| Action Date |
Action |
Description |
DEC Staff |
| 12/31/1981 |
Update or Other Action |
In 1981, the Air Force removed asbestos-containing pipe insulation, scrap metal, wood, water and fish-oil based paints, and 20 empty petroleum, oil, lubricant (POL) barrels from the Port Heiden radio relay station (RRS). These materials were disposed of in Landfill A (asbestos containing material and building debris) and at BS I, northwest of the composite building. More than 100 empty POL barrels were buried at landfills designated BS II-VIII; however the locations of the burial sites were unknown. |
Louis Howard |
| 3/1/1984 |
Update or Other Action |
In 1984, the USAF received waste-disposal permits for cleanup oerpations at Port Heiden (Permit 8421-BA014) and other remote WACS sites. According to the USAF "The 5099th CEOS believes that this one shot cleanup will remove the last of the hazardous material and bury the remaining general debris at the sites." No record exists about the contents or location of the debris buried at Port Heiden during the 1984 effort. Correspondence indicates that the USAF allowed the permit to expire in October of 1984. |
Louis Howard |
| 1/23/1987 |
Update or Other Action |
Executive Order (EO) 12580--Superfund implementation Source: The provisions of EO 12580 of Jan. 23, 1987, appear at 52 FR 2923, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193, unless otherwise noted.
(d) Subject to subsections (a), (b) & (c) of this SEC., the functions vested in the President by Sections (SEC.) 104(a) , (b) & (c)(4), 113(k) , 117(a) & (c) , 119, & 121 of the Act are delegated to the Secretaries of Defense & Energy, with respect to releases or threatened releases where either the release is on or the sole source of the release is from any facility or vessel under the jurisdiction, custody or control of their depts.., respectively, including vessels bare-boat chartered & operated. These functions must be exercised consistent with the requirements of SEC. 120 of the Act.
SEC. 104 [42 U.S.C. 9604] Response Authorities-(a)(1) Whenever (A) any hazardous substance is released or there is a substantial threat of such a release into the environment (environ.), or (B) there is a release or substantial threat of release into the environ. of any pollutant or contaminant which may present an imminent & substantial danger to the public health or welfare, the President is authorized to act, consistent with the NCP, to remove or arrange for the removal of, & provide for remedial action (RA) relating to such hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant at any time (including its removal from any contaminated natural resource), or take any other response measure consistent with the NCP which the President deems necessary to protect the public health or welfare or the environ.
(b)(1) Information: Studies & Investigations. --Whenever the President is authorized to act pursuant to subsection (a) of this SEC., or whenever the President has reason to believe that a release has occurred or is about to occur, or that illness disease, or complaints thereof may be attributable to exposure to a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant & that a release may have occurred or be occurring, he may undertake such investigations, monitoring, surveys, testing, & other information gathering as he may deem necessary or appropriate to identify the existence & extent of the release or threat thereof, the source & nature of the hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants involved, & the extent of danger to the public health or welfare or to the environ.
(k) Administrative Record & Participation Procedures.- (1) Administrative record (AR). -- The President shall establish an AR upon which the President shall base the selection of a response action. The AR shall be available to the public at or near the facility at issue. The President also may place duplicates of the AR at any other location. (2) Participation procedures.- (A) Removal action. -- The President shall promulgate regulations in accordance with chapter 5 of title 5 of the USC establishing procedures for the appropriate participation of interested persons in the development of the AR on which the President will base the selection of removal actions & on which judicial review of removal actions will be based.
(a) Proposed Plan (PP). -- Before adoption of any plan for RA to be undertaken by the President, by a State, or by any other person, under SEC. 104, 106, 120, or 122, the President or State, as appropriate, shall take both the following actions: (1) Publish a notice & brief analysis of the PP & make such plan available to the public. (2) Provide a reasonable opportunity for submission of written & oral comments & an opportunity for a public mtg. at or near the facility at issue regarding the PP & regarding any proposed findings under SEC. 121(d)(4) (relating to cleanup standards). The President or the State shall keep a transcript of the mtg. & make such transcript available to the public.
(c) Explanation Of Differences -- After adoption of a final RA plan- (1) if any RA is taken, (2) if any enforcement action under SEC. 106 is taken, or (3) if any settlement or consent decree under SEC. 106 or SEC. 122 is entered in to, & if such action, settlement, or decree differs in any significant respects from the final plan, the President or the State shall publish an explanation of the significant differences & the reasons such changes were made.
SEC. 121 [42 U.S.C. 9621] Cleanup Standards [§121 added by PL 99-499] (a) Selection of RA.--The President shall select appropriate RAs determined to be necessary to be carried out under SEC. 104 or secured under SEC. 106 which are in accordance with this SEC. &, to the extent practicable, the NCP, & which provide for cost-effective response. In evaluating the cost effectiveness of proposed alternative RAs, the President shall take into account the total short- & long-term costs of such actions, including the costs of O & M for the entire period during which such activities will be required. |
Jennifer Roberts |
| 4/21/1987 |
Update or Other Action |
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, the COE released a public notice, environmental assessment (EA), and finding of no significant impact (FNSI) on a proposal to clean up debris at Port Heiden, including the abandoned Word War II U.S. Army base of Fort Morrow and the WACS site (COE. Public Notice with Enclosures of Finding of No Significant lmpffct and Environmental Assessment. ER-87-03.)
