Site Report: JBER-Ft. Rich TU043 Bldg 710 AAFES Service Station UST 10 USTA 2 Party

Site Name:	JBER-Ft. Rich TU043 Bldg 710 AAFES Service Station UST 10 USTA 2 Party
Address:	Richardson Drive & Arctic Valley Rd. FTRS-43, Formerly Fort Richardson before 10/01/2010, Fort Richardson (JBER), AK 99505
File Number:	2102.26.003
Hazard ID:	1492
Status:	Cleanup Complete
Staff:	No Longer Assigned, 9074655229 dec.icunit@alaska.gov
Latitude:	61.253515
Longitude:	-149.708447
Horizontal Datum:	WGS84

We make every effort to ensure the data presented here is accurate based on the best available information currently on file with DEC. It is therefore subject to change as new information becomes available. We recommend contacting the assigned project staff prior to making decisions based on this information.

Site Chronology
IC / Closure Details
Documents
Associated Sites

Problems/Comments

Petroleum release from a UST system at site. The contaminated areas identified by the 1993 site assessment are currently covered with asphalt paving and institutional controls have been implemented to prevent unauthorized excavation at the site and maintain the integrity of the asphalt cap. Also see Bldg. 712 reckey # 199721X104815 FTRS-43 Bldg 710 UST's AAFES Service Station Site# R056, 1990 RFA SWMU 7. UST Facility ID 788. EPA ID: AK6214522157 USTA 2 Party Attach I Petroleum Contaminated Soil Stockpiles Located at the Landfill Cross-reference Hazard ID 27283 / file no. 2102.26.084 for information regarding TU123 Former UST 175.

