| Action Date |
Action |
Description |
DEC Staff |
| 11/12/1940 |
Update or Other Action |
A letter from the War Department Adjutant General's Office to Commanding Generals of all Armies, with a First Indorsement from Headquarters Ninth Corps Area, Presideo of San Francisco, CA, to Commanding Officers all Army Posts, dated 12 November 1940, stated that the Army Post near Anchorage, Alaska, known as Elmendorf Field was designated as Fort Richardson, Alaska, and the air field was designated as Elmendorf Field, Alaska. |
Jennifer Roberts |
| 12/12/1940 |
Update or Other Action |
War Department General Order no. 9, dated 12, December 1940, announced that the military reservation located near Anchorage, Alaska, was designated as a permanent military post under the provisions of AR 210-10 and was designated Fort Richardson in honor of Brigadier General Wilds P. Richardson, US Army. The flying field at Fort Richardson, AK, was designated "Elmendorf Field" in honor of Captain Hugh M. Elmendorf, A.C., who was killed in an airplane accident in the vicinity of Wright Field, OH on 13 January 1933. |
Jennifer Roberts |
| 3/3/1951 |
Update or Other Action |
Elmendorf Air Force Base was transferred from the Department of Army to the Department of the Air Force on this date. Transfer of all property in place was authorized. |
Jennifer Roberts |
| 3/3/1951 |
Update or Other Action |
Elmendorf Air Force Base was transferred from the Department of Army to the Department of the Air Force on this date. Transfer of all property in place was authorized. |
Jennifer Roberts |
| 9/12/1994 |
Update or Other Action |
Active 12 inch Pipeline
Spill # 94-211238-2 LC 14999999 9/94 6:00 PM Suspected leaking pipeline to marine header (spaghetti farm) at Port from one of the connecting oil terminals. All potential responsible parties terminal operators are requested to perform hydrostatic pressure tests on pipelines to spaghetti farm. EAFB, Defense Fuels have held pressure in lines. Defense fuels additives were not found in prelim samples. Texaco to conduct tests today, Tesoro done annual hydrostatic test within past 2 weeks and passed. Signature pipeline could not hold pressure. Claim is gate valve from five storage tanks is leaking, so they plan to install a blind flange to block off the tank farm. They will conduct a pressure test on Saturday. #1 priority is to have Signature complete the hydrostatic test. If a problem is discovered, they will call over the weekend. If hydrostatic tests do not show which pipeline is leaking, then plan is to have AWWU excavate sewer manhole at Gull and Tidewater to find source of the leak. |
Doreen Sullivan-Garcia |
| 9/13/1994 |
Update or Other Action |
Active 12 inch Pipeline
Situation report#2: All hydrostatic tests of jet fuel lines within 1/4 mile appear to test tight. MOA sewer and storm drain surveys indicate leak is within 30 feet of intersection of Tidewater and Gull. Emergency funding request (470) for contractor's assessment and spill response and sample analyses is being prepared for the State to take the lead in event oil terminal operators will not form a cooperative response. |
Doreen Sullivan-Garcia |
| 9/14/1994 |
Update or Other Action |
Active 12 inch Pipeline
Letter from ADEC to Dan Dietz to advise MOA of the presence of jet fuel in the storm drains and sewers at the Port of Anchorage (POA) discovered on or about August 25, 1994. This is a pollution incident and the MOA as the property owner/manager may be financially responsible. Under Alaska Statutes, the ADEC has an interest in this incident, and further, may take appropriate action to minimize the damages that are threatened, or which may be caused, by this incident.
As long as the MOA is taking adequate action in this matter, State action may be limited to monitoring the progress of the activities and to provide guidance as necessary. Under Title 46, the responsible party may be liable for any monitoring costs incurred by the State in response to this incident. The Municipality of Anchorage's (MOA) response actions will be considered in determining the appropriate level of State response. If it is determined that the MOA is not taking prompt and appropriate removal actions, a State response may be initiated. The MOA may then be held responsible for the additional costs incurred by the State.
Should you require further information you should contact the Anchorage District Office Manager Bill Lamoreaux or Doreen Sullivan Garcia the Field On-Scene Coordinator. A response is requested by noon Friday September 16, 1994. |
John Bauer |
| 9/15/1994 |
Update or Other Action |
Active 12 inch Pipeline
Situation report Port of Anchorage drains Tidewater and Gull: Spill # 94-211-238-2 (oil in sewer), 94-211-212-1 (oil in storm drain) and 94-211-257-3 (EAFB pipeline leak) Ledger Code 14998860. Date of report 9/15/94 3 PM Pipeline to Elmendorf has pinhole leak. 2:30 PM 9/14 EAFB reported pipeline to spaghetti farm failed the leak tests conducted on or about 9/12/94. 30-gallon release during a 20-minute test period and two tests were conducted. Results from tests do not seem to account for the volumes for the volumes of jet fuel (last estimated by AWWU at 12/gal/hr.). Explosive limits for jet fuel are 0.9 to 7% (LEL-UEL) ADEC monitoring showed 5-6% in the sewer. Current emergency in sewer should be handled by the municipality and ADEC has recommended emergency contractor to bring out vacuum truck. Street maintenance has been advised to boom the storm drain culvert to prevent sheens from entering Cook Inlet.
Per military comments: Elmendorf is responsible for the pipeline, Defense Fuels is responsible for the product in the pipeline. Defense Fuels will do technical assistance, contracting, and cleanup for Elmendorf. Military fingerprinting tests are based on detection of a glycol like additive that removes water from the fuel. The additive was not detected at the tests at the military lab. Additional tests to be done at a local independent lab. |
Doreen Sullivan-Garcia |
| 9/18/1994 |
Update or Other Action |
Active 12 inch Pipeline
Fax from Claude Mayer EAFB: Testing results from a 3 1/2 hour period showed a 15 PSIG loss in test pressure. Assumed pressure loss is due to change in fuel temperature during test period. However, less than 20 feet of exposed pipe is subject to ambient temperature conditions. The pipeline itself has "passed" a "TRACER" test of integrity in 1992. Quite a few probes are still in place and available for additional testing. The line passed an AF pressure test at 150 psig in April 1993. It was reported in July 1994 that the line was locked up by accident reportedly locking up the custody transfer twin seal valve. Chemical fingerprinting of fuel plume by DFSC has not been completed. |
Doreen Sullivan-Garcia |
| 9/19/1994 |
Update or Other Action |
Active 12 inch Pipeline
Situation report #4: Port of Anchorage to take lead in investigation and recovery until the RP is found. EAFB and Signature Flight Support pipeline pressure tests are questionable. PRP letters responded to from Chevron, Tesoro, EAFB, Signature, Alaska RR and Port. Port will take lead until RP is found. EAFB's report of poorly wrapped and badly corroded line in two areas of excavation, a 90 degree elbow in the line in he vicinity of the sewer inputs, buried flanges and possible unknown connections make the 1952 vintage line highly suspect. EAFB is considering repeating the TRACER tests or replacing the elbow so the line can be "pigged". Replacing the entire line has been discussed. Additional inspection of data, such as Loss/Gain reports for EAFB, Signature and the follow-up to the Sealand spill may be required. Discussion continues on the age of the fuel and what weathering affects may occur in the cold ground and on groundwater. Sample results from Defense Fuels may help identify the source of fuel. |
Doreen Sullivan-Garcia |
| 9/20/1994 |
Update or Other Action |
Active 12 inch Pipeline
Letter from Defense Fuel Supply Center John Bartenhagen, PE Deputy Director. Wednesday, they were informed of the pipeline failing the pressure test. DFSC has secured Enterprise Engineering to conduct a thorough investigation of the pressure drop, determine location of the leak, and make necessary repairs. DFSC has also procured Shannon and Wilson to test fuel found in a sewer manhole at the Port. Preliminary results have indicated it to be jet fuel but no anti-icing additive has been detected which should show up if it is DFSC product. Fuel leaking into the sewer may be from another source. DFSC has pressure tested its pipelines leading into and from the Port manifold and they have satisfactorily held pressure. |
Doreen Sullivan-Garcia |
| 10/6/1994 |
Update or Other Action |
Active 12 inch Pipeline
