| Action Date |
Action |
Description |
DEC Staff |
| 3/13/1995 |
Update or Other Action |
Preliminary Assessment/Site Inspection (PA/SI) received. AOC04 (septic tank and outfall) The septic tank was removed in 1990. In 1995, a soil sample was collected from the septic outfall area and analyzed for diesel range organics (DRO), gasoline range organics (GRO), total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH), and benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes (BTEX). No soil samples were taken from the septic tank location.
Analytical results were detected at "DRO - 164 ppm, GRO - 10 ppm, TPH - 212 ppm, and BTEX - ND The DRO concentration was due entirely to biogenlc material eluting in the diesel range. No further action is recommended related to the septic outfall area Additional investigation is
recommended in the former septic tank vicinity |
John Halverson |
| 12/27/1997 |
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.
AOC04: Category 7. Areas that are unevaluated or require add)tional evaluation. Areas at the Port Heiden RRS installation in this category are the Fuel Pipeline (AOC05) and the Septic Tank And Outfall Area (AOC04). |
Louis Howard |
| 11/1/1999 |
Site Added to Database |
POL and solvents. |
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.
In order to fulfill the data requirements for completion of an internal risk scoring for this site, five samples were collected at the septic tank location The samples were analyzed using EPA Methods 8260, 8270, priority pollutant metals, 8082, and Alaska Methods AK101, 102, and 103. Soil samples collected from the 6" to 12" depth.
Sample Number 50124008009 Septic Tank, SW Corner had the highest contaminant levels. DRO=1,310 mg/kg, RRO = 1,180 mg/kg, PCB+Pesticides = 13,100 mg/kg. Arochlor 1260 concentration above 13,000 ppm.
CT&E Environmental Services Inc. Director Stephen C. Ede. Ref. # 1004965009, Client Graybar Electric, Project Name Port Heiden Call No B-247, Client Sample ID 50124008009, Collected date 8/23/2000, received date 8/25/2000, printed date 9/21/2000.
Sample Remarks
8260 -Field surrogate recovery biased low(71%). All other QC criteria was met. The results should not be significantly affected.
8270 - LCS/LCSD recovery for pyridine is biased low. The result for this compound is estimated.
*8270 - Sample was diluted 5X due to dark color. Detection limit raised 5X due to matrix interference. Sample has a very HIGH concentrauon of PCB.
8270 - Internal standard chrysene-dl2 and perylene-dl2 are biased low The samples are non-detect. The results are not affected.
8270- Surrogate recovery for terphenyl-dl4 ts biased high possibly due to matrix or/and dilution
8082 - Surrogate recovery does not meet QC goals due to sample dilution.
DRO/RRO - Surrogate recoveries outside controls due to matrix mterference.
DRO/RRO - Pattern consistent with Aroclor 1260.
Aroclor results 13,100 mg/kg, PQL 2,570 mg/kg, SW846-8082. It does not appear to be a misreading of the result or mistake at 13.1 as alleged by the 2006 RI. |
Gretchen Pikul |
| 6/13/2002 |
Update or Other Action |
DEC received a fax and letter from the Lake and Pennisula Borough and the City of Port Heiden about a phone call from an annonymous worked who reported dumping drums of hazardous material into a trench on the northwest side of the former White Alice site and that the chemicals could cause health problems for the villlagers. The letters requested DEC assistance in following up on the call and ensuring the former military sites are cleaned up properly. |
John Halverson |
| 6/19/2002 |
Update or Other Action |
DEC sent letter to the Corps of Engineers and the 611 CES (Air Force) informing them on the community concerns and asking for cooperation in compling the site records, conducting a site inspection and community meeting, and ensuring the sites are adequately characterized and cleaned up. |
John Halverson |
| 9/5/2002 |
Meeting or Teleconference Held |
DEC staff conducted a site inspection and particpated in a public meeting with the Corps of Engineers and the 611 CES (Air Force). Many residents expressed concern over health problems and their thoughts that there may be a link between past military activities and health problems. Scott Anderson, Tribal Environmental Coordinator and Lynn Carlson helped coordinate the meeting and site inspections. The surface cleanup work appears to have been very thorough and the landfills are adequately covered. Subsurface characterization is needed. Residents want their water wells sampled and had applied for a grant from TASWER to conduct the sampling. DEC, the Corps and Air Force staff said they would work together to help get wells sampled. |
John Halverson |
| 9/18/2002 |
Update or Other Action |
After conducting the site visit earlier this month, staff researched options for groundwater characterization at Port Heiden and found out the the City of Port Heiden is on the Village Safe Water program's list for a Water and Wastewater Feasibility Study in FY03. The scope calls for evaluating the current systems, the aquifers, water use and estimated future needs. It may include some limited testing, but not sampling 30 wells; it is a civil works project rather than environmental.