Review comments were received from resource agencies. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USF&WS), found the EA, FNSI, and cleanup design to be inadequate in three areas:
(1) the lack of site-specific information regarding the chemical nature of hazardous and toxic substances and the extent of their habitat contamination;
(2) the presence of generic, unsubstantiated statements regarding the environmental safeguards to be employed to minimize the impacts; and
3) identification of solid-waste and hazardous-waste sites. |
Louis Howard |
| 2/5/1988 |
Update or Other Action |
Permit 8712-BA012 was issued for the disposal of demolition debris at Landfill A and 87211-BA013 was issued for Landfill B on February 5, 1988. The Proposed Site A is located at the WACS site, and site B is one-half mile south of the west end of the runway. According to the draft closure plan submitted in 1995, this site was closed on September 25, 1990. The permit initially was issued as a one-time disposal of demolition debris at Site A. Corps requested to have permit extended, which was approved. Extension deadline 1/31/93. Also, within closure plan are details regarding materials placed in landfill: Inert, Industrial, NonRACM Asbestos, Construction Debris, copper pipe w/ 44 ppm PCB scale and approx. 1482.5 cubic yards of POL-contaminated soil.
Letter from Henry Friedman stated up to 5,000 mg/kg total petroleum hydrocarbons in soil was allowed and "trace" (up to 10 ppm) amounts of PCBs. Final two foot cap of clean soil could not have more than the 10 ppm level in the final six inch layer below the two foot cap.
The permit files of the ADEC solid waste management program do not contain record drawings, records of use, or closure documentation. The permit expired on January 31, 1993. |
Jennifer Roberts |
| 6/20/1991 |
Cleanup Level(s) Approved |
Letter from Jennifer Roberts Fed. Fac. Coordinator-Southcentral Regional Office to Louis R. Pylant Lt. Col. COE RE: FUDS Risk Analysis Dated June 19, 1991. The Department has reviewed the Final Risk Analysis for Alternative Cleanup Levels at Port Heiden, Alaska, submitted by your department on June 19, 1991. The risk analysis adequately addresses the concerns generated by utilizing a cleanup level of 5,000 parts per million total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) for remote areas of the Port Heiden Formerly Used Defense Site (FUDS) cleanup.
This 5,000 ppm does not include benzene, ethylbenzene, toluene, and total xylenes. It is my understanding that the components have volatilized off and are no longer an issue. This letter approves of the work proposed in the Final Risk Analysis with a remote site-specific cleanup level of 5,000 ppm (mg/kg) for TPH. (CC'd Max Schwenne, Ron Godden, and Eileen Olsen). |
Jennifer Roberts |
| 8/22/1991 |
Update or Other Action |
Letter from US Army Engineer District AK-COE David R. Neeley Major, COE Alternate Admin. Contracting officer to Jennifer Roberts/Ron Godden RE: Asphalt in Landfill "A", Contract # DACA85-89-C-0042, DERP, Debris Cleanup & Site Restoration, Port Heiden & Pt. Moller AK. Letter is in reference to the Port Heiden contract and previous conversations with you. This is to confirm our discussions on asphalt handling procedures. For asphalt and asphaltines, our plan will be: Double bag (super sacks) all asphalt and asphaltine material under 5,000 ppm and place in landfill site "A".
All asphalt and asphaltine material over 5,000 ppm will be run through the incinerator to attempt to lower the TPH levels. If tests result in levels below 5,000 ppm, then the above procedure will be followed.
All asphalt and asphaltine material which still tests higher than 5,000 ppm after one run through the incinerator will be transported to an approved site. Note: during this process, especially if it is proven that 5,000 ppm or less cannot be achieved, the material will be left undisturbed and identified on the As-Built drawings. The landfill will have a cell designated for asphalt materials. This cell will be lined and designated on the As-Builts. |
Jennifer Roberts |
| 10/24/1991 |
Update or Other Action |
Svendt Brandt-Erichsen Regional adminstrator sent letter to VECO Dave Robbins Project Manager RE: Air Quality Control Permit to Operate SRS/Mobile Soil Remediation Unit (MSRU) ADEC File# 9125-AA004 State ID# AK910827-14A. The Department of Environmental Conservation has reviewed your August 12, 1991 request for an Air Quality Control Permit to Operate for the SRS/Mobile Soil Remediation Unit (MSRU) which will be located initially at Port Heiden. The Department finds: 1) the MSRU is a new portable unit consisting of a rotary kiln with a burner, a baghouse, and an afterburner with annual emissions of any one air contaminant of less than 250 tons;
2) the facility includes an air contaminant emission control unit to comply with Department air quality emission standards set out in 18 AAC 50.050 and is an industrial process with a throughput greater than 5 tons per hour;
3) the facility is subject to the following air quality control regulations: 18 AAC 50.050(a)(4) opacity for all fuel burning equipment, 18 AAC 50.050(b)(5) particulate matter; 18 AAC 50.050(c) sulfur compound emissions, 18 AAC 50.050(f) fugitive emissions, soil remediation unit guidelines.
