| Action Date |
Action |
Description |
DEC Staff |
| 3/25/1984 |
Update or Other Action |
Records of the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) indicate that the first solid waste disposal permits in Alaska were issued in late 1973.
When the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) was enacted in 1976, a plan was developed to get all landfills in Alaska permitted and in compliance with RCRA technical standards.
The first permitting activity for the Cape Romanzof landfills that is evident from the USAF and ADEC files was in 1977. In March 1984, the USAF applied for an amendment to the then existing Cape Romanzof permit to allow for landfill disposal of asbestos and demolition debris at a separate site
(ROM-5) in connection with an asbestos cleanup program being conducted at USAF facilities. A permit amendment was granted on May 24, 1984, with a variety of conditions regarding disposal of asbestos, oily wastes, and construction/demolition waste. |
Louis Howard |
| 3/31/1989 |
Update or Other Action |
Work plan for Stage 1 RI/FS received. 5.3.3.1 Landfill No. 3 (ROM-5) Description- This site is the present landfill used by the base adjacent to the new Composite Facility. The landfill has received garbage, wood, metal, shop wastes, PCBs, solvents, hydrocarbons, base-neutral compounds, acids, heavy metals, and incinerator ash.
Recommended Action - One soil sample will be collected to be analyzed for volatile organics, semi-volatile organics, PCB, total petroleum hydrocarbons,and metals. |
Louis Howard |
| 6/30/1990 |
Update or Other Action |
RI/FS Stage 1 Second Draft report. ROM-5 (LF04) New Landfill is the location where various wastes, debris, and garbage have been deposited. The site is located behind (uphill of) the Composite Facility and drains down past the Industrial Dome to the main drainage ditch along the road. Soils in the drainage are fill material composed of sandy silt with boulders.
One near-surface soil sample was collected from a small drainage that had flow only during rain. This sample would show any contamination that may have been transported to this location by surface runoff from the New Landfill or From the existing shop area (Industrial Dome). The location
was marked and mapped. This location is southwest of the ROM-5 landfill.
Evaluation/Significance of Findings. The only analyte reported above detection limits was TPHs, at 100 mg/kg (the State of Alaska cleanup level). TPHs at this sampling site could have migrated from the upgradient landfill, and/or from road-oiling activities. Because the TPHs concentration does not exceed the State of Alaska cleanup level, remediation is not warranted. |
Louis Howard |
| 3/1/1991 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
USFWS Letter to Lt. Col. William Lamb USAF 11 Tactical Control Wing/LG regarding discovered contaminants of concern in selected fish and wildlife resources at the facility which lies in the Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge. The investigation was conducted in 1987 and 1988, and was specifically designed to determine if Site generated contaminants have entered the Refuge's resources.
Analytical results indicate that elevated levels of some polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), organochlorines and trace elements are accumulating in wildlife tissue. Most notable were PCBs and DDT-related compounds in vole, fox and fish samples. Pathways of uptake include contact, ingestion, or inhalation of contaminated soil, sediment, water, waste or prey.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Environmental Contaminant Specialists have determined that the elevated contaminant levels may pose a threat to the Refuge's wildlife resources. Furthermore, sediment samples collected by the Service and water and sediment samples collected by your contractor Woodward-Clyde Consultants indicate that an abandoned Landfill is a significant contributor of PAHs, PCBs, chlordane, lead and cadmium contamination. A copy of our "Report of Findings is enclosed for
your reference.
In conclusion, Service concerns appear to be adequately addressed under the U.S. Air Force's Installation Restoration Program. We believe Woodward-Clyde Consultants' remedial recommendations should be seriously considered. Therefore, we recommend, that:
1. the U.S. Air Force select remediation alternatives in consultation with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service;
2. the State of Alaska's Department of Environmental Conservation interim standard of i00 mg/kg (ppm) for Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons in soil be adopted by the U.S. Air Force as a cleanup level for the Cape Romanzof Long Range Radar Site;
3. the Environmental Protection Agency's "Polychlorinated Biphenyls Spill Cleanup Policy" (52 FR 10688. April 2, 1987) be used as a guide to remediate affected sites; and
4. the abandoned landfill's contents be excavated and disposed off-site to ensure permanent protection of the area's fish and wildlife resources. |
Louis Howard |
| 2/25/1992 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Staff reviewed the draft IRP RI/FS Stage 1 Tech Report Addendum March 1991 and 2nd draft report June 1990. ROM-5 New Landfill and the following sites: ROM 1D 5099th Disposal Pit (LF12), ROM-Road Oiling, ROM-6 Waste Accumulation Area, ROM-7 Dump, ROM-9 Landfill, and ROM-11 Former White Alice SIte were all proposed for no further action.