Staff is working with the Corps of Engineers to sample existing wells under the Native American Lands Environmental Mitigation Program (NALEMP). |
John Halverson |
| 4/30/2003 |
Meeting or Teleconference Held |
DEC and the Air Force participated in a public meeting at Port Heiden to update the community on Air Force plans for conducting remedial investigation work in 2004 and completing a proposed plan, record of decision and implementing a remedy by 2007. The Corps does not have work planned for Fort Morrow until 2011, but will re-evaluate the schedule based on any new information (water well sample results). |
John Halverson |
| 6/5/2003 |
Update or Other Action |
Keres Environmental is sampling all water wells in Port Heiden under the Native American Lands Environmental Mitigation Program (NALEMP). Sampling plans were reviewed by DEC and the Corps and each well will be tested for VOC, PAHs, PCBs, and metals. Sampling will be conducted during the first week of June and results are anticipated by early August. |
John Halverson |
| 5/3/2005 |
Update or Other Action |
File number issued 2637.38.002.06 |
Aggie Blandford |
| 5/27/2005 |
Update or Other Action |
May 2005 Draft RI report received which includes the Septic Tank site.
The Septic System Pipeline runs through the septic tank, while the Black Lagoon Pipeline runs past the exterior of the southern edge of the septic tank. The septic tank was located at the southern base of the buried water tank. During the SI in 1999, a sample of surface soil overlying the southwest corner of the septic tank was collected. The S1 report indicated that the sample contained Arochlor 1260 at a concentration of 13,100 mg/kg.
No subsurface samples were collected at this location and the origin of the contamination was unclear. Previous reports indicate that the septic tank may have been abandoned in place during DERP activities in 1990.
Arochlor 1260 was detected above the screening criteria in six of 13 surface soil samples (and two duplicate samples) both uphill and downhill of the Septic Tank. The highest concentration was 440 mg/kg found in surface soil sample SST-SS-07-S01-0 collected to the west and downhill of
the Septic Tank. The ccmtminant was only found in one of four subsurface soil samples above the screening criteria. This subsurface soil sample was collected in a soil boring (SST-SB-01) from 4 to 6 ft bgs near the center of known PCB contamination and contained Arochlor 1260 at a concentration of 1.1 mg/kg.
PCBs were not detected above the screening crittria in any other subsurface soil sample, including samples collected at the outlet of the septic tank. The area of surface soil containing PCBs above the screening criteria is approximately 100 by 100 feet. Although it might appear that additional sampling is required swth of SST-SS-07, the topography of the area is such that migration of PCB contamination further to the south is limited. PCB oils released near the Septic tank would not likely travel upgradient fiom the depression at SST-SS-07.
It should be noted that the 1999 SI reported a PCB result {Arochlor 1260) in surface soil from the southwest corner of the septic tank with a concentration of 13,100 mg/Kg. Based on 2004 results, it appears likely that this result was actually 13.1 mg/kg and was incorrectly reported. There are two possible scenarios that may have led to the PCB contamination found at the Septic Tank location. First, it is possible that PCB oil was dumped or spilled near the tank.