Action Information

Action Date	Action	Description	DEC Staff
6/12/1991	Update or Other Action	June 12, 1991 Resource Conservation & Recovery Act (RCRA) HW Management Compliance Evaluation Inspection Report documents Tim Law, Daniel Hartung, Vic Vickaryous, Geoffrey Kany, of ADEC's RCRA program inspection the Post for compliance with the provisions of the compliance agreement (FFCA) on April 29, April 30, 1991 Building 710 - Gasoline station An employee at the Gas station named "Joe" answered our brief questioning. No hazardous waste is generated at this point. No solvents are utilized, except for one small aerosol spray can of carbon cleaner/removal compound at a time. Much used oil is generated at this point. Spent batteries all get picked up by a battery recycler. Ms. Scott was not aware of any spills at Building 710.	Louis Howard
9/21/1992	Site Added to Database	Gasoline contaminant.	Louis Howard
9/21/1992	Site Visit	Site inspection by ADEC staff noted that the entire gasoline dispensing area was underlain with a tar layer about 3/4 to 1 inch thick located at a 1 foot depth. Piping was coated with the tarry substance(asphalt) also to try to minimize corrosion.	John Halverson
1/11/1993	Update or Other Action	Terrasat Site Assessment received for building 710, AAFES Service Station. The site assessment consisted of collecting & analyzing soil samples from beneath the USTs & dispenser piping where contamination was most likely to occur. Five 10,000 gallon USTs were removed in September 14-25, 1992. Four USTs were used for storing & dispensing unleaded gasoline. One 550 gallon UST was used for storing waste oil. The building is an active gasoline & service station. The gasoline USTs (#6, #7, #8 & #10) appeared to be intact & showed no physical signs of leaking. Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, & xylenes (BTEX) were either not detected or of low values (less than 0.055 ppm BTEX) in soil samples from beneath USTs #7, #8 & # 10. The gasoline tanks were 8’ in diameter & 29’ long. The waste oil tank was 3.8’ in diameter & 6’ long. Gasoline range volatile petroleum hydrocarbons (VPH) were not detected in soil samples beneath USTs #7, #8 & #10. Soil samples from beneath the south end ofUST #6 contain GRO (430 ppm) & BTEX (less than 175.9 ppm) above ADEC action levels. Soil samples from the floor at the southeast end of the UST excavation contain GRO (780 ppm) & BTEX (387 to 1,322 ppm) above ADEC action levels. During removal of the existing dispenser piping, some joints were observed to be loosely attached & wet with what appeared to be gasoline. Soil samples from beneath all four dispensers contain GRO (950 to 9,400 ppm) & BTEX (476 to 6,129 ppm) above ADEC action levels. Soil samples beneath dispenser piping to the USTs contain GRO ranging from non detectable to 2,400 ppm. BTEX in soil samples beneath the dispenser piping ranges from less than 0.036 to 1,423 ppm. Tar & gasoline soaked tar surrounded pipe connections & swing joints. Tar was apparently poured around the joints during installation of the pipes. Based on field observations, a gasoline release was reported to the ADEC. Before installation of a new UST & dispenser system, additional material was excavated beneath the level of the removed USTs & dispenser piping. Contaminated material was stockpiled separately in long-term storage cells at a designated area at Fort Richardson. Samples from beneath the dispenser piping were collected after excavation & before installation of the new system. They characterize existing soils in the vicinity. Soil samples beneath the USTs were collected after tank removal & before excavation was completed. One soil sample was collected from what appeared to be the most contaminated area of the UST pit after excavation was completed. This sample characterizes soils in the vicinity. It contains 387 to 1,322 ppm BTEX & 780 ppm GRO. Visible staining was observed around the fill pipe to the waste oil UST (UST #9). The stained material was excavated & stockpiled separately. Low levels of tetrachloroethene (0.033 ppm) & methylene chloride (0.006 ppm) were detected beneath the waste oil UST. During excavation, an additional near surface oil spill was identified northeast of the existing gasoline USTs. This spill was reported to the ADEC. Samples were not collected. Gasoline UST Excavation Following removal of the existing USTs, the excavation was deepened to 15 feet for installation of the new system. Based on headspace PID readings of samples from the pit floor, an additional sample was collected at the station with the highest PID reading. This sample is from beneath the dispenser piping to UST #10. The sample (T10P1) contains 387 ppm BTEX & 780 ppm VPH. A duplicate sample contains 1,322 ppm BTEX. This variation is interpreted to be due to the presence of abundant clay in the sample. Notes for PIT# 1 9/19/1992 shows that the excavation was terminated at 16' bgs. Dispenser Piping Excavation Soil samples from beneath the dispensers contain 476 to 6,129 ppm BTEX & 950 to 9,400 ppm VPH. Soil samples from beneath the dispenser piping to the USTs contain BTEX ranging from less than 0.036 to 1,423 ppm BTEX VPH results range from not detectable to 2,400 ppm. Dispenser excavation depths: #1 3.5-6.0’ bgs, #2 3.0-5.4’ bgs, #3 3.0-4.4’ bgs, Pipes to UST#10 15’ bgs Waste Oil UST Only one sample was collected from the waste oil UST excavation at 13.5’ bgs. Methylene chloride & tetrachloroethene are the only compounds detected. The methylene chloride concentration is 6,0 ppb. This is consistent with background levels for the laboratory on the day of analysis based on method blank results (Appendix). Values for tetrachloroethene are 33 ppb, Currently, tetrachloroethene levels in soil are not regulated by ADEC. No total recoverable hydrocarbons (EPA method 418.1) were detected in soils beneath UST #9. Based on these results there is apparently no contamination from waste oil or solvents beneath the waste oil UST. Excavation to 13.5’ bgs. The former tank was replaced by a 1,000 gallon waste oil UST.	John Halverson
1/26/1993	Update or Other Action	Army letter received on 1/26/1993 via facsimile as an interim response to compliance advisory letter to the Army on 1/6/93. Site assessment for Building 710 sent to ADEC on 1/15/93. the corrective action to eliminate future late site assessment reports will include a specified submittal date in future contract specifications for the reports. Release investigations shall be conducted under a separate contract as they have discussed with ADEC.	John Halverson
2/1/1993	Update or Other Action	Letter to Army regarding interim response to 1/6/93 compliance advisory. ADEC received copy of the site assessment for 710 on 1/15/93.	John Halverson
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.	John Halverson
4/29/1994	Update or Other Action	Release Investigaiton Report for PX Gas Station Building 710 received. The USACE, Alaska District, retained HLA to perform an UST release investigation at Building 710, PX Gas Station, at Fort Richardson, Alaska. The USACE assigned this project to HLA as Delivery Order No. 0016 under the terms of Indefinite Architect-Engineer Services Contract No. DACAS5-91-D-000S. The Scope of Work (SOW) was authorized by the USACE's Alternate CO's Representative, Mr. James J. Rich, on June 16, 1993. Modification No. 0001 removed scope from the PX Gas Station project (Delivery order No. 0016) & added scope to the Fort Richardson UST sites project (Delivery Order No. 0008). This modification was authorized by Mr. Rich on November 1, 1993, & impacted the PX Gas Station project's scope by reducing the number of borings, deleting the monitoring wells, deleting an air permeability test, & deleting development of remedial alternatives for the PX Gas Station site. The PX Gas Station UST release investigation was conducted to assess the presence & extent of petroleum hydrocarbons in the soil & GW at the site. This report documents the results of the PX Gas Station UST release investigation. AP-3247 was drilled to 61' bgs. GW table not encountered. AP-3256 & AP-3257 were drilled to 37' bgs to verify presence of silt confining layer. AP-3248 through AP-3251, AP-3258 & AP-3259 were drilled to 25' bgs. AP-3252 through AP-3255 were drilled to 10-15' bgs. Auger refusal encountered. AP-3261 through AP-3265 investigated the surface spill drilled to 5-10' bgs. AP-3260 & AP-3266 investigated the surface spill drilled to 15' bgs. The non-surface spill borings didn't exceed cleanup levels. Surface Spill Boring results did exceed cleanup levels TRPH (assume it is equivelant to RRO) AP-3264 0 - 1.5' bgs 39,200 mg/kg DRO AP-3260 5-6.5' bgs 1,890 mg/kg (Result is from the analysis of a diluted sample) AP-3261 0-1.5' bgs 3,290 mg/kg, 5-6.5' bgs 93PXGS28SL 2,540 mg/kg, 10-11.5' bgs 93PXGS29SL 337 mg/kg (Results are from the analysis of a diluted sample) AP-3262 0-1.5' bgs 630 mg/kg (Result is from the analysis of a diluted sample) AP-3264 0-1.5' bgs 7,800 mg/kg, 5-7' bgs 92PXGS35SL 920 mg/kg, 5-7' bgs 93PXGS37SL 918 mg/kg (Results are from the analysis of a diluted sample). [It appears that the "surface spill" migrated below to the sub-surface] AP-3265 0-1.5' bgs 1,174 mg/kg (Result is from the analysis of a diluted sample). Level B cleanup level was calculated for gasoline UST system post removal volumes were assumed instead of the 1,049 c.y. that were excavated. 18 AAC 75.341 states e. "volume of contaminated soil" means the total estimated volume of soil that is contaminated above the applicable cleanup level BEFORE a responsible person begins a removal or cleanup action. The source of the surface spill has not been identified, but appears to be related to former service station activities. Because of the 1imited number of borings, the extent of the spill was not completely defined. However, based on HLA's investigation and an aerial photograph (Aeromap, 1973), the interpreted horizontal extent of the spill is shown on Plate 3. Based on sample results from borings drilled inside the interpreted horizontal extent of the spill, the vertical extent of the spin is believed to be between 10-15’ bgs. 3 of the 5 borings inside the spill's horizontal extent had sample results for DRO below cleanup levels at depths of 10 feet. The total volume of contaminated soil is estimated to be greater than 500 cubic yards. The contaminant .appears to be a heavy oil, and depth to groundwater is expected to be 60 to 115 feet; therefore, it appears unlikely that contamination will migrate to groundwater. PCB sample results with MRLs exceeding RBCs do not clearly assess the presence of PCB contamination in the surface-spill area. The results do indicate, however, that PCB contamination is not present in areas free of petroleum contamination. According to the USACE Project Manager, the surface-spill area is being investigated further under a separate contract (Dames & Moore, Contract No. DACAS5-93-D-000S, Delivery Order 0004).	John Halverson
2/5/1995	Update or Other Action	Letter from Army to ADEC. On January 13, 1995, you met with Mr. Samuel P. Swearingen, and Major Kevin Gardener of the Environmental Compliance Branch. At this time you requested an explanation for the lack of spill protection on a number of underground storage tanks(UST) located at Fort Richardson. Below you will find a listing of those regulated tanks that were in question and an explanation of how the spill control requirement is met: Tank#9A- This is a used oil UST with an lLS-350 interstitial monitor/overfill alarm system. The tank's spill control system consists of a catchement basin/floor drain system attached to an oil water separator. The tank is filled through manually pouring oil into either one of the floor drains or into a oil sink. The system is non-pressurized, and gravity fed.	Louis Howard
6/16/1995	Site Ranked Using the AHRM	Initial ranking. Action code added because it wasn't when the site was originally ranked.	Louis Howard
8/29/1996	Update or Other Action	No change, remedial action work yet to be proposed.	Louis Howard
11/21/1996	Conditional Closure Approved	Lube Rack formerly associated with 710 is now associated with Building 712 and transferred from USTMP agreement to SFRERA agreement for corrective action. Conditional closure for Building 710 tanks 6 through 10 does not preclude future remediation or site investigation if new information indicates there is previously undiscovered contamination from the USTs or exposures which cause unacceptable risk to human health or the environment. Reservation of rights to request action under AS 46 and 18 AAC 78.	Louis Howard
6/13/2000	Institutional Control Record Established	The contaminated areas are currently covered with asphalt paving and institutional controls have been implemented to prevent unauthorized excavation at the site and maintain the integrity of the asphalt cap.	Louis Howard
9/14/2001	Update or Other Action	Inspection of Institutional Controls (asphalt paving and compacted soil cover) at former Building 712 location received. Site inspection conducted by DPW on August 5, 2001. Paving has small fractures, but overall remains intact. Work request submitted to have cracks in asphalt sealed compacted soil cover is intact and no part of it has been excavated. Flora at the site has recovered and grass and weeds are growing in the cover. Site remains in the REMOTE database and has been placed off limits in the USARAK master building plan.	Louis Howard
