| Action Date |
Action |
Description |
DEC Staff |
| 12/30/1988 |
Update or Other Action |
UST Database shows a 300 gallon UST # 56 installed in 1985 at Bldg. 36012 Power Plant to be leaking and is still in use. |
Ron Klein |
| 9/28/1989 |
Update or Other Action |
Leaking underground storage tank was identified in 1987 and removed in 1989. Approximately 230 cubic yards of petroleum contaminated soil were excavated and stockpiled. Sampling indicated residual contamination remained. |
John Halverson |
| 3/28/1990 |
Update or Other Action |
Letter sent to Jennifer Roberts RE: Memorandum for the Record-UST Remediation Phase III. This memorandum references a meeting between Jennifer Roberts and John Halverson and Lori Tussy Lay, this office, March 13, 1990 regarding UST remediation. Seven USTs were removed in 1989. Excavation of soil was to proceed until the excavation site was free of contamination (less than 50 ppm TPH for fuel and less than 100 ppm for TPH for waste oil). However, in most cases, a clean reading could not be obtained. Due to contract obligations, the ADEC allowed the sites to be backfilled with the understanding the Army would further remediate at another time.
ADEC required for Tank No.56 at bldg. 36012, 3 borings be installed. Each boring will be screened and recorded every 5 ft. with a portable photoionization device. Each boring will be 26-30 ft. deep and a soil sample taken at this point. |
Jennifer Roberts |
| 7/31/1990 |
Update or Other Action |
In the summer of 1990 COE installed 4 soil borings and encountered groundwater 8 to 14' below ground surface. 4 additional borings were indicated on site diagram but no data was provided. NO information was provided on sampling dates, holding times, sample collection procedures, limits of excavation work in comparison to soil boring locations. No actual lab reports or QA/QC info was provided. |
John Halverson |
| 10/26/1990 |
Update or Other Action |
Underground storage tank (UST) 56, a 1000 gallon gasoline storage tank, was removed and replaced in September 1990 with UST 56A. Samples taken during the removal contained residual range organics (RRO), benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene and xylene (BTEX), and benzene at 629 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg), 54.5 mg/kg and 1.9 mg/kg, respectively. The release investigation consisted of two (2) soil borings up to 22 feet below ground surface (bgs). Samples were found to contain RRO up to 280 mg/kg and methyl ethyl ketone (MEK) up to 0.018 mg/kg. |
John Halverson |
| 5/15/1991 |
Update or Other Action |
CENPA-EN-G-M (200-1c) May 15, 1991, MEMORANDUM FOR CENPA-EN-MB-A SUBJECT: Sampling Report, Underground Storage Tank Remediation, Fort Richardson, AK recieved. The objective of the project was to obtain data for closure of the UST sites in accordance with the requirements of Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC). To close the sites, the ADEC has required soil borings to check for POL contamination and to determine if further excavation is. required for clean up where underground storage tanks (UST) were removed.
Although there are no regulatory cleanup levels for metals in soils, the presence of high lead levels could indicate the presence of leaded motor fuel. In addition, there are restrictions on soils that are to be placed in landfills. TCLP MCLs are included in Table I for comparison with landfill restrictions. Because of test methodology and reporting parameters, TCLP metal
results cannot exceed limits unless total metals exceed 10 times TCLP limits. Enclosure 1 demonstrates the mathematical logic.
Soil contaminant levels were below laboratory detection levels for fuels, kerosene, gasoline, diesel fuel #2, jet fuel (as jet A), and bunker oil. Volatile organics range from below laboratory detection limit to a numeric high level of 240 ug ethylbenzene per Kg of soil (ug/Kg) near the surface of BH-5 (AP-2974). Site observations indicated highest contamination levels were near the top of existing groundwater, 12-18 feet below ground surfaces.
|
John Halverson |
| 7/2/1991 |
Update or Other Action |
Ground-Water Quality Surv No. 38-26-K986-91, 24 Jun - 2 Jul 91: c. SWMU's Requiring No Further Action: Solid Waste Management Units within the Fort Richardson Power Plant (SWMU's 104-114) are located in Building 36012, and have a low release potential. Air emissions are regulated by the operating permit and are not likely to release hazardous constituents during operation of the coal-fired units, which is on a standby basis. SWMU #62: Waste Accumulation Area Near Bldg. 36012.
