| Action Date |
Action |
Description |
DEC Staff |
| 12/31/1985 |
Update or Other Action |
Engineering Science (ES) Phase I Records Search AAC-Southern Region-King Salmon AFS, Cape Newenham AFS, Cape Romanzof AFS, Cold Bay AFS, Sparrevohn AFS and Tatalina AFS dated September 1985. Conclusions reached concerning sites evaluated at Cape Romanzof AFS: Follow-on action warranted at all sites in document.
1) Waste Accumulation Area no. 3 and Spill/Leak Nos. 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 Operation periods: 1950s-1982, 1979, 1980, 1984, and 1970s.
2) Spill/Leak No. 4 operation period: 1970s
3) Waste Accumulation No. 1 and Spill/Leak nos. 1 and 2 Operation periods: 1950s to present and 1979.
4) Road Oiling Operation period: 1950s to 70s
5) Landfill No. 3 Operation period 1970s to present
6) Waste Accumulation Area No. 2 Operation period: 1982 to present
7) Dump Areas Operation period: 1950s-70s
8) Landfill No. 2 Operation period: 1970s
9) Landfill No. 1 Operation period: 1950s to 70s
10) Spill/Leak No. 3 Operation period: 1950s to present
11) White Alice Site Operation: 1958 to 1979. |
Louis Howard |
| 8/27/1991 |
Update or Other Action |
(Old R:Base Action Code = SI - Site Investigation). 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), ROM-12 (SS14 Former Drum Storage area composed of drummed waste operated as early as the 1950s).
One soil sample reported 0.21 mg/kg PCBs. The two soil samples had total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPHs) values of 100,000 and 200,000 mg/kg. The sediment sample reported a level of 50 mg/kg TPHs. No BTEX constituents were reported above the detection limit.
Contaminant Migration. The soil now appears to hold the TPHs and PCBs contaminants. The soil is dry, weathered, caked, and stained black and smells of petroleum hydrocarbons. The area is flat with a slight gradient to the south towards the northernmost and easternmost beaver pond. Surface water flow and groundwater flow toward the beaver pond and Fowler Creek from this site may transport contamination now held in the soil.
Evaluation/Significance Of Findings. The two soil samples collected within the stained area had values representing 10 and 20 percent petroleum hydrocarbons. The sediment and surface water samples collected immediately downstream in one of the beaver ponds indicated little to no
contamination. Thus, it seems that the spilled petroleum products were mostly absorbed and trapped in the native soil. Surface flow may transport some contamination southward to the beaver ponds and thence to Fowler Creek. The intensity of contamination at this site and proximity to Fowler Creek poses a potentially significant environmental risk from TPHs, The
PCBs concentration (0.21 mg/kg) is below the EPA standard of i0 ppm for cleanup. |
Louis Howard |
| 2/25/1992 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Staff reviewed and commented on the Draft IRP RIFS Stage 1 Tech Report Addendum dated March 19991 and 2nd draft report dated June 1990. ROM-12 Former Drum Storage Area: Two soil samples taken from this site were not enough to delineate the total extent of contamination. The recommended remedial alternative was to excavate contaminated soil and landfarm. Please refer to guidance for landfarming of soils outlined in the "Guidance for Storage, Remediation, and Disposal of Non-UST Petroleum Contaminated Soils" dated July 29, 1991.
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 bioremediation 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 the soil, groundwater, and contaminants from the contaminated site must be used in the study.
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. |
Louis Howard |
| 7/13/1992 |
CERCLA PA |
Letter from EPA Region 10 stating that the Preliminary Site Assessment for the purposes of ranking under the Hazard Ranking System used to evaluate federal facilities for inclusion on the National Priorities List (NPL). Review of the documents indicate the site (facility) does not score high enough to be proposed for inclusion on the NPL.
Therefore, a recommendation of no further remedial action planned (NFRAP) on the EPA's part will be included in the federal agency hazardous waste compliance docket tracking system. If new or additional information becomes available that suggests the facility may score high enough to be proposed for the NPL, EPA will reevaluate the facility accordingly. The Facility is not relieved from complying with appropriate Alaska state regulations and SARA* 1986(a) (4) requires federal facilities to comply with state cleanup requirements and standards when not listed on the NPL.
*Note to File: 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 provided comments on the RI/FS technical report. 200,000 mg/kg TPH is present in the soil. Further sampling is recommended to better characterize the area for TPH migration. *Note to file: ADEC does not regulate for TPH, instead requires analyses for specific fuel types: gasoline range organics (GRO), BTEX, diesel range organics (DRO), residual range organics(RRO). The remediation method recommended is excavation followed by landfarming. Screening samples may be used during the excavation phase to estimate the limits of soil contamination. Staff requested additional discrete soil samples at the limits of the excavation for final closure of the site. All excavation, sampling and remediation must be done under a work plan that has prior approval by DEC. |
Vic Vickaryous |
| 4/29/1994 |
Site Added to Database |
|
Louis Howard |
| 5/2/1994 |
Update or Other Action |
Work plan for contaminated soil at facility states action items for FY93 and FY94 work. 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 Installation Restoration Program (IRP) site. Exact location to be coordinated between 11 CEOS/CEV and 11 CEOS/CEOR during a site visit.
History: This site is a blackened patch of soil east of the beaver ponds, south of Fowler Creek. Part of the site includes the east end of the easternmost beaver pond. Interviews with former station supervisors indicate that this black patch was a drummed waste storage area dating back to the beginning of Cape Romanzof.
Drummed waste was staged at this site for shipment out on the annual barge. Empty drums were stored nearby. The blackened area is upgradient of streams entering the beaver pond, which drain into Fowler Creek
b. The area of ROM 12 was estimated from sampling and visual observation of the extent of stained soil. This is an irregularly shaped area of approximately ten thousand three hundred square feet. The depth of contamination, computed to be five feet based on concentration of contamination and history of use, was estimated to yield a volume of 1,910 cubic yards of contaminated soil.
c. Nine and ten metals were detected in the two soil samples, respectively, and five metals were reported in the sediment sample. All metals reported were within normal ranges. Four metals were detected in the surface water sample, all of which were within normal ranges. PCBs were detected in one soil sample at 0.21 mg/kg. The two soil samples had TPH detections of 100,000 and 200,000 mg/kg. TPH was detected in the sediment sample at 50 mg/kg but was not detected in the surface water sample. No BTEX constituents were detected in any of the samples.
