| Action Date |
Action |
Description |
DEC Staff |
| 2/1/1955 |
Update or Other Action |
Correspondence received from person formerly stationed at the facility during June 1954 to June 1955 states that a significant spill occurred from the main cantonment area storage tank that held 300,000 gallons of winter's fuel for the facility. Temperatures had been running minus 40 degrees at night and a leak was discovered deep under the snow, and had depleted the tank to the point where there was only about three days' fuel left. This spill required an emergency effort on everybody's part to make it through the winter.
This meant no showers or toilet flushing except with water that could be melted in barrels by mean of separate steam-jets. Water for normal operations was melted by digging a temporary
holding area behind the dining hall/water treatment area. A steam jet was installed in the holding area, and a D4 Cat with blade was used to push the snow into it. Everyone took turns in
teams to manually shovel the leftover snow into the holding area dugout.
Officers and senior NCOs took the night shifts. A further concern was that they could possibly run out of snow.
Simultaneously, trucks with tank trailers were dispatched to the lower fuel tanks at the beach. The trucks included vintage Diamond-T REO chaih driven trucks that were left over from the
original Tum pane Co. construction of the site, plus every tracked vehicle available.
The tank trailers were filled from the supply tanks at the beach area, to be hauled back up the hill and emptied into the working tank at the cantonment area. The effort was successful, but barely, due to the snow accumulation on the road, breakdowns, and track difficulties.
The overall procedure lasted essentially until spring thawed the lake, which permitted pumping water directly from there into the water treatment system, the normal procedure. As he remembers it, there must have been about 240,000 gallons of fuel lost from the leak, which undoubtedly drained into the small creek into the bay. |
Louis Howard |
| 7/31/1979 |
Update or Other Action |
ROM-1S Large Fuel Spill/SS13 is the result of a 14,000-gallon diesel fuel spill in 1979 caused by a fuel bladder rupture. |
Louis Howard |
| 3/31/1989 |
Update or Other Action |
Workplan for IRP Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study Stage 1 received. Large Fuel Spill (ROM-1S). Description- This site is identified in the Phase I Reportas Spill/Leak No. 5, a 14,000 gallon diesel fuel spill that occurred in 1979. The spill flow path is clearly visible by dead vegetation, and continues for several hundred feet towards Nilumat Creek, the main stream traversing the valley. The soils in the flow path are darkly stained and smell strongly
of diesel. The size of the directly affected area is about ten to fifteen acres.
Setting-The area slopes relatively gently toward the stream. The original ground cover was tundrea which has been destroyed wherever the diesel fuel flowed. Near-surface soils are stained by diesel fuel. The subsurface conditions are probably similar to those described in
Section 5.3.2.1.
Recommended Action - The purpose of the recommended field investigation is to document the present conditionof the site as it relates to contamination, and provide a basis for decisions on any remedial measures The area affected by this large 1979 fuel spill will be described, and its areal and vertical extent of contamination delineated by a soil gas survey combined with reconnaissance. Four soil samples will be taken and analyzed for volatile organics, semi-volatile organics, and total petroleum hydrocarbons. |
Louis Howard |
| 3/11/1991 |
Update or Other Action |
Woodward Clyde Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) 06/1990 stage 1 received by ADEC for work conducted 7/89-9/89.
Two other open, unsealed wells previously undocumented) were found during the 1989 investigation in the central part of Fowler Creek Valley. These wells are located at the ROM-IS site, about 400 feet downstream from Well No. 1. It is likely that these wells also penetrated part of the alluvlal/glacial deposits; however, no information on lithologies penetrated or well histories is presently available.
The site is located southwest of the Lower Camp area. The area still affected by the large Fuel spill is apparent from the visible swath of darkened, distressed tundra. This area was
traversed and mapped. Four near-surface soil samples were collected within the affected area: one near the head, two in the middle, and one near the terminus of the spill. Sample locations were marked and mapped.
Two abandoned wells, located in the path of the spill,were discovered during the initial survey of the site. These are Wells A and B. One well (Well B) may have served as a base water supply well at one time, as evidenced by a concrete building foundation surrounding the well head. The other well (Well A) appears to have never been developed and was probably abandoned at the time of its installation. The wells were purged, using an electric 4-inch submersible pump, and groundwater samples were collected.
Table 5-1 identifies volume of Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon (TPH) contaminated soils at 6 sites: ROM-1D (5099th Landfill LF12), ROM-1S (SS13 Seep Area Spill/Leak No. 5 which was composed of diesel fuel released in 1979), ROM-3 ( SS07 Waste Accumulation Area No. 1, Spill/Leak Nos. 1 and 2), ROM-8 (LF03 Landfill 2), ROM-10 (ST09 Former Truck Fill Stand), ROM-12 (SS14 Former Drum Storage area). It is estimated that approximately 26,000 cubic yards of contaminated soil needs to be either remediated or excavated for disposal offsite. Based on the findings of the 1989 study, further investigation was recommended.
PCBs were detected in surface water samples downgradient southwest (SW) of ROM-8 (the Old Landfill) at levels 40 times higher than the chronic criterion. PCBs in the soils here were found to be below the 10 mg/kg action level in effect at this time. |
Louis Howard |
| 2/25/1992 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Staff reviewed and commented on the Draft IRP RI/FS Stage 1 Tech Report Addendum March 1991 and 2nd draft report June 1990. ROM-1S Large Fuel Spill, Well No. 1 & Lower Camp area-The Department concurs with the recommendation that additional groundwater samples be taken from Well No. 1 for all Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels. The Department does not concur with the recommended remedial alternative-No Action for TPH soil contamination present at this site (page 6-2 section 6.1 WCC June 1990). TPH detected in the soils from the 4 samples taken ranged from 1500 mg/kg to 17,000 mg/kg (page 4-15 sect. 4.1.3.3 Analytical Results WCC June 1990). These levels are above the Department's cleanup levels & must be addressed.
The surface soil within ROM-1S was estimated to cover an area of 88,200 sq. feet and a total volume of at least 9,797 cubic yards. This may be an underestimate since the total depth was assumed to be 3 feet and will need to be further delineated through more soil borings and sampling using the appropriate method for diesel range petroleum hydrocarbons and/or gasoline range petroleum hydrocarbons as listed in the ADEC guidance for NON-UST soil cleanup levels. |
Louis Howard |
| 3/3/1992 |
Site Added to Database |
Federally funded-DOD. Diesel Contaminant. |
Louis Howard |
| 3/3/1992 |
Site Ranked Using the AHRM |
DOD funded. |
Louis Howard |
| 5/29/1992 |
Update or Other Action |
Air Force Preliminary Assessment received.
Locate and identify on a topo map all known or suspected sources (see definitions, pg 5). Supply all information about source(s) such as; dates of operation, use, and spillage; amounts of material deposited, stored, or spilled; dimensions of source(s); known or suspected hazardous substances (see definitions, pg 5), etc.
Air Force response: SOURCE 1-SPILL/LEAK NO. 5: Occurred in 1979 when approximately 14,000 gallons of diesel fuel leaked near the incinerator, Bldg 2-219. The fuel flowed under the dining hall and commissary. Approximately 300 gallons were recovered, the remaining fuel seeped into the ground.
What is the average number of persons per residence (Borough, city, village, community, etc.) that site is Iocated in?
AIR FORCE RESPONSE
The population of the site is six civilian contract personnel living and working on-site. No other people llve at this site.
- Cape Romanzof is located 540 miles west of Anchorage on a small peninsula which extends into the Bering Sea. The nearest towns are Scammon Bay, 15 miles east of the site, with a population of 317 and the town of Hooper Bay, 15 miles south of the site, with a population of 807. Population data is derived from the State of Alaska, Department of Community and Regional
Affairs 1990 data. Based on US Census Bureau data of 2.79 persons per household, we estimate
113 residences in Scammon Bay and 290 residences in Hooper Bay.
What is the average human food chain production (pounds per year per acre) for each surface water body within 15 miles downstream (rivers, streams, etc.) or 15-mile radius (lakes, bays, etc.)?
AIR FORCE RESPONSE
The human food chain production in pounds per acre would be greater than 10,000 and less than 100,000.
-Hooper Bay is the largest Eskimo Village in this region, and is a very traditional village where the people practice subsistence extensively. Scammon Bay and Chevak are also located near the installation. The residents of these villages also practice subsistence considerably. Sea mammal hunting is a very large subsistence activity in this area; and Walrus and Beluga Whale are harvested as well as five species of seal, and sea lions which are hunted extensively. A commercial bottom fishery exists out of Hooper Bay (Black Cod), as well as a commercial salmon fishery. Subsistence Salmon and Whitefish fishing is extensive, as well as marine waterfowl hunting, sea bird colony hunting and ecging. There is an extensive subsistence razor clam fishery during June near Hooper Bay.
What is the 2-year 24 hr. rainfall? What is the Annual Net Precipitation?
Air Force: 2.8 inches and 26.8 inches. |
Louis Howard |
| 7/13/1992 |
Preliminary Assessment Approved |
Letter from EPA Region 10 stating that the Preliminary Site Assessment for the purposes of ranking under the Hazard Ranking System used to evaluate federal facilities for inclusion on the National Priorities List (NPL). Review of the documents indicate the site (facility) does not score high enough to be proposed for inclusion on the NPL.
Therefore, a recommendation of no further remedial action planned (NFRAP) on the EPA's part will be included in the federal agency hazardous waste compliance docket tracking system. If new or additional information becomes available that suggests the facility may score high enough to be proposed for the NPL, EPA will reevaluate the facility accordingly. The Facility is not relieved from complying with appropriate Alaska state regulations and SARA* 1986(a) (4) requires federal facilities to comply with state cleanup requirements and standards when not listed on the NPL.
NOTE TO FILE*-SEC. 120 [42 U.S.C. 9620] Federal Facilities [§120 added by PL 99-499]
(a) Application of Act to Federal Government.--
(1) In general. -- Each department, agency, and instrumentality of the United States (including the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government) shall be subject to, and comply with, this Act in the same manner and to the same extent, both procedurally and substantively, as any nongovernmental entity, including liability under section 107 of this Act. Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect the liability of any person or entity under sections 106 and 107 .
(2) Application of requirements to federal facilities. -- All guidelines, rules, regulations, and criteria which are applicable to preliminary assessments carried out under this Act for facilities at which hazardous substances are located, applicable to evaluations of such facilities under the National Contingency Plan, applicable to inclusion on the National Priorities List, or applicable to remedial actions at such facilities shall also be applicable to facilities which are owned or operated by a department, agency, or instrumentality of the United States in the same manner and to the extent as such guidelines, rules, regulations, and criteria are applicable to other facilities. No department, agency, or instrumentality of the United States may adopt or utilize any such guidelines, rules, regulations, or criteria which are inconsistent with the guidelines, rules, regulations, and criteria established by the Administrator under this Act.
(3) Exceptions. -- This subsection shall not apply to the extent otherwise provided in this section with respect to applicable time periods. This subsection shall also not apply to any requirements relating to bonding, insurance, or financial responsibility. Nothing in this Act shall be construed to require a State to comply with section 104(c)(3) in the case of a facility
which is owned or operated by any department, agency, or instrumentality of the United States.
(4) State laws. -- State laws concerning removal and remedial action, including State laws regarding enforcement, shall apply to removal and remedial action at facilities owned or operated by a department, agency, or instrumentality of the United States when such facilities are not included on the National Priorities List. The preceding sentence shall not apply to the
extent a State law would apply any standard or requirement to such facilities which is more stringent than the standards and requirements applicable to facilities which are not owned or operated by any such department, agency, or instrumentality. |
Jennifer Roberts |
| 12/7/1992 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Vic Vickaryous received US Department of Interior (USDOI) Fish and Wildlife Service Refuge Manager Report of Findings at Cape Romanzof LRRS military cleanup dated Jan. 17, 1991). Study was conducted by Wayne Crayton (environmental contaminants specialist). Findings of fact: Cape Romanzof LRRS has contaminated area's environment, Fowler Creek's sediment is contaminated with petroleum hydrocarbons, fish and wildlife resources (dolly varden, voles, red fox) are contaminated with POL hydrocarbons (*Note:as of 2003 there are no cleanup levels for fuel range hydrocarbons-GRO, DRO, RRO in sediments), PCBs and DDT-related compounds. Request Air Force conduct additional and more extensive monitoring on a regular schedule (every 2 or 3 years) to determine if contaminant problem associated with facility is continuing to impact Refuge resources. The frequency of sampling should be adjusted to reflect site activities. |
Vic Vickaryous |
| 12/1/1993 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
John Halverson provided comments on Final RI/FS for Spill Site SS15 September 1993 report. Draft copy was never submitted for review and approval to ADEC. Report does not clearly show the location of SS15 in comparison to other known or suspected sources of contamination at the facility. Staff requested location of SS15 relative to other contaminant sources be provided and the existing environmental assessment reports pertaining to the facility should be listed and referenced where appropriate. For example: the groundwater contamination identified in WW-6 is reportedly up- or cross-gradient from SS15.
