| Action Date |
Action |
Description |
DEC Staff |
| 3/18/1994 |
Site Added to Database |
File# 108.38.066. |
Former Staff |
| 5/16/1994 |
Update or Other Action |
(Old R:Base Action Code = RPL2 - Site Information Request Letter). Sent PRP-CS Database Notification Letter to Cristal Fosbrook requesting update/confirmation of information concerning the contaminated site. |
Jeff Peterson |
| 7/25/1994 |
Update or Other Action |
NFA under CERCLA signed by all parties this date. |
Ronan Short |
| 7/25/1994 |
Update or Other Action |
(Old R:Base Action Code = NFA - No Further Action Required (CERCLA)). NFA under CERCLA signed by all parties this date. |
Ronan Short |
| 1/17/1995 |
Risk Assessment Report Approved |
Post-wide Risk Assessment Approach Document received this date. Comments by RM. Document prepared by HLA. |
Ronan Short |
| 9/16/1996 |
Update or Other Action |
(Old R:Base Action Code = RI - Remedial Investigation). Final, Remedial Investigation Report, OU-1, document date September 1, 1996. |
Rielle Markey |
| 3/2/2001 |
Update or Other Action |
File number corrected from 108.38.066 to 108.38.068. |
Mitzi Read |
| 9/14/2009 |
Update or Other Action |
Email update received from FTW. My first contact on this was last Friday - 4 Sept. At that time it was just
a notice that a 8'x8' 'Hot Spot' was discovered adjacent to the building and
what do we want to do about it.
I went out with our site engineer and decided that we want to be there when
the excavation took place which was predicted to be that Friday afternoon
some time.
Prior to that further excavation was required to expose a concrete footer
from the existing footprint for removal. During that operation a floating
footer was discovered and when it was pulled out it broke apart revealing it
to be a grease pit. I happened to be on site when this happened. The
grease pit was filled with sand and gravel and cemented over. This pit had
no opening to it - neither pipe drain nor even a fracture. The material
inside had a high PID reading so that material was stockpiled, the concrete
was thoroughly swept off, examined for weeping, and removed as construction
debris. PID's under this pit were all below 1ppm so our confidence is high
that nothing leaked out. The analytical suite to be performed on the
stockpiled material will include POL, VOC's, SVOC's, and RCRA metals.
Later on Friday the excavator operator was working on exposing more of the
concrete footer when they encountered a concrete vault (about 6' x 6') with
a 6" pipe coming out from under the building and into the vault possibly
used as a separator or sand trap. Material from the inside the pipe was
sampled with a PID and found to be contaminated. When further excavation
was done to locate what the pipe was connected to it was found that the pipe
was not connected to anything - it had been removed in a previous/unknown
event. The concrete vault was excavated, swept clean, and hauled away as
construction debris. The small quantity of material found in the vault was
also registering high PID's so that was stockpiled. The soils immediately
around the vault were registering high PID's. These soils were also
excavated until PID's were below 20ppm. These soils are also stockpiled and
analytical to be performed are POL, VOC's, SVOC's, and RCRA metals.
Finally, on Tuesday, the original 'hotspot' was exposed. Since this area
was largely outside the limits of excavation only a few bucket loads were
removed. PID's remained high and so this area remains contaminated. This
area corresponds with the area depicted in Photo 9, 10 & 11 of the Jan 09
Phase II ESA/RI that I understand is in your possession. That Phase II
report indicates largely DRO and RRO contamination and some GRO
contamination at this same point. TCLP Metals and VOC's were all No Detect
except for one hit on Trimethylbenzene which was well below action levels.
I suggest that this hot spot be properly delineated at a near future time
since it's appearance is out from under the footprint of the new building
being installed. Currently a sample from the 'hotspot' stockpile is being
analyzed for POL products only. During the delineation process another
opportunity to determined what the nature of the contamination looks like
will become available.
Currently I am working with the Environmental consultant (ARES - the same
contractor that prepared the Phase II ESA/RI) on obtaining the lab
analyicals for the existing stockpiles. Once received and summarized I will
coordinate with you for the disposal of these contaminated soils.
|
Debra Caillouet |
| 12/24/2009 |
Exposure Tracking Model Ranking |
Initial ranking with ETM completed for source area id: 73317 name: auto-generated pm edit Fort Wainwright (OU-1) Motor. Bldg. 1054 |
Debra Caillouet |
| 5/14/2010 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Comment sent on the Site Specific Work Plan, Building 1054, 2010 Removal Action. |
Debra Caillouet |
| 6/14/2010 |
Update or Other Action |
Staff recieved results from the 2010 excavation by email and does not object to backfilling the excavation. |
Debra Caillouet |
| 7/12/2010 |
Update or Other Action |
Ok to backfill excavation. DRO still above cleanup levels, but lead is gone. |
Debra Caillouet |
| 8/9/2010 |
Offsite Soil or Groundwater Disposal Approved |
600 tons to OIT. Note there was also about 100 tons of RCRA lead soil sent out by Emerald |
Debra Caillouet |
| 2/4/2011 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Technical Memorandum, Draft Doyon Support at Building 1060 and Building 1054 After Action Report, 28 January 2011 reviewed and have no comment. Please note though, DEC has no record of reviewing the Building 1054 Construction Support Work Plan Addendum.
|
Debra Caillouet |
| 4/11/2011 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Technical Memorandum, Doyon Support at Building 1060 and Building 1054 After Action Report, April 2011. The report documents field screening during utility construction at both sites. No contamination was identified at these limited areas.
|
Debra Caillouet |
| 9/2/2011 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Draft After-Action Report, Building 1054 2010 Removal Action, Fort Wainwright Alaska, August 2011. The report describes the removal of petroleum and lead contaminated soil on the northeast side of Building 1054. A total of 500 cubic yards of soil was removed, 10 cubic yards were disposed as lead waste and the rest as petroleum.
