| Action Date |
Action |
Description |
DEC Staff |
| 7/31/1985 |
Update or Other Action |
In 1985, approximately 1,000 gallons of Mogas (motor gasoline) were lost to the snow and ground adjacent to the former fueling station (Spill No. 7). Approximately 1,500 gallons of diesel were lost from piping in the same vicinity in 1985 (Spill No. 9). |
Louis Howard |
| 9/30/1985 |
Update or Other Action |
Phase I Records Search Report. Cape Romanzof Long Range Radar site (LRRS) installation consists of a Lower Camp where the support facilities are situated & an Upper Camp where the radar equipment is located. Cape Romanzof AFS became operational in 1953.
The shallow aquifers have been contaminated by petroleum, oils & lubricants (POL) product losses. The extent & severity of the contamination problem existing at the facility has not been determined. Eleven sites were found to have sufficient potential to create environmental contamination: 1) Waste Accumulation Area No. 3, & Spill/Leak Nos. 5, 6, 7, 8, & 9; 2) Spill/Leak No. 4; 3) Waste Accumulation Area No. 1 & Spill/Leak Nos. 1 & 2; 4) Road Oiling; 5) Landfill No. 3; 6) Waste Accumulation Area No. 2; 7) Dump Areas; 8) Landfill No. 2; 9) Landfill No. 1; 10) Spill/Leak No. 3; & 11) White Alice Site.
Wastes including oils, hydraulic fluids, solvents & ethylene glycol are currently stored at Waste Accumulation Area No. 1 adjacent to the power plant. This site has had considerable spillage & leakage of wastes. It is reported that plows used for snow removal near the site have often punctured or damaged stored drums causing leakage. Some wastes have also been accumulated at another site near the Lower Camp POL bulk storage tanks. This site (Waste Accumulation Area No. 2) has been used to store both unused products as well as some drummed wastes from 1982 to the present. Spillage has occurred at this site.
Another area (Waste Accumulation Area No. 3), used for storing drummed new products & liquid wastes, is south of the access road across from Waste Accumulation Area No. 2. This area, used from the 1950's to 1982, has also received leakage & spillage from drums stored on the ground.
The underground diesel fuel tank located adjacent to the power plant has also had spillage (Spill/ Leak No. 1) from filling vehicles & equipment with fuel. In 1979 approximately 470 gallons of diesel fuel was lost (Splll/Leak No. 2) from a ruptured fuel bladder which was being pulled by a tracked vehicle in this same area at the power plant (vicinity of Waste Accumulation Area No. 1).
The truck fill stand located at the beach has also been a site for routine loss of POL product to the ground (Spill/Leak No. 3) The Weather Building (Facility No. 4100) located near the southern end of the runway is also the site of apparent leakage of diesel fuel. Installations drawings note that the well located at that site is contaminated with diesel fuel. No specific records provide further details on this spill site (Spill/Leak No. 4), but one reported incident in 1979 which involved a loss of 500 gallons of diesel fuel from a tank near the runway may have been this site.
In 1979, a major diesel fuel spill/leak (Spill Leak No. 5) occurred in the Lower Camp near the incinerator building (Facility No. 2-219). Approximately 14,000 gallons was lost to the ground & flowed under the dining hall & commissary structures. [Only] an estimated 300 gallons was recovered.
Another leak (Spill/Leak No. 6) in 1980 resulted in the loss of diesel fuel from a pipeline in the access road by the Lower Camp bulk POL storage tank. In 1984 a leak occurred in a MOGAS pump fill nozzle over a 24-hour period. The leak (Spill/Leak No. 7) was at Facility 76-200 located west of the Supply Building, No. 2-218. Approximately 1,000 gallons were lost to the snow & ground. Fire fighting foam was applied to the ground which absorbed a portion of the fuel. Snow was removed & placed in the landfill. Water was used to flush the area. This leak is at the site where two other MOGAS tanks had leaked a few times (spill/Leak No. 8) until they were abandoned in the early 1970's. In this same vicinity, loss of approximately 1,500 gallons of diesel fuel from piping outside the bulk FOL storage area occurred in 1985 (Spill/Leak No. 9).
In 1983-1984 cleanup efforts were conducted at the WACS site. This facility is located near the Upper Camp. Debris (scrap metal, 300 drums, etc.) was picked up off the east mountain slope. Over 200 drums were noted by an interviewee as having accumulated at the WACS site; about one-half was unused product & the rest [had] waste oils. A garage at the site contained many leaking drums of oil. It was also reported that there had been considerable drainage from electrical equipment at the WACS site. This drainage may have been directed to a sump excavated into rock on the mountain site. Soil samples were collected in 1984 & tested around building openings. It was noted in file data that all tests of the soils were negative for PCB. |
Louis Howard |
| 9/26/1990 |
Update or Other Action |
INTERIM GUIDANCE FOR SURFACE AND GROUNDWATER CLEANUP LEVELS SEPTEMBER 26, 1990
Interim cleanup guidance for contaminated surface and groundwater remediation is necessary to ensure that consistent cleanup levels are being applied by district and regional program staff. The following guidelines should be implemented under 18 AAC 75.140 which specifies that a "discharge must be cleaned up to the satisfaction of the Regional Supervisor or his designee.
Final cleanup levels shall be determined by the Regional Supervisor or his designee based on site-specific conditions. Staff should be aware that if a facility is regulated under RCRA, that RCRA corrective action and cleanup standards should enter into development of final site cleanup levels.
Groundwater should be cleaned up to levels not exceeding the more stringent of the final State or Federal Maximum Contaminant levels (MCLs) for Organic and Inorganic Chemicals. If final MCLs have not been adopted for a contaminant, then groundwater should be cleaned up to levels not exceeding proposed Federal MCLs. The group of compounds collectively identified as total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) should be cleaned, up to non-detectable levels as measured by EPA Method 418.1.
Final State MCLs are specified in 18 AAC 80.050 and final Federal MCLs are specified in 40 CFR 141 and 142. Proposed Federal MCLs are specified in the May 22, 1989, Federal Register Vol. 54, No. 97, pages 22155 - 22157 and the July 25, 1990, Federal Register Vol. 55, No. 143, pages 30408 - 30448. Appendix I provides a summary listing of State and Federal Final and Proposed MCLs for selected organic and inorganic contaminants.
For organic and in organic contaminants that have not been assigned a final or proposed MCL, cleanup levels should be based on criteria cited in EPA's Water Quality Criteria. 1986 using a health risk factor of 10-6. EPA's water quality criteria identify concentrations of elements and compounds which have toxic effects on aquatic organisms or toxic and carcinogenic effects on humans.
If groundwater is being used as a drinking water source and alternative water supplies or point of use water treatment cannot be provided, then final or proposed secondary maximum contaminant levels (SMCLs) may be used as cleanup target levels. SMCLs are based on aesthetic properties such as taste and odor, whereas MCLs are based on human health risks. For compounds such as xylenes, the SMCL maybe several hundred times lower than the MCL.
Surface waters used for drinking water should also be cleaned up to levels not exceeding the final or proposed MCLs for organic and inorganic chemicals, as specified above. Under the authority of 18 AAC 70.020, surface waters important to the growth and propagation of aquatic life should be cleaned up to the listed criteria which includes EPA's Water Quality Criteria. 1986. These criteria identify concentrations of specific elements or compounds which have toxic effects on aquatic organisms. The group of compounds collectively identified as total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) should be cleaned up to non-detectable levels as measured by EPA Method 418.1.
Alternative Cleanup Levels (ACLs) may be adopted for a site if a risk assessment approved by the department is performed and cleanup to levels identified above is technically infeasible. Risk assessments will not by themselves establish ACLs. Determination of cleanup levels is a risk management decision that the department must make based on results of a quantitative risk assessment and other pertinent information.
The responsible party (RP) may prepare at its own expense a risk assessment which shall include an assessment of both human health and environmental risks. Specific components of the risk assessment should include an exposure assessment, toxicity assessment, risk characterization, and justification of ACLs. A general description of these risk assessment components is provided in Appendix II.
General technical requirements for risk assessments should be based on EPA risk assessment guidance for superfund sites. A site specific risk assessment procedure must be prepared by the RP and submitted to the department for review and approval prior to conducting a risk assessment. The RP, at the department's discretion, must agree to reimburse the department for expenses incurred by the department if it chooses to contract for a risk assessment review. |
Louis Howard |
| 6/29/1991 |
Update or Other Action |
On June 29, 1991, GEGS site personnel reported a fuel seep adjacent to an above-ground storage tank (AST) impoundment at the abandoned Lower Camp facility. Tanks in the AST impoundment served a former vehicle fueling station located adjacent to the AST impoundment.
Spill response activities commenced immediately, involving construction of a sump to collect fuel seeping from surficial soils, and excavation of buried fuel lines to determine the source of the release. Recovered fuel and fuel-affected soils were stored in 85-gallon overpack drums until construction of a lined and bermed containment area was completed.
Fuel-affected soils were then transferred to the containment area, and recovered fuel was pumped into an abandoned 25,000 gallon AST within the tank impoundment. Recovered fuel is reported to be diesel. Measurements conducted during site reconnaissance indicate approximately 1,900 gallons of fuel and 7,800 gallons of water are presently stored in the 25,000 gallon AST. The water was reportedly pumped from the USTs; no groundwater was encountered in the UST excavation. |
Jennifer Roberts |
| 7/3/1991 |
Update or Other Action |
Cape Romanzof was operated by the United States Air Force (USAF) from 1953 to 1977, after which operations were performed by government contractor General Electric Government Services (GEGS) currently operates the facility. On June 29, 1991, GEGS site personnel reported a fuel seep adjacent to an above-ground storage tank (AST) impoundment at the abandoned Lower Camp facility. Excavation of buried fuel lines within and north of the AST impoundment was completed by July 3, 1991; no leaks were found.
Continued excavation of fuel-affected soils adjacent to the AST impoundment revealed the presence of two underground storage tanks (USTs) immediately north of the AST impoundment. Fuel and water were pumped from both USTs into the 25,000 gallon AST. The USTs were removed, along with approximately 900 cubic yards of fuel-affected soil. Additional fuel seepage was recovered from the UST excavation.
Several test pits were excavated within and topographically downgradient from the AST impoundment. Fuel was recovered from test pits EX-2, EX-3, and EX-4. Test pit EX-1, located on the south side of the AST impoundment, and EX-5, located approximately 200 feet west of the UST excavation, showed no evidence of fuel occurrence.
Previous fuel spills have been reported in the vicinity of the AST impoundment (Engineering Science, 1985). Two Mogas tanks near the former fueling facility are reported to have leaked prior to their abandonment in the early 1970s (Spill No. 8). In 1985, approximately 1,000 gallons of Mogas were lost to the snow and ground adjacent to the former fueling station (Spill No. 7).
Approximately 1,500 gallons of diesel were lost from piping in the same vicinity in 1985 (Spill No. 9). Finally, a major diesel fuel spill occurred approximately 300 feet south of the AST impoundment in 1979 (Spill NO.5). Approximately 14,000 gallons were lost to the ground and flowed west beneath the water line utiliduct (Woodward-Clyde Consultants, 1990). An estimated 300 gallons were recovered. |
Jennifer Roberts |
| 7/8/1991 |
Update or Other Action |
During the spill response action of July 1-8, 1991 field crews also carried out the following tasks: A lined dike was built to contain excavated fuel impacted soil; An abandoned 20,000 gallon fuel storage tank was utilized to store the free product recovered from the collection sump during the initial spill response. NOTE to File: “free product” means a concentration of a hazardous substance that is present as a nonaqueous phase liquid; for purposes of this paragraph, a “nonaqueous phase liquid” is a liquid that is not dissolved in water. The two USTs (15,000 and 1,000 gallon) discovered under the north side of the service station containment dike were removed. |
Jennifer Roberts |
| 7/31/1991 |
Update or Other Action |
Spill briefing received for June 29, 1991 release. Pipeline excavated and found not to be leaking, however it was determined to be out of specifications because it is galvanized, uncoated pipe using threaded fittings and buried without proper bedding. Two underground storage tanks (USTs 15,000 and 1,000 gallons each) were located on the North side of the containment dike for the abandoned fuel station and were thought to be inactive but still hooked up to the pipeline
The 2 USTs were left connected to active fuel line at the time they were abandoned. This allowed fuel to flow into them each time the intermediate tank was filled from bulk storage. Based on records of fuel discrepancies since 1985, it is estimated that lost fuel totaled 46,000 gallons. However, the date that USTs were abandoned is not known, therefore it is more than likely considerably more fuel has been spilled to the environment. Estimated volume of fuel saturated ground at that time by GE Government services was placed at 100'X100'X50' deep. |
Jennifer Roberts |
| 9/23/1991 |
Meeting or Teleconference Held |
Jennifer Roberts received 9/20/1991 meeting minutes between ENSR consulting and ADEC regarding backfilling of UST excavation at the former Lower Camp facility. ENSR informed ADEC of the Air Force's plan to conduct additional soil excavation, biocell construction, and monitoring well installation activities in the summer of 1992.
DEC indicated that alternative cleanup levels may be justified by a hydrocarbon mobility assessment based on the hydraulic conductivity and adsorption potential of site soils. ADEC further indicated that the UST excavation may be backfilled with locally available materials, provided that the materials are free of gross hydrocarbon contamination.
NOTE to File: No mention in letter of what was meant by the term "gross hydrocarbon contamination." |
Jennifer Roberts |
| 10/10/1991 |
Update or Other Action |
Jennifer Roberts received information regarding well testing at the site. GE Government Services stated that the water at the facility was extensively tested in October of 1990 for metals, chemicals, and hydrocarbons and was all below EPA allowable limits (this does not take into account the recent June 1991 spill event).
Spill plume appears to be heading downgradient and the water well is about 900 feet away from spill site. There are 7 documented spills within the old camp area that are much closer to the well that date back to the 1950s. Analyses will consist of 418.1 and 503.1 for the facility's water system. |
Jennifer Roberts |
| 10/20/1991 |
Update or Other Action |
Preliminary results from site reconnaissance. Groundwater may be present at relatively shallow depths in the area between the water line utiliduct and the UST excavation. Two sub-horizontal bands of oil stained soil were observed on the south wall of the UST excavation from 4.5 to 11 feet below the top of the impoundment dike.
Fuel staining and petroleum sheen were also observed in test pit EX-2 located within the tank impoundment. Former fuel spill Number 5 was located approximately 500 feet southwest of the UST excavation. Surficial soils in this area showed discontinuous staining. |
Jennifer Roberts |
| 12/9/1991 |
Update or Other Action |
ENSR letter to Francis Parker with site reconnaissance report. ENSR Consulting and Engineering (ENSR) is pleased to submit this letter report presenting the results of the Cape Romanzof Site Reconnaissance. The site reconnaissance was conducted at the Cape Romanzof Long Range Radar Station (LRRS} between September 9 and 11, 1991 by Dave Brailey and Miguel Ortega of ENSR. The scope of work for the site reconnaissance was presented to your office in a document entitled "Site Reconnaissance Implementation Plan, Cape Romanzof, Alaska" (ENSR, 1991a). The purpose of the site reconnaissance was to develop a scope of work for assessment and
restoration of a diesel fuel release at a former vehicle fueling facility located at the Cape
Romanzof LRRS.
In carrying out the site reconnaissance, the ENSR field team completed the following
objectives:
• Formulated a preliminary hydrogeologic interpretation of the site;
• Conducted an initial assessment of the migration of released fuel;
• Prepared recommendations for stabilizing the underground storage tank (UST)
excavation and adjacent above-ground storage tank (AST);
• Identified alternatives for disposal of the fuel and water recovered from the UST
excavation;
• Evaluated the accessibility and probable drilling conditions in the vicinity of the
release;
• Selected soil boring and monitoring well locations to evaluate the extent of
subsurface fuel migration; and
• Completed a biotreatability evaluation of the fuel-affected soils.
A site assessment to evaluate the extent of subsurface fuel migration is presently under
under consideration for the 1992 field season. Construction of a soil treatment facility for fuel affected soils is also being considered. Results of the site reconnaissance will be used to define the scope and alternatives for site assessment and restoration activities.
Water level measurements and water quality sampling of two unused water wells identified in the Installation Restoration Program Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (WCC, 1990) could not be performed because both wells were plugged with grout during the summer of 1990. Site personnel also informed the ENSR field team that the active water supply well was sampled after the July, 1991 spill response (Grinnel, personal communication, 1991). Based this information, decision made to omit sampling of the active water supply well to avoid duplication of effort.
At least two sub-horizontal bands of oil stained soil were observed on the south wall of
the UST excavation, from 4.5 to 11 feet below the top of the impoundment dike. Soil samples Grab-l, Grab-2, and Grab-3, collected within or slightly above the oil stained bands, showed TEPH concentrations ranging from 20,000 to 26,000 mg/kg. These concentrations suggest that free fuel is present at residual saturation in these bands. The bands extend approximately 50' west of the former pump island pedestal, and appear to be sub-horizontal to slightly westward-dipping. It was reported that during recovery operations, fuel was observed flowing freely from these bands (Rine personal communication 1991). ENSR field personnel did not observe any fuel seepage from the excavation walls during the site reconnaissance.
Fuel staining and petroleum sheen were also observed in test pit EX-2, located within the
tank impoundment. Based on this observation and subhorizontal fuel stains along the
UST excavation wall, it appears that fuel spread laterally in the fill material beneath the
tank impoundment. The high silt content of the fill material may have increased lateral
migration due to capillarity. Alternatively, the bouldery silt layer observed at the east end
of the excavation (Figure 3) may have impeded downward migration of free fuel. Where
exposed, however, the bouldery silt layer also showed evidence of fuel saturation.
Surface water samples SW-1, SW-1 DUP and SW-2 showed TEPH levels as diesel ranging from 0.28 to 0.82 mg/L. TEPH as motor oil (using an SAE 30W standard) was also detected at 0.43 mg/L in sample SW-2. No BTEX was detected in samples SW-1A DUP and SW-2. These results indicate that low level hydrocarbon levels are present in surface waters west and southwest of the UST excavation. It is not clear whether these levels are related to fuel released at the UST excavation or to previous fuel spills.
For additional information see site file. |
Louis Howard |
| 7/13/1992 |
CERCLA PA |
Letter from Mark Adar (Federal Facilities Site Assessment Manager) EPA Region 10 stating that the Preliminary Site Assessment for the purposes of ranking under the Hazard Ranking System used to evaluate federal facilities for inclusion on the National Priorities List (NPL). Review of the documents indicate the site (facility) does not score high enough to be proposed for inclusion on the NPL.
Therefore, a recommendation of no further remedial action planned (NFRAP) on the EPA's part will be included in the federal agency hazardous waste compliance docket tracking system. If new or additional information becomes available that suggests the facility may score high enough to be proposed for the NPL, EPA will reevaluate the facility accordingly. The Facility is not relieved from complying with appropriate Alaska state regulations and SARA* 1986(a) (4) requires federal facilities to comply with state cleanup requirements and standards when not listed on the NPL.
This facility will not be removed from the Federal Agency Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket, but as noted earlier, will be listed for no further action by EPA.
