| Action Date |
Action |
Description |
DEC Staff |
| 6/9/1994 |
Leaking Underground Storage Tank Release Confirmed - Petroleum |
LUST Site created in CSP for source area ID 78058 ADD; Site added to database. |
Mike Krieber |
| 6/10/1994 |
Site Added to Database |
Diesel. All excavations filled with clean imported backfill. No GW encountered to 10' bgs during UST removal or to 13' bgs during later city water and sewer line work immediately adjacent to property. |
Mike Krieber |
| 1/13/1995 |
Update or Other Action |
The department received a copy of a Certificate of Destruction from Alaska Pollution Control, Inc. signed and dated 6/15/94, for one empty 5,000-gallon tank from the site indicating that it was cleaned, cut, and disposed of in accordance with all current applicable regs. |
Mike Krieber |
| 4/13/1995 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
RELR; Sent a letter to the responsible party (RP) this date indicating 3 in-situ soil samples showed unacceptable levels of contamination, up to 3,310 mg/kg DRO. GRO and BTEX may also exceed cleanup levels but analysis for GRO and BTEX not required at that time. The tank closure and site assessment report recommended no further cleanup be required. The letter noted that the Department is concerned that the remaining contamination has not been delineated (vertically and horizontally), and that the contamination levels are significantly above the acceptable level. Therefore, additional work is needed for this diesel tank excavation. Proposed a meeting with property owners to discuss a plan of action by no later than May 5, 1995. |
Mike Krieber |
| 4/13/1995 |
Underground Storage Tank Site Characterization or Assessment |
SA1R; Sent a letter to the RP this date indicating that one stockpile showed unacceptable levels of contamination. The RP proposing that the soil is thermally processed. Conceptually, thermal treatment would be acceptable to the Department. However, since only one sample was obtained for analysis (and only one field screening reading of the stockpile was provided in the report), it may be worthwhile to conduct further field screening and lab analyses prior to having costly thermal treatment on the entire stockpile. This issue can be discussed at a proposed meeting. |
Mike Krieber |
| 4/13/1995 |
Leaking Underground Storage Tank Cleanup Initiated - Petroleum |
LCAU; LUST Corrective Action Underway. |
Mike Krieber |
| 4/13/1995 |
Leaking Underground Storage Tank Corrective Action Underway |
LCAR; Reviewed a LUST Corrective Action Report. |
Mike Krieber |
| 5/1/1995 |
Update or Other Action |
Received an undated letter from N-M Consulting this date indicating that the the RPs do not intend on having the contaminated soil thermally treated. The owners intend that all the soil generated by the closure of all four USTs will be converted into asphalt and used on site once:
1) final approval is received from the ADEC, 2) a portable asphalt batch plant for this type of work is available and within reasonalbe distance; and 3) when the owners receive reimbursement for the work already completed from the StorageTank Assistance Fund and enough money to finance the the steps required to close the site. |
Mike Krieber |
| 6/16/1995 |
Leaking Underground Storage Tank Corrective Action Underway |
LCAR; UST closure review.
After review of the undated N-M Consulting letter received by the department on 5/1/95, sent a letter this date to the RPs indicating the department acknowledges the consultant’s rational for recommending site closure based upon site uses and no nearby receptors. However, 18 AAC 78.310(a) of the State's UST regulations, requires that either the excavation be cleaned to the target (matrix score) level, or a contaminant leaching assessment be used to set an alternative cleanup level. Please refer to 18 AAC 78.310(b) for the required procedures to address this issue. Please note that if a leaching assessment is to be performed, prior Department approval is needed. Whether additional cleanup or a leaching assessment is to be performed, the vertical and horizontal extent of contamination is needed. Therefore, either a corrective action plan or a leaching assessment plan needs to be submitted by no later than July 17, 1995, for Department review and approval.
Based on the RPs desire to incorporate the stockpiled soil into asphalt to repave the site, the soil may or may not be considered contaminated. If the Department determines that the soil is not contaminated, it may be landspread, but depending upon the gasoline level, it may be too high for a hot asphalt batch plant to process (needs to be less than 50 mg/kg). The soils from the waste oil and diesel tanks excavations show that the contamination levels are too high for placing into a hot asphalt mix. Use of these materials would constitute a violation of State Air Quality regulations. However, all of the soils are eligible for using in the cold asphalt mix process. The requirements for the cold asphalt process are included in the Department's Guidance document. A possible course of action, depending upon the gasoline soil contamination levels, is to place the gasoline soils as a base/leveling course below the cold asphalt (diesel and waste oil soils).