SWMUs 104-107: Multiclone Precipitator #1 - #4, 108: Ash Hoppers, 109: Air Wash Unit #1, 110: Air Wash Unit #2, 111: Sludge Tank #1, 112: Sludge Tank #2, 113: Cyclone Separator #1 and 114: Cyclone Separator #2. |
Louis Howard |
| 1/1/1992 |
Site Added to Database |
|
John Halverson |
| 1/27/1993 |
Update or Other Action |
Memorandum ENSR GW results for FRA & Greely MW Network Sampling to Jane Smith 6th ID DPW APVR-DE-PSE. The groundwater from monitoring wells AP-2982, AP-2984, AP-2985, and AP-2986 was not analyzed for benzene concentrations. It is ENSR’s recommendation that the drums containing the purge water from these wells be sampled and analyzed for benzene and disposed of properly. If DPW does not wish to sample each drum, all drums should be disposed of as a D-019 hazardous waste. Previous sampling results indicate that only the groundwater from monitoring well AP-2982, would likely fail the TCLP limits and be considered a hazardous waste
During the field sampling several potential problems were noted. Monitoring wells AP-2974
(at the Power Plant) and monitoring well AP-2980 (at building 702) have been damaged and cannot be used. It was reported to ENSR personnel that these wells were to be used as part of Fort Richardson’s release detection system for underground storage tanks. If this is still the case, these wells should be replaced or an alternate means of leak detection installed. Regardless of the use, the existing wells should be abandoned in accordance with state regulations. |
Louis Howard |
| 9/21/1993 |
Update or Other Action |
A.G. letter (Breck Tostevin) to Tamela J. Tobia, OS Judge Advocate for the Army. Letter states that a separate petroleum site compliance agreement should be separate from the CERCLA federal facility agreement. The petroleum site restoration agreement would function as a "two-party agreement" under the FFA. It would track the basic provisions of the UST Agreement but be tailored to the State's contaminated site regulations and would interface with the FFA. All petroleum sites addressed under the Two Party agreement would be reviewed in the final operable unit of the FFA and actions taken would be memorialized in a Record of Decision (ROD) under the FFA. |
Louis Howard |
| 5/4/1994 |
Update or Other Action |
Site still in use, not out of compliance. No data available to allow ranking. |
John Halverson |
| 5/6/1994 |
Update or Other Action |
A release investigation (RI) was conducted by EMCON Alaska, Inc., consisting of two (2) borings ranging in depth from 19 feet bgs to 22 feet bgs. TPH up to 280 mg/kg and MEK up to 0.018 mg/kg (*10/1/2017 18 AAC 75 MTG = 15 mg/kg) were the only analytes detected. |
Louis Howard |
| 5/16/1994 |
Site Closure Approved |
Staff received the April 1994 Draft UST release investigation for Bldg. 36012, UST 56, on May 6, 1994.
The Alaska Department.of Environmental Conservation-Defense Facilities Oversight group (ADEC) has received, on May 6, 1994, a copy of the above referenced report for building 36012. Below are our comments regarding the document.
2.2 Geology and Hydrogeology page 5
The text states there are four wells located within one-quarter mile of the site. There was no reference in the report to exactly where the wells are located in relation to the site (i.e. north, south, or east of the site). Please include the location on the four wells in the Post Map.