As provided by 18 AAC 50.400, the Department hereby issues the enclosed air quality control permit to operate no. 9125-AA004. Please note that there are 24 conditions of the permit. Violation of any one of these conditions may result in revocation or suspension of the permit in accordance with 18 AAC 50.310. The permit expires on December 30, 1993, and you must request renewal at least thirty days prior to that date for continued operation of the facility. Violation of any condition of this permit may subject you to civil or criminal penalties as provided in AS 46.03.760 (Civil action for pollution; damages), AS 46.03.765 (Injunctions), AS 46.03.780 (Liability for restoration), and AS 46.03.790 (Criminal penalties). Please be advised that State regulations may differ from Federal regulations, if you have any questions regarding compliance with these regulations you should contact EPA or the Department.
Department regulations provide that if you disagree with this decision, you may request an adjudicatory hearing in accordance with 18 AAC 15.200-910. The request should be mailed to the Commissioner, ADEC, PO Box O, Juneau AK 99811-1800, by certified mail, return receipt requested. If a hearing is requested, one copy of the request should also be sent to the Regional Administrator of the Department of Environmental Conservation, SCRO, 3601 C St. ste 1334, Anchorage AK 99503. Failure to submit a request within thirty days of the service of this letter shall constitute a waiver of your right to an administrative review of this decision. In addition, any other person who disagrees with this decision may request an adjudicatory hearing within thirty days of service of the enclosed permit. Any hearing granted will be limited to issues relating to the permit. |
Jennifer Roberts |
| 10/30/1991 |
Update or Other Action |
Air permit discrepancies identified in permit ADEC file no. 9125-AA004 State ID No. AK910827-14A and similar permits issued for the Northern Region. As such the permit to operate is amended: Permittee shall preheat the baghouse to 250 degrees F for a minimum of ten minutes on daily startup and post heat for a minimum of two minutes before ceasing operation. Added: Permittee shall operate the unit's afterburner at a minimum temperature of 1500 degrees F at all times, including the baghouse per-and post-heat periods. Amended: Permittee shall install, calibrate, operate and maintain a continuous emission monitoring system to measure and record the emissions of carbon monoxide and oxygen through the soil remediation unit exhaust stack as stipulated in Exhibit C. |
Jennifer Roberts |
| 11/5/1991 |
Update or Other Action |
Letter to VECO David L. Robbins RE: POL Contaminated Soil Remediation Port Heiden/Port Moller, AK Contract DACA 85-89-C0042 Revision 002. The workplan with revision 002 dated 11/04/1991 addressing the Department's requirements was received and reviewed. The workplan as submitted for Port Heiden soil remediation is approved. |
Jennifer Roberts |
| 11/5/1991 |
Update or Other Action |
James J. Nyemchek Air Quality Engineer SCRO sent letter to VECO Dave Robbins RE: Air Quality permit to operate No. 9125-AA004 State ID AK910827-14A. The letter is in response to your request for a written authorization from the Department allowing you to proceed with soil remediation at the Port Heiden site. Two issues which had been outstanding have been resolved.
Based on our review, the Department finds: 1) the source test plan which was hand delivered on November 1, 1991 is acceptable and has been approved; 2) the workplan with revision 002 dated 11/04/1991 for the Port Heiden soil remediation project has been approved by the Department's Contaminated Sites Group.
Therefore, the project may proceed as planned. |
Jennifer Roberts |
| 12/3/1991 |
Update or Other Action |
Bill MacClarence communication with Jennifer Roberts RE: VECO Dirt burner Port Heiden. Ed Powell of CH2M-Hill was stack testing the VECO dirt burner at the Port Heiden COE cleanuip. They have shut everything down. The system is a failure and they might try bioremediation in the Spring of 1992. In addition to the contaminated soil, they (the CORPS) have now produced a lot of toxic waste material that will have to be treated.
CH2M-Hill got into some contaminated pumice during stack testing and when they tried to process it, it exploded in the drum mixer and released SiO2 vapor (a very toxic compound). NOTE to file: Crystalline silica, or silicon dioxide (SiO2), is the basic component of sand, quartz and granite rock. The permissible exposure limits for mineral dusts including crystalline silica in the construction industry (29 CFR 1926.55) depends on the percent of silica in the sand. For example, if the crystalline silica content is 20%, then the PEL is 10 mppcf (millions of particulates per cubic feet of air). Quartz (SiO2) 14808-60-7 ACGIH TLV: 0.05 mg/m³ TWA, respirable fraction, A2 - See Appendix A OSHA PEL: 10/(%SiO2 + 2) mg/m³ TWA, respirable dust; 30/(%SiO2 + 2) mg/m³ TWA, total dust REMANDED PEL: 0.1 mg/m³ TWA, respirable dust OSHA 1989 PEL remanded, but in effect in some states OTHER: NIOSH has recommended a permissible exposure limit of 50 micrograms
respirable free silica per cubic meter of air (0.05 mg/m³) averaged
over a workshift of up to 10 hours per day, 40 hours per week. NIOSH publications, including the NIOSH Criteria Document for Crystalline Silica, should be consulted for more detailed information.
