| Action Date |
Action |
Description |
DEC Staff |
| 9/24/1957 |
Update or Other Action |
Water Well 1 was drilled in August/September 1957 near the Lower Camp, to a depth of 154 feet within weathered granitoid bedrock. The well located on the nearly flat valley floor of Nilumat Creek, in the cirque area, penetrated alluvial and glacial deposits consisting of an upper unit of "gravelly clay with boulders", 43 ft. thick, overlying a lower unit of "sand and boulders", 14 ft. thick.
The well is located in a wood frame pumphouse about halfway out of the water line utilidor from the power house to the water storage reservoir dam (Huson Dam) intake which is no longer used. The well is fed underground from the lake behind the dam and its use allow some filtration through the natural ground materials and eliminates some sources of surface contamination. The drilling was completed in two attempts. During the 1st attempt in July 1957, the well was abandoned within the weathered bedrock zone at 71 ft. depth. During the 2nd attempt in August/September 1957, the well was drilled deeper and on September 18, 1957, reached a total depth of 154 ft. into "fresh" granitoid rock. Extreme difficulties were experienced while drilling within the weathered bedrock zone. Dynamite blasting was necessary locally to advance the hole.
The well was drilled using driven casing. An 8" casing extends from surface to 98', and a 6" casing extends from 98' to 154'. Water bearing zones were identified in both the weathered bedrock and the overlying glacial deposits during drilling. The casing perforations were made at 2 separate water bearing zones at 82' to 102' depths and at 146' to 148' depth, in weathered bedrock. After well completion, a pumping test conducted for 25 1/2 hours, during September 23-24, 1957, produced 100,000 gallons of water. The test in the 20' water bearing zone (80-100 ft. depth) achieved a varied pumping rates from 60 - 67 gallons per minute, with an accompanying drawdown of 18" - 24". |
Louis Howard |
| 11/27/1962 |
Update or Other Action |
Water Well 2 was drilled from October 25, 1962 to November 17, 1962 by F & M Branch, close to the Weather Station above the airstrip on the south valley slope, to serve the Weather Station Building. The surficial soil is native materials with a pad of fill material for the Weather Station Building. The well was drilled to a depth of 96', within a zone containing both granitoid colluvium or weathered granitoid bedrock. The well was completed with a 6" diameter, 20-slot, 5.5' long screen which was set within weathered bedrock at the contact with "fresh" granitoid bedrock at 95.5' depth.
A 4-day pumping test, conducted in 1962, achieved pumping rates ranging from an initial 14.5 gpm to a minimum of 2 gpm. on November 27, 1962, the last day of testing, the well was developed by surging and bailing for 2 hours and 10 minutes, achieving a pumping rate (apparent yield) of 3 gpm with an accompanying drawdown of 9 ft. to a level of 90 ft. depth (the top of screen). Prior to the 4-day pumping test, static water level was found to be 9' above the top of the screen at 82' depth. Later on, at some unkown time after this test period, static water level was found to be 4' above the top of the screen at 86.1' depth.
NOTE: The well reportedly became contaminated with POL products in 1964 (Feulner, 1966). In later 1965, efforts to purify the water for continued use utilizing a charcoal filtration device were not successful (Feulner, 1966). Feulner, A. J. 1966. Water Sources Used by the United States Air Force in Alaska, 1964-1965: A Supplemental Report. Administrative Report to Alaska Air Command, Elmendorf AFB, Alaska. |
Louis Howard |
| 3/31/1989 |
Update or Other Action |
Stage 1 RI/FS work plan received. Description- A diesel spill reportedly occurred near this well. The location of the spill was upgradient of Well No. 2, near the Weather Station. The well has been reported as contaminated in the past. No evidence of contamination was noted at the surface of the reported spill site during the 1987 reconnaissance.
Setting - It is expected that the surface and subsurface conditions at this location are similar to those described in Section 5.3.2.1.
Recommended Action - The well near the Weather Station will be sampled to appraise the effects of the reported earlier diesel spill. The well water will be sampled and analyzed for volatile organics, semi-volatile organics, and total petroleum hydrocarbons. |
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.
See site file for additional information.
|
Louis Howard |
| 9/30/1990 |
Update or Other Action |
Stage 1 IRP RI/FS report received. Cape Romanzof LRRS obtains its water supply from groundwater, which is present in bedrock & overlying alluvial sediments along Fowler Creek. The installation obtained its drinking water supply from two wells drilled into bedrock.
Only Water Supply Well No. 1 is now being used. This well was drilled to a depth of 154 feet & cased with 8-inch diameter pipe to a depth of 98 feet & is reportedly capable of pumping 60 gallons per minute. The static water level in this well was measured at 29 feet below grade (Feulner 1966), which suggests that local groundwater occurs under artesian (confined) pressure.
In 1962, a second well (Well No. 2) was installed. The Phase I Records Search (ES 1985) reported the well to be 96 feet deep & is equipped with 6-inch-diameter casing. This second well, which is now inactive, served only the Weather Station Building & reportedly became contaminated with POL products in 1964. Attempts were made to purify the water for continued use, utilizing a charcoal filtration device.
The log of Well No. 2 indicates that it was completed (in 1962) within weathered granitoid bedrock. A 5.5-foot screen was installed at the base of the well, at (90-95.5' depth), & static water level was found to be 9 feet above the top of the screen. A pumping test of four days duration was conducted in 1962; & a pumping rate of 3 gpm was achieved with an accompanying drawdown of 9 feet (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1963).
During the 1989 field investigation, attempts to sample Well No. 2 were unsuccessful because the well was inaccessible to sampling. It is not known if the source of the POL contaminationin local groundwater was ever identified or if the situation was ever corrected. During the spring-summer months, groundwater is pumped from the Lower Camp (Well No. 1) to local storage facilities for later use.
Well No. 3 was constructed in 1972 (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, unpublished file data). This well was located in 1989, enclosed in a wooden well house. In 1990, the well was opened & sampled. The well was purged of three casing volumes with the 3-inch submersible pump & a sample was collected using a decontaminated Teflon bailer. The samples were analyzed for TPH (EPA Method 418.1) & Aromatic volatile organics (EPA Method 8020).
Regarding BTEX, none of the four constituents were found at concentrations above reporting limits. Regarding TPH, a concentration of 0.31 mg/L was detected, which is higher than the reporting limit of 0.05 mg/L. Because of the equipment blank contamination, this concentration is hereafter used in the qualitative form of "less than 1.0 mg/L."
The Source of the less than 1.0 mg/L TPH concentration in well #3 groundwater is uncertain; possible sources include inadvertent introduction of hydrocarbons into the well during operations, or naturally occurring hydrocarbons in groundwater. Considering the similar level of TPH contamination of the equipment blank, there may be no TPH contamination in Well #3 at all. Use of groundwater from this well is reportedly confined at present to non-drinking purposes, namely for general washing & toilet operations at the weather station building.
See site file for additional information.
|
Louis Howard |
| 8/27/1991 |
Site Added to Database |
DRO. |
Louis Howard |
| 2/25/1992 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Comments on the Air Force's draft IRP Stage 1 RI/FS Technical report addendum March 1991 and second Draft Report June 1990. The department tentatively agrees with the recommendation that this site requires no further action (NFA) pending additional confirmatory sampling and analyses showing that groundwater results meet Alaska SMCLs. Refer to attached "ADEC No Further Action Criteria" for developing the TDSNFA. |
Louis Howard |
| 3/2/1992 |
Update or Other Action |
Preliminary assessment for the facility received and prepared by the 11th Civil Engineering Operations Squadron. Responses and information provided by Air Force to EPA questions in the assessment.
Well#3 was drilled August 23 to November 8, 1972. Well#2 was drilled October 25 to November 17, 1962 by F&M Braneb.
SOURCE 2, SPILL/LEAK NO. 4: No specific records were found on the details of spills at this site, but one reported incident in 1979 involved a loss of 500 gallons of diesel fuel from a tank near the runway, that may have been on site. |
Jennifer Roberts |
| 7/13/1992 |
CERCLA PA |
Letter from EPA Region 10 stating that the (June 30, 1992) 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.
NOTE: Preliminary Assessment is defined as: a limited-scope investigation performed on every CERCLIS site. PA investigations collect readily available information about a site and its surrounding area. The PA is designed to distinguish, based on limited data, between sites that pose little or no threat to human health and the environment and sites that may pose a threat and require further investigation. The PA also identifies sites requiring assessment for possible emergency response actions. If the PA results in a recommendation for further investigation, a Site Inspection is performed.
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.
See site file for additional information.
|
Louis Howard |
| 7/13/1992 |
CERCLA PA |
Letter from EPA Region 10 stating that the (June 30, 1992) 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.
NOTE: Preliminary Assessment is defined as: a limited-scope investigation performed on every CERCLIS site. PA investigations collect readily available information about a site and its surrounding area. The PA is designed to distinguish, based on limited data, between sites that pose little or no threat to human health and the environment and sites that may pose a threat and require further investigation. The PA also identifies sites requiring assessment for possible emergency response actions. If the PA results in a recommendation for further investigation, a Site Inspection is performed.