12/12/2001	Update or Other Action	1. All organizations conducting activities on United States Army Alaska (USARAK) controlled land are responsible for complying with established institutional controls (ICs). ICs are administrative, procedural, and regulatory measures to control human access to and usage of property. They are applicable to all known or suspected contaminated sites where contamination has been left in place. 2. These controls have been established to implement the selected remedial actions agreed upon by the U.S. Army (Army), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), and the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) in accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) as amended by the Superfund Amendment Reauthorization Act (SARA). These controls also apply to remedial actions agreed upon under Two-Party Compliance Agreements. These agreements are concluded between USARAK and ADEC and apply to petroleum/oil/lubricants- (POL) contaminated sites. 3. ICs such as limitations on access, water use, excavations, and property transfers will supplement engineering controls as appropriate for short-term and long-term management to prevent or limit human and environmental exposure to hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants. Specific ICs include, among other things: limitations on the depth and location of excavations, prohibition of or restrictions on well drilling and use of ground water, requirements for worker use of personal protective equipment, site monitoring, and prohibition of certain land uses, types of vehicles, etc. 4. Organizational units, tenants, and support/contractor organizations must obtain an Excavation Clearance Request (ECR) for all soil disturbing activities impacting soils six inches or more below the ground surface. The review process for approval of an ECR begins with the identification of the current status (known or suspected hazardous waste site or clean site) of a work location. ECRs for work in known or suspected hazardous waste sites: a. will include specific limitations and controls on such work; b. will include specific IC procedures, and notification, monitoring, reporting, and stop work requirements; c. may include procedures for management, characterization, and disposal of any soil or groundwater encountered or removed; d. will identify project managers for both the unit/contractor requesting the work and DPW Environment Resources. 5. The DPW project manager will conduct on-site inspections of each work site (at which ICs apply) to determine continued compliance with the terms and conditions of the approved ECR. DPW has the authority to revoke ECR approval if the specified terms and conditions are not being met. ECR forms are available at the Customer Service Desks at: a. Building 730 at Fort Richardson; b. Building 3015 at Fort Wainwright; c. Building 605 at Fort Greely. 6. USARAK has negotiated (with USEPA and/or ADEC) decision documents and/or Records of Decision (RODs) that mandate the implementation of ICs USARAK Directorate of Public Works, Environmental Resources Department (PWE), maintains copies of all decision documents and RODs requiring ICs in its real property files. PWE provides regularly updated post maps showing all areas affected by ICs. These maps can easily be accessed by using an approved intranet mapping interface application. Copies of these maps will be available to each directorate, activity, and tenant organization. To ensure the effectiveness of ICs, all organizational units and tenant activities will be informed on an annual basis of ICs on contaminated soils and groundwater in effect near their facilities. 7. ICs are enforceable by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC). Failure to comply with an IC mandated in a decision document or ROD will violate the USARAK Federal Facility Agreement and may result in stipulated fines and penalties. This does not include the costs of corrective actions required due to violation of an established IC.	Louis Howard
2/21/2013	Update or Other Action	Draft PMP received. Performance Objective:Optimized Exit Strategy for site closure Performance Indicators · Complete an approved OES Plan by May 2013 · Complete an approved Characterization Plan by October 2013 · Complete characterization by November 2013 · Complete an approved Characterization Report · Complete an approved OES Confirmation Report Potential risk Groundwater impacts are discovered during site characterization Risk Mitigation Groundwater monitoring wells will be installed and an appropriate groundwater strategy will be developed and implemented. Optimized LTM will be included in OES plan. Date of achieving Performance Objective: 2nd Quarter 2013 Description of planned approach objective: Prepare an approved OES Plan and Characterization Workplan. Coordinate, mobilize, and execute Characterization Workplan by installing and sampling one soil borings and collect hydropunch groundwater sample. Use HRC to evaluate SC based on risk to future residential receptors for all pathways. Prepare an approved Site Characterization Report documenting HRC risk evaluation and if appropriate prepare an approved Site Closure Report requesting Cleanup Complete without ICs. Receive concurrence from ADEC that site has achieved Cleanup Complete without ICs and provide documentation to AFCEE. If site conditions do not meet the criteria required for SC, additional monitoring wells will be installed as necessary to perform annual monitoring.	Louis Howard
6/10/2013	Exposure Tracking Model Ranking	Initial ranking with ETM completed for source area id: 72470 name: auto-generated pm edit Ft. Rich Bldg. 710 UST 10	Louis Howard
7/31/2013	Update or Other Action	Draft UFP-QAPP WP received for review and comment. The overall objective for the site is to meet “unrestricted or residential site use” criteria and achieve a “cleanup complete without institutional controls (ICs)” determination. To meet this objective, soil samples will be collected to characterize risk to human health and the environment within the framework of the ADEC site cleanup process (Title 18 Alaska Administrative Code Chapter 75 [18 AAC 75] Sections 325 to 390 and 18 AAC 78 Section 600) (ADEC, 2012a; ADEC, 2012b). If 18 AAC 75 Method Two criteria are exceeded, the Hydrocarbon Risk Calculator (HRC) approach under Method Three will be used to assess whether site conditions meet ADEC risk criteria (in which case, a “cleanup complete without ICs” determination will be requested) or whether the site poses unacceptable risk (in which case, further remediation may be required). If unacceptable risk is indicated by the HRC, or if vadose zone soils exceed maximum allowable concentrations, then remedial options will be evaluated that address the contaminants of concern and associated exposure routes that contribute enough risk to cause the cumulative risk estimate to exceed the risk standard. At TU043, six new soil borings will be drilled and discussed in the following list: Four borings will be drilled as close as practicable to former Terrasat confirmation sample locations to resample the soil at the locations and depths where previous sampling showed exceedances of the migration to groundwater criteria for GRO and BTEX. The borings will be used to collect source area soil samples for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), VPH, and extractable petroleum hydrocarbons (EPH) analysis. One boring will be drilled as close as practicable to former UST 9 to assess the residual level of PCE contamination at the former tank. Samples will be analyzed for GRO, diesel-range organics (DRO), residual-range organics (RRO), and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). One boring will be drilled as close as practicable to former Terrasat confirmation sample T10P1 to reassess the nature of residual petroleum contamination in the southern area of the former gasoline tanks. Samples will be analyzed for GRO, DRO, RRO, and petroleum-related VOCs (BTEX plus naphthalene [BTEXN]). Up to approximately 30 new primary soil samples will be collected and analyzed for GRO, DRO, RRO, and VOCs (BTEXN). Six of the soil samples will also be analyzed for PAHs, EPH, and VPH. One of the soil samples will be analyzed for soil bulk density, grain size distribution, specific gravity, and soil moisture content. One of the soil samples will be collected from below the contaminated soil source and will be analyzed for fraction of organic carbon. If any of the borings are drilled to groundwater, a groundwater sample will be collected and analyzed for VOCs, GRO, DRO, RRO, PAHs, VPH, and EPH.	Louis Howard
8/9/2013	Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other	Staff provided comments on the draft UFP-QAPP WP. Page ES-3 Site-Specific Proposed Work While TU043 is not anticipated to have contaminated groundwater above Table C cleanup levels, it should be noted that sites with existing contaminated will require that migration to groundwater cleanup levels be used for soil and ICs will be required. Once groundwater is below Table C for a period of time (consistent with and per the latest approved “Basewide Monitoring Program Well Sampling Frequency Decision Guide (Attachment 1 Memo to the Site File for OUs 4, 5, and 6 September 2003)” two rounds annual groundwater monitoring), the maximum allowable levels may become the cleanup levels as determined by ADEC on a case by case basis. WS #15 Project Action Limits and Laboratory-Specific Detection/Quantitation Limits The text states: “In order to meet TU043 regulatory agency requirements, the collection and analysis of methanol preserved volatile samples will be used for volatile soil sample analyses (ADEC, 2012d).” Unless previously agreed to by ADEC (action items for TU043 did not show any resolution being achieved for low-level analysis for SW8260 anywhere in the draft document), both ADEC required methanol preserved soil samples and EPA’s low-level analysis with SW8260 for VOCs shall be used at this site investigation associated with the waste oil UST (UST 9). NOTE: EPA no longer accepts sodium bisulfate preserved samples for SW8260; instead use VOC/VOA vials with a water carrier. If there is a different laboratory or new and/or modified procedures used for the site-specific work plan, then appropriate laboratory reference limits will need to be provided. If groundwater samples are taken, the target analyte list will include lead and EDB. Table 10-1 Historical Soil Data PCBs were analyzed for as part of the Harding Lawson Associates investigation and most samples were mostly ND (non-detectable). Please correct table to reflect this instead of “N/A”. Page 36 Groundwater The text states: “If groundwater samples are collected from any of the borings, all groundwater samples will be analyzed for GRO, DRO, RRO, VOCs (BTEXN), PAHs, EPH, and VPH.” There is no mention of EDB analysis being performed for groundwater samples as previously stated on Page 35 of the document. ADEC expects if any groundwater samples are taken, EDB analysis will be performed since four gasoline USTs and one waste oil UST were removed from the PX Gas Station site in September 1992 and the two investigations performed at the site did not include analysis for EDB using a method (e.g. EPA 8011 or 504.1) which would had a detection limit below 0.00005 mg/L. Also include analysis for lead in any groundwater samples.	Louis Howard
8/28/2013	Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other	ADEC has reviewed JBER's responses to ADEC's comments on TU043 Bldg. 710 UFP-QAPP WP. ADEC finds the responses to the comments acceptable. Please finalize the document. ADEC approval of the Final TU043 UFP-QAPP, Work Plan will be assumed by this e-mail indicating acceptance of the response to review comments on the Draft version of TU043 UFP-QAPP work plan. No additional approvals will be necessary or required for the final version.	Louis Howard