This is supported by the hct that PCBs are found in surface soil slightly uphill from the tank and by the fact that PCBs are found in surface sail at other locations within the Former Facility Area. The second scenario is that the septic line downslope from the septic tank could have become plugged causing a backup of the system; which in turn, could have caused liquid to exit the vents in the top of the septic tank. If PCB oil had been dumped into the system at this time, it could have led to the PCB contamination detected in soil during the 1999 SI and 2004 RI. |
Louis Howard |
| 7/22/2005 |
Site Characterization Report Approved |
DEC approved the final RI report dated May 2005. The AF property was evaluated in three main areas, the former WACS facility, the pipeline cooridor and the former fuel tank farm. The former facility area has PCB contamination in soil, petroleum contamination in soil and groundwater and TCE contamination in groundwater. Groundwater flows toward the northwest away from the village. Localized areas of petroleum contamination in soil and surface water were found along the pipeline cooridor, with one area near the airport and Frosty Fuels pipeline having groundwater contamination.
Septic System Outfall surface soil samples SSO-SS-01-S01-0 had DRO at 730 mg/kg and sample SSO-SS-01-S01-1 had DRO at 530 mg/kg. Both samples detected Aroclor 1260 at 7.2 but were "J" flagged. "J" flag means Analyte was positively identified but the quantitation was an estimation. No other surface soil samples were above screening criteria. No subsurface samples were above screening criteria. Based on these results, it appears that all contamination at the Septic System Outfall is confined to surface soil at a small area at the outfall of the septic pipeline, and contamination extends to less than five feet bgs. There were no analytes detected above screening criteria in the groundwater sample collected from SSO-MW-01.
Septic System Pipeline:The project workplan indicated that the pipelines would be investigated by digging test pits at appropriate intervals to be determined in the field based on site conditions. Because soil and groundwater analytical results from the Septic System Outfall (discussed in section 6.2.16) indicated that the septic system was not typically used to dispose of contaminants, it was determined that the investigation would focus on areas along the Septic System Pipeline where a release could most likely have occurred. This included bends in the pipeline and manholes. One sludge sample was collected from inside the Septic System Pipeline at test pit SSO-TP-05. Benzo(a)pyrene was found at slightly above the screening criteria of 1 mg/kg (1.4 mg/kg "J" Flagged-estimated but positively identified).
Aroclor 1260 was detected in 6 of 13 surface samples both uphill and downhill of the Septic Tank. The highest level was 440 mg/kg found in surface soil sample SST-SS-07-S01-0 collected to the west and downhill of the Septic Tank. It should be noted that the 1999 SI reported a PCB result (Aroclor 1260) in surface soil from the southwest corner of the septic tank with a concentration of 13,100 mg/kg. Based on the 2004 results, it appears likely that the result was actually 13.1 mg/kg and was incorrectly stated.
Two possibilities may have lead to PCB contamination found at the Septic Tank location. One, PCB oil was dumped or spilled near the tank. This is supported by the fact that PCBs are found in surface soil slightly uphill from the tank and by the fact that PCBs are found in surface soil at other locations within the Former Facility Area. Two, the septic line downslope from the septic tank could have been plugged causing a backup of the system; which in turn, could have caused liquid to exit the vents in the top of the septic tank. If PCB oil had been dumped into the system at this time, it could have led to the PCB contamination detected in soil during the 1999 SI and 2004 RI. |
John Halverson |
| 7/22/2005 |
Risk Assessment Report Approved |
DEC approved the human health and ecological risk assessments as part of the remedial investigation report. The risk assessments show potential carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic risks above acceptable State risk levels for the Former Facility Area. Contaminants of concern exceeding risk based levels include PCBs, TCE, pesticides, PAHs and arsenic (however, arsenic was within background levels). The risk assessments showed negligible risk along the pipeline cooridor and no unacceptable risk at the former tank farm. |
John Halverson |
| 2/9/2007 |
Exposure Tracking Model Ranking |
|
Louis Howard |
| 2/5/2008 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Staff reviewed and commented on the Draft 2008 Proposed Plan Port Heiden RRS. Introduction Page 2 Last Paragraph: The text states fuel contamination will be addressed in the future by the Air Force under ADEC authority. ADEC requests the text state the fuel contamination will be addressed in the future by the Air Force under Alaska State law and environmental regulations.
Site Characteristics Page 4 and Table 1: The text states “Levels of contaminants were compared to screening criteria which are based on State (ADEC) and EPA risk and cleanup levels. The screening criteria used for surface soil and groundwater is ADEC Method 2 cleanup levels (18 AAC 75 Tables B and C), which is protective of human health and the environment and allows unrestricted land use and access.”