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.
See site file for additional information.
|
Louis Howard |
| 7/14/1992 |
Update or Other Action |
There are 3 mechanisms for placing sites on the National Priorities Listing (NPL) for possible remedial action (see 40 CFR 300.425(c) of the NCP): 1) A site may be included on the NPL if a scores sufficiently high on the Hazard Ranking System ("HRS"), which EPA promulgated as appendix A of the NCP (40 CFR part 300). The HRS serves as a screening device to evaluate the relative potential of uncontrolled hazardous substances to pose a threat to human health or the environment. On December 14, 1990 (55 FR 51532), EPA promulgated revisions to the HRS partly in response to CERCLA section 105(c), added by SARA. The revised HRS evaluates four pathways: Ground water, surface water, soil exposure, and air. As a matter of Agency policy, those sites that score 28.50 or greater on the HRS are eligible for the NPL.
2) Each State may designate a single site as its top priority to be listed on the NPL, regardless of the HRS score. This mechanism, provided by the NCP at 40 CFR 300.425(c)(2) requires that, to the extent practicable, the NPL include within the 100 highest priorities, one facility designated by each State representing the greatest danger to public health, welfare, or the environment among known facilities in the State (see 42 U.S.C. 9605(a)(8)(B)).
3) The third mechanism for listing, included in the NCP at 40 CFR 300.425(c)(3), allows certain sites to be listed regardless of their HRS score, if all of the following conditions are met:
The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) of the U.S. Public Health Service has issued a health advisory that recommends dissociation of individuals from the release. EPA determines that the release poses a significant threat to public health. EPA anticipates that it will be more cost-effective to use its remedial authority than to use its removal authority to respond to the release.
EPA promulgated an original NPL of 406 sites on September 8, 1983 (48 FR 40658). The NPL has been expanded since then, most recently on September 29, 1998 (63 FR 51882). |
Jennifer Roberts |
| 9/9/1992 |
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.
[per 18 AAC 75.327] 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 |
| 12/31/1992 |
Update or Other Action |
RI/FS technical report received. ROM-2 Weather Station Well:The weather station and associated water well are Iocated approximately 600 feet east of the southwest end of the airstrip. The existing well (now known to be Well No. 3) is enclosed within a
wooden structure, and is located 210 feet northeast of and uphill from the weather
station building. Well No. 3 was constructed in 1972. Based on U.S. Army Corps of Engineers records, there were actually two wells drilled at or near the weather station. !
The first well (Well No. 2) at ROM-2 was drilled in 1962, and was reportedly located near the southeast comer of the weather station building (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1963). The area around the Weather Station Building has been extensively reworked by heavy equipment and it is believed that Well No. 2 may have been buried or destroyed.
Groundwater from this well was reported to be contaminated with fuel oil in 1964 (Feulner 1966). The 1989 field investigation and the 1990 visit at this site found no evidence of any well at this reported location; an aboveground petroleum storage tank was observed uphill from this location.
Also known as SS10 Weather Station Well, Spill Site 4. Recommended future IRP efforts for ROM-2 Well No. 3 is no further action abandon well.
Appendix A of the document: 1987 Woodward Clyde Reconnaissance Field Notes) states: “Weather station spill. This was the site of a reported MOGAS [motor gasoline] spill. The location of the spill is upgradient of the lower portion of a water well located nearby. No evidence of contamination was visible at the surface of the spill site, but contamination of the well was noted in the past. Initial thoughts on further action: sample the water well for petroleum hydrocarbons." |
Louis Howard |
| 1/20/1993 |
Site Ranked Using the AHRM |
Intital ranking by staff. |
Louis Howard |
| 3/23/1993 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Certified letter No. P521 088 842 to Scott Hansen - No Further Action Decision (NFAD) for
ROM-1D (LF12 the old 5099th Landfill),
ROM-4 (OT05 Road Oiling Sites),
ROM-6 (SS01 Waste Accumulation Area #2),
ROM-7 (Dump),
ROM-9 (LF02 Landfill No. 1),
ROM-11 (OT06 White Alice Site), and
conditional NFAD for ROM-2 Well no. 3 (SS10 Weather Station Wells & Spill Site #4).
The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) received this document on February 26, 1992, reviewed it within the 30 day time period, and has the following comments:
DEC concurs with the NFAD request for Cape Romanzof sites ROM-1D, ROM-4, ROM-6, ROM-7, ROM-9, and ROM-11. If in the future, additional contamination is discovered at these sites, further investigation and/or remedial actions may be required by DEC. DEC concurs with the conditional NFAD for the Cape Romanzof site ROM-2 contingent on the closure of Well No. 3 in 1993. A workplan must be submitted and approved by DEC detailing closure procedures before closure of Well No. 3 commences. DEC will review the final closure documents for Well No. 3 before the final NFAD will be approved. Signed Jennifer Roberts DOD Project Manager.
See site file for additional information.
|
Jennifer Roberts |
| 12/6/1993 |
Update or Other Action |
On 3/23/93, ADEC sent a letter concurring with conditional NFRAP for ROM-2 (Weather Station Building operated in the 1970s) a.k.a. SS10 Weather Station Well based on an additional confirmatory sampling and analyses showing that groundwater results meet Alaska maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) and the water well at the site a.k.a. Well #3 being permanently closed.
John Halverson received a letter on 12/1/93 stating that the well had been closed in accordance with an approved workplan and therefore he issued a no further action planned approval letter for SS-10/ROM 2 on 12/6/1993. In the future, if additional information is obtained which indicates further investigation or cleanup is necessary such work would have to be conducted in accordance with State and Federal regulations. |
John Halverson |
| 5/3/1995 |
Site Reopened |
Closure approval rescinded. In 2006, workers installing an underground utility reported a strong fuel odor while excavating a trench through the pad near the weather station building. All excavated soil was placed back in the trench and no analytical samples taken.
Staff received final report for WAC #3 ROM-1. Site summary mentions Water well #2 being drilled in October 25-November 17, 1962 by F&M branch close to the weather station above the airstrip to serve the Weather Station building. Well was completed at 96' and reportedly became contaminated with petroleum, oil, lubricants (POL) products in 1964 (Feulner, 1966 Water Sources Used by the USAF in Alaska 1964-65 and Administrative report to Alaska Air Command EAFB, AK).
1965 efforts to purify the water for continued use utilizing a charcoal filtration device were not successful (Feulner 1966). Water Well #3 located 200' NE of weather station building was completed in 1972 (U.S. COE unpublished file data Anchorage, AK). Well was drilled to 92', Currently no contamination above state or federal drinking water criteria are exceeded in the well. Present uses of the well is for non-drinking purposes at the weather station. |
John Halverson |
| 1/9/1998 |
Update or Other Action |
Management Action Plan: Zone 2 - This is the main support area known as the Lower Camp. Several installation restoration program (IRP) Sites and points of interest (POIs) are located in this zone: IRP Sites SS01,LF02, LF03, LF04, OT05, SS07,SS08, LF12,SS13, SS15;and POIs 1,2, 3, 4, 7, 8, and 9. |
Louis Howard |
| 4/11/2000 |
Meeting or Teleconference Held |
Staff met with Alaska Village Council Presidents representative, 611 CES, Alaska Community Action on Toxics staff and USFWS to discuss the site. Community concerns arose over 1991 USFWS report which states that contamination detected from 1987/88 sampling showed that there was a problem. The 611th stated that more current data is needed to show progress made at the facility since 1987 towards cleanup. A new proposed plan will be developed for SS13 and SS15 as well as other sites at the facility. Community will form a RAB from the surrounding communities to be able to access the TAPP grant of 25,000 per year for 100,000 per year maximum for their own consultant to review USAF data and report to them their findings. |
Louis Howard |
| 4/13/2000 |
Update or Other Action |
Site reranked by staff based on a review of the site information in file. |
Louis Howard |
| 3/30/2001 |
Update or Other Action |
Proposed plan for Weather Station Well SS10 received. Two wells, Well No. 2 and Well No. 3
(SS10), were located near the Weather Station building; however, the 1989 field
team could not locate Well No. 2. Well No. 2 was presumed abandoned. Water from
Well No. 3 was stored in a 10,000-gallon tank and used to supply non-potable water to
the facility for general washing and toilet use. In 1993, Well No. 3 was abandoned.
In 1989, one groundwater sample from Well No. 3 was collected and analyzed for TPH
and BTEX. TPH was detected at a concentration of 0.31 mg/L. No BTEX
constituents were detected. Well No. 3 was located uphill and upgradient from any visible or known sources of contamination, such as the fuel tanks near the Weather Station building.