|
Mike Krieber |
| 6/18/1995 |
Update or Other Action |
ADEC receives a letter from the RP's consultant. On behalf of their client they wanted to inform the ADEC that their client can't afford to spend any more funds on the site until they receive reimbursement from the State for the work they have done, and will continue the site work as soon as they are financially able. |
Mike Krieber |
| 7/19/1995 |
Leaking Underground Storage Tank Corrective Action Underway |
CAPR; In response to review of the N-M Consulting soil treatment plan, dated 6/22/95 and received 6/26/95, sent a letter this date indicating that the RP/consultant needs to provide a site plan and construction details of the proposed aeration cells for department review and approval. |
Mike Krieber |
| 8/11/1995 |
Update or Other Action |
CORR; Reviewed a N-M Consulting letter dated 6/14/95 received by the department on 6/18/95. The letter indicated that the RPs undertook the removal of all the site USTs based on the promise of reimbursement from the state for part of the costs involved. Because the RPs have not received any financial aid from the state the site cleanup will continue based on their future individual financial ability. In response to this review, sent a letter this date to the RPs indicating it does not appear that this site will be eligible for neither cleanup nor closure financial assistance from the state at this time. However, because no wells are nearby and ground water is fairly deep, a leaching assessment might show that no further cleanup actions are needed. Please review the portion of the UST regulations addressing alternative cleanup levels. ADEC again encourages the consultant and their client to meet with ADEC to discuss further actions at the site and timetable for conducting the site work. |
Mike Krieber |
| 10/30/1997 |
Site Characterization Report Approved |
Reviewed the 10/27/97 N-M Consulting letter report of stockpile sampling results, received by the department on 10/28/97. The stockpile was a combination of contaminated soil removed from three separate excavations at the site from which gasoline, diesel, and waste oil USTs were removed. 45 screening samples were collected from various depths from 18 stockpile locations. Five samples were submitted for laboratory analysis for DRO and RRO pursuant to the approved sampling plan. The DRO results varied from 15.7 mg/kg to 370 mg/kg and the RRO results from 57.9 mg/kg to 518 mg/kg. Based on the report review, sent a letter this date indicating that the stockpiled soil meets the required treatment levels and the disposal of the soil may now take place by spreading on-site, as was discussed when the consultant submitted the report on 10/28/97. Since there is some remaining low level contamination in the stockpiled soil (up to 370 mg/kg DRO and up to 518 mg/kg RRO), the soil needs to be kept out of areas that are subject to storm water and winter breakup runoff, which would flow into storm drains. With the soil treatment completed, the waste oil and gasoline USTs sites can be closed, but due to the remaining subsurface diesel contamination, the diesel site will remain open. Cleanup of the diesel tanks excavation was not completed when the tanks were removed in 1994. The Department requested that a Corrective Action Plan be submitted in our letters dated 4/13/95 and 6/16/95 and the requested plan has not yet been received. The Department request that a corrective action plan be submitted by no later than December 15, 1997. |
Mike Krieber |
| 11/20/1997 |
Update or Other Action |
ADEC sent a "Notification of Intent to Cost Recover" Letter to Current Owner: B-J' Services, Inc. |
Jim Hayden |
| 12/4/1997 |
Update or Other Action |
Currently landspreading entire contaminated soilstockpile; James Jensky; 745-3050 |
Mike Krieber |
| 12/15/2006 |
Update or Other Action |
Staff reassigned from Henry to Petrik. |
Aggie Blandford |
| 5/30/2008 |
Exposure Tracking Model Ranking |
Intial Ranking Completed |
Grant Lidren |
| 9/22/2010 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Reviewed a copy of the N-M Consulting “Closure Report and Site Assessment Tank NO. 3, Facility No. 0-002463” undated and received on 1/13/95. On 6/10/94, Tank 3, a 5,000-gallon diesel UST, located in the southeast corner of the site was excavated and removed. The area had an asphalt cover. The dispenser was located immediately above the tank and was removed prior to the tank closure when the tank was initially taken out of service. The UST top was located ~1’ bgs and hydrocarbon contamination was detected there and all the way to the bottom of the excavation at 10’ bgs. The only side wall that appeared to be clean was the south side wall (but no analytical sample was collected from that sidewall). Soils from the surface to the excavation bottom are classified as a silty gravel. The volume of contaminated soil from this AOC was unknown.
During field screening, the field instrument was not operating properly and giving much lower readings than justified. Several attempts to re-calibrate the instrument were unsuccessful and work proceeded based on experience of the Principal Investigator. Four lab samples were collected and analyzed by Commercial Testing & Engineering Co. of Anchorage for extractable petroleum hydrocarbons (EPH) (equated to diesel-range organics (DRO)) using EPA Method 8l00M. GRO and BTEX may also exceed cleanup levels but analysis for GRO and BTEX not required at that time. One stockpile sample and three excavation samples collected (center-under tank, north end-under tank, and west sidewall 8'bgs). All 3 of the excavation samples exceeded the DRO Matrix Cleanup Level B of 200 ppm and varied from 1,640 mg/kg to 3,310 mg/kg DRO (highest at north end under tank at 10 feet below ground surface). The stockpile sample result was 5,440 mg/kg DRO.