5 Remedial Alternatives page 19
ADEC concurs that the level B cleanup criteria was not exceeded at this site and will consider the site closed out. However, closing out of this site does not limit nor preclude ADEC from requesting future remediation or site investigation at a later date. If new information indicates that there is previously undiscovered contamination or exposures that may cause risk to human health or the environment, then future investigation and/or remedial actions may be required by ADEC. |
Louis Howard |
| 6/9/1997 |
Update or Other Action |
This decision document describes the rationale for No Further Remedial Action Planned (NFRAP) at Bldg 36-012, Fort Richardson, Alaska. This action has been chosen in accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA), the National Contingency Plan (NCP), the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and Army Regulation 200-1, as applicable.
Bldg 36-012, the Fort Richardson Power Plant, located on Arctic Valley Road was constructed in 1963. Underground storage tank (UST) 56, a 1000 gallon gasoline storage tank, was removed and replaced in September 1990. Samples taken during the removal contained residual range organics (RRO), benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene and xylene (BTEX), and benzene at 629 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg), 54.5 mg/kg and 1.9 mg/kg, respectively. The release investigation consisted of two (2) soil borings up to 22 feet below ground surface (bgs). Samples were found to contain RRO up to 280 mg/kg and methyl ethyl ketone (MEK) up to 0.018 mg/kg. UST 56 received closure from the State of Alaska, Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) on 5 May 1994. |
Louis Howard |
| 4/21/1998 |
Site Ranked Using the AHRM |
Ranking action added now because it was not added when the site was originally ranked. |
Bill Petrik |
| 11/22/2002 |
GIS Position Updated |
Verified current coordinates using the TopoZone utility. Coordinates are accurate and better than those offered by Mike Crotteauof the Wellhead Protection Program. |
Former Staff |
| 12/31/2012 |
Update or Other Action |
Preliminary Assessment / Site Inspection Report Task 2,Prepared for: Doyon Utilities, by Tutka under Contract no. J102030.
AOC -01 New Transformers: Soil Sample 1.6’ bgs- 2,6-Dintrotoluene 220 ug/kg (9.4 ug/kg) sample 12CHPP001SO01AOC01. From 1.7’ bgs: Barium 2,300 mg/kg (MTGW 1,100 mg/kg) sample 12CHPP002SO01AOC01
AOC-02 Old Transformers: Soil sample 1.8’ bgs-Diesel range organics (DRO) 310 mg/kg (250 mg/kg) Sample 12CHPP205SO01AOC02. From 1.5' bgs: DRO 5,400 mg/kg (250 mg/kg) Sample 12CHPP008SO01AOC02 (from stained area that extended off the concrete pad of the transformer), PCBs 1.5 mg/kg (1 mg/kg) Sample 12CHPP008SO01AOC02
AOC-4 bermed area around the 50,000-gallon AST used previously to store fuel oil. From Soil 1.5’ bgs Benzene 42 ug/kg (25 ug/kg) Sample 12CHPP002SO01AOC04 from base of AST where line had been disconnected. From Soil 1.2’ bgs: DRO 270 mg/kg (250 mg/kg) Sample 12CHPP003SO01AOC04
AOC-05 location of the oil/water separator on the northern edge of the property that is connected to the outgoing sewer line from the CHPP. Soil 1.3’ bgs: Benzene 72 ug/kg (25 ug/kg) Sample 12CHPP001SO01AOC05, DRO 420 mg/kg (250 mg/kg) Sample 12CHPP002SO01AOC05. From 3.0’ bgs: Benzene 58 (sample 12CHPP001SO02AOC05) & 150 ug/kg (25 ug/kg) Sample 12CHPP002SO01AOC05
AOC-06-Acid Vent exterior ground adjacent to the interior sulfuric acid storage that has discolored & missing paint on the wall & surrounding soil with no vegetation growth. From 1.0’ bgs: Sample 12CHPP001SO01AOC06 Pentachlorophenol 140 ug/kg (47 ug/kg), PCBs 1.2 mg/kg (1 mg/kg), Lead 530 mg/kg (400 mg/kg)
AOC-07 area around the ash hopper, particularly to the north where asphaltic pavement ends. Barium 2,400 mg/kg (1,100 mg/kg) Sample 12CHPP002SO01AOC07, Lead 780 mg/kg (400 mg/kg) Sample 12CHPP001SO01AOC07
AOC-08 Building 36012 Perimeter Drip Line: Sample 12CHPP005SO01AOC08 Lead 2,200 mg/kg (400 mg/kg), Mercury 4.1 m/kg (1.4 mg/kg), Barium 1,700 mg/kg (1,100 mg/kg) Sample 12CHPP001SO01AOC08
AOC-09 remaining coal predominately beneath the fill which varies up to four feet thick to the west of the CHPP building From 0.8’ bgs: QC Duplicate Sample 2CHPP201SO01AOC09 use the higher duplicate not the primary sample.