The source of the TPH in Well No. 3 could not be determined, but possible sources may
include inadvertent introduction of hydrocarbons into the well during operations or naturally occurring hydrocarbons in the groundwater. Well No. 3 was removed in 1993. Water from Well No. 3 is no longer being used at the station because the well has been removed and the recommended action is no further action. |
Louis Howard |
| 9/18/2001 |
Update or Other Action |
Staff provided comments on the clean sweep remedial action environmental cleanup work plan, sampling and analysis plan for Contract #F41624-01-C-8072. The text states that drums with product will probably contain POL products such aviation gas, diesel fuel and lubricating oil. The assumption is incorrect since non-POL products may be present
as well in one or more of the drums. The text also states that water without sheen will be
immediately discharged on site. Having a sheen or not is one criteria that should be used, however there are other non-POL contaminants that do not exhibit a sheen and shall not be discharged directly to the lands or waters of the State without proper treatment. The 611 CES shall ensure that proper screening shall take place for all water present in containers prior to discharge.
ADEC wishes to make the 611 CES aware that in order for the determination of whether or not
a container is RCRA regulated, it must determine whether or not it is "hazardous debris." This determination is based on whether the container is intact and capable of containing 75% of its original volume. Per the definition of debris in 40 CFR 268.2, intact contamers meeting these criteria are not debris. Therefore, intact containers can be rendered "RCRA empty" and thus
non-regulated.
On the other hand, if the container ts not intact, draining the remainmg residual waste does not
render it "RCRA empty." Rather, because it is considered debris instead of a container, it must be decontaminated in order to be excluded from regulation as hazardous waste. Ruptured containers which are not capable of containing 75% of their original volume do not qualify for the RCRA empty exclusion and are regulated unless decontaminated or covered by another exclusion (such as if being legitimately recycled as scrap metal).
When managing corroded containers wlth residues of hazardous waste, do not automatically assume that it is excluded from regulation just because it contains less than an inch of residue. The RCRA empty exclusion applies only to intact containers.
See comments regarding the disposal of water that does not exhibit any odor or sheen without
further testing or field screening for hazardous waste characteristics. To determine whether a
waste is in fact a hazardous waste, it is generally acceptable practice to apply user knowledge of the waste, although it may not be possible to accurately determine all the applicable waste
codes without testing. However, it is generally not acceptable to categorize a waste as nonhazardous based solely on user knowledge of the waste. |
Louis Howard |
| 6/4/2003 |
Update or Other Action |
Clean Sweep Work Plan and Field Sampling Plan received.
Building #4100 is the old weather station building adjacent to the runway at Lower Camp (Figure 3). Building #4100 is a one story, wood frame building that covers approximately 2168 square feet. All utilities have been removed from the building. Following asbestos abatement by a private contractor, personnel of the 611 CES/CEVO will demolish the structure. All materials derived from the destruction of the building will be placed in the on site landfill.
PetroFlag screening analysis will be conducted in areas of suspected contamination (staining/odor) and in areas where floor drains were located in the building. If positive values are detected during the screening process, laboratory samples will be collected and analyzed for DRO (AK102), PCBs/ pesticides (8082), metals, volatile (8260) and semi-volatile (8270) organic compounds. Soil containing contaminants above ADEC clean up levels will be excavated until levels of contaminants are below clean up levels. Excavated soil will be shipped back to DRMO for disposal. The building site will be graded and contoured to fit the natural contours of the land and revegetated.
Septic System at Building #4100
During the summer 2003 activities, the former sanitary sewerage system will be demolished and abandoned (Figure 3). Prior to demolition, the contents of the septic tanks will be assessed for potential hazards. Samples will be analyzed for DRO (AK102), PCBs/ pesticides (8082), metals, volatile (8260) and semi-volatile (8270) organic compounds. Media found to be contaminated above regulatory levels of the applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs) will be disposed off site. If contaminants are found, then additional sampling, to determine the source and the extent of the contamination, along the sewer line utilidors may be necessary. If no contaminants are found, then the underground utilidors will be demolished and abandoned in-place
One septic tank will be demolished on site. The septic tank is located south of building 4100. Liquids and sludge will be removed from the tanks and drummed for disposal. The septic tank will then demolished and abandoned in-place. The drummed waste will be analyzed for the Waste Management Profile as indicated above. The waste will be disposed either through the DRMO or on site as dictated by the final laboratory analytical results.
All wash and rinse water generated during the demolition cleaning process will be containerized in 55-gallon steel drums. Upon receipt of the laboratory results the waste will be shipped to DRMO at Elmendorf AFB for disposal or treated and disposed of on site.
Above-ground Storage Tank Berm Adjacent to Bldg. 4100
A 25,000 gallon above ground fuel (diesel) tank was located approximately 40 feet south of building 4100 (Figure 3). The tank was demolished during an earlier clean sweep program in 1996 and the tank containment berm and the tanks associated fuel lin
es to building 4100 are all that remain. The 1 ½ “ pipeline from the tank area to building 4100 will be abandoned in place. A moderate sized fuel spill occurred along the west side of the tank in the 1970’s.
See site file for additional information.
|
Louis Howard |
| 6/20/2003 |
Update or Other Action |
Proposed Amendments and Modifications to the Cape Romanzof Workplan in FY2003
Modifications
Section 8.3 Above Ground Storage Tank Berm Adjacent to Building #4100
Modification:
No work is planned for this site in FY2003.
Section 8.4 LF-003 (Landfill #2)
Modification:
Remediated soil from 2 on site bio-remediation soil cells will be spread and contoured over the top of the landfill. Approximately 5500 cubic yards will be used to form a 0-3 foot lift on the existing landfill cap. The fill will be added to this site only, based on the approval letter from ADEC dated April, 17, 2000.
Amendments
Section 8.5 Closure of Bio-Remediation Cells 1 and 3.
Amendment:
Biocells 1 and 3 (figure 5) will be emptied following confirmation sampling of the remediated soil. Each soil cell contains approximately 2750 cubic yards of soil and gravel. The connate water within the cells will be pumped through a cyclo-sorb activated carbon water filter and disposed of on site. Following dewatering, the soil will be excavated and used as cover material for LF03. The upper and lower membranes as well as any associated venting material, will be disposed of in the on site landfill. The gravel containment berms from the cells will be graded to fit the contours of the landscape.
|
Louis Howard |
| 11/16/2004 |
Update or Other Action |
File number issued 2526.38.007. |
Aggie Blandford |
| 6/30/2006 |
Update or Other Action |
In 2006, workers installing an underground utility reported a strong fuel odor while excavating a trench through the pad near the weather station building. All excavated soil was placed back in the trench and no analytical samples taken.
Previous no further remedial action required or site closure determination for this site has been rescinded by ADEC. |
Louis Howard |
| 8/1/2007 |
Meeting or Teleconference Held |
A TRIAD systemic project planning meeting was hosted by the USACE and attended by USAF, ADEC, and BLM. Several data gaps and uncertainties for four sites were identified during this meeting.
IRP Site SS010, Spill/Leak Number 4, Weather Station Building- What is the likely source of contamination? What are the horizontal and vertical extents of contamination? Is there migration to groundwater or surface water? |
Louis Howard |
| 2/8/2008 |
Update or Other Action |
Draft Work Plan for Remedial Investigation at four source areas (LF003, SS010, SS016 and SS017) received. Investigative approaches were proposed in the document derived following the framework of the TRIAD. The 2008 RI field effort will focus on addressing the uncertainties and data gaps defined by the project team during the systemic planning meeting held on August 1, 2007.
In general, the 2008 field effort will utilize high density surface and subsurface soil sampling with field screening for multiple contaminants to define the nature and extent of contaminants, and lower density laboratory analytical samplin with rapid turnaround times to confirm sufficient delineation. The sampling strategy at each site was determined during the systematic planning meeting.
1) A minimum of five soil borings will be advanced at 25 foot intervals parallel and perpendicular to a utility trench which was previously identified as contaminated, to determine the source and define the nature and extent. Soils will be screened and analytical samples of both surface and subsurface soil will be collected based on screening results.
2) Monitoring wells will be installed in-source and downgradient of SS010. Wells will be developed and analytical samples will be collected to determine if impacts to groundwater have occurred. Both analytical and field groundwater quality parameters will be collected to assess intrinsic remediation at SS010.
3) Analytical samples of surface water and associated sediment may be collected from Fowler (Nilamut) Creek downgradient of SS010 to determine if contaminant migration is occurring. Analytical sample locations will be based on screening results. |
Louis Howard |
| 3/3/2008 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Staff reviewed and commented on the Draft Work Plan Remedial Investigation for LF003, SS010, SS016 and SS017 at Cape Romanzof LRRS January 2008. If Method Three will be proposed, ADEC recommends the number, type, and location of samples to be taken for use in the Method Three calculation be discussed and agreed upon (ADEC approval) prior to field activities.
The FOC is the organic carbon content of a soil expressed as a percentage. This parameter should be determined through laboratory analysis of uncontaminated soil samples using an analytical method such as EPA Method 415.1 or SW-846 Method 9060.
ADEC will not accept results of a soil burn-off test that determines total organics. The default value is 0.1% for both surface and subsurface soil. This is a relatively low value. This parameter can vary from site to site and within one site. At least eight samples from uncontaminated areas will need to be taken.