The Department tentatively concurs with the recommendation that no further action be done at these sites. Refer to attached "ADEC No Further Action Criteria" for developing the TDSNFA. In addition, the Department wishes to state that the "Solid Waste Management Regulations" 18 AAC 60 be followed and implemented for this active landfill at ROM-5. |
Louis Howard |
| 4/9/1992 |
Update or Other Action |
EPA Memorandum April 9, 1992 Reply to the ATTN of ES-098. Subject Toxicity of Fuels. From Carol Sweeney, Toxicologist Health and Environmental Assessment Section. To Wayne Pierre Federal Facilities Superfuend Branch (HW-124). A response has been provided to the frequently-asked question of whether a reference dose or other toxicity information can be provided for fuel mixtures so that these mixtures can be addressed quantitatively in Superfund risk assessments. The memo from ECAO Cincinnati is attached (last attachment). They have developed reference doses for gasoline, JP-5/kerosene, and JP-4, and a cancer potency factor for gasoline. The memo emphasizes that these are provisional numbers and that considerable uncertainty is involved in this quantitative assessment, because of data limitations, and because inhalation studies were used to calculate oral reference doses.
I typed up a summary table showing the numbers (first attachment) and calculated some risk-based concentrations (second attachment). On the risk-based concentration table, I also
included ordnance compounds, because I hadn't made a table of those before that I can remember. The risk-based concentrations were calculated the same way as table II-1 and II-2 of the Region
10 Supplemental guidance; for soil, the same limitations apply, that the numbers presented do not consider pathways other than soil ingestion.
Toxicity Reference Vaules for Fuel Mixtures EPA Region 10 4/9/1992 Non-cancer effects-Gasoline (unleaded) RfD (mg/kg-day) Oral: 2.0E-1, Uncertainty Factor-Oral:1000, Level of Confidence-Oral: Low. Toxicity Data Source-Oral RfD: Memo 3/92. Carcinogenicity-Cancer Potency/(mg/kg/day): Oral 1.7E-3, Unit Risk (/ug/m3) 4.8E-7, Cancer Weight Of Evidence-C, Toxicity Data Source-Oral SF and Inhal. SF: Memo 3/1992.
Kerosene/JP-5 RfD2.0E-2, UF Oral: 10,000, LOC Oral: low, TDS Oral RfD: Memo 3/92
JP-4 RfD 8.0E-2, UF Oral: 10,000, LOC Oral: low, TDS Oral RfD: memo 3/92.
Screening Values for Water RBCs based on Ingestion, Residential
Gasoline-Risk = 10-6 (ug/L) 50, 10-4=5000 HI=1 (ug/L) 7000
JP-5 Kerosene Risk 10-6 10-4=NA HI = 1 (ug/L) 700
JP-4 Risk 10-6 10-4 = NA, HI = 1 (ug/L) = 3,000
Screening Values for Soils- RBCs Based on Soil Ingestion Residential
Gasoline-Risk = 10-6 (mg/kg) 400, 10-4 (mg/kg) 40,000, HQ = 1 (mg/kg) 50,000
JP-5 Kerosene Risk 10-6 10-4 NA, HQ =1 5,000
JP-4 Risk 10-6 10-4 NA, HQ = 20,000
USEPA Office of Research and Development, Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office Cincinnati, OH Subj: Oral Reference Doses and Oral Slope Factors for JP-4, JP-5; similar to Kerosene (CAS no. 8008-20-6), Diesel Fuel (CAS No. 68334-30-5), and Gasoline (CAS No. 8006-61-9) (AVGAS) [McChord AFB (Wash Rack/Treatment)/Tacoma, WA]. From Joan S. Dollarhide Associate Director, Superfund Health Risk Techncial Support Center, Chemical Mixtures Assessment Branch TO Carol Sweeney USEPA Region X.