d. The soil appears to be holding the TPH and PCB contaminants. The soil is dry, weathered, caked, stained black, and smells of petroleum hydrocarbons. The area is flat with a slight gradient to the south toward the northernmost and easternmost beaver pond. Surface water flow and groundwater flow toward the beaver pond and Fowler Creek from this site may transport contamination now held in the soil.
e. Soil Samples: The two soil samples collected within the stained area had concentrations representing 10 and 20 percent petroleum hydrocarbons. The sediment and surface water samples collected immediately downstream in one of the beaver ponds indicated little to no contamination. Thus, it seems the spilled petroleum products were mostly absorbed and trapped in the native soil. Surface flow may transport some contamination southward to the beaver ponds and thence to Fowler Creek. The intensity of contamination at this site and proximity to Fowler Creek poses a potentially significant environmental risk from TPH. The soil PCB concentration (0.21 mg/kg) is well below the EPA standard of 10 mg/kg for cleanup. |
Louis Howard |
| 8/31/1994 |
Update or Other Action |
In 1994, USAF excavated 2,730 cubic yards of petroleum-contaminated soil from Site SS014. Due to the possible presence of PCBs, a PCB sampling grid was used to guide the excavation. The final excavation covered approximately 25,000 square feet, and most of the area was excavated down to approximately 3 feet bgs. At several locations, the contaminated soil was excavated down to the water table at 8-feet bgs. The contaminated soil was placed in Containment Cell 1 (which was constructed near the coast at ST009). |
Louis Howard |
| 2/14/1995 |
Update or Other Action |
Scope of Work CR LRRS DBWT-92-79902 Biopile Construction. Background: In FY93 the 611 CES/CEOR observed 3 areas obviously contaminated & stained with POL products. These areas are located between the old POL Fill Stand (ST09) & the beaver pond near the beach area. ST09 & the Drum Storage Area (SS14) near the beach area were included into the FY93 work plan. The two areas which are contaminated with POL were to be stockpiled in Cell No. 1 & Cell No. 2 which were constructed in FY93.
Approximately 1152 CY of soils from SS14 was placed into Cell No. 1. Contamination at ST09 was delineated during FY94, but was not excavated due the expanded scope of the project. The new estimate of POL contaminated soils is approximately 1000 CY.
The 900 CY of diesel contaminated soil associated with the UST at SS15 had been stockpiled after the removal of the UST in 1991. These soils were placed into Cell No. 3. In addition, the POL contaminated soil associated with SS08 was also placed in Cell No. 3.
In addition to the contaminated soil which was excavated & stockpiled from the SS14, SS08, & the soils associated with SS015, include the IRP sites listed below in the FY95 soil stockpiling/soil remediation (biopile) field work. The soils at these sites were found to be contaminated with POL above ADEC cleanup standards.
Two passive type biopiles will be designed & constructed near the beach area for the remediation of POL contaminated soils from SS14 & ST09. These biopiles may utilize a wind generated blower system due to the lack of electrical power. Two biopiles will be designed & constructed at the Lower Camp area. One new cell (Cell No. 4) will be constructed adjacent to Cell No. 3. The contaminated soil from Cell No. 3 will be placed in Cell No. 4. Cell No. 3 will be retrofitted as a biopile. These two biopiles will use an electrical powered blower system. These biopiles will include soils from the diesel contaminated soil associated with SS15, SS07 & SS08. |
Louis Howard |
| 4/3/1995 |
Update or Other Action |
Final Report for Investigation, Delineation and Excavation of Contaminated Soil from: Stockpile near SS15 site, Waste Accumulation Area 3 (SS08), Drum Storage Area (SS14), Petroleum, Oil, and Lubricants Fill Stand (ST09), Construction of Cells for Contaminated Soi, Capping of Landfill-2 (LF03) and Geology/Water Resources of Nilumat Creek Valley (April 1995) received.
A total of 4,052 cubic yards of contaminated soil was excavated from the sites. Six hundred cubic yards were excavated from the stockpile (SS15), 722 cubic yards from Waste Accumulation Area 3 (SS08) and 2,730 cubic yards from the drum storage area (SS14). Excavated soils were placed in 2 storage cells (Cell 1 and Cell 3).
Upon investigation, the contaminated soil at POL Fill Stand (ST09) was found to cover approximately 955 cubic yards, a volume much larger than the initially estimated volume of 20 yds as described and budgeted under the scope of the work plan. An additional 2,022 yds of contaminated soil, beyond the scope of the work program, was also found at the Drum Storage area (SS14). These two areas remain to be excavated.
The area and volume of contamination at this site, located south of the access road and estimated by WCC, was 10,300 square feet and estimated to be 5' deep, thus yielding a volume of approximately 1,910 cy. The work plan was based upon these estimates. The contaminated soil actually removed from the site was approximately 2,730 cy which covered an area of about 24,570 sq. ft.
The field investigations indicated contamination extending northward beyond the access road. The additional area covers another 18,560 square feet with an approximate volume of 2,062 cy. This area was not excavated as it was not included the 1994 budget. Based upon laboratory and PID results which showed that contamination had reached the cleanup verification level, the excavated pit was backfilled with accumulated boulders and pit run matedal. The pit run material was stockpiled at the site from previous year. It took 140 truck loads of pit run material to backfill the pit.
SS014a (1989): PCBs-ND to 0.21 mg/kg, TPH: 100,000 mg/kg to 200,000 mg/kg. SS014 (93/94 fiscal years): PCBs-2.22 mg/kg to 3.2 mg/kg, DRO- ND to 67,200 mg/kg, GRO-ND to 186 mg/kg and BTEX ND to 0.9 mg/kg.
PID readings did not correlate well to laboratory analytical results: 17 ppm - DRO 11,600 mg/kg, 10 ppm - DRO 35,80 mg/kg, 17 ppm - 18,100 mg/kg, 12 ppm - DRO 28,200 mg/kg, 19 ppm - DRO 17,300 mg/kg, 5 ppm - DRO 1,130 mg/kg, 9 ppm - DRO 11,400 mg/kg, and 10 ppm - DRO 3,520 mg/kg.
8 soil samples were screened with the DEXSIL 2000 analyzer for PCBs.
Cell 1: A total of 144 truck loads (approximately 1,152 cubtc yards) of contaminated soil, excavated from the drum storage area (SS14), were placed in the cell. The contaminated soil covered the inside of the cell and piled up to 6 feet high above the top of the cells wall. The contaminated soil pile was then covered with the top liner.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. The additional contaminated soil at Drum Storage Area (SS14), adjoining north of excavated area, should be excavated and removed. The volume of contaminated soil is estimated to be 2,022 cubic yards.
