximately 10,250 mg/kg DRO will be the target of excavation. • Soil contamination creating unacceptable VI or MGW risk up to 25’ bgs will be excavated if soil contamination below 25’ bgs does not create unacceptable risk. If excavation is selected as the remedial approach, field screening and soil sampling will be performed in accordance with ADEC Field Sampling Guidance (ADEC, 2010). During excavation, the PID screen soil using a level of 20 ppm to separate “dirty” soil from “clean” soil at a rate of one field screening sample per every 10 yds of soil. SOP-05 (Appendix B) provides the methodologies to be followed for field screening. The “dirty” and “clean” soil will be placed into separate stockpiles. Discrete soil samples will be collected from stockpiles and submitted for lab analysis of GRO, DRO, RRO, VOCs, PAHs, PCBs, metals, and pesticides at a rate of 2 for the first 50 cy of stockpiled soil with an additional sample for each additional 50 cy. Louis Howard
2/20/2013 Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other Staff provided comments on the draft UFP-QAPP work plan. Please provide latitude & longitude coordinates for the site location in decimal degree format with a precision of six decimal places (dd.dddddd). Also include the following: 1. Date of collection, 2. Method of collection (i.e. GPS, hardcopy map, air photo), 3. Scale of the map used to acquire coordinates (if applicable), 4. Estimated accuracy & associated unit of measure, 5.Reference point for which the coordinates were established (i.e. center of property, entrance gate), 6.Horizontal datum (NAD 1983 is strongly preferred) & 7. Comments for additional information regarding acquistion of coordinates (if necessary). Page ES-2 Site-specific Background Building 974 has several solid waste management units (RCRA) associated with it: 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, & 49. 44 Waste Accumulation Areas Near Bldg. 974 45 Waste Solvent Accumulation Area Near Bldg. 974 46 Fuel Blivet Cleanirig Area Near Bldg. 974 (required no further action under RCRA) 47 Oil/Water Separator at Fuel Blivet Cleaning Area (required no further action under RCRA) 48 Underground Waste Oil Tank Near Bldg. 974 49 Oil/Water Separator near Bldg. 974 ADEC’s review & comments do not relieve JBER’s responsibility to address the SWMUs under RCRA. EPA Region 10 the regulatory lead on this matter since ADEC no longer has a RCRA program. WS #10 Page 14 1st Paragraph The text states: “In addition, the site must (1) meet the “migration to GW” criteria, which indicate that the dissolution (leaching) of chemicals from soil will not cause GW to exceed 18 Alaska Administrative Code (AAC) 75 Table C GW criteria for ingestion risk, & (2) concentrations in soil must not exceed the maximum allowable concentrations.” ADEC also wishes to inform JBER that the vadose zone soils shall not exceed MAC for petroleum contamination for soil from 0 – 15’ bgs (i.e. direct contact for BTEX, PAHs & ingestion for DRO, GRO, RRO) regardless of HRC calculated risk levels. Treatment or excavations deeper than 15’ bgs may be warranted on a site-specific basis to prevent the soil from acting as a continuing source of GW contamination above Table C cleanup levels. This comment applies to all future UFP-QAPPs submitted by JBER for review by ADEC. 3rd Paragraph The text states: “There are no drinking water wells in the shallow GW at this time.” ADEC requests JBER provide information (e.g. location & well construction) on the nearest (within ½ mile of SO030 site) drinking water [Base] well or standby drinking water well that may be used on a temporary, intermittent or permanent basis. This comment applies to all future UFP-QAPPs submitted by JBER for review by ADEC. WS #14 & 16 Project Tasks/Project Schedule Post-Investigation Activities Reporting All field records as listed on Basewide UFP-QAPP: WS #34 & reporting documents listed in the Basewide UFP-QAPP applicable SOPs (Appendix B) shall be included with the draft & final reports. These will meet or be comparable to the minimum reporting requirements listed in ADEC’s Site Characterization Work Plan & Reporting Guidance for Investigation of Contaminated Sites, September 23, 2009 (e.g. Table 2: Site Characterization Report Review & Approval Criteria). ADEC will require JBER to include the following deliverables