ADEC recommends a minimum of ten (10) samples for “background” determination, not seven (7) as proposed in the text. Trying to establish “background” diesel range organics/residual range organics (DRO/RRO) is not applicable, especially since SS010 is the only area where petroleum is a contaminant of concern (COC,) it is a characterization investigation to determine nature and extent and it should be in gravel/fill material. If the Air Force is concerned about biogenic interference with the samples for some reason, please refer to Tech Memorandum 06-001 “Biogenic Interference and Silica Gel Cleanup.” The Air Force can include this as part of the work plan, sampling and final report. As far as metals, ADEC does not recall where RCRA metals were discussed or agreed on as part of the initial Triad meeting in August 2007. If the Air Force agrees to eliminate the “background” approach, the text for the entire RI and FSP will need to be revised.
SS010-Since the source of the release responsible for total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) in the groundwater is unknown, ADEC concurs with the inclusion of RCRA metals for laboratory analysis at SS010. However, ADEC believes there was discussion regarding the source being diesel fuel for power generation or heating purposes, which would eliminate the need for RCRA metals analyses for this project. This issue needs to be resolved as well as the need for establishing “background” concentrations at the facility for any COC.
Natural attenuation. ADEC recommends references to this be removed altogether or details be added as to exactly where the Air Force is proposing monitored natural attenuation (MNA), where the MNA parameter samples will be collected, for what analyses, etc. As with “background, this does not seem applicable to this facility, even for SS010.
ADEC does not concur with the plan for returning soil when PCBs are encountered at any screening result or for chlorinated compounds where screening results are below 25 ppm. Analytical results will be used to determine if the soil will be shipped off if the results are above Method Two Soil Cleanup Levels Table B1.
See site file for additional information.
|
Louis Howard |
| 3/24/2009 |
Update or Other Action |
Draft Remedial Investigation Report using TRIAD approach received.
Of the soil borings sampled at SS010, surface soil sample CR-SS010-SB01-001-0-082908 contained two constituents in excess of Method Two migration to groundwater screening criteria: DRO (1,200M mg/kg), and Arsenic (5.78B mg/kg). Twenty-six subsurface soil samples collected for lab analysis were in excess of screening criteria: 24 samples contained arsenic, three samples contained DRO (CR-SS010-SB09-001-0-083008, CR-SS010-SB13-001-0-083108, and CR-SS010-SB23-001-0-090108), and sample (CR-SS010-SB09-001-0-083008) contained 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene, 1-Methylnaphthalene, 2-Methylnaphthalene, Benzene, DRO, and GRO. DRO ranged from 840 mg/kg (J), 1,200 mg/kg (M), 4,300 mg/kg (M) and 11,000 mg/kg (M). GRO was found in one boring at 1,180 mg/kg (CR-SS10-SB-009-001-0-083108). M - A sample matrix affect was present J - -Analyte was positively identified, the quantitation is estimated.
Conclusions: Based on property boundaries provided by the BLM, and the general location of SS010 is within lands withdrawn by the USAF. The area of surficial contamination found near the utility trench (1,000 square feet) is likely the result of past surface spills or leaks from piping runs or building connections from the Old Weather Stn. Bldg. 4100 to diesel fuel AST Tank #11. The largest area of contamination (15,200 square feet) is likely remnant contamination from Spill/Leak #4 from the 25,000 gallon AST Tank #4 (Removed). The limited surficial contamination (approximately 2,300 square feet) that was delineated near soil borings SB-23 and SB-22 may be associated with surficial debris that was observed in the vicinity around the borings. Irregularly shaped berms were also located several feet from the boring locations. The nature of these berms could not be determined. Contamination in this area appears to be limited to the vicinity of the soil borings.
A surficial area of contamination which generally parallels the reportedly contaminated utility corridor is approximately 1,000 square feet in size. The area is conservatively estimated to reach a depth of 5 feet bgs (approximately 185 cubic yards). Two subsurface zones of contamination were identified at SS010 at the former location of the 25,000-gallon AST. A shallower zone of contamination was estimated at 15.200 square feet. A deeper zone of contamination (approximately 9,500 square feet in area), delineated from soil borings SB-09, SB-11, SB-12, and SB-13, has a vertical extent of contamination extends beyond the depths reached during the 2008 RI (approximately 20 feet bgs), and likely extends to the water table.
A localized area (approximately 2,300 square feet) was identified approximately 300 feet southwest of Weather Station Building 4101 at approximately 3 feet to 7 feet bgs in soil boring SB-23. Metallic surficial debris, as well as, unusual berm shaped features (5 to 6 feet tall) were observed in the immediate area of soil borings SB-22 and SB-23 during the 2008 RI. Based on field screening and analytical results from samples collected at nearby soil borings, the DRO exceedance at analytical sample CR-SS10-SB23-001-0-090108 appears to be localized to the vicinity of this soil boring. Sediments downgradient of SS010 contain elevated arsenic which is likely representative of naturally occurring concentrations.
Delineation of contaminant migration to groundwater could not be achieved during the 2008 RI as the suspected groundwater depth (approximately 70 feet bgs) was not reached with the direct-push drilling method. Historical reports indicate groundwater from Well #2 contained a petroleum odor, and is likely impacted at this source area. Collocated surface water and sediment samples from downgradient of SS010 indicate migration into Fowler Creek has not occurred.
See site file for additional information.
|
Louis Howard |
| 4/17/2009 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
ADEC Review & comment on the draft RI for Cape Romanzof LRRS SS016 (Upper Tramway Terminal), SS017 (Lower Tramway Terminal), LF003 (Landfill Number 2) & SS010 (Spill/Leak Number 4, Weather Station Building).
3.7 Deviations from the Work Plan Page 3-7:Source Area SS017-ADEC requests the Air Force provide clarification on whether there was disturbed soil that was moved from the site, if so please elaborate where the soil was relocated. ADEC requests the Air Force provide information on the source of the backfill material used to fill the area & provide information on whether the backfill was sampled or otherwise demonstrated to be clean.
6.2.1.3 Surface Water & Sediment Analytical Results Page 6-17: The last paragraph of the section states that the extent of surface water & sediment contamination from LF003 may not have been fully defined during the 2008 field effort. As stated in the text, ADEC believes it is premature for the Air Force to progress to risk assessment if it has not defined the extent of surface water & sediment contamination. ADEC requests the Air Force provide additional discussion in the risk assessment to this effect.
6.3.1.4 Surface Water & Sediment Analytical Results Page 6-35: ADEC requests the Air Force elaborate on whether there has there been a background study conducted for arsenic within Fowler Creek. If not, then ADEC requests the Air Force not hypothesize in the document that arsenic detected on site is attributed to natural background conditions.
6.5.1.4 Summary of Findings at Source Area SS017 Page 6-58: ADEC requests the Air Force provide clarification on whether there was disturbed soil that was moved from the site, if so please elaborate where the soil was relocated. ADEC requests the Air Force provide information on the source of the backfill material used to fill the area & provide information on whether the backfill was sampled or otherwise demonstrated to be clean. Additionally, ADEC requests the Air Force clarify whether the surface soil sampled, which was discussed in the text, obtained from the backfilled material.
7.1.1 Data used in the BHHRA Page 7-2: ADEC requests the Air Force provide information on whether a determination has been made on groundwater use under 18 AAC 75.350 to justify the elimination of groundwater as a potential pathway of concern. ADEC considers all groundwater in Alaska as a drinking water source or a potential drinking water source.
7.1.4.3 Source Area SS010 Screening Results Page 7-8: ADEC requests the Air Force differentiate between human health & ecological health COPCs. PCBs were detected in surface water & sediment exceeding human health screening criteria & therefore should be considered human health COPCs. ADEC requests the Air Force differentiate between current & future subsistence users in the conceptual site model by adding “recreational” & “residential” respectively.
See site file for additional information.
|
Louis Howard |
| 7/31/2009 |
Update or Other Action |
Final RI received. The Cape Romanzof LRRS site includes several known source areas. Four IRP sites were investigated in August through October 2008, including: LF003 (Landfill No 2), SSOIO
(Spill/Leak No. 4 at the Weather Station Building), SS016 (Upper Tram Area) and SS017
(Lower Tram Area).
The overallI goal of the 2008 RI was to delineate the nature and extent of surface and subsurface soil contamination associated with the source areas as well as to provide adequate data to support remediation of contaminated media that pose an unacceptable risk to human health or the environment. While groundwater sampling was proposed at source area 55010, groundwater monitoring wells could not be installed, which prevented the collection of any analytical groundwater samples. A Groundwater Use Determination will be completed in accordance with 18 AAC 75.350 and submitted for approval. Pending approval the groundwater pathway will be
eliminated as a pathway of concern. The more stringent of the remaining pathway specific
cleanup levels will apply.
Baseline Human Health Risk
* The BHI-RA has demonstrated that there is unacceptable human health nisk from direct contact with PCBs in soil and sediment at LF003 and from direct contact with lead and PCBs in soil at SS016 and SS017
* There is little risk from direct contact with soil and sediment at SS510.
* There are potential hotspots of [PCBs in soil and sediment at LF003 and in soil at SS016/SS017.