The SiO2 vapor supposedly condensed in the stack after the baghouse. CH2M-Hill says there was about a half-inch of material on the filter, but that there were not any numbers because all samples had been taken for analysis. CH2M-Hill was sure it was much higher than the 0.05 grains per standard cubic foot particulate standard. The material coated the whole sample train and is impossible to remove excep with hydrofluoric acid. The mall particle size measured, 0.02 micron, supports the condensation theory. The system had many carbon monoxide spikes since the CORPS would not allow any blending of material. The ENERAC monitor was a less than adequate test device and was never tested due to all of the particulates problems. |
Jennifer Roberts |
| 1/31/1992 |
Update or Other Action |
Letter from CS Section Federal Facilities to Dan Owens Richardson Resident Office CENPA-CO-RR Fort Richardson RE: Port Heiden Landfill approval for asphalt disposal. After conferring with other program staff, it appears that the issue of asphalt material being placed in the landfill under the permit was not a problem due to the original permit stipulations. It is the Corps of Engineers decision to allow your contractor to leave the 12 cubic yards of asphalt material in place at the landfill. |
Louis Howard |
| 4/12/1994 |
Update or Other Action |
EPA Region 10 sent letter to USAF Lt. Colonel Rodney L. Hunt 11th CEOS. The letter was to inform the Air Force that EPA Region 10 has completed the review of the Preliminary Assessment (PA) report for the Port Heiden White Alice Communication site located near Port Heiden, Alaska. The PA and supplemental information have been evaluated in accordance with 40 CFR Part 300 Appendix A, which is EPA's Hazard Ranking System (HRS) used to evaluate federal facilities for inclusion on the National Priorities List (NPL).
From our evaluation, EPA has determined that the facility does not score high enough to be proposed for inclusion on the NPL. Therefore, a recommendation of no further remedial action planned (NFRAP) on the EPA's part will be included in our Federal Agency Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket tracking system. If new or additional information to be proposed for the NPL, EPA must reevaluate your facility accordingly.
EPA's NFRAP designation does not relieve your facility from complying with appropriate Alaska state regulations. The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986, Section 120(a) (4) requires federal facilities to comply with state cleanup requirements and standards when not listed on the NPL.
This facility will not be removed from the Federal Agency Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket, but as noted earlier, will be listed for no further action by EPA. Mark Adar Federal Facilities, Site Assessment Manager.
NOTE to File: CHAPTER 103--COMPREHENSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE, COMPENSATION, AND LIABILITY SUBCHAPTER I--HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES RELEASES, LIABILITY, COMPENSATION Sec. 9620. Federal facilities (a) Application of chapter to Federal Government
(1) In general Each department, agency, and instrumentality of the United States (including the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government) shall be subject to, and comply with, this chapter in the same manner and to the same extent, both procedurally and substantively, as any nongovernmental entity, including liability under section 9607 of this title. Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect the liability of any person or entity under sections 9606 and 9607 of this title.
(2) Application of requirements to Federal facilities All guidelines, rules, regulations, and criteria which are applicable to preliminary assessments carried out under this chapter for facilities at which hazardous substances are located, applicable to evaluations of such facilities under the National Contingency Plan, applicable to inclusion on the National Priorities List, or applicable to remedial actions at such facilities shall also be applicable to facilities which are owned or operated by a department, agency, or instrumentality of the United States in the same manner and to the extent as such guidelines, rules, regulations, and criteria are applicable to other facilities.
No department, agency, or instrumentality of the United States may adopt or utilize any such guidelines, rules, regulations, or criteria which are inconsistent with the guidelines, rules, regulations, and criteria established by the Administrator under this chapter. (3) Exceptions This subsection shall not apply to the extent otherwise provided in this section with respect to applicable time periods. This subsection shall also not apply to any requirements relating to bonding, insurance, or financial responsibility. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to require a State to comply with section 9604(c)(3) of this title in the case of a facility which is owned or operated by any department, agency, or instrumentality of the United States.