ADEC requests deleting “screening criteria” and inserting cleanup levels. Additionally, cleanup levels for soil specified in Table B at 18 AAC 75.341 apply to both surface and subsurface soil. For the majority of contaminants, the migration to groundwater cleanup levels in Table B are those that allow for unrestricted use and not inhalation or ingestion cleanup levels that are typically higher and require land use controls.
However, certain contaminants have higher migration to groundwater cleanup levels than ingestion/inhalation levels. For these contaminants, use the most stringent level as the “unrestricted use” level. For example, the contaminant: Benzo (a) pyrene has a cleanup level of 1 mg/kg for ingestion and 3 mg/kg for migration to groundwater. In this case the more stringent cleanup level for ingestion would be the level that allows for “unrestricted use”.
The text states: “All non-fuel found above screening criteria at the Former Facility Area are provided in Table 1, along with the maximum concentration found and the screening criteria used.” Delete “screening criteria” and insert “cleanup levels” referenced in text. The text states “Surface soils at the Former Facility Area contain PCBs, pesticides, and PAHs in concentrations above screening criteria (Figure 3). The most common contaminant found were PCBs, which were discovered in a number of surface soil samples at concentrations above the screening criteria of 1 part per million (ppm). The maximum level of PCBs found in surface soil was 930 ppm. The study determined that thousands of cubic yards of soil at the Former Facility Area contained contaminants in excess of screening criteria.”
ADEC requests deleting the phrase “screening criteria” and insert “cleanup levels” referenced in text. Also, ADEC requests mg/kg be used instead of ppm for soil contamination. Table 1 requires a heading change to “Summary of Contaminants of Concern and Cleanup Levels for the Former Facility Area” Add text to Surface Soil heading or a footnote indicating mg/kg as the units and not ppm. Strike ppm from the table. Add text to Groundwater heading or a footnote indicating units are mg/L not ppm. Delete Proposed Cleanup Level column and change “Screening Criteria” column heading to “Cleanup Standard”. The contaminant “PAHs” is misleading as well as a maximum concentration listed at 7.8 ppm (mg/kg) and a proposed cleanup level of 1 ppm.
There are many types of PAHs and the cleanup level varies. Either change the table for PAHs to read “cleanup level varies” or list each specific polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon and cleanup level associated with each contaminant. The 2004 RI lists benzo(a) pyrene from the Radio Relay Station Landfill (NLF) at 7.8 mg/kg (M). A M qualifier means that there was a matrix effect present. However, higher levels were found at the Septic System Outfall (SSO) for the same analyte at 31 mg/kg (Sample ID SSO-TP-04-S01-O “J” qualified).
Cleanup Objectives Page 6:The text states “…contaminants in concentrations greater than screening criteria are:….” Screening criteria are applicable for use in risk assessments and are typically 1/10th the ADEC cleanup levels in 18 AAC 75. ADEC requests the text be changed to read “…contaminants in concentrations greater than cleanup levels are….” ADEC requests the section be renamed Remedial Action Objectives.
Cleanup objective 1 states: “to protect the current and future residents of Port Heiden by cleaning up the site to acceptable levels,” ADEC requests text be changed to read“...by reducing the PCB, PAHs, and pesticides in soils and the benzene and chlorinated solvents in groundwater to meet cleanup levels.”
Cleanup Options Pages 6 and 7: ADEC requests changing heading of this section to “Summary of Alternatives”. The text states “Final cleanup levels will be established through input from the Air Force, ADEC, EPA, and community and documented in the ROD.” This is incorrect, the final cleanup level has been determined and established by environmental statutes/regulations and it is the preferred alternative which will be selected and documented in the ROD based on input from EPA, Community and ADEC. |
Louis Howard |
| 9/19/2008 |
Proposed Plan |
Letter from ADEC to USAF: Proposed Plan accepted as final version. |
Louis Howard |
| 10/1/2008 |
Update or Other Action |
Proposed Plan presents the cleanup alternatives proposed by the Air Force (USAF) and reviewed by the ADEC for an Environmental Restoration Program (ERP, formerly Installation Restoration Program) site known as the Former Facility Area. While there are other sites at the Port Heiden RRS that the USAF has studied, this Proposed Plan looks at cleanup alternatives for only this site. Cleanup plans for other sites at Port Heiden RRS will be prepared in the future. ADEC is the lead regulatory agency and the Air Force is the lead cleanup agency for Port Heiden RRS.