2. The contaminated soil at POL Fill Stand site (ST09) should be excavated and removed. The volume of the contaminated soil is estimated to be 955 cubic yards.
3. Cell 2 located near the Beaver Pond should be used for containment of the contaminated soil from the above mentioned two sites.
4. Spill/Leak 5 (SS13), a major spill near Lower Camp, requires investigation and delineation. The contaminated soil should be excavated and removed. A new cell should be built near Cell 3 to contain the excavated soil.
5. Long term monitoring at Landfill-2 (LF03) to monitor for leachate through the landfill.
6. All the cells should be converted into biotreatment systems. |
Ray Burger |
| 5/3/1995 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
ADEC staff reviewed the final report for The Drum Storage Area (SS14) is located east of the beaver pond, nearest to the coast and along the south side of Nilumat Creek (referred to as Fowler Creek in some literature). The whole site is located in a glaciated valley carved by the ancestral Nilumat River. The area consisted of black-stained soil with dead vegetation and an odor of fuel. The blackened contaminated area is upgradient of Nilumat Creek and downgradient of several small streams flowing from several seeps to the south which enter the beaver pond, which drains into the Nilumat Creek ultimately flowing into Kokechik Bay.
An access car-track road connects the area with the trunk road which connects Lower Camp with the coast. The access road runs along the northern boundary of the contaminated area. The closest water wells to the site were Water Well 2 and 3, uphill near the weather station, with water levels of 86 and 65 feet below the ground surface.
The black patch was an old POL drummed waste storage staging area dating back to the beginning of Air Force activities on site. The drummed waste was staged at this site for shipment out on the annual barge. Empty drums were stored nearby. The area and volume of contamination at this site, located south of the access road and estimated by WCC, was 10,300 square feet and estimated to be five feet deep, thus yielding a volume of approximately 1,910 cubic yards.
The work plan was based upon these estimates. The contaminated soil actually removed from the site was approximately 2,730 cubic yards which covered an area of about 24,570 square feet. The field investigations indicated contamination extending northward beyond the access road. The additional area covers another 18,560 square feet with an approximate volume of 2,062 cubic yards.
This area was not excavated as it was not included the 1994 budget. Most of the area was excavated down to approximately 3 feet depth. At several locations the contaminated soil was excavated down to the water level at 8-foot depth. On the basis of laboratory analyses certain areas still contained the contamination. The areas with contamination signs were excavated further up to 8-foot depth. A total of 144 truckloads of contaminated soil was excavated and placed in containment Cell 1 (which was constructed near the coast). The excavation was difficult and time consuming due to the presence of large size boulders. The contaminated soil from this site alone filled Cell 1.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. The additional contaminated soil at Drum Storage Area (SS14), adjoining north of excavated area, should be excavated and removed. The volume of contaminated soil is estimated to be 2,022 cubic yards.
2. The contaminated soil at POL Fill Stand site (ST09) should be excavated and removed. The volume of the contaminated soil is estimated to be 955 cubic yards.
3. Cell 2 located near the Beaver Pond should be used for containment of the contaminated soil from the above mentioned two sites.
4. Spill/Leak 5 (SS13), a major spill near Lower Camp, requires investigation and delineation. The contaminated soil should be excavated and removed A new cell should be built near Cell 3 to contain the excavated soil.
5. Long term monitoring at Landfill-2 (LF03) to monitor for leachate through the landfill.
6. All the cells should be converted into biotreatment systems. |
Ray Burger |
| 6/16/1995 |
Site Ranked Using the AHRM |
Initial ranking. Action code added because it wasn't when the site was originally ranked. |
John Halverson |
| 8/15/1995 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
MEMORANDUM FOR THE ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION
FROM: 611 CES/CEVR
21885 2nd St
Elmendorf AFB AK 99506-4420
SUBJECT: Documentation of Verbal Comments Received from ADEC on the Engineering EvaluationCost Analysis (EE/CA) for the Soil Remediation with Biopiles at Cape Romanzof Long Range Radar Site (LRRS) AK
1. The following are verbal comments received from ADEC on 15 Aug 95 concerning the Draft EE/CA for the remediation of contaminated soil (POL) with biopiles at Cape Romanzof LRRS AK:
a. Cover and Title Page. Include the title of the project "Soil Remediation" on both the cover and title page after EE/CA.
b. Page 4. Section 2.2.1. Reword "therefore no wetlands would be impacted by the project" to state that the wetlands impact will be minimized by constructing them on fill material.
c. 18 AAC 60 as it is currently promulgated should be listed under ARARs. Also include 18 AAC 62 and 18 AAC 78 in the list of ARARs. The benzene found in the UST soils (SS15) is regulated by
18 AAC 78. Discuss RCRA and TCLP requirements for elevated levels of benzene in non-UST soils. ARARs to be considered are TSCA, Non-UST regulations, Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, 18 AAC
72-Wastewater Regulations, and the Alaska Coastal Management Program. In addition, cite 18 AAC 75 generally in the list. There are more applicable sections other than 18 AAC 75.327.
d. Page 5. Section 2.2.5. Speckled should be replaced with Spectacled.
e. Page G. Section 2.3.1. Fourth sentence. This sentence does not make sense. Rewrite.
f. Page 7. Section 2.4.1. Closing parenthesis missing in first paragraph.
g. Page 8. Section 2.4.2.1. Last paragraph. Change commended to commenced.
h. Page 9. Section 2.4.2.1. First paragraph. Second sentence. Change "from UST at SS15 site" to "from the USTs at the SS15 site".
I. Page 10. 2.4.2.3. The third paragraph says that there is no accurate point of reference for the location of the fill stand, but then the fourth paragraph says the fill stand was found.
Reword these contradictory statements.
J. Page 18. Section 4.1.1. First sentence. Change "alternate" to "alternative".
K. Page 19. Section 4.1.4. Fifth sentence. Include "is" after "A more efficient way".
L. The Department agrees with the ex-situ biological treatment alternative chosen for the remediation of soils contarainated with petrole_ products. The EE/CA is the supporting
document for this decision.
2. These comments will be incorporated into the Final EE/CA for Cape Romanzof LRRS upon approval from the Department. Please review for accuracy and sign. A Decision Document will be written for the chosen alternative once the EE/CA is finalized. |
Ray Burger |
| 8/25/1995 |
Cleanup Plan Approved |
Ray Burger approved ex-situ treatment in a biocell for contaminated soils from SS15, ROM-12 (SS14), and ROM-1 (SS08).