This appears to be in an area where the 14,000 gallons of diesel fuel was spilled in 1979 or 1985 when a fuel bladder was being moved across the facility. There is no mention of the release from the fuel bladder in this document (a.k.a. ROM 1-S/SS13). The report states the high concentrations of diesel range organics in groundwater at WW-6 are unknown. Again, a review of prior site investigation work by ADEC revealed a 14,000 gallon spill of diesel fuel occurring in the area around 1979 or 1985 referred to as spill #5 and ROM 1-S and noted as being about 300 feet from the above ground storage tank (AST). ENSR report dated September 20, 1991 identified several previous spills near SS15: 2 mogas tanks leaned prior to removal in 1970s (spill #8), in 1985 1000 gallons of mogas lost in snow and ground near the former fueling station (spill #7), 1500 gallons of diesel fuel lost in same area during 1985 (spill #9) and in 1979 approximately 14,000 gallons of diesel fuel were spilled about 300 feet south of the ASTs (spill #5 and ROM 1-S). |
John Halverson |
| 12/23/1993 |
Update or Other Action |
11th Air Control Wing letter to DEC response to comments on Final RI/FS SS15 dated 1 Dec 1993. This is in response to the subject letter concerning specific comments on the final RI/FS for spill site SSI5 at Cape Romanzof LRRS AK.
The 11 CEOS/CEVR received the draft RI/FS report on 17 Sep 93. The Air Force regrets not providing review of the draft; however, the ENSR contract expired 30 Sep 93 with the final deliverable due on this date. The Air Force generally requires a similar allotment of time for review and also found the time inadequate under the circumstances. Your comments will be incorporated in all future work plans for spill site SSI3 and SS15. In addition, all draft work plans and reports will be forwarded with adequate time for review.
In 1991, General Electric Government Services (GEGS) excavated and stockpiled approximately 900 cubic yards of contaminated soil from the underground storage tank site (SS15). This soil was placed on a geofabric liner covered with plastic. Once the stockpiling was complete, the pile was covered with a nylon reinforced plastic liner for later on-site remediation. Although funding was not available in FY93, this project has been programmed for FY94 along with the remediation of spill sites SS07, SS08, ST09, and SS14. A soil containment area will be constructed and on-site remediation (e.g., bioremediation) will begin once funding is available and work plans are initiated.
Continued RI/FS/RD in FY94 has been programmed for spill site SS13 and SS15. SS13 was included due to its potential link to the background POL contamination found at SS15. The 11 CEOS/CEVR will consider these two sites, as well as, all other known spills
in this area as potential sources for the soil and groundwater contamination. A treatability study for in situ bioventing and air sparging will also be initiated along with geophysical surveys such as magnetometer surveys or ground penetrating radar to determine the presence of underground storage tanks which may have been left during the demolition of the lower camp facilities.
The 11 CEOS/CEOR disposed of the fuel and water contained in the 25,000 gallon aboveground storage tank (AST) (Attach 1). The fuel was pumped, filtered, sampled, and mixed with approximately 140,000 gallons of new diesel fuel after favorable sample results were received. Approximately 7,200 gallons of water was pumped from the AST, run through the cyclesorb and, once found to be clean, was placed into the Cape Romanzof sewage lagoon. The AST was steam cleaned, triple rinsed, and cut into 8-foot sections for disposal at the Cape Romanzof landfill. The amount of sludge found in the tank was approximately 1,425 pounds of non-RCRA waste. The sludge was placed into Department of Transportation approved drums and shipped to the Defense Reutilization and Marketing facility at Elmendorf AFB.
The groundwater elevation contour map (Figure 3-1) may not need to be modified to account for the confining conditions found in WW-6. Additional monitoring wells must be installed throughout spill site SS13 and SS15 to produce an accurate groundwater elevation contour map.
The information gathered from the continued RI/FS/RD of spill site SSI3 and SS15 will show whether or not a contaminant transport pathway to source well No. 1 exists. Martin Marietta Services recently sampled water well No. 1 (I Nov 93) and the results indicate the well has not been impacted by spill site SS13 or SS15 (Attach 2). A low concentration of Nitrate-N (0.14 mg/L) was detected along with a low value for turbidity (0.90
Nephelometric Turbidity Units).
The list of references in the ENSR report included a 1982 Corps of Engineers Plan, Section and Detail for the mogas facility. This map (Attach 3) shows underground fuel lines, ASTs and an area showing existing air vents. The map does not show the underground storage tanks, but shows the air vents located in the vicinity of the two underground storage tanks that were removed in 1991. |
John Halverson |
| 1/29/1997 |
Update or Other Action |
Remediation Report of 1995 and 1996 Field Activities. The report presents the results of remedial actions at four petroleum, oil, and lubricant (POL) contaminated source areas using a soil washing treatment process. Approximately 7,425 cubic yards (cy) of POL contaminated soil was processed through the soil washer. Cleaned soil was backfilled at the Beach Landfill site (SS02) and four other source areas. Additionally, five aboveground storage tanks (ASTs) were cleaned, moved to pre-determined locations at the LRRS, cut into pieces or used in the soil washing process.
ST04-White Alice Site: Two ASTs were cleaned and dismantled, moved to the north side of the gravel pad, and cut up to render them useless. 250 cy was excavated, treated by soil washing, returned to site, spread and graded. Testing of soils at the site confirm that DRO is less than 1000 mg/kg, site ST04 recommended for NFRAP.
SS13 Landfarm site: 1750 cy contaminated soil excavated, treated by soil washing. Soil was excavated to within a few inches of top of the tundra, achieving total cleanup within site. Treated soil was backfilled in excavations and graded. DRO less than 1000 mg/kg and SS13 is recommended for NFRAP.
ST14 East Tanks Site- Three ASTs, cradles, piping, and debris removed and two of the tanks were modified for use in the soil washing process and the third tank was used in conjunction with the decontamination area. 1995 cy contaminated soil excavated to the top of the tundra and treated by soil washing process. However, samples of soil collected at the surface of the tundra continue to contain DRO greater than 1000 mg/kg. Further excavation could not be accomplished due to the presence of an endangered plan surrounding the perimeter of the excavation and the fact the tundra was encountered below. The excavation has been backfilled with cleaned soil to provide a cap over soils with DRO greater than 1000 mg/kg. Further coordination with ADEC is recommended before this site can be closed.
SS12 Spills 2&3: 3430 cy of soil excavated and treated by soil washing process. Treated soil was used for backfilling a portion of the excavation. This was the last site to be excavated and excavation of contaminated soils and soil washing was discontinued due to limitation of funding and the onset of adverse weather. Therefore, SS12 cannot be recommended for NFRAP at this time.
SS02 Beach Landfill Site: No contaminated soil was excavated from this site. 825 cy of coarse aggregate (stone), consisting of excavated and cleaned soil exceeding 3/8" diameter, was backfilled and graded in several pre-existing holes or low areas within this four acre landfill site. Because much of the site had naturally revegetated itself, care was taken to minimize its disturbance.
Vehicle Maintenance Garage: Miscellaneous hazardous wastes, including paint and lead acid truck batteries, which had been stored in the Vehicle Maintenance Garage, were drummed and left in the building for disposal in 1996. Three 55-gallon drums of waste oil were characterized and found to be suitable for recycling in the Bering Air waste oil burner in Kotzebue. With ADEC's approval, all trash which did not generate black smoke was burned onsite. Other trash was packaged in plastic lined "supersacks" and stored in the Vehicle Maintenance Garage for disposal in 1996. |
Louis Howard |
| 8/12/1997 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Gretchen Pikul provided comments on the Draft Workplan for the Remedial Investigation at SS13 and Intrinsic remediation at SS15. Staff provided comments on the land use scenario not being analyzed for residential use. If land were to be transferred in the future the restriction of no residential use at the site needs to be stated in the property records and subsequent land transfer documents.
Staff commented on the models such as VapourT for the vadose zone and FECT for the groundwater need to be public domain models, peer reviewed and documentation provided to ADEC for review. Refer to www.epa.gov.ada/models.html for EPA listed and approved models. Radian Analytical Services is not an ADEC approved laboratory as listed in the sampling and analysis plan. Treatment of wastes is dependent on hazardous waste characterization and not on volume of the waste. |
Gretchen Pikul |
| 1/9/1998 |
Update or Other Action |
Management Action Plan: Currently there are several ongoing or planned remedial actions (RAs), including: interim removal (IR) was implemented at SS13 (Seep Area, Spill/Leak No. 5) and SS15 (Leaking USTs) during the summer of 1997.
The response schedule at Cape Romanzof LRRS include the following activities: Intrinsic Remediation and long term operations are projected for SS13 (Seep Area, Spill/Leak No. 5) and SS15 (Leaking USTs). |
Louis Howard |
| 5/7/1998 |
Conceptual Site Model Submitted |
G. Pikul provided comments on the draft conceptual site model for SS13 ROM-1S. Staff stated that the maximum allowable petroleum hydrocarbon cleanup levels are not risk based screening levels to decide whether or not to cleanup a site. Instead the EPA RBCs and soil screening levels are to be used instead of maximum allowable cleanup levels. |
Gretchen Pikul |
| 5/8/1998 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
G. Pikul provided comments on the draft RI/FS report. Maximum allowable numbers are not acceptable for use as screening levels for contaminated soils at the site by the Air Force (AF). ADEC requests the AF use EPA RBCs and soil screening levels.
The groundwater screening and sampling was not based on the highest screening results from soil borings. SB-02 had DRO at 2' and 20,000 mg/kg and SB-03 at 1' and 60,000 mg/kg respectively. The criteria for soil cleanup levels was used inconsistently at the site: i.e. levels A, B, and D for the same site were used for the various petroleum constituents which is not acceptable. |
Gretchen Pikul |
| 8/3/1998 |
Update or Other Action |
Final RI/FS received. Soil data from SS13 exceeded the evaluation criteria for GRO, DRO & RRO. In 1997, GRO levels in SS13 soil were detected at one surface soil sample (LB-03) & two soil boring samples (SB-03-01 & SB-04-02). The highest GRO concentration in soil was detected in SB-04-02 (depth interval 5-7' bgs) with a GRO value of 900 mg/kg. GRO was not detected above 50 mg/kg at any of the background sample locations.
In 1997, DRO exceeded 100 mg/kg in 14 non-background samples at 12 sample locations & at four background locations. The highest DRO concentration in soil was detected at surface soil sample location LB-08, with a DRO concentration 10,000 mg/kg. Of these 14 non-background samples, all but four were from a sample depth of less than two feet bgs, although subsurface samples were not collected at SB-02, SB-03, or SB-05 When compared to the evaluation criteria & to the 95% background UCL calculated for DRO (221 mg/kg), one soil sample is eliminated from further consideration (SB-01-03). It is important to note that the DRO & RRO results for sample SB-05-01 are qualified with a "C" flag, indicating that the data are rejected.
These data were rejected due to initial sample contamination & subsequent reextraction over two times the 14 day holding time, & are therefore not useable data. Sufficient data are available without these results to estabhsh the nature & extent of contamination at SS 13.