DRO 3,300 mg/kg (Primary 1,800 mg/kg) (250 mg/kg), Benzene 1,100 ug/kg (Primary 970 ug/kg) (25 ug/kg), 1-Methylnaphthalene 21,000 ug/kg (Primary 11,000 ug/kg)(6,200 ug/kg), 2-Methylnaphthalene 24,000 (Primary 13,000 ug/kg) (6,100 ug/kg)
Recommendations: It is recommended that further sampling be done in AOC-02, Old Transformers, AOC-04, the AST, AOC-05, the OWS, & AOC-09, the coal, based on the detected Benzene & DRO above Project Action Limits. All the organic detections above cleanup are single detections so the vertical or horizontal extent of any contamination cannot be determined based solely on existing data. Based on the results from the limited number of vertically stacked soil samples, contamination above Project Action Limits appear to be limited mostly to the very near surface.
The only detection above Project Action Limits in any of the deeper soil samples was in the one deeper sample at the OWS (12CHPP001SO02AOC05) at 3.0 feet bgs with a value of 58 mg/Kg of Benzene. None of the other paired samples had a detection above the Project Action Limits in the deeper sample.
The building Drip Line (AOC-08) showed elevated Lead, Arsenic, & Mercury above presumed background in one of the eight drip line samples (12CHPP005SO01AOC05). Therefore during demolition of this building care will need to be exercised to collect any soil containing paint chips that likely contain lead levels above Project Action Limits. PCBs were detected above Project Action Limits in two samples – one from AOC-02 & one from AOC-06. These are presumed to be from PCB-containing transformer oil in the former & PCB-containing paint in the latter. Some of this additional sampling may be done as portions or components such as the AST are demolished & removed from the site.
|
Louis Howard |
| 4/30/2013 |
Update or Other Action |
Hazardous Materials Environmental Survey, Task 1 Prepared for MWH, Doyon Utilities by WEC, Inc. dated April 2013. The Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson (JBER) Central Heat & Power Plant (CHPP) is planned for demolition. To support that effort a comprehensive hazardous materials survey (Survey) was conducted by White Environmental Consultants Inc. (WEC).
Asbestos containing materials (ACM) including asbestos containing thermal systems insulation (TSI) was found throughout the facility on the boilers, tanks, & piping. ACM was also found in roofing felts, gaskets, window glazing compounds, joint compounds, flooring, mastics & other miscellaneous adhesives. All TSI must be abated & removed from the building prior to demolition. Other non-friable materials may remain in the structure during demolition but the demolition waste steam containing ACM must be properly handled, packaged, & manifested for disposal as Asbestos. ACM may be disposed of in Alaska, with the closest permitted landfill being the Anchorage Regional Landfill approximately 5 miles northeast of the CHPP.
Lead-based paint (LBP) was identified throughout the CHPP on painted building components including structural steel, gratings, railings, piping, equipment, concrete floors & building skin. All of these components were sampled & analyzed for lead in paint by either X-ray fluorescence analyzer or confirmation laboratory analysis. The majority of these samples showed lead is present in most painted components. The presence of LBP will impact the means & methods for demolition. The majority of the LBP components (structural steel, tanks, piping, etc.) can be recycled which would minimize landfilling of wastes. However, many of the painted surfaces also contain PCBs, which requires special handling & additional disposal requirements.