7/24/2014	Update or Other Action	Draft SC Report received for review & comment. Former Gasoline USTs: - Based on previous investigations & the 2013 site characterization field investigation, GRO & benzene remain in soil above project screening levels (PSLs). - The estimated carcinogenic cumulative risks, assuming industrial & hypothetical residential land use scenarios, are below the ADEC risk standard of 1E-05. - The cumulative noncancer HI estimates for future industrial & hypothetical residential exposure scenarios are below 1 for the direct contact/ingestion, outdoor air inhalation, & GW ingestion exposure pathways. - The indoor air inhalation pathway is considered an incomplete future exposure pathway because benzene in soil is separated from a potential future building foundation by 7 feet of clean fill. - Potential risks posed by the GRO, DRO, & RRO aromatic & aliphatic fractions are below the HI of 1 for the direct contact/ingestion, outdoor air inhalation, & GW ingestion exposure pathways. - The benzene in soil created a potential exceedance of MTGW (predicted concentration of 0.00513 mg/L versus regulatory level of 0.005 mg/L) in accordance with 18 AAC 75.340; however, GW has not been encountered to date. Fuel Dispensing System: - Based on previous investigations & the 2013 site characterization field investigation, GRO & benzene remain in soil above PSLs. However, it is unknown whether the highly contaminated soil documented during the removal & upgrade of the fuel dispensing system was removed based on the subsequent investigation data including the 2013 investigation results. - The estimated carcinogenic cumulative risks, assuming industrial & hypothetical residential land use scenarios, are below the ADEC risk standard of 1E-05. - The cumulative noncancer HI estimates for future industrial & hypothetical residential exposure scenarios are below 1 for the direct contact/ingestion, outdoor air inhalation, & GW ingestion exposure pathways. - The indoor air inhalation pathway is considered a potentially complete future exposure pathway because benzene is above the most stringent 18 AAC 75.341 Table B1 soil cleanup level. Risks from the VI exposure pathway caused by benzene in shallow surface soil should be considered significant & will need to be addressed. - Each soil EPC is less than its direct contact & outdoor inhalation exposure pathways (Method Three Calculator cleanup levels are provided in Appendix C-3). Gasoline USTs & Dispensing system recommendations: The gas station present as part of TU043 is no longer active, & the replacement USTs & fuel distribution system installed after the removal of the former gasoline USTs (UST 6, 7, 8, & 10) are currently scheduled for removal. The extent of GRO & benzene contaminated soil along the southern wall of the former excavation & adjacent to the current fuel dispensing system is anticipated to be limited. Therefore, removal of this contaminated soil during decommissioning of the current USTs & dispensing system is recommended to allow for a Cleanup Complete designation for USTs 6, 7, 8, & 10. Former Waste Oil Tank: - Based on previous investigations & the 2013 site characterization field investigation, PCE remains in soil at concentrations above PSLs beneath the replacement waste oil tank. The extent of PCE contamination is very limited. - The estimated carcinogenic cumulative risks, assuming industrial & hypothetical residential land use scenarios, are below the ADEC risk standard of 1E-05. - The cumulative noncancer HI estimates for future industrial & hypothetical residential exposure scenarios are below 1 for the direct contact/ingestion, outdoor air inhalation, & GW ingestion exposure pathways. - The indoor air inhalation pathway is considered a potentially complete future exposure pathway because PCE contamination is above the most stringent 18 AAC 75.341 Table B1 soil cleanup level. Risks from the VI exposure pathway caused by PCE in shallow surface soil should be considered significant & will need to be addressed. - Each soil EPC is less than its direct contact & outdoor inhalation exposure pathways (Method Three Calculator cleanup levels are provided in Appendix C-4). No potential risks to ecological receptors were observed for TU043, & potentially complete ecological exposure pathways at TU043 are considered insignificant Recommendation: PCE is anticipated to be present at the bottom of the former tank (UST 9) excavation. Because PCE was not detected above screening levels in any of the soil samples collected from subsequent soil borings placed adjacent to the former UST, the volume of contaminated soil is assumed to be very small. Therefore, removal of a few extra feet from the bottom of the excavation used to decommission the replacement waste oil UST will likely remove the PCE-contaminated soil & allow for a Cleanup Complete designation for UST 9.	Louis Howard
8/18/2014	Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other	Staff commented on the SC report. 6.1 Recommendations Former Gasoline USTs ADEC agrees that removal of soil during decommissioning of underground storage tanks: 6A, 7A, 8A, and 10A may result in a cleanup complete designation. However, it remains to be seen if the (Air Force) anticipated amount of petroleum contaminated soil associated with the current dispensing system, piping and USTs is truly limited in extent. Analysis of BTEX, PAHs, and GRO are required for a site assessment of gasoline USTs conducted in accordance with 18 AAC 78 and the UST Procedure Manual, adopted by reference. Former Waste Oil Tank ADEC agrees that removal of a few extra feet from the bottom of the excavation during decommissioning of underground storage tank 9A may result in a cleanup complete designation. However, it remains to be seen if the (Air Force) anticipated amount of chlorinated contaminated soil associated with UST 9A and its piping is truly limited in extent. Analysis of GRO, DRO, BTEX, PAHs, metals , VOCs (UST Procedure Manual November 2002), EDB/1,2-DCA (ADEC Draft Field Sampling Guidance May 2010 App. F and UST Procedure Manual Table 2B as required by project manager), and PCBs (ADEC Draft Field Sampling Guidance May 2010) are required analyses for site assessment of waste oil UST 9A conducted in accordance with 18 AAC 78 and the UST Procedure Manual, adopted by reference.	Louis Howard
8/20/2014	Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other	ADEC has reviewed JBER's responses to ADEC's comments and finds them satisfactory. Finalize the Draft SC Report document.	Louis Howard
1/12/2016	Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other	Staff commented on the draft UST removal and SA report for Bldgs. 710, 977 and (Moose Run) Clubhouse facility. Staff remarked that use of 20 ppm on the PID is not a definitive data point and laboratory confirmation will be required for all soil samples to prove "clean" and "dirty" stockpiles. Staff also provided a background soil study for reference to document arsenic is truly background and not site-related contamination. Based on the information provided in this document, a release has occurred. In accordance with 18 AAC 78.090(k) , ADEC expects that there will be further corrective action/investigation for those areas which did not meet ADEC cleanup levels (e.g. pipe run excavation near building 710 and the Moose Run Golf Course. See site file for additional information.	Louis Howard
2/1/2016	Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other	ADEC Contaminated Sites Program staff has reviewed the AFCEC responses to ADEC's comments and finds the responses satisfactory. Please finalize the document. One electronic and one hard copy ) will suffice for CS Program's files. UST Program may have other requirements for their files. The document will include a signature page signed by the "Qualified Environmental Professional" (as defined by 18 AAC 78.088) that prepared the site assessment as required by 18 AAC 78.090). It appears a release has occurred and AFCEC shall conduct a release investigation in accordance with the 1993 State-Fort Richardson Underground Storage Tank Compliance Agreement (aka UST Agreement, see Sections 30 & 32) and 18 AAC 78.235 (June 17, 2015). AFCEC shall begin any necessary corrective action as required by the 1993 UST Agreement (see Sections 34 through 45) and 18 AAC 78.330 - 18 AAC 78.280 (June 17, 2015). The release investigation shall characterize the release and actual or potential threat to human health and safety, and to the environment	Louis Howard
5/17/2016	Meeting or Teleconference Held	As discussed during the FFA meeting held in May, TU043 is being programmed for FY18 (October 1, 2017 - September 30 2018). The federal government's fiscal year begins on October 1 and ends on September 30. The fiscal year is denoted by the year in which it ends.	Louis Howard
5/9/2019	Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other	Staff commented on the Draft TU023 and TU123 Release Investigation JBER-Richardson, Alaska Dated April 2019. Main comments: not only will 1/10th of the most recent Human Health levels in 18 AAC 75 be used as preliminary screening levels (PSLs) after EPA’s regional screening levels (RSLs), but the migration to groundwater soil cleanup levels (18 AAC 75) will also be used for site delineation purposes. Use of the MTGW cleanup levels will be consistent with project screening levels approved for use at JBER: limited field investigations/preliminary source evaluations and remedial investigation management plans (SS013 RI/FS Management Plan WS#11 Data Quality Objectives (2016) 1.3 Regulatory Criteria CG703 Northern Plum RI Report (2018) “ADEC migration to groundwater and Table C groundwater cleanup levels (ADEC 2017b) have been considered for site delineation.”). See site file for additional information.	Louis Howard
4/13/2020	Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other	Staff provided comments on information received regarding no further site investigation required at TU043 (bldg. 710 AAFES Service Station). Based on a review of the information, staff agreed that no further site investigation is required at TU043 contingent upon submittal of a draft formal report for TU043 for ADEC to review. A field change form with text, figures and tables does not meet this requirement which ADEC needs to determine to make a decision whether the release investigation work is complete, assuming all necessary quality assurance/quality control needs have been met.	Louis Howard
8/22/2020	Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other	DDEC staff reviewed Draft Release Investigation Report for TU043 and provided comments. DEC requested additional information including historical soil boring data in locations south of borings SB03 and SB05 and East of soil boring SB11. Until more soil data is presented, it cannot be assumed that the monitoring wells sampled in 2019 were down-gradient of soil contamination. DEC requested a change to the conclusions and recommendations portion of the report to address additional site characterization.	William Schmaltz
2/2/2021	Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other	DEC reviewed and approved 2021 Final Release Investigation Report for TU043 - Building 710. The extent of diesel and PAH contamination in soil at and around the distribution pipeline is well-delineated to the north and south based on 2019 and historical data. The eastern and western extent of diesel and PAH contamination in soil is delineated by 2019 samples collected at soil borings SB12 and SB14. Naphthalene contamination at EB01 was laterally delineated by 2019 LIF screenings TU043LIF-16, TU043LIF-19, and TU043LIF-20, with no fuel signature at 2019 soil boring SB15. DRO, naphthalene, and 1-methylnaphthalene contamination are also vertically delineated to a maximum depth between 15 and 20 feet bgs. Of the 17 borings advanced during the 2019 release investigation, seven contained benzene concentrations exceeding the ADEC Method Two MTGW cleanup level. Similar benzene exceedances were detected in nearby 2013 soil samples. Benzene contamination along the western, northern, and eastern edges of the fuel dispenser islands has been laterally delineated. Although the extent to the south beyond 2013 soil boring SB03 and 2019 soil boring SB05 has not been fully delineated, soil contamination is unlikely to extend further south as these locations are at the southern extent of the fueling system and at the upgradient extent of the source area. In addition, monitoring well MW03 is located within 20 feet of those locations, indicating that MTGW is not an issue. During the adjacent site TU060 investigation, soil samples were collected from 11 boring locations north, east, and south of TU043 soil boring SB11, which had the highest concentration of benzene (0.083 mg/kg) during the 2019 release investigation. Benzene concentrations in these TU060 samples were all nondetect, except at boring TU060-SB08 at 25 to 35 feet bgs with a concentration of 0.0132 J mg/kg, which is below the ADEC MTGW cleanup level of 0.022 mg/kg. Boring TU060-SB08 is located approximately 65 feet southeast of SB11; therefore, it appears that the extent of soil contamination north, east, and south of SB11 is fully delineated. Ethylbenzene contamination was laterally delineated by 2019 LIF screenings TU043LIF-16, TU043LIF-19, and TU043LIF-20 with no fuel signature and 2019 soil boring SB15. The vertical extent of BTEX appears to be delineated to a maximum depth between 28 and 75 feet bgs. DRO, RRO, and lead were detected in groundwater samples collected in 2020. A review of the chromatograms for the DRO and RRO results in groundwater suggests that low-level DRO and RRO detections may have been caused by naturally occurring carbon compounds. The chromatogram patterns for the groundwater samples were inconsistent with true fuel patterns in the spiked samples. The lead concentrations in groundwater are less than the JBER-Richardson background level of 4.4 milligrams per liter (95-percent upper tolerance limit) and are likely naturally occurring. The soil MTGW pathway is believed to be incomplete with the water table being separated from the deepest DRO, benzene, ethylbenzene, and naphthalene MTGW exceedances by more than 50 feet of soil lithology that includes multiple layers of hard clayey silt-silty clay.	William Schmaltz
5/3/2021	Cleanup Complete Determination Issued	Soil contamination at the site has been delineated laterally and vertically, and the site is suitable for residential use. Based on soil borings and chromatograms, DRO, RRO, and lead concentrations detected in groundwater are not associated with TU043. This site will receive a “Cleanup Complete” designation on the Contaminated Sites Database.	William Schmaltz
5/3/2021	Institutional Control Record Removed	Institutional Controls have been removed.	William Schmaltz