* There is also potential risk from subsistence consumption of plants, small mammals and fish within all source areas, though these risks are overestimated since it is extremely conservative to assume that all subsistence activity takes place in these four contaminated
source areas within the Cape Romanzof LRRS.
Screening-Level Ecological Risk
* The screening level ERA has demonstrated that there is potential unacceptable ecological
risk for select sample locations at the LFOO3, SS016 and SS017 sources areas within the Cape Romanzof LRRS installation, as concentrations of PCBs in soil and sediment at LF003 and lead and PCBs in soil at SS0I6/SSOI7 exceed ecotoxicity screening levels based on food chain exposures.
However, this potential risk is limited to few sample locations (e.g., hot spots) within
each source area, to developed areas within source area SS016/SS017, and to drainage
seeps.
* PCB contamination has not been found in Fowler Creek.
* Overall, the potential risk to ecological receptors from exposure to COPECs is expected
to be limited as the forage habitat provided by the source areas is limited.
Source Area 55010, is recommended for remedial action and long term monitoring. Two
smaller areas of surface soil contamination are present along the utility trench to the Weather
Station Building, and southwest of the building in an area generally downgradient of the site. A
larger area of subsurface contamination is present at the former location of a 25,000-gallon AST.
This area should be considered for in-situ soil treatment or removal and treatment to practical
extents. Anecdotal information indicates historical water wells at this location contained
petroleum products. No monitoning wells were successfully installed during the 2008 RI. A
large hollow-stem auger drill rig, or air rotary drill rig should be used for installation of
monitoring wells, and downgradient seeps and sediments at Fowler Creek should be monitored
to ensure impacts from 55010O are not occurring.
|
Louis Howard |
| 9/29/2009 |
Update or Other Action |
ADEC requested & received a 18 AAC 75.350 GW use determination from the Air Force for SS010 that GW is not used for a drinking water source as an appendix to the 2009 Remedial Investigation. "A GW Use Determination will be completed in accordance with 18 AAC 75.350 & submitted for approval. Pending approval the GW pathway will be eliminated as a pathway of concern. The more stringent of the remaining pathway specific cleanup levels will apply(July 2009 Final RI)."
GW at SS010 – The Weather Station Building, meets the criteria stipulated in Title 18 Alaska Administrative Code (AAC) Chapter 75.350 to classify GW as a non-drinking water source. This GW use determination has been completed in accordance with ADEC requirements, in support of the Remedial Investigation (RI) completed in 2008-2009, & in support of any future Feasibility Study (FS).
The goal of this determination is to illustrate that GW at SS010 is not a reasonable drinking water source in accordance with ADEC requirements, & that the migration to GW pathway-specific cleanup levels may not be required for this Source Area.
GW at SS010O is not currently used for drinking water. The site is remote, & there is only one drinking water well in the vicinity (Well No. 1, the supply well at the composite facility). Due to the relative location & elevation the SS010 GW does not contribute to GW in Well No. 1.
1(A) Well No. I is located approximately two miles upgradient (i.e., up the Fowler Creek drainage) of SS010. All GW at the Cape Romanzof LRRS occurs within the Fowler Creek drainage basin, & surface water runoff & GW flow directions follow the downward slopes of the valley (i.e., flowing toward SS010 & Kokechik Bay). GW recharges from infiltration of precipitation within the Fowler Creek drainage basin. The lake behind the Huson Dam at the Lower Camp (composite facility) area is intended for recharging the drinking water aquifer that Well No. I is completed into.
(B&C) The site is very remote, & there are no drinking water wells or public water systems in the vicinity of SS010. Details about the Cape Romanzof LRRS water supply well are provided in the Basis for Criterion 1 (A). The nearest towns to Cape Romanzof are Scammon Bay & Hooper Bay, which are about 15 miles east & south, respectively.
2(A & B) GW occurs in surficial alluvial & colluvial deposits consisting of sandy silt & boulders. Aquifer properties are unknown; however, they are probably irregular due to the highly variable distribution of fine & coarse materials. It was determined at the TRIAD systematic planning meeting that GW contamination is a site specific concern due to the reported contamination of GW within two former GW wells at Source Area SS010, but the current GW elevation & continued GW impact could not be determined during the 2008 RI.
See site file for additional information.
|
Louis Howard |
| 10/6/2009 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Air Force email from Keith Barnack to ADEC L. Howard RE: Cape Romanzof LRRS Source Area SS010 GW use Determination. Yes we can address this [two issues] in the DD you sign.
(email October 5, 2009 from John Halverson)
If in the future, they decide to excess the property [SS010], do they intend to include enforceable ICs in any transfer? If [the answer is] yes, [then] it [the 350 determination] should work.
They had a water well at the site that become contaminated with petroleum but it sounds like during the RI work they never drilled to the depth of the water table to verify the groundwater quality, but instead sampled surface water and sediment at a down gradient location. So, it seems like they'll need ICs restricting groundwater use anyways.
|
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 aites. |
Natalie Loescher |
| 7/21/2010 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Staff commented on the draft Initial Screening of Alternatives for Cape Romanzof LRRS July 2010. 1.0 Introduction Page 1-1
The text states: “The goal of the FS process is to determine the most appropriate methods or technologies for remediation of contaminated media at a site.”
ADEC requests the Air Force change the text to read as follows: “The primary objective of the feasibility study (FS) is to ensure that appropriate remedial alternatives are developed and evaluated such that relevant information concerning the remedial action options can be presented to a decision-maker and an appropriate remedy selected.” [40 Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) § 300.430 (e)(1)].
1.5.1 Remedial Action Objective Criteria Page 1-9
ADEC requests the Air Force insert this sentence as the first sentence for this section:
“RAOs consist of medium-specific goals for protecting human health and the environment. The objectives should be as specific as possible but not so specific that the range of alternatives that can be developed is unduly limited”
4.0 Conclusions of Initial Screening of Alternatives Page 3-25
ADEC concurs with the selection of all the alternatives presented in Section 3.0 for the detailed analysis of alternatives.
The text states: “As described in Section 1.5.5, this stage involves two steps: 1) analyzing each of the alternatives against the evaluation criteria (individual analysis) and 2) performing a comparative analysis of each alternative to the other alternatives within one source area and one medium (i.e. LF003 surface soil) to determine the alternative that is most applicable to that source area/medium. These steps are necessary to fully evaluate each alternative.”
ADEC requests the Air Force instead use the following text as follows:
“A detailed analysis of alternatives consists of the following components: 1) Further definition of each alternative, if necessary, with respect to the volumes or areas of contaminated media to be addressed, the technologies to be used, and any performance requirements associated with those technologies. 2) An assessment and a summary profile of each alternative against the evaluation criteria. 3) A comparative analysis among the alternatives to assess the relative performance of each alternative with respect to each evaluation criterion
5.0 References Page 4-3
ADEC requests the Air Force to update the list of guidance as follows:
ADEC. 2008. Alaska Water Quality Criteria Manual for Toxic and Other Deleterious Organic and Inorganic Substances. December 12.
ADEC. 2004. Technical Memoradum. Sediment Quality Guidelines. March.
ADEC. 2009 18 AAC 70 Water Quality Standards. Amended as September 19.
ADEC review and comment on this initial screening of alternatives is to ensure that the work was done in accordance with State of Alaska environmental conservation laws and regulations. While ADEC may comment on other state and federal laws and regulations, our comments on the document does not relieve responsible persons from the need to comply with other applicable laws and regulations. |
Louis Howard |
| 6/16/2011 |
CERCLA FS |
Cape Romanzof Feasibility Study Draft Contract No. FA8903-08-D-8784 Task Order 0036 Project No. DBWT20107317 June 2011 received. SS010 is the old weather observation building (Building 4000) which has been removed from the gravel pad, as well as, diesel fuel AST Tank #11 (Spill/Leak#4 source [25,000 gallons], and diesel fuel AST Tank #4 (1,100 gallons). Contaminants of concern/cleanup levels-
Near Utility Trench (Sample SB-01) surface soil: 74 cubic yards DRO 1,200 mg/kg max concentration (250 mg/kg cleanup level).
Three areas: 1) Near Tank #22 (0-7' bgs), 2) Near Tank #11 (7-17' bgs) and 3) Near SB-23 (3-7' bgs). 1: 3,888 cubic yards, 2: 3,518 cubic yards and 3) 444 cubic yards. GRO 1,180 mg/kg max. concentration (300 mg/kg cleanup level), DRO 11,000 mg/kg max. concentration (250 mg/kg cleanup level), 1-Methylnapthalene 25 mg/kg max. concentration (6.2 mg/kg), 2-Methylnapthalene 37 mg/kg max. concentration (6.1 mg/kg cleanup level), 1,2,4-Trimethlybenzene 27 mg/kg max. concentration (23 mg/kg cleanup level) and benzene 0.999 mg/kg (0.025 mg/kg cleanup level).
Source Area SS010 is the only site that contains suspected fuel-contaminated groundwater that may exceed PRGs. During the 2008 RI, installation of a monitoring well was attempted, but failed due to the inability of the drill rig to penetrate the boulder substrate beyond approximately 20ft. bgs; therefore, no groundwater samples were able to be collected and analyzed. No source for the fuel has ever been conclusively identified.
