| Action Date |
Action |
Description |
DEC Staff |
| 1/23/1987 |
Update or Other Action |
Executive Order (EO) 12580--Superfund implementation Source: The provisions of EO 12580 of Jan. 23, 1987, appear at 52 FR 2923, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193, unless otherwise noted.
(d) Subject to subsections (a), (b) & (c) of this SEC., the functions vested in the President by Sections (SEC.) 104(a) , (b) & (c)(4), 113(k) , 117(a) & (c) , 119, & 121 of the Act are delegated to the Secretaries of Defense & Energy, with respect to releases or threatened releases where either the release is on or the sole source of the release is from any facility or vessel under the jurisdiction, custody or control of their depts.., respectively, including vessels bare-boat chartered & operated. These functions must be exercised consistent with the requirements of SEC. 120 of the Act.
SEC. 104 [42 U.S.C. 9604] Response Authorities-(a)(1) Whenever (A) any hazardous substance is released or there is a substantial threat of such a release into the environment (environ.), or (B) there is a release or substantial threat of release into the environ. of any pollutant or contaminant which may present an imminent & substantial danger to the public health or welfare, the President is authorized to act, consistent with the NCP, to remove or arrange for the removal of, & provide for remedial action (RA) relating to such hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant at any time (including its removal from any contaminated natural resource), or take any other response measure consistent with the NCP which the President deems necessary to protect the public health or welfare or the environ.
(b)(1) Information: Studies & Investigations. --Whenever the President is authorized to act pursuant to subsection (a) of this SEC., or whenever the President has reason to believe that a release has occurred or is about to occur, or that illness disease, or complaints thereof may be attributable to exposure to a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant & that a release may have occurred or be occurring, he may undertake such investigations, monitoring, surveys, testing, & other information gathering as he may deem necessary or appropriate to identify the existence & extent of the release or threat thereof, the source & nature of the hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants involved, & the extent of danger to the public health or welfare or to the environ.
(k) Administrative Record & Participation Procedures.- (1) Administrative record (AR). -- The President shall establish an AR upon which the President shall base the selection of a response action. The AR shall be available to the public at or near the facility at issue. The President also may place duplicates of the AR at any other location. (2) Participation procedures.- (A) Removal action. -- The President shall promulgate regulations in accordance with chapter 5 of title 5 of the USC establishing procedures for the appropriate participation of interested persons in the development of the AR on which the President will base the selection of removal actions & on which judicial review of removal actions will be based.
(a) Proposed Plan (PP). -- Before adoption of any plan for RA to be undertaken by the President, by a State, or by any other person, under SEC. 104, 106, 120, or 122, the President or State, as appropriate, shall take both the following actions: (1) Publish a notice & brief analysis of the PP & make such plan available to the public. (2) Provide a reasonable opportunity for submission of written & oral comments & an opportunity for a public mtg. at or near the facility at issue regarding the PP & regarding any proposed findings under SEC. 121(d)(4) (relating to cleanup standards). The President or the State shall keep a transcript of the mtg. & make such transcript available to the public.
(c) Explanation Of Differences -- After adoption of a final RA plan- (1) if any RA is taken, (2) if any enforcement action under SEC. 106 is taken, or (3) if any settlement or consent decree under SEC. 106 or SEC. 122 is entered in to, & if such action, settlement, or decree differs in any significant respects from the final plan, the President or the State shall publish an explanation of the significant differences & the reasons such changes were made.
SEC. 121 [42 U.S.C. 9621] Cleanup Standards [§121 added by PL 99-499] (a) Selection of RA.--The President shall select appropriate RAs determined to be necessary to be carried out under SEC. 104 or secured under SEC. 106 which are in accordance with this SEC. &, to the extent practicable, the NCP, & which provide for cost-effective response. In evaluating the cost effectiveness of proposed alternative RAs, the President shall take into account the total short- & long-term costs of such actions, including the costs of O & M for the entire period during which such activities will be required. |
Jennifer Roberts |
| 3/31/1989 |
Update or Other Action |
Stage 1 Work Plan RI/FS received. Spill/LeakNo. 3 (ROM-10) Description- This site is a truck fill stand located next to the beach warehouse. Small petroleum, oil, and lubricants (POL) spills have occurred here.
Recommended Action - One soil sample will be collected to be analyzed for 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. 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), 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 located near beach warehouse operated from the 1950s to present), ROM-12 (SS14 Former Drum Storage area).
Analytical Results. One soil sample was analyzed for TPHs only; a concentration of 4900 mg/kg was reported. This sample was located at the presumed location of the former truck fill stand. No existing structures were found to indicate the exact location of this former stand.
The high reported TPHs value (4900mg/kg) indicates that the sampling location is at or near the site of the former truck fill stand as shown on installation drawings. Because of the close proximity of this contamination to the surface waters of Fowler Creek and the waters of Kokechik Bay (with aquatic organisms), this contamination represents a potentially significant environmental risk. |
Vic Vickaryous |
| 7/8/1991 |
Update or Other Action |
Mike Lewis received an initial spill report for a June 29, 1991 fuel spill of 4,000 gallons. A 1 1/2 inch buried steel pipeline between the bulk storage area and the abandoned truck fill stand. 1,000 gallons of spilled fuel collected. After cause of leak is determined, a corrective solution will be engineered and applied. Later in the month, it was determined that 2 abandoned underground storage tanks (USTs) were still connected to the active pipeline and had leaked. The pipeline was not the direct main contributor to the release. Estimate revised to 46,000 total gallons of product released to the environment. |
Mike Lewis |
| 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-10 Former Truck FIll Stand: One soil sample was not enough to delineate or adequately define nor identify the total extent of contamination at this site. As stated in the (ADEC) "Interim Guidance for NON-UST Soil Cleanup Levels" under Section II Part D Page 6: "The identity of a released refined petroleum product MUST be assumed to be UNKNOWN unless an analysis of two separate and discrete samples show that the product is only gasoline, or only a refined non-gasoline product."
The guidance further states the Department will, in its own discretion, waive the analysis to assess the identity of the product if the owner or operator can document that only one type of product was stored or distributed during the operational life of the facility. The estimated amount of contaminated soils may be more than 19 cubic yards using the 3 foot depth as an estimated depth of contamination.
General comments- During review of the documents it was noted that sites ROM-1, ROM-IO, ROM-12 have all proposed landfarming as a recommended treatment alternative for the contaminated soils. The Department requests that a unified soil remediation
program for ,treating these soils be submitted for review. If landfarming is ultimately chosen for a remediation method then a treatment plan regarding detailed site conditions will have to be developed and approved by the Department.
The landfarming project may require a treatability study, pilot project, or extensive laboratory analysis to determine the feasibility of the bioremediation at the site. A treatability study may be necessary to show that the proposed bior:mediation will not accelerate contamination migration, or cause the release of additional pollutants without adequate capture mechanisms in place, or otherwise cause a contaminated site to become a greater hazard. If a treatability study is conducted, then soil, groundwater, and contaminants from the contaminated site must be used in the study.
Specific information required by the Department for landfarming
bioremediation is outlined in the "Guidance for Storage, Remediation, and Disposal of Non-UST Petroleum Contaminated Soils" July 29, 1991. Landspreading facilities in coastal zones will require a coastal zone consistency review. Federal lands and waters are excluded from the state's coastal zone. However, the,actions of federal agencies and activities authorized by those
agencies that may have a spillover impact on the coastal zone are required to be consistent with approved state coastal management programs. Users should refer to the Coastal Zone Management Act (Section 307) and its implementing regulations (15 CFR 923 and 15 CFR 930) for specific federal consistency requirements.
The recommended remedial alternative given by WCC June 1990 report is to excavate the Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon (TPH) contaminated soil with landfarming (See page 6-13 section 6.4). Refer to "General Comments" section for guidance on landfarming. |
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 |
CERCLA PA |
Letter from EPA Region 10 (Mark Ader) 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: CHAPTER 103--COMPREHENSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE, COMPENSATION, AND LIABILITY SUBCHAPTER I--HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES RELEASES, LIABILITY, COMPENSATION Sec. 9620. Federal facilities (a) Application of chapter to Federal Government
(1) In general Each department, agency, and instrumentality of the United States (including the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government) shall be subject to, and comply with, this chapter in the same manner and to the same extent, both procedurally and substantively, as any nongovernmental entity, including liability under section 9607 of this title. Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect the liability of any person or entity under sections 9606 and 9607 of this title.
(2) Application of requirements to Federal facilities All guidelines, rules, regulations, and criteria which are applicable to preliminary assessments carried out under this chapter for facilities at which hazardous substances are located, applicable to evaluations of such facilities under the National Contingency Plan, applicable to inclusion on the National Priorities List, or applicable to remedial actions at such facilities shall also be applicable to facilities which are owned or operated by a department, agency, or instrumentality of the United States in the same manner and to the extent as such guidelines, rules, regulations, and criteria are applicable to other facilities.
No department, agency, or instrumentality of the United States may adopt or utilize any such guidelines, rules, regulations, or criteria which are inconsistent with the guidelines, rules, regulations, and criteria established by the Administrator under this chapter. (3) Exceptions This subsection shall not apply to the extent otherwise provided in this section with respect to applicable time periods. This subsection shall also not apply to any requirements relating to bonding, insurance, or financial responsibility. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to require a State to comply with section 9604(c)(3) of this title in the case of a facility which is owned or operated by any department, agency, or instrumentality of the United States.
(4) State laws State laws concerning removal and remedial action, including State laws regarding enforcement, shall apply to removal and remedial action at facilities owned or operated by a department, agency, or instrumentality of the United States or facilities that are the subject of a deferral under subsection (h)(3)(C) of this section when such facilities are not included on the National Priorities List. The preceding sentence shall not apply to the extent a State law would apply any standard or requirement to such facilities which is more stringent than the standards and requirements applicable to facilities which are not owned or operated by any such department, agency, or instrumentality. |
Jennifer Roberts |
| 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 |
| 2/10/1993 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Vickaryous commented on the remedial investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS) for site. Total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) is at 4,900 mg/kg in the soil from only one sample taken at the site. Staff stated one sample does not adequately address the extent of the subsurface soil contamination. *Note that TPH is no longer regulated by ADEC and that the current regulations in 18 AAC 75 require analyses to use specific fuel ranges (GRO, DRO or RRO and BTEX). The remediation method recommended by document is excavation followed by landfarming. Staff stated screening samples may be used during the remedial excavation phase to estimate the limits of soil contamination. However, additional discrete soil samples at the limits of the excavation will be needed for final closure of the site. All excavation, sampling, and remediation must be done under a workplan that has prior approval by DEC. |
Vic Vickaryous |
| 4/28/1994 |
Site Added to Database |
|
Louis Howard |
| 5/2/1994 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Workplan for contaminated soil at facility states action items for FY93 and FY94 work. Finish FY93 Work:
(a) Finish capping the landfill started in FY93 work season. The work plan was approved by ADEC for the FY93 work season and there are no changes anticipated for the FY94 work season.
(b) Complete the 2 soil containment cells began in FY93. All that remains is the final grading.
(c) Excavate 3 contaminated areas identified during the FY93 work season. One area is located between the old POL Fill Stand (ROM-10 ST09) and the beaver pond near the beach area. One area is located at the old POL Fill Stand ST-09 (ROM-10). One area identified as Drum Storage Area SS-14 (ROM-14) near the beach area.
FY94 Work:
(a) Excavate Waste Accumulation Area No. 3 SS-08 (ROM 1) (380 cubic yards).
(b) Excavate diesel contaminated soil stockpiled near SS-15 (900 cubic yards. This particular site will be first priority since soil has been stockpiled for over 2 years without an ADEC approved soil stockpiling plan.