NOTE to File: CHAPTER 103--COMPREHENSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE, COMPENSATION, AND LIABILITY
SUBCHAPTER I--HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES RELEASES, LIABILITY, COMPENSATION
Sec. 9620. Federal facilities
(a) Application of chapter to Federal Government
(1) In general
Each department, agency, and instrumentality of the United States (including the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government) shall be subject to, and comply with, this chapter in the same manner and to the same extent, both procedurally and substantively, as any nongovernmental entity, including liability under section 9607 of this title. Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect the liability of any person or entity under sections 9606 and 9607 of this title.
(2) Application of requirements to Federal facilities
All guidelines, rules, regulations, and criteria which are applicable to preliminary assessments carried out under this chapter for facilities at which hazardous substances are located, applicable to evaluations of such facilities under the National Contingency Plan, applicable to inclusion on the National Priorities List, or applicable to remedial actions at such facilities shall also be applicable to facilities which are owned or operated by a department, agency, or instrumentality of the United States in the same manner and to the extent as such guidelines, rules, regulations, and criteria are applicable to other facilities. No department, agency, or instrumentality of the United States may adopt or utilize any such guidelines, rules, regulations, or criteria which are inconsistent with the guidelines, rules, regulations, and criteria established by the Administrator under this chapter.
(3) Exceptions
This subsection shall not apply to the extent otherwise provided in this section with respect to applicable time periods. This subsection shall also not apply to any requirements relating to bonding, insurance, or financial responsibility. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to require a State to comply with section 9604(c)(3) of this title in the case of a facility which is owned or operated by any department, agency, or instrumentality of the United States.
(4) State laws
State laws concerning removal and remedial action, including State laws regarding enforcement, shall apply to removal and remedial action at facilities owned or operated by a department,
agency, or instrumentality of the United States or facilities that are the subject of a deferral under subsection (h)(3)(C) of this section when such facilities are not included on the National Priorities List. The preceding sentence shall not apply to the extent a State law would apply any standard or requirement to such facilities which is more stringent than the standards and requirements applicable to facilities which are not owned or operated by any such department, agency, or instrumentality. |
Jennifer Roberts |
| 8/26/1992 |
Site Characterization Workplan Approved |
Staff reviewed and commented on the: Cape Romanzof RI/FS Spill SS15 Project No. 6583-091 8/20/92 FINAL Quality Assurance Project Plan, Field Sampling Plan, and Data Management Plan. The Department of Environmental Conservation has received the revised documents for the above project. The documents are approved as submitted. The work to assess the lateral and vertical extent of diesel in the soil related to Spill SS15, to determine if the groundwater has been impacted, and locate the source of the acetone detected in the water sample from the temporary storage in an above ground storage tank may proceed as scheduled. |
Louis Howard |
| 9/2/1992 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
The Department of Environmental Conservation has been informed by the 11 CEOS on August 31, 1992 that the sampling for Cape Romanzof was delayed until next field season-1993. The Department requests in writing a schedule outlining next year's start date for the RI/FS work at Cape Romanzof's spill SS15 Site. Investigative work must proceed expediently as possible due to the potential effects of this spill may have on this sole source aquifer.
Any further delays in investigative work may lead to a compliance advisory from the Department. The State of Alaska's Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Control regulations 18 AAC 75.327-337 state that "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 of the material collected, using methods for which approval has been given by the department. The discharge must be cleaned up to the Department's satisfaction." Currently, investigative efforts for this spill have not been adequate in delineating and containing the contamination at Cape Romanzof.
The Department requests a written response within 14 (fourteen) days of receipt of this letter outlining what actions will be taken. |
Louis Howard |
| 12/7/1992 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Staff received 1991 USDOI Fish and Wildlife Service Refuge Manager Report of Findings at Cape Romanzof LRRS military cleanup. Study was conducted by Wayne Crayton (environmental contaminants specialist). Findings of fact: Cape Romanzof LRRS has contaminated area's environment, Fowler Creek's sediment is contaminated with petroleum hydrocarbons, fish and wildlife resources (dolly varden, voles, red fox) are contaminated with POL hydrocarbons, PCBs and DDT-related compounds. Request Air Force conduct additional and more extensive monitoring on a regular schedule (every 2 or 3 years) to determine if contaminant problem associated with facility is continuing to impact Refuge resources. The frequency of sampling should be adjusted to reflect site activities. |
Jennifer Roberts |
| 2/10/1993 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Vickaryous provided comments on the RI/FS technical report. Well Number 1 Lower camp area is used as the drinking water source for facility. Total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) was found in 1989 and 1990 at 2 mg/L and 1 mg/L respectively.
Air Force has maintained source of TPH is from leaking well pump. ADEC disagrees and requests well be sampled at least once a year to ensure that contamination from SS15 is not impacting the well. Sampling for TPH and benzene is to continue at the well until SS15 has been remediation. Staff requested a plan be submitted for review including the following: sampling procedures, sample analysis (analysis must meet maximum contaminant levels-MCL and secondary MCL regulatory levels), and a sampling time schedule. |
Vic Vickaryous |
| 8/30/1993 |
Update or Other Action |
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) conducted between July 6 and 20 1993 to evaluate the vertical and horizontal extent of diesel range organics (DRO) contamination in soil, and whether groundwater had been affected by a 1991 diesel spill site (SS15). The risk of contamination from SS15 to reach and degrade groundwater at the current domestic water supply well was also examined.
The geology of the Upper Camp is dominated by a thin accumulation of sand, gravel & boulder residuum overlying granitic bedrock of Towak Mountain. Thin to moderately thick talus (coarse grained materials) & alluvial sequences have been transported downslope into the steeply sloping stream valley of Fowler (Nilumat) Creek & its tributaries. The mixed talus & alluvial materials consist of large granitic boulders, rock fragments (probably cobble-sized), sand & minor amounts of silt & clay. The talus layer was determined to be 80 feet thick at Well No. 1 & 74 feet thick at Well No. 2. The talus is underlain by a twenty-foot thickness of residuum (sand & gravel derived from the underlying bedrock by weathering deposits).
Soil in the vicinity of SS15 was found contaminated by petroleum hydrocarbons at concentrations above the regulated limits. The contamination is DRO; however, some gasoline range organics (GRO) are also present, suggesting a more complex spill history than that restricted to the SS15 incident. Contaminated soil was found at various depths and concentrations at all sampling locations. The highest concentrations of fuel contamination were found in shallow soils immediately adjacent to the point of release at SS15 at the WW-1, WW-2, and BB-1 locations. Low levels of DRO were detected in soils at the remaining monitoring well and shallow boring locations, and at the three test pit locations tested for this parameter. Excavation of test pits along the sewer line route indicated that a trench was not excavated for this line. The entire area has been filled, which includes covering of the sewer line.
Groundwater was found to be most heavily affected in the immediate vicinity of SS15. Well WW-6 is located up/cross-gradient from the location of SS15 and was reported to contain higher concentrations of fuel hydrocarbons than those in the immediate vicinity of SS15, suggesting that another source of contamination may be involved in the contamination found here. Water from well WW-5, the most downgradient well, was found to contain low levels of DRO, suggesting the area of heavy groundwater contamination at SS15 has little or no impact in the area of WW-5.
Water level measurements indicate that the domestic water supply well is located upgradient from the point of fuel release at SS15. The water level in the well is approximately 10 feet higher in elevation than the water level in wells near SS15. The domestic water supply well is considered unlikely to be affected by any future impact related to SS15. Ground surface slope is also in a direction away from the location of SS15, with respect to the location of the domestic water supply well, eliminating the mechanism for surface transport of contamination to the supply well from SS15.
Acetone was detected in the water sample collected from the aboveground storage tank, confirming its presence in the tank. The presence of acetone could not be confirmed in the groundwater samples collected at the site. Potential pathways for transportation of contamination have been evaluated. No sensitive receptors have been identified in the vicinity of SS15 or downstream of the site along the potential pathways evaluated. |
Louis Howard |
| 12/1/1993 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
John Halverson provided comments on Final RI/FS for Spill Site SS15 September 1993 report. Draft copy was never submitted for review and approval to ADEC. Report does not clearly show the location of SS15 in comparison to other known or suspected sources of contamination at the facility. Staff requested location of SS15 relative to other contaminant sources be provided and the existing environmental assessment reports pertaining to the facility should be listed and referenced where appropriate. For example: the groundwater contamination identified in WW-6 is reportedly up- or cross-gradient from SS15.
This appears to be in an area where the 14,000 gallons of diesel fuel was spilled in 1979 or 1985 when a fuel bladder was being moved across the facility. There is no mention of the release from the fuel bladder in this document. The report states the high concentrations of diesel range organics in groundwater at WW-6 are unknown. Again, a review of prior site investigation work by ADEC revealed a 14,000 gallon spill of diesel fuel occurring in the area around 1979 or 1985 referred to as spill #5 and ROM 1-S and noted as being about 300 feet from the above ground storage tank (AST). ENSR report dated September 20, 1991 identified several previous spills near SS15: 2 mogas tanks leaned prior to removal in 1970s (spill #8), in 1985 1000 gallons of mogas lost in snow and ground near the former fueling station (spill #7), 1500 gallons of diesel fuel lost in same area during 1985 (spill #9) and in 1979 approximately 14,000 gallons of diesel fuel were spilled about 300 feet south of the ASTs (spill #5 and ROM 1-S). |
John Halverson |
| 12/23/1993 |
Update or Other Action |
11th Air Control Wing letter to DEC response to comments on Final RI/FS SS15 dated 1 Dec 1993. This is in response to the subject letter concerning specific comments on the final RI/FS for spill site SSI5 at Cape Romanzof LRRS AK.
The 11 CEOS/CEVR received the draft RI/FS report on 17 Sep 93. The Air Force regrets not providing review of the draft; however, the ENSR contract expired 30 Sep 93 with the final deliverable due on this date. The Air Force generally requires a similar allotment of time for review and also found the time inadequate under the circumstances. Your comments will be incorporated in all future work plans for spill site SSI3 and SS15. In addition, all draft work plans and reports will be forwarded with adequate time for review.
In 1991, General Electric Government Services (GEGS) excavated and stockpiled approximately 900 cubic yards of contaminated soil from the underground storage tank site (SS15). This soil was placed on a geofabric liner covered with plastic. Once the stockpiling was complete, the pile was covered with a nylon reinforced plastic liner for later on-site remediation. Although funding was not available in FY93, this project has been programmed for FY94 along with the remediation of spill sites SS07, SS08, ST09, and SS14. A soil containment area will be constructed and on-site remediation (e.g., bioremediation) will begin once funding is available and work plans are initiated.
Continued RI/FS/RD in FY94 has been programmed for spill site SS13 and SS15. SS13 was included due to its potential link to the background POL contamination found at SS15. The 11 CEOS/CEVR will consider these two sites, as well as, all other known spills
in this area as potential sources for the soil and groundwater contamination. A treatability study for in situ bioventing and air sparging will also be initiated along with geophysical surveys such as magnetometer surveys or ground penetrating radar to determine the presence of underground storage tanks which may have been left during the demolition of the lower camp facilities.
The 11 CEOS/CEOR disposed of the fuel and water contained in the 25,000 gallon aboveground storage tank (AST) (Attach 1). The fuel was pumped, filtered, sampled, and mixed with approximately 140,000 gallons of new diesel fuel after favorable sample results were received. Approximately 7,200 gallons of water was pumped from the AST, run through the cyclesorb and, once found to be clean, was placed into the Cape Romanzof sewage lagoon. The AST was steam cleaned, triple rinsed, and cut into 8-foot sections for disposal at the Cape Romanzof landfill. The amount of sludge found in the tank was approximately 1,425 pounds of non-RCRA waste. The sludge was placed into Department of Transportation approved drums and shipped to the Defense Reutilization and Marketing facility at Elmendorf AFB.
The groundwater elevation contour map (Figure 3-1) may not need to be modified to account for the confining conditions found in WW-6. Additional monitoring wells must be installed throughout spill site SS13 and SS15 to produce an accurate groundwater elevation contour map.
The information gathered from the continued RI/FS/RD of spill site SSI3 and SS15 will show whether or not a contaminant transport pathway to source well No. 1 exists. Martin Marietta Services recently sampled water well No. 1 (I Nov 93) and the results indicate the well has not been impacted by spill site SS13 or SS15 (Attach 2). A low concentration of Nitrate-N (0.14 mg/L) was detected along with a low value for turbidity (0.90
Nephelometric Turbidity Units).
The list of references in the ENSR report included a 1982 Corps of Engineers Plan, Section and Detail for the mogas facility. This map (Attach 3) shows underground fuel lines, ASTs and an area showing existing air vents. The map does not show the underground storage tanks, but shows the air vents located in the vicinity of the two underground storage tanks that were removed in 1991. |
John Halverson |
| 4/28/1994 |
Site Added to Database |
Site added to database.1985 fuel bladder released 14,000 gallons of fuel. 46,000 gallons of fuel released in 1991 from active pipeline. |
Louis Howard |
| 5/2/1994 |
Update or Other Action |
Workplan for contaminated soil at facility states action items for FY93 and FY94 work. Finish FY93 Work:
(a) Finish capping the landfill started in FY93 work season. The work plan was approved by ADEC for the FY93 work season and there are no changes anticipated for the FY94 work season.
(b) Complete the two soil containment cells began in FY93. All that remains is the final grading.
(c) Excavate three contaminated areas identified during the FY93 work season.
1 One area is located between the old POL Fill Stand (ROM-10 ST09) and the beaver pond near the beach area.
2 One area is located at the old POL Fill Stand ST-09 (ROM-10).
3 One area identified as Drum Storage Area SS-14 (ROM-14) near the beach area.
FY94 Work:
(a) Excavate Waste Accumulation Area No. 3 SS-08 (ROM 1) (380 cubic yards).
(b) Excavate diesel contaminated soil stockpiled near SS-15 (900 cubic yards. This particular site will be first priority since soil has been stockpiled for over two years without an ADEC approved soil stockpiling plan.
(c) Obtain approval for the construction of Biopile remediation cells to be located near the removed lower camp facilities. The new cell will not be constructed on an existing RIP site. Exact location to be coordinated between 11 CEOS/CEV and 11 CEOS/CEOR during a site visit.
Remedial Action -Diesel Contaminated Soil Stockpiled near SS-15 (Old Leaking UST Site)
a. A stockpile of diesel contaminated soil has been estimated to contain 900 cubic yards will be sampled and placed into a soil containment cell. The soil is located between the 5099th Disposal Pit and Waste Accumulation Area No. 2. The soil has been stockpiled for over two years without an ADEC approved soil stockpiling plan.
b. A field log book will be maintained showed the sample points and the results of field screening.
c. The stockpiled soil will be transported via dump truck to the soil containment cell. |
Louis Howard |
| 2/14/1995 |
Update or Other Action |
Scope of Work CR LRRS DBWT-92-79902 Biopile Construction. Background: In FY93 the 611 CES/CEOR observed 3 areas obviously contaminated & stained with POL products. These areas are located between the old POL Fill Stand (ST09) & the beaver pond near the beach area. ST09 & the Drum Storage Area (SS14) near the beach area were included into the FY93 work plan. The two areas which are contaminated with POL were to be stockpiled in Cell No. 1 & Cell No. 2 which were constructed in FY93.
Approximately 1152 CY of soils from SS14 was placed into Cell No. 1. Contamination at ST09 was delineated during FY94, but was not excavated due the expanded scope of the project. The new estimate of POL contaminated soils is approximately 1000 CY.
The 900 CY of diesel contaminated soil associated with the UST at SS15 had been stockpiled after the removal of the UST in 1991. These soils were placed into Cell No. 3. In addition, the POL contaminated soil associated with SS08 was also placed in Cell No. 3.
In addition to the contaminated soil which was excavated & stockpiled from the SS14, SS08, & the soils associated with SS015, include the IRP sites listed below in the FY95 soil stockpiling/soil remediation (biopile) field work. The soils at these sites were found to be contaminated with POL above ADEC cleanup standards.
Two passive type biopiles will be designed & constructed near the beach area for the remediation of POL contaminated soils from SS14 & ST09. These biopiles may utilize a wind generated blower system due to the lack of electrical power. Two biopiles will be designed & constructed at the Lower Camp area. One new cell (Cell No. 4) will be constructed adjacent to Cell No. 3. The contaminated soil from Cell No. 3 will be placed in Cell No. 4. Cell No. 3 will be retrofitted as a biopile. These two biopiles will use an electrical powered blower system. These biopiles will include soils from the diesel contaminated soil associated with SS15, SS07 & SS08. |
Louis Howard |
| 4/3/1995 |
Update or Other Action |
Final Report for Investigation, Delineation and Excavation of Contaminated Soil from: Stockpile near SS15 site, Waste Accumulation Area 3 (SS08), Drum Storage Area (SS14), Petroleum, Oil, and Lubricants Fill Stand (ST09), Construction of Cells for Contaminated Soi, Capping of Landfill-2 (LF03) and Geology/Water Resources of Nilumat Creek Valley (April 1995) received.
Work Performed under this contract:
Investigate, delineate, excavate, and remove contaminated soils from:
1. Stockpile Near SS15 site
2. Waste Accumulation Area 3 SS08
3. Drum Storage Area SS14
4. POL Fill Stand ST09
Construct and complete the following cells and store the contaminated soils
1. Cell 1 near coastline
2. Cell 2 near Beaver Pond
3. Cell 3 near Lower Camp, east of Cold Storage
Abandon two monitor wells (MW-3 and MW-4) and place Hypalon membrane
and Geotextile fabric at
1. Landfill-2 (LF03) Approximately 1.5 miles, west of Lower Camp
A total of 4,052 cubic yards of contaminated soil was excavated from the sites. Six hundred cubic yards were excavated from the stockpile (SS15), 722 cubic yards from Waste Accumulation Area 3 (SS08) and 2,730 cubic yards from the drum storage area (SS14). Excavated soils were placed in two storage cells (Cell 1 and Cell 3).
The contaminated stockpile was field screened with the PID per each truck load (approximately every 8 cubtc yards). PID readings of up to 468 ppm were recorded. Table 10 includes the field screening results for the excavated material. After the removal of the whole stockpile, excavation and sampling of soil 2-3 feet below the stockpile was carried out until the PID readings decreased to under 10 ppm. A total of 18 PID samples were taken in the pit. These 18 PID values were not recorded. Confirmation samples were not collected at the stockpile site since it was understood that the stockpile was originally placed in a previously contammated area.
Soil samples of the excavated soil were taken and sent to independent labs and analyzed by EPA methods 8015M GRO, 8100 DRO, 6 shows total number of samples taken for each EPA metho 8015M GRO, 8100 DRO, 8020 BTEX, and 7000 metals. Samples for laboratory analysis were taken every 50 yards (every 6 truck loads) or less. A total of 17 samples (sample numbers 401-417) were taken for laboratory analysis. Based upon non-detect field screening results and when the contamination reached the non-detect (<10 ppm) levels, the excavated pit was backfilled. It took 70 truck loads of pit run material to backhaul the pit.