In 1997, RRO levels exceeded 2,000 mg/kg in five non-background samples (LB-04, LB-07, LB-08, SB-02-01, & SB-03-01) & two background locations (BKGND-02 & BKGND-04). The highest RRO concentration in soil was detected at surface soil less than 2' bgs. All sample locations excceeding evaluation criteria also exceeded the 95% background UCL for RRO (2,559 mg/kg). & LB-08) & five soil boring samples (SB-01-01, SB-01-02, SB-02-01, SB-03-01, & SB-04-02). RRO levels in SS13 soil were detected above the regulatory criteria of 11,000 mg/kg for RRO at surface soil sample location LB-08, with a total RRO concentration of 35,000 mg/kg.
SVOC compound exceeded regulatory criteria at one SS13 soil boring. A surface interval (0 to 2’ bgs) sample from soil boring SB-03 exceeded the regulatory criteria for isophorone (regulatory criteria of 3 0 mg/kg) with a concentration of 4.4 mg/kg.
Surface water results from SS13 met all criteria except for one SVOC at location SW-01. Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate was detected at a concentration of 20 ug/L at SW-01 (J flagged- Result is less than the method reporting limit. Data with this flag should be reported with caution).
In 1997, regulatory criteria for groundwater were only exceeded at one SS13 monitoring well for DRO. DRO detected at a concentration of 2,470 ug/L in MW-01 exceeded the DRO regulatory limit of 1,500 ug/L. All other SS13 groundwater analytical results were less than regulatory criteria. All other bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate detections were flagged with a MB, indicating that the analyte was also detected in the method blank.
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate is a common laboratory contaminant. In addition, the surface water is not used for drinking water, & any incidental ingestion would result in an insignificant risk. Therefore, this exceedance of the tap water RBC is considered insignificant.
It is recommended that no further risk evaluation be conducted for human health at SS13. Cape Romanzof is a remote site under USAF control. SS13 is located within a tundra field approximately 1,000 feet from the main living facility & downgradient from the site water source. The source for SS13 was a diesel spill which occurred 19 years ago. In that time, significant impact to groundwater or surface water has not been identified.
It is believed that regardless of the levels currently present in the soil, an impact to groundwater or surface water is not anticipated since none has been identified in the 19 years following the spill. Furthermore, soil contaminants have been shown to contain minimal SVOCs, & are therefore believed to be limited to heavier-end weathered diesel products. For this reason, additional risk evaluation is not warranted at this time.
Remedial actions should be evaluated for COCs identified for soil at SS13 because the soil contains constituents which are present at concentrations exceeding established regulatory
criteria. Remedial actions should be evaluated for COCs identified for sediment at SS13 because the sediment contains constituents which are present at concentrations exceeding established regulatory criteria.
Groundwater & Surface water: COCs were not identified in groundwater at SS13 or in surface water at & adjacent to SS13. Therefore no action for this media is required based upon contamination levels detected. However, because soil & sediment upgradient of this media is contaminated, groundwater & surface water is recommended for additional monitoring. |
Gretchen Pikul |
| 3/26/1999 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
DEC has some significant concerns with the draft Proposed Plan for SS 13 and SS 15.
General Comments-DEC does not concur with the preferred alternative listed in this proposed plan. There is insufficient information in this document to support the conclusion that human health and environmental risks could not occur. There is significant sediment and soil contamination, which does not appear to be rapidly attenuating since the spill occurred over 19 years ago. The Proposed Plan needs to define the specific cleanup level for each contaminant of concern (COC) and how they will be achieved. Each alternative evaluated must include the COCs, media of concern, cleanup level, and what specific standard is being used for the cleanup level. The document must include another alternative: hotspot removal with monitored natural attenuation. The risk screening that was done for SS13 and SS15 was not a risk assessment which could be used to determine alternative cleanup levels. Cleanup levels to be used at Cape Romanzof will be Method 2 Tables B1 and B2 for soil and C for groundwater as found in 18 AAC 75.341.
The document does not explain the role of other state or federal agencies that have in interest in natural resources that may be affected, such as U.S. Fish & Wildlife or Alaska Department offish & Game, in selecting the preferred alternative. As the site is adjacent or surrounded by a Natural Wildlife Refuge and has an anadromous stream running through it, these agencies are stakeholders and therefore need to be included in the cleanup decision process.
Insert text beginning with column 2: The paragraph on page 2 explaining the CERCLA process should be moved up to page one, as it outlines the legal framework for this effort. In addition, 18 AAC 75 must be included as part of the legal requirements this site needs to meet. Column 2, 1stparagraph, 2n_sentence: The text should state that the USAF has identified a preferred alternative, however, final selection of the alternative will occur after public comments are received and addressed.
Page 2: Rephrase to indicate that public will be involved in selecting the cleanup alternative for site; it currently states that a cleanup alternative has already been selected. DEC does not agree with the preferred alternative as written, nor should a decision be made before public comments are received and addressed. Please clarify whom at the Environmental Protection Agency has reviewed and concurred with the Proposed Plan.
Regardless of risk, groundwater is a resource which the NCP Groundwater Protection Strategy requires be returned to their beneficial uses wherever practicable, within a timeframe that is reasonable given the particular circumstances of the site, When restoration of groundwater to beneficial uses .is not practicable, EPA expects the prevention of further migration of the plume, prevention of exposure to the contaminated groundwater, and evaluation of further risk reduction (40 CFR 300.430). The State drinking water, contaminated sites, and water quality regulations (18 AAC 80, 75 and 70 respectively) require protection and restoration of water resources. Additionally, for soils with staining, 18 AAC 75.325(E) requires that a responsible person (the USAF) shall: "evaluate and perform a cleanup of surface soil staining attributable to a hazardous substance.” This requires the USAF to address staining of contaminated soil at the site. |
Louis Howard |
| 8/27/1999 |
CERCLA Proposed Plan |
After briefing management, the final proposed plan for SS13/SS15 was approved. Natural attenuation was the preferred alternative. Institutional controls will be in place combined with monitoring of groundwater and soil contamination for natural attenuation parameters and contaminant degradation until cleanup levels are met. Public comment on the proposed plan will be required prior to finalizing the document. |
Louis Howard |
| 8/31/1999 |
Update or Other Action |
Language to be added to the Record of Decision (ROD) will include monitoring for > 5 years if after 5 yrs. contamination has not met remedial action objectives. Funding shortfall delayed project until after 10/2000 since other projects have cost 611th more $$ than anticipated and taken up staff resources. |
Louis Howard |
| 10/12/1999 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Staff commented on the draft quality Program plan for landfill cap sampling and analysis plan. Sampling for natural attenuation parameters for SS13 and SS15 will be determined at a later time and memorialized in a Record of Decision document. A public meeting will need to be held for the nearest town (e.g. Hooper Bay) prior to finalizing the Proposed Plan. Surface water sampling must include SW analyses as specified in 18 AAC 70.
Soil sampling of surface soil must be at least 12 inches in depth and no more than 2 feet in depth. ADEC concurs that IDW derived water may be treated through 2 charcoal canisters prior to discharge into the facility's water treatment facility for this one particular instance. All other approvals must be acquired on a case-by-case basis. No discharge of IDW will occur in an environmentally sensitive area (as defined by 18 AAC 75.990(35)) if it is not discharge into the treatment facility and instead on the ground surface. Also ADEC requested that the discharge be immediately downgradient of any drinking water well. |
Louis Howard |
| 12/31/1999 |
Update or Other Action |
Groundwater samples collected at SS13 monitoring wells in 1999 showed that petroleum
contaminants previously detected (1997) had decreased to below cleanup levels, with the
exception of DRO. Other groundwater data collected in 1999 indicated that natural attenuation processes were active and that concentrations of hydrocarbon constituents were generally decreasing with time. Analytical results for surface water samples in 1999 showed that hydrocarbon constituents were below method detection limits for parameters analyzed. |
Louis Howard |
| 8/30/2000 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Staff reviewed and commented on draft groundwater and surface water sampling plan for three sites at the facility. Main comments centered on requiring analyses of surface water samples for surface water quality criteria such as: total aromatic hydrocarbons (TAH) and total aqueous hydrocarbons (TAqH). Additional comments were on requiring the 611 CES practical quantitation limits meet or be lower than those found in the UST procedures manual. Several of the detection limits listed in the 611 CES sampling plan were above soil and groundwater cleanup levels found in 18 AAC 75. |
Louis Howard |
| 10/16/2000 |
Meeting or Teleconference Held |
Staff met with communities of Chevak, Scammon Bay, Hooper Bay, Paimuit in Anchorage. Also present were the 611 CES-Environmental project manager, Community relations staff and the 611 CES Environmental Program Chief, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Alaska Community Action on Toxics, Yukon-Kusko Health staff. Community members called for the meeting to be updated on what has happened at the facility, present and future work. Also they wished to be informed on any possible effects of contamination 15 miles upriver from their seasonal fish camps on the beach below the facility and the contamination present at the facility. |
Louis Howard |
| 11/1/2001 |
CERCLA Proposed Plan |
Proposed Plan approved for SS13, SS15 and LF03. The Proposed Plan finalizes earlier proposed plans for these 3 sites. Preparation of this Proposed Plan & the associated public comment period are required under Section 117(a) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation & Liability Act (CERCLA, also known as the Superfund Program, as well as under 18 AAC 75 of the Alaska Administrative Code. The USAF’s cleanup program follows CERCLA guidance, although Cape Romanzof LRRS is not a Superfund site. The DoD is delegated authority & responsibility to carry out response actions, including clenaup, for hazardous substance releases on or from DoD facilities under Executive order 12580, Superfund Implementation. At sites under its control, the DoD has the lead agency authority to select remedial actions consistent with CERCLA Section 120.
SS13 is located adjacent to a wetland and a salmon spawning stream (Fowler Creek). Approximately 14,000 gallons of diesel fuel spilled at this site in the winter of 1979. The spill was the result of a rupture of a fuel storage bladder.
In lieu of a Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment a risk screening was accomplished at Cape Romanzof. Although chemicals are found in all media (soil, sediment, ground water and surface water) to varying degrees, there is limited exposure to humans at Cape Romanzof. Contaminated groundwater and surface water does not flow towards the drinking water source and exposure to contaminated soils and sediments is minimal. Overall, the risk screening process found that long-term risk to humans living and working at the site was at acceptable levels.
Ecological Risk at Cape Romanzof is a more important consideration and is intimately tied to human health risk in the area. The area surrounding Cape Romanzof is a prime subsistence food gathering area for local communities. The possibility of contaminate migration is of extreme concern and importance to the health and well being of local residents.
In order to address this concern, the 611 Civil Engineer Squadron is funding a Contaminate Migration and Subsistence Foods Pathway study as a separate action to this Proposed Plan. However, some additional response action seems to be warranted to protect the health of the eco-system around Cape Romanzof.
Monitored Natural Attenuation is the recommended alternative for SS13 and SS15. Landfill Closure/Hot Spot Removal is the recommended alternative for LF03. Contamination at the sites would continue to naturally degrade and monitoring would occur to verify that contaminate migration is not occurring. Monitoring (Landfill Cap inspection and repair) would also occur to verify that the integrity of the landfill cap is maintained. |
Louis Howard |
| 11/28/2001 |
Meeting or Teleconference Held |
Staff traveled to Chevak to meet and participate in the public meeting held for the proposed plan on SS13, SS15, and LF03. Community members wanted to be more involved in the development of the draft document prior to the meeting held for the proposed plan. No objections to removal of the PCBs from LF03 out of state and no objections to monitored natural attenuation of groundwater at SS13 and SS15. |
Louis Howard |
| 5/17/2002 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Staff reviewed and commented on the draft Record of Decision for LF03, SS013, SS015. Main comments were to cut back on the use of tables where possible and only report those levels that are actually above established cleanup levels.
The table shows PCB sample results above 50 ppm (mg/kg) concentration, which requires EPA involvement. In 1997 PCB sample results show 69.1 mg/kg and in 2000 the level was 250 mg/kg (the associated numerical value is an estimated quantity). The Department strongly encourages the 611 CES to inform EPA about the removal of PCB contaminated soil from LF03.
40 CFR 761.61 regulates PCB remediation waste. In most cases, contaminated soil in Alaska is the result of spills or releases from transformers. Soil contaminated with PCBs from spills from such things as transformers may be considered PCB remediation waste and EPA involvement may be required. To determine this the 611 CES needs to look at the definition of PCB remediation waste under The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) of 1976 15 U.S.C. s/s 2601 et seq. (1976).