Letter to Lieutenant Colonel Coullahan/Claude Mayer regarding the Elmendorf Pipeline testing. Defense Fuels notified ADEC in correspondence on September 15, 1994 that the pipeline failed its pressure testing. Letter requests by close of October 7, 1994: field data from the second hydrostatic test and any subsequent tests, sampling and analysis data and additional information on the oil/water samples gathered from the sewer system at Tidewater and Gull. Data Interpretation: an independent lab could not detect the deicing additive in Defense Fuels jet fuel samples because the levels were below detection limits. Gas tracer tests: ADEC requests an interim report and a copy of the final reports provided by the consultant/contractor. ADEC suggested that a weekly interim reporting procedure or a weekly meeting to resolve communication problems. Until this time only sporadic, requested information was submitted. Since the State is working with more than one potentially responsible party, the full accounting will assist in decision making, and minimize costs to all involved parties. |
Doreen Sullivan-Garcia |
| 10/7/1994 |
Update or Other Action |
Active 12 inch Pipeline
Press release 94-10-02 Oct. 7, 1994 Fuel Leak. The Air Force has confirmed that a least a portion of the fuel leaking at the Anchorage Port near the intersection of Tidewater and Gull streets is coming from the Air Force Pipeline, according to William Hanson. The size of the leak has not been determined however, further tests are being conducted to determine the scope of the release. The pipeline leak was confirmed through testing conducted by Enterprise Engineering Inc. and the U.S. Leak Detection Inc. by injecting the pipeline with a tracer agent known as sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). |
Doreen Sullivan-Garcia |
| 10/8/1994 |
Update or Other Action |
Active 12 inch Pipeline
Air Force Wayne Heskew sent a memorandum re: Release of Fuel At the Port of Anchorage. The AF has completed its testing of their pipeline with gas tracer SF6. The results indicate a leak of undetermined magnitude in their pipeline. They will be running further tests to attempt to determine the scope of the release. The Defense Fuel Office-Alaska will begin emptying the pipeline at 1400 this afternoon October 7, 1994. The Fort Richardson Dept. of Public Works intends to excavate the area on Tuesday October 11, 1994 and will repair any damage to the pipe. However, the AF does not know if they are the only source of the fuel spill. They encourage other potentially responsible parties to continue to investigate their systems. They have arranged for a meeting at the port for 1500 hrs today and hope to share their plans for the future of the area. |
Doreen Sullivan-Garcia |
| 10/10/1994 |
Update or Other Action |
Active 12 inch Pipeline
Memo to State from AF (William Hanson) re: Environmental Plan for Repairs to USAF Fuel Pipeline-Anchorage Port Facility. Attached is the plan for the repair of the fuel pipeline at the POA. The repair effort is intended to eliminate the source of the release, remove any free product or contaminated soil encountered in conjunction with the repair work, and characterize the extent of the release in the immediate area. Concurrent with this activity, the AF will mobilize contractors to fully characterize the nature and extent of the release and develop and submit cleanup and remediation plans for the affected area. Upon ADEC approval, the AF will implement the plans.
SCOPE: Covers work necessary to repair the suspected damage to the USAF pipeline at the Anchorage Port Facility.
a. Safe removal and handling of free product encountered and treatment of contaminated soil encountered in excavation.
b. Determine appropriate places to cut into the existing line and prepare the area for safe cutting and welding.
c. Cut the pipe and weld in repair section as needed.
2. Excavation and backfill plan. Pipeline excavation to be 100 feet in length and about 4 feet below the depth of the pipe.
a. Free product/contaminated water will be removed as soon as practicable after it is encountered.
b. Because of the difficulty in real time the level of contamination of excavated soil, they will take all soil removed from this excavation to an approved thermal soil treatment plant. |
Doreen Sullivan-Garcia |
| 10/12/1994 |
Update or Other Action |
Active 12 inch Pipeline
Enterprise Engineering Inc. Stephen Brooks P.E. sent to William Hanson AF, Maj. S. Hartford 3 CES/CEO, Paul Rogers DFSC, Robert Mis Southdiv EIC, Jim Stirling DFO-A fax on North Jet Pipeline POA contract 94-D-0845 EEI Project # 94-1736. Leak evaluation on North Jet Pipeline from Spaghetti Works to Building 30-790 on October 5-7, 1994 confirmed presence of SF-6, sulfur hexafluoride gas, being released from the pipeline in the vicinity of Tidewater Avenue, Gull Avenue and a manhole in the Anchorage Port. This finding of the inoculant gas confirms the presence of a leak in the Government fuel pipeline. The entire 4,220 ft. length of the 12 inch pipeline was fully evaluated, a minimum of three separate times over the testing period and no other leaks were present on the pipeline. A full report of the inspection procedures and findings will be forthcoming. |
Doreen Sullivan-Garcia |
| 10/14/1994 |
Update or Other Action |
Active 12 inch Pipeline
AF Memo to DEC. RE: Elmendorf Pipeline Testing Spill # 94-211-238-2 "Port of Anchorage Drains" Reference DEC letter 10\6\1994.
The Air Force have and will continue to share with DEC all information relevant to their activities associated with this spill. To their knowledge they have provided DEC with all information requested, if it was available to the Air Force. Due to the emergency nature of the work and the fact that the Air Force must use consultants and contract services the Air Force has not always been able to provide the information as quickly as DEC has requested.
2. Field data on all hydrostatic tests from Enterprise Engineering is at Attachment 1. To the Air Force's knowledge all available information on these tests has been provided to DEC as soon as it was available.
3. Oil/water sampling and analysis results available to the Air Force are at Attachment 2. As DEC knows, due to field conditions, many of these samples were gathered informally and no specific collection techniques were reported.
4. The Air Force has no explanation for why the fuel samples taken from the pipeline and other locations in the area do not show the presence of the de-icing additive or other unique signature chemicals from Defense Fuel products. The Air Force will continue to investigate this issue and will advise of any new information as it becomes available.
5. The gas tracer tests used sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) as a detectable fuel inoculant. To the Air Force's knowledge, this is a widely accepted industry methodology for long pipelines regulated under 49 CFR 195. The Air Force informed DEC representatives that they were going to use this test method to confirm whether or not the pipeline was leaking. As an owner and operator of a pipeline, the Air Force believes it is their responsibility to determine the appropriate procedures to evaluate pipeline integrity. A report on the gas tracer test has not been formalized. The Air Force will provide the report when it is available. |
Doreen Sullivan-Garcia |
| 10/15/1994 |
Update or Other Action |
Active 12 inch Pipeline
October 14, 1994 fax to DFO-A, Southdiv EIC, 3 CES/CEO, AF Environmental and DFSC-FW re: North Jet Pipeline Port of Anchorage Contract 94-D-0845. The previously identified suspect leak area on Tidewater Avenue was excavated on October 12 and 13, 1994. 40 feet of the 12 inch North Jet Pipeline was exposed for inspection and evaluation. The inspection uncovered several areas of lake type corrosion on the pipe surface, below the asphalt felt pipe wrap system.
On the evening of October 13, 1994, the pipeline was repressurized with nitrogen to 50 psig. The previously utilized inoculant sulfur hexafluoride gas (SF-6) was injected in the nitrogen during charging. Presence was confirmed by halogen testing at Building 30-790.
Almost immediately upon nitrogen charging, the actual pipeline leak was detected by presence of cold nitrogen vapors. The leak was several feet south of the manhole previously collecting product, on the west side and bottom of the pipeline. The leak location was also below the "hottest" hit found from the ground surface leaking probing. Subjectively, the leak was a pinhole.
SF-6 halogen detection testing after the charging determined the following: No gas was found at the crossing of the Government fuel line and private fuel lines crossing Tidewater Avenue. No leak was detected of the other corrosion anomalies found.