Cell 3: The cell was filled up to 6-feet height above its walls and was covered with the top liner. A total of 151 truck loads (1,208 cubic yards) of contaminated soil, excavated from Stockpile SS15 and Waste Accumulation Area 3 (SS08) were placed in the cell.
DRO ranged from 228 mg/kg to 18,800 mg/kg, GRO ranged from 4.04 mg/kg to 3,830 mg/kg, BTEX ranged from 0.311 mg/kg to 280.30 mg/kg. |
Ray Burger |
| 5/3/1995 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Staff provided comments on the Final Draft Report on Investigation, Delineation and Excavation of Contaminated Soil from SS15, SS08, SS14, and ST09; Construction of Cells for Contaminated Soil, Capping of Landfill No. 2 (LF03) and Geology/Water Resources of Nilumat Creek Valley.
Executive Summary. It is stated that: "Remedial actions were ... according to a work plan
dated 2 May93." However, Section 3.0 states that work is conducted according to "a workplan dated 2 May 94." The final work plans that we have are dated 12 August 93 and 7 September 93. Please explain this inconsistency.
Section 3 1.5 Soil Sampling and Field Screening: After excavation of the stockpile, another 2-3 feet of soil was excavated from below the liner "until the PID readings decreased to under 10 ppm." As this is not indicative of attainment of cleanup levels (for example, Field Sample #64 had PID = 3 ppm and the lab DRO = 228 mg/kg), there can be no closure until confirmation sampling is done. Also, of 88 PID readings taken, only 70 are presented in Table 10.
Section 3.3.7 Laboratory Analysis and Backfilling: You stated a criteria of one confirmation sample per 250 square feet of surface area, which would result in about 100 samples collected for the 24,570 square foot area excavated. Explain why only 31 samples were collected. In order to close out this site, more confirmation sampling may be required.
Section 3.6.6 Deviations from the Work Plan: While you state that the trench around the base of the landfill was omitted, it is unclear whether the "roadside installation ditch [was] enlarged and compacted" as called for in the work plan.
Section 3.7.12 Precision: Given that more than half of the calculable RPD values exceeded the data quality objectives, more of an explanation is needed. Also this section should reference Table 35, not Table "2".
Section 10.1 Surface Water Resources: On page 40 you talk about 3 types of surface water flow. In the following paragraphs you talk about all three. It would be most helpful if you numbered, indented, or somehow highlighted the three types. Also, in the paragraph starting, "Such streams are found in ..."there are obviously some words missing that would make this a complete thought.
Section 11.0 Recommendations: While we agree with the future work recommended, the long term monitoring of the landfill (LF03) should be added to the list. Given the deviations from the work plan (i.e.. omitting the trenching and geotextile layers ) it is important to ensure that water does not leach through the landfill and the integrity of the hypalon barrier is upheld. Details of the monitoring program can be found in the "Landfill Work Plan" dated 12 Aug 93.
Figure 31:This figure is meant to illustrate the location of "Spill/Leak No. 5 (SS13)", but the map labeled with the old number "ROM 1S". Relabel the map and/or provide a cross reference.
Table 16C: There should be some indication that Sample ID 067 is a water sample. Sample ID 070 was taken from location21, which would make it a reconfirmation of Sample ID 041, not "045". However, Sample ID 041 was already meeting the matrix cleanup levels. |
Ray Burger |
| 6/16/1995 |
Site Ranked Using the AHRM |
Initial ranking. Action code added because it wasn't when the site was originally ranked. Multiple source given since release of fuel from fuel bladder was hundreds of feet away from where the two abandoned USTs released fuel. |
John Halverson |
| 8/20/1995 |
Cleanup Plan Approved |
Ray Burger approved ex-situ treatment in a biocell for contaminated soils from SS15, ROM-12 (SS14), and ROM-1 (SS08).
The contaminated soil originated from five areas. These are:
SS07 Waste Accumulation Area No 1 (Lower Camp), SS08 Waste Accumulation Area No 3 (Lower Camp),
ST09 POL Fill Stand (Beach area), SS14A Drum Storage Area (Beach area),SSl5 Old UST Site (Lower Camp)
Soil from SS08 and SS15 has already been excavated and is being stored in Cell #3. Soil from SS14A has already been excavated and is being stored in Cell #1. Soil from SS07 and ST09 will be excavated under this project. An additional Cell #2 has already been constructed, but not yet filled. The contractor will construct an additional bioremediatlon Cell #4.
The cells will be converted into ex-situ bioremediation cells and cell existing one new constructed. Soils will be bioremediated for two years. At that time, closure sampling will take place If the sampling results are below the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) matrix level A, they will be returned to the land surface within the LRRS. If the sampling reveals levels above the level A, the Air Force will reevaluated the project This reevaluation may include continual operation of the biocells, alternate technology, or negotiation of alternate cleanup levels.
Introduction: In the fall of 17%, Elmendorf AFB contracted construction of a biopile treatment facility to evaluate effectiveness of using that technology to treat petroleum contaminated soils, The 11 CEOS proposed biopile is based on this study. Construction: Current soil containment cells and future soil containment cells statewide will be constructed to provide a double-lined cell with secondary containment, leachate detection, leachate collection systems, and vent piping. Vacuum extraction piping, water/nutrient addition piping, thermocouples (to record core temperature), and tensiometers (to measure soil moisture content) will be placed in each cell as they are constructed. Access ports will be constructed to allow sampling. An equipment unit housing (similar to a connex box) will be constructed to house vacuum/air injection equipment and water/nutrient addition equipment which will in turn be connected to perforated piping within the pile.
Sampling: Monthly inspections will evaluate biopile performance. They will include operating the vacuum extraction/injection system and collecting LEL, 02, and C02 measurements from sampling points. Total volatile organics will be measured at the vent tubes during periods of air injection. Temperature and moisture content will be monitored.
Design:
(1) Biopiles (soil piles with mechanical addition of air, water, and nutrients) are used to treat soil when available space is limited. Soil is stockpiled onto a non-reactive liner and an internal piping system introduces water, nutrients, and oxygen. Soil is sometimes mixed with an organic bulking agent such as sawdust, gypsum, or clean soil to improve soil texture and moisture potential and to provide a carbon and nutrient source.
(2) A vapor extraction/venting system provides oxygen to the bacteria and can remove
nondegradable organics in the vapor phase that can be easily removed via an air emission treatment system in a short period of time. Biopiles require no mechanical tilling or agitation. Monitoring of biopile systems will be largely automated.
(3) The design is based on a successful biopile system in Montreal, Canada. This technology was used to create a biopile system at Elmendorf AFB where it was observed for four months. Microbial biodegradation of contaminants in the soil is accomplished through using forced air as an oxygen source. This process provides oxygen to indigenous soil microorganisms, promoting aerobic mineralization of organics and simultaneously stripping some volatile compounds from the soil. |
Ray Burger |
| 11/11/1995 |
Update or Other Action |
Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis for Soil Remediation at CR LRRS prepared by the US Army Corps of Engineers. The U S Air Force is preparing to bioremediate petroleum contaminated soils (about 5500 cubic yards total) at the Cape Romanzof Long Range Radar Site (LRRS) After a review of feasible alternatives, ex-situ bioremediation was selected for this project The main contaminants are diesel range petroleum hydrocarbons and gasoline range petroleum hydrocarbons BTEX is also present along with minor amounts (<5 mg/kg) of PCBs.
The contaminated soil originated from five areas. These are: SS07 Waste Accumulation Area No 1 (Lower Camp), SS08 Waste Accumulation Area No 3 (Lower Camp), ST09 POL Fill Stand (Beach area),
SS14A Drum Storage Area (Beach area),
SSl5 Old UST Site (Lower Camp) approximately 600 cubic yards of soil was excavated and placed in biopile.
Soil from SS08 and SS15 has already been excavated and is being stored in Cell #3. Soil from SS14A has already been excavated and is being stored in Cell #1. Soil from SS07 and ST09 will be excavated under this project. An additional Cell #2 has already been constructed, but not yet filled. The contractor will construct an additional bioremediatlon Cell #4.
The cells will be converted into ex-situ bioremediation cells and cell existing one new
constructed. Soils will be bioremediated for two years. At that time, closure sampling will take place If the sampling results are below the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) matrix level A, they will be returned to the land surface within the LRRS. If the sampling reveals levels above the level A, the Air Force will reevaluated the project This reevaluation may include continual operation of the biocells, alternate technology, or negotiation of alternate cleanup levels. |
Ray Burger |
| 11/30/1995 |
Update or Other Action |
Draft Environmental Baseline Survey for Air Force Radar Stations contains information on Cape Romanzof. The Air Force began the IRP process at Cape Romanzof Radar Installation in
1985 prior to the terminology and procedural changes that took place in the IRP after the passage of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) 1986. As a result, the IRP was realigned to incorporate the terminology and requirements of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP).
The IRP Administrative Record file contains both pre- and post-SARA terminology. The Remedial Investigation (RI) results presented are from investigation activities conducted at the Cape Romanzof Radar Installation. Additional information was gathered from previous investigations at these sites. Eight sites were investigated at the Cape Romanzof Radar Installation: Landfill N0. 2 (LF03), Landfill NO. 3 (LF04), Waste Accumulation Area No. 1 (SS07) Waste Accumulation Area No. 3 (SS08), Spill/Leak No. 3 (ST09), Seep Area No. 5 (SS13), Drum Storage Area (SS14) and Previous USTs (SS15).
None of the six aboveground storage tanks at the facility shown evidence of a release. No underground storage tanks were found at the facility. One oil/water separator is located at the Lower Camp for the Industrial Building (building 2294). PCBs were reportedly stored at SS01, LF02, LF04, OT06, and SS08. On inspection, all transformers were seen to be the dry type which do not contain PCBs.
Restoration Activities Completed: Waste Accumulation Area #2 (SS01) NFRAP after 1993, Landfill #1 (LF02) NFRAP after 1993, Landfill#2 (LF03) Interim remedial action in 1994, Landfill #3 (LF04) Remedial investigation, feasibility study and draft proposed plan completed, Road Oiling (OT05) NFRAP after 1993, White Alice Site (OT06) NFRAP after 1993, Waste Accumulation Area #1, Spdl/Leak#1 and #2 (SS07) Remedial investigation, feasibility study, and draft proposed plan completed, Waste Accumulation Area #3, Spill/Leak #6, 7, 8, and 9 (SS08) Interim remedial action in 1994, Spill/Leak #3 (ST09) Remedial Investigation completed in 1994, Spill/Leak #4 (SS10) NFRAP after 1993, Dump Area (DP11) NFRAP after 1993, Landfill (LF12) NFRAP after 1993, Seep Area, Spill/Leak#5 (SS13) Remedial investigation, feasibility study, and draft proposed plan completed, Drum Storage Area (SS14) Interim remedial action in 1994, Leaking USTs (SS15) Remedial investigation, feasibility study, and draft proposed plan completed Interim remedial action in 1994. |
Ray Burger |
| 3/18/1996 |
Update or Other Action |
Decision Document Declaration received for SS07, SS08, ST09, SS14, SS15 Ex-situ Bioremediation of POL Soils. The document presents the selected removal action for the ex-situ bioremediation of soil contaminated with petroleum, oils, and lubricants (POL) at Cape Romanzof LRRS. The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation has participated in the scoping and review of the EE/CA and concurs with the selected ex-situ bioremediatlon alternative. All comments have been addressed, and a copy of them are enclosed in Appendix E of the EE/CA. The final EE/CA revealed ex-situ cell bioremediation of POL contaminated soil as the most protective of human health and the environment as well as the most cost effective.
ASSESSMENT OF THE SITE
The 611 CES performed a Removal Action to remove soil contaminated with POL at three IRP sites ±n FY94. The contaminated soil from SS08, SS14,and SS15 was placed In two soil containment cells. The contaminated soil from SS07 and ST09 will be excavated as part of this RA. One cell is located at the Lower Camp and the other is located near the beach. The cell near the beach contains contaminated soil excavated from SS14, while the cell at the Lower Camp contains soil from SS08 and SS15. A potential long-term health risk to humans and the environment exists. The petroleum contaminated soil poses a threat to on-site workers and visitors through ingestion and dermal contact. This removal action will reduce the concentrations of contaminants in the soil and therefore eliminate the risk of future exposure to human and ecological receptors.
The removal action alternative chosen was excavation and ex-situ bioremediation. Contaminated soil at the Truck Fill Stand (ST09) and at Waste Accumulation Area No. 1 (SS07} will be excavated. The contaminated soils will be transported to the treatment site for bioremediation. The excavated soils will be sampled and analyzed for levels of Polychlorinated Biphenyls, Diesel Range Organics, Gasoline Range Organics, total and individual Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, Xylenes, and lead prior to being placed in the treatment cells. Contaminated soil currently stored in the containment cells will be removed and treated by ex-situ bioremediation. |
Ray Burger |
| 3/13/1997 |
Update or Other Action |
(Old R:Base Action Code = RI - Remedial Investigation). RI action added by Shannon and Wilson on 3/13/97, based on Relative Risk Evaluation worksheet dated 8/23/95. Pathway: Groundwater has been contaminated with diesel fuel. Soil is also contaminated, but samples were only analyzed for DRO. Receptors: Human - site workers and visitors. Ecological would be exposed to surface contamination found at the seep area. |
S&W-Miner |
| 5/7/1997 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Staff reviewed and commented on the draft remedial action report for Biotreatment Cell Construction, Operation, and Maintenance dated February 1997.
The original contaminated soil contained in the Biocells was excavated from SS08 Waste Accumulation Area (No. 3), SS15 Stockpile, and SS14 Drum Storage Area. Please provide a summary of the original positive laboratory analytical results and the Laboratory analyses performed within each area.
Specific Comments- 1.3 Scope of Work: Please include the schedule for general inspections of the biocells condition during field season operations. 1.5 Deviations from the Final Scope of Work: In bullet #2, the soil in Containment Cell 3 was removed and temporarily stockpiled during the replacement of the liner. Please provide the temporary stockpile construction details during this removal action. If secondary releases resulted from this action, please provide the characterization of the area(s). Please clarify whether Biocell 1 contains a sump, and provide the basis for the decision.
2.3 Operational Problems: It is stated that large quantities of water collected in the bottom of Biocell 3 as a result of the heavy rains during the soil and liner removal activities, and precipitation passing through the cover material during heavy rain and wind storms. Please include in the text what impacts, if any, the rains have had on Biocell 1. It is also stated that approximately 3,800 gallons of water was pumped from Biocell 3 and temporarily contained in a bladder and in 55-gallon drums. The water was reintroduced into the biocell during the system shutdown in September. Please include the impacts, if any, on the performance and eventual remediation goals of the treatment system.
It is stated that at the request of USACE,QA samples were not collected. Please note that the proper QA/QC procedures will be necessary for confirmation samples collected during the final biocell closure activities. Biocell 1 soil samples were collected at random depths ranging from 0.5 to 5.5 feet. Please include the rationale for this sampling scheme based on biocells with a height of 9 feet. It is stated that Biocell 3 soil samples were collected from the upper 2.5 feet due to the coarser-grained soil and refusal of the power and hand augers. Please clarify this statement, and include any potential problems in reaching the final remediation goals.
The EPA risk-based concentration data should be updated to the most current data available. |
Gretchen Pikul |
| 8/12/1997 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Staff reviewed and commented on the Draft workplan for RI at SS13 and Intrinsic Remediation study at SS15 dated July 1997.
1.3.1.2 UST Excavation at SS 15: Sample SW-1 is not shown on Figure 1-2.
Please address.
1.3.2.2 1993 Remedial Investigation for SS 15: it is stated that groundwater samples were analyzed for VOCs, however it is not clear whether benzene was the only VOC detected. Please clarify.
Table 1-1. Field Investigation Objectives: Based on previous laboratory analyses for SS13, only surface soil and groundwater samples were analyzed for VOCs, and only groundwater samples were analyzed for metals. Based on other known and potential sources within the area, and for a more complete investigation of potential hazardous constituents present at SS 13, VOC analyses should be performed on subsurface soil and surface water, and metal analyses should be performed on surface soil, subsurface soil, sediment and surface water. PAH analyses should also be performed on all the various media sampled.
Based on the previous analyses for SS 15, only groundwater samples were analyzed for VOCs, and no samples were analyzed for metals. Based on other known and potential sources within the area, and for a more complete investigation of potential hazardous constituents present at SS15, VOC analyses should be performed on surface soil, and subsurface soil, and metals should be performed on surface soil, subsurface soil, and groundwater. PAH analyses should also be performed on all the various media sampled. It is unclear whether there is a potential for sediment and surface water within the SS15 area. Please address.
4.1.2 Nature and Extent of Groundwater Contamination / Natural Attenuation
Parameters: It is stated that if groundwater is not encountered in any of the borings, no monitoring wells will be installed, and no groundwater samples will be collected. Please include the depth to groundwater in nearby wells situated on SS15 for reference. |
Gretchen Pikul |
| 9/9/1997 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
The Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), DoD Oversight group, received the faxed analytical results for the post-treatment sample on September 8, 1997. The post-treatment sample was collected from the Cyclosorb unit utilized for the treatment of wastewater originating from Biocell #3. This initial post-treatment sample was collected and analyzed for EPA Methods 8310 and 8020A. Based on the information submitted, the Department does not object to discharging this containerized, treated water and the following treatment and sampling sequence is requested:
-Continue treatment of Biocell #3 wastewater and subsequent discharge of up to 20,000 gallons of the treated wastewater.
-A mid-point post-treatment sample should be collected for laboratory analysis, the wastewater treatment 'system operation should be suspended until the mid-point laboratory sample results are reviewed and approved by 611 CES/CEVR and the Department.
-If the mid-point laboratory sample results show acceptable levels for discharge, then the treatment system may be reactivated.
-A final confirmation sample should be collected once approximately 50,000 gallons of wastewater has been treated by the Cyclosorb unit. If the actual wastewater within Biocell #3 exceeds 50,000 gallons, the treatment system should again be suspended until additional samples are collected for laboratory analysis and the results are approved by 611 CES/CEVR and the Department. |
Gretchen Pikul |
| 5/26/1998 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
G. Pikul commented on the draft technical report for SS15. Aliphatic and aromatic hydrocarbon converted from DRO,GRO and RRO results is not acceptable since there are no ADEC accepted conversions at this time. Matrix level cleanup criteria was not applied uniformly at the site and therefore not acceptable until one correct criteria is provided.
Migration to groundwater criteria for petroleum is applicable unless it is demonstrated by the Air Force that the groundwater pathway is not a complete pathway at the site. Intrinsic remediation (IR) parameters sampling was not selected since it would be difficult. However, no explanation was provided for this statement which conflicts with the 1997 IR parameters sampling event that took place at the site. Statements that the soil will no require further remediation. Method 3 cleanup levels may be calculated and presented to ADEC and demonstrations that the site soils do not exceed the most stringent exposure pathway (i.e. migration to groundwater). |
Gretchen Pikul |
| 7/31/1998 |
Cleanup Plan Approved |
Final Technical Report for SS15 report. SS15 Investigation Conclusions- The conclusions reached based upon the data evaluated as part of this study are as follows:
• The nature and extent of soil contamination was characterized via eight soil borings and six soil surface soil samples from SS15. In addition, six background samples were taken in an undisturbed area northwest of SS15. Groundwater contamination was characterized from two rounds of sampling data from SS 15 wells WW-01 through WW-06 (installed in 1993) and one round of samples from two downgradient wells, installed in 1997. Aquifer testing was performed to calculate groundwater flow direction, hydraulic gradient, and hydraulic conductivity. Lastly, the six SS15 wells installed during 1993 were resurveyed and structurally improved in 1997.