If soil currently contains > 50 ppm, the source material must have also had a concentration > 50 ppm. So unless the 611 CES has knowledge that the source of contaminated soil was a spill between April 18, 1978 and July 2, 1979, where the source contained < 500 ppm, it appears that the soil is considered a PCB remediation waste regulated under TSCA. Please refer to the summary table below for information on cleanup level and disposal options for the “Self-Implementing Cleanup” option that the 611 CES has chosen to conduct for the PCB contaminated soils at LF03. Please note the soil would also be regulated under 18 AAC 75.
The text states the USEPA guidance for documenting Record of Decisions (RODs) for Interim Remedial Action (IRA) under CERCLA does not establish chemical specific ARARs. Although federal facilities are encouraged to take early action at any facility where risk reduction can be accomplished promptly, the response action chosen must be one that will satisfy CERCLA and its implementing regulations. Early interaction with EPA, the state and the public will help ensure that removal actions are consistent with long-term actions and that cleanup levels will be based on risk assessment and Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) that will be sufficient to be the final action, whenever possible. |
Louis Howard |
| 7/14/2002 |
CERCLA ROD Approved |
Jennifer Roberts, DoD section manager, signed an interim record of decision (ROD) for LF03, SS015, SS013.
DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED REMEDY
The selected interim remedy for sites SS013 and SS015 addresses the risk to human health and the
environment caused by hypothetical exposure to petroleum products in groundwater, soil, and sediment.
The selected interim remedy includes the following components:
Monitored Natural Attenuation is the selected remedy for soil, sediment, groundwater and surface
water at SS13 and SSI5. This alternative will effectively reduce risk to human health and the environment utilizing all natural technologies. The elements of the selected remedy include implementation of institutional controls restricting access, sampling of soil, sediment, and surface water, and long-term groundwater monitoring. Additionally, since this alternative will result in hazardous substances remaining onsite above levels that would otherwise allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure, a five-year review will be necessary to ensure that the remedy continues to provide adequate protection of human health and the environment (Sect. 121 CERCLA).
Landfill Closure combined with PCB Hotspot Removal is the selected remedy for LF03. The main
elements of the landfill closure portion of the alternative are capping and long-term monitoring of groundwater and any effluent generated by the landfill. Approximately.5 cubic yards of PCB contaminated sediment will be excavated and shipped to an approved PCB disposal facility.
Additionally, since this will result in hazardous substances remaining onsite above levels that would otherwise allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure, a five-year review will be necessary to ensure that the remedy continues to provide adequate protection of human health and the environment (Sect. 121 CERCLA).
Remedial Action Objections for:
SS013- Sediments DRO 250 mg/kg (SS01-1999 55,800 mg/kg) Near Surface Soil DRO 250 mg/kg (110,000 mg/kg LB-08 1997) and RRO 10,000 mg/kg (LB-08 35,000 mg/kg),
Monitored natural attenuation with institutional controls is the selected remedy for SS13 and SS15. ICs will restrict access to the contaminated media: groundwater, soils and sediments, long-term groundwater monitoring (to confirm the progress of natural attenuation of fuel constituents in soil).
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
This interim action is protective of human health and the environment in the short term, and is intended to provide adequate protection until a final action ROD is signed. The interim action is cost-effective and complies with all applicable or relevant and appropriate federal and state requirements. Because this remedy will result in hazardous substances remaining on-site above state of Alaska cleanup levels, it will be reviewed by USAF and ADEC at a frequency of not less than once every five years after implementation of the selected remedy to evaluate if the remedy continues to be effective and appropriate. Input from the Tribal Councils of Chevak, Scammon Bay, Paimiut and Hooper Bay, Federal and State trustees, and the Cape Romanzof Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) will be solicited prior to implementing any fundamental changes in the remedy.
First five year review due in July 14, 2007 so begin work on it July 2006, and 2012 (begin work on it 2011). |
Jennifer Roberts |
| 7/14/2002 |
Cleanup Level(s) Approved |
Jennifer Roberts, DoD section manager, signed an interim record of decision (ROD) for LF03, SS015, SS013.
Remedial Action Objections for:
SS013- Sediments DRO 250 mg/kg (SS01-1999 55,800 mg/kg) Near Surface Soil DRO 250 mg/kg (110,000 mg/kg LB-08 1997) and RRO 10,000 mg/kg (LB-08 35,000 mg/kg),
|
Jennifer Roberts |
| 9/24/2003 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Staff reviewed and commented on the environmental sampling and analysis plan for LF03, SS13, SS15. The text states the PCB cleanup level in soil in 10 mg/kg. The Department does not concur. The cleanup level for total PCBs is 1 mg/kg regardless of land use or precipitation zone. 18 AAC 75 contaminated sites regulations for PCB soil cleanup states: For unrestricted land use, PCBs in soil shall be cleaned up to one (1) mg/kg or less, unless ADEC determines that a different cleanup level is necessary as provided in 18 AAC 75.340(i), as, for example, in a subsistence food gathering area. With the prior approval of the Department, PCBs in soil may be cleaned up to
(A) between 1 and 10 mg/kg if the 611 CES
(i) caps each area containing PCBs in soil at levels between 1 and 10 mg/kg; for purposes of this Note 9, “caps” means covering an area of PCB contaminated soil with an appropriate material to prevent exposure of humans and the environment to PCBs; to be approved, a cap must be designed and constructed of a material acceptable to the Department and of sufficient strength and durability to withstand the use of the surface that is exposed to the environment; within 72 hours after discovery of a breach to the integrity of a cap, the 611 CES or the landowner shall initiate repairs to that breach; and
(ii) provides ADEC within 60 days after completing the cleanup, documentation that the 611 CES has recorded a deed notation in the appropriate land records, or on another instrument that is normally examined during a title search, documenting that PCBs remain in the soil, that the contaminated soil has been capped, and that subsequent interest holders may have legal obligations with respect to the cap and the contaminated soil; or (B) an alternative PCB soil cleanup level developed through an approved site-specific risk assessment, conducted according to the Risk Assessment Procedures Manual, adopted by reference at 18 AAC 75.340.
The alternatives listed above are the only options available to the 611 CES for which it may have PCB soil cleanup levels greater than one (1) mg/kg in soil at its facility. Just a reminder, while the 611 CES has obtained comments from ADEC, these comments do not mean there are not other regulations that may apply and other entities that need to be coordinated with on the documents.
For example:
•The applicable EPA rule governing disposal and cleanup of PCB contaminated facilities under 40 C.F.R. Part 761.61 (PCB remediation waste) may apply to PCB cleanup at this facility. This would require coordination with EPA Region 10 TSCA program staff. The PCB cleanup levels listed in Table B1 are based on cleanup levels referred to in 40 C.F.R. 761.61 for high occupancy areas with no cap.
•Coordination with EPA Region 10 RCRA staff for RCRA issues,
•State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) on historical sites,
•National Park Service on National Historic Landmarks,
•ADF&G for any work involving anadromous streams,
•ADNR for work involving tidelands,
•US Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) on threatened and endangered species which may be present or migrate through the area.
The text states gasoline range organics (GRO), diesel range organics/residual range organics (DRO/RRO and BTEX will be used for surface water samples at SS13. ADEC requests that total aromatic hydrocarbons (TAH) and total aqueous hydrocarbons (TAqH) be included in all surface water sampling at Cape Romanzof since they are the contaminants of concern required under AK Water Quality Standards (WQS) 18 AAC 70.020(b) for fresh water uses.
TAH is defined in 18 AAC 70.990(62) as benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylenes commonly know as BTEX. TAqH is defined in Note 8 of the current WQS table as the combination of EPA Method 602 plus xylenes and EPA Method 610. The use of alternative methods requires Departmental approval. Methods 602 and 610 are no longer approved by the Contaminated Sites Lab Approval Program and labs within the state do not perform them.
New EPA analytical methods will be used to define total aromatic hydrocarbons (TAH) and total aqueous hydrocarbons (TAqH). Note 7 in Tables A and B of the Water Quality Standards is used to indicate the approved methods for measurement of Petroleum Hydrocarbons criteria. The approved methods for measuring TAH will be either EPA SW-846 method 8021B (HPLC) or 8260B (GC/MS) to measure monoaromatic hydrocarbons. The approved methods for TAqH will be TAH methods (above) plus polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons by EPA SW-846 method 8310 (HPLC) or 8270C (GC/MS).
For additional information see site file. |
Louis Howard |
| 5/17/2004 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Workplan approved for remedial investigation/feasibility study work at LF03 Landfill No. 2, SS13 Diesel Seep Area, SS15 UST Spill Area, ST09 Former Truck Fueling Station, SS14 Former Drum Storage Area and DP11 Towek Mountain Debris Area. The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (the Department) has received the document for review and comment on May 10, 2004. The Department has reviewed the work plan for Landfill No. 2 LF03, Diesel Seep Area SS13, UST Spill Area SS15, Former Fueling Station ST09, Former Drum Storage Area SS14 and Towek Mountain Debris Area DP11. The Department will approve this specific draft version as a final version.
The Department’s review and comment on this work plan is to ensure that the work is done in accordance with State of Alaska environmental conservation laws and regulations. While the Department may comment on other state and federal laws and regulations, our comments on the plan does not relieve the 611 CES employees, contractors, subcontractors, or volunteer staff from the need to comply with other applicable laws and regulations.
For example:
-The applicable Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rule governing disposal and cleanup of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) contaminated facilities under 40 C.F.R. Part 761.61 (PCB remediation waste) may apply to PCB cleanup at this facility. This would require coordination with EPA Region 10 Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) program staff.
-Coordination with EPA Region 10 RCRA staff for Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) issues,
-State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) on historical sites,
-National Park Service on National Historic Landmarks,
-Alaska Department of Natural Resources-Office of Habitat Management: Area III Office for any work involving anadromous streams,
-Alaska Department of Natural Resources-Alaska Coastal Management for work involving tidelands/coastal zone (Northwest Region),
-US Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) on work that would possibly impact threatened and endangered species which may be present or migrate through the area. |
Louis Howard |
| 11/16/2004 |
Update or Other Action |
File number issued 2526.38.008 |
Aggie Blandford |
| 11/30/2004 |
Long Term Monitoring Established |
Final report for Landfill 2 (LF03) SS13, SS15 Long Term Monitoring and soil sampling at SS13 and SS15. Groundwater sampling was conducted in 2003 consisted of the collection of one water sample from monitoring well MW1 and one from monitoring well MW2. The newly installed MW-3 was sampled for the first time on August 31, 2004.
MW-1: Overall, hydrocarbon levels have dropped significantly since initial sampling began in 1997. DRO is the only analyte to exceed cleanup levels and has continued to exceed the cleanup level during each of the four sampling events. DRO showed a slight increase in 2003 (2.22 mg/L) over the all time low reported at the well in 2000 (1.9 mg/L). This recent increase in DRO may be due seasonal fluctuations in the water table, which may remobilize contamination from the vadose zone. GRO, RRO, BTEX, and SVOCs which were all detected in 1997 are non-detect or below the MRL in 2003. Required parameters for intrinsic remediation are present at MW-1 and suggest the plume is undergoing nitrate reduction. Biodegradation rates are limited by low groundwater temperature.
MW-2: There has been an overall decrease in hydrocarbon levels from 1997 through 2003. Initial sampling performed in 1997 detected DRO, RRO, benzene, and toluene at concentrations below cleanup levels. In 2000 and 2003 all analytes were non-detect or below the MRL. Required parameters for intrinsic remediation are present and there has been an overall decrease in detectable hydrocarbon constituents. Parameters suggest that the plume near MW-2 may be anaerobic and undergoing nitrate reduction. Biodegradation rates are limited by low groundwater temperature.
MW-3: This well was installed in June 2004 and sampled in late August 2004. The results indicate weak GRO and DRO contamination with concentrations of 0.142 mg/L and 0.233 mg/L, respectively. These levels are approximately 1/10th of the cleanup level.
Surface water sampling was not conducted in 2003 due to frozen conditions encountered during the October site visit. Sampling was accomplished under a different contractor in
June 2004.