PCBs in Concrete: Concrete core samples from one limited area had detections of PCBs at concentrations that are regulated. All other concrete core samples had either no detections of PCBs or detections of PCBs at concentrations that are below regulated limits.
PCBs in Paint: PCBs were found in approximately 70% of paint samples collected. The paints on the exterior skin of the structure are at concentrations that exceed the definition of PCB bulk product waste-50 ppm. The structural components & most other painted surfaces including concrete floors, piping,& tanks are at concentration greater than 1 ppm but less than 50 ppm. At these concentrations the paint is not a PCB bulk product waste. However, Painted metal components containing PCBs greater than 1 ppm may be recycled but must be shipped to smelters in the contiguous U.S. that are permitted to handle PCB bulk product waste. PCB containing paint on pipe & tank insulation jackets which contain ACM will be required to be either removed from the ACM insulation jackets, or the entirety of the waste stream classified as a combination PCB bulk waste & asbestos waste.
Five of the analyzed paint samples fit this description (Table 4-4: 515 mg/kg, 500 mg/kg, 381 mg/kg, 87.5 mg/kg 109 mg/kg). Four of the samples with concentrations greater than 50 ppm were from the paint on the exterior steel siding of the structure. This material can be recycled but must be shipped to smelters that are permitted to handle PCB bulk product waste. The fifth sample location with a sample result greater than 50 ppm was collected from the green window casing on the second floor- east side windows
Elemental mercury was used in gauges, instruments & other equipment in the CHPP. Small beads of elemental mercury were observed in locations throughout the CHPP, particularly within instrument cabinets & near areas of known releases. Mercury was also observed in the basement near & within the pipe well areas, & are readily noticeable when the covers to the pipe wells are lifted. It is presumed that mercury has fallen or drained into the pipe well areas over time. However, the precise volume cannot be determined until removal actions occur. Clean-up of the elemental mercury should occur as the first step of the remediation to minimize further spreading of this material. Clean-up procedures include vacuuming with specially designed, mercury specific vacuums of all visible mercury. Additional cleaning with mercury adsorbent powders will likely be required. Within the pipe wells clean-up may need to be phased as piping is demolished to access the mercury spill areas.
Water from the basement condensate tank was found to contain trace amounts of organics & metals. This water will require filtration & treatment with activated carbon prior to being acceptable for disposal into the sanitary sewer. Sludge from the bottom of the sub-basement sump was found to contain mercury at levels requiring cleanup, according to Alaska regulation 18 AAC 75. After the water is pumped, filtered, treated, & disposed, the remaining sludge should be placed into waste drums for disposal as hazardous waste. |
Louis Howard |
| 12/1/2015 |
Update or Other Action |
Draft Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson Central Heat and Power Plant Abatement and Encapsulation Work Plan dated December 1, 2015 received for review and comment. The scope of work includes removal of loose, flaking paint from the exterior surfaces and recoating the surfaces with a water-based alkyd paint system.
The painted exterior metal siding of the CHPP is currently flaking and peeling as a result of long-term ultra violet (UV) exposure and adhesion failure. Results from a 2012 survey indicate that the exterior painted metal siding of the CHPP meets the definition of both lead-based paint (LBP) and a polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) bulk product waste. LBP is defined per 15 U.S. Code §2681(9) as being >1.0 milligram per square centimeter (mg/cm2) lead or 5,000 parts per million (ppm), or 0.5% by weight. PCB bulk waste is defined per 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 761.3 as > 50 ppm PCBs, or 50 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg).
The exterior steel and concrete surfaces are to be blast cleaned per SSPC-SP 12, High-Pressure Water Cleaning and Low-Pressure Water Cleaning. Wood trim and window frames will be cleaned by Low-Pressure Water Cleaning or manual paint removal, as necessary, to ensure a proper base for painting. Particular care will be taken around window frames to avoid damage.