• For soil at SS 1 criteria for DRO exceeded at seven locations. However, DRO exceedances were limited to shallow soils. The highest DRO concentrations were 5,300 mg/kg at location LB-04 and 5,800 mg/kg at LB-05. The regulatory criteria used in this program for DRO 250 mg/kg.
• Aquifer characteristics measured at SS 15 indicate that the groundwater flow direction is to the west-northwest, roughly following surface topography. The groundwater gradient at SS 15 is approximately 58.7 feet/mile, and the mean hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer is 5.1E-03, reflecting a silty sand aquifer matrix.
Groundwater concentrations of DRO, GRO, and benzene exceeded regulatory criteria at WW-01, WW-02, and WW-04 in 1997. DRO was also detected above regulatory criteria at WW-06 in 1993. The highest 1997 concentrations for DRO, GRO, and benzene were detected at WW-02, with DRO at 400,000 ug/L; GRO at 7,950 ug/L; and benzene at 1,113 ug/L. In addition, the RRO regulatory criteria was exceeded at WW-02 only, at a concentration of 1,380 ug/L. N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine and lead also marginally exceeded regulatory criteria at WW-07 and WW-05, respectively.
Despite these elevated concentrations, groundwater does not pose a risk to human or ecological receptors. As discussed in Sections 1.2.2 and 4.3, no drinking water wells are threatened by the zone of contamination, and the contaminated groundwater does not discharge to a surface water body Downgradient monitoring wells (WW-07 and WW-08) located between the plume and Fowler Creek did not exceed regulatory limit for any compound Furthermore, data suggest that the downgradient edge of the fuel plume at SS15 may be stabilizing, and that the extent should remain localized near the area of the SS15 spill. There is no completed exposure pathway for groundwater at SS15.
Soil: No further action should be required for soils. The proposed strategy for SSl5 will be long-term monitoring of groundwater to evaluate reduction in groundwater contamination. If contaminant levels are not decreasing at an acceptable rate after five rounds of groundwater sampling, additional action for groundwater or soils may be deemed necessary and a revised remedy can be selected at that time Groundwater: As specified above, long-term monitoring and institutional controls is the preferred groundwater cleanup alternative.
A detailed long-term monitoring approach will be included as part of the decision document SS15. This plan will specifically address sample locations, sampling frequency and methodology, analyses to be performed, and application of institutional controls. At this time, it is recommended that long-term monitoring be performed annually at in-source Well WW-02 and downgradient wells WW-07 and WW-08. Figure 6-1 illustrates the locations at SS 15 monitoring wells. Analytical methods employed should characterize those contaminants which exceeded regulatory criteria historically and during 1997. Also, field parameters should be selected which provide groundwater chemistry data and indication of biodegradation occurrence. |
Louis Howard |
| 3/26/1999 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
DEC has some significant concerns with the draft Proposed Plan for SS 13 and SS 15.
General Comments-DEC does not concur with the preferred alternative listed in this proposed plan. There is insufficient information in this document to support the conclusion that human health and environmental risks could not occur. There is significant sediment and soil contamination, which does not appear to be rapidly attenuating since the spill occurred over 19 years ago. The Proposed Plan needs to define the specific cleanup level for each contaminant of concern (COC) and how they will be achieved.
Each alternative evaluated must include the COCs, media of concern, cleanup level, and what specific standard is being used for the cleanup level. The document must include another alternative: hotspot removal with monitored natural attenuation. The risk screening that was done for SS13 and SS15 was not a risk assessment which could be used to determine alternative cleanup levels. Cleanup levels to be used at Cape Romanzof will be Method 2 Tables B1 and B2 for soil and C for groundwater as found in 18 AAC 75.341.
The document does not explain the role of other state or federal agencies that have in interest in natural resources that may be affected, such as U.S. Fish & Wildlife or Alaska Department offish & Game, in selecting the preferred alternative. As the site is adjacent or surrounded by a Natural Wildlife Refuge and has an anadromous stream running through it, these agencies are stakeholders and therefore need to be included in the cleanup decision process.
Insert text beginning with column 2: The paragraph on page 2 explaining the CERCLA process should be moved up to page one, as it outlines the legal framework for this effort. In addition, 18 AAC 75 must be included as part of the legal requirements this site needs to meet. Column 2, 1stparagraph, 2n_sentence: The text should state that the USAF has identified a preferred alternative, however, final selection of the alternative will occur after public comments are received and addressed.
Page 2: Rephrase to indicate that public will be involved in selecting the cleanup alternative for site; it currently states that a cleanup alternative has already been selected. DEC does not agree with the preferred alternative as written, nor should a decision be made before public comments are received and addressed. Please clarify whom at the Environmental Protection Agency has reviewed and concurred with the Proposed Plan.
Regardless of risk, groundwater is a resource which the NCP Groundwater Protection Strategy requires be returned to their beneficial uses wherever practicable, within a timeframe that is reasonable given the particular circumstances of the site, When restoration of groundwater to beneficial uses .is not practicable, EPA expects the prevention of further migration of the plume, prevention of exposure to the contaminated groundwater, and evaluation of further risk reduction (40 CFR 300.430).
The State drinking water, contaminated sites, and water quality regulations (18 AAC 80, 75 and 70 respectively) require protection and restoration of water resources. Additionally, for soils with staining, 18 AAC 75.325(E) requires that a responsible person (the USAF) shall: "evaluate and perform a cleanup of surface soil staining attributable to a hazardous substance.” This requires the USAF to address staining of contaminated soil at the site. |
Louis Howard |
| 8/27/1999 |
Proposed Plan |
After briefing management, the final proposed plan for SS13/SS15 was approved. Based on the remoteness of the site, costs for excavation and site conditions, natural attenuation combined with long-term monitoring was identified as the preferred alternative of the Air Force. Institutional controls will be in place combined with monitoring of groundwater and soil contamination for natural attenuation parameters and contaminant degradation until cleanup levels are met. If cleanup of the contamination is not progressing as planned, then another remedial action may be necessary. Public comment on the Proposed Plan will need to be taken prior to finalizing the document. |
Louis Howard |
| 8/31/1999 |
Update or Other Action |
Language to be added to the Record of Decision (ROD) will need to include monitoring for more than 5 years. If after 5 years of monitoring contamination has not met remedial action objectives, the Air Force and ADEC will look at other remedial alternatives to address the contamination. Funding shortfall delayed project til after 10/2001 since other 611 CES facilities have required more time and money than anticipated. |
Louis Howard |
| 10/12/1999 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Staff commented on the draft quality Program plan for landfill cap sampling and analysis plan. Sampling for natural attenuation parameters for SS13 and SS15 will be determined at a later time and memorialized in a Record of Decision document. A public meeting will need to be held for the nearest town (e.g. Hooper Bay) prior to finalizing the Proposed Plan. Surface water sampling must include SW analyses as specified in 18 AAC 70.
Soil sampling of surface soil must be at least 12 inches in depth and no more than 2 feet in depth. ADEC concurs that IDW derived water may be treated through 2 charcoal canisters prior to discharge into the facility's water treatment facility for this one particular instance. All other approvals must be acquired on a case-by-case basis. No discharge of IDW will occur in an environmentally sensitive area (as defined by 18 AAC 75.990(35)) if it is not discharge into the treatment facility and instead on the ground surface. Also ADEC requested that the discharge be immediately downgradient of any drinking water well. |
Louis Howard |
| 10/29/1999 |
Long Term Monitoring Established |
In October of 1999, additional long term monitoring sampling was performed at this site. All hydrocarbon levels in groundwater were lower in 1999 than in 1997. However, one diesel range organics (DRO) sample exceeded the applicable MCL. WW-02 7.23 mg/L.
Some semi-volative organic compounds were detected but were below MCLs. No gasoline-range organics (GRO), RRO, or benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes (BTEX) were detected in the groundwater wells WW-07 and WW-08 (NOTE WW-02 was not analyzed for GRO, BTEX due to Lab oversight).
Continued long term monitoring of petroleum hydrocarbons was recommended and conduct sampling activities during the summer to assess effects of temperature on remedation rates. Review field parameters and inorganic constituent levels which indicate that conditions are within acceptable ranges to facilitate intrinsic remediation. Continue sampling at surface water areas to monitor potential contaminant migration from upstream or surface runoff. |
Louis Howard |
| 4/10/2000 |
Meeting or Teleconference Held |
Staff went to a public meeting regarding environmental cleanup of the facility hosted by Scammon Bay, Chevak, Hooper Bay and Paimut. Main comments center on impacts from the facility to subsistence food harvested by the community. USFWS, 611 CES staff, and the Association of Village Council Presidents representative, were in attendance as was the Alaska Community Action on Toxics. RAB to be formed from surrounding communities of Paimuit, Scammon Bay, Hooper Bay, Chevak. Community members want to be able to access technical assistance grant monies only available to RABs through DoD for hiring a consultant to review documents for them. |
Louis Howard |
| 4/17/2000 |
Update or Other Action |
Staff commented on proposed action for biocell soils to be used as cover material for active landfill. Coordinated with SW program staff and held a meeting on 4/20 with 611, SW, Division of Governmental Coordination on landfill. 611 declined to put material on landfill and will reuse it as additional cover material on an existing contaminated site which has a liner already installed. |
Louis Howard |
| 8/30/2000 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Staff reviewed and commented on draft groundwater and surface water sampling plan for three sites at the facility. Main comments centered on requiring analyses of surface water samples for surface water quality criteria such as: total aromatic hydrocarbons (TAH) and total aqueous hydrocarbons (TAqH). Additional comments were on requiring the 611 CES practical quantitation limits meet or be lower than those found in the UST procedures manual. Several of the detection limits listed in the 611 CES sampling plan were above soil and groundwater cleanup levels found in 18 AAC 75. |
Louis Howard |
| 9/1/2000 |
Update or Other Action |
Long term monitoring for LF03, SS13, SS15 conducted in September of 2000. Diesel range organics still exceed the MCL despite being reduced from the 1997 sampling (WW0-2). Field parameter data and inorganic data from WW08 and WW07 may be representative of different groundwater systems than WW02. WW08 and WW07 had no detections above MCLs but were higher in concentrations for POL constituents than in previous sampling events. Recommendations: Continue long term monitoring, install monitoring wells between WW07, WW08 and well WW02, collect water quality parameters and hydrocarbon data to characterize groundwater systems in the area. Collect soil boring samples adjacent to wells WW07, WW02, and WW08 to establish soil hydrocarbon levels. |
Louis Howard |
| 10/16/2000 |
Meeting or Teleconference Held |
Staff met with communities of Chevak, Scammon Bay, Hooper Bay, Paimuit in Anchorage. Also present were the 611 CES-Environmental project manager, Community relations staff and the 611 CES Environmental Program Chief, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Alaska Community Action on Toxics, Yukon-Kusko Health staff. Community members called for the meeting to be updated on what has happened at the facility, present and future work. Also they wished to be informed on any possible effects of contamination 15 miles upriver from their seasonal fish camps on the beach below the facility and the contamination present at the facility. |
Louis Howard |
| 11/1/2001 |
CERCLA Proposed Plan |
Staff commented on & approved action at LF03 & SS13/SS15. The Proposed Plan finalizes earlier proposed plans for these 3 sites. Preparation of this Proposed Plan & the associated public comment period are required under Section 117(a) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation & Liability Act (CERCLA, also known as the Superfund Program, as well as under 18 AAC 75 of the Alaska Administrative Code. The USAF’s cleanup program follows CERCLA guidance, although Cape Romanzof LRRS is not a Superfund site. The DoD is delegated authority & responsibility to carry out response actions, including clenaup, for hazardous substance releases on or from DoD facilities under Executive order 12580, Superfund Implementation. At sites under its control, the DoD has the lead agency authority to select remedial actions consistent with CERCLA Section 120.
Alternative #2: Monitored Natural Attenuation is the preferred alternative for SS13 and SS15. This alternative will effectavely reduce risk to human health and the environment utilizing all natural technologies. The elements of the preferred alternative will consist of institutional controls, long-term groundwater monitoring, and natural attenuation.
Additionally, since this alternative will result in hazardous substances remaining onsite above levels that would otherwise. allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure, a five-year review will be necessary to ensure that the remedy continues to provide adequate protection of human health and the environment (Sect. 121 CERCLA). |
Louis Howard |
| 11/28/2001 |
Meeting or Teleconference Held |
Staff traveled to Chevak to meet and participate in the public meeting held for the proposed plan on SS13, SS15, and LF03. Community members wanted to be more involved in the development of the draft document prior to the meeting held for the proposed plan. No objections to removal of the PCBs from LF03 out of state and no objections to monitored natural attenuation of groundwater at SS13 and SS15. |
Louis Howard |
| 5/17/2002 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Staff reviewed and commented on the draft Record of Decision for LF03, SS013, SS015. Main comments were to cut back on the use of tables where possible and only report those levels that are actually above established cleanup levels.
The table shows PCB sample results above 50 ppm (mg/kg) concentration, which requires EPA involvement. In 1997 PCB sample results show 69.1 mg/kg and in 2000 the level was 250 mg/kg (the associated numerical value is an estimated quantity). The Department strongly encourages the 611 CES to inform EPA about the removal of PCB contaminated soil from LF03.
40 CFR 761.61 regulates PCB remediation waste. In most cases, contaminated soil in Alaska is the result of spills or releases from transformers. Soil contaminated with PCBs from spills from such things as transformers may be considered PCB remediation waste and EPA involvement may be required. To determine this the 611 CES needs to look at the definition of PCB remediation waste under The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) of 1976 15 U.S.C. s/s 2601 et seq. (1976).
If soil currently contains > 50 ppm, the source material must have also had a concentration > 50 ppm. So unless the 611 CES has knowledge that the source of contaminated soil was a spill between April 18, 1978 and July 2, 1979, where the source contained < 500 ppm, it appears that the soil is considered a PCB remediation waste regulated under TSCA. Please refer to the summary table below for information on cleanup level and disposal options for the “Self-Implementing Cleanup” option that the 611 CES has chosen to conduct for the PCB contaminated soils at LF03. Please note the soil would also be regulated under 18 AAC 75.
The text states the USEPA guidance for documenting Record of Decisions (RODs) for Interim Remedial Action (IRA) under CERCLA does not establish chemical specific ARARs. Although federal facilities are encouraged to take early action at any facility where risk reduction can be accomplished promptly, the response action chosen must be one that will satisfy CERCLA and its implementing regulations. Early interaction with EPA, the state and the public will help ensure that removal actions are consistent with long-term actions and that cleanup levels will be based on risk assessment and Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) that will be sufficient to be the final action, whenever possible. |
Louis Howard |
| 7/14/2002 |
Cleanup Level(s) Approved |
Signing of Interim Record of Decision set out remedial action objections for cleanup at the site:
SS015 groundwater GRO 1.3 mg/L (7.95 mg/L 1997 WW02), DRO 1.5 mg/L (Max. concentration at WW02 400 mg/L), RRO 1.1 mg/L (WW02 1.38 mg/L), and Benzene 0.005 mg/L (max. concentration oat WW02 1.11 mg/L).
Monitored natural attenuation with institutional controls is the selected remedy for SS13 and SS15. ICs will restrict access to the contaminated media: groundwater, soils and sediments, long-term groundwater monitoring (to confirm the progress of natural attenuation of fuel constituents in soil). |
Jennifer Roberts |
| 7/14/2002 |
CERCLA ROD Approved |
Jennifer Roberts, DoD section manager, signed an interim record of decision (ROD) for LF03, SS015, SS013.
DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED REMEDY
The selected interim remedy for sites SS013 and SS015 addresses the risk to human health and the
environment caused by hypothetical exposure to petroleum products in groundwater, soil, and sediment.
The selected interim remedy includes the following components:
Monitored Natural Attenuation is the selected remedy for soil, sediment, groundwater and surface
water at SS13 and SSI5. This alternative will effectively reduce risk to human health and the environment utilizing all natural technologies. The elements of the selected remedy include implementation of institutional controls restricting access, sampling of soil, sediment, and surface water, and long-term groundwater monitoring. Additionally, since this alternative will result in hazardous substances remaining onsite above levels that would otherwise allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure, a five-year review will be necessary to ensure that the remedy continues to provide adequate protection of human health and the environment (Sect. 121 CERCLA).
Landfill Closure combined with PCB Hotspot Removal is the selected remedy for LF03. The main
elements of the landfill closure portion of the alternative are capping and long-term monitoring of groundwater and any effluent generated by the landfill. Approximately.5 cubic yards of PCB contaminated sediment will be excavated and shipped to an approved PCB disposal facility.
Additionally, since this will result in hazardous substances remaining onsite above levels that would otherwise allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure, a five-year review will be necessary to ensure that the remedy continues to provide adequate protection of human health and the environment (Sect. 121 CERCLA).
Remedial Action Objections for:
SS015 groundwater GRO 1.3 mg/L (7.95 mg/L 1997 WW02), DRO 1.5 mg/L (WW02 400 mg/L), RRO 1.1 mg/L (WW02 1.38 mg/L), and Benzene 0.005 mg/L (WW02 1.11 mg/L).
Monitored natural attenuation with institutional controls is the selected remedy for SS13 and SS15. ICs will restrict access to the contaminated media: groundwater, soils and sediments, long-term groundwater monitoring (to confirm the progress of natural attenuation of fuel constituents in soil).
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
This interim action is protective of human health and the environment in the short term, and is intended to provide adequate protection until a final action ROD is signed. The interim action is cost-effective and complies with all applicable or relevant and appropriate federal and state requirements. Because this remedy will result in hazardous substances remaining on-site above state of Alaska cleanup levels, it will be reviewed by USAF and ADEC at a frequency of not less than once every five years after implementation of the selected remedy to evaluate if the remedy continues to be effective and appropriate. Input from the Tribal Councils of Chevak, Scammon Bay, Paimiut and Hooper Bay, Federal and State trustees, and the Cape Romanzof Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) will be solicited prior to implementing any fundamental changes in the remedy.