SS01: Sediment samples from SS01 have consistently exceeded the DRO cleanup level with values ranging from 416 mg/kg to 55,800 mg/kg. October 2003 sampling also detected GRO, benzene, and ethylbenzene concentrations well above cleanup levels for the first time with concentrations of 1,730 mg/kg, 0.409 mg/kg, and 19.7 mg/kg, respectively. Elevated levels of toluene and xylene were also detected in 2003. The 2003 results may indicate a gasoline-related contamination source unrelated to the original 14,000-gallon diesel fuel spill in 1979.
SB06: Results from the initial sampling performed at SB06 in 1997 exceeded the cleanup level for DRO with 1,710 mg/kg, and also had elevated RRO with 1,230 mg/kg. In subsequent sampling DRO levels have been below cleanup levels (154 mg/kg in 1999 and 75.0 mg/kg in 2003). RRO levels have also dropped significantly since 1997.
Although analytical results for sediment samples cannot be rigorously compared from year to year, results do indicate that sediments in this area have been adversely impacted
by petroleum, and in turn may be impacting surface water.
The significance of declining contaminant levels in sediment sample results from the same location year to year is unclear. Declining values could be attributed to several factors including:
• non-uniform initial dispersal of contaminants within sediments in the sample area
(i.e., heterogeneity of initial contamination)
• natural attenuation,
• dilution by influx of unimpacted sediments,
• erosion/dispersal of impacted sediments away from sample area,
• leaching of contaminants into surface water, or
• some combination of these factors. |
Louis Howard |
| 3/28/2005 |
Update or Other Action |
Draft Environmental Monitoring report dated March 28, 2005 received. There were no analytes detected above preliminary RAOs in 2004 groundwater samples from SS13 monitoring wells (MW-01, MW-02, and MW-03).
The primary line of evidence for natural attenuation in groundwater, a stable to shrinking groundwater plume, can be inferred from the data collected at this site. At MW-01, DRO
decreased from around 2.5 mg/L in 1997 and 1999 to about 2 mg/L in 2000 and 2003, and to 0.175 mg/L in 2004. RRO also decreased from 0.628 mg/L in 1997 to 0.393 mg/L in 2004.
Other than xylenes, BTEX compounds remain at or below detection limits. The trend in xylenes is complicated by an increase to 2.9 mg/L in 2000 followed by a decrease to nondetect in 2004.
At MW-02, GRO remains near or below the detection limit, DRO has decreased from above 0.2 mg/L before 1999 to around 0.1 mg/L since 2003, and BTEX compounds remain at or below
detection limits.
A secondary line of evidence for natural attenuation in groundwater is consumption of electron acceptors (oxygen, nitrate, sulfate); production of dissolved ferrous iron; and lower redox potential in areas with more petroleum hydrocarbons. It is very difficult to look at these data and conclude that secondary evidence for biological degradation of petroleum hydrocarbons exists. From 1997 to 2000, dissolved oxygen (DO) levels at the more contaminated well (MW-01) were lower than at MW-02. However, in later years, this same correlation does not exist. Comparing MW-01 to MW-02 (or earlier, more contaminated years
with later, less contaminated years) does not yield a clear conclusion that ferrous iron is higher or nitrate and sulfate are lower where contamination is higher.
In summary, although the primary line of evidence suggests that natural attenuation is acting to keep hydrocarbon levels in groundwater at this site stable or declining, the secondary evidence for natural attenuation is weak. In addition, aquifer conditions are not optimal for biologic degradation of hydrocarbons.
Rrecommendations: • Groundwater, soil, sediment, and surface water monitoring should continue. Additional data will allow continued evaluation of MNA processes at this site.
• A statistical analysis of groundwater concentration trends should be made with the next data set collected at this site. These tests should be nonparametric (e.g., Mann-Kendall).
• The surface water sampling locations should be reconsidered, or additional sample locations should be used. All three of the current samples come from closely spaced locations along Fowler Creek, south of this site, and no sample locations assess the ephemeral drainage that runs through SS-01 and SS-06. It would be better to measure water closer to the spill zone, preferably at one of the sediment sampling locations or, if no water is present at SS-01 or SS-06, at the pond. The least useful of the current sample locations is SW-02, so this sampling location should be the first to be abandoned in favor of a surface water sampling location closer to the spill.
• Sediment samples should be taken along Fowler Creek, at the same locations that surface water samples are collected. Some contaminants are soluble and are therefore more likely to be in surface water, and some contaminants are insoluble and thus are more likely to be in sediments. It is better to collect a surface water/sediment pair at any location where one wants to measure migration through surface water drainages.
• All three wells should be surveyed, and an accurate water table map should be created using data obtained from this site combined with any information obtained from water elevations at nearby sites. The new monitoring well has not been surveyed, and
monitoring well elevations do not remain static with time. For these reasons, monitoring well networks should be periodically resurveyed. |
Louis Howard |
| 4/18/2005 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Staff commented on the Draft Environmental Monitoring Report. SS13 Recommendations Page 7-3: ADEC concurs with continued groundwater, soil, sediment surface water monitoring at SS13. However, ADEC does not see the validity or justification of continuing to monitor for polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in soil, groundwater, or surface water at this particular site. The PAHs have never been detected above a cleanup level at SS13 and therefore they can be removed from further analyses in soil, groundwater and surface water. If the monitoring wells are necessary as sentinel wells, then it may be perfectly fine to continue monitoring for the full suite of petroleum contaminants instead of reducing it as proposed.
Other than for historical purposes, ADEC sees no reason to keep listing GRO, DRO, RRO as analyses for surface water or sediment tables since there is no regulatory basis for these fuel range hydrocarbons in either of these instances. ADEC requests the Air Force consider revising its analytical sampling requirements before the required five-year review (2008).
ADEC concurs with the relocation or adding additional sampling locations for surface water monitoring which would be closer to the spill zone. Using statistics on groundwater trends for three wells and five sampling events (1997, 1999, 2000, 2003, 2004) would not serve any purpose at this time. Perhaps with more data an analysis can be done, but ADEC does not concur with the recommendation to conduct a statistical analysis of the groundwater monitoring data.
Well surveys should be conducted at all monitoring wells for this site and the entire facility. Groundwater monitoring wells which cannot be redeveloped or repaired (well casing in poor condition, breaks in well casings, replace missing locking caps etc) should be decommissioned and new wells installed to replace the decommissioned wells.
For example: Figure A-3
Well MW-1 groundwater sample data sheet Well Integrity: Poor, broken well casing, bent protective casing, missing cap.
Well MW-08 Well Integrity: Casing appears to be broken at six (6) feet BTOC, as bailer would not go further past this point and was covered in bentonite when pulled up. Remarks: casing bent/broken/ruptured.
Well MW-02 Well Integrity-Aboveground mount is loose, well made bubbling sound as sampled, perhaps casing not a tight connection.
Well WW-02 Well Integrity-Missing lock. |
Louis Howard |
| 12/21/2005 |
Update or Other Action |
Final report received - Cape Romanzof Contaminant Migration & Subsistence Receptor Study. This report presents the results of the work conducted by the Yukon-Kuskokwim Health Corporation. Native communities surrounding the Cape Romanzof Long-Range Radar Station (CRLRRS) site have voiced concerns about the health of area wildlife & fish that they depend on for subsistence. Fishing for resident & migrant species, including blackfish, whitefish, tomcod, herring, & salmon, occurs in the waters on or adjacent to the beach area & in nearby Kokechik Bay. Bird eggs, plants, & berries also are collected from the area for subsistence use. Underlying the concern for chemical contaminants in subsistence species is the concern that the chemical contaminants are having an adverse effect on the people who consume a subsistence diet or drink the potentially contaminated waters from CRLRRS.
The primary objective of the project was to determine if chemicals are present in fish, mammals, shellfish, & other ecological receptors at CRLRRS at concentrations that may pose unacceptable risk to humans consuming contaminated biota during subsistence activities. Secondary objectives included an evaluation of potential migration of contaminants from CRLRRS into the surrounding environment & potential hazards to ecological receptors. There are approximately fifteen sites at CRLRRS that have been contaminated by past military site operation & maintenance activities. The list of contaminants of concern (COCs), agreed upon by all interested parties (i.e. local villagers & agencies), includes fuel components such as diesel range organics (DRO) & polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), & the heavy metals lead & cadmium.
Sediment, water, animal tissue, & plant tissue samples were collected by local volunteers (trained villagers & a qualified person) & analyzed for COCs. The data were evaluated to test 4 specific hypotheses established to meet project objectives. Testing of these hypotheses included both quantitative & qualitative evaluation of the data. A primary focus of the study was comparison of the presence & concentration of chemicals potentially related to the CRLRRS at different geographic locations, including: 1) areas that are highly unlikely to have been impacted by chemicals from CRLRRS & are many miles away (Reference); 2) areas that are in the vicinity of CRLRRS but unlikely to be impacted (On-Site Reference); & 3) areas directly down gradient or in water bodies receiving drainage from CRLRRS (On Site).
Hypothesis A: COCs originating from the CRLRR Site are not moving via the creeks.
a) This hypothesis is true based on statistical tests comparing sediment & water data at On Site locations with Reference/On-Site Reference locations.
b) With the exception of PCBs in water, for which minimal conclusions can be drawn, the data support the inference that there is little significant difference between the mean concentrations of COCs from On Site samples compared with Reference samples. Lack of a statistically significant difference infers that some of the biota contamination may be resulting from a non-point source such as regional atmospheric deposition.
c) Statistics were not performed on PCBs in water samples due to the low number of detections; however, the detection limit was above the screening level used to protect human health. This means that PCBs in water could be present that may be deleterious to human health & overall site risk may be underestimated.
Hypothesis B: COCs from the CRLRR Site are not moving offsite into the surrounding environment.
a) The data support the conclusion that the hypothesis is true for certain COCs, namely PCBs & lead.
b) PCBs have accumulated in biota onsite to a greater extent than offsite. In particular, 26 of the PCB congeners detected in animal tissue were unique to On Site locations. Additionally, the metal analyte lead was detected at a much higher frequency in animal tissues from On Site locations (77%) compared to Reference locations (29%).
c) PAHs & cadmium do not exhibit this pattern & do not support this hypothesis. DRO was not evaluated in animal tissues.
Hypothesis C: COCs known to have been released from CRLRR Site do not occur in species using Kokechik Bay at the same statistical distributions.
a) This hypothesis is supported as true for certain COCs & tissues. Specifically, Total PCBs are higher in bivalves at On Site locations compared to Reference locations; total PAHs, phenanthrene, cadmium, & total metals are higher in herring roe at On Site locations; three of the PCB congeners are higher in tomcod liver at On Site locations; & two of the PCB congeners are higher in tomcod tissue at On Site locations.
For additional information see site file.
|
Louis Howard |
| 7/18/2006 |
Update or Other Action |
Work plan for 2006 Environmental Monitoring at LF03, SS13 and SS15 received. The purpose of this project is to comply with the 2002 Interim Record of Decision (ROD) and assess the effectiveness of actions prescribed therein for these sites. Environmental monitoring directed by the 2002 ROD includes long-term monitoring (LTM) of groundwater and effluent at the closed landfill LF03, monitored natural attenuation (MNA) of sediment and near surface soil at SS13, and MNA of groundwater at SS15.
The purpose of the LTM is to assess the effectiveness of the landfill cap in providing adequate protection of human health and the environment. The purpose of the MNA study is to evaluate natural attenuation rates for identified contaminants of potential
concern (COPCs) in impacted media. Field and sampling activities described in this work plan are intended to meet the data
quality objectives (DQOs) identified for this project, which are largely based on the requirements identified in the 2002 ROD. Environmental sample analytical results obtained from the sampling effort will be compared to remedial action objectives (RAOs).
Diesel Seep Area (SS13) Collect the following samples: Sediment samples from 2 locations (SS-01 and SS-02). Near-surface soil samples from 3 locations (LB-03, LB-07, and LB-08). |
Louis Howard |
| 7/21/2006 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Draft Work Plan 2006 Environmental Monitoring Study LF03, SS13, SS15 Cape Romanzof LRRS reviewed by staff. Staff approved work plan as submitted. |
Louis Howard |
| 5/16/2007 |
Update or Other Action |
The scope of the monitoring program at SS013 Seep Area is to:
• Collect two sediment samples (SS-01 and SS-02) for DRO analysis.