The report should be revised to indicate that there is a 2009 ARES Phase II Environmental Site Assessment/Release Investigation Report, Fort Wainwright Building 1054, Repair Concrete and Truss Failure, dated January 2009 that describes the field screening that occurred in 2008. This report is of sampling of the southern half of Building 1054 after its demolition in 2008 and before the construction of the southern half of the building in 2008-9.
|
Debra Caillouet |
| 1/6/2012 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Final After-Action Report, Building 1054 2010 Removal Action, Fort Wainwright Alaska, December 2011 |
Debra Caillouet |
| 3/23/2012 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
reviewed and commented on Preliminary Draft 2012 Work Plan, Assessment and Monitoring at Various Post-Construction Sites, Fort Wainwright, March 2012 |
Debra Caillouet |
| 3/16/2015 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Draft Work Plan Environmental Investigations various Sites, Fort Wainwright Alaska January 2015 was reviewed. This this work plan addresses 17 sites at Fort Wainwright. The plan was written in UFP-QAPP but has major deficiencies requiring a complete rewrite of the document. Detailed comment was sent to the Army. |
Debra Caillouet |
| 6/15/2015 |
Update or Other Action |
The Army was sent a review of the response to comment that was provided for the comments sent in March on the draft work plan. The contractor still has difficulty with correctly completing a Conceptual Site Model, developing site specific DQO's and providing site history. |
Debra Caillouet |
| 9/1/2015 |
Update or Other Action |
Transferred to Fairbanks |
Susan Carberry |
| 10/30/2015 |
Update or Other Action |
Site name updated from "Fort Wainwright (OU-1) Motor. Bldg. 1054" to "Fort Wainwright (OU-5) Motor. Bldg. 1054" to reflect the correct designation as part of Operable Unit 5. The record of decision (ROD) for OU-1 states that the Motor Pool Buildings will be addressed through the OU-5 decision process and the ROD for OU-5 includes the Motor Pool Buildings. |
Mitzi Read |
| 12/13/2016 |
Meeting or Teleconference Held |
A two day Federal Facilities Agreement (FFA) and Stakeholders meeting was held on December 13 & 14, 2016. The main focus of the meeting was to develop a site discovery and site intake process that would satisfy requirements of the Fort Wainwright FFA, RCRA Permit, and two party agreements. The Army, EPA and DEC committed to a flowchart of the preliminary source evaluation process. Timelines were established for scoping a land use control implementation plan (LUCIP) and developing a contracting schedule for Fort Wainwright contaminated site investigations and remedial actions. Seven sites were proposed for inclusion into the FFA (three party agreement) by the Army and the RPMs documented the assignment of the regulatory path for these sites using a newly developed and agreed to signature form. |
Dennis Shepard |
| 1/1/2017 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
DEC approved the 2015 Annual Institutional Controls Report, Fort Wainwright, Alaska (August 2016). |
Dennis Shepard |
| 8/16/2022 |
Meeting or Teleconference Held |
Meeting held between FTW RPMs to discuss the additional sampling of PFAS in investigation derived waste groundwater samples during the RI phase at Building 1599, Building 1054, and North Town Sink Hole sites. |
Cascade Galasso-Irish |
| 6/9/2023 |
CERCLA RI Plan Approved |
DEC completed a backcheck and partial approval of the Final Supplemental Remedial Investigation (SRI) Work Plan for 33B Barracks, Building 1054, Building 3014, and the Montgomery Road Extension. The objective of each SRI is to characterize the nature and extent of contamination and evaluate the human health and ecological risk. The SRI results will be used to develop preliminary remediation goals and identify remedial alternatives that will be further evaluated in a feasibility study (FS). The work plan is intended for use in conjunction with the Risk Assessment Work Plan, which is currently under regulatory review.
Several comments on the draft work plan requested contamination in soil to be delineated to at least the most stringent of DEC’s promulgated cleanup levels, typically the migration to groundwater cleanup levels. DEC recognizes the importance of the intended field sampling, and the Army’s commitment to ensureanalytical methods have limits of detection that are able to achieve the DEC migration to groundwater cleanup levels. As the Army did not identify the fate and transport model that will be used to evaluate the migration to groundwater pathway, DEC will evaluate the results of this field effort as presented in the draft report to evaluate whether the nature and extent of the contamination has been delineated. DEC will identify at that point if sufficient information has been gathered to determine the fate and transport of contamination over time. Data gaps may persist after the SRI effort due to this oversight.
Additionally, due to the recent DEC Bulk Petroleum Hydrocarbon Noncancer Toxicity for Human Health Risk Assessments Technical Memorandum (DEC, May 2023), DEC does not find the language in Section 1.3 regarding bulk petroleum risk to be in accordance with guidance, and the Army must address this issue further during comment resolution of the Risk Assessment Work Plan. All other responses to comments have been incorporated into the final document and are accepted.
Lastly, on May 24, 2023, DEC was informed that the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) had begun conducting sampling without DEC approval of the SRI work plan. In accordance with 18 AAC 75.335(b) and 18 AAC 75.360(2), work may not begin at a site until the work plan has been approved. This formally documents the Army’s non-compliance with the above-referenced regulations and provides notice that future non-compliance with state regulations may result in a Compliance Advisory Letter or formal enforcement actions, as appropriate. |
Tim Sharp |