This Proposed Plan is prepared according to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) “Superfund” Program, under Section 117(a), and the National Contingency Plan (NCP), Section 300.430(f)(2). These federal laws regulate the cleanup of old hazardous waste sites that contain substances covered under CERCLA. The USAF cleanup program follows CERCLA guidance; however, the investigations of the sites described in this Proposed Plan were also conducted under ADEC’s Contaminated Sites regulations (Title 18 Alaska Administrative Code [AAC], Section 75, Article 3 “Discharge Reporting, Cleanup, and Disposal of Oil and Other Hazardous Substances”). Petroleum products such as crude oil or refined fuel are not considered hazardous substances under CERCLA. The term “hazardous substance,” as defined in CERCLA, excludes “petroleum, including crude oil or any fraction thereof,” unless specifically listed or designated under CERCLA (Sections 101(14) and 102(a)). This Proposed Plan only discusses cleanup alternatives for non-fuel contamination because the Plan is being prepared under the authority of CERCLA, which does not consider fuel a hazardous substance. However, the fuel contamination at the Port Heiden RRS will be addressed in the future by the USAF under Alaska State law and environmental regulations.
The Preferred Cleanup Alternative as described in this Plan is comprised of one alternative each for surface soil and groundwater, and is as follows:
Surface Soil Alternative 10 – Soil Excavation, Washing, and Off-Site Disposal in a Permitted Landfill. In this alternative, all surface soil contaminated with PCBs, pesticides, and PAHs would be excavated to a depth necessary to meet the required cleanup level and removed entirely from the site. This ensures that this alternative would be protective under an unrestricted use scenario (i.e., protective of a residential child and adult). The on-site washing of soil with PCB contaminant concentrations = 10 mg/Kg would require the participation of local workers from the community of Port Heiden. All excavated soil would then be trucked and disposed of in a permitted landfill in the vicinity of Port Heiden. Soil from a local borrow source would be used to backfill the excavations. No soil cap or institutional controls would be required under this alternative.
Groundwater Alternative 2 –Natural Attenuation and Long-term Monitoring-Two TCE plumes are present in groundwater at the Former Facility Area. The depth of the water table at this location is approximately 50 feet below ground surface. The depth of the plumes make active remedial systems (such as pump and treat, which has a significant power requirement, complex discharge requirements, and limited effectiveness) technologically impractical. Therefore, the USAF proposes to use up to four existing wells to establish a network such that monitored natural attenuation of the plume can be conducted. As other contaminants (i.e., fuels) in the groundwater breakdown over time, their by-products will help to break down the TCE. Therefore, no treatment is proposed for the TCE-contaminated groundwater. This approach is supported by the fact that there are no residences within the groundwater contamination region and there are currently no drinking water wells being used and none are planned. Therefore, the risk from drinking and or bathing in groundwater would be low. However, institutional controls would be implemented to restrict the use of groundwater and would remain in place until groundwater cleanup levels were achieved through natural attenuation.
Because this remedy would result in hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remaining on site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure, a statutory review will be conducted every five (5) years after initiation of the remedial action to ensure that the remedy continues to provide adequate protection of human health and the environment. These reviews will be conducted until cleanup levels are achieved at the site. |
Louis Howard |
| 10/2/2008 |
Update or Other Action |
NOTE to File: for remedies where on-site mobilization may not occur, the date of the first monitoring event following Record of Decision (ROD) signature or the ROD signature date (if no monitoring takes place) should be used as the trigger date for the five-year review. The Air Force, as required by statute and, as a matter of policy, reviews the remedies at certain sites every five years. Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act(CERCLA), as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA),requires that remedial actions which result in any hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remaining at the site be subject to a Five-Year Review. National Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) defines this to mean contamination left at levels that do not allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure.