Introduction:Elmendorf AFB contracted construction of a biopile treatment facility to evaluate effectiveness of using that technology to treat petroleum contaminated soils, The 11 CEOS proposed biopile is based on this study. Construction: Current soil containment cells and future soil containment cells statewide will be constructed to provide a double-lined cell with secondary containment, leachate detection, leachate collection systems, and vent piping.
Vacuum extraction piping, water/nutrient addition piping, thermocouples (to record core temperature), and tensiometers (to measure soil moisture content) will be placed in each cell as they are constructed. Access ports will be constructed to allow sampling. An equipment unit housing (similar to a connex box) will be constructed to house vacuum/air injection equipment and water/nutrient addition equipment which will in turn be connected to perforated piping within the pile.
Sampling: Monthly inspections will evaluate biopile performance. They will include operating the vacuum extraction/injection system and collecting LEL, 02, and C02 measurements from sampling points. Total volatile organics will be measured at the vent tubes during periods of air injection. Temperature and moisture content will be monitored.
Design:
(1) Biopiles (soil piles with mechanical addition of air, water, and nutrients) are used to treat soil when available space is limited. Soil is stockpiled onto a non-reactive liner and an internal piping system introduces water, nutrients, and oxygen. Soil is sometimes mixed with an organic bulking agent such as sawdust, gypsum, or clean soil to improve soil texture and moisture potential and to provide a carbon and nutrient source.
(2) A vapor extraction/venting system provides oxygen to the bacteria and can remove nondegradable organics in the vapor phase that can be easily removed via an air emission treatment system in a short period of time. Biopiles require no mechanical tilling or agitation. Monitoring of biopile systems will be largely automated.
(3) The design is based on a successful biopile system in Montreal, Canada. This technology was used to create a biopile system at Elmendorf AFB where it was observed for four months. Microbial biodegradation of contaminants in the soil is accomplished through using forced air as an oxygen source. This process provides oxygen to indigenous soil microorganisms, promoting aerobic mineralization of organics and simultaneously stripping some volatile compounds from the soil. |
Ray Burger |
| 11/11/1995 |
Update or Other Action |
Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis for Soil Remediation at CR LRRS prepared by the US Army Corps of Engineers. The U S Air Force is preparing to bioremediate petroleum contaminated soils (about 5500 cubic yards total) at the Cape Romanzof Long Range Radar Site (LRRS) After a review of feasible alternatives, ex-situ bioremediation was selected for this project The main contaminants are diesel range petroleum hydrocarbons and gasoline range petroleum hydrocarbons BTEX is also present along with minor amounts (<5 mg/kg) of PCBs.
The contaminated soil originated from five areas. These are:
SS07 Waste Accumulation Area No 1 (Lower Camp)
SS08 Waste Accumulation Area No 3 (Lower Camp approximately 722 cubic yards excavated and placed in biopile)
ST09 POL Fill Stand (Beach area)
SS14A Drum Storage Area (Beach area)
SSl5 Old UST Site (Lower Camp) 600 cubic yards of soil excavated and placed in biopile.
Soil from SS08 and SS15 has already been excavated and is being stored in Cell #3. Soil from SS14A has already been excavated and is being stored in Cell #1. Soil from SS07 and ST09 will be excavated under this project. An additional Cell #2 has already been constructed, but not yet filled. The contractor will construct an additional bioremediatlon Cell #4.
The cells will be converted into ex-situ bioremediation cells and cell existing one new
constructed. Soils will be bioremediated for two years. At that time, closure sampling will take place If the sampling results are below the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) matrix level A, they will be returned to the land surface within the LRRS. If the sampling reveals levels above the level A, the Air Force will reevaluated the project This reevaluation may include continual operation of the biocells, alternate technology, or negotiation of alternate cleanup levels.
STATUTORY LIMITS
REMOVAL ACTION OBJECTIVES
The contaminated sOli after ex-situ treatment will be disposed of on the land as road fill or
by cover over the land surface. This type disposal requires that the soil stored in Cells 1 and
3 and the contaminated soil at sites ST09 and SS07 be treated in such a manner as to comply
with ADEC level A standards. The standards are as follows:
- DRO maximum limit 100 mg/kg.
- GRO maximum limit 50 mglkg.
- BTEX maximum limit 10 mg/kg.
- Benzene maximum limit 0.1 mg/kg.
- PCB treatment is not within the scope of this project. It is assumed, based on past sampling, that any PCBs found will be under the regulatory limit of 10 mg/kg. If testing reveals PCB levels over 10 mg/kg, the soil will be left in the ground and addressed under a separate contract action.
The PCB contamination on site occurred before May 4, 1987, there are no established
clean up levels This is stated in the scope of TSCA subpart F The scope goes on to say that
old spills (i e pre 1987) require a site by site evaluation TSCA would become an ARAR for
disposal should the contaminated material over 50 mg/kg be excavated This project will not excavated any PCB Material over 10 mg/kg. Therefore, this ARAR is to be considered.
|
Ray Burger |
| 3/18/1996 |
Update or Other Action |
Decision Document Declaration received for SS07, SS08, ST09, SS14, SS15 Ex-situ Bioremediation of POL Soils. The document presents the selected removal action for the ex-situ bioremediation of soil contaminated with petroleum, oils, and lubricants (POL) at Cape Romanzof LRRS. The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation has participated in the scoping and review of the EE/CA and concurs with the selected ex-situ bioremediatlon alternative. All comments have been addressed, and a copy of them are enclosed in Appendix E of the EE/CA. The final EE/CA revealed ex-situ cell bioremediation of POL contaminated soil as the most protective of human health and the environment as well as the most cost effective.
ASSESSMENT OF THE SITE
The 611 CES performed a Removal Action to remove soil contaminated with POL at three IRP sites ±n FY94. The contaminated soil from SS08, SS14,and SS15 was placed In two soil containment cells. The contaminated soil from SS07 and ST09 will be excavated as part of this RA. One cell is located at the Lower Camp and the other is located near the beach. The cell near the beach contains contaminated soil excavated from SS14, while the cell at the Lower Camp contains soil from SS08 and SS15. A potential long-term health risk to humans and the environment exists. The petroleum contaminated soil poses a threat to on-site workers and visitors through ingestion and dermal contact. This removal action will reduce the concentrations of contaminants in the soil and therefore eliminate the risk of future exposure to human and ecological receptors.