This memorandum is in response to your request for oral systemic and carcinogenic toxicity values for JP-4, JP-5, diesel fuel, and gasoline (AVGAS) found to contaminate soil and
groundwater at McChord AFB (Wash Rack/Treatment), Tacoma, WA. We have attempted to derive RfDs and slope factors for the above fuel mixtures. We have derived provisional RfDs for
gasoline, JP-4, JP-5 and diesel fuel; provisional cancer weight-of-evidence classifications of C for gasoline and D for JP-4, JP- 5 and diesel fuel; and a provisional slope factor (adapted from an interim Agency value) for gasoline
Based on the available evidence, unleaded gasoline can be assigned to U.S. EPA (1986) weight-of-evidence Group C: possible human carcinogen. An earlier U.S. EPA document assigned unleaded
gasoline to Group B2 as a probable human carcinogen (u.s. EPA, 1987a), but that document predates the U.S. EPA (1991d) conclusion that the male rat kidney tumors produced by gasoline
are not predictive for humans, and therefore should not contribute to the weight-of-evidence or dose-response assessment of carcinogenicity. IARC concluded that marine diesel fuel is possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B), but light diesel fuels and jet fuels are not classifiable as to their carcinogenicity in humans (Group 3). |
Jennifer Roberts |
| 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. |
Jennifer Roberts |
| 2/10/1993 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Vic Vickaryous provided comments on remedial investigation/feasability study (RI/FS). Active landfill is not eligible for a cleanup complete determination by the department or NFRAP. ROM-5 requires a permit and to be managed as an active landfill per 18 AAC 60 Solid Waste management regulations. |
Vic Vickaryous |
| 4/28/1994 |
Site Added to Database |
TPH contamination in soil to 100 mg/kg. |
Louis Howard |
| 6/16/1995 |
Site Ranked Using the AHRM |
Initial ranking. Action code added because it wasn't when the site was originally ranked. |
John Halverson |
| 11/30/1995 |
Update or Other Action |
Draft Environmental Baseline Survey for Air Force Radar Stations contains information on Cape Romanzof. The Air Force began the IRP process at Cape Romanzof Radar Installation in
1985 prior to the terminology and procedural changes that took place in the IRP after the passage of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) m 1986. As a result, the IRP was realigned to incorporate the terminology and requirements of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). The IRP Administrative Record file contains both pre- and post-SARA terminology.
The Remedial Investigation (RI) results presented are from investigation activities conducted at the Cape Romanzof Radar Installation. Additional information was gathered from previous investigations at these sites. Eight sites were investigated at the Cape Romanzof Radar Installation: Landfill N0. 2 (LF03), Landfill NO. 3 (LF04), Waste Accumulation Area No. 1 (SS07) Waste Accumulation Area No. 3 (SS08), Spill/Leak No. 3 (ST09), Seep Area No. 5 (SS13), Drum Storage Area (SS14) and Previous USTs (SS15).
None of the six aboveground storage tanks at the facility shown evidence of a release. No underground storage tanks were found at the facility. One oil/water separator is located at the Lower Camp for the Industrial Building (building 2294). PCBs were reportedly stored at SS01, LF02, LF04, OT06, and SS08. On inspection, all transformers were seen to be the dry type which do not contain PCBs.
Restoration Activities Completed:
Waste Accumulation Area #2 (SS01) NFRAP after 1993,
Landfill #1 (LF02) NFRAP after 1993,
Landfill#2 (LF03) Interim remedial action in 1994,
Landfill #3 (LF04) Remedial investigation, feasibility study and draft proposed plan completed,
Road Oiling (OT05) NFRAP after 1993,
White Alice Site (OT06) NFRAP after 1993,
Waste Accumulation Area #1,
Spill/Leak#1 and #2 (SS07) Remedial investigation, feasibility study, and draft proposed plan completed,
Waste Accumulation Area #3, Spill/Leak #6, 7, 8, and 9 (SS08) Interim remedial action in 1994,
Spill/Leak #3 (ST09) Remedial Investigation completed in 1994,
Spill/Leak #4 (SS10) NFRAP after 1993,
Dump Area (DP11) NFRAP after 1993,
Landfill (LF12) NFRAP after 1993,
Seep Area, Spill/Leak#5 (SS13) Remedial investigation, feasibility study, and draft proposed plan completed,
Drum Storage Area (SS14) Interim remedial action in 1994,
Leaking USTs (SS15) Remedial investigation, feasibility study, and draft proposed plan completed Interim remedial action in 1994. |
Ray Burger |
| 4/17/2000 |
Cleanup Level(s) Approved |
Staff briefed Jennifer Roberts on alternative cleanup level established for biocells soil contaminated with 6,000 mg/kg diesel range organics and 18,000 mg/kg residual range organics. 611th proposes soil to be used as cover material for active landfill. SESOIL leaching model run using site specific data and it showed that the groundwater would not be impacted with any petroleum constituents.
Additional level of conservatism built in since soils will be mixed with clean fill, covered with at least 8 inches of clean soil and then revegated. Institutional controls will be in place and enforced by the closure plan submitted to the solid waste program to include restrictions for no residential land use or occupied buildings to ever be built on it. |
Jennifer Roberts |
| 4/17/2000 |
Cleanup Complete Determination Issued |
Site closed out: The 611th proposed soil to be used as cover material for active landfill. SESOIL leaching model run using site specific data and it showed that the groundwater would not be impacted with any petroleum constituents. Additional level of conservatism built in since soils will be mixed with clean fill, covered with at least 8 inches of clean soil and then revegated. Institutional controls will be in place and enforced by the closure plan submitted to the solid waste program to include restrictions for no residential land use or occupied buildings to ever be built on it. Managed by Solid Waste program under existing solid waste permit (SWG0307004) |
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 |
| 9/21/2004 |
Update or Other Action |
Cape Romanzof Class 3 (camp) Landfill
Active SWG0307004 Cape Romanzof Air Force Station solid waste permit issued: Jul 21 2004 Expires: Jan 31 2008 Waste allowed: Inert, Municipal, Ash, RACM Asbestos, Non RACM Asbestos, Sludge. *Regulated Asbestos-Containing Material (RACM) is any material that contains greater than 1% asbestos and is friable.Some common examples of RACM are spray acoustic ceilings, acoustic tiles, various plasters, duct wrap, paper backing of linoleum, non-bituminous roofing felt, wallboard, joint compound (joint "mud"), and thermal insulation on pipes and boilers. Use of asbestos in the manufacturing of these products was banned by 1978. However, some products remained on the shelf and were used in the construction of buildings and homes for several years thereafter, and some are still used today.