(c) Obtain approval for the construction of Biopile remediation cells to be located near the removed lower camp facilities. The new cell will not be constructed on an existing RIP site. Exact location to be coordinated between 11 CEOS/CEV and 11 CEOS/CEOR during a site visit.
History: This site was a truck fill stand located next to the former beach warehouse (now removed). The Phase I Records search (ES 1985) reported that a number of small POL spills associated with tank filling and transfers occurred at this site. This site is above the beach at Kokechik Bay. The area is upgradient of Fowler Creek and Kokechik Bay.
a. During the RI/FS study, one sample was analyzed for TPH (4,900 mg/kg). This sample was located at the presumed location of the former truck fill stand. No existing structures were found to indicate the exact location of the former stand.
b. Surface water and subsurface water flow toward nearby Fowler Creek and provide a potential pathway for transporting contamination to the creek from the source now present within the soil. The area around the truck fill stand is nearly fiat, and runoff from this area could move to Fowler Creek or directly to Kokechik Bay.
c. Contamination appears to be held within the soils. The base of contamination is unknown at this time. Pre excavation sampling will be accomplished to define the site. Contaminated soil is currently estimated at 20 cubic yards.
d. Contaminated soil will be excavated and transported to soil containment cells via dump truck. The truck bed will be covered to preclude contaminated soil from escaping the confines of the truck bed. A PID will be used at the excavation site to screen soil.
e. Obviously impacted soil which is to be stockpiled will be sampled in accordance with the sampling Table 3 Location of sampled soil will be entered in the log book and a sampling grid will be used to annotate locations and depths from which the samples were obtained
(1) A minimum of one soil sample (PID field screening) will be obtained from each ten cubic yards of soil for field screening purposes. Screening procedures and results will be documented in a site log book.
(2) Based on soil screening data, grab samples will be taken from the excavation. A minimum of six inches of soil will be removed immediately prior to collection of the sample with the sample being collected from newly uncovered soil. If the excavation has been open for longer than one hour, then a minimum of eighteen inches of soil will be removed immediately prior to sample collection.
(3) A sampling grid will be contained in the site log book. |
Louis Howard |
| 2/14/1995 |
Update or Other Action |
Scope of Work CR LRRS DBWT-92-79902 Biopile Construction. Background: In FY93 the 611 CES/CEOR observed 3 areas obviously contaminated & stained with POL products. These areas are located between the old POL Fill Stand (ST09) & the beaver pond near the beach area. ST09 & the Drum Storage Area (SS14) near the beach area were included into the FY93 work plan. The two areas which are contaminated with POL were to be stockpiled in Cell No. 1 & Cell No. 2 which were constructed in FY93. The extent of POL contamination from the Drum Storage Area (SS14) was delineated in FY94 & approximately 1152 CY of soils was placed into Cell No. I. The extent of contamination at the POL Fill Stand area (ST09) was delineated during FY94, but was not excavated due the expanded scope of the project. The original estimate of contaminated soil was approximately 20 CY. The new estimate of POL contaminated soils is approximately 1000 CY.
The 900 CY of diesel contaminated soil associated with the UST @ SS15 had been stockpiled after the removal of the UST in 1991. These soils were taken out of the temporary stockpile & placed into Cell No. 3. In addition, the POL contaminated soil associated with SS08 was also placed in Cell No. 3.
The excavation & stockpiling of POL contaminated soils is detailed in the Investigation, Delineation, & Excavation of Contaminated Soil Report (Feb 95). In addition to the contaminated soil which was excavated & stockpiled from the SS14, SS08, & the soils associated with the UST @ SS015, include the IRP sites listed below in the FY95 soil stockpiling/soil remediation (biopile) field work. The soils at these sites were found to be contaminated with POL above ADEC cleanup standards.
SS07 & ST09 will be excavated by the 6ll CES/CEOR. The soils will be field screened for PCBs before excavation & then screened for POL. If PCBs are detected in the soils, a sampling grid will be set up to determine the extent of PCB contamination. Soils found to be contaminated with PCBs above regulatory limits will be stockpiled separately & will not be included in the biopile. Excavation will continue until field screening indicates all contaminated soil has been removed. Confirmation samples will also be taken from the limit of the excavation by the contractor & analyzed for GRO, DRO, & (BTEX, metals, & organochlorine pesticides & PCBs.
Two passive type biopiles will be designed & constructed near the beach area for the remediation of POL contaminated soils from SS14 & ST09. These biopiles may utilize a wind generated blower system due to the lack of electrical power. Two biopiles will be designed & constructed at the Lower Camp area. One new cell (Cell No. 4) will be constructed adjacent to Cell No. 3. The contaminated soil from Cell No. 3 will be placed in Cell No. 4. Cell No. 3 will be retrofitted as a biopile. These two biopiles will use an electrical powered blower system. These biopiles will include soils from the diesel contaminated soil associated with SS15, SS07 & SS08. |
Louis Howard |
| 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 |
| 8/20/1995 |
Cleanup Plan Approved |
Ray Burger approved ex-situ treatment in a biocell for contaminated soils from SS15, ROM-12 (SS14), and ROM-1 (SS08).
The contaminated soil originated from five areas. These are: SS07 Waste Accumulation Area No 1 (Lower Camp), SS08 Waste Accumulation Area No 3 (Lower Camp), ST09 POL Fill Stand (Beach area), SS14A Drum Storage Area (Beach area), SSl5 Old UST Site (Lower Camp).
Soil from SS08 and SS15 has already been excavated and is being stored in Cell #3. Soil from SS14A has already been excavated and is being stored in Cell #1. Soil from SS07 and ST09 will be excavated under this project. An additional Cell #2 has already been constructed, but not yet filled. The contractor will construct an additional bioremediatlon Cell #4.
The cells will be converted into ex-situ bioremediation cells. Soils will be bioremediated for two years. At that time, closure sampling will take place If the sampling results are below the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) matrix level A, they will be returned to the land surface within the LRRS. If the sampling reveals levels above the level A, the Air Force will reevaluated the project This reevaluation may include continual operation of the biocells, alternate technology, or negotiation of alternate cleanup levels.
Introduction: In August 1993, Elmendorf AFB contracted construction of a biopile treatment facility to evaluate effectiveness of using that technology to treat petroleum contaminated soils (2,235 c.y.) generated from OU2 ST20 UST 1990 soil stockpile, AAFES UST 1990 soil stockpile and Classic OWL UST 1992 soil stockpile.
The 11 CEOS proposed biopile is based on this study. Construction: Current soil containment cells and future soil containment cells statewide will be constructed to provide a double-lined cell with secondary containment, leachate detection, leachate collection systems, and vent piping. Vacuum extraction piping, water/nutrient addition piping, thermocouples (to record core temperature), and tensiometers (to measure soil moisture content) will be placed in each cell as they are constructed. Access ports will be constructed to allow sampling. An equipment unit housing (similar to a connex box) will be constructed to house vacuum/air injection equipment and water/nutrient addition equipment which will in turn be connected to perforated piping within the pile.
Sampling: Monthly inspections will evaluate biopile performance. They will include operating the vacuum extraction/injection system and collecting LEL, 02, and C02 measurements from sampling points. Total volatile organics will be measured at the vent tubes during periods of air injection. Temperature and moisture content will be monitored.
Design:
(1) Biopiles (soil piles with mechanical addition of air, water, and nutrients) are used to treat soil when available space is limited. Soil is stockpiled onto a non-reactive liner and an internal piping system introduces water, nutrients, and oxygen. Soil is sometimes mixed with an organic bulking agent such as sawdust, gypsum, or clean soil to improve soil texture and moisture potential and to provide a carbon and nutrient source.
(2) A vapor extraction/venting system provides oxygen to the bacteria and can remove
nondegradable organics in the vapor phase that can be easily removed via an air emission treatment system in a short period of time. Biopiles require no mechanical tilling or agitation. Monitoring of biopile systems will be largely automated.
(3) The design is based on a successful biopile system in Montreal, Canada. This technology was used to create a biopile system at Elmendorf AFB where it was observed for four months. Microbial biodegradation of contaminants in the soil is accomplished through using forced air as an oxygen source. This process provides oxygen to indigenous soil microorganisms, promoting aerobic mineralization of organics and simultaneously stripping some volatile compounds from the soil. |
Ray Burger |
| 11/11/1995 |
Update or Other Action |
Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis for Soil Remediation at CR LRRS prepared by the US Army Corps of Engineers. The U S Air Force is preparing to bioremediate petroleum contaminated soils (about 5500 cubic yards total) at the Cape Romanzof Long Range Radar Site (LRRS) After a review of feasible alternatives, ex-situ bioremediation was selected for this project The main contaminants are diesel range petroleum hydrocarbons and gasoline range petroleum hydrocarbons BTEX is also present along with minor amounts (<5 mg/kg) of PCBs.
The contaminated soil originated from five areas. These are:
SS07 Waste Accumulation Area No 1 (Lower Camp), SS08 Waste Accumulation Area No 3 (Lower Camp), ST09 POL Fill Stand (Beach area), SS14A Drum Storage Area (Beach area),
SSl5 Old UST Site (Lower Camp).
Soil from SS08 and SS15 has already been excavated and is being stored in Cell #3. Soil from SS14A has already been excavated and is being stored in Cell #1. Soil from SS07 and ST09 will be excavated under this project. An additional Cell #2 has already been constructed, but not yet filled. The contractor will construct an additional bioremediatlon Cell #4.
The cells will be converted into ex-situ bioremediation cells. Soils will be bioremediated for two years. At that time, closure sampling will take place If the sampling results are below the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) matrix level A, they will be returned to the land surface within the LRRS. If the sampling reveals levels above the level A, the Air Force will reevaluated the project This reevaluation may include continual operation of the biocells, alternate technology, or negotiation of alternate cleanup levels. |
Ray Burger |
| 11/30/1995 |
Update or Other Action |
Draft Environmental Baseline Survey for Air Force Radar Stations contains information on Cape Romanzof. The Air Force began the IRP process at Cape Romanzof Radar Installation in
1985 prior to the terminology and procedural changes that took place in the IRP after the passage of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
(SARA) 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, Spdl/Leak#1 and #2 (SS07) Remedial investigation, feasibility study, and draft proposed plan completed, Waste Accumulation Area #3, Spill/Leak #6, 7, 8, and 9 (SS08) Interim remedial action in 1994, Spill/Leak #3 (ST09) Remedial Investigation completed in 1994, Spill/Leak #4 (SS10) NFRAP after 1993,
Dump Area (DP11) NFRAP after 1993, Landfill (LF12) NFRAP after 1993, Seep Area, Spill/Leak#5 (SS13) Remedial investigation, feasibility study, and draft proposed plan completed, Drum Storage Area (SS14) Interim remedial action in 1994, Leaking USTs (SS15) Remedial investigation, feasibility study, and draft proposed plan completed Interim remedial action in 1994. |
Ray Burger |
| 3/18/1996 |
Update or Other Action |
USAF 611th Support Group IRP Decision Document Declaration. Cape Romanzof Long Range Radar Site (LRRS) ex-situ bioremediation POL Soils. Sites: Waste Accumulation Area No. 1 (SS07), Waste Accumulation Area No. 3 (SS08), Truck Fill Stand (ST09), Drum Storage Area (SS14), & Old UST Site, Lower Camp (SS15).
Part I of II
STATEMENT & BASIS & PURPOSE: This decision document presents the selected removal action for the ex-situ bioremediation of soil contaminated with Petroleum, Oils, & Lubricants (POL) at Cape Romanzof LRRS, an Installation Restoration Program (IRP) site located at Cape Romanzof, Alaska within the Yukon Delta National wildlife Refuge. The Superfund Amendments & Reauthorization Act (SARA) Section 211 & Executive Order 12580 require that the IRP be conducted consistent with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, & Liability Act (CERCLA).