Action Date

Action

Description

DEC Staff

6/12/1991

Update or Other Action

June 12, 1991 Resource Conservation & Recovery Act (RCRA) HW Management Compliance Evaluation Inspection Report documents Tim Law, Daniel Hartung, Vic Vickaryous, Geoffrey Kany, of ADEC's RCRA program inspection the Post for compliance with the provisions of the compliance agreement (FFCA) on April 29, April 30, 1991 Building 710 - Gasoline station An employee at the Gas station named "Joe" answered our brief questioning. No hazardous waste is generated at this point. No solvents are utilized, except for one small aerosol spray can of carbon cleaner/removal compound at a time. Much used oil is generated at this point. Spent batteries all get picked up by a battery recycler. Ms. Scott was not aware of any spills at Building 710.

Louis Howard

9/21/1992

Site Added to Database

Gasoline contaminant.

Louis Howard

9/21/1992

Site Visit

Site inspection by ADEC staff noted that the entire gasoline dispensing area was underlain with a tar layer about 3/4 to 1 inch thick located at a 1 foot depth. Piping was coated with the tarry substance(asphalt) also to try to minimize corrosion.

John Halverson

1/11/1993

Update or Other Action

Terrasat Site Assessment received for building 710, AAFES Service Station. The site assessment consisted of collecting & analyzing soil samples from beneath the USTs & dispenser piping where contamination was most likely to occur. Five 10,000 gallon USTs were removed in September 14-25, 1992. Four USTs were used for storing & dispensing unleaded gasoline. One 550 gallon UST was used for storing waste oil. The building is an active gasoline & service station. The gasoline USTs (#6, #7, #8 & #10) appeared to be intact & showed no physical signs of leaking. Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, & xylenes (BTEX) were either not detected or of low values (less than 0.055 ppm BTEX) in soil samples from beneath USTs #7, #8 & # 10. The gasoline tanks were 8’ in diameter & 29’ long. The waste oil tank was 3.8’ in diameter & 6’ long. Gasoline range volatile petroleum hydrocarbons (VPH) were not detected in soil samples beneath USTs #7, #8 & #10. Soil samples from beneath the south end ofUST #6 contain GRO (430 ppm) & BTEX (less than 175.9 ppm) above ADEC action levels. Soil samples from the floor at the southeast end of the UST excavation contain GRO (780 ppm) & BTEX (387 to 1,322 ppm) above ADEC action levels. During removal of the existing dispenser piping, some joints were observed to be loosely attached & wet with what appeared to be gasoline. Soil samples from beneath all four dispensers contain GRO (950 to 9,400 ppm) & BTEX (476 to 6,129 ppm) above ADEC action levels. Soil samples beneath dispenser piping to the USTs contain GRO ranging from non detectable to 2,400 ppm. BTEX in soil samples beneath the dispenser piping ranges from less than 0.036 to 1,423 ppm. Tar & gasoline soaked tar surrounded pipe connections & swing joints. Tar was apparently poured around the joints during installation of the pipes. Based on field observations, a gasoline release was reported to the ADEC. Before installation of a new UST & dispenser system, additional material was excavated beneath the level of the removed USTs & dispenser piping. Contaminated material was stockpiled separately in long-term storage cells at a designated area at Fort Richardson. Samples from beneath the dispenser piping were collected after excavation & before installation of the new system. They characterize existing soils in the vicinity. Soil samples beneath the USTs were collected after tank removal & before excavation was completed. One soil sample was collected from what appeared to be the most contaminated area of the UST pit after excavation was completed. This sample characterizes soils in the vicinity. It contains 387 to 1,322 ppm BTEX & 780 ppm GRO. Visible staining was observed around the fill pipe to the waste oil UST (UST #9). The stained material was excavated & stockpiled separately. Low levels of tetrachloroethene (0.033 ppm) & methylene chloride (0.006 ppm) were detected beneath the waste oil UST. During excavation, an additional near surface oil spill was identified northeast of the existing gasoline USTs. This spill was reported to the ADEC. Samples were not collected. Gasoline UST Excavation Following removal of the existing USTs, the excavation was deepened to 15 feet for installation of the new system. Based on headspace PID readings of samples from the pit floor, an additional sample was collected at the station with the highest PID reading. This sample is from beneath the dispenser piping to UST #10. The sample (T10P1) contains 387 ppm BTEX & 780 ppm VPH. A duplicate sample contains 1,322 ppm BTEX. This variation is interpreted to be due to the presence of abundant clay in the sample. Notes for PIT# 1 9/19/1992 shows that the excavation was terminated at 16' bgs. Dispenser Piping Excavation Soil samples from beneath the dispensers contain 476 to 6,129 ppm BTEX & 950 to 9,400 ppm VPH. Soil samples from beneath the dispenser piping to the USTs contain BTEX ranging from less than 0.036 to 1,423 ppm BTEX VPH results range from not detectable to 2,400 ppm. Dispenser excavation depths: #1 3.5-6.0’ bgs, #2 3.0-5.4’ bgs, #3 3.0-4.4’ bgs, Pipes to UST#10 15’ bgs Waste Oil UST Only one sample was collected from the waste oil UST excavation at 13.5’ bgs. Methylene chloride & tetrachloroethene are the only compounds detected. The methylene chloride concentration is 6,0 ppb. This is consistent with background levels for the laboratory on the day of analysis based on method blank results (Appendix). Values for tetrachloroethene are 33 ppb, Currently, tetrachloroethene levels in soil are not regulated by ADEC. No total recoverable hydrocarbons (EPA method 418.1) were detected in soils beneath UST #9. Based on these results there is apparently no contamination from waste oil or solvents beneath the waste oil UST. Excavation to 13.5’ bgs. The former tank was replaced by a 1,000 gallon waste oil UST.

John Halverson

1/26/1993

Update or Other Action

Army letter received on 1/26/1993 via facsimile as an interim response to compliance advisory letter to the Army on 1/6/93. Site assessment for Building 710 sent to ADEC on 1/15/93. the corrective action to eliminate future late site assessment reports will include a specified submittal date in future contract specifications for the reports. Release investigations shall be conducted under a separate contract as they have discussed with ADEC.

John Halverson

2/1/1993

Update or Other Action

Letter to Army regarding interim response to 1/6/93 compliance advisory. ADEC received copy of the site assessment for 710 on 1/15/93.

John Halverson

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.

John Halverson

4/29/1994

Update or Other Action

Release Investigaiton Report for PX Gas Station Building 710 received. The USACE, Alaska District, retained HLA to perform an UST release investigation at Building 710, PX Gas Station, at Fort Richardson, Alaska. The USACE assigned this project to HLA as Delivery Order No. 0016 under the terms of Indefinite Architect-Engineer Services Contract No. DACAS5-91-D-000S. The Scope of Work (SOW) was authorized by the USACE's Alternate CO's Representative, Mr. James J. Rich, on June 16, 1993. Modification No. 0001 removed scope from the PX Gas Station project (Delivery order No. 0016) & added scope to the Fort Richardson UST sites project (Delivery Order No. 0008). This modification was authorized by Mr. Rich on November 1, 1993, & impacted the PX Gas Station project's scope by reducing the number of borings, deleting the monitoring wells, deleting an air permeability test, & deleting development of remedial alternatives for the PX Gas Station site. The PX Gas Station UST release investigation was conducted to assess the presence & extent of petroleum hydrocarbons in the soil & GW at the site. This report documents the results of the PX Gas Station UST release investigation. AP-3247 was drilled to 61' bgs. GW table not encountered. AP-3256 & AP-3257 were drilled to 37' bgs to verify presence of silt confining layer. AP-3248 through AP-3251, AP-3258 & AP-3259 were drilled to 25' bgs. AP-3252 through AP-3255 were drilled to 10-15' bgs. Auger refusal encountered. AP-3261 through AP-3265 investigated the surface spill drilled to 5-10' bgs. AP-3260 & AP-3266 investigated the surface spill drilled to 15' bgs. The non-surface spill borings didn't exceed cleanup levels. Surface Spill Boring results did exceed cleanup levels TRPH (assume it is equivelant to RRO) AP-3264 0 - 1.5' bgs 39,200 mg/kg DRO AP-3260 5-6.5' bgs 1,890 mg/kg (Result is from the analysis of a diluted sample) AP-3261 0-1.5' bgs 3,290 mg/kg, 5-6.5' bgs 93PXGS28SL 2,540 mg/kg, 10-11.5' bgs 93PXGS29SL 337 mg/kg (Results are from the analysis of a diluted sample) AP-3262 0-1.5' bgs 630 mg/kg (Result is from the analysis of a diluted sample) AP-3264 0-1.5' bgs 7,800 mg/kg, 5-7' bgs 92PXGS35SL 920 mg/kg, 5-7' bgs 93PXGS37SL 918 mg/kg (Results are from the analysis of a diluted sample). [It appears that the "surface spill" migrated below to the sub-surface] AP-3265 0-1.5' bgs 1,174 mg/kg (Result is from the analysis of a diluted sample). Level B cleanup level was calculated for gasoline UST system post removal volumes were assumed instead of the 1,049 c.y. that were excavated. 18 AAC 75.341 states e. "volume of contaminated soil" means the total estimated volume of soil that is contaminated above the applicable cleanup level BEFORE a responsible person begins a removal or cleanup action. The source of the surface spill has not been identified, but appears to be related to former service station activities. Because of the 1imited number of borings, the extent of the spill was not completely defined. However, based on HLA's investigation and an aerial photograph (Aeromap, 1973), the interpreted horizontal extent of the spill is shown on Plate 3. Based on sample results from borings drilled inside the interpreted horizontal extent of the spill, the vertical extent of the spin is believed to be between 10-15’ bgs. 3 of the 5 borings inside the spill's horizontal extent had sample results for DRO below cleanup levels at depths of 10 feet. The total volume of contaminated soil is estimated to be greater than 500 cubic yards. The contaminant .appears to be a heavy oil, and depth to groundwater is expected to be 60 to 115 feet; therefore, it appears unlikely that contamination will migrate to groundwater. PCB sample results with MRLs exceeding RBCs do not clearly assess the presence of PCB contamination in the surface-spill area. The results do indicate, however, that PCB contamination is not present in areas free of petroleum contamination. According to the USACE Project Manager, the surface-spill area is being investigated further under a separate contract (Dames & Moore, Contract No. DACAS5-93-D-000S, Delivery Order 0004).