with the draft & final reports (of all UFP-QAPP WPs that use HRC) as stated in ADEC’s “Implementing Guidance for the Method 3 Hydrocarbon Risk Calculator” (February 25, 2011): 5.1 95 UCL vs. Maximum Concentration When using ProUCL with the HRC (similar to when using the ADEC online calculator or in a Method 4 risk assessment) both hard copies & electronic copies of the input & output data from ProUCL shall be submitted to ADEC as part of the written site characterization report. JBER must provide supporting documentation for the ProUCL input values. Sites with large source areas that exhibit significant variability in contaminant levels &/or heterogeneous soil properties across soil horizons may require additional data &/or separate evaluation. 8 HRC Submittals As part of the site characterization report, the responsible party shall submit both an electronic version & a hard copy of the Microsoft Excel calculator with all site-specific inputs & accompanying results. A table listing the site-specific inputs & how the values were derived (data collection method, model, literature source, etc.) shall also be provided as part of the site characterization report. Page 30 SO030-SB01 & SO030-SB02 The text states: “However, if visual observations indicate the presence of potential contamination at or near the water table, a monitoring well will be installed in the soil boring.” Visual observations will not detect metals, PCBs, or pesticides contamination. The text should state that “..if visual observations indicate the presence of potential petroleum contamination at or near the water table…” Louis Howard
5/20/2013 Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other ADEC has received the final version of the UFP-QAPP SC Work Plan for SO030 Bldg. 974 (ADEC CS DB Hazard ID 1232) on JBER-Richardson on May 10, 2013. ADEC has reviewed the document and has no further comments on it. The document is approved. Louis Howard
6/11/2013 Exposure Tracking Model Ranking Initial ranking with ETM completed for source area id: 72211 name: auto-generated pm edit Ft. Rich Bldg. 974 Louis Howard
5/22/2014 Update or Other Action Draft SC Report received for review and comment. In 2013, DRO was not detected above the screening levels in samples within the former OWS UST excavation area and in lateral extent borings located to the northeast and southwest. This indicates the former OWS UST area is no longer a source of DRO contamination. • In 2013, DRO was detected in soil at concentrations above project screening levels in samples from an area outside the former OWS UST excavation. The shallow DRO contamination in SO030-SB04, increasing with depth to the southwest at SO030-SB03 and SO030-SB08 is not consistent with a release from the former OWS UST. • For the area to the west of the former OWS UST, the maximum vertical extent of DRO is approximately 15 feet bgs, which is approximately 85 feet above the water table. The extent of DRO in soil outside of the former OWS UST excavation has not been laterally defined. DRO was detected above the project screening level of 250 mg/kg in the following soil samples: • 606 mg/kg of DRO – lateral extent soil boring SO030-SB03, 5 to 10 feet bgs • 313 mg/kg of DRO – lateral extent soil boring SO030-SB03, 10 to 15 feet bgs • 452 mg/kg of DRO – step out soil boring SO030-SB08, 10 to 15 feet bgs • 286 mg/kg of DRO – lateral extent soil boring SO030-SB04, 0 to 5 feet bgs • Groundwater was not encountered during the investigation, and no groundwater monitoring wells have been constructed at SO030. Based on information from nearby sites TU058 and DA085, located approximately 4,000 feet southwest and 1,600 feet south of SO030, respectively, the depth to groundwater is estimated at 100 feet bgs. Regional groundwater flow direction is toward the northwest. • The estimated rounded cumulative cancer risk for the current industrial and hypothetical residential exposure scenarios is below the regulatory risk standard of 1E-05. • The estimated cumulative noncancer HI for the current industrial and hypothetical residential exposure scenarios is below the regulatory risk standard of 1. • The site meets the ADEC risk criteria for bulk hydrocarbons. • TCE concentrations in soil were measured above the screening levels in all samples collected in 2013. The TCE is not likely related to the former OWS UST. • No potential risks to the ecological receptors were observed, and potentially complete ecological exposure pathways are considered insignificant Louis Howard