Tasks included under paint removal include pressure washing of exterior surfaces and management and disposal of all wastes generated, including hazardous wastes (solid and/or liquid), personal protective equipment (PPE), general construction wastes, and the discharge of allowable water to sanitary sewer based on JBER discharge limits.
All of the surfaces to be high-pressure washed are painted with lead/PCB containing paint. Lead/PCB containing paint will only be removed to the extent that a sound substrate is obtained for the new coating system to adhere. The maximum pressure to be used during high-pressure washing will be 6,000 pounds per square inch (psi). Again, the removal of the lead/PCB paint will be performed in a contained, regulated work area demarcated with lead/PCB warning tape and lead/PCB warning signs as specified in Section 4 of this Work Plan.
See site file for additional information. |
Louis Howard |
| 12/14/2015 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Staff provided comments on the Draft Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson Central Heat and Power Plant Abatement and Encapsulation Work Plan dated December 1, 2015.
Staff requested additional information be provided regarding the soil that is now contaminated with PCB/Pb paint chips that flaked off due to age and weathering. Staff requested that the work be conducted and reported by a qualified environmental professional as defined by 18 AAC 75.333. Staff also requested that the document clarify what constitutes an acceptable discharge limit for the filtered water used in the pressure washing operations to the local sewer system.
See site file for additional information. |
Louis Howard |
| 12/30/2015 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
EPA comments on the abatement & encapsulation work plan for the CHPP building. The workplan states the PCB contaminated paint falls under the category of bulk product waste. The paint that has flaked off of the building is a bulk product waste. However the paint on the building is unauthorized for continued use, as the Toxic Control Substance Act (TSCA) does not allow for the continued use of paint with concentrations of PCBs exceeding 50 ppm as defined in 40 CFR 761.30.
The basic premise that the renovation will only remove flaking paint & then apply a sealant to PCB paint >50 ppm is incompatible with TSCA. The workplan does not address how soils contaminated with flaking PCB & lead paint will be characterized, & if necessary, remediated. It is suggested additional investigation be conducted to determine the extent & nature of contaminated soils & groundwater in proximity to the building.
Based on the lead levels found in the preliminary sampling results presented in the work plan, we would expect the waste to meet the hazardous waste characteristic designation criteria for lead. It appears that the plan provides for collection of all waste generated. The plan says that waste will be managed in compliance with RCRA generator rules at 40CFR262, but it does not give specific details.
The waste should be managed as D008 hazardous waste. It should be accumulated in containers or tanks that are RCRA compliant including appropriate labeling. It should be shipped offsite to an appropriate waste management facility in less than 90 days or placed in a permitted storage unit on site. Any spills or releases should be cleaned up immediately. Any that aren’t cleaned up immediately would be considered illegal disposal.
The workplan states PCB Paints §761.79 is applicable as it covers specifically, “non-porous surfaces covered with a porous material surface, such as paint or coating on metal.” The metal underneath the PCB Paint is what is covered by 761.79. The PCB paints are regulated under the previous citation of 761.62
EPA Oct 2014 Memorandum on PCB Product Waste Reinterpretation is only applicable if the intent is to dispose of the metal siding, with the paint still adhered.
In regard to the standard as 40 CFR 761.61 (4)(ii): The scenario in this work plan does not describe remediation waste, nor is it an application for self-implementing remediation cleanup- so the reference is invalid & the cleanup level is also invalid. The decontamination standard for a non-porous surface coated by non-liquid PCBs is defined above (761.79 - visual standard N. 2, near-white blast cleaned surface finish) & is what applies to this situation.
The workplan states any remaining paint will be tightly adhered. Under TSCA, the condition of the paint is not relevant. Ongoing use of Non-Liquid PCBs is unauthorized. EPA did not comment on the remainder of sections 2.3 & 2.4 as they relate to an activity deemed to be incompatible with TSCA.