This decision is based on the administrative record for Cape Romanzof LRRS. The information from the administrative record is summarized, along with an analysis of potential removal action alternatives in the attached Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis (EE/CA). The USAF is the lead agency for this decision, & as such has authority to choose the removal action [CERCLA, 42 USC 9604(a) ; Executive Order 12580, Section 2(d), 52 F.R. 2923, 23 Jan 87]. The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) has participated in the scoping & review of the EE/CA & concurs with the selected ex-situ bioremediatlon
alternative. All comments have been addressed, & a copy of them are enclosed in Appendix E of the EE/CA.
The final EE/CA revealed ex-situ cell bioremediation of POL contaminated soil as the most protective of human health & the environment as well as the most cost effective.
ASSESSMENT OF THE SITE:
The 611 CES performed a Removal Action to remove soil contaminated with POL at three IRP sites ±n FY94. The contaminated soil from SS08, SS14,& SS15 was placed In two soil containment cells. The contaminated soil from SS07 & ST09 will be excavated as pert of this RA. One cell is located at the Lower Camp & the other is located near the beach. The cell near the beach contains contaminated soil excavated from SS14, while the cell at the Lower Camp contains soil from SS08 & SS15.
A potential long-term health risk to humans & the environment exists. The petroleum contaminated soil poses a threat to on-site workers & visitors through ingestion & dermal contact. This removal action will reduce the concentrations of contaminants in the soil & therefore eliminate the risk of future exposure to human & ecological receptors.
DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED REMEDY The removal action alternative chosen was excavation & ex-situ bioremediation. Contaminated soil at the Truck Fill Stand (ST09) & at Waste Accumulation Area No. 1 (SS07} will be excavated. The contaminated soils will be transported to the treatment site for bioremediation. The excavated soils will be sampled & analyzed for levels of Polychlorinated Biphenyls, Diesel Range Organics, Gasoline Range Organics, total & individual Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, Xylenes, & lead prior to being placed in the treatment cells. Contaminated soil currently stored in the containment cells will be removed & treated by ex-situ bioremediation.
DECLARATION The potential risk of long term exposure of the POL contaminated soil poses a threat to the public health. The USAF hereby determines that excavation & ex-situ bioremediation alternative is the appropriate removal action to abate or minimize this threat. The selected remedy is protective of human health & the environment, complies with federal & state regulations that are legally applicable or relevant & appropriate to the removal action, & is cost effective.
For additional information see site file. |
Ray Burger |
| 3/13/1997 |
Interim Removal Action Approved |
Interim removal action (IA) action added by Shannon and Wilson on 3/13/97, based on Relative Risk Evaluation Worksheet dated 8/22/95. Current phase is IRA. Pathways: Soil is contaminated with diesel fuel from past spills and leaks. Receptors: Human site workers, visitors, local native subsistence fishers. Ecological: site is located near the mouth of Fowler Creek near the beach area. Several species of marine mammals and fish along with sea birds are found in this area. This is a sensitive area located within the Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge. |
S&W-Miner |
| 3/13/1997 |
Update or Other Action |
(Old R:Base Action Code = RIFS - Remedial Investigation / Feasibility Study). RIFS action added by Shannon and Wilson on 3/13/97, based on Relative Risk Evaluation worksheet dated 8/23/95. Woodward Clyde 1992 RI/FS. In addition, field screening data was collected in FY94 to delineate the extent of contamination. |
S&W-Miner |
| 1/9/1998 |
Update or Other Action |
Management Action Plan: Currently there are several ongoing or planned RAs, including.
Two biopiles have been constructed and are in operation for removal actions I which took place at SS08 (WAA No. 3 - Spill/Leak No. 6, 7, 8, and 9), SS14 (Drum Storage Area), and SS15 (Leaking USTs).
Response Schedules: The schedule for the various sites at Cape Romanzof LRRS include the following activities: At this point, future activities for ST09 (Spill/Leak No. 3) and SS14 (Drum Storage Area) have not been scheduled. |
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 |
| 6/30/2004 |
Update or Other Action |
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. Soil, groundwater, surface water, and sediment samples will be collected at this site to
determine the nature and extent of contamination. Petroleum hydrocarbon has been identified as the contaminants of potential concern (COPCs) at this site based upon previous investigative and the operational history.
Monitoring wells and shallow subsurface soil borings will be installed and sampled to evaluate current subsurface soil and groundwater conditions. Soil and groundwater samples will be analyzed for GR0, DRO, RRO, BTEX, PCBs, and lead. Surface water and sediment samples will be collected from adjacent water bodies (Fowler Creek and tidal zone) to assess potential environmental impacts. Surface water and sediment samples will be analyzed for VOCs, PAHs, PCBs, and lead. Surface water samples will additionally be analyzed for TAH and TAqH for screening against Water Quality Criteria listed in 18 AAC 70. The findings from the field effort will be will be compared to MCLs in soil, groundwater and surface water, and to sediment screening criteria. Remedial alternatives will be evaluated if any chemical constituents exceed applicable MCLs or screening criteria. |
Louis Howard |
| 11/16/2004 |
Update or Other Action |
File number issued 2526.38.011 |
Aggie Blandford |
| 12/15/2004 |
Update or Other Action |
Remedial investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS) draft - diesel range organic (DRO) contaminated surface soil exists in the northern portion of the site, north of the empty containment cell. No gasoline range organic (GRO), residual range organic (RRO), Lead, BTEX, or PCBs were detected above cleanup levels. An estimated 9,000 square feet of contaminated soil exists onsite, extending to an averaging depth of 10 feet. Highest DRO was from SB-28 at 11,100 mg/kg at 3 ft. bgs and SB-316,200 mg/kg at 3 ft. bgs.
Contaminated soil likely exists near the groundwater-soil interface, downgradient of the surface soil contamination. DRO-contaminated soil was noted during the installation of monitoring wells MW-7 and MW-9 near this soil water interface (5,450 mg/kg and 1,570 mg/kg respectively).
Petroleum hydrocarbon contaminated groundwater exists at this site. GRO, DRO, and benzene were detected above the ADEC cleanup levels in three samples: MW-4, MW-7, and MW-9. MW-4: 75.7 mg/L GRO, 1,360 mg/L (typo?) DRO, MW-7 3.09 mg/L DRO, MW-9 4.14 mg/L DRO. No RRO, lead, toluene, ethylbenzene or xylenes were detected above cleanup levels. No PCBs were detected in any samples.
Wells in exceedance of cleanup levels (MW-4, MW-7, and MW-9) are located near the center of the ST09 site and are aligned in an east-west fashion. Groundwater flow at this site is to the west towards Kokechik Bay with an approximate gradient of 0.046 |
Louis Howard |
| 12/21/2005 |
Update or Other Action |
Final report received - Cape Romanzof Contaminant Migration & Subsistence Receptor Study. This report presents the results of the work conducted by the Yukon-Kuskokwim Health Corporation. Native communities surrounding the Cape Romanzof Long-Range Radar Station (CRLRRS) site have voiced concerns about the health of area wildlife & fish that they depend on for subsistence. Fishing for resident & migrant species, including blackfish, whitefish, tomcod, herring, & salmon, occurs in the waters on or adjacent to the beach area & in nearby Kokechik Bay. Bird eggs, plants, & berries also are collected from the area for subsistence use. Underlying the concern for chemical contaminants in subsistence species is the concern that the chemical contaminants are having an adverse effect on the people who consume a subsistence diet or drink the potentially contaminated waters from CRLRRS.
The primary objective of the project was to determine if chemicals are present in fish, mammals, shellfish, & other ecological receptors at CRLRRS at concentrations that may pose unacceptable risk to humans consuming contaminated biota during subsistence activities. Secondary objectives included an evaluation of potential migration of contaminants from CRLRRS into the surrounding environment & potential hazards to ecological receptors. There are approximately fifteen sites at CRLRRS that have been contaminated by past military site operation & maintenance activities. The list of contaminants of concern (COCs), agreed upon by all interested parties (i.e. local villagers & agencies), includes fuel components such as diesel range organics (DRO) & polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), & the heavy metals lead & cadmium.
Sediment, water, animal tissue, & plant tissue samples were collected by local volunteers (trained villagers & a qualified person) & analyzed for COCs. The data were evaluated to test 4 specific hypotheses established to meet project objectives. Testing of these hypotheses included both quantitative & qualitative evaluation of the data. A primary focus of the study was comparison of the presence & concentration of chemicals potentially related to the CRLRRS at different geographic locations, including: 1) areas that are highly unlikely to have been impacted by chemicals from CRLRRS & are many miles away (Reference); 2) areas that are in the vicinity of CRLRRS but unlikely to be impacted (On-Site Reference); & 3) areas directly down gradient or in water bodies receiving drainage from CRLRRS (On Site).
Hypothesis A: COCs originating from the CRLRR Site are not moving via the creeks.
a) This hypothesis is true based on statistical tests comparing sediment & water data at On Site locations with Reference/On-Site Reference locations.
b) With the exception of PCBs in water, for which minimal conclusions can be drawn, the data support the inference that there is little significant difference between the mean concentrations of COCs from On Site samples compared with Reference samples. Lack of a statistically significant difference infers that some of the biota contamination may be resulting from a non-point source such as regional atmospheric deposition.
c) Statistics were not performed on PCBs in water samples due to the low number of detections; however, the detection limit was above the screening level used to protect human health. This means that PCBs in water could be present in concentrations that may be deleterious to human health & overall site risk may be underestimated.
Hypothesis B: COCs from the CRLRR Site are not moving offsite into the surrounding environment.
a) The data support the conclusion that the hypothesis is true for certain COCs, namely PCBs & lead.
b) PCBs have accumulated in biota onsite to a greater extent than offsite. In particular, 26 of the PCB congeners detected in animal tissue were unique to On Site locations. Additionally, the metal analyte lead was detected at a much higher frequency in animal tissues from On Site locations (77%) compared to Reference locations (29%).
c) PAHs & cadmium do not exhibit this pattern & do not support this hypothesis. DRO was not evaluated in animal tissues.
Hypothesis C: COCs known to have been released from CRLRR Site do not occur in species using Kokechik Bay at the same statistical distributions.
a) This hypothesis is supported as true for certain COCs & tissues. Specifically, Total PCBs are higher in bivalves at On Site locations compared to Reference locations; total PAHs, phenanthrene, cadmium, & total metals are higher in herring roe at On Site locations; three of the PCB congeners are higher in tomcod liver at On Site locations; & two of the PCB congeners are higher in tomcod tissue at On Site locations.
For additional information see site file.
|
Louis Howard |
| 4/4/2007 |
Update or Other Action |
The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC), Contaminated Sites Federal Facilities Restoration Program, received the draft Proposed Plan on March 21, 2007 via electronic mail for review and comment. ADEC has the following comments described below.
General Comments-Unless it is demonstrated that the ingestion pathway for soil is completely eliminated, the use of inhalation cleanup levels may be inappropriate. ADEC requests clarification on why the Air Force is not using ingestion cleanup levels (i.e. diesel range organics-DRO 10,250 mg/kg) since it has identified potential complete exposure pathways (i.e. ingestion and dermal contact) for several sites where use of inhalation cleanup levels (i.e. DRO 12,500 mg/kg) are used. ADEC requests the Proposed Plan include definitions for surface soil (means soil that extends no more than two (2) feet below the surface) and subsurface soil (soil that is more than two feet below the surface).