First five year review due in July 14, 2007 so begin work on it July 2006, and 2012 (begin work on it 2011). |
Jennifer Roberts |
| 9/24/2003 |
Update or Other Action |
Staff reviewed and commented on the environmental sampling and analysis plan for LF03, SS13, SS15. The text states the PCB cleanup level in soil in 10 mg/kg. The Department does not concur. The cleanup level for total PCBs is 1 mg/kg irregardless of land use or precipitation zone. 18 AAC 75 contaminated sites regulations for PCB soil cleanup states: For unrestricted land use, PCBs in soil shall be cleaned up to one (1) mg/kg or less, unless the Department determines that a different cleanup level is necessary as provided in 18 AAC 75.340(i), as, for example, in a subsistence food gathering area. With the prior approval of the Department, PCBs in soil may be cleaned up to
(A) between 1 and 10 mg/kg if the 611 CES
(i) caps each area containing PCBs in soil at levels between 1 and 10 mg/kg; for purposes of this Note 9, “caps” means covering an area of PCB contaminated soil with an appropriate material to prevent exposure of humans and the environment to PCBs; to be approved, a cap must be designed and constructed of a material acceptable to the Department and of sufficient strength and durability to withstand the use of the surface that is exposed to the environment; within 72 hours after discovery of a breach to the integrity of a cap, the 611 CES or the landowner shall initiate repairs to that breach; and
(ii) provides the Department within 60 days after completing the cleanup, documentation that the 611 CES has recorded a deed notation in the appropriate land records, or on another instrument that is normally examined during a title search, documenting that PCBs remain in the soil, that the contaminated soil has been capped, and that subsequent interest holders may have legal obligations with respect to the cap and the contaminated soil; or (B) an alternative PCB soil cleanup level developed through an approved site-specific risk assessment, conducted according to the Risk Assessment Procedures Manual, adopted by reference at 18 AAC 75.340.
The alternatives listed above are the only options available to the 611 CES for which it may have PCB soil cleanup levels greater than one (1) mg/kg in soil at its facility. Just a reminder, while the 611 CES has obtained comments from the Department, these comments do not mean there are not other regulations that may apply and other entities that need to be coordinated with on the documents.
For example:
•The applicable EPA rule governing disposal and cleanup of PCB contaminated facilities under 40 C.F.R. Part 761.61 (PCB remediation waste) may apply to PCB cleanup at this facility. This would require coordination with EPA Region 10 TSCA program staff. The PCB cleanup levels listed in Table B1 are based on cleanup levels referred to in 40 C.F.R. 761.61 for high occupancy areas with no cap.
•Coordination with EPA Region 10 RCRA staff for RCRA issues,
•State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) on historical sites,
•National Park Service on National Historic Landmarks,
•Alaska Department of Fish & Game for any work involving anadromous streams,
•Alaska Department of Natural Resources for work involving tidelands,
•US Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) on threatened and endangered species which may be present or migrate through the area.
The text states gasoline range organics (GRO), diesel range organics/residual range organics (DRO/RRO and benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, total xylenes (BTEX) will be used for surface water samples at SS13. The Department requests that total aromatic hydrocarbons (TAH) and total aqueous hydrocarbons (TAqH) be included in all surface water sampling at Cape Romanzof since they are the contaminants of concern required under Alaska Water Quality Standards (WQS) 18 AAC 70.020(b) for fresh water uses.
TAH is defined in 18 AAC 70.990(62) as benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylenes commonly know as BTEX. TAqH is defined in Note 8 of the current WQS table as the combination of EPA Method 602 plus xylenes and EPA Method 610. The use of alternative methods requires Departmental approval. Methods 602 and 610 are no longer approved by the Contaminated Sites Lab Approval Program and labs within the state do not perform them.
New EPA analytical methods will be used to define total aromatic hydrocarbons (TAH) and total aqueous hydrocarbons (TAqH). Note 7 in Tables A and B of the Water Quality Standards is used to indicate the approved methods for measurement of Petroleum Hydrocarbons criteria. The approved methods for measuring TAH will be either EPA SW-846 method 8021B (HPLC) or 8260B (GC/MS) to measure monoaromatic hydrocarbons. The approved methods for TAqH will be TAH methods (above) plus polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons by EPA SW-846 method 8310 (HPLC) or 8270C (GC/MS).
For additional information see site file.
|
Louis Howard |
| 5/17/2004 |
Site Characterization Workplan Approved |
Workplan approved for remedial investigation/feasibility study work at LF03 Landfill No. 2, SS13 Diesel Seep Area, SS15 UST Spill Area, ST09 Former Truck Fueling Station, SS14 Former Drum Storage Area and DP11 Towek Mountain Debris Area. The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (the Department) has received the document for review and comment on May 10, 2004. The Department has reviewed the work plan for Landfill No. 2 LF03, Diesel Seep Area SS13, UST Spill Area SS15, Former Fueling Station ST09, Former Drum Storage Area SS14 and Towek Mountain Debris Area DP11. The Department will approve this specific draft version as a final version.
The Department’s review and comment on this work plan is to ensure that the work is done in accordance with State of Alaska environmental conservation laws and regulations. While the Department may comment on other state and federal laws and regulations, our comments on the plan does not relieve the 611 CES employees, contractors, subcontractors, or volunteer staff from the need to comply with other applicable laws and regulations.
For example:
-The applicable Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rule governing disposal and cleanup of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) contaminated facilities under 40 C.F.R. Part 761.61 (PCB remediation waste) may apply to PCB cleanup at this facility. This would require coordination with EPA Region 10 Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) program staff.
-Coordination with EPA Region 10 RCRA staff for Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) issues,
-State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) on historical sites,
-National Park Service on National Historic Landmarks,
-Alaska Department of Natural Resources-Office of Habitat Management: Area III Office for any work involving anadromous streams,
-Alaska Department of Natural Resources-Alaska Coastal Management for work involving tidelands/coastal zone (Northwest Region),
-US Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) on work that would possibly impact threatened and endangered species which may be present or migrate through the area.
NOTE: The purpose of the 2004 IRP effort at Cape Romanzof is to twofold; 1) to perform
environmental monitoring at three sites being managed under the March 2002 Record of
Decision for Interim Remedial/Action for Spill Site SS13, Spill Site SSJS and Landfill Site LF03 (61 1 CES 2002), and 2) to perform an RI/PS at three sites to further characterize contaminant releases and environmental impacts.
Environmental monitoring directed by the 2002 Record of Decision (ROD) includes long-term monitoring (LTM) of groundwater and effluent at the closed landfill LEO3, monitored natural attenuation (MNA) of groundwater, sediment, and soil at SS13, and MNA of groundwater at 51 5. The purpose of the LTM is to assess the effectiveness of the landfill cap in providing adequate protection of human health and the environment. 3 The purpose of the MNA study is- to evaluate natural attenuation rates for identified contaminants of potential concern (COPCs) in impacted media.
RI/FS sites include STO9, SS14, DPI 1, and LFO3. The purpose of the RI/FS is to collect initial environmental data at ST09, SS14, and DP11, and to address identified data gaps at LFO3. Soil, groundwater, surface water and sediment will be sampled at ST09, SS14, and DP11 and analyzed for various chemical constituents. A focused sampling program will be conducted at LF03 for PCBs in soil. |
Louis Howard |
| 11/16/2004 |
Update or Other Action |
File number issued 2526.38.010 |
Aggie Blandford |
| 11/30/2004 |
Update or Other Action |
Final report for Landfill 2 (LF03) SS13, SS15 Long Term Monitoring (LTM) and soil sampling at SS13 and SS15.
Near surface soil samples were collected at locations LB-03, LB-07, and LB-08 in October 2003. LB-03: DRO concentrations greatly exceeded the cleanup level in 1997 (16,800 mg/kg) and were approximately double the cleanup level in 1999 (466 mg/kg). Subsequent sampling results from 2000 and 2003 are below the cleanup level. GRO and RRO have been consistently detected at low concentrations below the ADEC cleanup level.
LB-07: DRO concentrations have exceeded the cleanup level during each sampling event, however results from 2003 are much more elevated than in previous years with 31,000 mg/kg DRO. RRO and GRO have been below the cleanup level in all sampling events. LB-08: DRO concentrations have greatly exceeded the cleanup level during each sampling event. DRO results from 2003 (59,400 mg/kg) are the second highest, after the initial sampling performed in 1997 (110,000 mg/kg). The RRO concentration also exceeded the cleanup level in 2003 (19,400 mg/kg), for the first time since 1997.
SS13 Recommendations: Continue LTM at MW1, MW2 and MW2, including natural attenuation parameters. Specify that DO concentrations be measured insitu or using a flow through cell (i.e., not bailed) to assure that critical DO data is valid. Continue surface water monitoring at SW-01, SW-02 and SW-03 to assess impact of petroleum contaminated soil and sediment on surface water quality.
Continued LTM of sites SS01 and SS06 is still recommended. The information obtained allows for the assessment, in a general way, of the dispersal of contamination at the surface. If monitored over a sufficient time interval, results may indicate a meaningful trend in contamination levels at the surface. Continue soil monitoring at LB-03, LB-07, and LB-08. Consideration should be given to implement a statistically valid sampling program with sufficient samples to determine if monitored natural attenuation is effective. |
Louis Howard |
| 3/28/2005 |
Update or Other Action |
Environmental Monitoring Report dated March 28, 2005 received. GRO, DRO, benzene, and benzo(a)pyrene were detected
above preliminary RAOs in the 2004 groundwater sample obtained from well WW-02 at SS15. GRO was detected at 9.38 mg/L, versus the preliminary RAO of 1.3 mg/L. DRO was detected at
387 mg/L, versus the preliminary RAO of 0.005 mg/L. Benzene was detected at 0.311 mg/L, versus the preliminary RAO of 0.005 mg/L. Benzo(a)pyrene was detected at 0.000434 mg/L,
versus the preliminary RAO of 0.0002 mg/L. No analytes were detected above preliminary RAOs in the 2004 groundwater sample collected from well WW-08 at SS15. Due to dry conditions, no sample was collected from WW-07.
Recommendations • Groundwater, soil, sediment, and surface water monitoring should continue. Additional data will allow continued evaluation of MNA processes at this site.
• A statistical analysis of groundwater concentration trends should be made with the next data set collected at this site. These tests should be nonparametric (e.g., Mann-Kendall).
• All wells should be surveyed, and an accurate water table map should be created using data from this site combined with any information from water elevations at nearby sites.
• One upgradient monitoring point should be installed to measure electron acceptor concentrations in an uncontaminated area. |
Louis Howard |
| 4/18/2005 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Staff commented on the Draft Environmental Monitoring report. Recommendations Page 7-5: ADEC concurs with recommendations and to continue groundwater monitoring at this site. However, for well WW-02 it appears, based on a review of the data, that SVOCs (PAHs) and RRO can be dropped from the analyses for groundwater sampling.
|
Louis Howard |
| 12/21/2005 |
Update or Other Action |
Final report received - Cape Romanzof Contaminant Migration & Subsistence Receptor Study. This report presents the results of the work conducted by the Yukon-Kuskokwim Health Corporation. Native communities surrounding the Cape Romanzof Long-Range Radar Station (CRLRRS) site have voiced concerns about the health of area wildlife & fish that they depend on for subsistence. Fishing for resident & migrant species, including blackfish, whitefish, tomcod, herring, & salmon, occurs in the waters on or adjacent to the beach area & in nearby Kokechik Bay. Bird eggs, plants, & berries also are collected from the area for subsistence use. Underlying the concern for chemical contaminants in subsistence species is the concern that the chemical contaminants are having an adverse effect on the people who consume a subsistence diet or drink the potentially contaminated waters from CRLRRS.
The primary objective of the project was to determine if chemicals are present in fish, mammals, shellfish, & other ecological receptors at CRLRRS at concentrations that may pose unacceptable risk to humans consuming contaminated biota during subsistence activities. Secondary objectives included an evaluation of potential migration of contaminants from CRLRRS into the surrounding environment & potential hazards to ecological receptors. There are approximately fifteen sites at CRLRRS that have been contaminated by past military site operation & maintenance activities. The list of contaminants of concern (COCs), agreed upon by all interested parties (i.e. local villagers & agencies), includes fuel components such as diesel range organics (DRO) & polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), & the heavy metals lead & cadmium.
Sediment, water, animal tissue, & plant tissue samples were collected by local volunteers (trained villagers & a qualified person) & analyzed for COCs. The data were evaluated to test 4 specific hypotheses established to meet project objectives. Testing of these hypotheses included both quantitative & qualitative evaluation of the data. A primary focus of the study was comparison of the presence & concentration of chemicals potentially related to the CRLRRS at different geographic locations, including: 1) areas that are highly unlikely to have been impacted by chemicals from CRLRRS & are many miles away (Reference); 2) areas that are in the vicinity of CRLRRS but unlikely to be impacted (On-Site Reference); & 3) areas directly down gradient or in water bodies receiving drainage from CRLRRS (On Site).
Hypothesis A: COCs originating from the CRLRR Site are not moving via the creeks.
a) This hypothesis is true based on statistical tests comparing sediment & water data at On Site locations with Reference/On-Site Reference locations.
b) With the exception of PCBs in water, for which minimal conclusions can be drawn, the data support the inference that there is little significant difference between the mean concentrations of COCs from On Site samples compared with Reference samples. Lack of a statistically significant difference infers that some of the biota contamination may be resulting from a non-point source such as regional atmospheric deposition.
c) Statistics were not performed on PCBs in water samples due to the low number of detections; however, the detection limit was above the screening level used to protect human health. This means that PCBs in water could be present in concentrations that may be deleterious to human health & overall site risk may be underestimated.
Hypothesis B: COCs from the CRLRR Site are not moving offsite into the surrounding environment.
a) The data support the conclusion that the hypothesis is true for certain COCs, namely PCBs & lead.
b) PCBs have accumulated in biota onsite to a greater extent than offsite. In particular, 26 of the PCB congeners detected in animal tissue were unique to On Site locations. Additionally, the metal analyte lead was detected at a much higher frequency in animal tissues from On Site locations (77%) compared to Reference locations (29%).
c) PAHs & cadmium do not exhibit this pattern & do not support this hypothesis. DRO was not evaluated in animal tissues.
Hypothesis C: COCs known to have been released from CRLRR Site do not occur in species using Kokechik Bay at the same statistical distributions.
a) This hypothesis is supported as true for certain COCs & tissues. Specifically, Total PCBs are higher in bivalves at On Site locations compared to Reference locations; total PAHs, phenanthrene, cadmium, & total metals are higher in herring roe at On Site locations; three of the PCB congeners are higher in tomcod liver at On Site locations; & two of the PCB congeners are higher in tomcod tissue at On Site locations.
For additional information see site file.
|
Louis Howard |
| 7/18/2006 |
Update or Other Action |
Work plan for 2006 Environmental Monitoring at LF03, SS13 and SS15 received. The purpose of this project is to comply with the 2002 Interim Record of Decision (ROD) and assess the effectiveness of actions prescribed therein for these sites. Environmental monitoring directed by the 2002 ROD includes long-term monitoring (LTM) of groundwater and effluent at the closed landfill LF03, monitored natural attenuation (MNA) of sediment and near surface soil at SS13, and MNA of groundwater at SS15.
The purpose of the LTM is to assess the effectiveness of the landfill cap in providing adequate protection of human health and the environment. The purpose of the MNA study is to evaluate natural attenuation rates for identified contaminants of potential
concern (COPCs) in impacted media. Field and sampling activities described in this work plan are intended to meet the data
quality objectives (DQOs) identified for this project, which are largely based on the requirements identified in the 2002 ROD. Environmental sample analytical results obtained from the sampling effort will be compared to remedial action objectives (RAOs).
UST Spill Area (SS15) Collect the following samples: Groundwater samples from three monitoring wells (WW-02, WW-07 and
WW-08). |
Louis Howard |
| 7/21/2006 |
Update or Other Action |
Draft Work Plan 2006 Environmental Monitoring Study LF03, SS13, SS15 Cape Romanzof LRRS reviewed by staff. Staff approved work plan as submitted. |
Louis Howard |
| 5/16/2007 |
Update or Other Action |
Final 2006 Environmental Monitoring Report for Landfill 2 (LF003), Spill Sites: SS013 and SS015 received.
SS015
At Fuel Spill Site SS015, three groundwater-monitoring wells (WW-02, WW-07, and WW-08)
were sampled and analyzed for GRO, DRO, RRO, BTEX, and select MNA parameters. WW-02 had GRO, DRO, and BTEX concentrations above preliminary RAOs in 2006. This is consistent with earlier measurements that also show exceedances for these analytes at this well. No concentration trend over time can be inferred for these analytes.
WW-07 and WW-08 did not have enough water to sample in 2006. These wells have not had historic exceedances of GRO, DRO, and BTEX. One primary line of evidence for natural attenuation in groundwater, a stable to shrinking groundwater plume size, can be demonstrated from the groundwater data collected at this site. Downgradient wells have not historically had petroleum hydrocarbon impacts and the hydrocarbon concentrations at WW-02 appear stable. A secondary line of evidence for naturalattenuation (lower DO, nitrate, and sulfate, and higher iron at the more contaminated wells) cannot be discerned from the groundwater data collected at this site.
Recommendations
In the future, the groundwater monitoring program should be revised to provide data better suited for MNA evaluations and evidence to support declining contaminant concentrations. Wells
WW-07 and WW-08 should be removed from the monitoring program, as there is sufficient data
to indicate that migration of the contaminant is not occurring. Monitoring wells WW-09, WW-
06 (if it still exists), and WW-03 (or other uncontaminated well) should be monitored in
conjunction with WW-02.
RRO should no longer be analyzed because five consecutive sampling events show results below cleanup levels. The groundwater-monitoring program for natural attenuation should include dissolved oxygen, redox potential, nitrate, dissolved manganese and iron, and methane. Once sufficient data is available (minimum four analytical results) a statistical analysis of groundwater concentration trends should be made using Mann- Kendall or other similar statistical method. Finally, all wells should be surveyed, and a water table contour map should be created using data from this site combined with any information from water elevations at nearby sites. |
Louis Howard |
| 5/16/2007 |
Update or Other Action |
Final 2006 Environmental Monitoring Report for Landfill 2 (LF003), Spill Sites: SS013 and SS015 received. The scope of the monitoring program at SS015 Fuel Spill Site is to:
• Sample three groundwater-monitoring wells (WW-02, WW-07, and WW-08). The groundwater samples are to be analyzed for GRO, DRO, RRO, BTEX, and select MNA parameters
SS013
At Seep Area SS013, two sediment samples (SS-01 and SS-02) were collected for DRO analysis
and three near surface soil samples (LB-03, LB-07, and LB-08) were collected for DRO and
RRO analysis. DRO was detected in sediments at both sediment sampling locations in 2006. At SS-01, heavier hydrocarbon analytes have shown a pattern of declining concentration since peaking in 1999. No such pattern can be inferred at SS-06. DRO and RRO levels exceeded preliminary RAOs at all three surface sampling locations in 2006. SS015 WW-02 (GW cleanup level): GRO-1.66 mg/L (1.3 mg/L), DRO-34.3 mg/L (1.5 mg/L), Benzene-0.232 (0.005).
Elevated levels of heavier hydrocarbons have traditionally been observed at this location. These data, considered with historical sediment, soil, and boring log data, suggest that a spill ran over ground and left what is still contaminated material near the surface over a wide area. The spill percolated down to the water table in some areas and left hydrocarbon contamination that has been and still is above RAOs.
In the future, groundwater, soil, sediment, and surface water monitoring should be analyzed for
DRO, BTEX, and PAH. The surface water sampling locations should be moved closer to the
spill zone to better assess impacts from this area. The three monitoring wells should be
surveyed, and a water table contour map created using data obtained from this site combined
with any information obtained from water elevations at nearby sites.