See site file for additional information. |
Louis Howard |
| 2/9/2016 |
Site Reopened |
Site reopened in order to update the site record. |
Evonne Reese |
| 2/9/2016 |
Exposure Tracking Model Ranking |
Initial ranking with ETM completed for source area id: 72463 name: auto-generated pm edit Ft. Rich Bldg. 36012 UST 56 |
Louis Howard |
| 5/16/2016 |
Meeting or Teleconference Held |
Conf. call with EPA, JBER, DOYON & ADEC staff. Discussed total demolition vs. encapsulation of siding and paint as originally proposed. Interim measures will be to sample sediment basins near building for PCBs and lead contamination as well as seeking funding to do total demolition instead of encapsulation of paint on siding. Demo to 12' bgs and 1 mg/kg total PCBs as well as all asbestos for the entire structure. |
Louis Howard |
| 9/7/2017 |
Meeting or Teleconference Held |
Environmental Management, Inc (EMI) has drafted two separate contaminated soil plans to address excavation, sampling, and management of these soils. Because PCB Remediation Waste was identified at the site, (two locations above 1ppm), a separate PCB soil contamination plan has been prepared for EPA approval per 40 CFR 761.61 (verification of the cleanup will be per Subpart O). A second plan was prepared for ADEC/EPA approval to address the remaining identified spots with soil contamination; diesel range organics, arsenic, barium, lead, and mercury contamination (verification will be per ADEC Field Sampling Guidance).
Doyon Utilities (DU) would like to schedule a teleconference to provide an overview of the plans, and discuss any agency concerns. Although demolition of the sub structure is not scheduled till spring 2018, DU is hoping for at least a partial approval this fall to allow CEI to address these locations, which will verify the extent of the contamination
Meeting with EPA, ADEC, AFCEC, Doyon Utilities staff. |
Louis Howard |
| 9/29/2017 |
Update or Other Action |
Draft Work Plan for Interim Soil Spot Removal Actions received for review and comment. The U.S. Army has retained ownership of the land. DU has contracted with Central Environmental, Inc. (CEI) to remove the CHPP. The entire CHPP building is scheduled for demolition and removal. In addition, CEI is being contracted to remove contaminated soils from specific locations where the soil must be removed in order to complete the building demolition. The intent of this project is building demolition and not cleanup of the soil at the site.
The work plan addresses the five identified locations with known contaminated soils that are in the expected excavation foot print required to demolish the CHPP building. The levels of contamination are low and the initial removal plan is being limited to approximately 5 cy at each location. If the confirmation samples confirm the contamination has been removed, that
specific spot will be released from further investigation under this project. If the cleanup levels are not obtained additional interim removal actions will be planned and submitted for approval.
See site file for additional information. |
Louis Howard |
| 10/4/2017 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Staff reviewed the Interim removal actions work plan. Main comments were regarding the less than 180 days deadline for "short-term" storage of soils excavated from the source area and to comply with RCRA TCLP for lead with 800 mg/kg being proposed as the cleanup level.
See site file for additional information. |
Louis Howard |
| 2/22/2018 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Staff provided comments on the draft addendum 1 work plan. Main comments were requesting analysis for pentachlorophenol with a lab method that has a lower detection limit than 8270 at the Acid vent site since method 8270 was used for soil analysis despite the work plan stating low-level 8270 method was going to be used. Staff required field duplicates be taken for both characterization soil samples and confirmation soil samples as required by the ADEC Field Sampling Guidance. Any additional contamination which may be present and not addressed by DOYON UTILITIES or unresolved data gaps from the sampling work by DOYON UTILITIES in support of the demolition project will need to be investigated in accordance with CERCLA and the 1994 Fort Richardson Federal Facility Agreement.
See site file for additional information. |
Louis Howard |
| 6/5/2018 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Staff commented on the Addendum #1 report for soil removal. Main comments were regarding the use of the PID readings to delineate contamination and the laboratory diesel range organic (DRO) results which did not support the field readings (45.7 ppm on the PID instrument with 12,600 mg/kg lab result, 386.5 ppm ND mg/kg, 4.7 ppm 6,870 mg/kg and 4.7 ppm 19,500 mg/kg.)