SS010 Surface Soil Alternatives
• SS10SS1 – No Action
• SS10SS2 – Institutional Controls, Engineering Controls and Containment
• SS10SS3 – Excavation, Ex-situ treatment and On-site Disposal
• SS10SS4 – Institutional Controls, Engineering Controls, Natural Attenuation and LTM
• SS10SS5 – Excavation and Off-Site Disposal
SS010 Subsurface Soil Alternatives
• SS10SB1 – No Action
• SS10SB2 – Institutional Controls and Engineering Controls
• SS10SB3 – Institutional Controls, Engineering Controls, In-situ Treatment and LTM
• SS10SB4 – Excavation, Ex-situ treatment and on-site disposal
• SS10SB5 – Excavation and Off-Site Disposal
SS010 Groundwater Alternatives
• SS10GW1 – No Action
• SS10GW2 – Institutional Controls, Engineering Controls, Natural Attentuation and LTM
• SS10GW3 – Institutional Controls, Engineering Controls, In-situ treatment and LTM
• SS10GW4 – Excavation, ex-situ treatment and on-site disposal
The purpose of this FS is to identify appropriate remedial alternatives for the contaminants present at the Cape Romanzof LRRS and to provide a detailed analysis of the alternatives so that appropriate remedial remedies may be selected for implementation at each of the four contamianated (i.e. source) areas. The purpose of this evaluation is not to select a preferred alternative, but rather to evaluate each of the alternatives on an individual and comparative basis, relative to the seven evaluation criteria. The seven evaluation criteria include the threshold and balancing criteria. The remaining two “modifying criteria” (State Acceptance and Community Acceptance) will be addressed in the ROD associated with the Cape Romanzof LRRS, following this FS and were not evaluated at this time.
See site file for additional information.
|
Louis Howard |
| 7/29/2011 |
Update or Other Action |
Final RI received. The Cape Romanzof LRRS site includes several known source areas. Four IRP sites were investigated in August through October 2008, including: LF003 (Landfill No 2), SSOIO (Spill/Leak No. 4 at the Weather Station Building), SS016 (Upper Tram Area) and SS017 (Lower Tram Area).
The overalI goal of the 2008 RI was to delineate the nature and extent of surface and subsurface soil contamination associated with the source areas as well as to provide adequate data to support remediation of contaminated media that pose an unacceptable risk to human health or the environment. While groundwater sampling was proposed at source area 55010, groundwater monitoring wells could not be installed, which prevented the collection of any analytical groundwater samples. A Groundwater Use Determination will be completed in accordance with 18 AAC 75.350 and submitted for approval. Pending approval the groundwater pathway will be eliminated as a pathway of concern. The more stringent of the remaining pathway specific cleanup levels will apply.
Source Area LF003 is recommended for remedial action to eliminate PCB sources at the landfill which may continue to leach into surface water and sediments, Regulations from ADEC require removal of PCB impacted soils to a concentration of 1 mg/kg for unrestricted land use, or 10 mg/kg with institutional controls and the placement of a cap over remaining impacted soils. Regulations from USEPA under TSCA require institutional controls for PCBs up to 25 mg/kg, site control (fence) and institutional controls for concentrations between 25 mg/kg and 50 mgikg, and capping and institutional controls for concentrations between 25 mg/kg and 100 mg/kg
Contaminated soils associated with historical sample locations SS07 and SS18 contain PCB concentration ranging from 1 mg/kg to 25 mg/kg, with the highest detections located adjacent to the seep and sediments. In accordance with TSCA regulations, these soils may be left in place with institutional controls (deed restriction) implemented. In accordance with ADEC regulations, soils with PCB concentrations greater than 10 mg/kg would need to be removed, and remaining impacted soils would require a cap and institutional controls. Removal of soils adjacent to the seep and sediments at the same time would meet ADEC regulations as detailed above.
Contaminated sediments along the seep emanating from the northwest toe of the landfill contain much higher concentrations of PCBs ranging from 40 mg/kg to 230 mglkg. Sediments should be removed to the extents practical from the toe of the landfill to the approximate location of historical sample SS07. Removal of these sediments will reduce impacts to soil and sediment downstream of this location, and be protective of Fowler Creek.
Additional effort should be made to investigate the source of PCB contamination within the landfill itself As PCBs were generally only detected from the northwest seep, the source of these PCBs may be located within the landfill, along the northwest edge.
See site file for additional information. |
Louis Howard |
| 9/29/2011 |
CERCLA FS |
Staff approved the final feasibility study. |
Louis Howard |
| 3/23/2012 |
Update or Other Action |
ADEC received the draft Proposed Plan for 4 sites including:
• Spill/Leak No. 4 at the Weather Station Building (SS010)
Soil: Institutional Controls & Engineering Controls:
A notice would be placed on the property records to notify current & potential owners of the presence of contaminants. Restrictive covenants may also be conveyed that prevent certain kinds of activities at these locations. Subsurface soil contaminated above cleanup levels would remain on site. However, over time, natural degradation (attenuation) of the contaminants will likely occur. Without LTM, which is not proposed under this alternative, there is no way to determine whether or not the contamination has degraded to below cleanup levels. Future analysis of subsurface soil would likely be required for site closure.
Monitoring wells (MW) would be installed at the site to assess the condition of the GW beneath the contaminated subsurface soil. The ultimate goal is to prevent any GW contamination from migrating to Fowler/Nilamut Creek. Two GW MWs would be installed & sampled for fuel constituents.
This is the preferred alternative because exposure risk to subsurface soil is low & contaminant concentrations are currently close to meeting cleanup levels. In-situ treatment would be significantly more costly & may not be effective due to site geology.
GW: Institutional Controls, Engineering Controls, Natural Attenuation & LTM
In this alternative, signs would be erected at locations where GW is suspected to be contaminated at levels above cleanup levels protective of human health & the environment. The signs would warn that contaminated GW is present & that intrusive activities should be avoided. A notice would be placed on the property records to notify current & potential owners of the presence of contaminants.
Restrictive covenants may also be conveyed that prevent certain kinds of activities at these locations. Potentially contaminated GW would remain on site under this alternative. However, over time, natural degradation (attenuation) of the contaminants is expected to occur & LTM will provide the data necessary to determine when the contamination is below cleanup levels. When GW meets cleanup levels, the institutional & engineering controls would be removed.
Two MWs would be installed down-gradient of the contaminated subsurface soil so that GW could be sampled & analyzed to check if contamination migrates from the site. The subsurface soil is suspected to be the potential source of any contamination in area GW. The ultimate goal is to prevent contamination from migrating to surface water (Fowler Creek) via GW. In the event that GW contamination is discovered, potential risk to surface water quality at Fowler Creek would be assessed & if necessary, remedial action would be taken.
If contaminants are discovered at concentrations above 18 AAC 75.345 GW Cleanup Levels, but GW contamination does not pose an unacceptable risk to surface water quality at Fowler Creek, periodic sampling & analysis of GW in the monitoring wells (LTM) would be performed at the site to assess changes in GW contaminant concentrations over time.
When contaminant concentrations were below 18 AAC 75.345 GW Cleanup Levels monitoring would be ceased & signs would be removed. Additionally, the seeps & sediments adjacent to Fowler Creek (down-gradient of the site) would be monitored to ensure that contamination does not reach this water body.
The condition of the signs would be assessed during LTM activities & maintenance would be completed as needed. This is the preferred alternative for potentially contaminated GW because it is cost effective & provides for protection of human health & the environment.
See site file for additional information.
|
Louis Howard |
| 7/11/2012 |
CERCLA Proposed Plan |
While not listed on the NPL, Cape Romanzof LRRS must follow CERCLA process per E.O. 12580 [e.g. CERCLA Sections 104(a), (b), and (c)(4), 113(k), 117(a), and (c), 119, and 121) with respect to releases or threatened releases where either the release is on or the sole source of the release is from any facility or vessel under the jurisdiction, custody, or control of their departments. These functions must be exercised consistent with CERCLA Section 120 Federal Facilities.
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 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.].
The preferred alternatives for Sites LF003, SS010, SS016, and SS017 are listed below.
LF003 PCB contaminated soil and sediment:
• LF03SS5: PCB Soil (=1 mg/kg): Excavation and Off-Site Disposal.
• LF03SD3: Excavation, Off-Site Disposal and Long-Term Monitoring.
SS010 petroleum contaminated subsurface soil and groundwater potentially contaminated with petroleum:
• SS10SB2: Institutional Controls and Engineering Controls.
• SS10GW2 – Institutional Controls, Engineering Controls, Natural Attenuation and LTM.
SS016 PCB contaminated soil:
• SS16SS4: PCB Soil =1 mg/kg Excavation, to the extent feasible, and Off-Site Disposal.
SS017 PCB contaminated surface and subsurface soil:
• SS17SS4: Excavation and Off-Site Disposal.
• SS17SB4: Excavation and Off-Site Disposal.