John Halverson

2/5/1995

Update or Other Action

Letter from Army to ADEC. On January 13, 1995, you met with Mr. Samuel P. Swearingen, and Major Kevin Gardener of the Environmental Compliance Branch. At this time you requested an explanation for the lack of spill protection on a number of underground storage tanks(UST) located at Fort Richardson. Below you will find a listing of those regulated tanks that were in question and an explanation of how the spill control requirement is met: Tank#9A- This is a used oil UST with an lLS-350 interstitial monitor/overfill alarm system. The tank's spill control system consists of a catchement basin/floor drain system attached to an oil water separator. The tank is filled through manually pouring oil into either one of the floor drains or into a oil sink. The system is non-pressurized, and gravity fed.

Louis Howard

6/16/1995

Site Ranked Using the AHRM

Initial ranking. Action code added because it wasn't when the site was originally ranked.

Louis Howard

8/29/1996

Update or Other Action

No change, remedial action work yet to be proposed.

Louis Howard

11/21/1996

Conditional Closure Approved

Lube Rack formerly associated with 710 is now associated with Building 712 and transferred from USTMP agreement to SFRERA agreement for corrective action. Conditional closure for Building 710 tanks 6 through 10 does not preclude future remediation or site investigation if new information indicates there is previously undiscovered contamination from the USTs or exposures which cause unacceptable risk to human health or the environment. Reservation of rights to request action under AS 46 and 18 AAC 78.

Louis Howard

6/13/2000

Institutional Control Record Established

The contaminated areas are currently covered with asphalt paving and institutional controls have been implemented to prevent unauthorized excavation at the site and maintain the integrity of the asphalt cap.

Louis Howard

9/14/2001

Update or Other Action

Inspection of Institutional Controls (asphalt paving and compacted soil cover) at former Building 712 location received. Site inspection conducted by DPW on August 5, 2001. Paving has small fractures, but overall remains intact. Work request submitted to have cracks in asphalt sealed compacted soil cover is intact and no part of it has been excavated. Flora at the site has recovered and grass and weeds are growing in the cover. Site remains in the REMOTE database and has been placed off limits in the USARAK master building plan.

Louis Howard

12/12/2001

Update or Other Action

1. All organizations conducting activities on United States Army Alaska (USARAK) controlled land are responsible for complying with established institutional controls (ICs). ICs are administrative, procedural, and regulatory measures to control human access to and usage of property. They are applicable to all known or suspected contaminated sites where contamination has been left in place. 2. These controls have been established to implement the selected remedial actions agreed upon by the U.S. Army (Army), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), and the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) in accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) as amended by the Superfund Amendment Reauthorization Act (SARA). These controls also apply to remedial actions agreed upon under Two-Party Compliance Agreements. These agreements are concluded between USARAK and ADEC and apply to petroleum/oil/lubricants- (POL) contaminated sites. 3. ICs such as limitations on access, water use, excavations, and property transfers will supplement engineering controls as appropriate for short-term and long-term management to prevent or limit human and environmental exposure to hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants. Specific ICs include, among other things: limitations on the depth and location of excavations, prohibition of or restrictions on well drilling and use of ground water, requirements for worker use of personal protective equipment, site monitoring, and prohibition of certain land uses, types of vehicles, etc. 4. Organizational units, tenants, and support/contractor organizations must obtain an Excavation Clearance Request (ECR) for all soil disturbing activities impacting soils six inches or more below the ground surface. The review process for approval of an ECR begins with the identification of the current status (known or suspected hazardous waste site or clean site) of a work location. ECRs for work in known or suspected hazardous waste sites: a. will include specific limitations and controls on such work; b. will include specific IC procedures, and notification, monitoring, reporting, and stop work requirements; c. may include procedures for management, characterization, and disposal of any soil or groundwater encountered or removed; d. will identify project managers for both the unit/contractor requesting the work and DPW Environment Resources. 5. The DPW project manager will conduct on-site inspections of each work site (at which ICs apply) to determine continued compliance with the terms and conditions of the approved ECR. DPW has the authority to revoke ECR approval if the specified terms and conditions are not being met. ECR forms are available at the Customer Service Desks at: a. Building 730 at Fort Richardson; b. Building 3015 at Fort Wainwright; c. Building 605 at Fort Greely. 6. USARAK has negotiated (with USEPA and/or ADEC) decision documents and/or Records of Decision (RODs) that mandate the implementation of ICs USARAK Directorate of Public Works, Environmental Resources Department (PWE), maintains copies of all decision documents and RODs requiring ICs in its real property files. PWE provides regularly updated post maps showing all areas affected by ICs. These maps can easily be accessed by using an approved intranet mapping interface application. Copies of these maps will be available to each directorate, activity, and tenant organization. To ensure the effectiveness of ICs, all organizational units and tenant activities will be informed on an annual basis of ICs on contaminated soils and groundwater in effect near their facilities. 7. ICs are enforceable by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC). Failure to comply with an IC mandated in a decision document or ROD will violate the USARAK Federal Facility Agreement and may result in stipulated fines and penalties. This does not include the costs of corrective actions required due to violation of an established IC.

Louis Howard

2/21/2013

Update or Other Action

Draft PMP received. Performance Objective:Optimized Exit Strategy for site closure Performance Indicators · Complete an approved OES Plan by May 2013 · Complete an approved Characterization Plan by October 2013 · Complete characterization by November 2013 · Complete an approved Characterization Report · Complete an approved OES Confirmation Report Potential risk Groundwater impacts are discovered during site characterization Risk Mitigation Groundwater monitoring wells will be installed and an appropriate groundwater strategy will be developed and implemented. Optimized LTM will be included in OES plan. Date of achieving Performance Objective: 2nd Quarter 2013 Description of planned approach objective: Prepare an approved OES Plan and Characterization Workplan. Coordinate, mobilize, and execute Characterization Workplan by installing and sampling one soil borings and collect hydropunch groundwater sample. Use HRC to evaluate SC based on risk to future residential receptors for all pathways. Prepare an approved Site Characterization Report documenting HRC risk evaluation and if appropriate prepare an approved Site Closure Report requesting Cleanup Complete without ICs. Receive concurrence from ADEC that site has achieved Cleanup Complete without ICs and provide documentation to AFCEE. If site conditions do not meet the criteria required for SC, additional monitoring wells will be installed as necessary to perform annual monitoring.

Louis Howard

6/10/2013

Exposure Tracking Model Ranking

Initial ranking with ETM completed for source area id: 72470 name: auto-generated pm edit Ft. Rich Bldg. 710 UST 10

Louis Howard

7/31/2013

Update or Other Action

Draft UFP-QAPP WP received for review and comment. The overall objective for the site is to meet “unrestricted or residential site use” criteria and achieve a “cleanup complete without institutional controls (ICs)” determination. To meet this objective, soil samples will be collected to characterize risk to human health and the environment within the framework of the ADEC site cleanup process (Title 18 Alaska Administrative Code Chapter 75 [18 AAC 75] Sections 325 to 390 and 18 AAC 78 Section 600) (ADEC, 2012a; ADEC, 2012b). If 18 AAC 75 Method Two criteria are exceeded, the Hydrocarbon Risk Calculator (HRC) approach under Method Three will be used to assess whether site conditions meet ADEC risk criteria (in which case, a “cleanup complete without ICs” determination will be requested) or whether the site poses unacceptable risk (in which case, further remediation may be required). If unacceptable risk is indicated by the HRC, or if vadose zone soils exceed maximum allowable concentrations, then remedial options will be evaluated that address the contaminants of concern and associated exposure routes that contribute enough risk to cause the cumulative risk estimate to exceed the risk standard. At TU043, six new soil borings will be drilled and discussed in the following list: Four borings will be drilled as close as practicable to former Terrasat confirmation sample locations to resample the soil at the locations and depths where previous sampling showed exceedances of the migration to groundwater criteria for GRO and BTEX. The borings will be used to collect source area soil samples for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), VPH, and extractable petroleum hydrocarbons (EPH) analysis. One boring will be drilled as close as practicable to former UST 9 to assess the residual level of PCE contamination at the former tank. Samples will be analyzed for GRO, diesel-range organics (DRO), residual-range organics (RRO), and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). One boring will be drilled as close as practicable to former Terrasat confirmation sample T10P1 to reassess the nature of residual petroleum contamination in the southern area of the former gasoline tanks. Samples will be analyzed for GRO, DRO, RRO, and petroleum-related VOCs (BTEX plus naphthalene [BTEXN]). Up to approximately 30 new primary soil samples will be collected and analyzed for GRO, DRO, RRO, and VOCs (BTEXN). Six of the soil samples will also be analyzed for PAHs, EPH, and VPH. One of the soil samples will be analyzed for soil bulk density, grain size distribution, specific gravity, and soil moisture content. One of the soil samples will be collected from below the contaminated soil source and will be analyzed for fraction of organic carbon. If any of the borings are drilled to groundwater, a groundwater sample will be collected and analyzed for VOCs, GRO, DRO, RRO, PAHs, VPH, and EPH.