See site file for additional information. |
Louis Howard |
| 11/20/2018 |
Offsite Soil or Groundwater Disposal Approved |
DEC has reviewed the information provided. DEC will approve the transport of an estimated two cubic yards of soil generated from the JBER-Richardson CHPP site for ultimate disposal at the Anchorage Regional Landfill in accordance with their solid waste disposal permit SW1A001-22 (expires 09/21/2022). |
Louis Howard |
| 1/9/2019 |
Update or Other Action |
EMI Report on all interim soil removal actions received which was submitted on behalf of the DOYON UTILITIES that owned the building. Air Force owns the land. DOYON UTILITIES is complete with the demolition work at the former CHPP. Any residual contamination after the demolition/removal activities and any contaminated areas identified by the TUTKA 2012 PA/SI report are the Air Force’s responsibility. The Air Force will coordinate investigation in accordance with CERCLA and applicable ADEC environmental regulations.
Contaminated soil remains on site. This report also summarizes known contaminated soil remaining on site and presents the sample data collected on the in situ soils still on site.
Areas identified (but not limited to) with residual contamination that needs to be addressed by the Air Force:
1) A total of 1,431 tons of POL polluted soils were removed from the Old Transformer Area. Confirmation sampling on the north end of the excavation showed no evidence of contamination above project action levels remaining. The confirmation sampling at the south end of the excavation showed polluted soils remaining in this area.
2) One supersack of POL contaminated soils were removed from spot AOC04-02 by the Fuel Pump House. This was a spot previously identified in the PA/SI as having benzene above the project action level. The details of this removal and investigation can be found in Appendix 15. POL contaminated soil remains in the area.
3) One large area of POL contaminated soils remains at the site below the Basement Floor near the former locations of the south and east sides of the building. The full extent of this area is unknown, as delineating it was outside the scope of this project. Based on visual observations, soils represented by CHPP_XC_500_E7 are part of an area of contamination that appears to extend over a large area below the floor of the basement in the ground water throughout much of the southern and eastern part of the CHPP.
The southern and eastern limits of this contamination were not investigated. This contamination was not encountered during demolition of the north and west walls of the CHPP so it appears to be limited to the south and east ends of the CHPP. Funds were not available in this project to handle this large amount of contaminated soil and water. Therefore after getting concurrence from ADEC and JBER, DU decided to leave this deep, DRO-contaminated soil and the lower
part of the concrete wall and floors in place. Before excavation was stopped, some contaminated soils from this area that had inadvertently been removed were placed back in the excavation in the area with known contamination remaining.
4) Other areas of contamination were identified in the PA/SI report (Tutka 2012); those that were not impacted by demolition activities are outside the scope of this report.
See site file for additional information. |
Louis Howard |
| 6/11/2019 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
ADEC approves the Utility Demolition Work at the former Fort Richardson CHPP Facility on JBER-Richardson dated May 31, 2019.
|
Louis Howard |
| 1/10/2020 |
Update or Other Action |
Letter sent as formal confirmation that Doyon Utilities (DU) has completed all JBER-R CHPP demolition activities. Because there are no utilities currently present at the site, DU no longer possesses a right to access or other easement for the site. The site is now in control of the Air Force (673rd Civil Engineering Squadron (CES)) to conduct any further activity related to contamination left at the site. DU has inquired to CES if official paperwork is required to document this easement abandonment.
Areas that were not impacted by demolition activities were outside the scope of this project and are not addressed by this letter.
At this point, any further investigation of this site will be the responsibility of the property owner, the U.S. Air Force. DU understands that the owner will coordinate any future investigations or other activities in accordance with CERCLA and appropriate ADEC regulations [and CERCLA/Fort Richardson Federal Facility Agreement].
See site file for additional information. |
Louis Howard |