(4) State laws State laws concerning removal and remedial action, including State laws regarding enforcement, shall apply to removal and remedial action at facilities owned or operated by a department, agency, or instrumentality of the United States or facilities that are the subject of a deferral under subsection (h)(3)(C) of this section when such facilities are not included on the National Priorities List. The preceding sentence shall not apply to the extent a State law would apply any standard or requirement to such facilities which is more stringent than the standards and requirements applicable to facilities which are not owned or operated by any such department, agency, or instrumentality. |
Louis Howard |
| 12/31/1994 |
CERCLA PA |
US Army Corps of Engineers contracted with CH2MHILL to conduct a preliminary assessment (Contract No. DACA85-92-D-0007 Delivery Order 0007) of the Port Heiden White Alice Communication System (WACS) site. During the summers of 1990 and 1991, hazardous materials were removed from Port Heiden and disposed of offsite. Nonhazardous materials were disposed of in two landfills:
Landfill A northeast of the composite building and Landfill B south of the airfield. Asbestos-containing materials removed from the composite building and Quonset huts were deposited in Landfill A in a designated cell. Asbestos: Piping (Estimated Quantities - Table 2.2-1) 500 lineal feet and Building Material (Estimated Quantities - Table 2.2-1) 25,000 sq. ft. all were removed in 1990 demolition and cleanup. Placed in asbestos cell of permitted Landfill A.
The WACS site composite building, antennas, and associated structures were removed and deposited in Landfill A. Building debris from other areas of Fort Morrow ended up in both landfills. Disturbed areas were fertilized and reseeded according to contract specifications.
The landfill permits and contract specifications did not allow any hazardous wastes or
liquid POL products in the landfills. Landfill depths-the bottoms of the landfills were to
be at least 4 feet above the water table-were verified by digging test pits. Hard asphalt
chunks could be dumped in the bottoms of the landfills. The permits allowed POL-contaminated
soil to be placed in a 6-inch lift of the final 24 inches of the cap.
Negotiations between the COE and ADEC resulted in soils of up to 5,000-ppm of TPH being added to the 6-inch lift. Soils exceeding TPH concentration of 5,000 ppm were either incinerated onsite (1991-1992) or disposed of offsite. Because the amount of POL contaminated soils far exceeded the capacity allowed in the landfill cap, most of the soils between 100 and 5,000 ppm were also incinerated onsite or left in place (discussed in risk assessment summary that follows), landfill caps were graded according to specifications, then fertirlzed and reseeded. Currently, the COE is preparing landfill closure reports for Landfills A and B to file with the ADEC (Robert Rozier, COE, personal communication, 1993).
Permit 8721-BA012 was issued for the disposal of demolition debris at Landfill A and
87211-BA013 was issued for landfill B on February 5, 1988. The proposed site A is located at the WACS site, and site B is one-half mile south of the west end of the runway. The permit files of the ADEC Solid Waste Management Program do not contain record drawings, records of use, or closure documentation. The permits expired on January 31, 1993.
During the summers of 1990 and 1991, hazardous materials were removed from Port Heiden and disposed of offsite. Nonhazardous materials were disposed of in two landfills: Landfill A northeast of the composite building and Landfill B south of the airfield. Asbestos-containing materials removed from the composite building and Quonset huts were deposited in Landfill A in a designated cell.
According to the COE project manager, 2 feet of sand and gravel were placed as a cover
at the demolition landfill (including the asbestos cell). Therefore, the potential for offsite
migration of asbestos is low. |
Louis Howard |
| 12/1/1995 |
Update or Other Action |
Draft Landfill Closure Report for Debris Cleanup and Site Restoration DERP Solid Waste Disposal Permit Numbers 8721-BA012 and 8721-BA013. The work was performed under the US ACE AK District contract number DACA85-89-C-0042. The buildings of Fort Morrow were constructed in an area of approximately 8,000 acres surrounding two airfield runways, which are located 2 miles northeast of the Native village of Meshik. The Port Heiden Radio Relay Staion site was established on 172.04 acres within the existing Fort Morrow site.
Contract covered the removal of approximately 285 Quonset huts, 165 wood and metal structures, 20,000 drums, 3 collapsed steel frame towers, 4 antennas, 13 vehicles, miscellaneous old machinery, 200 drums of hazardous material, 4 communication scatter billboard antennas, 4 feedhorns, a below-ground water storage tank, 2 below-ground fuel storage tanks 20,000 gallons each, a septic tank, telephone poles, and other miscellaneous debris. Modifications to contract added the removal of asbestos associated with hot water line, a tank, stove collars, file cabinet parts, wallboard, generator exhaust stacks. Additionally, the removal of polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) capacitors and PCB contaminated soil and the thermal remediation of petroleum, oil and lubricant (POL) soil were also included as modifications.
Two landfill sites used at the Port Heiden project site were issued waste disposal permits from the ADEC. Site "A" is located at T37S, R59W, SE & SW 1/4, NW 1/4 of Sec 15, Seward Meridian and it was issuted permit# 8721-BA012. Site B located at T37S, R59W, SW 1/4 NW 1/4 of Sec 26, Seward Meridian, was issued permit # 8721-BA013.
Contents of Landfill A consisted of 94 bags of asbestos contaminated materials from the Post Exchange and barrel containing asbestos contaminated materials from the Composite Building buried with 2 feet of soil. Also disposed of Landfill Site A were four antennas, copper pipe containing 44 ppm PCB scale, coiled communication cable, Quonset huts, crushed steam cleaned barrels, and miscellaneous military and general debris. The PCB copper pipe placement was at eleven feet below ground surface.