USAF will implement, monitor, maintain, and enforce the ICs identified below in accordance with ADEC’s contaminated site regulations. The purpose of the ICs is to help prevent inappropriate handling of groundwater contaminated above ADEC Table C groundwater cleanup levels at SS010 and help prevent the future handling of surface soil or sediment contaminated above ADEC Method Two cleanup levels at LF003 and SS016 in ways that are inconsistent with ADEC’s contaminated site regulations.
See site file for additional information.
|
Louis Howard |
| 12/14/2012 |
Update or Other Action |
Draft Record of Decision received.
The COCs identified at SS010 are diesel-range organics (DRO) in subsurface soil and potential fuel contamination in groundwater, (i.e., DRO, gasoline-range organics [GRO], and residual-range organics [RRO]). Approximately 3,518 cy of DRO-contaminated subsurface soil is present at SS010. The quantity of fuel-contaminated groundwater is not determined. Petroleum (i.e., DRO, GRO, and RRO) is not considered to be a hazardous substance under CERCLA and is therefore not regulated by CERCLA. For these reasons, no action for petroleum is necessary under CERCLA; however, petroleum is considered a hazardous substance under Title 46 of the Alaska Statues and regulations promulgated there under. Remedial action is therefore required under State of Alaska regulations to address petroleum-based contamination.
The selected remedies for SS010 for DRO-contaminated subsurface soil and potential fuel- contaminated (DRO, GRO, or RRO) groundwater are as follows:
- Subsurface soil – Alternative SS10SB2 – Institutional Controls, includes the following actions:
- Contaminated subsurface soil will remain in place to naturally attenuate.
- Land Use Controls restricting intrusive soil activities at the site will be implemented and managed, by the USAF, through the base digging permit system in order to prevent exposure to DRO contamination posing an unacceptable risk to human health and the environment in subsurface soil. Land Use Controls will remain in place until such time as site conditions allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure.
- Land Use Controls will be recorded in the appropriate Cape Romanzof LRRS land records, including the Base Master Plan and ADNR land records. Land use control boundaries will encompass all areas where subsurface soil contaminant levels pose an unacceptable risk to human health and the environment and will be surveyed and a map designating their locations will accompany notations placed on land records.
- Groundwater – Alternative SS10GW2 – Institutional Controls, Natural Attenuation, and Long-Term Monitoring includes the following actions:
- Potentially contaminated groundwater will remain in place. Over time, natural attenuation of the contaminants is expected to occur and long-term monitoring (LTM) will provide the data necessary to determine when contaminant levels allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure.
- Three monitoring wells will be installed and sampled at the source area (one well) and downgradient of the source area (two wells) in order to determine if;
- groundwater is contaminated and if so, if contamination poses an unacceptable risk to surface water quality at Fowler Creek, and
- to determine groundwater flow direction at the site.
See site file for additional information.
|
Louis Howard |
| 6/2/2014 |
Update or Other Action |
Draft work plan received for review and comment.
IC inspections for Sites LF003, ST009, and SS010. A landfill cap inspection will be completed for
LF003. The results of these inspections will be documented in a field log book and accompanied
by photographs.
The study boundaries of this project are Sites LF003, ST009, SS010, and SS015. As part of this effort visual IC inspections will be performed within the lateral boundaries of Sites LF003, ST009, and SS010.
At Site SS010, vertical delineation is currently incomplete as groundwater data have not yet been collected. Three monitoring wells will be installed at the site to characterize current groundwater conditions. Two wells will be installed to a depth of 30 ft bgs and one well will be installed to a maximum depth of 80 ft. Three soil samples will be collected at three distinct depths per well and submitted for analysis of DRO, GRO, and RRO. Soil samples for analytical testing will be collected from three intervals at each soil boring to characterize surface soil (0-2 ft bgs), subsurface soil (2-15 ft bgs), and soil immediately above the capillary fringe. The subsurface soil sample interval will be selected based on field screening results using a photo-ionization detector (PID), visual, and/or olfactory observations. The sample collected immediately above the capillary fringe will be based on the observed depth of the water table during drilling.
Groundwater samples will be submitted for GRO, DRO, and RRO analysis from the three newly installed monitoring wells.
Newly collected data will be compared to cleanup levels. Recommendations for changing,
continuing, or terminating specific monitoring requirements will be provided in the reporting phase. |
Louis Howard |
| 7/1/2014 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Staff provided comments on IDW for soil at SS010.
Based in the information provided, ADEC will approve on-site disposal of soil cuttings from monitoring well development at three wells for Cape Romanzof LRRS at SS010. ADEC’s approval will expire on October 31, 2014. This is a site specific approval and a one-time approval. The disposal of soil cuttings on site is subject to the following conditions:
On-site disposal at Cape Romanzof LRRS will be approved by ADEC if:
• soils generated during drilling activities (with the Geoprobe 8040DT air rotary system) by your consultant are deemed to be non-hazardous waste under the RCRA hazardous waste definition,
• there is no potential for off-site contaminant migration from on-site disposal activities, and
• the potential to create a human health or ecological hazard through all exposure pathways is not expected by the soil cutting disposal activities.
*RE: (Draft) Work Plan for Environmental Long Term Monitoring at Cape Romanzof LRRS Sites LF003, ST009, SS010, and SS015 dated May 2014.
ADEC concurs with the approach outlined below and agrees to it being included in the QAPP WP and RTC table as a noted change.
Prior to submitting the final version of the Work Plan with revisions previously agreed to in the RTC table, we have drafted language for the revision to the IDW management section regarding soil cuttings in WS#14/16 for your review.
If acceptable we will include in the QAPP and add it to the RTC table as a noted change.
At Site SS010 minimal soil cuttings (approximately one cubic yard) will be generated during drilling of soil borings using the Geoprobe® 8040DT with air rotary technology. Previous investigations have identified COCs consisting of GRO, DRO, and RRO which are not considered RCRA hazardous. Therefore, drill cuttings generated under this project will be RCRA nonhazardous and are anticipated to be noncontaminated or minimally contaminated because wells will be installed at locations near the edge of the site boundary and dowgradient outside of the site boundary. For this project only, the disposal method will consist of spreading the nonhazardous IDW soil cuttings onsite near the location of the soil boring in which they were generated.
However, in the case that significant petroleum impacts are observed, such as noting a petroleum sheen or moderate-to-strong odor, then cuttings will be containerized and stored on site in 55 gallon DOT-approved drums until off-site transport can be arranged. Drums would be transported offsite using an air cargo charter flight to an appropriate Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facility using an air cargo charter under an approved (TSDF) under an approved ADEC Contaminated Soil Transport and Treatment Approval Form (Appendix B).
|
Louis Howard |
| 12/18/2014 |
Update or Other Action |
LTM report for environmental monitoring received for review and comment.
Site SS010 is accessed by installation personnel year-round for industrial and station operations, primarily during weather monitoring for flights. No warning signs or other general area restrictions were found since none are required. Vehicular traffic is limited to authorized site users. An aerial photograph (Appendix B-3, Photograph 2) was taken of the site and shows the existing structure (weather station), road, and the vegetated area surrounding the site.
Wildlife including song birds and small rodents were identified during the site inspection near the newly installed well SS010-MW01. Non-road and building areas were 100% vegetated, and all vegetation in those areas appeared to be healthy.
The placement of soil borings and groundwater monitoring wells was changed due to much deeper groundwater than anticipated at the Site SS010 area.
total of nine soil samples and one duplicate sample were collected from various intervals at three soil borings and analyzed for GRO, DRO, and RRO using Alaska Methods AK101, AK102, and AK103, respectively. GRO was not detected in any of the samples. DRO and RRO were either non-detect or detected at concentrations below ADEC Soil Cleanup Levels.
Monitoring wells SS010-MW01, SS010-MW02, and SS010-MW03 were sampled and groundwater samples were submitted for laboratory analysis of COCs including GRO, DRO, and RRO by Alaska Methods AK101, AK102, and AK103, respectively. Results for all groundwater samples and analytes were either non-detect or detected below ADEC Groundwater Cleanup Levels.
Monitoring well SS010-MW03 was installed within 20 feet of its proposed location, near to the SS010 site boundary and within the previously established contamination zone. Well SS010-MW01 was established approximately 80 feet northwest of its proposed location. Well SS010-MW02 was installed approximately 500 ft southwest of the proposed location.
Adjusting the monitoring well installation locations was discussed while in the field by the EA project manager, ADEC Regulators, and the USAF. The three monitoring well depths originally planned were insufficient to reach groundwater, and the installed monitoring wells were screened at depths where groundwater was encountered. Monitoring wells SS010-MW01 and SS010-MW02 were expected to require total depths of 30 ft bgs each, but instead were installed to total depths of 104.0 ft bgs and 118.0 ft bgs, respectively. Well SS010-MW03 was expected to require a total depth of 80 ft bgs, and was installed at a depth of 81.5 ft bgs.