ADEC requests the Air Force change the text to read: “Petroleum detections at the four subject sites do not pose unacceptable risk to human health or the environment. However, because petroleum detections at three of the sites (ST009, SS014, and DP011) are above levels allowing unrestricted use under Alaska’s contaminated site regulations, institutional controls (ICs) are proposed for these sites. The final actions proposed by USAF under Alaska’s contaminated site regulations are: conditional closure with groundwater/surface water monitoring for ST009, conditional closure with ICs for SS014 and DP011, and unconditional closure for SS007.” ADEC requests the Air Force revise the text to read: "The State of Alaska’s final acceptance of the actions proposed in this Plan will be evaluated following public comment.”
Page 9 - ADEC requests the Air Force change the text to state: “If the cleanup level applied to a site is higher than the ADEC Method Two soil cleanup level or Table C groundwater cleanup level, the State of Alaska will require ICs to restrict the site from unprotected uses and ensure that any excavated contaminated soil is properly managed.”
Surface Water and Sediments Page 9 - ADEC requests the Air Force change the text to read: “Although there are no sediment cleanup levels established in the State’s contaminated site regulations, Alaska water quality regulations (18 AAC 70) state that sediment contamination may not cause adverse effects on aquatic life.”
Institutional Controls Pages 9 and 10 - The text states: “USAF will implement, monitor, maintain, and enforce the ICs identified below in accordance with Alaska state regulations.” ADEC requests the Air Force change the text to read: “USAF will implement, monitor, maintain, and enforce the ICs identified below in accordance with Alaska’s contaminated site regulations.” The text states: “The purpose of the ICs is to help prevent the future handling of petroleum-contaminated soil inconsistent with State of Alaska regulations.” ADEC requests the Air Force change the text to read: “The purpose of the ICs is to help prevent the future handling of petroleum-contaminated soil inconsistent with State of Alaska’s contaminated site regulations.”
Table 5 Risk Summary Page 18
ADEC requests clarification and justification for the use of the “Intake” values in the table. It is not apparent from a review of the site information for ST009 where these values came from and how they were used to calculate the risk due to potential exposure to contaminants detected at ST009.
Proposed Remedy Page 18 - The text states: “Under Alaska State regulations, conditional site closure with monitoring is proposed for Site ST009. Contamination at the site does not pose unacceptable potential risk to human health or the environment but exceeds levels allowed in Alaska State regulations for unrestricted use.” ADEC requests the Air Force change the sentences to read: “Under Alaska’s contaminated site regulations, conditional site closure with ICs and monitoring is proposed for Site ST009. Contamination at the site does not pose unacceptable potential risk to human health or the environment but exceeds levels allowed in Alaska’s contaminated site regulations for unrestricted use.”
ADEC also requests the Air Force add text stating: “Because contamination will remain on site above cleanup levels for more than five (5) years, a 5 year review will be conducted until cleanup levels have been met. ICs will remain until applicable cleanup levels are achieved in the soil and groundwater.” |
Louis Howard |
| 5/11/2007 |
Proposed Plan |
Final Proposed Plan. The cleanup levels proposed for the sites addressed in this Plan are: SS007: ADEC Method Two cleanup levels. ST009 and SS014 Soil: For diesel-range organics (DRO) and gasoline-range organics (GRO) in soil, site-specific ADEC Method Three cleanup levels calculated in the 2006 Site Characterization Report are proposed for ST009 and SS014. For DRO, the Method Three cleanup level is 12,500 milligrams per kilogram (mg/Kg), and for GRO, the Method Three cleanup level is 1,400 mg/Kg. The Method Three cleanup levels represent the maximum allowable DRO and GRO cleanup levels under Alaska regulations; these cleanup levels are protective of the ingestion and inhalation pathways at ST009 and SS014. ADEC Method Two cleanup levels are proposed for all other analytes in soil.
ST009 Groundwater: Ten times the Table C groundwater cleanup level for DRO is proposed as the groundwater cleanup level for ST009. USAF and ADEC agree that the groundwater at ST009 meets the criteria spelled out in 18 AAC 75.350 to classify groundwater as a non-drinking water source. The application of the ST009 groundwater to the specific criteria in 18 AAC 75.350 is presented in an attachment at the end of this Proposed Plan.
SS014 Groundwater: ADEC Table C groundwater cleanup levels are proposed for SS014 groundwater.
DP011: A site-specific ADEC Method Three cleanup level of 1,200 mg/Kg calculated in the 2006 RI report is proposed for DRO in soil. ADEC Method Two soil cleanup levels are proposed for all other analytes in soil.
Proposed Remedy-Under CERCLA, no further action is proposed at the former Truck Fueling Station (ST009), because the site does not pose unacceptable risk to human health or the environment. Under Alaska’s contaminated site regulations, conditional site closure with ICs and monitoring is proposed for Site ST009.
NOTE TO FILE: § 300.430 Remedial investigation/feasibility study and selection of remedy.(a) General—(1) Introduction. The purpose of the remedy selection process is to implement remedies that eliminate, reduce, or control risks to human health and the environment. Remedial actions are to be implemented as soon as site data and information make it possible to do so.
Accordingly, EPA has established the following program goal, expectations, and program management principles to assist in the identification and implementation of appropriate remedial actions.
(iii) Expectations. EPA generally shall consider the following expectations in developing appropriate remedial alternatives:
(D) EPA expects to use institutional controls such as water use and deed restrictions to supplement engineering controls as appropriate for short- and long-term management to prevent or limit exposure to hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants. Institutional controls may be used during the conduct of the remedial investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS) and implementation of the remedial action and, where necessary, as a component of the completed remedy. The use of institutional controls shall not substitute for active response measures (e.g., treatment and/or containment of source material, restoration of ground waters to their beneficial uses) as the sole remedy unless such active measures are determined not to be practicable, based on the balancing of trade-offs among alternatives that is conducted during the selection of remedy.
Contamination at the site does not pose unacceptable potential risk to human health or the environment but exceeds levels allowed in Alaska’s contaminated site regulations for unrestricted use. Interim reports will be prepared no less often than once every five years to ensure that conditional closure with ICs is still protective of human health and the environment. ICs will remain as required by 18 AAC 75.375.
Annual monitoring of three groundwater wells (MW-4, MW-7, and MW-9) and one surface water location (SW-5) is proposed for a minimum of three years. Groundwater samples will be analyzed will be analyzed for DRO, GRO, and BTEX, and surface water samples will be analyzed for TAH and TAqH. After three (3) consecutive years of monitoring, the data will be reviewed using a statistically valid trend analysis. If monitoring data show that downgradient wells (MW-7 and MW-9) do not have increasing levels of DRO, GRO, or BTEX, and surface water results are consistently below water quality criteria and not increasing, sampling will be discontinued. Otherwise, the monitoring program will be reviewed for protectiveness and representativeness, revised if appropriate, and extended until three consecutive years of monitoring data establish that the criteria listed above have been met. |
Louis Howard |
| 12/18/2007 |
Update or Other Action |
Draft Record of Decision received for Spill/Leak 1 & 2 (SS007), Spill/Leak 3 (ST009), Drum Storage Area (SS014), and Dump Area (DP011). The only COCs are constituents of petroleum products. This ROD is issued in accordance with and satisfying the requirements of the Defense Environmental Restoration Program (ERP), 10 United States Code (USC) 2701 et seq.; CERCLA 42 USC 9601 et seq.; Executive Order 12580, 52 Federal Register 2923 (23 January 1987); National Contingency Plan (NCP), 40 Code of Federal Regulations 300.
The EPA has been consulted consistent with the requirements of 10 USC 2705 and has chosen to defer to the AK Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) for regulatory oversight at Cape Romanzof LRRS. Under State of AK laws and regulations, the 4 subject sites are being addressed under those applicable laws and regulations, including but not limited to Title 46 of the AK Statutes and regulations promulgated thereunder. This ROD is issued by the USAF in accordance with the regulations promulgated under the AK Oil and Hazardous Substance Pollution Control Act, 18 AK Administrative Code (AAC) 75 (as amended through December 30, 2006). By signing this Declaration, the State of AK concurs with the selected remedies.
Selected remedy-Although contamination at Site ST009 does not pose unacceptable potential risk to human health or the environment, soil and groundwater are contaminated by petroleum hydrocarbons above State of Alaska cleanup levels protective of unrestricted use (i.e., the lowest of the ADEC Method Two cleanup levels for soil and ADEC Table C2 cleanup levels for groundwater).
The Remedial Action Objectives (RAOs) for ST009 are: a) Ensure that groundwater contamination is not migrating downgradient into Kokechik Bay at levels that could be detrimental to surface water quality. b) Restrict use of the groundwater as long as the groundwater DRO concentrations exceed the ADEC Table C cleanup levels, which are protective of drinking water. c) Restrict direct contact with petroleum-contaminated subsurface soil and document that petroleum hydrocarbons in surface and subsurface soil exceed levels protective of unrestricted use.
To meet RAO (a) above, annual monitoring of three groundwater wells (MW-4, MW-7, and MW-9) and one surface water location (SW-5) will be performed for a minimum of three years. Groundwater samples will be analyzed for DRO, GRO, and benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes (BTEX), and surface water samples will be analyzed for total aromatic hydrocarbons (TAH) and total aqueous hydrocarbons (TAqH). The monitoring program will be consistent with the technical requirements set forth in state of Alaska regulations and will be designed to address RAO (a) above.
After three (3) consecutive years of monitoring, the data will be evaluated using a statistically valid trend analysis. If monitoring data show that downgradient wells (MW-7 and MW-9) do not
have increasing levels of DRO, GRO, or BTEX, and surface water results are consistently below water quality criteria and not increasing, sampling will be discontinued. Otherwise, the
monitoring program will be reviewed for protectiveness and representativeness, revised if appropriate, and extended until three consecutive years of monitoring data establish that the
criteria listed above have been met.
USAF will implement the ICs at ST009 by taking the following actions:
• Delineate the boundaries of soil with DRO above Method Two cleanup levels.
• Document the ICs in USAF’s Real Property records. The Real Property records will contain a map indicating IC locations. File appropriate notice with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
• Utilize USAF’s dig permit and construction review system to restrict incompatible activities.
• Notify ADEC prior to making any major changes to the ICs. The 611th Civil Engineer Squadron (CES) is the point of contact for the IC. |
Louis Howard |
| 12/27/2007 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Staff reviewed and commented on the Draft Record of Decision SS007, ST009, SS014, DP011, Cape Romanzof LRRS dated December 2007. 1.4.2 Remedies Selected Under State of Alaska Regulations Spill/Leak 3 (ST009) Conditional Site Closure with Groundwater/Surface Water Monitoring and ICs
Page 1-6
ADEC requests adding another Remedial Action Objective (RAO) which describes land use restrictions at ST009: d) Land use at the facility will remain as the current land use (minimally-attended radar system) with temporary residents only. (Same comment applies to Drum Storage Area (SS014) Conditional Site Closure with ICs Page 1-7, Dump Area (DP011) Conditional Site Closure with ICs Page 1-9.)
2. Institutional Controls (ICs) Page 1-6
ADEC requests adding an additional bullet for implementing ICs at ST009: • Future land use will remain the same as the current land use at the facility which is industrial use with temporary residents.
(Same comment applies to ST009, DP011 and SS014).
Sect 2.7.4.1 Cleanup Levels Page 2-16
(SS09) Text states that a site-specific ADEC Method Three cleanup level of 12,500 mg/kg was selected for DRO based on the maximum allowable cleanup levels and that it is protective of ingestion/inhalation. ADEC requests the text describe the land use scenario/assumptions associated with the cleanup level accordingly.
Example language: "The Method Three cleanup level represents the maximum allowable DRO cleanup levels under Alaska regulations; the cleanup level is protective of the ingestion and inhalation pathways at ST009, based on industrial land use with temporary residents."
Page 2-18
The second bullet item states: DRO were detected in three of the five groundwater samples at concentrations of 4.14 mg/L (MW-9), 3.09 mg/L (MW-7), and 0.635 mg/L (MW-8). All of the detections were below the ten times Table C cleanup level of 15 mg/L, but the MW-7 and MW-8 concentrations exceeded the Table C cleanup level of 1.5 mg/L.
ADEC requests the text to reflect MW-9 and MW-7 concentrations exceeded the Table C cleanup level of 1.5 mg/L. MW-8 DRO concentrations at 0.635 mg/L do not exceed the Table C cleanup level of 1.5 mg/L.
Sect 2.7.5.1 Cleanup Levels Page 2-19
(SS14) Text refers to the maximum allowable levels for DRO/GRO as the cleanup levels and states they are protective of ingestion/inhalation pathways. ADEC requests the text specify the land use scenario/assumptions (i.e. based on industrial use with temporary residents).
Example language: "The Method Three cleanup levels represent the maximum allowable DRO and GRO cleanup levels under Alaska regulations; these cleanup levels are protective of the ingestion and inhalation pathways at SS014 based on industrial land use with temporary residents."
Sect 2.7.6.1 Cleanup Levels Page 2-21
(DP011) Text refers to a site specific ADEC Method Three cleanup level of 1,200 mg/kg for DRO was calculated and selected for soil at DP011. The text also states the levels are protective of ingestion/inhalation pathways at DP011. ADEC requests the text specify the land use scenario/assumptions (i.e. based on industrial use with temporary residents).
Example language: "This cleanup level is protective of the ingestion and inhalation pathways at DP011 based on industrial land use with temporary residents."
2.15.2.1 Protection of Human Health and the Environment Page 2-40
The text states: “However, ICs are required and selected to restrict land use at ST009 and SS014 to ensure compliance with the exposure assumptions in the risk assessment (i.e., no subsurface activities that would allow exposure to subsurface soil and no groundwater use for water supply at ST009).”
ADEC requests adding text as follows: “However, ICs are required to restrict land use at ST009 and SS014 to industrial use with temporary residents to ensure compliance with the exposure assumptions in the risk assessment….” |
Louis Howard |
| 2/20/2008 |
Exposure Tracking Model Ranking |
Initial ranking with ETM completed. |
Louis Howard |
| 2/27/2008 |
Institutional Control Record Established |
By signing the Record of Decision formalized the Institutional Controls required for ST009.
Institutional Controls (ICs)
ICs are an integral part of the selected remedy and are required to meet RAOs (b), (c), and (d)
above. USAF will implement, monitor, maintain, and enforce the ICs identified below in
accordance with State of Alaska contaminated site regulations. The goals of the ICs are to restrict access to contaminated soil, document (for waste management purposes in the event of subsurface activities) that soil impact exceeds ADEC Method Two cleanup levels protective of unrestricted use, and prevent the use of groundwater contaminated above ADEC Table C cleanup levels protective of drinking water.
The ICs will consist of excavation and construction restrictions within the ST009 site boundaries, documentation that soil is impacted above levels allowing unrestricted use, a requirement that future land use remains non-residential3, and a prohibition on the installation of water supply wells within the ST009 site boundaries as long as the aquifer fails 18 AAC 75.345(b)(1) Table C cleanup levels protective of drinking water.
USAF will implement the ICs at ST009 by taking the following actions:
• Delineate the boundaries of soil with DRO above Method Two cleanup levels.
• Document the ICs in USAF’s Real Property records. The Real Property records will contain a map indicating IC locations. File appropriate notice with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
• Utilize USAF’s dig permit and construction review system to restrict incompatible activities.
• Notify ADEC prior to making any major changes to the ICs. The 611th Civil Engineer Squadron (CES) is the point of contact for the ICs.
USAF will enforce the ICs by the following actions:
• Perform visual inspections to verify effectiveness of the ICs and report inspection results
to ADEC. Inspection reports will be prepared no less often than once every five years (2013) to
evaluate the status of the ICs and how any IC deficiencies or inconsistent uses have been
addressed.
o Any activity that is inconsistent with IC requirements, objectives or controls, or any action that may interfere with the effectiveness of the IC shall be addressed by the USAF as soon as practicable after discovery, but in no case will the process be initiated later than 10 days after the USAF becomes aware of the breach.
o USAF shall provide notice to ADEC as soon as practicable after discovery of any activity that is inconsistent with IC requirements, objectives or controls, or any action that may interfere with the effectiveness of the IC.
• In the event that the ICs fail or are deficient and could imminently lead to actual risk to
human health and the environment, USAF will address the situation promptly, including notification of ADEC.
• USAF will obtain ADEC approval prior to conducting any excavation activities within the contaminated areas.
In the event that the property is transferred, the property transfer document will describe the ICs.
USAF will provide notice to ADEC prior to any transfer, sale, or lease of the property, so that
ADEC can be involved in discussions to ensure that appropriate provisions are included in the
transfer terms or conveyance documents to maintain the ICs. |
Louis Howard |
| 2/27/2008 |
Cleanup Complete Determination Issued |
John Halverson signed the record of decision for ST009 and several other sites at Cape Romanzof LRRS. The ROD documents the decision made for Four ERP sites: Spill/Leak 1 & 2 (SS007),
Spill/Leak 3 (ST009), Drum Storage Area (SS014), and Dump Area (DP011), located at Cape
Romanzof LRRS, Alaska. By signing this declaration the ADEC concurs with the Air Force's
selected remedies.
Based on the 2004 sample results, there is no contamination above applicable cleanup levels at
site ST009. In soil, the maximum DRO concentration is below the ADEC Method Three DRO
cleanup level of 12,500 mg/Kg, and concentrations of all other analytes are below Method Two
cleanup levels. In groundwater, the maximum DRO concentration is below the cleanup level of
15 mg/L, and concentrations of all other analytes are below Table C cleanup levels.
No cleanup is required to protect human health at the subject sites. However, ICs are required to restrict land use at ST009 and SS014 to ensure compliance with the exposure assumptions in the risk assessment (i.e., no subsurface activities that would allow exposure to subsurface soil and no use of groundwater for water supply).
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. |
John Halverson |
| 2/27/2008 |
CERCLA ROD Approved |
John Halverson (ADEC) signed the final version of the Record of Decision (ROD) for 4 sites: Spill/Leak 1 & 2 (SS007), Spill/Leak 3 (ST009), Drum Storage Area (SS014), and Dump Area (DP011) at the Cape Romanzof Long Range Radar Site (LRRS). Unless classified otherwise, all groundwater in the state of Alaska is considered drinking water (per 18 AAC 75.350), and groundwater is used as the drinking water source for Cape Romanzof LRRS. The water supply well, Well No. 1 at Lower Camp, produces groundwater from confined water-bearing zones at 82 to 102 feet deep and 146 to 148 feet deep. However, the shallow groundwater at sites ST009 and SS014 is affected by saltwater intrusion and is not considered drinking water by application of the requirements specified in 18 AAC 75.350.
ST009 cannot support unrestricted use due to residual petroleum contamination (i.e., DRO and GRO) remaining on-site above concentrations protective of unrestricted use. Land use restrictions are required and will be achieved through imposition of institutional controls (ICs) that limit the use and/or exposure to those areas of the property, including water resources.
Selected Remedy: Conditional Site Closure with Groundwater/Surface Water Monitoring and ICs -
Although contamination at Site ST009 does not pose unacceptable potential risk to human health or the environment, soil and groundwater are contaminated by petroleum hydrocarbons above State of Alaska cleanup levels protective of unrestricted use (i.e., the lowest of the ADEC Method Two1 cleanup levels for soil and ADEC Table C2 cleanup levels for groundwater).
The Remedial Action Objectives (RAOs) for ST009 are listed below.
a) Ensure that groundwater contamination is not migrating downgradient into Kokechik Bay at levels that could be detrimental to surface water quality.
b) Restrict use of the groundwater as long as the groundwater DRO concentrations exceed the ADEC Table C cleanup levels, which are protective of drinking water.
c) Restrict direct contact with petroleum-contaminated subsurface soil and document that petroleum hydrocarbons in surface and subsurface soil exceed levels protective of unrestricted use.
d) Restrict excavation and transportation of contaminated soil to prevent migration of contaminants.
Groundwater-To meet RAO (a) above, annual monitoring of three groundwater wells (MW-4, MW-7, and MW-9) and one surface water location (SW-5) will be performed for a minimum of three years.
Groundwater samples will be analyzed for DRO, GRO, and benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes (BTEX), and surface water samples will be analyzed for total aromatic hydrocarbons (TAH) and total aqueous hydrocarbons (TAqH). The monitoring program will be consistent with the technical requirements set forth in state of Alaska regulations and will be designed to address RAO (a) above.
After three (3) consecutive years of monitoring, the data will be evaluated using a statistically valid trend analysis. If monitoring data show that downgradient wells (MW-7 and MW-9) do not have increasing levels of DRO, GRO, or BTEX, and surface water results are consistently below water quality criteria and not increasing, sampling will be discontinued. Otherwise, the monitoring program will be reviewed for protectiveness and representativeness, revised if appropriate, and extended until three consecutive years of monitoring data establish that the criteria listed above have been met.
Institutional Controls (ICs)- ICs are an integral part of the selected remedy and are required to meet RAOs (b), (c), and (d) above. USAF will implement, monitor, maintain, and enforce the ICs identified below in accordance with State of Alaska contaminated site regulations.
The goals of the ICs are to restrict access to contaminated soil, document (for waste management purposes in the event of subsurface activities) that soil impact exceeds ADEC Method Two cleanup levels protective of unrestricted use, and prevent the use of groundwater contaminated above ADEC Table C cleanup levels protective of drinking water.
The ICs will consist of excavation and construction restrictions within the ST009 site boundaries, documentation that soil is impacted above levels allowing unrestricted use, a requirement that future land use remains non-residential3, and a prohibition on the installation of water supply wells within the ST009 site boundaries as long as the aquifer fails 18 AAC 75.345(b)(1) Table C cleanup levels protective of drinking water.
For additional information see site file. |
John Halverson |
| 2/27/2008 |
Cleanup Level(s) Approved |
By signing the Record Of Decision (ROD) ADEC concurred with the cleanup levels established for soil, groundwater and surface water at ST009. Soil and groundwater are contaminated by petroleum hydrocarbons above State of Alaska cleanup levels protective of unrestricted use (i.e., the lowest of the ADEC Method Two cleanup levels for soil and ADEC Table C cleanup levels for groundwater).
Surface Water Quality criteria applicable for ST009:Total aqueous hydrocarbons (TAqH) in the water column may not exceed 15 µg/l (see note 7). Total aromatic hydrocarbons (TAH) in the water column may not exceed 10 µg/l (see note 7). There may be no concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons, animal fats, or vegetable oils in shoreline or bottom sediments that cause deleterious effects to aquatic life. Surface waters and adjoining shorelines must be virtually free from floating oil, film, sheen, or discoloration.
The groundwater at Cape Romanzof Sites ST009 and SS014 is not considered drinking water, by application of the criteria stipulated in 18 AAC 75.350. A groundwater use determination was prepared in accordance with the criteria specified in 18 AAC 75.350 and presented in the Proposed Plan to meet the public notice requirement of 18 AAC 75.350. No comments were received from the public regarding the groundwater use determination. ADEC and USAF agree that the groundwater at Sites ST009 and SS014 meets the 18 AAC 75.350 criteria to classify groundwater as a non-drinking water source.
Basis – The ST009 and SS014 groundwater is not used for a drinking water system. The
site is very remote, and there is only one drinking water well in the vicinity (Well No. 1,
the supply well at the composite facility). Due to their relative locations and elevations,
the ST009/SS014 groundwater does not contribute to groundwater in Well No. 1.
Well No. 1 is located approximately 3 miles upgradient (i.e., up the Fowler/Nilumat Creek drainage) of ST009 and SS014. All groundwater at the Cape Romanzof LRRS occurs within the Fowler/Nilumat Creek drainage basin, and surface water runoff and groundwater flow directions follow the downward slopes of the valley (i.e., flowing toward ST009 and SS014 and Kokechik Bay). Groundwater recharges from infiltration of precipitation within the Fowler Creek drainage basin. The lake behind Huson Dam at the Lower Camp (composite facility) area is intended for recharging the drinking water aquifer that Well No. 1 is completed into.
The site is very remote, and there are no drinking water wells or public water systems currently or planned in the vicinity. Groundwater quality does not exceed applicable cleanup levels (18 AAC 75, Table C) at SS014. The areal extent of groundwater contamination at ST009 is limited. Monitoring wells installed to the east and west of ST009 did not have regulatory exceedences. Surface runoff and groundwater flow directions follow the downward slopes of the valley and discharge into Kokechik Bay to the southwest of the sites. Additionally, Fowler Creek is directly to the north and west of ST09, and surface water and sediment samples
collected upstream and downstream of ST09 indicated contaminants were not discharging into Fowler Creek from this site.
|
John Halverson |
| 3/6/2008 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Staff received and reviewed the Draft Environmental Monitoring Report ST009 at Cape Romanzof LRRS February 2008.
5.1 Groundwater Monitoring Page 5.1 - The text states if monitoring data show that the downgradient monitoring wells (MW-7 and MW-9) do not have substantial increasing levels of DRO, GRO or BTEX, and the surface water results are consistently below ADEC water quality criteria and not increasing; sampling will be discontinued. ADEC disagrees. The Record of Decision states: “ If monitoring data show that downgradient wells (MW-7 and MW-9) do not have increasing levels of DRO, GRO, or BTEX, and surface water results are consistently below water quality criteria and not increasing, sampling will be discontinued. Otherwise, the monitoring program will be reviewed for protectiveness and representativeness, revised if appropriate, and extended until three consecutive years of monitoring data establish that the criteria listed above have been met.”
ADEC will not concur with request to cease groundwater monitoring which shows DRO, GRO, or BTEX is not “substantially” increasing. ADEC concurs with the recommendation for continued monitoring of groundwater/surface water at this site.
|
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 documetns that may pertain to all Cape Romanof sites before they were established as individual sites. |
Natalie Loescher |
| 1/6/2010 |
Update or Other Action |
Draft Long Term Monitoring of Site ST009 received. The overall goal of the LTM program at the Cape Romanzof LRRS is to conduct LTM in accordance with the Final Record of Decision (ROD) and meet Remedial Action Objectives (RAOs) established in the ROD.
The RAOs for ST009 under State of Alaska Regulations are listed below.
a) Ensure that groundwater contamination is not migrating downgradient into Kokechik Bay at levels that could be detrimental to surface water quality.
b) Restrict use of the groundwater as long as the groundwater DRO concentrations exceed the ADEC Table C cleanup levels, which are protective of drinking water.
c) Restrict direct contact with petroleum-contaminated subsurface soil and document that petroleum hydrocarbons in surface and subsurface soil exceed levels protective of unrestricted use.
d) Restrict excavation and transportation of contaminated soil to prevent migration of contaminants.
The selected remedy for Site ST009 is conditional site closure with groundwater and surface water monitoring and institutional controls. The specific objectives for this monitoring are to measure concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbon contamination and assess trends in concentrations through time to ensure migration into Kokechik Bay is not occurring.
Long-term monitoring at Cape Romanzof LRRS site ST009 included the following
activities:
• Collecting groundwater samples from Monitoring wells MW-4, MW-7, and MW-9;
• Collecting water level measurements at these wells;
• Collecting a surface water sample from established sampling location SW-5;
• Measuring natural attenuation parameters in the field;
• Performing laboratory analysis for petroleum hydrocarbons;
• Writing a LTM report that includes results of the groundwater and surface water
monitoring activities; and
• Submitting monitoring data into Environmental Restoration Program Information
Management System (ERPIMS) in the appropriate AFCEE format.
Recommendations-The 2008 ROD for ST009 states:
"After three (3) consecutive years of monitoring, the data will be evaluated using a statistically-valid trend analysis. If monitoring data show that downgradient wells (MW-7 and MW-9) do not have increasing levels of DRO, GRO, or BTEX, and surface water results are consistently below water quality criteria and not increasing, sampling will be discontinued."
Evaluation of the 2004, 2007, 2008, and 2009 monitoring data indicates that surface water results are consistently below water quality criteria and are not increasing. Decreasing concentration trends are apparent in groundwater at MW-7 for DRO, and at MW-9 for DRO and GRO at significance levels of 80%, 90% and 90%, respectively.
Although there is not a decreasing GRO trend at MW-7, there is clearly not an increasing
trend either. The dissolved phase concentrations of BTEX in groundwater have likely never exceeded the ROAs, and have remained non-detect to at least an order of magnitude below the RAOs. Because of the numerous non-detect values, meaningful trend analyses of the data is not possible, however it can be concluded that there is no evidence that the concentrations of BTEX constituents are increasing.
Evaluation of the monitoring data indicates the conditions specified in the ROD to allow
for the discontinuation of monitoring at Site ST009 have now been met. It is recommended that surface and groundwater monitoring at ST009 be discontinued. |
Louis Howard |
| 1/25/2010 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Staff reviewed and commented on the draft long-term monitoring report for ST009.
Cleanup Levels Pages 8 and 9-The text references a change in cleanup level for gasoline range organics (GRO) from 1.3 mg/L to 2.2. mg/L effective October 9, 2008. ADEC requests the Air Force update the Record of Decision to reflect changes in promulgated cleanup levels since the document was signed (in this case GRO groundwater cleanup level 1.3 mg/L to 2.2 mg/L). Unless the Air Force believes the change in cleanup level is a “significant or fundamental change”, a Memo to the Site File would suffice since the cleanup level is less restrictive and will not fundamentally change the selected remedy: Conditional Closure with Institutional Controls and monitoring.
3.4 Concentration Trends (2004 through 2009) Page 15-The text states: “DRO concentrations show a declining trend at MW-7 that is significant at the 80% confidence level if an obvious NAPL-contaminated outlier is excluded and the lower of the 2009 duplicate results is used (S=-4, n=4).”
ADEC does not concur with the use of 80% confidence interval, the exclusion of the 135 mg/L “outlier” nor the use of the lower of the 2009 duplicate results.
At Elmendorf Air Force Base, the evaluation of Mann-Kendall trends were identified as “decreasing” or “increasing” if the test resulted in a significance of =90%; otherwise, trends were classified as “no trend.” ADEC will require Cape Romanzof LRRS groundwater monitoring data evaluation to be held at the same standard. Therefore, at 80% confidence level, there is no trend for MW-7 and 90% confidence level will be used for all groundwater monitoring data evaluations
ADEC Technical Memorandum – 08-001 Guidelines for Data Reporting, Data Reduction, and Treatment of Non-Detect Values (August 12, 2008) adopted by reference provides clarification on several data reduction issues commonly encountered in risk assessments, but shall also apply to site investigation, characterization, and remediation work performed under 18 AAC 75. It states in the Data Reporting section, use of the lower detected value is not allowed if a higher value was also detected from the a duplicate sample or same sample.
MW-7 Page 16
The text states: “The concentration of DRO appears to be declining with one of the 2009 duplicate samples being the lowest detection to date (1.11 mg/L) and less than the RAO of 1.5 mg/L. The primary sample from Well MW-7 had a DRO concentration of 3.03 mg/L, exceeding the ROA. It is likely that NAPL may have contaminated this groundwater sample (and not the duplicate), biasing it high nearly three-fold”. In accordance with the technical memorandum above, ADEC requests the Air Force analyze the trend for MW-7 without use of the duplicate sample (1.11 mg/L) since it is lower than the primary sample (3.03 mg/L).
The text also states: “A declining Mann-Kendall trend for DRO is significant at an 80% confidence level.” See comments above regarding 80% confidence level classified as “no trend” when evaluating trends in groundwater concentration data. |
Louis Howard |
| 6/27/2012 |
Update or Other Action |
Work Plan for LTM of SS015 and ST009 received. LTM activities to be conducted at ST009 include the collection of three groundwater samples and one surface water sample from established monitoring locations as illustrated on Figure 4-2. Groundwater samples will be collected from MW-4, MW-7, and MW-9 and analyzed for GRO by AK101, DRO by AK102, and BTEX by EPA Method SW8260B. Field parameters that will be collected for groundwater will include temperature, pH, conductivity, dissolved oxygen, oxidation reduction potential, and turbidity.
The surface water samples will be analyzed for TAH and TAqH by analyzing the water for BTEX by EPA Method 624 and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) by EPA Method 625. TAH is calculated as the total of detected BTEX constituents added together and TAqH is calculated by adding TAH to the total of all PAH constituents detected. Samples will be collected using disposable sampling equipment, and following low flow procedures outlined in the FSP.
DQO: Monitor concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbon contamination and assess trends in
concentrations through time to ensure migration into Kokechik Bay is not occurring. Data to be collected: Three groundwater samples at established monitoring locations MW-4, MW-7, and MW-9
One surface water sample from established monitoring location SW-5.
Analytes: Groundwater: GRO, DRO, and BTEX Surface Water: TAH and TAqH. Data Use: Data will be used to identify current contaminant concentrations in groundwater and surface water, and
evaluate concentration trends in groundwater through time using historical analytical results from established monitoring locations. Decision Criteria: Groundwater: 18
AAC 75 Oil and Other Hazardous Substances Pollution Control Surface water: 18 AAC 70
Water Quality Standards. |
Louis Howard |
| 7/3/2012 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Staff reviewed and approved the LTM work plan for SS015 and ST009. |
Louis Howard |
| 4/19/2013 |
Update or Other Action |
2nd Five-Year review received for review and comment.
Monitoring Wells MW-5 at ST009 have experienced frost jacking and should be inspected
for proper function. Continue monitoring and schedule the second Five-Year Review.
On 20 August 2012, Jacobs conducted a Periodic Review site inspection at ST009. Based on
observations during the inspection, ICs to limit off-site transport to control exposure and
protect human health and the environment appear to be effective. No excavations or disturbed
soils were identified during the inspection. Evaluation of the 2004, 2007, 2008, and 2009
monitoring data indicates that groundwater and surface water results are consistently below
the ADEC Table C cleanup levels protective of drinking water.
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.
10.4 ST009 Spill/Leak 3
Page 10-9
Question A: 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 10-10
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: “Revisions to the footnotes in ADEC…”
The question should be answered Yes or No.
Restate as follows:
Question B: Are the exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels, and RAOs used at the time of the remedy selection still valid?
Answer: Yes
Changes in Standards and To Be Considered: “Revisions to the footnotes in ADEC…”
Page 10-11
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 ST009.
Please restate as follows:
Question C: Has any other information come to light that could call into question the protectiveness of the remedy?
Answer: No
|
Louis Howard |
| 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 |
| 6/13/2013 |
Update or Other Action |
ADEC has received the final version of the Environmental Long Term Management Technical Project Report for Cape Romanzof Long Range Radar Station (sites ST009 and SS015) on June 7, 2013. ADEC has reviewed the final document and has no further comments on it. The document is approved. |
Louis Howard |
| 9/5/2013 |
Update or Other Action |
Work plan addendum received for review and comment.
This Work Plan Addendum was prepared to direct operations for annual Long Term Monitoring
(LTM) at the Cape Romanzof Long Range Radar Station (LRRS), located in coastal western Alaska. Field work includes groundwater and surface water sampling to monitor the concentration of petroleum-contamination at site ST009, Former Truck Fueling Station. This Work Plan Addendum summarizes the field and reporting efforts associated with this project.
Long-term monitoring at Cape Romanzof LRRS site ST009 will include the following activities:
• Collecting three groundwater samples at established monitoring locations MW-4, MW-7, and MW-9 for analysis of GRO by Method AK101, DRO by Method AK101, benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes (BTEX) by EPA Method SW8260B and natural attenuation parameters (alkalinity, iron, sulfate, nitrate/nitrite).
• Recording water level measurements at these wells.
• Collecting one surface water sample from established monitoring location SW-5 for analysis
of total aromatic hydrocarbons (TAH) and total aqueous hydrocarbons (TAqH).
|
Louis Howard |
| 9/5/2013 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Staff provided comments on the draft work plan addendum.
1.3 ST009 Site Description
2008 Record of Decision
The text states: “The RAOs for surface water include the absence or presence of sheen , and TAH at 0.01 mg/L and TAqH at 0.015 mg/L per 18 AAC Chapter 70, Water Quality Standards (ADEC 2012b).”
The 2008 ROD at Section 2.14.2 Remedies Under State of Alaska Regulations for Spill/Leak 3 (ST009) states:
“…surface water samples will be analyzed for total aromatic hydrocarbons (TAH) and total aqueous hydrocarbons (TAqH). The monitoring program will be consistent with the technical requirements set forth in state of Alaska regulations and will be designed to address RAO (a) above.”
18 AAC 70 Water Quality Standards include more than absence or presence of sheen. 18 AAC 70.020 Protected Water Use Water Quality Standards for Designated Uses,(17) Petroleum Hydrocarbons, Oils, and Grease, for Marine Water Uses states:
“There may be no concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons, animal fats, or vegetable oils in shoreline or bottom sediments that cause deleterious effects to aquatic life. Surface waters and adjoining shorelines must be virtually free from floating oil, film, sheen, or discoloration.”
Please provide photographic documentation for site conditions at ST009 and descriptive text in the report for compliance with water quality standards described above.
2.2.2 Surface Water Sampling
The text states: “Surface water samples will be submitted to the project laboratory for the following analyses:
• BTEX by EPA Method 8260B (for determination of TAH)
• PAH by EPA Method 8270D-SIM (for determination of TAqH)”
ADEC will require the Air Force to use one-half(1/2) the PQL (not the MDL) for ND's in the calculation of TAH/TAqH. If the lab reports xylenes separately, they should be treated separately in the same manner.
Concentrations of TAqH must be determined and summed using a combination of BTEX plus PAHs (must include the 16 PAHs listed by EPA Method 610).
Use of analytical methods EPA Method 624 and 625 is required for closure of a site and cannot be closed with other analytical methods (e.g. 602/610, 8260B/8270D-SIM).
Samples to determine concentrations of total aromatic hydrocarbons (TAH) and total aqueous hydrocarbons (TAqH) must be collected in marine and fresh waters below the surface and away from any observable sheen [Water Quality Standards for Designated Uses, footnote 7 (April 8, 2012].
|
Louis Howard |
| 9/27/2013 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
ADEC has reviewed the responses to its comments. The responses are acceptable to ADEC. Please finalize the document. |
Louis Howard |
| 6/2/2014 |
Update or Other Action |
Draft work plan received for review and comment.
IC inspections for Sites LF003, ST009, and SS010. A landfill cap inspection will be completed for
LF003. The results of these inspections will be documented in a field log book and accompanied
by photographs.
Groundwater samples will be collected from three existing wells (MW-4, MW-7, and MW-9) and submitted for laboratory analysis of GRO, DRO, and BTEX. One surface water sample will be collected at ST009 and will be submitted for TAH and TAqH analysis.
The study boundaries of this project are Sites LF003, ST009, SS010, and SS015. As part of this effort visual IC inspections will be performed within the lateral boundaries of Sites LF003, ST009, and SS010. |
Louis Howard |
| 12/18/2014 |
Update or Other Action |
Draft LTM Report for environmental monitoring at LF003, ST009, SS015 and SS010 received.
The site is used for storage of shipping containers, and is frequented by installation
personnel and vehicles for both commercial and recreational activities during the non-winter
months. The area has regular vehicle and heavy equipment traffic during the non-winter months. The site is not accessed in the winter by installation personnel in vehicles as the access road is not plowed.
The area is sparsely vegetated and is adjacent to both marine (Bering Sea) and fresh water (Fowler Creek) systems. Debris at the site was limited to items consistent with the historical and current industrial usage: primarily metal drums and wooden pallets, with very little partially-buried plastic materials seen in the center of the site.
Erosion was observed along the southern edge of the site, adjacent to the beach. Numerous 55-gallon crushed emptied drums were observed within the eroding bank and at the shoreline below the high tide mark. No stained soils were observed in the area of the exposed drums.
Monitoring wells in the area were found to have notably strong petroleum odors. One warning sign was present on site and directed to recreational and subsistence users. The sign is located along the eastern bank of Fowler Creek, upstream from the mouth of the river.
Monitoring wells MW-4, MW-7, and MW-9 were sampled and groundwater samples were submitted for laboratory analysis of COCs including GRO, DRO, and BTEX by Methods AK101, AK102, and SW8260B respectively. Results were as follows:
• At monitoring wells MW-4 and MW-9, all analytes were either non-detect or detected at concentrations below ADEC Groundwater Cleanup Levels (AAC Title 18, Chapter 75.345 Table C).
• At monitoring well MW-7, a single exceedance of the ADEC Cleanup Levels was detected. DRO was detected at 2.87 mg/L, exceeding the 1.5 mg/L ADEC Cleanup Level. GRO and BTEX were non-detect or detected at concentrations below ADEC Groundwater Cleanup Levels at this location.
Results for both the primary sample (FC-SW01) and duplicate sample (FC-SW99) were non-detect and are below ADEC 18 AAC 70 Water Quality Standards and ADEC Cleanup Levels for groundwater. The total value for TAH and TAqH when all of the analytes are non-detect is reported as the highest limit of detection (LOD). Therefore, the results are as follows:
• Total TAH is reported at the non-detect limit of 1.0 micrograms per liter (µg/L)
• Total TAqH is reported at the non-detect limit of 0.052 µg/L
No visual sheen was observed on surface water at this location. |
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 Institutional Controls include
a) Ensure that groundwater contamination is not migrating downgradient into Kokechik Bay at levels that could be detrimental to surface water quality.
b) Restrict use of the groundwater as long as the groundwater DRO concentrations exceed the ADEC Table C cleanup levels, which are protective of drinking water.
c) Restrict direct contact with petroleum-contaminated subsurface soil and document that petroleum hydrocarbons in surface and subsurface soil exceed levels protective of unrestricted use.
d) Restrict excavation and transportation of contaminated soil to prevent migration of contaminants. |
Louis Howard |
| 3/3/2017 |
Update or Other Action |
2016 Technical Project Report Environmental Long Term Monitoring Activities Cape Romanzof Long Range Radar Station Sites LF003, ST009, SS010 & SS015 received for review & comment.
Annual monitoring through IC inspection & photograph documentation has been completed at ST009 for 2016. Additionally, groundwater samples were collected & analyzed to determine DRO, GRO, & BTEX concentrations (Figure 3).
In accordance with the Work Plan, Site ST009 groundwater modeling through Mann-Kendall statistical trend analysis was performed using historical & current groundwater analytical results to evaluate natural attenuation progress to estimate a timeline for which cleanup levels might be achieved. The modeling results from the statistical analysis performed for five years of historical & recent groundwater sampling events indicate decreasing trends in DRO concentrations observed at the farthest upgradient monitoring wells ST009-MW-4 & ST009-MW-7 & a slightly increasing trend in the DRO concentration observed at the farthest down-gradient monitoring well, ST009-MW-9.
The IC inspection conducted at ST009 identified buried drums exposed along a section of the eroding bank & on the shoreline below the high tide mark, & a small, approximately 3-ft by 3-ft area of soil staining was observed on the ground surface in the central portion of the site (Figure 3). It is recommended that the buried drums be removed & properly disposed of, & the small area of stained soil be excavated with hand shovels & sampled to confirm the absence of potential PCB & POL contamination. Other than the coastal erosion observed on the sea bluff, there does not appear to be significant erosion occurring at the site. As part of the required LTM for this site, LTM will continue at ST009 on an annual basis until deemed no longer necessary by the USAF & ADEC
See site file for additional information. |
Louis Howard |
| 3/16/2017 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Draft LTM Report received for review and comment.
Main comments were to address soil staining that has been observed for the past two years of environmental long-term monitoring activities in accordance with 18 AAC 75.325(f)(1)(E). The soil confirmation samples will need to include not only for PCBs and POL analysis, but include: GRO, DRO, RRO, PAHs (8270-SIM), pesticides, VOCs (8260 Methanol preservation, if cleanup levels can be met by method. If not, then low-level VOC analysis will be required as well) and BTEX.
See site file for additional information. |
Louis Howard |
| 2/28/2018 |
Update or Other Action |
2017 Remedial Action-Operations/Long Term Management report (draft) received for review & comment. The IC inspection conducted at ST009 identified buried drums exposed along a section of the eroding bank and on the shoreline below the high tide mark. It is recommended that the buried drums be removed and properly disposed of. During the 2017 LTM activities, new LUC signage was installed meeting the AFCEC requirements. IC inspections should continue at ST009 on an annual basis until deemed no longer necessary by the USAF and ADEC. DRO concentrations in the groundwater at ST009 site remain above the PAL, and statistical analysis of the data does not show any conclusive trends. Groundwater monitoring should continue annually until PALs are achieved.
In 2017, one surface soil sample was collected from an area of stained soil. The soil sample was
analyzed for DRO, RRO, and PCBs (USAF, 2018). DRO (9.05 mg/kg), RRO (45.2 mg/kg), and
PCBs (maximum of 0.287 mg/kg) were detected in the surface soil sample at concentrations below
the respective cleanup levels of 250 mg/kg, 10,000 mg/kg, and 1 mg/kg.
See site file for additional information.
|
Louis Howard |
| 3/12/2018 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Staff provided comments on the draft RA - O/LTM Report. Main comments regarded monitoring well repairs and/or decommissioning activities for damaged wells and to install protective barriers to prevent damage in the future. Staff requested institutional control inspections occur earlier in the fall (i.e. first half of September) to avoid having the sites not being inspected due to snow cover.
See site file for additional information. |
Louis Howard |
| 8/28/2018 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Staff commented on the draft 3rd Five Year Review. Main comments were regarding adding text in the document requesting that groundwater monitoring cease at wells MW-4, MW-7, MW-9 at ST009 since a determination was made by ADEC for groundwater not to be considered a drinking water source under 18 AAC 75.350 in the Final Record of Decision for 4 sites at Cape Romanzof LRRS (Feb. 2008).