Louis Howard

8/9/2013

Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other

Staff provided comments on the draft UFP-QAPP WP. Page ES-3 Site-Specific Proposed Work While TU043 is not anticipated to have contaminated groundwater above Table C cleanup levels, it should be noted that sites with existing contaminated will require that migration to groundwater cleanup levels be used for soil and ICs will be required. Once groundwater is below Table C for a period of time (consistent with and per the latest approved “Basewide Monitoring Program Well Sampling Frequency Decision Guide (Attachment 1 Memo to the Site File for OUs 4, 5, and 6 September 2003)” two rounds annual groundwater monitoring), the maximum allowable levels may become the cleanup levels as determined by ADEC on a case by case basis. WS #15 Project Action Limits and Laboratory-Specific Detection/Quantitation Limits The text states: “In order to meet TU043 regulatory agency requirements, the collection and analysis of methanol preserved volatile samples will be used for volatile soil sample analyses (ADEC, 2012d).” Unless previously agreed to by ADEC (action items for TU043 did not show any resolution being achieved for low-level analysis for SW8260 anywhere in the draft document), both ADEC required methanol preserved soil samples and EPA’s low-level analysis with SW8260 for VOCs shall be used at this site investigation associated with the waste oil UST (UST 9). NOTE: EPA no longer accepts sodium bisulfate preserved samples for SW8260; instead use VOC/VOA vials with a water carrier. If there is a different laboratory or new and/or modified procedures used for the site-specific work plan, then appropriate laboratory reference limits will need to be provided. If groundwater samples are taken, the target analyte list will include lead and EDB. Table 10-1 Historical Soil Data PCBs were analyzed for as part of the Harding Lawson Associates investigation and most samples were mostly ND (non-detectable). Please correct table to reflect this instead of “N/A”. Page 36 Groundwater The text states: “If groundwater samples are collected from any of the borings, all groundwater samples will be analyzed for GRO, DRO, RRO, VOCs (BTEXN), PAHs, EPH, and VPH.” There is no mention of EDB analysis being performed for groundwater samples as previously stated on Page 35 of the document. ADEC expects if any groundwater samples are taken, EDB analysis will be performed since four gasoline USTs and one waste oil UST were removed from the PX Gas Station site in September 1992 and the two investigations performed at the site did not include analysis for EDB using a method (e.g. EPA 8011 or 504.1) which would had a detection limit below 0.00005 mg/L. Also include analysis for lead in any groundwater samples.

Louis Howard

8/28/2013

Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other

ADEC has reviewed JBER's responses to ADEC's comments on TU043 Bldg. 710 UFP-QAPP WP. ADEC finds the responses to the comments acceptable. Please finalize the document. ADEC approval of the Final TU043 UFP-QAPP, Work Plan will be assumed by this e-mail indicating acceptance of the response to review comments on the Draft version of TU043 UFP-QAPP work plan. No additional approvals will be necessary or required for the final version.

Louis Howard

7/24/2014

Update or Other Action

Draft SC Report received for review & comment. Former Gasoline USTs: - Based on previous investigations & the 2013 site characterization field investigation, GRO & benzene remain in soil above project screening levels (PSLs). - The estimated carcinogenic cumulative risks, assuming industrial & hypothetical residential land use scenarios, are below the ADEC risk standard of 1E-05. - The cumulative noncancer HI estimates for future industrial & hypothetical residential exposure scenarios are below 1 for the direct contact/ingestion, outdoor air inhalation, & GW ingestion exposure pathways. - The indoor air inhalation pathway is considered an incomplete future exposure pathway because benzene in soil is separated from a potential future building foundation by 7 feet of clean fill. - Potential risks posed by the GRO, DRO, & RRO aromatic & aliphatic fractions are below the HI of 1 for the direct contact/ingestion, outdoor air inhalation, & GW ingestion exposure pathways. - The benzene in soil created a potential exceedance of MTGW (predicted concentration of 0.00513 mg/L versus regulatory level of 0.005 mg/L) in accordance with 18 AAC 75.340; however, GW has not been encountered to date. Fuel Dispensing System: - Based on previous investigations & the 2013 site characterization field investigation, GRO & benzene remain in soil above PSLs. However, it is unknown whether the highly contaminated soil documented during the removal & upgrade of the fuel dispensing system was removed based on the subsequent investigation data including the 2013 investigation results. - The estimated carcinogenic cumulative risks, assuming industrial & hypothetical residential land use scenarios, are below the ADEC risk standard of 1E-05. - The cumulative noncancer HI estimates for future industrial & hypothetical residential exposure scenarios are below 1 for the direct contact/ingestion, outdoor air inhalation, & GW ingestion exposure pathways. - The indoor air inhalation pathway is considered a potentially complete future exposure pathway because benzene is above the most stringent 18 AAC 75.341 Table B1 soil cleanup level. Risks from the VI exposure pathway caused by benzene in shallow surface soil should be considered significant & will need to be addressed. - Each soil EPC is less than its direct contact & outdoor inhalation exposure pathways (Method Three Calculator cleanup levels are provided in Appendix C-3). Gasoline USTs & Dispensing system recommendations: The gas station present as part of TU043 is no longer active, & the replacement USTs & fuel distribution system installed after the removal of the former gasoline USTs (UST 6, 7, 8, & 10) are currently scheduled for removal. The extent of GRO & benzene contaminated soil along the southern wall of the former excavation & adjacent to the current fuel dispensing system is anticipated to be limited. Therefore, removal of this contaminated soil during decommissioning of the current USTs & dispensing system is recommended to allow for a Cleanup Complete designation for USTs 6, 7, 8, & 10. Former Waste Oil Tank: - Based on previous investigations & the 2013 site characterization field investigation, PCE remains in soil at concentrations above PSLs beneath the replacement waste oil tank. The extent of PCE contamination is very limited. - The estimated carcinogenic cumulative risks, assuming industrial & hypothetical residential land use scenarios, are below the ADEC risk standard of 1E-05. - The cumulative noncancer HI estimates for future industrial & hypothetical residential exposure scenarios are below 1 for the direct contact/ingestion, outdoor air inhalation, & GW ingestion exposure pathways. - The indoor air inhalation pathway is considered a potentially complete future exposure pathway because PCE contamination is above the most stringent 18 AAC 75.341 Table B1 soil cleanup level. Risks from the VI exposure pathway caused by PCE in shallow surface soil should be considered significant & will need to be addressed. - Each soil EPC is less than its direct contact & outdoor inhalation exposure pathways (Method Three Calculator cleanup levels are provided in Appendix C-4). No potential risks to ecological receptors were observed for TU043, & potentially complete ecological exposure pathways at TU043 are considered insignificant Recommendation: PCE is anticipated to be present at the bottom of the former tank (UST 9) excavation. Because PCE was not detected above screening levels in any of the soil samples collected from subsequent soil borings placed adjacent to the former UST, the volume of contaminated soil is assumed to be very small. Therefore, removal of a few extra feet from the bottom of the excavation used to decommission the replacement waste oil UST will likely remove the PCE-contaminated soil & allow for a Cleanup Complete designation for UST 9.

Louis Howard

8/18/2014

Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other

Staff commented on the SC report. 6.1 Recommendations Former Gasoline USTs ADEC agrees that removal of soil during decommissioning of underground storage tanks: 6A, 7A, 8A, and 10A may result in a cleanup complete designation. However, it remains to be seen if the (Air Force) anticipated amount of petroleum contaminated soil associated with the current dispensing system, piping and USTs is truly limited in extent. Analysis of BTEX, PAHs, and GRO are required for a site assessment of gasoline USTs conducted in accordance with 18 AAC 78 and the UST Procedure Manual, adopted by reference. Former Waste Oil Tank ADEC agrees that removal of a few extra feet from the bottom of the excavation during decommissioning of underground storage tank 9A may result in a cleanup complete designation. However, it remains to be seen if the (Air Force) anticipated amount of chlorinated contaminated soil associated with UST 9A and its piping is truly limited in extent. Analysis of GRO, DRO, BTEX, PAHs, metals , VOCs (UST Procedure Manual November 2002), EDB/1,2-DCA (ADEC Draft Field Sampling Guidance May 2010 App. F and UST Procedure Manual Table 2B as required by project manager), and PCBs (ADEC Draft Field Sampling Guidance May 2010) are required analyses for site assessment of waste oil UST 9A conducted in accordance with 18 AAC 78 and the UST Procedure Manual, adopted by reference.