Deviations from work plan: Site SS015 monitoring wells WW-07 and WW-08 could not be sampled in 2006 due to a lack of water in these monitoring wells.
One primary line of evidence for natural attenuation in groundwater, a stable to shrinking
groundwater plume size, can be demonstrated from the groundwater data collected at this site.
Historical data from 1993 and 1997 in the SS015 Technical Report (USAF, 1998a) show that the
petroleum hydrocarbon plume at this site was limited in its downgradient extent by monitoring
well WW-06 (WW-06 is upgradient of wells WW-07 and WW-08). The groundwater monitoring data through 2004 (neither well was sample in 2006) continue to show no evidence of hydrocarbon impacts from the groundwater contamination indicating that the plume is stable (no downgradient migration of contaminants to these well locations).
Groundwater results from WW-02 located near the source of contamination and having the longest record of data do not show any statistically significant concentration trends. DRO and GRO decreased from about 400 and 8 mg/L, respectively, in 1997, to about 3 and 4 mg/L, respectively, in 2000, and then increased back to about 400 and 8 mg/L, respectively, in 2004. In 2006, the DRO and GRO decreased again to 34.3 and 1.66 mg/L, respectively. At best the groundwater results from WW-02 suggest that DRO and GRO concentrations are stable and not increasing.
A secondary line of evidence for natural attenuation based on changes in groundwater
geochemical conditions is difficult to evaluate based on the groundwater data from wells WW-02
and WW-08 (Tables 6-1 and 6-2). It is very difficult to look at these data and conclude that
secondary evidence for biological degradation of petroleum hydrocarbons exists. No clear
pattern of lower DO, nitrate, and sulfate, or higher iron, at the more contaminated well (WW-02)
exists compared to less contaminated well (WW-08). However, historical data from 1997 in the
SS015 Technical Report (USAF, 1998a) shows a correlation between elevated iron
concentrations and high petroleum hydrocarbon concentrations in wells WW-01, WW-02, and
WW-04 (DRO concentrations were 59 mg/L, 400 mg/L, and 9.6 mg/L, respectively) as compared to the low iron and petroleum hydrocarbon concentrations in WW-03, which is located upgradient from the UST release. The dissolved oxygen and redox measurements do not support the iron data, but there is a greater probability that these data are erroneous do to improper measurement methods. |
Louis Howard |
| 2/20/2008 |
Exposure Tracking Model Ranking |
Initial ranking with ETM completed. |
Louis Howard |
| 2/26/2008 |
CERCLA ROD Periodic Review |
Five Year Review received. The purpose of this five-year review is to independently evaluate whether current site conditions & remedial measures are & will continue to be protective of human health & the environment. This five-year review is the first conducted at Cape Romanzof LRRS & covers the sites Landfill No. 2 (LF003), Diesel Seep Area (SS013), & UST Spill Area (SS015). This five-year review has been prepared in accordance with existing United State Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) fiveyear review guidance.
All of the remedial actions specified in the Interim ROD have been implemented at SS015 as summarized below.
- Land use controls have been established that prohibit any digging or excavation within the Site SS015 area.
- Long-term monitoring of GW at SS015 was performed in 1993, 1997, 1999, 2000, 20003, 2004, 2006, & 2007. The GW monitoring results are summarized in Table 5-1 & the polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH).
- GRO, DRO, & benzene are the analytes most commonly detected above their RAOs & are present in monitoring wells WW-01, WW-02, & WW-04. RRO was present above its RAO during the 1997 sampling of WW-02. DRO was present above it RAO in WW-06 at the time of installation in 1993.
- Long-term GW monitoring results indicate that from 1997 through 2007 the only PAH results to exceed their RAOs were benzo(a)pyrene at WW-02 in 1997 & 2004, & naphthalene at WW-02 in 2004.
- A soil boring was used to collect soil samples at SS015 in 2004 during the installation of monitoring well WW-09 adjacent to the former UST excavation. Three soil samples were collected at approximately 5, 7, & 10 feet bgs. The DRO concentrations were all above the RAO & ranged from 740 to 8,010 mg/Kg. The GRO, RRO, BTEX, & PAH results from these soil samples were all below the ADEC Method Two soil cleanup levels.
- Surface water & sediment sampling are not required at SS015 because there is no surface water present.
The SS015 monitoring wells have remained serviceable during each of the long-term monitoring events with the following exceptions. Monitoring well WW-09 was constructed in 2004, but has not been sampled due to lack of water & a damaged surface casing. In 2007 monitoring wells WW-02, WW-04, WW-07, & WW-08 were found either destroyed or in a position/condition not conducive for sampling.
The well monument & surface casing have been cut off at the ground surface for WW-02 & WW-04. Monitoring wells WW-07 & WW-08 appear to have the well screen silted in or the well screen broken as the total depth for both these wells has decreased from approximately 25 feet bgs to less than 10 feet bgs.
Contaminants of concern at SS015 were identified as petroleum hydrocarbons in subsurface soil & GW. An evaluation of monitoring well data collected until 2007 indicate that GW contaminants (GRO & DRO) appear stable over time & that benzene concentrations in WW-01 & WW-02 appear to be declining.
One primary line of evidence for natural attenuation in GW, a stable to shrinking GW plume size, can be demonstrated from the GW data collected at this site. Downgradient wells have not historically had petroleum
hydrocarbon impacts & the hydrocarbon concentrations at WW-01 & WW-02 appear stable.
The SS015 DRO levels in subsurface soil samples have generally been above ADEC soil cleanup levels at WW-01, WW-02, WW-09 & one sample from WW-04. Several surface soil sample locations have also been above ADEC soil cleanup levels for DRO at LB-04, LB-05, & SB-04B (USAF, 1998b).
Overall the monitoring data indicate that the hydrocarbon impacts are primarily limited to the spill site area with no evidence of spreading, & that natural attenuation may be occurring.
There have been no substantial changes to land use, toxicity information, or other factors that would indicate that exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanups levels, & RAOs are not fully protective of human health & the environment. The current ADEC GW cleanup levels for GRO, DRO, RRO, & benzene are the same as those provided in the Interim ROD (USAF, 2002). There have been no substantial changes to the land use factors that were used at the time of remedy selection. Land use represents a low level of occupancy & activity. Land use controls have been established & maintained.
The land use is industrial, ROD provisions have been followed & the probability that unacceptable exposure to site contaminants could occur is negligible.
The remaining contamination at SS015 is petroleum hydrocarbons contained in subsurface soils & GW. The GW is not used for any purpose & its use is not permitted as per land use restrictions. Existing land use controls are effectively preventing exposure to subsurface contaminants. Long-term monitoring data confirms that no unexpected or unacceptable changes in contaminant concentration or distribution will occur. The intent of the SS015 Interim ROD is being met.
|
Louis Howard |
| 3/4/2008 |
CERCLA ROD Periodic Review |
Staff reviewed and commented on the Draft Five Year Review for LF003, SS013, SS015. Sites with surface water and groundwater contamination at any point in time will need to have all groundwater and surface water monitoring points sampled one year prior to the five year review or in the same year to be included in the five year review.
For example, LF003 at well CMW-1 LF03 1996, benzene was detected above 5 ug/L in 1996 sampling event at 17 ug/L. However, it was not sampled in 2007 to be included in the five year review to show that contamination is still below cleanup levels (non-detect for 1997-2006). SS015 Well WW-04 1993 had detections above cleanup levels for either: benzene, total benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, total xylenes (BTEX), gasoline range organics (GRO), and diesel range organics (DRO) in 1993 and 1997. It was never sampled again after that time and was not sampled in 2007, prior to the five year review, for any constituents which had exceedances of groundwater cleanup levels.
The text states the review is limited to only the sites specified that are being remediated under CERCLA authority. ADEC will require periodic reviews to evaluate whether current site conditions and remedial measures are and will continue to be protective of human health and the environment for those sites not remediated under CERCLA authority, i.e. State authority. ADEC considers these periodic reviews required by 18 AAC 75.380. Final reporting requirements and site closure. “(J) other information requested by the department, as the department determines necessary to ensure protection of human health, safety, or welfare, or of the environment.
The text states: “The land use still represents a relatively low level of occupancy and activity, but no land use controls have been established. Therefore the potential for completed exposure pathways still exist at the present time.” This is in direct conflict with statements at: 2.5 Installation Land Use Control and Remedy Implementation,
3.4.2 Remedy Implementation on Page 3-7 and 3.10 Protectiveness Statement on Page 3-15. If land use controls (LUCs) are not in place, then they will need to be established for the entire acreage covered by LF003 as well as the area where off-site migration of PCB contamination is present downgradient of the site. ADEC requests the text throughout the document be corrected to reflect current (if any) land use controls for LF003. The text states if the items discussed are not completed before 2013, five years from the date of this review, the next five-year review will be performed as required. ADEC disagrees.
Typically, a statutory review is triggered by the initiation of the first remedial action that leaves hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants on site at levels that do not allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure. In cases where there are multiple remedial actions, the earliest remedial action that leaves such substances on site (at any source area on Cape Romanzof LRRS not just LF003) should trigger the initial review, even if it is an interim remedial action.
5.10 Protectiveness Statement(s)
ADEC concurs the remedy at SS015 is expected to be protective of human health and the environment when completed, and in the interim, exposure pathways that could result in unacceptable risks are being controlled. |
Louis Howard |
| 3/25/2008 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Staff reviewed and commented on the Draft Environmental Monitoring Report SS013, SS015, and LF003.
7.2.2 SS015 Recommendations Pages 7-3 and 7-4
The text states monitoring wells WW-02 and WW-04 are damaged and no longer functional. ADEC requests clarification on how the monitoring wells became damaged and how the Air Force will prevent damage to the other wells in the future. Additionally, ADEC will require the Air Force to replace monitoring well WW-02 since this well was the one with the highest historical groundwater contamination and located near the source of contamination. Future monitoring well installation shall have adequate protective measures to prevent damage in the future. ADEC has new guidance out “Monitoring Well Design and Construction for Investigation of Contaminated Sites” effective February 2008. The updated guidance can be found at http://www.dec.state.ak.us/spar/guidance.htm#csp .
The Well Protection chapter states: “For a well completed below the ground surface, install a lockable vault or equivalent around the well. Install a protective cover, level with the ground surface, with a waterproof seal to prevent the inflow of surface water. Design the cover to withstand the maximum expected loadings.
Install guard posts for monitoring wells completed above the ground to protect the wells from damage. Guard posts should consist of three metal posts at least three inches in diameter set in concrete. Install the posts in a triangular array around the casing, and at least two feet from it. Extend the posts at least three feet above and below the ground surface. Paint the above ground portion with a bright colored paint. Other surface protection methods may be used if they meet the intent of protecting the above ground portion of a monitoring well.”
General information: Posts are typically filled with concrete and set in post holes which are backfilled with concrete. When posts are used in conjunction with concrete pads, the posts should be located OUTSIDE of the pad. Posts inside of a pad (especially near a corner or edge) may cause the pad to crack, either by normal stress relief or if severely struck as by a vehicle.
ADEC concurs with the recommendation to decommission wells WW-02, WW-04, WW-07, WW-08, and WW-09. ADEC requests the wells be decommissioned in accordance with the February 2008 Monitoring Well Design and Construction guidance. |
Louis Howard |
| 2/27/2009 |
Update or Other Action |
Final Long-term monitoring report for SS013, SS015 and ST009 received and approved.
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLATION: The scheduled replacement of in-source monitoring well was not successfully completed due to the high concentration of glacially deposited boulders at depth. Thirteen attempts were made using a Geoprobe® 6610D direct-push drill rig in the replacement of WW-02 at SSO15. The current groundwater depth was 46.75 feet (ft) below ground surface (bgs); measured from ground surface from WW-02 (damaged) on September 02, 2008. The sixth boring attempt produced a boring depth of 45 feet bgs which resulted in an abrupt refusal. This boring refusal depth correlates with a boulder rich layer from 46-57 feet bgs noted on a 1957 Woodward-Clyde Consultants boring log titled "Log and Well Construction Data, Well No. 1, Lower Camp Area"; which has been included in Appendix D.
WW-02 Unable to remove casing; casing sheer at 5 feet bgs.
WW-04 Unable to remove casing; casing sheer at 4 feet bgs
WW-07 ~1 0 feet of casing removed; casing broke off at casing threads
WW-08 ~6.5 feet of casing removed; casing broke off at casing threads
WW-09 ~15 feet: total casing length to bottom Removed all well material from location
DEVIATIONS FROM THE WORK PLAN
Replacement Monitoring Well WW-02R: The scheduled replacement of in-source monitoring3
well WW-02R was not successfully completed due to the high concentration of glacially
deposited boulders at depth. Section 2.1 explains field related changes in detail.
Monitoring wells WW-05 and WW-06 were sampled for GRO, DRO, RRO, BTEX, and MNA parameters in 2008. Table 4-1 details the analytical results for these samples. GRO was detected below the RAO in monitoring well WW-05 (0.048 mg/L). DRO was detected below the RAO in both monitoring wells WW-05 (0.61 mg/L) and WW-06 (1.3 mg/L). RRO was detected below the RAO in monitoring well WW-06 (0.2 mg/L). No BTEX constituents were detected in monitoring well WW-06, and benzene, ethylbenzene, and total xylenes were detected below RAOs in monitoring well WW-05.
Only four rounds of sampling have been conducted at SS015 monitoring wells WW-05
and WW-06 in 1993, 1997, 2007 and 2008. This dataset is not conducive to quantitative
statistical analysis.
Recommendations:
Groundwater monitoring data indicates downgradient monitoring wells WW-05 and WW-06 continue to bound the SS015 plume. Qualitatively, COPCs appear to be stable along the downgradient edge. BTFX, GRO, and DRO in monitoring well WW-05 are below RAOs and DRO is similar to past detections. DRO and RRO in monitoring well WW-06 are below RAOs and similar to past detections. Petroleum contamination remains in groundwater at SSOIS, but does not appear to be migrating into the downgradient monitoring wells.
It is recommended that LTM be continued at SS015 until decreasing trends can be supported by statistical analysis. Monitoring of COPCs and MNA parameters at wells WW-05 and WW-06 will ensure that plume migration and lines of evidence for intrinsic remediation are measured. RRO has been detected below the RAO at monitoring wells WW-05 and WW-06 in two consecutive monitoring events, and should be evaluated for removal from LTM requirements after the next LTM event. RRO was recommended for removal from the LTM requirements in the 2007 LTM Report for SS015. |
Louis Howard |
| 11/6/2009 |
Update or Other Action |
Note: If you are looking for information about this site prior to 2004, check file number 2526.38.000, marked Cape Romanzof General Information/Correspondence. This file contains documents that may pertain to all of the Cape Romanof sites before they were established as individual sites. |
Natalie Loescher |
| 1/12/2010 |
Update or Other Action |
Draft Proposed Plan for Diesel Seep Area (SS013) and UST Spill Area (SS015) received. The final remedies proposed for SS013 and SS015 are consistent with interim remedies implemented in a 2002 Interim Record of Decision (ROD) and recommendations from the 2008 Five-Year Review of the interim remedies.
Current Site Conditions: Based on the 2003 through 2008 monitoring results, benzene, GRO, and DRO remain in groundwater at concentrations above the ADEC Table C cleanup levels protective of drinking water. There are insufficient data for trend analysis at any of the monitoring wells. However, the longterm monitoring data suggests a stable groundwater plume. BTEX concentrations in the source area (WW-02) appear to have declined.
Proposed Remedy-Under CERCLA, no further action is proposed at the UST Spill Area (SS015), because there are no CERCLA hazardous substances identified as contaminants of concern at the site.
Under Alaska’s contaminated site regulations-MNA/ICs are proposed for Site SS015 to address residual petroleum in groundwater above the ADEC Method Two cleanup levels. Interim reports will be prepared no less often than once every five years to ensure that MNA/ICs are still protective of human health and the environment. ICs will remain as required by 18 AAC 75.375.
Monitoring of one source area monitoring well (WW-01) and two downgradient monitoring wells (WW-05 and WW-06) is proposed no less often than once every five years. Groundwater samples will be analyzed for DRO, GRO, and BTEX. Monitoring will continue until cleanup levels are reached and cumulative risk is below Alaska threshold levels or until the groundwater plume is steady state or shrinking, contaminant concentrations are decreasing, and concentrations meet applicable cleanup levels at an approved alternative point of compliance.
At SS013 and SS015, the presence of soil impact above levels allowing unrestricted use will be documented. Any excavation within these areas must include procedures to screen any excavated soils and provide for soil remediation contingency scenarios. Any contaminated groundwater that is encountered (i.e. dewatering for construction within an area of groundwater contamination would need to include proper treatment/disposal) will be managed properly.
At SS015, the installation of water supply wells will be prohibited within the site boundaries as long as the aquifer fails ADEC Table C cleanup levels protective of drinking water.
USAF proposes to implement the ICs by taking the following actions.
Delineate the boundaries of soil with DRO or RRO above Method Two cleanup levels at Sites SS013 and SS015 and the boundaries of groundwater with DRO, GRO, or benzene above ADEC Table C cleanup levels at site SS015 to obtain a property description suitable for recording purposes.
Use USAF’s dig permit and construction review system or similar system developed by the Base Operation Support (BOS) contractor to restrict incompatible activities from Sites SS013
and SS015.
Document the ICs in USAF’s Real Property records and in the Record of Decision for SS013 and SS015 (which will be available in the Administrative Record). The Real Property records will
contain a map indicating IC locations.
Appropriate notice will be filed with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Notify ADEC prior to making any major changes to the ICs. The 611th Civil Engineer Squadron/Civil Engineer (CES/CE) is the point of contact for the ICs. |
Louis Howard |
| 12/2/2010 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Staff reviewed & commented on the Draft ROD for SS013 & SS015. 1.1 Site Name & Location Page 1-1
The text states that a CERCLIS ID Number is not applicable. The CERCLIS ID Number for Cape Romanzof Long Range Radar Site (LRRS) is AK9572728633. ADEC requests the Air Force refer to the CERCLIS # on page 4 from the EPA Request for Submission of Preliminary Assessments letter to Patrick M. Coullahan Commander dated 19 Oct 1991. ADEC also requests the Air Force include the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) Contaminated Sites Hazard IDs: 1335 (SS013) & 1329 (SS015).
ADEC requests the Air Force include the following text either in this section before discussion of sites SS013 & SS015 or in section 1.2:
“Pursuant to the Defense Environmental Restoration Program (DERP), 10 United States Code (U.S.C.) 2701, & Executive Order 12580 (signed January 23, 1987), the USAF is responding to historical releases that occurred at its facilities, including Cape Romanzof LRRS.”
1.2 Statement of Basis & Purpose Pages 1-1 & 1-2
ADEC requests the Air Force change the text to:
“The AF is managing remediation of contamination at SS013 & SS015 in accordance with CERCLA as required by the Defense Environmental Restoration Program (DERP) & state law.