EPA OSWER no. 9355.7-03B-P states: “Unlimited use and unrestricted exposure” (UU/UE) means that the selected remedy will place no restrictions on the potential use of land or other natural resources. In general, if the selected remedy relies on restrictions of land and/or groundwater use by humans and/or ecological populations to be protective, then the use has been limited and a five-year review should be conducted. For example, if a site is cleaned up to an industrial-use level, and/or other types of uses are restricted (e.g., residential use), then, generally, UU/UE is not met.” |
Louis Howard |
| 10/23/2008 |
Meeting or Teleconference Held |
Staff traveled with Air Force, EPA, and contractor to Port Heiden for public meeting on Proposed Plan for Former Facility Area. Community members had very few comments and did not disagree with the LTM/MNA for groundwater, soil washing/landfill for soil as the preferred alternatives presented by the Air Force. |
Louis Howard |
| 2/17/2009 |
Record of Decision |
Record of Decision presents the Final Selected Remedy for the source areas listed above at
Port Heiden RRS, located in Port Heiden, Alaska. There are some areas contaminated with Petroleum, Oil and Lubricants (POL) at the RRS. The remedies for POL contaminants are not selected in this ROD, but will be addressed in a subsequent work plan submitted in accordance with Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) regulations.
The selected remedy was chosen in accordance with the Alaska State Laws and Regulation and
in accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act
(CERCLA), as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) and to
the extent practicable, the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan
(NCP).
The cleanup will be accomplished by first excavating the portion of soil that contains PCBs
greater than or equal to 10 mg/kg (soil may include incidental pesticides and PAHs). This portion of the contaminated soil will be washed in an alcohol-based solvent to extract PCBs and reduce the PCB concentration in the treated soil to less than 10 mg/kg. Sampling of the treated soil will be performed to confirm PCB concentrations are below 10 mg/kg. Recalcitrant soil that cannot be treated using soil washing to meet required PCB concentration (<10 mg/kg) will be barged offsite for proper disposal. Upon confirmation that the treated soil contains PCBs less than 10 mg/kg, the soil will be loaded into trucks and taken to the local permitted Class III landfill for disposal.
The remaining soil containing PCBs greater than 1 mg/kg will be excavated. This soil which
contains PCBs greater than 1 mg/kg but less than 10 mg/kg will also be loaded into trucks and
taken to the offsite Class III Landfill for disposal. Soil containing concentrations of PCBs less than 10 mg/kg but with concentrations of pesticides and PAHs above their cleanup levels will be excavated and taken to the local Class III landfill for disposal (PCBs 1 mg/kg, dieldrin 0.015 mg/kg, heptachlor epoxide 0.2 mg/kg, benzo(a)pyrene 0.49 mg/kg, benzo(a)anthracene 3.6 mg/kg and dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 0.49 mg/kg).
Tundra will only be excavated to remove dieldrin in soil where concentrations exceed the 18
AAC 75.341(c) Method 2 human health risk direct contact value of 0.32 mg/kg. At the existing
Port Heiden RRS Landfill, excavation of contaminated soil will stop upon encountering landfill
solid waste and the cap will be restored with clean soil. After all soil washing is complete, the PCB, pesticide, and PAH enriched residue generated during the soil washing process will be handled and disposed in accordance with state and federal regulations. Upon completing the excavation, confirmation samples will be collected and analyzed to ensure the remaining soil meets the cleanup levels for PCBs, PAHs and/or pesticides. Any soil not meeting cleanup levels will be further excavated and resampled.
A notice type of institutional control will be implemented (with the land owners consent) to
control the use of soil containing residual concentrations of dieldrin above 0.0076 mg/kg.This notice will make the Land Owner aware that ADEC approval is required for any disturbance of soil (the goal of this institutional control is to prevent the constant contact of this media with water which could impact groundwater or surface water quality).
Groundwater is contaminated with trichloroethylene and benzene. Selected remedy for groundwater is natural attenuation to cleanup level of 0.005 mg/L for both contaminants. After the first five years of groundwater monitoring (performed at a frequency no less than annually during the summer period), the Air Force and ADEC will evaluate the progress of natural attenuation. Wells to be monitored will be determined as part of a Groundwater Monitoring Plan to be submitted to ADEC for coordination and approval. |
Louis Howard |
| 6/24/2014 |
Update or Other Action |
Draft First 5YR received for comment.