The material volumes placed in the landfill was estimated to be 12,175 cubic yards (excluding soil). Approximately 1,482.5 cubic yards of POL contaminated soil was placed in the landfill. |
Louis Howard |
| 3/13/1996 |
Update or Other Action |
PA/SI received. AOC07 (Landfill A) Landfill A is located east of the former composite building The landfill contains various scrap metal and debris from the composite building and an asbestos cell within the landfill. Landfill A was filled with non-toxic demohtlon debris from the RRS, POL tanks, FAA site, and the Fort Morrow area ADEC issued solid waste disposal permit 8721-BA012 for Landfill A. Landfill A is approximately 300 feet east of the RRS composite budding.
Asbestos from the RRS and Fort Morrow buildings were placed into an asbestos cell within Landfill A POL-lmpacted soil with less than 5,000 mg/kg TPH, and with PCB concentrations less than 10 mg/kg was placed m 6-inch lifts within the landfill cap Appendix D shows very rough as-bullts of Landfill A. The landfill was seeded after the cap was in place. Field activities during the 1995 SI included the visual inspection of Landfill A to determine the status of the landfill cap The cap appeared to be intact and well vegetated, with no apparent erosion. However, no sign board or marker was located which identified Landfill A or indicated the presence of buried asbestos material.
Part of the landfill cap contains a 6-inch lift of petroleum-impacted soil below 5,000 ppm TPH and less than 10 ppm PCBs. The cap is intact and the vegetation has taken hold. No erosion problems were observed It is recommended that an asbestos sign be posted at the landfill and a closure report be submitted to the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC). |
Louis Howard |
| 12/29/1997 |
Update or Other Action |
Management Action Plan DACA85-95-D-0010, D.O. No. 16 is intended to be a strategic document integrating the Environmental
Restoration Program {ERP) into a series of response actions necessary to protect
human health and the environment. Due to the dynamics inherent in the strategic planning process, the MAP represents a "snapshot" in time, requiring periodic updating to remain useful. This MAP does the following:
• Describes the environmental response objectives, the MAP purpose, and a
brief history of the installation (Chapter 1),
Identifies all known contaminated sites; environmental condition of property; real property, off-base facilities and properties; and non-Air Force tenants (Chapter 2);
Summarizes the status of the Installation Restoration Program (IRP) and regulatory agreements (if applicable); IRP Sites; Areas of Concern (AOCs); and community relations program Chapter 3); Describes the installation-wide strategy for environmental restoration
through the definition of zones (including current scope of removal and remedial activities associated with, or to be completed for, each), and contracting and hiring strategy (Chapter 4), and • Provides a Master Schedule of planned and anticipated activities to be
performed throughout the duration of the ERP(Chapter 5).
All areas at the Port Heiden RRS have been assigned to one of seven environmental condition of property categories based on site
characterization and remediation efforts to date.
AOC07:Category 4. Areas where storage, release, or disposal of hazardous substances
or petroleum products has occurred, and all RAs necessary to protect human health and the envtronment have been taken. The results of previous PA/SI activities and response actions indicate that the former Composite Building Area (except for the northeast corner), Landfill A (AOC07), and Landfill B (AOC08) are in this category. |
Louis Howard |
| 11/2/1999 |
Site Added to Database |
Demolition debris, POL and scrap metal. |
Gretchen Pikul |
| 1/30/2001 |
Update or Other Action |
Final Site Investigation, Port Heiden RRS, Alaska (dated July 2000) – no draft version was received for ADEC review prior to the final version being submitted – this investigation was performed to update the relative risk evaluation for select sites at Port Heiden and Driftwood Bay RRS, however, a rock slide blocked access to 2 of the sites at Driftwood Bay and therefore the investigation was not conducted at 2 of the selected sites – pending funding, the samples may be collected this field season |
Gretchen Pikul |
| 5/10/2004 |
Update or Other Action |
Michael J. Walsh Colonel, Corps Of Engineers, Chief of Staff issues Engineering Regulation No. 200-3-1. It is the policy of the USACE that the policies contained in this ER are the overarching USACE policy for management & execution of the FUDS program & takes precedence over previous USACE FUDS program policy & guidance.
The USACE MUST comply with the DERP statute (10 USC 2701 et seq.), CERCLA, 42 USC § 9601 et seq., Executive Orders (EOs) 12580 & 13016, NCP, & all applicable DoD (e.g., DoD Management Guidance for the DERP [28 September 2001]) & Army policies in managing & executing the FUDS program. Because of the linkages between the DERP & CERCLA & the delegation of certain Presidential authorities under CERCLA to DoD, CERCLA is DoD's preferred framework for environmental restoration. Where a regulatory agency seeks to use another framework, USACE Districts shall:
Seek formal approval of the decision to follow a framework other than CERCLA.
Ensure that the actions undertaken also comply with all applicable CERCLA requirements, especially in the areas of the content of decision documents & the maintenance of an Administrative Record.