The removal action alternative chosen was excavation and ex-situ bioremediation. Contaminated soil at the Truck Fill Stand (ST09) and at Waste Accumulation Area No. 1 (SS07} will be excavated. The contaminated soils will be transported to the treatment site for bioremediation. The excavated soils will be sampled and analyzed for levels of Polychlorinated Biphenyls, Diesel Range Organics, Gasoline Range Organics, total and individual Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, Xylenes, and lead prior to being placed in the treatment cells. Contaminated soil currently stored in the containment cells will be removed and treated by ex-situ bioremediation. |
Ray Burger |
| 3/13/1997 |
Interim Removal Action Approved |
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. Pathway: Soil is contaminated with petroleum, oil , and lubricants (POL) and minor amounts of PCBs. Receptors: Human - site workers and visitors. Ecological - land mammals (beaver) and fish (Dolly Varden, pink and chum salmon) are found in Fowler Creek, located adjacent to the drum storage area. |
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 has initial analytical data. |
S&W-Miner |
| 5/7/1997 |
Update or Other Action |
The original contaminated soil contained in the Biocells was excavated from SS08 Waste Accumulation Area (No. 3), SS15 Stockpile, and SS14 Drum Storage Area. Please provide a summary of the original positive laboratory analytical results and the Laboratory analyses performed within each area.
Specific Comments- 1.3 Scope of Work: Please include the schedule for general inspections of the biocells condition during field season operations. 1.5 Deviations from the Final Scope of Work: In bullet #2, the soil in Containment Cell 3 was removed and temporarily stockpiled during the replacement of the liner. Please provide the temporary stockpile construction details during this removal action. If secondary releases resulted from this action, please provide the characterization of the area(s). Please clarify whether Biocell 1 contains a sump, and provide the basis for the decision.
2.3 Operational Problems: It is stated that large quantities of water collected in the bottom of Biocell 3 as a result of the heavy rains during the soil and liner removal activities, and precipitation passing through the cover material during heavy rain and wind storms. Please include in the text what impacts, if any, the rains have had on Biocell 1. It is also stated that approximately 3,800 gallons of water was pumped from Biocell 3 and temporarily contained in a bladder and in 55-gallon drums. The water was reintroduced into the biocell during the system shutdown in September. Please include the impacts, if any, on the performance and eventual remediation goals of the treatment system.
It is stated that at the request of USACE,QA samples were not collected. Please note that the proper QA/QC procedures will be necessary for confirmation samples collected during the final biocell closure activities. Biocell 1 soil samples were collected at random depths ranging from 0.5 to 5.5 feet. Please include the rationale for this sampling scheme based on biocells with a height of 9 feet. It is stated that Biocell 3 soil samples were collected from the upper 2.5 feet due to the coarser-grained soil and refusal of the power and hand augers. Please clarify this statement, and include any potential problems in reaching the final remediation goals.
The EPA risk-based concentration data should be updated to the most current data available. |
Gretchen Pikul |
| 9/9/1997 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
The Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), DoD Oversight group, received the faxed analytical results for the post-treatment sample on September 8, 1997. The post-treatment sample was collected from the Cyclosorb unit utilized for the treatment of wastewater originating from Biocell #3. This initial post-treatment sample was collected and analyzed for EPA Methods 8310 and 8020A. Based on the information submitted, the Department does not object to discharging this containerized, treated water and the following treatment and sampling sequence is requested:
-Continue treatment of Biocell #3 wastewater and subsequent discharge of up to 20,000 gallons of the treated wastewater.
-A mid-point post-treatment sample should be collected for laboratory analysis, the wastewater treatment 'system operation should be suspended until the mid-point laboratory sample results are reviewed and approved by 611 CES/CEVR and the Department.
-If the mid-point laboratory sample results show acceptable levels for discharge, then the treatment system may be reactivated.
-A final confirmation sample should be collected once approximately 50,000 gallons of wastewater has been treated by the Cyclosorb unit. If the actual wastewater within Biocell #3 exceeds 50,000 gallons, the treatment system should again be suspended until additional samples are collected for laboratory analysis and the results are approved by 611 CES/CEVR and the Department. |
Gretchen Pikul |
| 10/16/2000 |
Meeting or Teleconference Held |
Staff met with communities of Chevak, Scammon Bay, Hooper Bay, Paimuit in Anchorage. Also present were the 611 CES-Environmental project manager, Community relations staff and the 611 CES Environmental Program Chief, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Alaska Community Action on Toxics, Yukon-Kusko Health staff. Community members called for the meeting to be updated on what has happened at the facility, present and future work. Also they wished to be informed on any possible effects of contamination 15 miles upriver from their seasonal fish camps on the beach below the facility and the contamination present at the facility. |
Louis Howard |
| 9/18/2001 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Clean Sweep Remedial Action Environmental Clean Up (Workplan) and A002 Sampling and Analysis Plan (Appendix C) Cape Romanzof Long Range Radar Site 2001 Contract #F41624-01-C-8072 reviewed and commented on by staff.
The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) has received the document on September 12, 2001 for review and comment.
4.3 Anticipated Corrective Actions and Assumptions Page 7 of 18
The text states that drums with product will probably contain POL products such as aviation gas, diesel fuel and lubricating oil. The assumption is incorrect since non-POL products may be present as well in one or more of the drams. The text also states that water without sheen will be immediately discharged on site. Having a sheen or not is one criteria that should be used, however there are other non-POL contaminants that do not exhibit a sheen and shall not be discharged directly to the lands or waters of the State without proper treatment. The 611 CES shall ensure that proper screening shall take place for all water present in containers prior to discharge.
4.5 Waste Management Plan Page 8 of 18
ADEC wishes to make the 611 CES aware that in order for the determination of whether or not a container is RCRA regulated, it must determine whether or not it is "hazardous debris." This determination is based on whether the container is intact and capable of containing 75% of its original volume. Per the definition of debris in 40 CFR 268.2, intact containers meeting these criteria are not debris. Therefore, intact containers can be rendered "RCRA empty" and thus non-regulated.
On the other hand, if the container is not intact, draining the remaining residual waste does not render it "RCRA empty.” Rather, because it is considered debris instead of a container, it must be decontaminated in order to be excluded from regulation as hazardous waste. Ruptured containers which are not capable of containing 75% of their original volume do not qualify for the RCRA empty exclusion and are regulated unless decontaminated or covered by another exclusion (such as if being legitimately recycled as scrap metal).