6/13/2014 Cleanup Complete Determination Issued Cleanup complete determination issued. Site Description and Background Site SO030 consists of four former underground storage tanks (USTs) at Building 974, the Special Purpose Equipment Repair Shop: USTs 35, 36, and 37, and a 2,000-gallon UST associated with a former oil-water separator (OWS). Contaminants of Concern Diesel Range Organics (DRO) Cleanup Levels The cleanup level for soils at SO030 containing DRO contamination is 10,250 mg/kg in the Under 40-inch Zone based on the ingestion pathway within the 0 to 15’ interval below ground surface (bgs). In 2013 groundwater was not encountered during the investigation, and no groundwater monitoring wells have been constructed at SO030. Based on information from nearby sites TU058 and DA085, located approximately 4,000 feet southwest and 1,600 feet south of SO030, respectively, the depth to groundwater is estimated at 100 feet bgs. Regional groundwater flow direction is toward the northwest. In 2013, soil samples were collected and analyzed for GRO, DRO, RRO, VOCs, metals, PAHs and pesticides. DRO was the only contaminant detected above SO030’s project screening level (250 mg/kg) in the following soil samples: Subsurface soil • 606 mg/kg of DRO – lateral extent soil boring SO030-SB03, 5 to 10 feet bgs • 313 mg/kg of DRO – lateral extent soil boring SO030-SB03, 10 to 15 feet bgs • 452 mg/kg of DRO – step out soil boring SO030-SB08, 10 to 15 feet bgs Surface soil • 286 mg/kg of DRO – lateral extent soil boring SO030-SB04, 0 to 5 feet The estimated rounded cumulative cancer risk at SO030 for the current industrial and hypothetical residential exposure scenarios, across all exposure pathways, (5 x 10-7 and 1 x 10-6 respectively) is below the regulatory risk standard of 1 x 10-5 for petroleum hydrocarbons. The estimated cumulative noncancer HI at SO030 for the current industrial and hypothetical residential exposure scenarios, across all exposure pathways, (0.003 and 0.009 respectively) is below the regulatory risk standard of 1. SO030 meets the ADEC risk criteria [18 AAC 75.325(g)] for petroleum hydrocarbons. The risk posed by the DRO aromatic and aliphatic surrogate fractions meets the risk standard for each exposure pathway, assuming a residential land use scenario. An ecoscoping form was completed for SO030 and no observed environmental impacts from soil staining, no impacted vegetation, no surface water or sediment runoff from the site. The Ecoscoping Form indicates that a more in-depth risk evaluation is not needed and that the SO030 site conditions are protective of the environment. ADEC agrees that the TCE found in all of the samples taken outside the former excavation area of the OWS UST is not likely related to the former OWS UST. This area will need to be investigated as part of the investigative process outlined in the Fort Richardson Federal Facility Agreement as a new source area. Based on a review of the environmental records, ADEC has determined that SO030 has been adequately characterized and has achieved the applicable requirements under the site cleanup rules for petroleum contamination related to SO030. ADEC is issuing this written determination that cleanup is complete at SO030, subject to a future department determination that the cleanup is not protective of human health, safety, welfare, or of the environment [18 AAC 75.380(d)]. A “cleanup complete” designation will be entered for SO030 in the Contaminated Sites Database. Louis Howard
6/24/2014 Institutional Control Record Removed Institutional Controls have been removed. Louis Howard

Contaminant Information

Name Level Description Media Comments
DRO Between Method 2 Migration to Groundwater and Human Health/Ingestion/Inhalation Soil

Control Type

Type Details
No ICs Required

Requirements

Description Details
Advance approval required to transport soil or groundwater off-site.

No associated sites were found.

Missing Location Data

Because the GIS location data for this site has not been entered, we cannot direct you to its position on the map. Click "Continue" to proceed to the Contaminated Sites Web Map or "Close" to return to the site report.
Continue     Close