As the lead agency for remedial activities at SS013 & SS015, the AF has selected the remedy under CERCLA. The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) agrees that the remedy selected under CERCLA complies with state law. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been given the opportunity to review this document & has chosen to defer to the ADEC for regulatory oversight of the Environmental Restoration Program at Cape Romanzof LRRS.
DEC is the lead regulatory agency with respect to the petroleum contamination. DEC agrees that the remedies selected for petroleum comply with state law.”
1.3.2 Assessment Under Alaska State Regulations Page 1-2
ADEC requests the Air Force change the text to read: “Because petroleum substances are hazardous substances under State of Alaska laws & regulations, the two subject sites are being addressed under those applicable laws & regulations, including but not limited to Title 46 of the Alaska Statutes & regulations promulgated thereunder.”
1.4.2 Remedies Selected Under State of Alaska Regulations Page 1-3
ADEC requests the Air Force change the text as to read:
• Obtain ADEC approval prior to making any major changes to the ICs. The 611th Civil Engineer Squadron/Civil Engineer (CES/CE) is the point of contact for the ICs.
• Provide notice to ADEC, consistent with CERCLA Section 120(h), at least six months prior to any transfer or sale of SS013 or SS015.
ADEC requests the Air Force add a section before section 1.5 Statutory Determinations regarding property transfer as follows:
1.4.3 Property Transfer
The USAF will provide notice to ADEC, consistent with CERCLA Section 120(h), at least six (6) months prior to any transfer or sale of USAF property associated with Cape Romanzof LRRS, including transfers to private, state or local entities, so that ADEC can be involved in discussions to ensure that appropriate provisions are included in the transfer terms or conveyance documents to maintain effective land use controls. If it is not possible for the USAF to notify ADEC at least six (6) months prior to any transfer or sale, then the USAF will notify ADEC as soon as possible but no later than sixty (60) days prior to the transfer or sale of any property subject to land use controls.
In addition to the land transfer notice & discussion provisions above, the USAF further agrees to provide ADEC with similar notice, within the same time frames, as for federal to-federal transfer of property accountability & administrative control to ADEC. Review & comment opportunities afforded to ADEC as to federal-to-federal transfers shall be in accordance with all applicable federal laws. All notice & comment provisions above shall also apply to leases, in addition to land transfers or sales.
2.10.2.2 UST Spill Area (SS015) Page 2-28
Alternative #2 (MNA and ICs)
ADEC requests the Air Force change the text to state: “Groundwater monitoring would be performed periodically to provide sufficient information to indicate that natural attenuation is degrading the COCs in groundwater in accordance with the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) Directive 9200.4-17P for the use of MNA. ICs would be used to restrict human or wildlife exposure to contaminants and will include one or more of the following: deed restrictions, restrictions on groundwater well installations, site access restrictions, and fencing.”
Alternative #3 (MNA and ICs with Hot Spot Removal)
ADEC requests the Air Force relocate the text into Section 2.10.2.3 for a comparative analysis of alternatives instead of in the Description of Alternatives section. |
Louis Howard |
| 2/23/2011 |
CERCLA ROD Approved |
John Halverson (ADEC) and Robyn M. Burk, Colonel USAF, Commander, 611th Air Support Group signed the Record of Decision for Diesel Seep Area (SS013) and UST Spill Area (SS015). This action documents the United States Air Force approval of the remedies selected in this Record of Decision for Diesel Seep Area (SS013) and UST Spill Area (SS015) at Cape Romanzof LRRS, Alaska. The State of Alaska agrees that, when properly implemented, the selected remedies comply with state law.
The decision may be reviewed and modified in the future if new information becomes available that indicates the presence of contaminants or exposures that may cause unacceptable risk to human health or the environment. If additional contaminants are discovered, USAF and ADEC will determine the compliance levels for soil and groundwater cleanup actions.
Petroleum has been detected at the sites above cleanup levels protective of unrestricted land use established in Alaska regulations. Land use restrictions are required as part of this response action and will be achieved through imposition of ICs that limit the use and/or exposure to those areas of the property, including water resources, that are contaminated.
At SS013 and SS015, the presence of petroleum in soil impacted above levels allowing
unrestricted use will be documented in USAF’s Real Property records. Any excavation
within these areas must include procedures to evaluate excavated soils and provide for soil
remediation contingency scenarios. Any contaminated groundwater that is encountered (i.e.
dewatering for construction within an area of groundwater contamination) will be managed
properly.
At Site SS015, groundwater DRO and benzene concentrations are above groundwater cleanup levels. The RAOs for Site SS015 are to:
• Clean up contaminated groundwater to the ADEC Table C cleanup levels (Table 2-8);
and
• Restrict access to contaminated groundwater until it is cleaned up.
These RAOs were developed based on the currently and reasonably anticipated future land use of
commercial/industrial and potential future groundwater use as a drinking water source as described in Section 2.6 of the ROD.
At SS013, future land use within the IC area as shown in Figure 3 will be restricted to
commercial/industrial land use.
USAF will implement the ICs by taking the following actions.
Use USAF’s dig permit and construction review system or similar system developed by the Base Operation Support (BOS) contractor to restrict incompatible activities from Sites SS013 and SS015.
Document the ICs in USAF’s Real Property records. The Real Property records will contain a map indicating IC locations. Appropriate notice will be filed with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Obtain ADEC approval prior to making any major changes to the ICs. The 611th Civil Engineer Squadron/Civil Engineer (CES/CE) is the point of contact for the ICs.
Provide notice to ADEC, consistent with CERCLA Section 120(h), at least six months prior to any transfer or sale of SS013 or SS015.
The major components of the MNA portion of the SS015 remedy are presented below.
One source area monitoring well (WW-01) and two downgradient monitoring wells (WW-05 and WW-06) will be monitored no less often than once every five years. Groundwater samples will be analyzed for DRO, GRO, and benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes (BTEX).
Monitoring will continue until 18 AAC 75.350 Table C groundwater cleanup levels are reached and cumulative risk is below Alaska threshold levels, or until the groundwater plume is steady state or shrinking, contaminant concentrations are decreasing, and concentrations meet applicable cleanup levels at an approved alternative point of compliance.
Interim reports will be prepared no less often than once every five years for both sites to ensure that the remedies are still protective of human health and the environment. ICs will remain as required by 18 AAC 75.375. |
John Halverson |
| 2/23/2011 |
Cleanup Complete Determination Issued |
John Halverson (ADEC) and Robyn M. Burk, Colonel USAF, Commander, 611th Air Support Group signed the Record of Decision for Diesel Seep Area (SS013) and UST Spill Area (SS015). This action documents the United States Air Force approval of the remedies selected in this Record of Decision for Diesel Seep Area (SS013) and UST Spill Area (SS015) at Cape Romanzof LRRS, Alaska. The State of Alaska agrees that, when properly implemented, the selected remedies comply with state law. The decision may be reviewed and modified in the future if new information becomes available that indicates the presence of contaminants or exposures that may cause unacceptable risk to human health or the environment. If additional contaminants are discovered, USAF and ADEC will determine the compliance levels for soil and groundwater cleanup actions. Petroleum has been detected at the sites above cleanup levels protective of unrestricted land use established in Alaska regulations. Land use restrictions are required as part of this response action and will be achieved through imposition of ICs that limit the use and/or exposure to those areas of the property, including water resources, that are contaminated. At SS013 and SS015, the presence of petroleum in soil impacted above levels allowing unrestricted use will be documented in USAF’s Real Property records. Any excavation within these areas must include procedures to evaluate excavated soils and provide for soil remediation contingency scenarios. Any contaminated groundwater that is encountered (i.e. dewatering for construction within an area of groundwater contamination) will be managed properly. At Site SS015, groundwater DRO and benzene concentrations are above groundwater cleanup levels. |
John Halverson |
| 2/24/2011 |
Institutional Control Record Established |
Institutional Controls established and entered into the database.
Interim reports will be prepared no less often than once every five years for both sites to ensure that the remedies are still protective of human health and the environment. ICs will remain as required by 18 AAC 75.375. ICs will be enforced by the following actions:
The AF will conduct inspections concurrent with natural attenuation monitoring. The inspections will consist of an administrative evaluation of the ICs at the Cape Romanzof
LRRS, a visual inspection of each site, and a review of dig permit approval records. These inspections shall be documented on a site inspection checklist.
A report on the status of ICs will be submitted to ADEC with IC monitoring results no less often than once every five years. The report shall include (1) the inspection checklists completed during the reporting period, (2) a statement as to whether all ICs defined herein are being adhered to; and (3) a description of any deficiencies in the ICs and what efforts or corrective measures have been or will be taken to correct these deficiencies. The report will be filed in the Cape Romanzof LRRS Information Repository.
The AF shall provide notice to ADEC as soon as practicable after discovery of any activity that is inconsistent with the IC requirements, objectives or controls, or any action that may interfere with the effectiveness of the ICs. The AF shall include in such notice a list of corrective actions taken or planned to address such deficiency or failure.
If the AF requires a substantial IC modification or termination of the ICs inconsistent with this ROD, the AF and ADEC will issue an addendum to this ROD.
It is important to note that the remedy may change somewhat as a result of the remedial design
and implementation process. Changes to the remedy as described in this ROD, if they occur,
will be documented as follows: 1) Documenting Non-Significant (or Minor) Post-ROD changes:
Memo to the Site File; 2) Documenting Significant Post-ROD changes: Explanation of
Significant Differences (ESD), or 3) Documenting Fundamental Post-ROD changes: ROD
amendment.
Property Transfer
The USAF will provide notice to ADEC, consistent with CERCLA Section 120(h), at least six (6) months prior to any transfer or sale of USAF property associated with Cape Romanzof LRRS, including transfers to private, state or local entities, so that ADEC can be involved in discussions to ensure that appropriate provisions are included in the transfer items or conveyance documents to maintain effective land use controls. If it is not possible for the USAF to notify ADEC at least six (6) months prior to any transfer or sale, then the USAF will notify ADEC as soon as possible but no later than sixty (60) days prior to the transfer or sale of any property subject to land use controls. |
Louis Howard |
| 6/27/2012 |
Update or Other Action |
Work Plan for LTM of SS015 and ST009 received. LTM activities to be conducted at SS015 involve the collection of three groundwater samples from established monitoring locations, as illustrated on Figure 4-1. Groundwater samples will be collected from monitoring wells WW-01, WW-05 and WW-06. Samples will be analyzed for GRO by Alaska Method 101 (AK101), DRO by AK102, and benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylenes (BTEX) by EPA Method SW8260B. Additional MNA parameters that will be analyzed in the laboratory include alkalinity by EPA Method 310.1, dissolved iron by EPA Method SW6010B, sulfate by EPA Method 300.0, and nitrate/nitrite by EPA Method 353.2.
Field parameters that will be collected for groundwater will include temperature, pH, conductivity, dissolved oxygen, oxidation reduction potential, and turbidity. Samples will be collected using disposable sampling equipment, and following low-flow procedures outlined in the FSP.
DQO: Monitor concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbon contamination and assess trends in
concentrations through time. Data to be collected: Three groundwater samples at established
monitoring locations WW-01, WW-05, and WW-06. Analysis of Concern: Groundwater-GRO, DRO, and BTEX. Data Use: Data will be used to identify current contaminant concentrations in groundwater, and evaluate concentration trends in groundwater through time using historical analytical results from established monitoring locations.
Decision criteria: Groundwater: 18 AAC 75 Oil and Other Hazardous Substances Pollution Control. |
Louis Howard |
| 4/19/2013 |
Update or Other Action |
2nd Five-Year review received for review and comment.
Monitoring Well WW-03 at SS015 has a broken lock and cap that need repair and protective casing, and Monitoring Well WW-01 on the south end of SS015 is currently unmarked.
Recommendation: Replace the lock and cap at WW-3 and mark WW-01. Continue ongoing monitoring and schedule the third Five-Year Review.
On 20 August 2012, Jacobs conducted a Periodic Review site inspection at SS015. Based on
observations during the inspection, ICs to limit off-site transport, control exposure, and protect human health and the environment appear to be effective. No evidence of excavations
or disturbed soil was identified during the inspection.
This is the second Periodic Review for this site. The first Periodic Review (USAF 2008b) of
the interim remedy concluded that the remedy is functioning as intended. Based on the 2003
through 2008 groundwater monitoring results, benzene, GRO, and DRO remain in the groundwater at concentrations above the ADEC Table C cleanup levels protective of drinking water. The Final DD for SS015 was issued in 2011.
This is the second Five-Year Review for LF003, the second Periodic Review for SS013, and
SS015, and the first Periodic Review for ST009, SS014, and DP011. Since the first Five-Year Review (USAF 2008b) for LF003, a Final ROD has been completed and signed in March 2013. Since the first Periodic Review for SS013, and SS015, a Proposed Plan Final Remedial Actions for ERP Sites SS013 and SS015 (USAF 2010a) and a Record of Decision for Diesel Seep Area (SS013) and UST Spill Area (SS015) (USAF 2011) have been issued.
The conditions reported in this review will serve as the baseline for the next review, which is
scheduled to be finalized in 2018. |
Louis Howard |
| 4/23/2013 |
Update or Other Action |
Staff received the draft Environmental LTM for SS015 and ST009 for review and comment.
Site ST009 - Former Truck Fueling Station
Annual monitoring through photo documentation has been completed at ST005 for the 2012
calendar year. Additionally, two groundwater samples were collected from MW-4 and MW-7, and analyzed to determine GRO, DRO, and BTEX concentrations, as well as MNA parameters for ferrous iron and alkalinity. There was a third groundwater sample planned for collection at ST009 monitoring well MW-9, which was not collected due to the monitoring well being dry.
There was also one surface water sample collected and analyzed to determine BTEX and PAH
concentrations, as well as MNA parameters for ferrous iron and alkalinity. As part of the
required LTM for this site, LTM will continue to occur at ST009 until deemed no longer
necessary by the USAF and ADEC.
In accordance with the ST009 ROD, groundwater modeling through a single well statistical
analysis was performed using historic and current groundwater analytical results to determine the current status of the contaminant plume in ST009 groundwater. The modeling results from the
statistical analysis performed for six years of historic and recent groundwater sampling events at ST009 show decreasing trends in MW-4 and MW-7, indicating a retreating contaminant plume,
and combined with the MNA results described in Section 3.5, the suggestion that natural
attenuation over time is successfully decreasing the levels of DRO in ST009 groundwater.
MW-9 is the sentinel well in the MNA network. There was a third groundwater sample planned
for collection at MW-9, which was not collected due to the monitoring well being dry. It is
recommended that this well continue to be sampled for the presence of groundwater. If at the
time of the next Five Year Review, MW-9 continues to be dry, the recommendation to
appropriately abandon the well should be made (ADEC 2009; ASTM 2005).
Site SS015 - UST Spill Area
Annual monitoring through photo documentation has been completed at SS015 for the 2012
calendar year. Additionally, there were three groundwater samples planned for collection at
SS015, from WW-01, WW-05, and WW-06, which were not collected due to the monitoring
wells being dry. This determination was made using a calibrated oil-water interface meter, as
well as a disposable bailer. Groundwater samples were to be analyzed to determine GRO, DRO,
and BTEX concentrations.
As part of the required LTM for this site, LTM will continue to occur at SS015 until deemed no longer necessary by the USAF and ADEC. It is recommended that wells WW-01, WW-05, and WW-06, be re-drilled with top of screen elevations set at 15 feet below current depth, and the existing wells abandoned in accordance with ADEC Monitoring Well Guidance (ADEC 2009; ASTM 2005), so that a functional MNA network exists to complete the MNA and ICs required. |
Louis Howard |
| 5/20/2013 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Staff provided comments on the 2nd Five Yr. Review. It documents the U.S. Air Force acceptance of the Second Comprehensive Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) Five-Year Review of Site LF003, the Second Non-CERCLA Periodic Review of Sites SS013 and SS015, and the first non- CERCLA Periodic Review of Sites ST009, SS014, and DP011 at the Cape Romanzof Long-Range Radar Site, Cape Romanzof, Alaska.
10.3 SS015 Diesel Seep Area
Page 10-6
Question A: Is the remedy functioning as intended by the Decision Document?
Remedial Actions: “The results of the August 2012 site inspection and review of the documents, ARARs, and risk assumptions indicate that the remedy is functioning as intended…”
The question should be answered Yes or No.
Restate as follows:
Answer: Yes
Remedial Action Performance: “The results of the August 2012 site inspection and review of the documents, ARARs, and risk assumptions indicate that the remedy is functioning as intended…”
Page 10-8
Question B: Are the exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels, and RAOs used at the time of the remedy selection still valid?
Changes in Standards to be Considered: “The exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels, and RAO used at the time of the remedy selection…”
The question should be answered Yes or No.
Restate text as follows:
Answer: Yes
Changes in Standards and To Be Considered: “The exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels, and RAO used at the time of the remedy selection…”
Page 10-9
Question C: Has any other information come to light that could call into question the protectiveness of the remedy?
No new information is available that would question the protectiveness of the remedy at SS015.
Please restate as follows:
Question C: Has any other information come to light that could call into question the protectiveness of the remedy?
Answer: No
|
Louis Howard |
| 6/2/2014 |
Update or Other Action |
Draft work plan received for review and comment.
Groundwater samples will be collected from three wells (WW-01, 05, and 06) and submitted for analysis of DRO, GRO, BTEX, alkalinity, dissolved iron, sulfate, and nitrate/nitrite. |
Louis Howard |
| 1/12/2015 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Staff provided comments on the draft LTM report for ST009, SS015 and SS010.
3.6.2 Site SS015 Groundwater Sampling
Well WW-01 was found to be heavily damaged and most of the well stickup was sheared off. PVC is cracked and shattered down to ~3 ft. bgs. ADEC will require that the Air Force either repair or replace the well if it cannot be repaired with a flush mount well or such that it cannot be damaged by workers with snow plows. If it cannot be repaired, then it must be properly decommissioned and abandoned.
Landfill Visual Inspection Checklist
ADEC concurs that more signage would be good at ST009 because the current location of the one sign is not visible from shoreline.
Landfill Visual Inspection Checklist
Evidence of debris breaking through the surface at LF003 does not meet the substantive requirements of 18 AAC 60.390 which requires final cover of 24 inches thick or another thickness approved by ADEC. ADEC requests the Air Force place additional fill material at LF003 to adequately cover the debris breaking through the surface. |
Louis Howard |
| 3/18/2015 |
Institutional Control Update |
One of several sites with Land Use Controls in effect (LUC Mgt Plan 2015 Pacific Air Forces Regional Support Center Installations, JBER, AK) March 13, 2015.
In addition to ICs established as part of LUCs of the ERP for landfill sites with LUCs in effect, both ERP landfill and non-ERP landfill sites in Alaska under the management of PRSC must also comply with regulations set forth by the ADEC solid waste regulations in 18 AAC 60. Furthermore, landfill sites under the management of PRSC but not categorized as an ERP site must also comply with ADEC 18 AAC 60. Table 1-3 describes PRSC non-ERP landfill sites.