Consistent with the statutory program goals of the DERP, DoD has established 3 program categories to classify activities at FUDS properties & projects: installation restoration program, military munitions response program, & building demolition/debris removal program.
1) Installation Restoration (IR) Program. For the FUDS, the IR program includes the Hazardous, Toxic, & Radioactive Waste (HTRW) & Containerized HTRW (CON/HTRW) project categories. IR program category is defined as the conduct of response actions (i.e., the identification, investigation, & remedial actions, or a combination of removal & remedial actions) to address releases of:
Hazardous substances or pollutants & contaminants (as defined in the CERCLA).
Petroleum, oil, or lubricants (POL). Under the DoD Management Guidance for the DERP, funding appropriated to the Environmental Restoration (ER)-FUDS account may be used to remediate releases of petroleum where the release poses an imminent & substantial endangerment to the public health or welfare or to the environment [10 USC 2701(b)(2)].
DoD-unique materials.
Hazardous wastes or hazardous waste constituents.
Low-level radioactive materials or low-level radioactive wastes.
Explosive compounds released to soil, surface water, sediments, or groundwater as a result of ammunition or explosives production or manufacturing at ammunition plants.
2) Miltary Munitions Response Program (MMRP). The MMRP category is defined as response actions (i.e., the identification, investigation, & remedial actions, or a combination of removal & remedial actions) to address Munitions & Explosives of Concern (MEC) or Munitions Constituents (MC). This includes the removal of foreign military munitions if it is incidental to the response addressing DoD military munitions at a FUDS property.
3) Building Demolition & Debris Removal (BD/DR) Program. This program category is defined as the demolition & removal of unsafe buildings & structures at FUDS properties that were owned by, leased to, or otherwise possessed by the United States & under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of Defense & transferred to state, local governments, or Native Corporations of Alaska.
FUDS Project Definition. Within this Program, USACE has defined a FUDS Project as a unique name given to an area of an eligible FUDS property containing one or more releases or threatened releases of a similar response nature, treated as a discrete entity or consolidated grouping for response purposes. This may include buildings, structures, impoundments, landfills, storage containers, or other areas where hazardous substance are or have come to be located, including FUDS eligible unsafe buildings or debris. Response actions at FUDS projects fall under the Installation Restoration (HTRW & CON/HTRW), Military Munitions Response Program (MEC & MC), or Building Demolition/Debris Removal (BD/DR) program categories. An eligible FUDS property MAY have more than one project.
The DoD Goals for the DERP, established for the FUDS program in the DoD Financial Management Regulation (FMR), require USACE to develop an execution strategy that includes the following.
Reducing risk to human health & the environment through implementation of effective, legally compliant, & cost-effective response actions.
Having final remedies in place & completing response actions.
Requiring certain percentages of FUDS projects in the program to progress to specific stages of the response process by specific dates (i.e., milestones).
The objective of the BD/DR program is to protect human health & safety by demolishing & removing unsafe buildings, structures, & debris resulting from past DoD operations.
|
Louis Howard |
| 5/3/2005 |
Update or Other Action |
File number issued 2637.38.002.03 |
Aggie Blandford |
| 4/3/2006 |
Conditional Closure Approved |
Pursuant to 18 AAC 60.450, the US Army Corp of Engineers, hereby provides notice that the property located at Chignik (D-2) Quadrangle, NW ¼ of the SW ¼ of Section 15 in Township 37 South, Range 59 West of the Seward Meridian and situated in Kvichak, Alaska recording district(s) was used as an approved regulated asbestos-containing material (RACM) Landfill to dispose of RACM, as defined in 18 AAC 60.990.
The type of waste(s) placed in the monofill was: Construction and Demolition debris containing asbestos material. The specific geographical boundaries of the RACM waste management areas were as follows: Located within the boundaries of NAD83 GPS coordinates: N56° 58’ 35.2”, W158° 39’ 3.7” and N56° 58’ 37”, W158° 39’ 8.5” and N56° 58’ 38.2”, W158° 39’ 7” and N56° 58’ 36.6”, W158° 39’ 1.3” |
John Halverson |
| 4/3/2006 |
Institutional Control Record Established |
Avoid excavation or other disturbance that releases asbestos fibers at this site. Breathing abestos dust may cause serious bodily harm. Under 18 AAC 60.450, the owner or operator of this site shall submit a workplan for approval to the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation at least 45 days before excavating or otherwise disturbing any asbestos containing material that has been deposited at the landfill and covered. |
John Halverson |
| 9/18/2007 |
Update or Other Action |
Workplan (WP) approval requirements & quality assurance oversight on Performance Based Contracts (PBCs) letter from John Halverson (ADEC) to Scott Hansen (611 CES). ADEC is writing to remind you of contaminated site WP approval requirements in AK’s oil & hazardous substance pollution control regulations & UST regulations. Additionally, ADEC is concerned over quality assurance on PBCs.