Non-friable asbestos-containing material (ACM) is typically bound up with cement, vinyl, asphalt, or some other type of hardening binder. Some examples of non-friable asbestos building products are transite (cement) siding, vinyl asbestos floor tiles, and asphalt roofing shingles. Non-friable materials are not regulated. Some non-friable asbestos materials are still being manufactured. Note: non-friable ACM can become RACM if it is pulverized or turned to dust during remodel and/or repair activities. Non-friable ACM can also become RACM if it is burned. |
Leslie Simmons |
| 11/16/2004 |
Update or Other Action |
File number issued 2526.38.002 |
Aggie Blandford |
| 2/20/2008 |
Exposure Tracking Model Ranking |
Initial ranking with ETM completed. |
Louis Howard |
| 1/11/2013 |
Institutional Control Record Established |
Institutional Controls established and entered into the database. |
Louis Howard |
| 1/29/2020 |
CERCLA PA |
Preliminary Assessment for AFFF Areas at Cape Romanzof. AFFF use on site at Cape Romanzof LRRS was confirmed through the use related to the 1984 fuel leak, and from fire training activities that reportedly occurred on -site. Cape Romanzof LRRS should be considered for further investigation through sampling of environmental media to confirm the presence or absence of AFFF in the surface, subsurface, groundwater and/or surface water. Based on the information sources reviewed during this PA.
Therefore, in accordance with the EPA and CERCLA PA and SI Guidance documents (Guidance for Performing Preliminary Assessments under CERCLA; EPA, 1991), Cape Romanzof LRRS is recommended for an SI based on the findings of this PA report. The SI is recommended in order to confirm or deny the presence of PFOS/PFOA contamination and to evaluate potential exposure pathways.
See site file for additional information. |
Louis Howard |
| 6/16/2020 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
DEC provide comments for the Draft PFOA, PFOS, and PFBS site inspections, UFP-QAPP Work Plan, Six Remote Long Range Radar Stations, Alaska, May 2020. The UFP-QAPP work plan was prepared for the U.S. Air Force (USAF) to support the Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA), Perfluorooctane Sulfonate (PFOS), and Perfluorobutane Sulfonate (PFBS) Site Inspections (SIs) at six remote radar sites in Alaska including: Tatalina LRRS, Point Barrow LRRS, Indian Mountain LRRS, Sparrevohn LRRS, Cape Newenham LRRS, and Cape Romanzof LRRS. |
Dennis Shepard |
| 7/25/2020 |
CERCLA SI |
DEC approved the “Final Perfluorooctanoic Acid, Perfluoroctane Sulfonate, and Perfluorobutane Sulfonate Site Inspections, Uniform Federal Policy-Quality Assurance Project Plan Work Plan, Six Remote Radar Stations, Alaska” dated July 2020. This work plan was prepared by United States Air Force to guide investigation of the potential presence of perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS), and perfluorobutane sulfonate (PFBS) at six remote radar sites in Alaska through the sampling of surface water, groundwater, soil and sediment. Sampling is planned for Cape Newenham, Cape Romanzof, Indian Mountain, Point Barrow, Sparrevohn and Tatalina. |
Melinda Brunner |
| 3/11/2022 |
CERCLA SI |
DEC reviewed and provided comments on the "Draft Site Inspection Report for Perfluorooctane Sulfonate, Perfluorooctanoic Acid, and Perfluorobutane Sulfonic Acid at Cape Romanzof Long Range Radar Station, Alaska, November 2021" recieved February 3, 2022. 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 goals of the SI were to gain further understanding of project site conditions and determine if a release of perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS), perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), and perfluorobutanesulfonic acid (PFBS) may have occurred to groundwater, surface water, sediment, or surface soil at a fire training area (FTA) where aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF) may have been present as identified in the Preliminary Assessment (PA) report. The report reommended an Remedial investigation at a fire training area due to exceedances of EPA's health advisory limits in groundwater for PFOS. |
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 |