Louis Howard

8/20/2014

Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other

ADEC has reviewed JBER's responses to ADEC's comments and finds them satisfactory. Finalize the Draft SC Report document.

Louis Howard

1/12/2016

Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other

Staff commented on the draft UST removal and SA report for Bldgs. 710, 977 and (Moose Run) Clubhouse facility. Staff remarked that use of 20 ppm on the PID is not a definitive data point and laboratory confirmation will be required for all soil samples to prove "clean" and "dirty" stockpiles. Staff also provided a background soil study for reference to document arsenic is truly background and not site-related contamination. Based on the information provided in this document, a release has occurred. In accordance with 18 AAC 78.090(k) , ADEC expects that there will be further corrective action/investigation for those areas which did not meet ADEC cleanup levels (e.g. pipe run excavation near building 710 and the Moose Run Golf Course. See site file for additional information.

Louis Howard

2/1/2016

Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other

ADEC Contaminated Sites Program staff has reviewed the AFCEC responses to ADEC's comments and finds the responses satisfactory. Please finalize the document. One electronic and one hard copy ) will suffice for CS Program's files. UST Program may have other requirements for their files. The document will include a signature page signed by the "Qualified Environmental Professional" (as defined by 18 AAC 78.088) that prepared the site assessment as required by 18 AAC 78.090). It appears a release has occurred and AFCEC shall conduct a release investigation in accordance with the 1993 State-Fort Richardson Underground Storage Tank Compliance Agreement (aka UST Agreement, see Sections 30 & 32) and 18 AAC 78.235 (June 17, 2015). AFCEC shall begin any necessary corrective action as required by the 1993 UST Agreement (see Sections 34 through 45) and 18 AAC 78.330 - 18 AAC 78.280 (June 17, 2015). The release investigation shall characterize the release and actual or potential threat to human health and safety, and to the environment

Louis Howard

5/17/2016

Meeting or Teleconference Held

As discussed during the FFA meeting held in May, TU043 is being programmed for FY18 (October 1, 2017 - September 30 2018). The federal government's fiscal year begins on October 1 and ends on September 30. The fiscal year is denoted by the year in which it ends.

Louis Howard

5/9/2019

Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other

Staff commented on the Draft TU023 and TU123 Release Investigation JBER-Richardson, Alaska Dated April 2019. Main comments: not only will 1/10th of the most recent Human Health levels in 18 AAC 75 be used as preliminary screening levels (PSLs) after EPA’s regional screening levels (RSLs), but the migration to groundwater soil cleanup levels (18 AAC 75) will also be used for site delineation purposes. Use of the MTGW cleanup levels will be consistent with project screening levels approved for use at JBER: limited field investigations/preliminary source evaluations and remedial investigation management plans (SS013 RI/FS Management Plan WS#11 Data Quality Objectives (2016) 1.3 Regulatory Criteria CG703 Northern Plum RI Report (2018) “ADEC migration to groundwater and Table C groundwater cleanup levels (ADEC 2017b) have been considered for site delineation.”). See site file for additional information.

Louis Howard

4/13/2020

Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other

Staff provided comments on information received regarding no further site investigation required at TU043 (bldg. 710 AAFES Service Station). Based on a review of the information, staff agreed that no further site investigation is required at TU043 contingent upon submittal of a draft formal report for TU043 for ADEC to review. A field change form with text, figures and tables does not meet this requirement which ADEC needs to determine to make a decision whether the release investigation work is complete, assuming all necessary quality assurance/quality control needs have been met.

Louis Howard

8/22/2020

Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other

DDEC staff reviewed Draft Release Investigation Report for TU043 and provided comments. DEC requested additional information including historical soil boring data in locations south of borings SB03 and SB05 and East of soil boring SB11. Until more soil data is presented, it cannot be assumed that the monitoring wells sampled in 2019 were down-gradient of soil contamination. DEC requested a change to the conclusions and recommendations portion of the report to address additional site characterization.

William Schmaltz

2/2/2021

Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other

DEC reviewed and approved 2021 Final Release Investigation Report for TU043 - Building 710. The extent of diesel and PAH contamination in soil at and around the distribution pipeline is well-delineated to the north and south based on 2019 and historical data. The eastern and western extent of diesel and PAH contamination in soil is delineated by 2019 samples collected at soil borings SB12 and SB14. Naphthalene contamination at EB01 was laterally delineated by 2019 LIF screenings TU043LIF-16, TU043LIF-19, and TU043LIF-20, with no fuel signature at 2019 soil boring SB15. DRO, naphthalene, and 1-methylnaphthalene contamination are also vertically delineated to a maximum depth between 15 and 20 feet bgs. Of the 17 borings advanced during the 2019 release investigation, seven contained benzene concentrations exceeding the ADEC Method Two MTGW cleanup level. Similar benzene exceedances were detected in nearby 2013 soil samples. Benzene contamination along the western, northern, and eastern edges of the fuel dispenser islands has been laterally delineated. Although the extent to the south beyond 2013 soil boring SB03 and 2019 soil boring SB05 has not been fully delineated, soil contamination is unlikely to extend further south as these locations are at the southern extent of the fueling system and at the upgradient extent of the source area. In addition, monitoring well MW03 is located within 20 feet of those locations, indicating that MTGW is not an issue. During the adjacent site TU060 investigation, soil samples were collected from 11 boring locations north, east, and south of TU043 soil boring SB11, which had the highest concentration of benzene (0.083 mg/kg) during the 2019 release investigation. Benzene concentrations in these TU060 samples were all nondetect, except at boring TU060-SB08 at 25 to 35 feet bgs with a concentration of 0.0132 J mg/kg, which is below the ADEC MTGW cleanup level of 0.022 mg/kg. Boring TU060-SB08 is located approximately 65 feet southeast of SB11; therefore, it appears that the extent of soil contamination north, east, and south of SB11 is fully delineated. Ethylbenzene contamination was laterally delineated by 2019 LIF screenings TU043LIF-16, TU043LIF-19, and TU043LIF-20 with no fuel signature and 2019 soil boring SB15. The vertical extent of BTEX appears to be delineated to a maximum depth between 28 and 75 feet bgs. DRO, RRO, and lead were detected in groundwater samples collected in 2020. A review of the chromatograms for the DRO and RRO results in groundwater suggests that low-level DRO and RRO detections may have been caused by naturally occurring carbon compounds. The chromatogram patterns for the groundwater samples were inconsistent with true fuel patterns in the spiked samples. The lead concentrations in groundwater are less than the JBER-Richardson background level of 4.4 milligrams per liter (95-percent upper tolerance limit) and are likely naturally occurring. The soil MTGW pathway is believed to be incomplete with the water table being separated from the deepest DRO, benzene, ethylbenzene, and naphthalene MTGW exceedances by more than 50 feet of soil lithology that includes multiple layers of hard clayey silt-silty clay.

William Schmaltz

5/3/2021

Cleanup Complete Determination Issued

Soil contamination at the site has been delineated laterally and vertically, and the site is suitable for residential use. Based on soil borings and chromatograms, DRO, RRO, and lead concentrations detected in groundwater are not associated with TU043. This site will receive a “Cleanup Complete” designation on the Contaminated Sites Database.

William Schmaltz

5/3/2021

Institutional Control Record Removed

Institutional Controls have been removed.

William Schmaltz

Contaminant Information

Name	Level Description	Media	Comments
Benzene	Between Method 2 Migration to Groundwater and Human Health/Ingestion/Inhalation	Soil	Benzene has been delineated vertically and horizontally and is not migrating to groundwater.

Name

Level Description

Media

Comments

Benzene

Between Method 2 Migration to Groundwater and Human Health/Ingestion/Inhalation

Soil

Benzene has been delineated vertically and horizontally and is not migrating to groundwater.

Control Type

Type	Details
No ICs Required

Type

Details

No ICs Required

Requirements

Description	Details
Advance approval required to transport soil or groundwater off-site.
Movement or use of contaminated material (including on site) in a manner that results in a violation of the water quality standards is prohibited (18 AAC 70)

Description

Details

Advance approval required to transport soil or groundwater off-site.

Movement or use of contaminated material (including on site) in a manner that results in a violation of the water quality standards is prohibited (18 AAC 70)

2021 Cleanup Complete Determination Letter

Final TU043 Release Investigation Report - January 2021

1991 GW Quality Survey Eval. of Solid Waste Mgt. Units (SWMUs)

No associated sites were found.

Missing Location Data

Because the GIS location data for this site has not been entered, we cannot direct you to its position on the map. Click "Continue" to proceed to the Contaminated Sites Web Map or "Close" to return to the site report.

Continue Close

Site Report: JBER-Ft. Rich TU043 Bldg 710 AAFES Service Station UST 10 USTA 2 Party

Site Chronology

IC / Closure Details

Documents

Associated Sites

Problems/Comments

Action Information

Contaminant Information

Control Type

Requirements

2021 Cleanup Complete Determination Letter

Final TU043 Release Investigation Report - January 2021

1991 GW Quality Survey Eval. of Solid Waste Mgt. Units (SWMUs)

Missing Location Data

State of Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation