| Action Date |
Action |
Description |
DEC Staff |
| 7/1/1990 |
Update or Other Action |
AFOEHL REPORT 90-124EQ00687GHH Hazardous Waste Technical Assistance Survey EAFB (July 1990). Shop: Aero Club Bldg. 32-209: Shop personnel maintain Aero Club aircraft. Aviation oil (200
gallons/year) drained from the aircraft is drummed and disposed through Alaska Pollution Control at a cost of 50 cents/gallon. The company samples and analyzes the waste oil every six months. The shop has one 10-gallon degreasing tank containing Chevron solvent that is changed out annually. The waste is also disposed by Alaska Pollution Control. Shop cleaning rags are
disposed as municipal waste. |
Louis Howard |
| 3/26/1993 |
Update or Other Action |
DOD & ADEC joint Technical Memorandum of understanding signed concerning the Basewide Groundwater (GW) signed by: ADEC Jennifer Roberts RPM & USAF Joseph Williamson Chief Environmental Programs & Restoration. Due to the basewide GW study & the FY92 field work that occurred at Operable Units (OUs) 1, 2, & 5 it appears a large portion of the GW flows into OU5 (attach. 1-contour map). Based on this fact, Elmendorf (EAFB) will move all upgradient GW into the OU5 Feasibility Study, Proposed Plan & Record of Decision (ROD). This means addressing all GW from upgradient sources (CERCLA (ST20, OUs 3 and 4) & OUs 1 & portions of OU2) & SERA) at OU5 instead of at each individual source area (see attach. 2-Area Map). Sites with free phased product would be looked at to see if there is an available technology to clean them up in a cost effective way. Soil contamination would be addressed at the source areas. NOTE: addressed at the source areas is interpreted by ADEC as removal through excavation or active treatment systems (e.g. high vacuum extraction, bioventing, etc...).
Also included in the file is the AF memo: Restricted Use of the Shallow Aquifer on EAFB signed by William R. Hanson P.E. GM-14 Chief Environmental Flight dated October 17, 1996 Memorandum for 3 SPTG/CEC/CEO from 3 SPTG/CEV
1) Due to the contamination & commitments to EPA/DEC the use of the shallow aquifer for any purpose on is not allowed. Attached Facilities Board minutes-03/29/1994 0930 Item 9 has Mr. William Hanson, briefing the Board on the policy to not use the shallow aquifer due to contamination. The Board approved this policy. Minutes approved by Thomas R. Case Brigadier General USAF Commander. The IRP has RODs for OUs 3 & 6 which require, the aquifer remain unused. 2) Personnel in the review process within CES must be aware of these policies & review them on a recurring basis. It is imperative this restriction be recognized & observed during engineer reviews & operations. |
Jennifer Roberts |
| 8/15/1994 |
Site Added to Database |
AvGas. |
Louis Howard |
| 8/15/1994 |
Site Ranked Using the AHRM |
Initial ranking. |
Louis Howard |
| 9/15/1994 |
Site Characterization Report Approved |
Two 6,000 gallon USTs were excavated from an area 250' south of building 32-209 (Aero Club) which were used to store avgas.
(NOTE: Avgas is a high-octane fuel used for aircraft and, in the past, racing cars. Avgas is an abbreviation for aviation gasoline, as distinguished from mogas (motor gasoline), which is the everyday gasoline used in cars. Avgas is only used in aircraft that use piston engines; jet aircraft and turboprops use kerosene jet fuel.
Avgas has a lower volatility than mogas and doesn't evaporate as quickly, which is important for high-altitude use. The particular mixtures in use today are the same as when they were first developed in the 1950s and 1960s, and therefore the high-octane ratings are achieved by the addition of tetra-ethyl lead (TEL), a fairly toxic substance that was phased out for car use in most countries in the 1980s. The main petroleum component used in blending Avgas is alkylate, which is essentially a mixture of various isooctanes, and some refineries also use some reformate.
Avgas is currently available in several grades with differing maximum lead concentrations. Since TEL is a rather expensive additive, a minimum amount of it is typically added to the fuel to bring it up to the required octane rating so actual concentrations are often lower than the maximum.
Avgas 80/87 has the lowest lead content at a maximum of 0.5 gram lead per US gallon, and is only used in very low compression ratio engines.
Avgas 100/130 is a higher octane grade aviation gasoline, containing a maximum of 4 gram of lead per US gallon, maximum 1.12 gram/litre. 100LL "low lead" was designed to replace avgas 100/130.
Avgas 100LL contains a maximum of 2 gram of lead per US gallon, or maximum 0.56 gram/litre, and is the most commonly available and used aviation gasoline.
In the past other grades were also available, particularly for military use, such as avgas 115/145. Note that the octanes of avgas cannot be directly compared to those of mogas, as a different test engine and method is used to determine the octane. The first (lower) number is the lean mixture rating, the second (higher) number is the rich rating. For mogas, the "octane" rating is typically expressed as an anti-knock index, which is the average of the octane rating based on the research and motor test method (R+M/2).
To aid pilots in identifying the fuel in their aircraft, dyes are added to the fuel. 80/87 is red, 100/130 is green, and 100LL is blue, while jet fuel, JET A1, is clear or straw, being undyed.)
Highest concentration of contamination was found in the northern portion of the two tanks (GRO 1000 mg/kg, ethylbenzene 5.6 mg/kg, xylenes 3.6 mg/kg). GRO at 310 mg/kg, toluene at 11.5 mg/kg, ethylbenzene 4.6 mg/kg, and xylenes at 4.7 mg/kg were detected 3.5' bgs below the dispenser island north of the tank excavation. No soil samples were taken from the piping nor was it mentioned in the report. A groundwater grab sample was collected from a test pit located 7 feet south of the excavation. Groundwater contamination was not detected.
NOTE to FILE: Section 4.7 of the UST Procedures Manual states: Water sampled directly from an excavation is not necessarily representative of normal groundwater conditions and will not be evaluated as a representative groundwater sample. In such cases, installation and sampling of a groundwater monitoring well might be required, as determined by ADEC under 18 AAC 78.615. Water sampled directly from an excavation, or in this case, a test pit, is not necessarily representative of normal groundwater conditions and will not be evaluated as a representative groundwater sample. Only those groundwater samples from properly installed and developed groundwater wells will be considered acceptable groundwater monitoring samples. |
Louis Howard |
| 4/21/1995 |
Update or Other Action |
Air Force Memorandum to John Halverson re: UST meeting. Elmendorf AFB will accomplish the following actions regarding UST projects. These actions are based upon conversation between, John Mahaffey, Larry Opperman and yourself.
1) EAFB will make every effort to accomplish clean closure of a UST removal if possible. 2) UST removal locations requiring cleanup action will be transferred into the State Elmendorf Environmental Restoration Agreement (SERA). A list of sites requiring cleanup will be coordinated with your office. 3) The presumptive remedy for contaminated UST sites in the outwash plain only will be bioventing technology. 4) Contaminated soils exceeding cleanup levels may be placed back into the excavation only if the site assessment (SA) indicates a need for further action. 5) Contaminated UST sites not in the outwash plain will require further investigation to determine appropriate cleanup options. 6) We (Elmendorf) will make every attempt possible to assure new USTs or new aboveground tanks are not installed in any way that would hamper future access for cleanup. 7) The project will first accomplish removal of all the USTs. SA information will be used to prioritize sites for cleanup using existing project funds. Additional funding will be requested to complete cleanup if available. Sites not addressed for cleanup due to exhausted funding will be placed in SERA Phase IV.
John Halverson signed memorandum on April 21, 1995. Memorandum submitted by Douglas G. Tarbett, Maj. USAF, Chief Environmental Compliance (CCs 3 WG/JA and 3 SPTG/CE). |
John Halverson |
| 9/18/1996 |
Update or Other Action |
Two borings were advanced to the water table (12' bgs) to investigate the potential for contamination around the former USTs and the fuel dispenser island. No soil samples exceeded most stringent cleanup level "A" criteria. |
Louis Howard |
| 10/21/2002 |
Update or Other Action |
J. Roberts sent a letter to Joe Williamson dissolving the State Elmendorf Environmental Restoration Agreement. The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) has reviewed the issue of abolishing the State Elmendorf Environmental Restoration Agreement (SERA) per your recommendation. Elmendorf Air Force Base and DEC entered into the SERA in 1992. The agreement was developed as a tool to bring the Base into compliance with Alaska's regulations addressing underground storage tanks, oil and other hazardous substance releases and solid waste.
Since that time, Elmendorf has made significant progress in investigating and cleaning up historic contamination problems. Many of the sites covered by the SERA have been successfully cleaned up and closed. Cleanup is underway at the remaining sites.
Additionally, Alaska has amended the regulations addressing fuel storage tanks, oil and other hazardous substance spills and solid waste. We concur with you that the SERA is no longer a necessary or beneficial. This letter serves as notice that DEC will end oversight on environmental work at Elmendorf by using the SERA. Instead, it is understood that the sites and programs formerly addressed by SERA: solid waste, underground storage tanks (UST), and oil and other hazardous substance discharges will be addressed in accordance with 18 AAC 60, 18 AAC 78 and 18 AAC 75. |
Jennifer Roberts |
| 12/5/2003 |
Institutional Control Record Established |
DEC's NFRAP determination indicates that no additional cleanup is necessary, but that institutional controls and/or long-term monitoring are necessary. Because petroleum contaminated soil (e.g. contaminant levels higher than Method 2 cleanup levels in Tables B1/B2 found in 18 AAC 75.341) remains at these sites, the Base Master Plan needs to be updated to document the locations of residual contamination and the need to manage contaminated soil properly during any future construction or excavation work. |
Louis Howard |
| 12/5/2003 |
Long Term Monitoring Established |
DEC's NFRAP determination indicates that no additional cleanup is necessary, but that institutional controls and/or long-term monitoring are necessary. We have determined that the groundwater impacts at these sites are being adequately addressed within the base-wide groundwater monitoring program and the Operable Unit 5 groundwater treatment system. |
John Halverson |
| 12/5/2003 |
Conditional Closure Approved |
John Halverson Acting Section Manager sent a NFRAP letter to John Mahaffey re: Compliance funded sites review and response. Residual soil and/or groundwater contamination is present at all of the sites. Based on our review, thirty-six (36) of the sites do not appear to pose an unacceptable risk to human health or the environment and are suitable for a No Further Remedial Action Planned (NFRAP) determination. DEC's NFRAP determination indicates that no additional cleanup is necessary, but that institutional controls and/or long-term monitoring are necessary. We have determined that the groundwater impacts at these sites are being adequately addressed within the base-wide groundwater monitoring program and the Operable Unit 5 groundwater treatment system. Because petroleum contaminated soil (e.g. contaminant levels higher than Method 2 cleanup levels in Tables B1/B2 found in 18 AAC 75.341) remains at these sites, the Base Master Plan needs to be updated to document the locations of residual contamination and the need to manage contaminated soil properly during any future construction or excavation work. Sites in addition to ST503 referred to in the letter include: 404, 405, 411, 413, 414, 415, 430/9 431, 501, 502, 504, 505/9, 511, 512, 513, 514, 515, 517, 518, 519, 520, 521, 525, 528, 530, 533, 535, 536, 537, 700, 701, 902, 903, 904, and 906. Sites ST 420 and ST 524 are not located within the capture zone of the Operable Unit 5 treatment system (the outwash plain) and contain higher contaminant levels. Therefore, the ADEC is requesting additional site characterization at these two sites. |
John Halverson |
| 4/21/2004 |
Update or Other Action |
Site moved from LUST to CS DB this date. Facility ID = 1525, Event ID = 1807, File 2101.26.019. |
Former Staff |
| 6/10/2013 |
Exposure Tracking Model Ranking |
Initial ranking with ETM completed for source area id: 73018 name: auto-generated pm edit Elmendorf ST503/504 Bldg 10286 |
Louis Howard |