See site file for additional information. |
Louis Howard |
| 11/16/2018 |
CERCLA ROD Periodic Review |
Staff reviewed the above document. DEC will approve the changes in the redline version of the Third CERCLA Five-Year Review and Third Non-CERCLA Periodic Review Report for sites-DP011, LF003, SS010, SS013, SS014, SS015, SS016, SS017 and ST009 At Cape Romanzof Long Range Radar Site (aka Station). DEC approves the redline version and all the comments which were incorporated into the document. |
Louis Howard |
| 2/15/2019 |
Update or Other Action |
Supplemental work plan for long term monitoring received for review and comment. See site file for additional information. |
Louis Howard |
| 3/19/2019 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Staff provided comments on the draft supplemental work plan. Main comments were to use the updated documents: 2017 Field Sampling Guidance, 2017 DoD Quality Systems Manual, 18 AAC 75 October 2018, and 18 AAC 70 (2018). See site file for additional information |
Louis Howard |
| 6/11/2019 |
Site Characterization Workplan Approved |
Staff approved the final supplemental work plan since the response to comments were reflected in the final version. See site file for additional information. |
Louis Howard |
| 6/19/2020 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Approved Supplemental Work Plan, 2020 Remedial Action Operations, Land/Use/Institutional Control, Cape Romanzof LRRS, May 2020. |
Darren Mulkey |
| 7/28/2020 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
DEC reviewed the "Draft Supplemental Work Plan for 2020 Remedial Action Operations, Land Use/Institutional Controls, Cape Romanzof Long Range Radar Station (LRRS), AK" dated July 2020, and returned comments to the U.S. Air Force. The work plan describes planned work, to include sampling monitoring wells, collecting sediment samples, inspecting landfill caps, and repairing signage at LF003, ST009, SS010, SS015, SS016, SS017. |
Tim Sharp |
| 1/22/2021 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
DEC reviewed the "Draft 2020 Remedial Action Operations, Land Use/Institutional Control Technical Project Report, Cape Romanzof Long Range Radar Station (LRRS)" dated January 2021, and returned comments to the U.S. Air Force. Main comments were to ensure all results and recommendations in the report were included in the conclusions section. The technical project report describes performed environmental long-term management activities including groundwater monitoring well repair, decommissioning, installation and survey at sites LF003, ST009, SS010, SS013, SS014, SS015, SS016, SS017. |
Axl LeVan |
| 1/26/2021 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
DEC reviewed and approved the "Final 2020 Remedial Action Operations, Land Use/Institutional Control Technical Project Report, Cape Romanzof Long Range Radar Station (LRRS)" dated January 2021, and returned comments to the U.S. Air Force. The technical project report describes performed environmental long-term management activities including groundwater monitoring well repair, decommissioning, installation and survey at sites LF003, ST009, SS010, SS013, SS014, SS015, SS016, SS017. |
Axl LeVan |
| 5/26/2021 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
DEC approved the "Final 2020 Remedial Action Operations Land Use/Institutional Controls, Cape Romanzof Long Range Radar Station (LRRS), Alaska" dated May 2021. The report presented the results of the 2020 Environmental Remedial Action-Operation/Long Term Management (LTM) program. LTM activities included sampling of monitoring wells and IC/LUC inspections at Sites LF003, ST009, SS010, SS015, SS016, SS017. Additionally sediment and surface water sampling, and road maintenance occurred at Site LF003. LUC warning signs at Sites LF003, SS015, and SS010 were also installed/replaced. |
Axl LeVan |
| 6/9/2021 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
DEC completed a review of the "Draft Final 2021 Uniform Federal Policy for Quality Assurance Project Plan for Long-Term Management and Remedial Action Operations Activities, Cape Romanzof Long Range Radar Station, Alaska, dated March 2021". DEC provided comments on June 10, 2021 and the document was received on May 11, 2021. The work plan documents the plan for sites LF003, ST009, SS010, SS015, SS016, and SS017. The work plan described the approach and procedures for site-specific long-term management and remedial action-operation activities at Cape Romanzof Long Range Radar Station. This work will include annual groundwater sampling at sites ST009 and SS015. Additionally, annual surface water and sediment sampling for PCBs will occur at LF003. The document covers work being performed over a 5-year period and outlines the information to be provided during annual reports. |
Axl LeVan |
| 8/31/2021 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
DEC reviewed and approved the "Final 2021 Uniform Federal Policy for Quality Assurance Project Plan for Long-Term Management and Remedial Action Operations Activities, Cape Romanzof Long Range Radar Station, Alaska, dated August 2021". The final document was received on August 27, 2021. The work plan documents the plan for sites LF003, ST009, SS010, SS015, SS016, and SS017. The work plan described the approach and procedures for site-specific long-term management and remedial action-operation activities at Cape Romanzof Long Range Radar Station. This work will include annual groundwater sampling at sites ST009 and SS015. Additionally, annual surface water and sediment sampling for PCBs will occur at LF003. The document covers work being performed over a 5-year period and outlines the information to be provided during annual reports. |
Axl LeVan |
| 7/15/2022 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) Contaminated Sites Program received a copy of "Draft-Final 2021 Remedial Action Operations Land Use/Institutional Control Report, Cape Romanzof Long Range Radar Station, Alaska, May 2022" on June 16, 2022. This report presents the results of the 2021 Environmental Remedial Action-Operation (RA-O)/Long Term Management (LTM) program at the Cape Romanzof Long Range Radar Site (LRRS) in Cape Romanzof, Alaska. This work was performed from 28 September through 30 September 2021 and included institutional control (IC) and land use control (LUC) inspections. The event included sampling of wells at sites SS015 and ST009. DEC provided comments and requested document revisions. |
Axl LeVan |
| 9/13/2022 |
CERCLA SI |
On 9/13/2022 ADEC approved the FINAL Quality Assurance Project Plan, Off-Base Drinking Water Site Inspections and Miscellaneous Tasks, Three U.S. AF Long Range Radar Stations, Alaska, Dated September 2022. The objective of the Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) is to provide a response action for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)-impacted drinking water for areas surrounding three remote U.S. Air Force (USAF) Installations, Cape Romanzof Long Range Radar Station (LRRS), Indian Mountain LRRS and Sparrevohn LRRS. The project goals are to determine if off-site migration of polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) has potentially impacted off-site groundwater and surface water used as drinking water used by residences or commercial businesses, and if a response action will be needed and required for applicable PFAS impacted drinking water sources. The USEPA Lifetime Health Advisory levels for perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), and the sum of the concentrations (PFOS+PFOA) of 70 nanograms per liter (ng/L) will be used as the action level for drinking water sources (both groundwater and surface water). |
Axl LeVan |
| 10/7/2022 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) Contaminated Sites Program received a copy of "Draft-Final 2021 Remedial Action Operations Land Use/Institutional Control Report, Cape Romanzof Long Range Radar Station, Alaska, October 2022" on October 4, 2022. All requested DEC revisions were included in the updated report and DEC approved the report. This report presents the results of the 2021 Environmental Remedial Action-Operation (RA-O)/Long Term Management (LTM) program at the Cape Romanzof Long Range Radar Site (LRRS) in Cape Romanzof, Alaska. This work was performed from 28 September through 30 September 2021 and included institutional control (IC) and land use control (LUC) inspections. The event included sampling of wells at sites SS015 and ST009. |
Axl LeVan |
| 5/16/2023 |
CERCLA SI |
DEC reviewed and approved the "Final Site Inspection and No Further Response Action Planned Report for Per and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances at Cape Romanzof Long Range Radar Station, Alaska, May 2023." The Site Inspection (SI) report for Cape Romanzof Long Range Radar Station (LRRS) has been prepared to report the results of activities performed as part of the SI and recommend future activities at the installation. The report recommended an Remedial investigation at FTA #1, Non-FTA No.4 – Landfill No. 4, and Non-FTA No.6 – Biocell 3. It also recommended No Further Response Action Planned at Non-FTA No. 1 – Spill/Leak No. 7, Non-FTA No. 2 – Landfill No. 2, Non-FTA No. 3 – Landfill No. 3, and Non-FTA No. 5 – Landfill No. 5. DEC agreed with the recommendations. |
Axl LeVan |
| 8/23/2023 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
DEC reviewed and provided comments on the "Draft-Final 2022 Remedial Action Operations Land Use/Institutional Control Report, Cape Romanzof Long Range Radar Station, Alaska, August 2023" which was received August 14. The report is on site inspections at LF003, SS010, SS015, SS016, SS017, and ST009. The report includes sampling at LF003, ST009, and ST015. |
Axl LeVan |
| 12/8/2023 |
CERCLA ROD Periodic Review |
DEC reviewed and provided comments on the "Draft 2023 Five-Year Review Report for DP011, LF003, SS010, SS013, SS014, SS015, SS016, SS017, ST009, and OB942 at Cape Romanzof Long Range Radar Station, Alaska, November 2023". The purpose of a Five-Year Review (FYR) is to evaluate the implementation and performance of a remedy in order to determine if the remedy is and will continue to be protective of human health and the environment. This report is the first FYR for OB942. |
Axl LeVan |
| 1/24/2024 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
DEC reviewed and Approved the "Draft-Final 2022 Remedial Action Operations Land Use/Institutional Control Report, Cape Romanzof Long Range Radar Station, Alaska, December 2023" which was received January 2024. The report is on site inspections at LF003, SS010, SS015, SS016, SS017, and ST009. The report includes sampling at LF003, ST009, and ST015. All DEC comments were addressed in the updated document. |
Axl LeVan |
| 1/30/2024 |
CERCLA ROD Periodic Review |
DEC reviewed and approved the "Final 2023 Five-Year Review Report for DP011, LF003, SS010, SS013, SS014, SS015, SS016, SS017, ST009, and OB942 at Cape Romanzof Long Range Radar Station, Alaska, January 2024". All DEC comments were addressed by the revised version of the document. |
Axl LeVan |
| 5/8/2024 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
DEC provided comments on the "Draft 2023 Remedial Action Operations Land Use/Institutional Control Report, Cape Romanzof Long Range Radar Station, Alaska, April 2024". The report documents the 2023 work performed at sites LF003, SS010, SS015, SS016, SS017, and ST009. |
Axl LeVan |
| 5/8/2024 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
DEC reviewed and provided comments on the "Draft 2023 Remedial Action Operations Land Use/Institutional Control Report, Cape Romanzof Long Range Radar Station, Alaska, April 2024." This report presents the results of the 2023 Environmental Remedial Action-Operation/Long Term Management program. |
Axl LeVan |
| 7/8/2024 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
DEC reviewed and approved the "Final 2023 Remedial Action Operations Land Use/Institutional Control Report, Cape Romanzof Long Range Radar Station, Alaska, June 12th." The report presents the results of the long term monitoring program at Cape Romanzof LRRS. |
Axl LeVan |
| 2/28/2025 |
Update or Other Action |
DEC reviewed and provided comments on Notice of Use and Activity Limitations (NAULs) at six Cape Romanzof Sites (SS013, DP011, SS014, SS015, SS017, and ST009). |
Axl LeVan |
| 6/12/2025 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
DEC reviewed and provided comment on the Uniform Federal Policy – Quality Assurance Project Plan DRAFT Feasibility Study at Site ST009, Long-Term Management (LTM) at Site SS017, and Remedial Action-Operation (RA-O) at Site LF003 at Cape Romanzof Long Range Radar Site (LRRS), Alaska, dated May 2025. The work plan documents the planned activities for 2025 to support a feasibility study (FS) at Site ST009, long-term management (LTM) at Site SS017, and remedial action–operation (RA-O) at LF003 at Cape Romanzof Long Range Radar Site (LRRS). The purpose of the investigation is to delineate the nature and extent of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), petroleum, and lead (Pb) impacted soil remaining at these three sites to eliminate the deficiencies noted in the Five-Year Review document for the Cape Romanzof LRRS. Loose drums and debris will be removed from ST009 and placed into a temporary holding cell. A geophysical survey and an evaluation of the soil control barrier will be performed at LF003. |
Juliana Smit |