For subsurface soil samples at SS010-MW01 and SS010-MW02, the capillary fringe samples were collected from an estimated depth due to the inability to accurately determine capillary fringe depth while using the only equipment that would successfully install monitoring wells (DTH). For well SS010-MW01, a soil sample was collected at 90 feet bgs, while the depth to water was found to be approximately 97 feet bgs during groundwater sampling. At well SS010-MW02, a soil sample was collected at 56 feet bgs, and the depth to water was approximately 115 ft bgs. For well SS010-MW03, a sample was taken at 80 feet bgs, and the depth to water was approximately 87 feet bgs. |
Louis Howard |
| 3/18/2015 |
Update or Other Action |
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.
Landfills are defined in 18 AAC 60 as “an area of land, or an excavation in which solid wastes are placed for permanent disposal, & that is not an application site, injection well, reserve pit, or waste pile.” This definition applies to most PRSC ERP & non-ERP sites in Alaska designated as landfills, dumps, or caches. Small PRSC ERP & 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 & included in Table 2-2. However, alternative criteria can & 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 & to potential future landowners, are summarized in Table 2-3. Tables 2-2 & 2-3 both generally assume the subject landfill is closed, has been reasonably well characterized, & a monitoring program for media of concern has been established & approved by ADEC.
LUC_RESTRICTION The selected remedies for SS010 for DRO-contaminated subsurface soil & potential fuel contaminated (DRO, GRO, or RRO) groundwater are as follows:
Subsurface soil – Alternative SS10SB2 – Institutional Controls & Engineering Controls.
Contaminated subsurface soil will remain in place to naturally attenuate. ICs that prevent access to groundwater until groundwater cleanup levels have been met & maintain the integrity of any current or future remedial or monitoring system, prohibit the development & use of property for residential housing & prevent the use of contaminated soil for restricted uses in the event of excavation by requiring site dig permit, implement soils management plan, & conduct LTM at SS010. ICs will be incorporated into the LUC Plan for SS010.
In the case that all contaminated subsurface soil is not able to be removed due to safety or logistical issues, then ICs annual inspections & a Five-Year Review will be required.
Performance reports will be provided to ADEC, annually, for the first five years after remedial activities & will be followed by a Five-Year Review. At that time the frequency of inspections & reports may be reduced.
Groundwater – Alternative SS10GW2 – Institutional Controls, Engineering Controls, Natural Attenuation, & Long-Term Monitoring.
Potentially contaminated groundwater will remain in place. Over time, natural attenuation of the contaminants is expected to occur & LTM will provide the data necessary to determine whether the plume is stable or shrinking or when contaminant levels allow for unlimited use & unrestricted exposure. Land Use Controls will be recorded in the appropriate Cape Romanzof LRRS land records, including the Base Master Plan & ADNR land records. ECs such as land use control boundaries will encompass all areas where groundwater contaminant levels pose an unacceptable risk to human health & the environment & be surveyed & a map designating their locations will accompany notations placed on land records.
See site file for additional information.
|
Louis Howard |
| 12/16/2015 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Staff reviewed and commented on the draft long term monitoring report for LF003, ST009, SS015. Main comments were regarding qualifications of the two samplers who were not listed in the final approved UFP-QAPP work plan.
Based on a review of the environmental records to date for SS010, ADEC concurs with the recommendation and will issue a determination for cleanup complete with institutional controls for SS010 (Spill/Leak No. 4 at the Weather Station Building). |
Louis Howard |
| 3/3/2017 |
Update or Other Action |
2016 Technical Project Report Environmental Long Term Monitoring Activities Cape Romanzof Long Range Radar Station Sites LF003, ST009, SS010 & SS015 received for review & comment.
Annual monitoring through IC inspection, LUC sign installation, and photograph documentation has been completed at SS010 for 2016 (Figure 4). The IC inspection conducted at SS010 did not reveal significant debris or erosion off site. The gravel pad, which serves as a year round access and parking area for site personnel, appears in good condition with no settling or cracking observed. As part of the required LTM for this site, LTM should continue at SS010 on an annual basis until deemed no longer necessary by the USAF and ADEC.
See site file for additional information. |
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 SS010 did not reveal significant debris or erosion off site. The gravel pad, which serves as a year-round access and parking area for site personnel, appears in good condition with no settling or cracking observed. During the 2017 LTM activities, new LUC signage was installed meeting the AFCEC requirements. IC inspections should continue at SS010 on
an annual basis until deemed no longer necessary by the USAF and ADEC. |
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 |
| 8/20/2025 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
DEC reviewed and provided comments on the Draft Final 2024 Long Term Management and Remedial Action Operations Report Cape Romanzof Long Range Radar Site (LRRS), Alaska, LF003, SS010, SS015, SS016, SS017, and ST009, dated July 2025. The report documents the evaluation of land use controls (LUCs) and institutional controls (ICs) at Sites LF003, SS010, SS015, SS016, SS017, and ST009. Groundwater samples were collected from monitoring wells at Sites SS015 and ST009, and sediment and surface water samples were collected at Site LF003. The groundwater samples indicate that while contamination remains above DEC’s groundwater cleanup levels, the contaminant concentrations at
the sites are stable or decreasing. Several signs were replaced during the 2024 field season, and several recommendations for changes to the LUCs, ICs, and monitoring program were made. |
Juliana Smit |
| 11/13/2025 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
DEC provided responses to comments on the Draft Final 2024 Long Term Management and Remedial Action Operations Report Cape Romanzof Long Range Radar Site (LRRS), Alaska, LF003, SS010, SS015, SS016, SS017, and ST009, dated November 2025. |
Juliana Smit |
| 11/24/2025 |
Long Term Monitoring Workplan or Report Review |
DEC approved the Final 2024 Long Term Management and Remedial Action Operations Report Cape Romanzof Long Range Radar Site (LRRS), Alaska, LF003, SS010, SS015, SS016, SS017, and ST009, dated November 2025. All responses to comments were incorporated into the final document as appropriate. |
Juliana Smit |
| 3/5/2026 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
DEC revied and provided comments on the 2025 Long Term Management and Remedial Action Operations Report Cape Romanzof Long Range Radar Site (LRRS), Alaska, LF003, SS010, SS015, SS016, SS017, and ST009, dated February 2026. The report documents the evaluation of land use controls (LUCs) and institutional controls (ICs) at Sites LF003, SS010, SS015, SS016, SS017, and ST009. Groundwater samples were collected from monitoring wells at Sites SS015 and ST009, and sediment and surface water samples were collected at Site LF003. The groundwater samples indicate that while contamination remains above DEC’s groundwater cleanup levels, the contaminant concentrations at the sites are stable or decreasing. Several signs were replaced during the 2024 field season, and several recommendations for changes to the LUCs, ICs, and monitoring program were made. |
Juliana Smit |
| 3/11/2026 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
DEC provided responses to comments on the 2025 Long Term Management and Remedial Action Operations Report Cape Romanzof Long Range Radar Site (LRRS), Alaska, LF003, SS010, SS015, SS016, SS017, and ST009, dated February 2026. |
Juliana Smit |
| 3/12/2026 |
Long Term Monitoring Workplan or Report Review |
DEC approved the Final 2025 Long Term Management and Remedial Action Operations Report Cape Romanzof Long Range Radar Site (LRRS), Alaska, LF003, SS010, SS015, SS016, SS017, and ST009, dated March 2026. |
Juliana Smit |
| 3/12/2026 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
DEC reviewed and provided comments on the Draft Final Uniform Federal Policy-Quality Assurance Project Plan Environmental Services to Conduct Phase I Remedial Investigation of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances at Cape Romanzof Long Range Radar Site, Alaska, dated February 2026. The Uniform Federal Policy-Quality Assurance Project Plan (UFP-QAPP) documents the purpose, objectives, communication pathways, sampling rational and methodology, and quality assurance and quality control measures to complete the PFAS Remedial Investigation (RI) at Cape Romanzof LRRS. The purpose of the PFAS RI is to delineate the nature and extent of PFAS in soil, groundwater, and surface water at Cape Romanzof LRRS to support a future feasibility study. |
Juliana Smit |
| 4/2/2026 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
DEC reviewed responses to comments on the Draft Final Uniform Federal Policy-Quality Assurance Project Plan
Environmental Services to Conduct Phase I Remedial Investigation of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances at Cape Romanzof Long Range Radar Site, Alaska , dated
March 2026. All responses to comments were accepted. |
Juliana Smit |
| 4/23/2026 |
CERCLA RI Plan Approved |
DEC reviewed and provided approval on the Final Uniform Federal Policy-Quality Assurance Project Plan Environmental Services to Conduct Phase I Remedial Investigation of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances at Cape Romanzof Long Range Radar Site, Alaska, dated April 2026. The Uniform Federal Policy-Quality Assurance Project Plan (UFP-QAPP) documents the purpose, objectives, communication pathways, sampling rational and methodology, and quality assurance and quality control measures to complete the PFAS Remedial Investigation (RI) at Cape Romanzof LRRS. The purpose of the PFAS RI is to delineate the nature and extent of PFAS in soil, groundwater, and surface water at Cape Romanzof LRRS to support a future feasibility study.
|
Juliana Smit |