WP Approval-Several 611 CES environmental restoration projects were implemented this summer without obtaining prior WP approval from DEC. The site cleanup rules require ADEC approval on WPs before beginning interim removal actions (18 AAC 75.330), site characterization work (18 AAC 75.355), or cleanup operations (18 AAC 75.360). Similarly, the UST regulations specify ADEC may require a corrective action plan be submitted for approval prior to conducting corrective action at an UST release site (18 AAC 78.250).
ADEC staff strives to complete plan reviews & respond to responsible parties within thirty (30) days after receipt of plans, although this is not always possible nor is it a requirement. At times expedited plan reviews are feasible based on project manager work load, adequate up-front planning, & contractors providing complete, well written plans. However, if significant WP revisions are required, additional review & comment resolution time will be needed. To facilitate successful project implementation, I recommend DoD project managers & contracting staff:
• Coordinate schedules with DEC project managers in advance & throughout projects.
• Include DEC project managers in project planning meetings (DQO meetings, UFP QAPP development meetings, Triad & other Technical Project Planning team meetings, etc.).
• Plan & maintain project schedules that include a sixty (60) days for reviewing draft work plans, comment resolution, any necessary revisions & a final review & approval.
• Review contractor planning documents prior to submission to DEC to ensure compliance with state & federal regulations consistency with agreements made during project planning meetings.
Failure to obtain WP approval before implementing site work described above is considered a violation of AK regulations & may result in field work not being approved or additional work being required & may subject responsible parties &/or contractors to a Notice of Violation (NOV).
Independent QA oversight on PBCs-As DoD transitions more ER projects to PBC concerns have risen regarding the level of Quality Assurance (QA) oversight. The site cleanup rules require that “collection, interpretation, & reporting of data, & the required sampling & analysis is conducted or supervised by a qualified, impartial third party”.
Depending upon the specific terms in a PBC, a contractor may no longer be considered an impartial third party with respect to collecting, interpreting & reporting data. This should be taken into consideration when preparing scopes of work. DEC strongly recommends the Air Force provide an on-site Quality Assurance (QA) Representative or a third party QA oversight contractor to monitor fieldwork for consistency with approved plans & contract requirements.
DEC is beginning to conduct more frequent independent QA site inspections to evaluate conformance to approved work plans & regulatory compliance. Because we lack staff resources to conduct independent QA on all of the anticipated PBC projects, we intend to include contracting support for field QA oversight in the DSMOA Joint Execution Plans & budget. |
Louis Howard |
| 11/23/2011 |
Update or Other Action |
Staff received from CORPS (R. Pflum) the approved revised INPR for Port Heiden (F10AK0027), which adds project 05 to provide Long Term Management (LTM) of Landfills A and B. The CORPS now plans on contracting out next summer, subject to availability of funds, a project to repair and replace the asbestos warning signs at Landfill A along with the reseeding of the landfill cover in existing non vegetated areas.
On 9 June 2011 the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) conducted a site inspection of Port Heiden Landfill Site A and Site B. The ADEC permitted landfills were used for the removal of structural debris, drums, tanks, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and petroleum, oil, and lubricant (POL) - contaminated soils, and asbestos containing materials under the Port Heiden Debris Disposal and Site Restoration Project (USACE, 1996). Removal activities began in 1990. Landfill Site A was filled with asbestos containing material, POL-contaminated soil, and miscellaneous debris. Drums, abandon vehicles, structural debris, and POL-contaminated soils were disposed of in Landfill Site B. Both landfills were covered and reseeded in 1991.
Two concerns were identified during the 2011 site inspection of Landfill Site A by ADEC:
• Broken and missing landfill signs, and
• Non-vegetated areas of the landfill cover
Landfill Site B remains in good condition; no issues were identified by ADEC.
Proposed activities will include implementing a Long Term Management (LTM) plan for both
Landfill Site A and B, and as part of the LTM, replacing and repairing signage and reseeding
non-vegetated areas.
Landfill Site A and Site B were constructed and used as one time disposal sites for debris and PCB and POL – contaminated soils associated with the Port Heiden formerly used defense sites. Landfill Site A contains asbestos containing materials and could potentially pose a risk to human health and the environment if the public is unaware of the landfill’s contents due to inadequate signage and/or the landfill cover erodes and exposes the asbestos debris.
Implement a long term management (LTM) plan for Landfill Site A and Landfill Site B. As part of the LTM, signage will be replaced or repaired and nonvegetated areas will be reseeded. |
Louis Howard |
| 6/14/2013 |
Exposure Tracking Model Ranking |
Initial ranking with ETM completed for source area id: 71161 name: auto-generated pm edit Port Heiden RRS AOC07 Landfill A |
Louis Howard |
| 10/17/2023 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
DEC reviewed the Draft Preliminary Assessment Report for Aqueous Film-Forming Foam Areas Port Heiden Radio Relay Station, Alaska, Dated October 2023. The preliminary assessment describes the document search and interviews to identify the potential presence of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) associated with aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF) at the Port Heiden Radio Relay Station, Alaska. No evidence of AFFF use at the site was encountered. The assessment recommended no further remedial action planned for the site.
|
Ginna Quesada |