When managing corroded containers with residues of hazardous waste, do not automatically assume that it is excluded from regulation just because it contains less than an inch of residue. The RCRA empty exclusion applies only to intact containers.
4.5 Waste Management Plan: Drum Handling Pages 8 and 9 of 18
See comments regarding the disposal of water that does not exhibit any odor or sheen without further testing or field screening for hazardous waste characteristics. To determine whether a waste is in fact a hazardous waste, it is generally acceptable practice to apply user knowledge of the waste, although it may not be possible to accurately determine all the applicable waste codes without testing. However, it is generally not acceptable to categorize a waste as nonhazardous based solely on user knowledge of the waste.
|
Louis Howard |
| 6/30/2004 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Workplan approved for remedial investigation/feasibility study work at LF03 Landfill No. 2, SS13 Diesel Seep Area, SS15 UST Spill Area, ST09 Former Truck Fueling Station, SS14 Former Drum Storage Area and DP11 Towek Mountain Debris Area. 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 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 CR0, DRO, RRO, VOCs, PAHs, PCBs, and metals. Surface water and sediment samples will be collected from adjacent water bodies (Fowler Creek) to assess environmental impacts. Surface water and sediment samples will be analyzed for VOCs, PAHs, PCBs, and metals. Surface water samples will additionally be analyzed for TAH and TAqH. 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 2526.38.009 |
Aggie Blandford |
| 12/15/2004 |
Update or Other Action |
RI/FS Draft - Former Drum Storage Area SS14 Groundwater flow is to the west-southwest and has a gradient of 0.049 feet per foot.
Twenty-one soil borings were drilled at this site. Soil samples from these borings were field screened and submitted for laboratory analysis. Based on these results, approximately 755 to 1,500 cubic yards of DRO-contaminated soil is present at this site.
Three monitoring wells were installed and three surface water/sediment samples were taken at this site. Groundwater, surface water, and sediment do not appear to be adversely impacted (above cleanup levels) by the DRO soil contamination.
Metals were detected in soils, surface water, and sediment. Concentrations of these metals are within background range for Alaska and are seen, in similar magnitude, throughout the Cape Romanzof area.
SB08 had GRO at 616 mg/kg and DRO at 5780 mg/kg, SB15 had DRO at 3710 mg/kg and SB20 had DRO at 3800 mg/kg. Section 4.2.1 Soil Boring Table 4-1 states in soil description: Damp, brown, silty sand, stained, stressed vegetation. Field notes from 6/12/04 page 9 states: SB-8 had fuel odor, stained ground, stressed vegetation. Monitoring well and surface water samples taken from the site were non-detect for all contaminants of concern. |
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 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
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.
Introduction page 1 - The text states: “Petroleum detections at the four subject sites are below levels allowed by Alaska regulations and 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 State regulations, Institutional Controls (ICs) are proposed for these sites. The final actions proposed by USAF under Alaska State 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 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.”
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.”
ADEC requests the Air Force add text which prohibits the installation of water supply wells at ST09 and SS14 until levels meet those found in 18 AAC 75.345 Table C. Additionally, any residential land use is prohibited until the most stringent cleanup levels in 18 AAC 75.341 are achieved. Any excavation within these areas must include procedures to screen any excavated soils and provide for soil remediation contingency scenarios. Finally, ICs must include procedures to address any contaminated groundwater that is encountered will be managed properly (i.e. dewatering for construction within an area of groundwater contamination would need to be include proper treatment/disposal).
Proposed Remedy Page 24 - The text states: “Under Alaska State regulations, conditional site closure with ICs is proposed for Site DP011, because contamination at the site does not pose unacceptable potential risk to human health or the environment. However, contamination at the site is above levels allowed in Alaska State regulations for unrestricted use.”
ADEC requests the Air Force change the text to read: “Under Alaska’s contaminated site regulations, conditional site closure with ICs is proposed for Site DP011, because contamination at the site does not pose unacceptable potential risk to human health or the environment. However, contamination at the site is above 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.”
|
Louis Howard |
| 5/31/2007 |
CERCLA Proposed Plan |
Final Proposed Plan. This Proposed Plan1 discusses the final actions proposed for four (4) Environmental Restoration Program (ERP2) sites located at the Cape Romanzof Long-Range Radar Station (LRRS). (Cape Romanzof LRRS is not a CERCLA site; however the Air Force is following the CERCLA process & this is the most representative action available on the CS database.)
The four subject sites are: Waste Accumulation Area 1 (SS007), Former Truck Fueling Station Near Beach (ST009), Drum Storage Area (SS014), & Upper Camp Dump Area (DP011). Results from the most recent site investigation activities (2004 & 2005) show that the four subject sites do not pose unacceptable risk to human health or the environment. Therefore, the United States Air Force (USAF) is proposing no action at these four sites under its CERCLA authority.
Petroleum is excluded from CERCLA but is regulated under Alaska State Law. Petroleum detections at the four subject sites do not pose unacceptable risk to human health or the environment. However, because petroleum detections at SS014 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 ICs for SS014.
USAF provided an opportunity for the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to comment on this Proposed Plan; EPA declined to comment. The State of Alaska concurs with the actions proposed in this Plan; the State of Alaska’s final acceptance of the actions proposed in this Plan will be evaluated following public comment.
There are no other known GW intakes in use within the watershed. The shallow GW at SS014 is not considered drinking water due to saltwater intrusion, in accordance with the criteria provided in 18 AAC 75.350. SS014 Soil: For DRO & GRO in soil, site-specific ADEC Method Three cleanup levels calculated in the 2006 Site Characterization Report are proposed for SS014. For DRO, the Method Three cleanup level is 12,500 milligrams per kilogram (mg/Kg), & for GRO, the Method Three cleanup level is 1,400 mg/Kg. The Method Three cleanup levels represent the maximum allowable DRO & GRO cleanup levels under Alaska regulations; these cleanup levels are protective of the ingestion & inhalation pathways at SS014. ADEC Method Two cleanup levels are proposed for all other analytes in soil.
• SS014 GW: ADEC Table C GW cleanup levels are proposed for SS014 GW.
SS014 GW meets the criteria spelled out in 18 AAC 75.350 to classify GW as a non-drinking water source. However, USAF does not propose to modify the Table C GW cleanup levels under the ten times rule for SS014, because contamination levels detected in SS014 GW were below Table C GW cleanup levels.
|
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 |
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).