Landfills are defined in 18 AAC 60 as “an area of land, or an excavation in which solid wastes are placed for permanent disposal, and that is not an application site, injection well, reserve pit, or waste pile.” This definition applies to most PRSC ERP and non-ERP sites in Alaska designated as landfills, dumps, or caches. Small PRSC ERP and non-ERP landfill sites at remote installations, such as the long-range radar stations, are regulated as Class III landfills as defined by ADEC.
General requirements to manage landfills in place are established by ADEC and included in Table 2-2. However, alternative criteria can and often are adopted through negotiation with ADEC (see 18 AAC 60.900, Waivers). Post-closure notification requirements for Class III landfills, including notifications to ADEC and to potential future landowners, are summarized in Table 2-3. Tables 2-2 and 2-3 both generally assume the subject landfill is closed, has been reasonably well characterized, and a monitoring program for media of concern has been established and approved by ADEC.
Cape Romanzof LRRS Dump Area, Upper Camp DP011
Cape Romanzof LRRS Landfill No. 2 LF003
Cape Romanzof LRRS Weather Station Well Spill Site 4 SS010
Cape Romanzof LRRS Seep Area/Spill Site 5 SS013
Cape Romanzof LRRS Drum Storage Area SS014
Cape Romanzof LRRS Old UST Site/Leaking USTs, Lower Camp SS015
Cape Romanzof LRRS Upper Tram Terminal Area SS016
Cape Romanzof LRRS Lower Tram Terminal Area SS017
Cape Romanzof LRRS Spill Site 3/POL Fill Stand ST009
LUC_RESTRICTION • At SS015, the presence of petroleum in soil impacted above levels allowing
unrestricted use will be documented in USAF’s Real Property records. Any excavation within these areas must include procedures to evaluate excavated soils and provide for soil remediation contingency scenarios. Any contaminated groundwater that is encountered (i.e. dewatering for construction within an area of groundwater contamination) will be managed properly.
• At SS015, the installation of water supply wells will be prohibited within the site boundaries as shown in Figure 4 as long as the aquifer fails ADEC Table C cleanup levels protective of drinking water.
USAF will implement the ICs by taking the following actions.
• Use USAF’s dig permit and construction review system or similar system developed by the Base Operation Support (BOS) contractor to restrict incompatible activities from SS015.
• Document the ICs in USAF’s Real Property records. The Real Property records will contain a map indicating IC locations. Appropriate notice will be filed with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
• Obtain ADEC approval prior to making any major changes to the ICs. The 611th Civil
Engineer Squadron/Civil Engineer (CES/CE) is the point of contact for the ICs.
• Provide notice to ADEC, consistent with CERCLA Section 120(h), at least six months prior to any transfer or sale of SS015 |
Louis Howard |
| 12/18/2015 |
Update or Other Action |
Draft LTM Report for environmental monitoring at LF003, ST009, SS015 and SS010 received.
Groundwater samples were collected from three existing wells (WW-01, WW-05, and WW-06) at Site SS015 on 29 July 2014. The samples were laboratory analyzed for DRO, GRO, BTEX, and for the following monitored natural attenuation parameters:
alkalinity, dissolved iron, sulfate, and nitrate/nitrite.
Well WW-01 was found to be heavily damaged, but it was possible to collect a primary groundwater sample from this well. Since no monitoring wells were installed at sites ST009 and SS015, and accordingly a land survey was not performed at these sites, it is not possible to make a precise
determination of groundwater flow direction at these sites.
Groundwater samples from monitoring wells WW-01 and WW-06 exceeded the ADEC Cleanup Level for DRO. The DRO concentration detected in WW-01 was 3.16 mg/L and in WW-06 was 1.56 mg/L, exceeding the 1.5 mg/L ADEC Cleanup Level. GRO and BTEX concentrations were non-detect or detected below ADEC Groundwater Cleanup Levels at both WW-01 and WW-06 locations. Primary and duplicate samples were collected from WW-05 with all analytical values for GRO, DRO and BTEX reported as non-detect or detected at concentrations below ADEC Groundwater Cleanup Levels.
There are no specified ADEC Cleanup Levels for MNA parameters in groundwater.
Ranges in the reported concentrations of the MNA parameters for Site SS015 are as follows:
• Alkalinity was reported ranging from a low of 27.2 mg/L (WW-06) to a high of 144 mg/L (WW-01);
• Iron was reported ranging from a low (non-detect) of 0.25 mg/L (WW-06/WW-05) to a high of 0.26 mg/L (WW-01);
• Nitrate/nitrite was reported at estimated concentrations ranging from a low of 0.35 mg/L (WW-01) to a high of 0.92 mg/L (WW-05 duplicate); and
• Sulfate was reported ranging from a low of 2.23 mg/L (WW-06) to a high of 5.16 mg/L (WW-01).
At Site SS015, the planned collection of a duplicate QC sample at WW-01 was changed and the duplicate was collected at WW-05. Well WW-01 was heavily damaged and the QC sample was moved to a well in good condition due to concerns that it might not be possible to collect a sufficient sample volume from this damaged well. The required parameters and analytes were the same for both wells, and QC requirements were met. |
Louis Howard |
| 3/3/2017 |
Update or Other Action |
2016 Technical Project Report – Environmental LTM Cape Romanzof LRRS, Alaska Sites LF003, ST009, SS010 and SS015 received for review and comment.
Annual monitoring through IC inspection and photograph documentation has been completed at SS015 for 2016. Additionally, groundwater samples were collected and analyzed to determine DRO, GRO, RRO, and BTEX concentrations (Figure 5).
Statistical analysis of Site SS015 groundwater contamination was not completed in 2016 due to test requirements for a Mann-Kendall statistical test not being met at this time (insufficient duration of data results). Test requirements are a sample group of at least four consecutive rounds of analytical data collected from similar times of year. Only three years of consecutive data have been collected at this time. Statistical analysis at Site SS015 should be conducted following the 2017 LTM sampling.
January 2011 SS015 ROD cleanup level exceedances were reported for DRO at monitoring wells SS015-WW-01, SS015-WW-05, and SS015-WW-06. January 2011 SS015 ROD cleanup level exceedances were reported for benzene at monitoring wells SS015-WW-01 and SS015-WW-05. January 2011 SS015 ROD cleanup level exceedances were reported for GRO for the duplicate sample collected at monitoring well SS015-WW-05.
While well SS015-WW-01 was found heavily damaged at the surface, it was successfully sampled in 2016. However since the well is open at ground level and susceptible to potential surface inputs to the groundwater from runnof, repair or replacement of this well is recommended in 2017.
The IC inspection conducted at SS015 identified various debris associated with historical construction activities that is recommended for removal. Erosion was observed and appeared caused by overland runoff flowing through a culvert on the eastern boundary of the site. However, it does not appear that the eroded soil is being transported off site. Some evidence of historical vehicle traffic (tire ruts) was also observed onsite, although it does not appear to be negatively impacting site conditions. As part of the required LTM for this site, LTM should continue at SS015 on an annual basis until deemed no longer necessary by the USAF and ADEC. |
Louis Howard |
| 2/28/2018 |
Update or Other Action |
2017 Remedial Action-Operations/Long Term Management (draft) received for review & comment. The IC inspection conducted at SS015 was limited due to heavy snow conditions. No evidence of erosion, subsidence soil excavation or unauthorized site access was observed. During the 2017 LTM activities, new LUC signage was installed meeting the AFCEC requirements. IC inspections should continue at SS015 on an annual basis until deemed no longer necessary by the USAF and ADEC. Benzene concentrations were reported above assigned cleanup levels at WW-01
and WW-05. DRO concentrations were detected at concentrations above the PAL at WW-01 and WW-06 exceeding the PAL. The modeling results from the statistical analysis performed of groundwater
sampling events for WW-01, WW-05 and WW-06 did not find any conclusive trends; therefore estimating a timeline for reaching cleanup levels is not available.
See site file for additional information. |
Louis Howard |
| 9/25/2018 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Staff approved the Final Remedial Action – Operations/LTM Report. |
Louis Howard |
| 11/16/2018 |
CERCLA ROD Periodic Review |
Staff reviewed the above document. DEC will approve the changes in the redline version of the Third CERCLA Five-Year Review and Third Non-CERCLA Periodic Review Report for sites-DP011, LF003, SS010, SS013, SS014, SS015, SS016, SS017 and ST009 At Cape Romanzof Long Range Radar Site (aka Station). DEC approves the redline version and all the comments which were incorporated into the document. |
Louis Howard |
| 2/15/2019 |
Update or Other Action |
Supplemental work plan for long term monitoring received for review and comment. See site file for additional information. |
Louis Howard |
| 3/5/2019 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Staff provided comments on the draft supplemental work plan. Main comments were to use the updated documents: 2017 Field Sampling Guidance, 2017 DoD Quality Systems Manual, 18 AAC 75 October 2018, and 18 AAC 70 (2018). See site file for additional information |
Louis Howard |
| 6/11/2019 |
Site Characterization Workplan Approved |
Staff approved the final supplemental work plan since the response to comments were reflected in the final version. See site file for additional information. |
Louis Howard |
| 6/19/2020 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Approved Supplemental Work Plan, 2020 Remedial Action Operations, Land/Use/Institutional Control, Cape Romanzof LRRS, May 2020. |
Darren Mulkey |
| 7/28/2020 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
DEC reviewed the "Draft Supplemental Work Plan for 2020 Remedial Action Operations, Land Use/Institutional Controls, Cape Romanzof Long Range Radar Station (LRRS), AK" dated July 2020, and returned comments to the U.S. Air Force. The work plan describes planned work, to include sampling monitoring wells, collecting sediment samples, inspecting landfill caps, and repairing signage at LF003, ST009, SS010, SS015, SS016, SS017. |
Tim Sharp |
| 8/18/2020 |
Update or Other Action |
DEC approved the "FInal Supplemental Work Plan for 2020 Remedial Action Operations, Land Use/Institutional Controls, Cape Romanzof Long Range Radar Station (LRRS), AK" dated August 2020. The work plan describes planned work, to include sampling monitoring wells, collecting sediment samples, inspecting landfill caps, and repairing signage at LF003, ST009, SS010, SS015, SS016, SS017. |
Tim Sharp |
| 1/22/2021 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
DEC reviewed the "Draft 2020 Remedial Action Operations, Land Use/Institutional Control Technical Project Report, Cape Romanzof Long Range Radar Station (LRRS)" dated January 2021, and returned comments to the U.S. Air Force. Main comments were to ensure all results and recommendations in the report were included in the conclusions section. The technical project report describes performed environmental long-term management activities including groundwater monitoring well repair, decommissioning, installation and survey at sites LF003, ST009, SS010, SS013, SS014, SS015, SS016, SS017. |
Axl LeVan |
| 1/26/2021 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
DEC reviewed and approved the "Final 2020 Remedial Action Operations, Land Use/Institutional Control Technical Project Report, Cape Romanzof Long Range Radar Station (LRRS)" dated January 2021, and returned comments to the U.S. Air Force. The technical project report describes performed environmental long-term management activities including groundwater monitoring well repair, decommissioning, installation and survey at sites LF003, ST009, SS010, SS013, SS014, SS015, SS016, SS017. |
Axl LeVan |
| 5/26/2021 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
DEC approved the "Final 2020 Remedial Action Operations Land Use/Institutional Controls, Cape Romanzof Long Range Radar Station (LRRS), Alaska" dated May 2021. The report presented the results of the 2020 Environmental Remedial Action-Operation/Long Term Management (LTM) program. LTM activities included sampling of monitoring wells and IC/LUC inspections at Sites LF003, ST009, SS010, SS015, SS016, SS017. Additionally sediment and surface water sampling, and road maintenance occurred at Site LF003. LUC warning signs at Sites LF003, SS015, and SS010 were also installed/replaced. |
Axl LeVan |
| 6/9/2021 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
DEC completed a review of the "Draft Final 2021 Uniform Federal Policy for Quality Assurance Project Plan for Long-Term Management and Remedial Action Operations Activities, Cape Romanzof Long Range Radar Station, Alaska, dated March 2021". DEC provided comments on June 10, 2021 and the document was received on May 11, 2021. The work plan documents the plan for sites LF003, ST009, SS010, SS015, SS016, and SS017. The work plan described the approach and procedures for site-specific long-term management and remedial action-operation activities at Cape Romanzof Long Range Radar Station. This work will include annual groundwater sampling at sites ST009 and SS015. Additionally, annual surface water and sediment sampling for PCBs will occur at LF003. The document covers work being performed over a 5-year period and outlines the information to be provided during annual reports. |
Axl LeVan |
| 8/31/2021 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
DEC reviewed and approved the "Final 2021 Uniform Federal Policy for Quality Assurance Project Plan for Long-Term Management and Remedial Action Operations Activities, Cape Romanzof Long Range Radar Station, Alaska, dated August 2021". The final document was received on August 27, 2021. The work plan documents the plan for sites LF003, ST009, SS010, SS015, SS016, and SS017. The work plan described the approach and procedures for site-specific long-term management and remedial action-operation activities at Cape Romanzof Long Range Radar Station. This work will include annual groundwater sampling at sites ST009 and SS015. Additionally, annual surface water and sediment sampling for PCBs will occur at LF003. The document covers work being performed over a 5-year period and outlines the information to be provided during annual reports. |
Axl LeVan |
| 7/15/2022 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) Contaminated Sites Program received a copy of "Draft-Final 2021 Remedial Action Operations Land Use/Institutional Control Report, Cape Romanzof Long Range Radar Station, Alaska, May 2022" on June 16, 2022. This report presents the results of the 2021 Environmental Remedial Action-Operation (RA-O)/Long Term Management (LTM) program at the Cape Romanzof Long Range Radar Site (LRRS) in Cape Romanzof, Alaska. This work was performed from 28 September through 30 September 2021 and included institutional control (IC) and land use control (LUC) inspections. The event included sampling of wells at sites SS015 and ST009. DEC provided comments and requested document revisions. |
Axl LeVan |
| 9/13/2022 |
CERCLA SI |
On 9/13/2022 ADEC approved the FINAL Quality Assurance Project Plan, Off-Base Drinking Water Site Inspections and Miscellaneous Tasks, Three U.S. AF Long Range Radar Stations, Alaska, Dated September 2022. The objective of the Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) is to provide a response action for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)-impacted drinking water for areas surrounding three remote U.S. Air Force (USAF) Installations, Cape Romanzof Long Range Radar Station (LRRS), Indian Mountain LRRS and Sparrevohn LRRS. The project goals are to determine if off-site migration of polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) has potentially impacted off-site groundwater and surface water used as drinking water used by residences or commercial businesses, and if a response action will be needed and required for applicable PFAS impacted drinking water sources. The USEPA Lifetime Health Advisory levels for perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), and the sum of the concentrations (PFOS+PFOA) of 70 nanograms per liter (ng/L) will be used as the action level for drinking water sources (both groundwater and surface water). |
Axl LeVan |
| 10/7/2022 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) Contaminated Sites Program received a copy of "Draft-Final 2021 Remedial Action Operations Land Use/Institutional Control Report, Cape Romanzof Long Range Radar Station, Alaska, October 2022" on October 4, 2022. All requested DEC revisions were included in the updated report and DEC approved the report. This report presents the results of the 2021 Environmental Remedial Action-Operation (RA-O)/Long Term Management (LTM) program at the Cape Romanzof Long Range Radar Site (LRRS) in Cape Romanzof, Alaska. This work was performed from 28 September through 30 September 2021 and included institutional control (IC) and land use control (LUC) inspections. The event included sampling of wells at sites SS015 and ST009. |
Axl LeVan |
| 5/16/2023 |
CERCLA SI |
DEC reviewed and approved the "Final Site Inspection and No Further Response Action Planned Report for Per and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances at Cape Romanzof Long Range Radar Station, Alaska, May 2023." The Site Inspection (SI) report for Cape Romanzof Long Range Radar Station (LRRS) has been prepared to report the results of activities performed as part of the SI and recommend future activities at the installation. The report recommended an Remedial investigation at FTA #1, Non-FTA No.4 – Landfill No. 4, and Non-FTA No.6 – Biocell 3. It also recommended No Further Response Action Planned at Non-FTA No. 1 – Spill/Leak No. 7, Non-FTA No. 2 – Landfill No. 2, Non-FTA No. 3 – Landfill No. 3, and Non-FTA No. 5 – Landfill No. 5. DEC agreed with the recommendations. |
Axl LeVan |
| 8/23/2023 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
DEC reviewed and provided comments on the "Draft-Final 2022 Remedial Action Operations Land Use/Institutional Control Report, Cape Romanzof Long Range Radar Station, Alaska, August 2023" which was received August 14. The report is on site inspections at LF003, SS010, SS015, SS016, SS017, and ST009. The report includes sampling at LF003, ST009, and ST015. |
Axl LeVan |
| 12/8/2023 |
CERCLA ROD Periodic Review |
DEC reviewed and provided comments on the "Draft 2023 Five-Year Review Report for DP011, LF003, SS010, SS013, SS014, SS015, SS016, SS017, ST009, and OB942 at Cape Romanzof Long Range Radar Station, Alaska, November 2023". The purpose of a Five-Year Review (FYR) is to evaluate the implementation and performance of a remedy in order to determine if the remedy is and will continue to be protective of human health and the environment. This report is the first FYR for OB942. |
Axl LeVan |
| 1/24/2024 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
DEC reviewed and Approved the "Draft-Final 2022 Remedial Action Operations Land Use/Institutional Control Report, Cape Romanzof Long Range Radar Station, Alaska, December 2023" which was received January 2024. The report is on site inspections at LF003, SS010, SS015, SS016, SS017, and ST009. The report includes sampling at LF003, ST009, and ST015. All DEC comments were addressed in the updated document. |
Axl LeVan |
| 1/30/2024 |
CERCLA ROD Periodic Review |
DEC reviewed and approved the "Final 2023 Five-Year Review Report for DP011, LF003, SS010, SS013, SS014, SS015, SS016, SS017, ST009, and OB942 at Cape Romanzof Long Range Radar Station, Alaska, January 2024". All DEC comments were addressed by the revised version of the document. |
Axl LeVan |
| 5/8/2024 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
DEC provided comments on the "Draft 2023 Remedial Action Operations Land Use/Institutional Control Report, Cape Romanzof Long Range Radar Station, Alaska, April 2024". The report documents the 2023 work performed at sites LF003, SS010, SS015, SS016, SS017, and ST009. |
Axl LeVan |
| 5/8/2024 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
DEC reviewed and provided comments on the "Draft 2023 Remedial Action Operations Land Use/Institutional Control Report, Cape Romanzof Long Range Radar Station, Alaska, April 2024." This report presents the results of the 2023 Environmental Remedial Action-Operation/Long Term Management program. |
Axl LeVan |
| 7/8/2024 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
DEC reviewed and approved the "Final 2023 Remedial Action Operations Land Use/Institutional Control Report, Cape Romanzof Long Range Radar Station, Alaska, June 12th." The report presents the results of the long term monitoring program at Cape Romanzof LRRS. |
Axl LeVan |
| 2/28/2025 |
Update or Other Action |
DEC reviewed and provided comments on Notice of Use and Activity Limitations (NAULs) at six Cape Romanzof Sites (SS013, DP011, SS014, SS015, SS017, and ST009). |
Axl LeVan |