• Collect three near surface soil samples (LB-03, LB-07, and LB-08) for DRO and RRO
analysis.Final 2006 Environmental Monitoring Report for Landfill 2 (LF003), Spill Sites: SS013 and SS015 received.
SS013
At Seep Area SS013, two sediment samples (SS-01 and SS-02) were collected for DRO analysis
and three near surface soil samples (LB-03, LB-07, and LB-08) were collected for DRO and
RRO analysis. DRO was detected in sediments at both sediment sampling locations in 2006. At SS-01, heavier hydrocarbon analytes have shown a pattern of declining concentration since peaking in 1999. No such pattern can be inferred at SS-06. DRO and RRO levels exceeded preliminary RAOs at all three surface sampling locations in 2006.
Elevated levels of heavier hydrocarbons have traditionally been observed at this location. These data, considered with historical sediment, soil, and boring log data, suggest that a spill ran over ground and left what is still contaminated material near the surface over a wide area. The spill percolated down to the water table in some areas and left hydrocarbon contamination that has been and still is above RAOs.
In the future, groundwater, soil, sediment, and surface water monitoring should be analyzed for DRO, BTEX, and PAH. The surface water sampling locations should be moved closer to the spill zone to better assess impacts from this area. The three monitoring wells should be surveyed, and a water table contour map created using data obtained from this site combined with any information obtained from water elevations at nearby sites. |
Louis Howard |
| 2/26/2008 |
CERCLA ROD Periodic Review |
Five Year Review received. The purpose of this five-year review is to independently evaluate whether current site conditions and remedial measures are and will continue to be protective of human health and the environment. This five-year review is the first conducted at Cape Romanzof LRRS and covers the sites Landfill No. 2 (LF003), Diesel Seep Area (SS013), and UST Spill Area (SS015). This five-year review has been prepared in accordance with existing United State Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) fiveyear review guidance.
All of the remedial actions specified in the Interim ROD have been implemented at SS013 as summarized below.
- Land use controls have been established that prohibit any digging or excavation within the Site SS013 area.
- Long-term monitoring of groundwater and surface water at SS013 was performed in 1997, 1999, 2000, 2003, and 2004 for groundwater and 1997, 1999, and 2000 for surface water. The surface water monitoring results were all below the RAOs.
- Long-term monitoring of surface soil and sediments at SS013 was performed in 1997, 1999, 2000, 2003, 2004, 2006, and 2007.
- Long-term groundwater monitoring results indicate that from 1997 through 2004 the only exceedance was DRO in MW-01 from 1997 to 2003. The 2004 monitoring event showed no exceedances of the remedial action objectives defined in the Interim ROD or current ADEC groundwater cleanup levels (ADEC, 2006a). Groundwater monitoring was discontinued after 2004.
- Long-term monitoring results indicate DRO levels in surface soil have generally been above preliminary RAOs at SS013. RRO levels are also elevated and generally above preliminary RAOs at LB-08, but generally below RAOs at LB-03 and LB-07.
- DRO concentrations in sediment at SS-01 have declined over time; while results at SS-06 located downstream have been more variable over time with no apparent trend.
The SS013 monitoring wells have remained serviceable during each of the long-term monitoring events. However, in 2007 groundwater monitoring wells MW-01 and MW-02 were decommissioned, as they were no longer being used.
Contaminants of concern at SS013 were identified as petroleum hydrocarbons in surface soil/sediment and groundwater. Petroleum hydrocarbons in surface water have never exceeded preliminary RAOs. An evaluation of monitoring well data collected until 2004 indicated that previously detected groundwater contaminants were attenuating naturally over time, and were below action levels during the most recent round of sampling in 2004.
DRO and RRO levels in surface soil have generally been above ADEC soil cleanup levels at SS013. DRO concentrations in sediment at SS-01 have declined over time, while results at SS-06 located downstream have been more variable over time with no apparent trend.
Overall the monitoring data indicate that the hydrocarbon impacts are primarily limited to the spill site area with no evidence of impact to surface water from Fowler Creek, and that natural attenuation may be occurring.
The near-surface soil cleanup levels for DRO and RRO have not changed from those provided in the Interim ROD (USAF, 2002). The sediment cleanup levels used in the Interim ROD are based on ADEC 18 AAC 75 Method Two soil cleanup levels.
Because these sediment sample locations (SS-01 and SS-06) are located in a predominantly dry streambed that only occasionally carries water the use of soil cleanup levels are appropriate for this site. There have been no substantial changes to the land use factors that were used at the time of remedy selection. The land use still represents a relatively low level of occupancy and activity.
The land use is industrial, ROD provisions have been followed and the probability that unacceptable exposure to site contaminants could occur is negligible.
The remaining contamination at SS013 is petroleum hydrocarbons contained in the soils and sediments. The surface water and groundwater have not been significantly affected by this contamination. The groundwater is not used for any purpose. Petroleum hydrocarbons are present in the surface soil and sediment, but since the land use is industrial the probability that unacceptable exposure to site contaminants could occur is negligible. Additionally, land use controls are in affect that prohibits digging or excavation of soils at this site. Long-term monitoring data confirms that no unexpected or unacceptable changes in contaminant concentration or distribution will occur. The intent of the SS013 Interim ROD is being met.
The remedy at SS013 is expected to be protective of human health and the environment when completed, and in the interim, exposure pathways that could result in unacceptable risks are being controlled. The next review is due by 2013. |
Louis Howard |
| 3/4/2008 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Staff reviewed and commented on the Draft Five Year Review for LF003, SS013, SS015. Sites with surface water and groundwater contamination at any point in time will need to have all groundwater and surface water monitoring points sampled one year prior to the five year review or in the same year to be included in the five year review.
For example, LF003 at well CMW-1 LF03 1996, benzene was detected above 5 ug/L in 1996 sampling event at 17 ug/L. However, it was not sampled in 2007 to be included in the five year review to show that contamination is still below cleanup levels (non-detect for 1997-2006). SS015 Well WW-04 1993 had detections above cleanup levels for either: benzene, total benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, total xylenes (BTEX), gasoline range organics (GRO), and diesel range organics (DRO) in 1993 and 1997. It was never sampled again after that time and was not sampled in 2007, prior to the five year review, for any constituents which had exceedances of groundwater cleanup levels.
The text states the review is limited to only the sites specified that are being remediated under CERCLA authority. ADEC will require periodic reviews to evaluate whether current site conditions and remedial measures are and will continue to be protective of human health and the environment for those sites not remediated under CERCLA authority, i.e. State authority. ADEC considers these periodic reviews required by 18 AAC 75.380. Final reporting requirements and site closure. “(J) other information requested by the department, as the department determines necessary to ensure protection of human health, safety, or welfare, or of the environment.
The text states: “The land use still represents a relatively low level of occupancy and activity, but no land use controls have been established. Therefore the potential for completed exposure pathways still exist at the present time.” This is in direct conflict with statements at: 2.5 Installation Land Use Control and Remedy Implementation,
3.4.2 Remedy Implementation on Page 3-7 and 3.10 Protectiveness Statement on Page 3-15. If land use controls (LUCs) are not in place, then they will need to be established for the entire acreage covered by LF003 as well as the area where off-site migration of PCB contamination is present downgradient of the site. ADEC requests the text throughout the document be corrected to reflect current (if any) land use controls for LF003. The text states if the items discussed are not completed before 2013, five years from the date of this review, the next five-year review will be performed as required. ADEC disagrees.
Typically, a statutory review is triggered by the initiation of the first remedial action that leaves hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants on site at levels that do not allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure. In cases where there are multiple remedial actions, the earliest remedial action that leaves such substances on site (at any source area on Cape Romanzof LRRS not just LF003) should trigger the initial review, even if it is an interim remedial action.
4.10 Protectiveness Statement(s)
ADEC concurs the remedy at SS013 is expected to be protective of human health and the environment when completed, and in the interim, exposure pathways that could result in unacceptable risks are being controlled. |
Louis Howard |
| 3/25/2008 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Staff reviewed and commented on the Draft Environmental Monitoring Report SS013, SS015, and LF003. 3.1 Interim ROD Remedial Action Objectives Page 3-1 Table 3-1 :
Sediment for PCBs at SS013 (SD-2) is listed as having a maximum concentration of 250 mg/kg in 2000. ADEC disagrees. The July 2001 Final Long Term Monitoring report on page 37, shows in Table 4-40 Site LF03 Sediment Hydrocarbon Levels – September 2000 PCBs were detected at 250 mg/kg (“J” flagged – associated numerical value is an estimated quantity) for sample SD/SW-2. ADEC requests the Air Force correct Table 3-1 to reflect the correct Site.
7.1.5 SS013 Recommendations Page 7-2: The text states soil/sediment monitoring frequency should be reduced from annual monitoring to once every five years. ADEC agrees.
|
Louis Howard |
| 4/30/2008 |
Update or Other Action |
Final Environmental Monitoring Report for LF003, SS013, and SS015 approved.
The scope of the monitoring program at SS013 Diesel Seep Area:
• Collect two sediment samples (SS-01 and SS-06) for DRO analysis.
• Collect three near surface soil samples (LB-03, LB-07, and LB-08) for DRO and RRO analysis.
SS013
At Seep Area SS013, two sediment samples (SS-01 and SS-06) were collected for DRO analysis
and three near surface soil samples (LB-03, LB-07, and LB-08) were collected for DRO and
RRO analysis. DRO was detected at 491 mg/kg in sediment sample SS-01 and 12,500 mg/kg in sediment sample SS-06 in 2007 both of which are above the ADEC soil cleanup level of 250 mg/kg. The use of soil cleanup levels for these locations is appropriate because they are only intermittently submerged by surface water during spring breakup and heavy precipitation events.
Since 1999, the DRO concentrations in sediment at SS-01 have declined from a high of 55,800 mg/kg to the 2006 and 2007 levels of 435 mg/kg and 491 mg/kg, respectively. DRO results at SS-06 (located downstream from SS-01) have been more variable over time, with no apparent concentration trend. DRO results at SS-06 for 2007 were at an alltime high of 12,500 mg/kg.
DRO levels exceeded RAOs at all three surface sampling locations in 2007. RRO levels exceed
RAOs at LB-07 only. These data, considered with historical sediment, soil, and boring log data, suggest that a spill ran over ground and left what is still contaminated material near the surface over a wide area. The spill percolated down to the water table in some areas and left hydrocarbon contamination that has been and still is above RAOs.
It is recommended that soil/sediment monitoring be continued at SS013 but on a less frequent
basis. The absence of any significant water quality impacts and slow degradation process
eliminates the necesity for annual monitoring. A monitoring frequency of once every five years
is recommended. |
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 Romanzof sites before they were established as individual sites. |
Natalie Loescher |
| 1/12/2010 |
Update or Other Action |
Draft Proposed Plan for Diesel Seep Area (SS013) and UST Spill Area (SS015) received. The final remedies proposed for SS013 and SS015 are consistent with interim remedies implemented in a 2002 Interim Record of Decision (ROD) and recommendations from the 2008 Five-Year Review of the interim remedies.
Current Site Conditions: Based on the 2003 through 2008 monitoring results, DRO and RRO
are present in soil at concentrations above the ADEC Method Two cleanup levels protective of
human health. The 95 percent upper confidence limit (UCL) of the mean DRO concentration is
54,000 milligrams per kilogram (mg/Kg) (versus the proposed cleanup level of 250 mg/Kg), and
the 95 percent UCL of the mean RRO concentration is 52,000 mg/Kg (versus the proposed cleanup level of 10,000 mg/Kg).
There are no upward or downward trends in the soil and sediment bulk hydrocarbon data.
However, some BTEX, TMB, and SVOC concentrations appear to have decreased, from above Method Two cleanup levels or screening levels in 1997 to generally below screening levels in subsequent events8. Soil and sediment are inherently inhomogeneous, making comparisons between analytical results difficult. The 95 percent UCL of the mean DRO and RRO concentrations were calculated from the most recent 5 years of sampling results (i.e., 2003-2008) and are listed below.