Based on testing results they have full confidence that the leak found represents the location and source of Government fuel found in the adjacent sewer manhole. Steps are underway for replacement of the corroded section of the pipeline followed by further corrosion evaluation of the pipeline. |
Doreen Sullivan-Garcia |
| 10/27/1994 |
Update or Other Action |
Active 12 inch Pipeline
Letter to MOA Port Director Don Dietz re: Spill # 94-2-1-1-238-2. The letter is to notify you (the Municipality of Anchorage) that you are no longer a Potentially Responsible Party (PRP) on the jet fuel spill in the Port of Anchorage sanitary sewer. On September 14, 1994, the Department sent you a PRP letter as part of our investigation of the spill. Since that letter was sent, EAFB located leaks in their pipeline in the vicinity of the manhole at Gull and Tidewater at the Port. Based on the best available information that the Department has at this time, your facility is no longer a suspect in this investigation. |
Doreen Sullivan-Garcia |
| 10/28/1994 |
Update or Other Action |
Active 12 inch Pipeline
John Bauer-ADEC letter to Bill Hanson EAFB 3 SPTG/CEV dated October 27, 1994. During excavation & repair of the Elmendorf pipeline at the Port of Anchorage (POA), the military unearthed an abandoned 10 inch diameter pipeline known as the military AvGas line. The military installed a hot tap on the abandoned line & collected a sample of the liquid in the pipeline. Preliminary observations indicate the abandoned line contains water & fuel. In addition, you previously stated that sections of the AvGas line were removed, while the status of the remaining line is unknown.
DFSC & Elmendorf indicated accurate pipeline abandonment records are not available. Since the AvGas line does contain water & fuel, the line is not properly abandoned. The abandoned AvGas line is not in accordance with 18 AAC 75.080(e) which is enclosed. 18 AAC 75.080. FACILITY PIPING REQUIREMENTS FOR OIL TERMINAL, CRUDE OIL TRANSMISSION PIPELINE, EXPLORATION, & PRODUCTION FACILITIES. (a) All facility oil piping associated with an oil terminal, crude oil transmission pipeline, exploration, or production facility must meet the requirements of this section.
(b) Buried steel piping containing oil must be maintained in accordance with a corrosion control program approved by the department, &, (1) for a new installation, must be (A) protected from corrosion by installing protective wrapping or coating & cathodic protection appropriate for local soil conditions; & (B) of all welded construction with no clamped, threaded, or similar connections for lines larger than a one inch nominal pipe size; &
(2) for an existing installation, must (A) undergo a corrosion survey; (B) be carefully examined for deterioration any time a section of buried line is exposed for any reason; (C) undergo an additional examination & corrective action to repair the damaged pipe & control future corrosion if corrosion damage is found; & (D) be replaced with piping that meets the requirements of (1) of this subsection, if feasible, when significant repairs or replacements are made.
(c) Buried or insulated transfer piping & hoses that are located outside of secondary containment areas & that are used to transfer oil to or from docks or vessels must be leak tested at least annually, at or above the normal operating pressures, or must be subjected to another verification method approved by the department. The testing medium used must be in accordance with API RP 1110, Second Edition, 1981, or another applicable published safety standard. The owner or operator shall keep records of the results of these tests. Piping & hoses must be stenciled or tagged with the date of the last test & the allowable operating pressure. An oil discharge resulting from testing is not exempted from legal action under applicable state law.
The department requests EAFB to submit a plan to this office by November 30, 1994 to address the issue of proper abandonment of the AvGas line in the POA area. During the interim period prior to the department approval of the above requested plan, Elmendorf is required to notify this office whenever the buried AvGas line is exposed. After notification, this office will require Elmendorf to take appropriate actions to abandon the line.
NOTE TO FILE:
In 1973, EPA initiated a “phasedown” program for leaded gasoline. This program was designed to reduce lead content from 2.0 grams per gallon to 0.5 gram per gallon in large refineries by 1980 & in small refineries by 1982 (Ref. 2-14). The program allowed refineries to average their total (both leaded & unleaded) gasoline output to achieve the 0.5-gram per gallon standard.
In 1982, EPA lowered the standard for lead in fuel to 1.10 grams per gallon & eliminated the provision that allowed refineries to average their total leaded & unleaded gasoline output to meet the standard. In 1986, the standard was further reduced to 0.10 gram per gallon. By 1995, sales of leaded gasoline were reduced to 0.6 percent of total gasoline sales. Effective January 1, 1996, the Clean Air Act banned the sale of leaded fuel for May 2006 on-road vehicles. However, certain blends of automobile racing fuel continue to use alkyl lead compounds as a component of the fuel & EDB continues to be used as a lead scavenger in aviation gasoline (Avgas). |
John Bauer |
| 10/31/1994 |
Update or Other Action |
Active 12 inch Pipeline
William Hanson AF sent memorandum to DEC re: Work plan for inspection of pipeline and characterization in area of manhole, Port of Anchorage, Attachments A. Work plan for inspection of USAF Fuel Pipeline and Associated Impact Area, B. Corrosion Detection Smart Pigging, C. Corrosion Detection Smart Pigging, Detailed work plan. The pipeline inspection is intended to determine whether or not there are other spots of corrosion on the 12 inch pipeline. In addition, work will continue to characterize the extent of contamination in the immediate area of the manhole.
The survey on the pipeline is scheduled to begin on Nov. 2, 1994. The piping inspection should be complete by Nov. 5, 1994. The site characterization will be a continuing process as noted in the attached plan. |
John Bauer |
| 11/1/1994 |
Update or Other Action |
Active 12 inch Pipeline
AF Letter to ADEC from the 3 SUG/CEV RE: Abandoned pipeline at the Port of Anchorage. The Air Force is currently in the process of programming a project for the removal of the 10 inch abandoned pipeline at the POA. Due to the low risk associated with this pipeline, they do not expect high priority funding. In the interim, portions of the pipe which are exposed during the Air Force's excavation work, unless mission requirements dictate otherwise, will be drained and removed as they are encountered. |
John Bauer |
| 12/8/1994 |
Update or Other Action |
Active 12 inch Pipeline
AF Memo to POA re: Repair of Fuel Pipeline at the Port of Anchorage. The 12-inch pipeline has been completely surveyed by smart pigging. The initial results showed anomalies which indicated the possibility of metal loss at several locations along the line. Confirmation digs were accomplished to verify the condition of the pipe at these locations. During the confirmation digs, pieces of rebar and metallic cable were unearthed. These objects were in contact with the piping and caused some of the anomalies noted on the pigging log.
The Government is in the process of restoring the pipeline to service. Further detailed repairs are planned for springtime (1995). The Air Force does not plan to recharge the line prior to completion of the long term repairs unless an emergency arises. Specific conditions of the pipeline are noted on the attached engineers report. |
John Bauer |
| 2/13/1995 |
Update or Other Action |
Active 12 inch Pipeline
AF Memo to POA RE: Pipeline repair POA Alaska. In response to the POA letter dated January 10, 1995, the Air Force's contractor is developing the drawings and specifications necessary for the replacement of approximately 535 feet of pipeline. The design keeps the line in the existing right-of-way. As soon as project documents are prepared, we will provide the POA for your review and comment. Estimated completion of the design documents is April 1, 1995.
The Air Force would like to address the estimate of fuel loss in the POA letter. They believer calculating the loss should take into consideration that the line was used only one to three times per week. The loss was serious, but they believe all repair efforts indicate the loss was captured by the manhole adjacent to the pipe. Information provided by the Anchorage Water and Wastewater Utility indicates a better approximation would be 120 gallons per day for those days that the pipeline was in use (360 gallons per week x 52 weeks 18720 gallons per year). |
John Bauer |
| 2/22/1995 |
Update or Other Action |
Active 12 inch Pipeline
Report received for site investigation at the EAFB pipeline. 500 cubic yards excavated. The USAF pipeline was located in the exploratory excavation at a depth of 8' below ground surface. Soil from excavation did not appear contaminated. Work continued from south end of the main excavation with the first 2-3 feet of upper soil appeared clean. Below 3 feet below ground surface soil was notably contaminated with PID readings in excess of 2000 ppm. The USAF pipeline had soil immediately around it saturated with free product.
Further inspection of the pipeline in the main trench showed a leak to be present south of the manhole. DRO values ranged from 5 to 14,000 mg/kg, Kerosene or JP-8 ranged from 6.4 to 16,000 mg/kg. *NOTE to file: JP-8 is the military equivalent of Jet A-1 with the addition of corrosion inhibitor and anti-icing additives. MIL-DTL-83133 interchanged under NATO code number F-34; contains only
kerosene fractions; not considered volatile. Identical to ASTM D 1655 Jet A-1,
except Jet A-1 does not include fuel system icing inhibitor, corrosion inhibitor, or
static dissipater additive, which are all mandatory under MIL-DTL-83133.
Waste oil was detected in some of the soil samples from 55 to 1,500 mg/kg. A single groundwater sample was collected from the initial excavation. DRO was 8.43 mg/L, TPH at 19.6 mg/L. 1,170 ug/L benzene, 530 ug/L toluene, 78 ug/L ethylbenzene and 68 ug/L xylenes. Samples of clear, green and black fuel product were also analyzed. JP8 was the predominant fuel present in these samples. Smaller quantities of JP-4 were also present. *NOTE to file MIL-DTL-5624’s Grade JP-4 interchanged under NATO code number F-40; contains
over 50 percent gasoline fractions; extremely volatile. |
John Bauer |
| 2/23/1995 |
Update or Other Action |
Active 12 inch Pipeline
Report Phase II monitoring project received. Objective of project was to document additional excavation activities, smart pigging operations along a section of 12 inch diameter USAF pipeline to further evaluate the extent of the potential hydrocarbon contamination within the soil and groundwater. Conclusions-groundwater analytical results show that BTEX, GRO, and DRO are present in the shallow water table at Test pit 3 (TP-3) location. TP-3 is located between the Spaghetti Works and the Access Pit.
Groundwater is at five feet below ground surface. The type of product which has impacted the groundwater cannot be determined directly from the hydrocarbons detected in TP-3. Soil and groundwater at the Access Pit and the 4 confirmatory test pits has been impacted with petroleum hydrocarbons but the contamination is unlikely to be the result of the jet fuel leaking from the 12 inch USAF pipeline. Soil samples analyzed at the Spaghetti works indicate jet fuel is present around the pipeline where it enters the ground. Extent of contamination is unknown and the soil excavation at the Spaghetti works must be completed by hand due to limited space within the manifold area. Groundwater at the Spaghetti works has been impacted and extent is not known. Additional testing of the shallow aquifer groundwater is required to determine the extent and nature of the hydrocarbons beneath the Spaghetti works. |
John Bauer |
| 7/13/1995 |
Update or Other Action |
Active 12 inch Pipeline
Faxed work plan for repair of 12 inch North Jet Pipeline received. Work will include installation of 535 feet of piping from its terminus at the Port of Anchorage valve yard and approximately 20 foot section of pipe at a suspected corrosion site located 1,477 feet from the valve yard. Piping will be laid at a minimum depth required by code up to ten feet in depth. Soils: if free product is not found in the soil, it will be backfilled on site. PID will be used and results recorded. If contamination is "excessive" the soil will be disposed of at a permitted thermal treatment facility. Contaminated water: If contaminated water invades the excavation, pumping will be required.
Removal will be by vacuum truck. If determined to be hazardous, a hazardous waste accumulation point will be established. If not hazardous, a permit will be acquired to discharge into the Anchorage Water and Wastewater utility system. Abandoned pipe: Where required and/or necessary, the existing pipeline will be removed. The majority of the existing line, will be abandoned in place in accordance with 18 AAC 75. These requirements include draining, capping, and marking of the abandoned line. Monitoring wells: the original plan called for 3 monitoring wells in the area of Gull and Tidewater will be revisited after the excavations are inspected. It is the AF's belief that no subsurface free product exists as a result of the original spill at Gull and Tidewater. |
John Bauer |
| 7/14/1995 |
Spill Transferred from Prevention Preparedness and Response Program |
Active 12 inch Pipeline
Letter to William Hanson from John Bauer. The immediate spill response actions have been completed for this project and IPP and CS will take over for the PERP program. Ted Moore from the Industry Preparedness and Pipeline Program will review plans for the replacement of sections of the 12 inch North Jet Pipeline. Eileen Olson of the Contaminated Sites Program will review information from any reports and work plans for contamination remaining at the spill site and potential contamination associated with pipeline replacement. |
John Bauer |
| 8/14/1995 |
Update or Other Action |
Active 12 inch Pipeline
Port of Anchorage letter to AF received. Port of Anchorage does not object to elimination of the casement contingent upon the AF assuming responsibility of any problems with said elimination. Port concurs with design specifications of plan but it is contingent on the AF removing, inspecting and providing a report to the Port. Port does not concur with AF on abandonment and has communicated it to the AF in the Fall of 1994. |
Eileen Olson |
| 8/21/1995 |
Update or Other Action |
Active 12 inch Pipeline
Memorandum received from AF to the Port of Anchorage regarding letter from Port dated 8/14/95. The Air Force debated whether or not to remove the piping and based on the problems associated with the removal, the parameters for road and railroad closure and the availability of personnel and equipment make it impossible for them to honor the Port's request as a part of the current repair project.
A) The depth of the old 12" pipe s much as 15' below existing grade is such that excavation will have to be sloped, benched, or shored. This will impact both surface features and other existing underground utilities.
B) The old line is buried on original marsh bottom which has since been covered by a thick layer of fill. It is anticipated that the underlying marsh soils will be unstable and difficult to excavate. Dewatering will be required to maintain a stable excavation. Based on past testing, the dewatering effluent is likely to be contaminated from unknown sources and will require special handling.
C) The increased scope of excavation, both width and depth, will increase the time required to accomplish the work, and make the 3 day road closures an impossible task with available crews and equipment.
D) During excavations last year, the riser at the valve yard was uncovered to a depth of 4 feet below grade. Probes below this point found soil to be highly contaminated and of very loose consistency. Dames and Moore tested the soil for contamination with less than favorable results. The AF is concerned that much of the area below the valve yard is contaminated from several spills of unknown origin, including spills from the 1964 earthquake. The removal of this soil will add unnecessary expense and environmental impact to the project.
E) From a pragmatic standpoint, excavation to the bottom of the riser in the valve yard will rip up the liner and may disturb the neighboring pipelines.
F) The AF sees no benefit in removing the old 12 inch pipeline and believes abandonment of the pipeline is the most prudent and reasonable course of action. |
Eileen Olson |
| 8/22/1995 |
Meeting or Teleconference Held |
Active 12 inch Pipeline
Meeting held to review final construction plans for repairs to the Anchorage Port North Jet Pipeline. Port advised attendees that it will not authorize construction of the pipeline repairs if the plans include abandonment of the present pipe in place. Air Force contractor and EAFB stated that the removal of pipeline between the Spaghetti Works and the turning point on Tidewater Avenue. ADEC contends that the line is regulated under UST 18 AAC 78 regulations but AF contractor states that it is more likely regulated under 18 AAC 75 as an above ground tank. The source of the product is the DFSP Anchorage facility regulated under 18 AAC 75 including a filed contingency plan. Destination of the fuel is the EAFB North Jet Fuel storage facility regulated under 18 AAC 75 with a filed Contingency plan. |
Eileen Olson |
| 9/10/1995 |
Update or Other Action |
Active 12 inch Pipeline
Draft unsigned memorandum of agreement (MOA) between the MOA and 3rd Wing on cleanup actions for JP-8 North Jet Pipeline leak. Elmendorf pledges to take those steps necessary to investigate possible residual contamination that may have leaked within the boundaries of the POA from the North Jet Pipeline circa August 1994. Based on the availability of funds, the planned work includes an appropriate level of subsurface investigation.
In exchange for this pledge by Elmendorf, the Port of Anchorage, agrees to allow EAFB to abandon five hundred and fifty (550) feet of the North Jet Pipeline, beginning at the Port manifold known as the "Spaghetti Works", replacing this section with new piping that will be situated about eight feet underground and run within the DOD easement, parallel with the old piping. The old section will be cleaned sealed, and abandoned in accordance with industrial standards and state law. The Port agrees to allow EAFB to begin repairs of the North Jet pipeline on or about 13, September 1995. The Port also agrees that this repair of the North Jet pipeline may begin prior to Elmendorf completing its test and evaluation of possible residual fuel contamination resulting from the August 1994 North Jet Fuel leak.
If EAFB investigation identifies residual contamination from the August 1994 JP-8 leak, EAFB will prepare a work plan to implement any appropriate and necessary cleanup measures. If testing of the North Jet pipeline identifies petroleum contamination within EAFB easement that is not JP-8 military aviation fuel, any follow-on remedial actions necessary to clean this other petroleum contamination will be deferred to the Petroleum Users Group for action. |
Eileen Olson |
| 9/12/1995 |
Update or Other Action |
Active 12 inch Pipeline
POA letter to Richard Strom USAF RE: North Jet Pipeline work at the POA. The MOU document would require significant further staffing and coordination prior to an appropriate executive level of the Municipality signing it. The POA director could not bind the MOA to the stipulations contained therein, and it is questionable whether a USAF Deputy Civil Engineer could do so for the US Government.
In any regard, the POA suggests that in order to accommodate the project's planned start date on, or soon thereafter as practicable, that the Defense Fuels/USAF/Naval Facilities Engineering Command contract be re-considered as the vehicle to include the risk assessment capabilities they discussed. The Port and MOA pledges a rapid review and coordination of the risk assessment's scope of work elements, when and should they be forwarded.
In order for the POA to more fully evaluate the AF request to abandon 535 feet of North Jet pipeline and associated risks there from, the POA requests the following as a minimum be conducted:
1) Conduct an environmental assessment of the scope of work area data to characterize residual petroleum contamination associated with the old petroleum pipeline.
2) Identify potential human health, ecological and financial impacts associated with abandoning the pipeline (short term/long term) in place.
3) Identify proposed remediation activities (if any are determined) to minimize impacts.
The Environmental and Geotechnical Monitoring Report done by Dames and Moore (fall 1994) for the smart pigging operations does NOT fully satisfy our concerns. |
Eileen Olson |
| 9/19/1995 |
Update or Other Action |
Active 12 inch Pipeline
Port of Anchorage (POA) sent AF (Col. Richard Strom USAF) re: North Jet Pipeline Repair Work at the POA. Nearly a week has lapsed since they discussed an option with which to proceed for the go-ahead repair to the military's North Jet pipeline located on Port/Municipality property. That option was for the government to produce a complete risk assessment of the military's pipeline easement corridors where sections of government pipe is desired by the military to remain and abandoned. The military on several occasions admitted PRP for soils contamination associated with the referenced pipeline.
The risk assessment could run concomitantly with the repair project, but that a "hold remains" on the repair project's start until the Port has coordinated, i.e. "chopped off' on the risk assessment's scope of work. To-date the Port has not been contacted regarding the risk assessment option nor that the project possibly contains provisions for complete pipe removal of old non-usable pipe. It is therefore assumed that the military is still working on this issue but certainly realizes it remains "on-hold" until stipulations can be satisfied.
Please provide a written response on your plans that would include which option you are pursuing, namely: 1) complete pipeline removal (optimum from the Port/Municipality perspective) or 2) have a risk assessment begin with current planned work, but have a chop-off on the Assessment's scope of work well in advance of the construction site start date. |
Eileen Olson |
| 9/21/1995 |
Update or Other Action |
Active 12 inch Pipeline
AF memorandum to Don Dietz POA re: Repair of North Jet Pipeline. AF is committed to assessing the scope of contamination caused by the JP-8 leak from their North Jet pipeline. The AF is conducting a site assessment and the data gathering to support the assessment began with the samples taken during the AF's earlier efforts to repair the leak and the "smart pig" of the line. Further samples will be taken during the current repair project. When the AF is finished with the current repairs, they will develop appropriate recommendations for further analyses, sampling or other work to assess the site and extent of contamination.
The financial impacts of abandonment on your operation should be zero. If a future utility crossing of our right-of-way occurs, the utility might be required to cut the purged and abandoned lines. These costs are minimal when compared to the costs to excavate to the depths where the abandoned line would be a player.
The AF is using both a Defense Fuels contract and Dames and Moore to do the environmental work at the Port. They will direct them to proceed after the repairs are done and the AF has a complete picture of what information is needed. The AF is taking several samples during the installation of the new line to verify whether or not the JP-8 has migrated to this area. |
Eileen Olson |
| 9/25/1995 |
Update or Other Action |
Active 12 inch Pipeline
Statement of Work - Repair Pipeline and Characterize Site Port of Anchorage Fuel Spill Site. Memorandum for Port of Anchorage from 3 SPTG/CEV. Two phases: Phase I will include work to support the excavation and backfill operations associated with the leak repair. Phase II will include all work required to support smart pigging and site characterization actions. Site characterization will include the development and accomplishment of a work plan to determine the extent of contamination in the area of the manhole. In addition to soil and aqueous samples, three monitoring/recovery wells shall be installed by the contractor to monitor contamination. The contractor shall provide a report which will include a mapping of the contamination as indicated by sample analyses. The report shall contain site specific recommendations for future characterization actions.
Phase I - Pipeline Repair Support: The contractor shall collect soil and aqueous samples during excavation. Number and locations of samples shall be determined by the contractor. Quantities and locations shall be sufficient to define the contamination within the excavation. After collection, the Technical Project Manager (TPM) will approve which samples will be used for further analysis. Phase II - Site Characterization and Pig Support: The contractor shall collect soil and aqueous samples to determine the vertical and areal extent of contamination in the area of the manhole. The contractor shall also collect samples during the excavation of the 12-inch pipeline (the active line). Phase III - Characterization Along Abandoned 12" Pipe: The contractor shall take seven soil borings along the abandoned 12 inch pipeline at 50 foot intervals.
Three wells shall be installed, surveyed and mapped in the Site Characterization Report. The installed wells shall be monitored by the contractor daily for one week, monthly for two months, and quarterly for three quarters. |
Louis Howard |
| 11/9/1995 |
Update or Other Action |
Active 12 inch Pipeline
Dames and Moore installed seven borings at 50 feet spacing along segment 1 to 4 of the underground pipeline (from the Spaghetti Works to the intersection of Gull Avenue and Tidewater Road). Soil samples were collected from these borings at two foot intervals from 8 feet bgs to the depth of the pipeline (16-18 feet bgs). Samples of groundwater were collected from borings 4, 5, 6, and 7 and not from 1, 2, and 3).
The following generalizations can be made about the soil borings and about the presence of contamination in this area:
1) Significant hydrocarbon contamination appears to be present in the surface soils in this area.
2) The contamination appeared to be concentrated in the middle of the wedge of land between Gull Avenue and Tidewater Road, and near the original release near the manhole on Tidewater Road.
3) The contamination was highest in the upper eight feet of soil.
4) Soil collected at the same depth as the pipeline was generally found to have low to background levels of contamination.
5) Significant concentrations of GRO were found in the samples. The pipeline being investigated was used to transport JP-8, which consists mainly of DRO. For this reason, additional sources of contamination are believed to be present.
Pipeline excavation
1) Hydrocarbons appeared to be concentrated in the shallow soils. Significant concentrations of GRO were found at the site, particularly in the wedge of land between Gull Avenue and Tidewater Road.
2) The fill used at the site has caused preferential flow of the hydrocarbons.
3) In general, the bootlegger cove clay at a depth of 12 feet bgs appears to have acted as a barrier to the downward migration of hydrocarbons.
4) Contamination appeared to be concentrated in the east end of Segment 1 and west end of Segment 2, Segment 3, and the south and north ends of Segment 4.
Tote Excavation
Four samples from below a corroded section of the pipeline, and screened the soils in the trench using the PID. The field screening results failed to detect significant contamination in the soils, and the analytical results appear to indicate that hydrocarbons greater than background concentrations are not present in the soil. |
Eileen Olson |
| 1/10/1996 |
Update or Other Action |
Active 12 inch Pipeline
Final Phase IV-Environmental and Geotechnical Monitoring in Support of Pipeline Replacement Port of Anchorage Fuel Spill. This Final report was prepared per Dames & Moore's revised proposal dated October 4, 1995 and incorporates the comments made on the draft report. Work was performed in general accordance to deliverable order 7018 under contract no. F65501-93-D0007.
Seven borings installed at site 50 feet intervals along the pipeline and the borings were drilled at depths to just below the AF JP-8 pipeline, which ranged from 8 feet bgs near the manhole to 16 feet bgs near the Spaghetti Works. Samples were not collected in the first eight feet of the borings since this soil would be excavated and sampled when the new pipeline was installed.
Many of the soil samples collected from the soil borings were found to contain significant concentrations of hydrocarbons. The hydrocarbons appeared to consist of jet fuel or possibly mixed gasoline and diesel. (*Note to file: JP-8 fuel covers both GRO, DRO and BTEX which requires analysis of these COCs for JP-8 releases). The hydrocarbons appeared to be concentrated at two locations, at the known JP-8 release near the manhole in Segment 4 and in the Boring B-4. The contamination in the vicinity of boring B-7 appears to be concentrated in the vicinity of the original release near the manhole. The hydrocarbon contamination appears to extend to a depth of 12 feet bgs. The lateral spread of the hydrocarbons from the original release location may have been due to the flow along the pipeline corridor.
The concentrations of hydrocarbons were highest in groundwater samples from Borings B-4, B-5, and B-7. This is consistent with the results of the soil sampling.
Trench Soil Sampling
The results confirm and further define the results of the soil borings, showing the hydrocarbon contamination to be concentrated in two main areas. These areas are the original release near the manhole and in the vicinity of Boring B-4.
Based on the results of this investigation there appears to be 2 significant spills of hydrocarbons along the pipeline corridor. The first spill is located near the manhole. The second spill appears to be in the vicinity of B-4. It appears that much of the contaminated soil may have been already removed or remediated from the spill locations during replacement of the pipeline. A course of action which may need to be considered is the installation of additional soil borings and/or groundwater monitoring wells. However, on-going groundwater monitoring at the site is expected to present some difficulty.
Groundwater appears to occur in isolated lenses within the fill, and probably as a layer above the Bootlegger cove clay. While the groundwater is expected to flow towards the west, the flow is probably strongly influenced by irregularities in the underlying Bootlegger Cove Clay and the non-homogeneous nature of the fill. Preferential flow may occur along the debris or old pipes in the fill. An additional problem is the likely tidal influences on the direction of groundwater flow in this area.
Groundwater wells placed "downgradient" of the releases may NOT intercept the most contaminated groundwater, may be unintentionally screened across the wrong aquifer, or screened across more than one aquifer. If groundwater wells are to be installed in the spill vicinity, it is recommended that the wells be installed in fairly close proximity of the release locations. |
Eileen Olson |
| 6/14/1996 |
Update or Other Action |
Active 12 inch Pipeline
Revised work plan Site Characterization received. Investigation was to characterize the extent of the hydrocarbon contamination resulting from the pipeline spill 7 borings will be drilled at the site to 20 feet or to the top of the Bootlegger Cove Clay (whichever occurs first). Soil and groundwater samples will be collected. 3 groundwater wells will be installed at the site. 4 of the soil samples and all groundwater samples collected will be analyzed for DRO, GRO and BTEX. Tentative proposal for groundwater monitoring will be on a quarterly basis for two years after installation of the wells.
Olson comments on plan: work plan approved and the revised boring locations were also approved. Note to 3 SPTG/CEVC from ADEC: applicable guidance for the project-Interim Guidance for Non-UST Contaminated Soil Cleanup Levels 7/17/91 and Guidance for Storage, Remediation, and Disposal of Non-UST Petroleum Contaminated Soils 7/29/91. Final note to AF: ADEC is mandated by law to recover all costs associated with Department oversight of contaminated sites, and that you will be billed for staff time and expenses spent on project oversight. |
Eileen Olson |
| 9/4/1996 |
Update or Other Action |
Active 12 inch Pipeline
AF memo to ADEC received on site characterization Port of Anchorage Fuel Spill. Latest discussion with Port and AF indicates that the Port feels that the spill has not contaminated a significant area and that construction operations in large measure removed residual contamination from the AF pipeline leak. Port does not want AF to proceed with further work to install monitoring wells as outlined in previous correspondence with ADEC dated 6/6/1996. Analysis of samples taken during the last pipeline replacement work supports the approach.
No evidence that contamination from the leak has migrated beyond the area excavated during construction. AF wishes to know if ADEC concurs and if so then they will close out this project. The AF is continuing to study various approaches and funding sources for removal or proper abandonment of remaining portions of the old unused 10" pipeline that exists in the AF right of way. |
Eileen Olson |
| 7/24/1997 |
Update or Other Action |
Active 12 inch Pipeline
Final report Phase III Environmental & Geotechnical Monitoring in Support of Pipeline Replacement received from AF on the Pipeline Repair November 1994 Port of Anchorage Fuel Spill. Cover letter reiterates AF opinion that the cleanup of the site is finished, should any additional cleanup actions be required by ADEC it should be done as a part of a more comprehensive cleanup effort at the Port of Anchorage as part of the Port Users Group since contamination was found not associated with the pipeline release.
A total of four soil borings were drilled (borings B-8 to B-11) with soil samples collected every 2 feet. Monitoring well MW-1 was installed & hydrocarbon odor was observed in it as well as in boring B-10. GW was encountered in all borings drilled at the site. DRO ranged from 62 mg/kg to 4,660 mg/kg, GRO ranged from 1.52 mg/kg to 15,400 mg/kg & benzene ranged from below detection limit to 43.4 mg/kg from soil samples collected in the 0 to 6 feet interval (above GW).
Soil samples collected from below GW had: DRO from 23.4 mg/kg to 3,940 mg/kg, GRO from 3.98 mg/kg to 7,260 mg/kg, benzene from 0.0427 mg/kg to 35.0 mg/kg & total BTEX from ND to 320.2 mg/kg.
GW sample from MW-1 analyzed for GRO, DRO, BTEX. Sample was found to contain 52.7 mg/L GRO, 20.3 mg/L DRO, 3.55 mg/L benzene, & 16.5 mg/L total BTEX.
The soil samples collected from the well boring MW-1 & Boring B-8 appear to most closely resemble MOTOR or LUBE OIL.
The chromatograms for Boring B-10 appear to indicate the presence of middle distillate fuel, similar to JP-8 or JP-4, but with a higher proportion of light fraction hydrocarbons & BTEX than normally would be expected.
Contamination observed in soil samples from above the water table in Borings B-9 & B-11 appear to be consistent with traces of heavy hydrocarbons such as MOTOR OIL or LUBE OIL. In addition, the samples from Boring B-11 contain traces of what may be degraded DIESEL FUEL.
Four Distinct Areas of contamination present at Site.
1) First is the release of JP-8 near the manhole at the intersection of Gull Avenue & Tidewater Road. This contamination appears to have moved down the pipeline right of way. Hydrocarbon contamination remains in the soils at concentrations exceeding ADEC matrix score cleanup levels despite removal of affects soil during repair & replacement of the pipeline.
2) The second release identified during this investigation appears to be adjacent to the railroad tracks, in the vicinity of MW-1 & Boring B-8 & consists of motor (oil) or lube oil.
3) The third release appears to consist of JET FUEL or DIESEL/GASOLINE in the vicinity of Borings B-4, B-5, & B-10. This release appears to have migrated along the pipeline corridor. Based on the concentration of light hydrocarbons in the samples from this area, the release appears to be relatively recent. *This release does NOT appear to be physically connected to the release in the vicinity of the manhole, as evidenced by the lack of JET FUEL contamination detected in borings B-8, B-9 & along the pipeline corridor east of boring B-5. The presence of shallow contamination indicates that it probably originated from a higher elevation.
4) The fourth possible release was identified in the vicinity of Boring B-11. Samples from this boring were found to contain what appears to be weathered DIESEL FUEL, & perhaps MOTOR OIL. The origin & extent of this release is unknown. It appears that the diesel contamination may have reached the GW at this location, based on the detection of DRO in soils collected below the GW.
See file for more information. |
Eileen Olson |
| 10/22/1998 |
Update or Other Action |
Active 12 inch pipeline
Stockpile Sampling Activities at Tidewater Road and Gull Avenue, Anchorage Alaska dated October 22, 1998 to Mr. Michael Krueger MOA. 275 cubic yards of impacted soil was generated during the replacement of a storm drain for disposal on September 4, 1998. A pipeline transporting Jet-A fuel parallels the storm drain and is the suspected source of the impacted soil.
To expedite the removal of the soil from the site so that Tidewater Drive could be reopened to traffic, the soil was evaluated for potential contaminants that could be classified as exceeding EPA RCRA TCLP concentrations. The soil was apparently impacted by Jet-A fuel, therefore, benzene was the most likely RCRA contaminant in the stockpiled soil.
After field screening, one analytical sample from the highest PID reading was taken. The sample contained 1.8 mg/kg benzene, 50.3 mg/kg total BTEX, 2,300 mg/kg GRO. For the sample to have 0.5 ppm leachable benzene, the sample would have to contain 10.0 ppm benzene. |
Lynne Bush |
| 1/12/1999 |
Update or Other Action |
Active 12 inch pipeline
Cherry Hill/POA Storm Drain Phase II DPW No. 98-04 Request for Reimbursement sent to Lt. Col. Bob Hansen.
As previously discussed with your office, Public Works has removed and remediated 1,884.60 tons of petroleum contaminated soils at the intersection of Tidewater Road and Gull Avenue. This remediation work was completed while constructing the referenced project (September 1998), contaminated materials were anticipated in other areas, but not this particular area. The existing material was removed from the trench section and remediated in order to provide a more geotechnically sound fill material to reconstruct the existing storm drain line, intersection as well as to meet current ADEC "Soil Cleanup Levels". Shannon & Wilson Inc. was employed by the Municipality to conduct lab analysis of the contaminated soils. The original estimated stockpile amount of 275 cubic yards was significantly underestimated as can be verified by the amount of material thermally treated.
This request for reimbursement has been sent to Elmendorf AFB because research indicates that EAFB had Jet-A fuel leak from a pipeline previously in this area. Public Works request reimbursement of $159,651.72 for remediation of petroleum contaminated soils, excavated from the referenced location in September 1998. |
Lynne Bush |
| 5/13/1999 |
Update or Other Action |
Active 12 inch pipeline
Claim for Damage, injury or death (95-109 OMB No. 1105-0008) submitted to Elmendorf re: on January 12, 1999 MOA-PW sent letter to Lt. Col. Bob Hanson requesting reimbursement for the remediation of some 1,885 tons of petroleum contaminated soils from work conducted in September 1998. These contaminated soils were located in the intersection of Tidewater Road and Gull Avenue at the Port of Anchorage. Submitted by Lisa Stout Claims Processor on May 13, 1999 (Municipality of Anchorage-MOA). |
Lynne Bush |
| 10/21/1999 |
Update or Other Action |
Active 12 inch pipeline
Municipality of Anchorage (MOA) Claims Processor MOA/Risk Management sent letter to Lynn Bush regarding the remediation of soils located at the Port of Anchorage in September 1998. Request for information on the previous spill and contaminated soil removal during the time of August 1994. 1/11/2000 faxed request to Larry Underbakke for follow-up for the Air Force and to work with the Municipality of Anchorage on this matter. |
Louis Howard |
| 2/7/2000 |
Update or Other Action |
Active 12 inch pipeline
AFLSA/JACE sent response to MOA's attorneys re: Claim of Municipality of Anchorage AF Claim No: Elmendorf 99-776. Under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 USC 1346(b), 2671-2680, after review of the available facts and applicable law, Judith Regan Chief, Environmental Torts Branch Environmental Law and Litigation Division denied the MOA's claim.
A claimant must show that negligence of the Air Force was the proximate cause of the damages in order for a claim to be paid under the FTCA. In this case, there is no evidence that the Air Force caused the damage. Scientific testing on the soils found at this location leads to the conclusion that the contamination does not belong to the Air Force.
The conclusion based on the presence of certain contaminants that are not indicative of AF Fuels. Indeed, during Air Force cleanup efforts in 1994, several fuels, other than Air Force fuels, were found in the soil near the Air Force pipeline. Nevertheless, all Air Force contamination was removed at that time. If the MOA is dissatisfied with the 1994 cleanup efforts, a claim should have been filed at that time. More than two years have passed before the claim was filed and therefore, the claim is barred by the two year statute of limitations. Based on any of these reasons the claim must be denied.
This is the final denial of the MOA's claim. If the MOA is dissatisfied with this decision, it may file suit in an appropriate US district court not later than six months from the date of mailing of this letter. |
Louis Howard |
| 10/26/2000 |
Update or Other Action |
Active 12 inch pipeline
VECO Report for DESC-A showed results for pipeline hydrostatic test conducted on October 20 and 21, 2000 for the North Jet Pipeline Valve 1 to "BFS" (Bulk Fuel Storage Facility. The tested pipeline segment apparently failed leak test. Although the tested system sustained a test pressure of 1.25 times the Class 150 flange rating (285 x 1.25 = 356 psig, minimum) without gross failure, temperature and pressure corrected volume balance of the test system indicates a loss of test medium averaging 6.4 gallons per day. The tested pipeline cannot be re-certified within US DOT 49 CFR Part 195 at this time.
The total length of pipeline segment is 13,483 feet with an intermediate section connection to the test segment being a 10 inch riser to Valve Pit 17. The entire segment consists of 12 inch (12.75 OD) pipe of standard wall thickness (0.375 inch). There is approximately 2,200 feet of the tested segment from Valve 1 to a point just east of the existing high point vent, is a pipe of unknown material specification installed circa 1958. The remainder of the tested segment consists of relatively new pipe installed about 1998 and complying with API 5L/ASTM A-53 Grade B material specifications. |
Louis Howard |
| 12/21/2000 |
Meeting or Teleconference Held |
Active 12 inch Pipeline
Staff from PERP, IPP and DOD met with EAFB, DESCA, contractor from TRACER Research regarding latest pipeline testing results. Tracer test was implemented and results showed no tracer compounds detected from probes. Therefore, pipeline tested tight and pipeline was reactivated. |
Louis Howard |
| 1/6/2005 |
Update or Other Action |
Active 12 inch Pipeline
ADEC letter sent to Elmendorf (D. Barnett) Subject: Elmendorf Air Force Base North Jet Pipeline fuel release - Tidewater Road and Gull Avenue intersection, Port of Anchorage (Site name: Elmendorf SERA PL81 N. Jet Pipeline); Database Reckey No.: 199421X124904. The Department of Environmental Conservation (the Department) has reviewed our file on the characterization and cleanup of petroleum contamination associated with the 1994 jet fuel release from the North Jet Pipeline, referenced above. It appears that additional site characterization and cleanup are necessary and the Air Force is liable for the response work.
The North Jet Pipeline is a 12-inch pipeline between the Port of Anchorage and Elmendorf Air Force Base (EAFB). The section of pipeline that leaked is on Alaska Railroad-owned land. The release was discovered on August 25, 1994, when free product was found accumulating in the Municipality of Anchorage (MOA) storm sewer at the Tidewater Road and Gull Avenue intersection. A section of the pipeline near the storm sewer at the intersection was determined to be the source of the product after the pipeline failed to hold pressure during a leak test in early October 1994. The Air Force acknowledged responsibility for the release in an “Environmental Plan for Repairs to U.S. Air Force Fuel Pipeline, Anchorage Port Facility” memorandum dated, October 8, 1994 (see attachment). In that memorandum, the Air described plans to repair the line, recover free product and conduct limited soil treatment. Response and cleanup actions by the Air Force included recovery of free product and limited excavation of contaminated soil during the pipeline repair.
In 1998 Municipality of Anchorage (MOA) Public Works Department employees encountered petroleum contaminated soil during replacement of the storm drain at the Tidewater Road and Gull Avenue intersection. During the project, the MOA excavated 1,884 tons of petroleum contaminated soil and thermally treated it off-site. Based on information in our files, it appears the most likely source of petroleum contamination in soil encountered by the MOA was the pipeline leak. If you have any information to the contrary, please provide it to the Department. Under Alaska Statute 46.03.822, Liability for Release of Hazardous Substances, EAFB is liable for response to contamination resulting from fuel releases from its pipeline.
In 2001, the Department, while working with the Air Force under the State Environmental Restoration Agreement, concurred that the northern portion of the North Jet pipeline (site PL-81), located on Elmendorf AFB, had been adequately characterized and cleaned up and that no further remedial action was required. However, the off-base portion of the line near Tidewater and Gull Roads does not appear to have been adequately addressed. Reports we have pertaining to the release in this area include:
1. Final Phase IV-Environmental and Geotechnical Monitoring in Support of Pipeline Replacement Port of Anchorage Fuel Spill January 1996;
2. Final Phase III-Environmental and Geotechnical Monitoring in Support of Pipeline Replacement Port of Anchorage Fuel Spill. January 1997;
3. North Jet Pipelines Investigation Report February 1998; and
4. PL-81 Pipeline Demolition, Elmendorf Air Force Base and Port of Anchorage October 1998.
The Department requests the Air Force provide any additional information (e.g. site characterization reports, groundwater monitoring reports, soil treatment or disposal reports) that would show adequate characterization and cleanup have been conducted at the Tidewater and Gull roads intersection. If sufficient documentation cannot be provided, then the Department requests the Air Force submit a workplan to characterize the extent and location of remaining soil and groundwater contamination.
Please submit a written response to this request by February 18, 2005. |
John Halverson |
| 2/17/2005 |
Update or Other Action |
Active 12 inch pipeline
Air Force letter 3 CES/CEV to ADEC re: 1/10/05 letter POA POL contaminated site. A review of our records indicates the ADEC is in possession of all published information relating to the subject release. The limited information provided by the Department of Public works provides no conclusive data that the 1994 North Jet Release was fully or partially contributory to the contaminated soil encountered by the Municipality. In fact, the soil analyses from the site identified high levels of benzene and gasoline range organics (GRO) at concentrations not associated with JP-8.
Also, during the excavation associated with the 1994 release cleanup additional pipelines
not belonging to the Air Force were discovered immediately adjacent to the storm drain
along with fuel contamination in the soil not attributable to the Air Force JP-8 release.
The Shannon & Wilson report identified a Jet A pipeline as the suspected source of the
unrelated contamination.
Based on the available information it is clear that all fuel contamination in the area cannot
be solely attributed to the 1994 Air Force JP-8 leak and is the result of multiple historical
releases from various sources in the immediate area. Under the foregoing circumstances
the Air Force cannot take full responsibility for further addressing the issue as requested by the Department. We suggest that this issue is an appropriate subject for consideration
by the Port Users Group (PUG).
*NOTE to file: The primary ingredient in JP-8 is kerosene which is about 99.8% by weight. In addition to kerosene, JP-8 contains very small amounts of many other substances, such as benzene, and various additives to inhibit icing, prevent static charge buildup, avoid oxidation, and decrease corrosion. Thermal Stability Improver additives are sometimes used in military JP-8 fuel, to produce a grade referred to as JP-8+100, to inhibit deposit formation in the high temperature areas of the aircraft fuel system. The civilian airlines use Jet A or Jet A-1 fuel, which are virtually identical to JP-8, but with a different performance-enhancing additive package.
Also, during the excavation associated with the 1994 release cleanup, additional pipelines not belonging to the Air Force were discovered immediately adjacent to the storm drain along with fuel contamination in the soil attributable to the Air Force JP-8 release. Based on the available information, it is clear that all fuel contamination in the area cannot be solely attributed to the 1994 Air Force JP-8 leak and is the result of multiple historical releases from various sources in the immediate area. Under the foregoing circumstances the Air Force cannot take full responsibility for further addressing the issue as requested by ADEC. |
John Halverson |
| 5/9/2005 |
Site Added to Database |
|
Louis Howard |
| 2/23/2007 |
Exposure Tracking Model Ranking |
|
Louis Howard |
| 3/25/2010 |
Update or Other Action |
Letter from Lt. General Dana T. Atkins, Commander, Eleventh Air Force to EPA Region 10 Deb Yamamoto Environmental Cleanup Office and ADEC, Jennifer Roberts Fed. Fac. Environmental Restoration Program.
This letter serves as formal notice to the Environmental Protection Agency Region 10 and the State of Alaska that on 1 October 2010, the U.S. Air Force will assume the U.S. Army's obligations under the 1994 Federal Facility Agreement for Fort Richardson (Docket No. 1093-
05-02-120) and any amendments thereto (hereinafter collectively referred to as "the FFA").
The Air Force assumes these authorities and obligations as the Army's successor at Fort
Richardson in accordance with subsection 2.1(i) of the FFA.
This is a transfer of responsibility for carrying out the terms and responsibilities of the FFA;
it is not a transfer of property covered by Section XXXII of the FFA or Section 120(h) of the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (42 U.S.C. §9620(h)). This transfer of responsibility is in accordance with the Base Realignment and Closure Act of 2005 and the Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson Installation Support Memorandum of Agreement between the Army and the Air Force, dated 9 October 2009.
On and after 1 October 2010, the Air Force and, to the extent necessary, the Department of
Defense will fund all activities required by and subject to the FFA.
The following administrative changes shall be effective 1 October 2010:
1. Para 8.11 - The Air Force representative on the Technical Review Committee (currently
referred to as Community Environmental Board) shall be the Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson
(JBER) Remedial Project Manager (RPM).
2. Para. 8.13 - The chair of the Technical Review Committee (currently referred to as Community Environmental Board) shall be the Vice Commander, 673rd Air Base Wing.
3. Para 9.1 - The JBER RPM shall be Mr. Gary Fink, who is currently the Chief of the Restoration Section at Elmendorf Air Force Base. Mr. Fink's contact information is:
3 CES/CEANR 6326 Arctic Warrior Drive Elmendorf AFB AK 99506 Phone number is (907) 552-2875
4. Para. 14.2 - The Air Force point of contact shall be Mr. Fink. Please see the preceding
paragraph for his contact information.
5. Para 21.5 - The Air Force's designated member on the Dispute Resolution Committee shall be the Director, Air Force Center for Engineering and the Environment.
6. Para 21.7 - The Air Force's representative on the Senior Executive Committee shall be the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force (Energy, Environment, Safety, and Occupational Health).
7. Para 27.3 - The source of funds for activities required by the FFA shall be funds authorized and appropriated annually by Congress under the Environmental Restoration, Air Force (ER,AF) appropriation in the Department of Defense Appropriations Act.
8. Attachment 1, Para 3.8: Records of decision shall be signed by the following Air Force designee: Commander, 673rd Air Base Wing.
If you have any questions about this matter, please contact Mr. Gary Fink at (907) 552-2875.
Signed Dana T. Atkins Lieutenant General, USAF, Commander |
Louis Howard |
| 6/25/2015 |
Exposure Tracking Model Ranking |
Initial ranking with ETM completed for source area id: 73019 name: underground pipeline |
Louis Howard |