The following seven issues were noted during the first five-year review.
1. Several soil stockpiles were observed during the site inspection. Some of the stockpiles were not covered. High winds in the area have been known to transport PCB-contaminated soil to other parts of the site (NVPH, 2010).
2. Additional quantities of soil have been identified during the soil RA, conducted since 2009. The decision documents (ROD & ESD) do not account for the additional quantity of soil (USAF, 2009 & USAF, 2010a, respectively).
3. PCB-contaminated soil has been identified within Site Road & some adjacent areas, & the areas are not included in the current decision documents (ROD & ESD) for the site (USAF, 2009 & USAF, 2010a, respectively).
4. The soil RA has not been completed at the site, & is anticipated to continue through at least the 2015 field season. Increased quantities of soil, discrepancies associated with soil washing & landfilling during the 2009 field season, & the presence of contamination within Site Road & adjoining areas has required a longer timeframe to complete the soil RA than originally anticipated in the ROD.
5. During the site inspection of ERP Site LF007, it was observed that the landfill appeared to have subsided in places, & in one instance, the subsidence exposed metallic debris. Some metal debris was also visible on the ground surface. While this is not indicative of current exposure, if left unchecked, the landfill cap may further erode & contaminated soil may be exposed.
6. Although Annual IC Performance Reports are prepared to document reviews of the remedial actions & to determine whether these actions are protective, including whether the intent of the ROD required ICs are being met, ICs for soil & GW have not been put into place formally. Soil ICs will be put into place once the soil remedy is complete, but there is no reason to wait on implementation of GW ICs.
7. The ROD requires an evaluation of the progress of natural attenuation based on 5 years of GW monitoring (at a minimum). Only 4 years of data were available at the time of this five-year review. The purpose of the five-year evaluation is to compile, analyze, & review all GW data collected to determine the effectiveness of natural attenuation. The ROD also states that if during this evaluation the data indicates contaminant concentrations in GW are not declining as estimated, the remedy decision may be re-considered.
Based on the findings of this first five-year review, the actions performed for soil & GW at ERP Sites OT001, WP002, SS004, LF007, & four unnumbered sites (Antenna Pads, Contaminated Soil Removal Areas, Drum Storage Area, & Focus Area) are considered protective in the short-term because exposures appear to be under control, & no unacceptable risks are occurring. The remedy is ongoing, however, & it is not clear yet that the selected remedy, when complete, will be protective in the long-term because the quantities of soil to be remediated has changed since the decision documents were issued. In addition, soil stockpiling practices should be reviewed to assess if changes are needed to avoid potential cross contamination of PCB-contaminated soil.
At ERP Site LF007, the exposed debris & subsidence should be assessed & repairs made, if necessary. Lastly, GW ICs should be implemented according to the requirements of the ROD, & a site-specific operation & maintenance plan should be prepared to provide the methods & reporting requirements for ICs.
The remedy selected for GW at the former Port Heiden RRS remains protective of human health & the environment in the short-term. To assess long-term protectiveness of GW, an MNA evaluation should be conducted, prior to the second five-year review, using the GW analytical results from 2004, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, & 2013 sampling events.
In addition, the ICs required by the ROD should be implemented to formally prevent GW use (USAF, 2009). The actions taken for soil are considered protective in the short-term, & protectiveness should be achieved in the long-term once the issues identified in this five-year review report are addressed.
Future five-year reviews are necessary because contamination remaining at ERP Sites OT001, WP002, SS004, LF007, & four unnumbered sites (Antenna Pads, Contaminated Soil Removal Areas, Drum Storage Area, & Focus Area) are above concentrations that allow for unlimited use & unrestricted exposure at the site. The next five-year review must be completed by May 2019.
|
Louis Howard |
| 3/18/2015 |
Update or Other Action |
One of several sites with Land Use Controls in effect (LUC Mgt Plan 2015 Pacific Air Forces Regional Support Center Installations, JBER, AK) March 13, 2015.