Soil: DRO: 54,058 mg/Kg, RRO: 28,863 mg/Kg Sediment: DRO: 4,981 mg/Kg
Proposed Remedy-Under CERCLA, no further action is proposed at the Diesel Seep Area (SS013), because there are no CERCLA hazardous substances identified as contaminants of concern at the site.
Under Alaska’s contaminated site regulations-MNA/ICs are proposed for Site SS013 to address residual petroleum in soil above the ADEC Method Two cleanup levels.
Interim reports will be prepared no less often than once every five years to ensure that
MNA/ICs are still protective of human health and the environment. ICs will remain as
required by 18 AAC 75.375.
Monitoring of three surface soil locations (LB-03, LB-07, and LB-08) and two sediment locations
(SS-01 and SS-06) is proposed no less often than once every five years. Soil samples will be
analyzed for DRO and RRO, and sediment samples will be analyzed for DRO. Monitoring will continue until cleanup levels are reached.
At SS013 and SS015, the presence of soil impact above levels allowing unrestricted use will be documented. Any excavation within these areas must include procedures to screen any excavated soils and provide for soil remediation contingency scenarios. Any contaminated groundwater that is encountered (i.e. dewatering for construction within an area of groundwater contamination would need to include proper treatment/disposal) will be managed properly.
Delineate the boundaries of soil with DRO or RRO above Method Two cleanup levels at Sites SS013 and SS015 and the boundaries of groundwater with DRO, GRO, or benzene above ADEC Table C cleanup levels at site SS015 to obtain a property description suitable for recording purposes.
Use USAF’s dig permit and construction review system or similar system developed by the Base Operation Support (BOS) contractor to restrict incompatible activities from Sites SS013 and SS015.
Document the ICs in USAF’s Real Property records and in the Record of Decision for SS013 and SS015 (which will be available in the Administrative Record). The Real Property records will
contain a map indicating IC locations. Appropriate notice will be filed with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service.
Notify ADEC prior to making any major changes to the ICs. The 611th Civil Engineer Squadron/Civil Engineer (CES/CE) is the point of contact for the ICs. |
Louis Howard |
| 2/3/2010 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Staff reviewed and commented on the Draft Proposed Plan SS013 and SS015 at Cape Romanzof LRRS.
Introduction Page 1-The first sentence in this section states: "This Proposed Plan discusses the final actions proposed for the following .... " ADEC requests the Air Force change the sentence to read: "This Proposed Plan presents the Preferred Alternatives for the following .... "
Fourth Paragraph-The text states: "The final remedies proposed for SS013 and SS015 are consistent with interim remedies implemented in a 2002 Interim Record a/Decision (ROD) .... "
ADEC requests the Air Force change the text to read: "The preferred alternative proposed as
final remedies for SS013 and SS015 are consistent with interim remedies implemented in a
2002 Interim Record of Decision (ROD) .... "
The text states: "The State of Alaska concurs with the actions proposed in this Plan; the State of Alaska's final acceptance of the actions proposed in this Plan will be evaluated following
public comment."
ADEC requests the Air Force delete the text and insert the fo~lowing: "The State of Alaska has
.participated in the development of this Plan. The State of Alaska's final decision on the
preferred alternative will not be made until all comments submitted during the public comment
period have been reviewed and considered."
Table 4: SS013 Summary of Soil Results Above Screening Levels Page 12-The table states a cleanup level for 2-Methyl-naphthalene Method Two Cleanup Level for Migration to Groundwater of 6 mg/kg. The correct value is 6.1 mg/kg. Please correct the table.
Summary of Alternatives Page 14-The Summary of Alternatives and Discussion ofthe Alternatives are typically placed between Cleanup Objectives section and Proposed Remedy. The following alternatives from page 12 of the 2001 SS013/SS015 Proposed Plan: No Action, Monitored Natural Attenuation, and Monitored Natural Attenuation with Hot Spot Removal, are still relevant.
ADEC requests the Air Force provide more discussion on the alternatives and why the preferred alternative, Monitored Natural Attenuation with Institution Controls, remains the preferred solution for soil contamination at the site. Since groundwater was shown to be below
Table C cleanup levels in 2004, ADEC requests the Air Force reconsider using Method Three
(in accordance with 18 AAC 75.340(e)) to develop site-specific alternative cleanup levels for
petroleum contaminated soil at SS013.
Page 20-ADEC has the same comments regarding adding a Summary of Alternatives and discussion of
alternatives apply for SSOI5. |
Louis Howard |
| 12/2/2010 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Staff reviewed & commented on the Draft ROD for SS013 & SS015. 1.1 Site Name & Location Page 1-1
The text states that a CERCLIS ID Number is not applicable. The CERCLIS ID Number for Cape Romanzof Long Range Radar Site (LRRS) is AK9572728633. ADEC requests the Air Force refer to the CERCLIS # on page 4 from the EPA Request for Submission of Preliminary Assessments letter to Patrick M. Coullahan Commander dated 19 Oct 1991. ADEC also requests the Air Force include the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) Contaminated Sites Hazard IDs: 1335 (SS013) & 1329 (SS015).
ADEC requests the Air Force include the following text either in this section before discussion of sites SS013 & SS015 or in section 1.2:
“Pursuant to the Defense Environmental Restoration Program (DERP), 10 United States Code (U.S.C.) 2701, & Executive Order 12580 (signed January 23, 1987), the USAF is responding to historical releases that occurred at its facilities, including Cape Romanzof LRRS.”
1.2 Statement of Basis & Purpose Pages 1-1 & 1-2
ADEC requests the Air Force change the text to:
“The AF is managing remediation of contamination at SS013 & SS015 in accordance with CERCLA as required by the Defense Environmental Restoration Program (DERP) & state law.
As the lead agency for remedial activities at SS013 & SS015, the AF has selected the remedy under CERCLA. The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) agrees that the remedy selected under CERCLA complies with state law. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been given the opportunity to review this document & has chosen to defer to the ADEC for regulatory oversight of the Environmental Restoration Program at Cape Romanzof LRRS.
DEC is the lead regulatory agency with respect to the petroleum contamination. DEC agrees that the remedies selected for petroleum comply with state law.”
1.3.2 Assessment Under Alaska State Regulations Page 1-2
ADEC requests the Air Force change the text to read: “Because petroleum substances are hazardous substances under State of Alaska laws & regulations, the two subject sites are being addressed under those applicable laws & regulations, including but not limited to Title 46 of the Alaska Statutes & regulations promulgated thereunder.”
1.4.2 Remedies Selected Under State of Alaska Regulations Page 1-3
ADEC requests the Air Force change the text as to read:
• Obtain ADEC approval prior to making any major changes to the ICs. The 611th Civil Engineer Squadron/Civil Engineer (CES/CE) is the point of contact for the ICs.
• Provide notice to ADEC, consistent with CERCLA Section 120(h), at least six months prior to any transfer or sale of SS013 or SS015.
ADEC requests the Air Force add a section before section 1.5 Statutory Determinations regarding property transfer as follows:
1.4.3 Property Transfer
The USAF will provide notice to ADEC, consistent with CERCLA Section 120(h), at least six (6) months prior to any transfer or sale of USAF property associated with Cape Romanzof LRRS, including transfers to private, state or local entities, so that ADEC can be involved in discussions to ensure that appropriate provisions are included in the transfer terms or conveyance documents to maintain effective land use controls. If it is not possible for the USAF to notify ADEC at least six (6) months prior to any transfer or sale, then the USAF will notify ADEC as soon as possible but no later than sixty (60) days prior to the transfer or sale of any property subject to land use controls.
In addition to the land transfer notice & discussion provisions above, the USAF further agrees to provide ADEC with similar notice, within the same time frames, as for federal to-federal transfer of property accountability & administrative control to ADEC. Review & comment opportunities afforded to ADEC as to federal-to-federal transfers shall be in accordance with all applicable federal laws. All notice & comment provisions above shall also apply to leases, in addition to land transfers or sales.
2.6.3.2 Investigation Summary Page 2-24
ADEC requests the Air Force provide clarification in this section on how it can state that the data is not sufficient for trend analysis at any of the monitoring wells, but then go on to state that the groundwater plume is stable or BTEX is declining.
2.10.2.1 Diesel Seep Area (SS013) Page 2-28
The text states: “Remedial alternatives were not developed for Site SS013. The RAO of restricting land use to commercial/industrial use can be attained by implementing ICs at the site.” The subsequent section describes remedial alternatives that were considered for site SS015 and were compared following the NCP. To be consistent, Section 2.10.2.1 should include a comparison of two alternatives – “no action” and “institutional controls”. |
Louis Howard |
| 2/23/2011 |
CERCLA ROD Approved |
John Halverson (ADEC) and Robyn M. Burk, Colonel USAF, Commander, 611th Air Support Group signed the Record of Decision for Diesel Seep Area (SS013) and UST Spill Area (SS015). This action documents the United States Air Force approval of the remedies selected in this Record of Decision for Diesel Seep Area (SS013) and UST Spill Area (SS015) at Cape Romanzof LRRS, Alaska. The State of Alaska agrees that, when properly implemented, the selected remedies comply with state law.
The decision may be reviewed and modified in the future if new information becomes available that indicates the presence of contaminants or exposures that may cause unacceptable risk to human health or the environment. If additional contaminants are discovered, USAF and ADEC will determine the compliance levels for soil and groundwater cleanup actions.
Petroleum has been detected at the sites above cleanup levels protective of unrestricted land use established in Alaska regulations. Land use restrictions are required as part of this response action and will be achieved through imposition of ICs that limit the use and/or exposure to those areas of the property, including water resources, that are contaminated.
At SS013 and SS015, the presence of petroleum in soil impacted above levels allowing
unrestricted use will be documented in USAF’s Real Property records. Any excavation
within these areas must include procedures to evaluate excavated soils and provide for soil
remediation contingency scenarios. Any contaminated groundwater that is encountered (i.e.
dewatering for construction within an area of groundwater contamination) will be managed
properly.
At SS013, future land use within the IC area as shown in Figure 3 will be restricted to
commercial/industrial land use.
USAF will implement the ICs by taking the following actions.
Use USAF’s dig permit and construction review system or similar system developed by the
Base Operation Support (BOS) contractor to restrict incompatible activities from Sites
SS013 and SS015.
Document the ICs in USAF’s Real Property records. The Real Property records will contain
a map indicating IC locations. Appropriate notice will be filed with the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service.
Obtain ADEC approval prior to making any major changes to the ICs. The 611th Civil
Engineer Squadron/Civil Engineer (CES/CE) is the point of contact for the ICs.
Provide notice to ADEC, consistent with CERCLA Section 120(h), at least six months prior
to any transfer or sale of SS013 or SS015.
The major components of the MNA portion of the SS015 remedy are presented below.
One source area monitoring well (WW-01) and two downgradient monitoring wells (WW-
05 and WW-06) will be monitored no less often than once every five years. Groundwater samples will be analyzed for DRO, GRO, and benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes (BTEX).
Monitoring will continue until 18 AAC 75.350 Table C groundwater cleanup levels are reached and cumulative risk is below Alaska threshold levels, or until the groundwater plume is steady state or shrinking, contaminant concentrations are decreasing, and concentrations meet applicable cleanup levels at an approved alternative point of compliance.
Although petroleum detections in Site SS013 soil are below ADEC Method Three cleanup levels, DRO and RRO concentrations are above levels protective of unrestricted use. Therefore, action is required to restrict land use under State of Alaska laws and regulations. The RAO for Site SS013 is to:
• Restrict use of the site to commercial/industrial use.
Interim reports will be prepared no less often than once every five years for both sites to ensure that the remedies are still protective of human health and the environment. ICs will remain as required by 18 AAC 75.375. |
John Halverson |
| 2/23/2011 |
Cleanup Complete Determination Issued |
John Halverson (ADEC) and Robyn M. Burk, Colonel USAF, Commander, 611th Air Support Group signed the Record of Decision for Diesel Seep Area (SS013) and UST Spill Area (SS015). This action documents the United States Air Force approval of the remedies selected in this Record of Decision for Diesel Seep Area (SS013) and UST Spill Area (SS015) at Cape Romanzof LRRS, Alaska. The State of Alaska agrees that, when properly implemented, the selected remedies comply with state law. The decision may be reviewed and modified in the future if new information becomes available that indicates the presence of contaminants or exposures that may cause unacceptable risk to human health or the environment. If additional contaminants are discovered, USAF and ADEC will determine the compliance levels for soil and groundwater cleanup actions.