Although contamination at the Drum Storage Area (SS014) does not pose unacceptable potential
risk to human health or the environment, soil is 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).
The RAOs for SS014 are listed below:
a) Restrict direct contact with petroleum-contaminated subsurface soil and document that
petroleum hydrocarbons in surface and subsurface soil exceed levels protective of
unrestricted use.
b) Restrict excavation and transportation of contaminated soil to prevent migration of
contaminants.
In order to achieve RAOs (a) and (b), USAF will implement the remedy outlined below.
1. Institutional Controls (ICs)-ICs are an integral part of the selected remedy and are required to meet RAOs (a) and (b) 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 subsurface soil and document (for
waste management purposes in the event of subsurface activities) that soil impact exceeds ADEC
Method Two cleanup levels protective of unrestricted use.
The ICs will consist of excavation and construction restrictions within the SS014 site boundaries, documentation that soil is impacted above levels allowing unrestricted use, and a requirement that future land use remains non-residential.
USAF will implement the ICs at SS014 by taking the following actions:
• Delineate the boundaries of soil with DRO or GRO 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 from the Site.
• Notify ADEC prior to making any major changes to the ICs. The 611th CES is the point of contact for the IC.
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 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.
This 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.
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 |
Cleanup Level(s) Approved |
In the 2008 signed Record of Decision: Site-specific ADEC Method Three cleanup levels (calculated in the 2006 Site Characterization Report) were selected for DRO and GRO in SS014 soil. For DRO, the Method Three cleanup level is 12,500 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 SS014, based on non-residential use. ADEC Method Two cleanup levels were selected for all other analytes in soil.
The groundwater cleanup levels for SS014 groundwater are the Table C groundwater cleanup
levels. Although USAF and ADEC agree that the groundwater at SS014 meets the criteria
spelled out in 18 AAC 75.350 to classify groundwater as a non-drinking water source,
groundwater contamination at SS014 does NOT exceed Table C groundwater cleanup levels, so
the “ten times rule” was not used to establish groundwater cleanup levels at SS014.
2.7.5.2 Contamination Extent-Based on the 2004 sample results, there is no contamination remaining above applicable cleanup levels at site SS014. 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 concentrations detected were below Table C cleanup levels.
DRO in soil exceeds the ADEC Method Two cleanup level for unrestricted use in some portions of the site.
In 2004, soil samples were collected from 21 soil borings and one monitoring well borehole
and field-screened using a PID. The soil samples were collected from depths of 1.5 feet bgs, 2.5 feet bgs, and 3 feet bgs. Most (18) of the samples were also analyzed for GRO, DRO, RRO, metals, PCBs, PAHs, and VOCs; results are summarized below.
• DRO were detected in11 of 18 soil samples, at concentrations ranging from 25.2 mg/Kg to 5,780 mg/Kg. All DRO detections were below the 12,500 mg/Kg Method Three cleanup level; however, DRO results in six soil samples exceeded the Method Two cleanup level of 250 mg/Kg: SB-7 at 2.5 feet bgs (831 mg/Kg), SB-8 at 2 feet bgs (5,780 mg/Kg), SB-14 at 1.5 feet bgs (643 mg/Kg), SB-15 at 1.5 feet bgs (3,710 mg/Kg), SB-16 at 1.5 feet bgs (554 mg/Kg), and SB-20 at 1.5 feet bgs (3,800 mg/Kg).
• GRO were detected in 7 of 18 soil samples, at concentrations ranging from 3.15 mg/Kg to 616 mg/Kg. All GRO detections were below the 1,400 mg/Kg Method Three cleanup level; however, GRO results in one soil sample exceeded the Method Two cleanup level of 300 mg/Kg: SB-8 at 2 feet bgs (616 mg/Kg).
• PCBs and VOCs were not detected above laboratory reporting limits in any of the samples.
• PAHs were detected only at concentrations below 1/10 of the ADEC Method Two cleanup levels.
• Although arsenic and chromium were detected at concentrations above their Method Two cleanup levels, the detections represent naturally-occurring background levels. |
Louis Howard |
| 2/27/2008 |
Institutional Control Record Established |
Institutional Controls established and entered into the database. USAF will implement, monitor, maintain, and enforce the ICs identified below in accordance with Alaska’s contaminated site regulations. The purpose of the ICs is to help prevent inappropriate handling of groundwater
contaminated above ADEC Table C cleanup levels at ST009 and help prevent the future handling of petroleum-contaminated soil inconsistent with State of Alaska’s contaminated site regulations.
The specific ICs proposed for the subject sites are listed below.
• At ST009, the installation of water supply wells will be prohibited within the site boundaries as long as the aquifer fails ADEC Table C cleanup levels protective of drinking water.
• At ST009, SS014, and DP011, the presence of soil impact above levels allowing unrestricted use will be documented. Any excavation within these areas must include procedures to
screen any excavated soils and provide for soil remediation contingency scenarios. Any contaminated groundwater that is encountered will be managed properly (i.e. dewatering for
construction within an area of groundwater contamination would need to include proper treatment/disposal).
USAF proposes to implement the ICs by taking the following actions.
• Delineate the boundaries of soil with DRO above Method Two cleanup levels at sites ST009, SS014, and DP011 to obtain a property description suitable for recording purposes.
• Use USAF’s dig permit and construction review system to restrict incompatible activities from Site ST009.
• Document the ICs in USAF’s Real Property records and in the Record of Decision for ST009, SS014, and DP011 (which will be available in the Administrative Record). The Real Property records will contain a map indicating IC locations. Appropriate notice will be filed with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
• Notify ADEC prior to making any major changes to the ICs. The 611th Civil Engineer Squadron/Civil Engineer (CES/CE) is the point of contact for the ICs.
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. |
Louis Howard |
| 2/27/2008 |
Cleanup Complete Determination Issued |
John Halverson (ADEC) signs the Record of Decision for 4 ERP Sites which include SS014.
By signing this declaration the ADEC concurs with the Air Force's selected remedies. 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.
No remedial action is necessary under CERCLA to ensure protection of human health and the
environment at any of the four ERP sites addressed in this ROD (SS007, ST009, SS014, and
DP011). There have been no CERCLA hazardous substances identified as COCs at the sites.
Because there are no CERCLA hazardous substances above levels that allow for unrestricted use
at any of the four subject Sites, there is no statutory requirement for a five-year review.
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).
Conditional Site Closure with ICs-Although contamination at the Drum Storage Area (SS014) does not pose unacceptable potential risk to human health or the environment, soil is 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). |
John Halverson |
| 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 Romanof General Information/Correspondence. This file contains documents that may pertain to all of the Cape Romanof sites before they were established as individual sites. |
Natalie Loescher |
| 4/19/2013 |
Update or Other Action |
2nd FYR for Cape Romanzof received.
Extreme weather conditions prevented safe access to perform environmental monitoring.
Recommendation: Site status is Cleanup Complete with ICs; ICs (the selected remedy) appeared protective as intended by the ROD. Continue ongoing monitoring and schedule the second Five-Year
Review.
On 21 August 2012 and 29 March 2013, Jacobs conducted a Periodic Review site inspection.
Based on limited 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. However, extreme weather conditions and limited visibility prevented full access to the site at the time of inspections.
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.
10.5 SS014 Drum Storage Area
Page 10-12
Question A: Is the remedy functioning as intended by the Decision Document?
Remedial Actions: “The results of the August 2012 site inspection and review…”
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…”
Page 10-13
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 10-14
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 SS014.
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 |
| 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 The ICs will consist of excavation and construction restrictions within the SS014
site boundaries, documentation that soil is impacted above levels allowing unrestricted use, and a requirement that future land use remains nonresidential.
USAF will implement the ICs at SS014 by taking the following actions:
* Delineate the boundaries of soil with DRO or GRO 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 from the Site.
* Notify ADEC prior to making any major changes to the ICs. The 611Ith CES is the point of contact for the IC. |
Louis Howard |
| 11/16/2018 |
CERCLA ROD Periodic Review |
Staff reviewed the above document. DEC will approve the changes in the redline version of the Third CERCLA Five-Year Review and Third Non-CERCLA Periodic Review Report for sites-DP011, LF003, SS010, SS013, SS014, SS015, SS016, SS017 and ST009 At Cape Romanzof Long Range Radar Site (aka Station). DEC approves the redline version and all the comments which were incorporated into the document. |
Louis Howard |
| 6/19/2020 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Approved Supplemental Work Plan, 2020 Remedial Action Operations, Land/Use/Institutional Control, Cape Romanzof LRRS, May 2020. |
Darren Mulkey |
| 1/22/2021 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
DEC reviewed the "Draft 2020 Remedial Action Operations, Land Use/Institutional Control Technical Project Report, Cape Romanzof Long Range Radar Station (LRRS)" dated January 2021, and returned comments to the U.S. Air Force. Main comments were to ensure all results and recommendations in the report were included in the conclusions section. The technical project report describes performed environmental long-term management activities including groundwater monitoring well repair, decommissioning, installation and survey at sites LF003, ST009, SS010, SS013, SS014, SS015, SS016, SS017. |
Axl LeVan |
| 1/26/2021 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
DEC reviewed and approved the "Final 2020 Remedial Action Operations, Land Use/Institutional Control Technical Project Report, Cape Romanzof Long Range Radar Station (LRRS)" dated January 2021, and returned comments to the U.S. Air Force. The technical project report describes performed environmental long-term management activities including groundwater monitoring well repair, decommissioning, installation and survey at sites LF003, ST009, SS010, SS013, SS014, SS015, SS016, SS017. |
Axl LeVan |
| 9/13/2022 |
CERCLA SI |
On 9/13/2022 ADEC approved the FINAL Quality Assurance Project Plan, Off-Base Drinking Water Site Inspections and Miscellaneous Tasks, Three U.S. AF Long Range Radar Stations, Alaska, Dated September 2022. The objective of the Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) is to provide a response action for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)-impacted drinking water for areas surrounding three remote U.S. Air Force (USAF) Installations, Cape Romanzof Long Range Radar Station (LRRS), Indian Mountain LRRS and Sparrevohn LRRS. The project goals are to determine if off-site migration of polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) has potentially impacted off-site groundwater and surface water used as drinking water used by residences or commercial businesses, and if a response action will be needed and required for applicable PFAS impacted drinking water sources. The USEPA Lifetime Health Advisory levels for perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), and the sum of the concentrations (PFOS+PFOA) of 70 nanograms per liter (ng/L) will be used as the action level for drinking water sources (both groundwater and surface water). |
Axl LeVan |
| 5/16/2023 |
CERCLA SI |
DEC reviewed and approved the "Final Site Inspection and No Further Response Action Planned Report for Per and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances at Cape Romanzof Long Range Radar Station, Alaska, May 2023." The Site Inspection (SI) report for Cape Romanzof Long Range Radar Station (LRRS) has been prepared to report the results of activities performed as part of the SI and recommend future activities at the installation. The report recommended an Remedial investigation at FTA #1, Non-FTA No.4 – Landfill No. 4, and Non-FTA No.6 – Biocell 3. It also recommended No Further Response Action Planned at Non-FTA No. 1 – Spill/Leak No. 7, Non-FTA No. 2 – Landfill No. 2, Non-FTA No. 3 – Landfill No. 3, and Non-FTA No. 5 – Landfill No. 5. DEC agreed with the recommendations. |
Axl LeVan |
| 12/8/2023 |
CERCLA ROD Periodic Review |
DEC reviewed and provided comments on the "Draft 2023 Five-Year Review Report for DP011, LF003, SS010, SS013, SS014, SS015, SS016, SS017, ST009, and OB942 at Cape Romanzof Long Range Radar Station, Alaska, November 2023". The purpose of a Five-Year Review (FYR) is to evaluate the implementation and performance of a remedy in order to determine if the remedy is and will continue to be protective of human health and the environment. This report is the first FYR for OB942. |
Axl LeVan |
| 1/30/2024 |
CERCLA ROD Periodic Review |
DEC reviewed and approved the "Final 2023 Five-Year Review Report for DP011, LF003, SS010, SS013, SS014, SS015, SS016, SS017, ST009, and OB942 at Cape Romanzof Long Range Radar Station, Alaska, January 2024". All DEC comments were addressed by the revised version of the document. |
Axl LeVan |
| 7/8/2024 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
DEC reviewed and approved the "Final 2023 Remedial Action Operations Land Use/Institutional Control Report, Cape Romanzof Long Range Radar Station, Alaska, June 12th." The report presents the results of the long term monitoring program at Cape Romanzof LRRS. |
Axl LeVan |
| 2/28/2025 |
Update or Other Action |
DEC reviewed and provided comments on Notice of Use and Activity Limitations (NAULs) at six Cape Romanzof Sites (SS013, DP011, SS014, SS015, SS017, and ST009). |
Axl LeVan |