In addition to ICs established as part of LUCs of the ERP for landfill sites with LUCs in effect, both ERP landfill and non-ERP landfill sites in Alaska under the management of PRSC must also comply with regulations set forth by the ADEC solid waste regulations in 18 AAC 60. Furthermore, landfill sites under the management of PRSC but not categorized as an ERP site must also comply with ADEC 18 AAC 60. Table 1-3 describes PRSC non-ERP landfill sites.
Landfills are defined in 18 AAC 60 as “an area of land, or an excavation in which solid wastes are placed for permanent disposal, and that is not an application site, injection well, reserve pit, or waste pile.” This definition applies to most PRSC ERP and non-ERP sites in Alaska designated as landfills, dumps, or caches. Small PRSC ERP and non-ERP landfill sites at remote installations, such as the long-range radar stations, are regulated as Class III landfills as defined by ADEC.
General requirements to manage landfills in place are established by ADEC and included in Table 2-2. However, alternative criteria can and often are adopted through negotiation with ADEC (see 18 AAC 60.900, Waivers). Post-closure notification requirements for Class III landfills, including notifications to ADEC and to potential future landowners, are summarized in Table 2-3. Tables 2-2 and 2-3 both generally assume the subject landfill is closed, has been reasonably well characterized, and a monitoring program for media of concern has been established and approved by ADEC.
Port Heiden Radio Relay Station Landfill LF007
Port Heiden Former Composite Building Foundation OT001
Port Heiden Spill/Leak No. 2 at Septic Tank SS004
LUC_RESTRICTION A notice type of institutional control will be implemented (with the land owners
consent) to control the use of soil containing residual concentrations of dieldrin above 0.0076 mg/kg. This notice will make the Land Owner aware that ADEC approval is required for any disturbance of soil (the goal of this institutional control is to prevent the constant contact of this media with water which could impact groundwater or surface water quality). |
Louis Howard |
| 6/2/2015 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Staff reviewed and approved the Final 2014 Groundwater Monitoring Report Port Heiden RRS dated May 2015. |
Louis Howard |
| 5/9/2019 |
Cleanup Complete Determination Issued |
Cleanup complete assigned by ADEC without institutional controls. This determination is in accordance with 18 AAC 75.380 and does not preclude ADEC from requiring additional assessment and/or cleanup action if future information indicates that contaminants or site conditions at the Port Heiden SS004 Septic Tank poses an unacceptable risk to human health, safety, or welfare or to the environment. |
Louis Howard |
| 4/28/2020 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
DEC staff reviewed and provided comments to the U.S. Air Force on the "Draft Supplemental Work Plan, Remedial Action Operations, Land Use/Institutional Control, Port Heiden Radio Relay Station Sites OT001, SS004, SS006, LF007 and WP002" dated April 2020. The document describes the USAF's intent to conduct groundwater monitoring well decommissioning and
repair, install land use control (LUC) warning signs, and conduct Incremental Sampling
Methodology (ISM) of soils in two landspread areas (LSA) to support their closure. |
Louis Howard |
| 5/12/2020 |
Update or Other Action |
DEC evaluated and approved the “Final Work Plan, 2020 Remedial Action Operations, Land
Use/Institutional Control, Port Heiden Radio Relay Station, Sites OT001, SS004, SS006,
LF007 and WP002” dated May 2020. The work plan describes the United States Air Force’s intent to decommission and repair groundwater monitoring wells, install land use control warning signs, and conduct incremental sampling of soils in two land spread areas. These activities will occur at the Port Heiden contaminated sites OT001, SS004, SS006, LF007 and WP002. |
Melinda Brunner |
| 3/4/2022 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
ADEC approved the 2022 Work Plan PCB-Contaminated Soil Removal Action at Port Heiden Radio Relay Station, Alaska, Final, January 28, 2022. The work plan describes the further characterization of the North Landfill and the planned remedial actions to remove PCB contaminated soil at the Radio Relay Station in Port Heiden, Alaska. The sites included in this report are the Former Composite Building OT001, the Landfill LF007, the Black Lagoon WP002, Septic Tank Outfall SS004, the Contaminated Soil Removal Areas, the Focus Area, the Antenna Pads, and the Drum Storage Area. |
Ginna Quesada |