Petroleum has been detected at the sites above cleanup levels protective of unrestricted land use established in Alaska regulations. Land use restrictions are required as part of this response action and will be achieved through imposition of ICs that limit the use and/or exposure to those areas of the property, including water resources, that are contaminated. At SS013 and SS015, the presence of petroleum in soil impacted above levels allowing unrestricted use will be documented in USAF’s Real Property records. Any excavation within these areas must include procedures to evaluate excavated soils and provide for soil remediation contingency scenarios.
Any contaminated groundwater that is encountered (i.e. dewatering for construction within an area of groundwater contamination) will be managed properly. At SS013, future land use within the IC area as shown in Figure 3 will be restricted to commercial/industrial land use. USAF will implement the ICs by taking the following actions. Use USAF’s dig permit and construction review system or similar system developed by the Base Operation Support (BOS) contractor to restrict incompatible activities from Sites SS013 and SS015. Document the ICs in USAF’s Real Property records. The Real Property records will contain a map indicating IC locations. Appropriate notice will be filed with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Obtain ADEC approval prior to making any major changes to the ICs. The 611th Civil Engineer Squadron/Civil Engineer (CES/CE) is the point of contact for the ICs. Provide notice to ADEC, consistent with CERCLA Section 120(h), at least six months prior to any transfer or sale of SS013 or SS015. The major components of the MNA portion of the SS015 remedy are presented below.
One source area monitoring well (WW-01) and two downgradient monitoring wells (WW- 05 and WW-06) will be monitored no less often than once every five years. Groundwater samples will be analyzed for DRO, GRO, and benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes (BTEX). Monitoring will continue until 18 AAC 75.350 Table C groundwater cleanup levels are reached and cumulative risk is below Alaska threshold levels, or until the groundwater plume is steady state or shrinking, contaminant concentrations are decreasing, and concentrations meet applicable cleanup levels at an approved alternative point of compliance. Although petroleum detections in Site SS013 soil are below ADEC Method Three cleanup levels, DRO and RRO concentrations are above levels protective of unrestricted use.
Therefore, action is required to restrict land use under State of Alaska laws and regulations. The RAO for Site SS013 is to: • Restrict use of the site to commercial/industrial use. Interim reports will be prepared no less often than once every five years for both sites to ensure that the remedies are still protective of human health and the environment. ICs will remain as required by 18 AAC 75.375. |
John Halverson |
| 2/24/2011 |
Institutional Control Record Established |
Institutional Controls established and entered into the database.
The specific ICs selected for SS013 and SS015 are listed below.
At SS013 and SS015, the presence of petroleum in soil impacted above levels allowing
unrestricted use will be documented in USAF’s Real Property records. Any excavation within these areas must include procedures to evaluate any excavated soils and provide for soil remediation contingency scenarios. Any contaminated groundwater that is encountered (i.e. dewatering for construction within an area of groundwater contamination) will be managed properly.
At SS013, future land use within the IC area will be restricted to commercial/industrial land use.
USAF will implement the ICs by taking the following actions.
Use USAF’s dig permit and construction review system or similar system developed by the Base Operation Support (BOS) contractor to restrict incompatible activities from Sites SS013 and SS015.
Document the ICs in USAF’s Real Property records. The Real Property records will contain a map indicating IC locations. Appropriate notice will be filed with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Obtain approval from ADEC prior to making any major changes to the ICs. The 611th Civil Engineer Squadron/Civil Engineer (CES/CE) is the point of contact for the ICs.
Provide notice to ADEC, consistent with CERCLA Section 120(h), at least six months prior to any transfer or sale of SS013 or SS015.
Interim reports will be prepared no less often than once every five years for both sites to ensure
that the remedies are still protective of human health and the environment. ICs will remain as
required by 18 AAC 75.375. ICs will be enforced by the following actions:
The AF will conduct inspections concurrent with natural attenuation monitoring. The inspections will consist of an administrative evaluation of the ICs at the Cape Romanzof LRRS, a visual inspection of each site, and a review of dig permit approval records. These inspections shall be documented on a site inspection checklist.
A report on the status of ICs will be submitted to ADEC with IC monitoring results no less often than once every five years. The report shall include (1) the inspection checklists completed during the reporting period, (2) a statement as to whether all ICs defined herein are being adhered to; and (3) a description of any deficiencies in the ICs and what efforts or corrective measures have been or will be taken to correct these deficiencies. The report will be filed in the Cape Romanzof LRRS Information Repository.
The AF shall provide notice to ADEC as soon as practicable after discovery of any activity that is inconsistent with the IC requirements, objectives or controls, or any action that may interfere with the effectiveness of the ICs. The AF shall include in such notice a list of corrective actions taken or planned to address such deficiency or failure.
If the AF requires a substantial IC modification or termination of the ICs inconsistent with this ROD, the AF and ADEC will issue an addendum to this ROD. |
Louis Howard |
| 4/19/2013 |
Update or Other Action |
2nd Five-Year review received for review and comment.
On 20 August 2012, Jacobs conducted a Periodic Review site inspection. Based on
observations during the inspection, ICs to limit off-site transport, control exposure, and
protect human health and the environment appear to be effective. No evidence of excavations
or disturbed soil was identified during the inspection. Site land use remains industrial.
Periodic Review of the interim remedy was prepared in 2008 and concluded that the remedy is functioning as intended. Monitoring data indicated that hydrocarbon impacts are primarily limited to the spill site with no evidence of an impact to surface water.
The 2008 review recommended a continuation of LTM activities and ICs, but in 2011, the
Final DD for SS013 (USAF 2011) determined that Cleanup Complete with ICs was appropriate with no continued monitored natural attenuation (MNA) for SS013 (USAF 2011).
This is the second Five-Year Review for LF003, the second Periodic Review for SS013, and
SS015, and the first Periodic Review for ST009, SS014, and DP011. Since the first Five-Year Review (USAF 2008b) for LF003, a Final ROD has been completed and signed in March 2013. Since the first Periodic Review for SS013, and SS015, a Proposed Plan Final Remedial Actions for ERP Sites SS013 and SS015 (USAF 2010a) and a Record of Decision for Diesel Seep Area (SS013) and UST Spill Area (SS015) (USAF 2011) have been issued.
The conditions reported in this review will serve as the baseline for the next review, which is
scheduled to be finalized in 2018. |
Louis Howard |
| 5/20/2013 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Staff provided comments on the 2nd Five Yr. Review. It documents the U.S. Air Force acceptance of the Second Comprehensive Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) Five-Year Review of Site LF003, the Second Non-CERCLA Periodic Review of Sites SS013 and SS015, and the first non-
CERCLA Periodic Review of Sites ST009, SS014, and DP011 at the Cape Romanzof Long-Range Radar Site, Cape Romanzof, Alaska.
10.2 SS013 Diesel Seep Area
Page 10-3
Question A: Is the remedy functioning as intended by the Decision Document?
Remedial Actions: “The results of the August 2012 site inspection and review of the documents, ARARs, and risk assumptions indicate that the remedy is functioning as intended…”
The question should be answered Yes or No.
Restate as follows:
Answer: Yes
Remedial Action Performance: “The results of the August 2012 site inspection and review of the documents, ARARs, and risk assumptions indicate that the remedy is functioning as intended…”
Page 10-5
Question B: Are the exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels, and RAOs used at the time of the remedy selection still valid?
Changes in Standards to be Considered: “The exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels, and RAO used at the time of the remedy selection…”
The question should be answered Yes or No.
Restate text as follows:
Answer: Yes
Changes in Standards and To Be Considered: “The exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels, and RAO used at the time of the remedy selection…”
Page 10-6
Question C: Has any other information come to light that could call into question the protectiveness of the remedy?
No new information is available that would question the protectiveness of the remedy at SS013.
Restate as follows:
Question C: Has any other information come to light that could call into question the protectiveness of the remedy?
Answer: No
|
Louis Howard |
| 5/29/2013 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Responses to ADEC's comments were acceptable on the draft 2nd 5 Yr. Review. |
Louis Howard |
| 3/18/2015 |
Institutional Control Update |
One of several sites with Land Use Controls in effect (LUC Mgt Plan 2015 Pacific Air Forces Regional Support Center Installations, JBER, AK) March 13, 2015.
In addition to ICs established as part of LUCs of the ERP for landfill sites with LUCs in effect, both ERP landfill and non-ERP landfill sites in Alaska under the management of PRSC must also comply with regulations set forth by the ADEC solid waste regulations in 18 AAC 60. Furthermore, landfill sites under the management of PRSC but not categorized as an ERP site must also comply with ADEC 18 AAC 60. Table 1-3 describes PRSC non-ERP landfill sites.
Landfills are defined in 18 AAC 60 as “an area of land, or an excavation in which solid wastes are placed for permanent disposal, and that is not an application site, injection well, reserve pit, or waste pile.” This definition applies to most PRSC ERP and non-ERP sites in Alaska designated as landfills, dumps, or caches. Small PRSC ERP and non-ERP landfill sites at remote installations, such as the long-range radar stations, are regulated as Class III landfills as defined by ADEC.
General requirements to manage landfills in place are established by ADEC and included in Table 2-2. However, alternative criteria can and often are adopted through negotiation with ADEC (see 18 AAC 60.900, Waivers). Post-closure notification requirements for Class III landfills, including notifications to ADEC and to potential future landowners, are summarized in Table 2-3. Tables 2-2 and 2-3 both generally assume the subject landfill is closed, has been reasonably well characterized, and a monitoring program for media of concern has been established and approved by ADEC.
Cape Romanzof LRRS Dump Area, Upper Camp DP011
Cape Romanzof LRRS Landfill No. 2 LF003
Cape Romanzof LRRS Weather Station Well Spill Site 4 SS010
Cape Romanzof LRRS Seep Area/Spill Site 5 SS013
Cape Romanzof LRRS Drum Storage Area SS014
Cape Romanzof LRRS Old UST Site/Leaking USTs, Lower Camp SS015
Cape Romanzof LRRS Upper Tram Terminal Area SS016
Cape Romanzof LRRS Lower Tram Terminal Area SS017
Cape Romanzof LRRS Spill Site 3/POL Fill Stand ST009
LUC_RESTRICTION • At SS013, the presence of petroleum in soil impacted above levels allowing
unrestricted use will be documented in USAF’s Real Property records. Any excavation within these areas must include procedures to evaluate excavated soils and provide for soil remediation contingency scenarios. Any contaminated groundwater that is encountered (i.e. dewatering for construction within an area of groundwater contamination) will be managed properly.
• At SS013, future land use within the IC area will be restricted to commercial/industrial land use.
USAF will implement the ICs by taking the following actions.
• Use USAF’s dig permit and construction review system or similar system developed by the Base Operation Support (BOS) contractor to restrict incompatible activities from Sites SS013.
• Document the ICs in USAF’s Real Property records. The Real Property records will contain a map indicating IC locations. Appropriate notice will be filed with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
• Obtain ADEC approval prior to making any major changes to the ICs. The 611th Civil Engineer Squadron/Civil Engineer (CES/CE) is the point of contact for the ICs.
• Provide notice to ADEC, consistent with CERCLA Section 120(h), at least six months prior to any transfer or sale of SS013. |
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 |
| 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 |
| 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 |
| 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 |
| 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 |
| 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 |
| 1/30/2024 |
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 |
| 7/8/2024 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
DEC reviewed and approved the "Final 2023 Remedial Action Operations Land Use/Institutional Control Report, Cape Romanzof Long Range Radar Station, Alaska, June 12th." The report presents the results of the long term monitoring program at Cape Romanzof LRRS. |
Axl LeVan |
| 2/28/2025 |
Update or Other Action |
DEC reviewed and provided comments on Notice of Use and Activity Limitations (NAULs) at six Cape Romanzof Sites (SS013, DP011, SS014, SS015, SS017, and ST009). |
Axl LeVan |