Field screening was used to segregate clean from contaminated soils and contaminated soils were placed on a 10 mil liner in the southwest corner of the site.
The tank appeared to be in excellent condition with only light surface rust. There were no obvious leaks in the piping. Contamination was probably caused by the foot valve being located at the bottom of the supply pipe causing this pipe to remain full at all times.
On 6/11/94, the excavation was lined with 10 mil reinforced plastic and filled with clean dirt fill. This decision was based on the facts that:
1) The equipment currently available could not reach any deeper than 10’ bgs.
2) A water utility, an asphalt street, and a concrete sidewalk were located immediately adjacent to the excavation site. Further excavation could have caused damage to any or all 3 of these.
3) Contamination levels were high enough to indicate that the problem could not be quickly solved by excavation.
Groundwater at this location is estimated to be 80’ bgs. The nearest well is private and is located over 1/2 mile to the southwest. The water source for the City of Palmer is approximately 2 miles to the north and upgrade over 200 feet from this site. All businesses and residents in the City of Palmer receive their water from the City water supply.
The report concluded that soils remaining at this site are contaminated with high levels of diesel range hydrocarbons. But based on potential receptors within ½ mile of the site and the site being paved over the risk does not warrant further work.
|
Bill Petrik |
| 10/15/2010 |
Update or Other Action |
October 6, 2010 ADEC letter requests, by December 6, 2010, site status update and documentation of any site work or letters since August 11, 1995.
Within the former location of a 5,000-gallon diesel UST, the third AOC, analytical soil sample results from three of the four side walls of the excavation exceeded the then Matrix Cleanup Level B for DRO. These results were above the current 18 AAC 75.345 Method Two Migration to Groundwater cleanup levels.
No excavation bottom soil sample or evaluation of the potential risk to groundwater was performed and the lateral and vertical extent of the contamination was not defined. A corrective action plan to perform these tasks was requested from the site responsible parties in two separate letters from the department in 1995 but none was ever received.
In response to the file review the CSP sent a letter requesting:
o Whether a work plan to delineate the extent of the remaining contamination was supplied to the department or any work to accomplish this task completed. If the work was completed, supply the CSP with a copy of a report documenting the work accomplished. If the work has not been completed, please submit a work plan.
o Supply the CSP with a copy of a letter from their consultant indicating the intent to construct aeration cells for the treating of the stockpiled contaminated soils at the site. Whether these aeration treatment cells ever constructed and the aeration implemented?
o Clarify the disparity between two different documented values of the total volume of soils stockpiled on site.
o How and when the three stockpiles from each of the removed USTs were disposed of.
o Send the CSP copies of any correspondence from the ADEC that differs from or it does not have as outlined in the letter.
o Correct any inaccuracies in the CSP letter regarding site information and background.
A response letter was requested by 12/6/10. |
Bill Petrik |
| 12/7/2010 |
Update or Other Action |
ADEC receives an email from the Robert Jenski the owner of the site that he is having difficulty locating his files needed to address the requests in the ADEC letter dated October 15, 2010. The email stated that they hoped to have a response to the letter soon. |
Bill Petrik |
| 2/17/2011 |
Update or Other Action |
Sent a letter this date to the responsible party requesting that the items requested in the 10/15/10 letter sent to him be received by the CSP by 3/22/11. |
Bill Petrik |
| 3/25/2011 |
Meeting or Teleconference Held |
Met with Mr. Robert Jenski of B-J's Services in a DEC conference room and discussed requests included in the 10/15/10 letter from the Contaminated Sites Program (CSP) to him as well as other issues including Cost Recovery, Closure with and without Institutional Controls, as well as site history. |
Bill Petrik |
| 5/6/2011 |
Update or Other Action |
Staff reassigned from Petrik to Weimer. |
Robert Weimer |
| 5/9/2011 |
Update or Other Action |
Follow up letter to the March 25, 2011 meeting between the property owner (RP) and ADEC. The letter requests that a release investigation workplan be submitted by July 15, 2011. The work plan should include the drilling of at least two borings in the former tank excavation to such a depth to assess for any remaining soil contamination and whether groundwater is within 5 feet of the deepest remaining soil contamination. If groundwater is within 5 feet of the deepest soil contamination the borings would need to be completed as monitoring wells so periodic groundwater samples can be collected to assess whether the groundwater has been impacted at this site. A minimum of two laboratory analytical soil samples need to be collected from each boring based on field reading collected from the borings, with at least one sample per boring collected from native (non backfill) soil just below the depth of the base of the former excavation. The laboratory analytical soil samples and any necessary groundwater samples need to be analyzed for DRO, GRO, and BTEX, with one soil sample at the most likely contaminated depth also analyzed for PAH’s. CSP also requests that your consultant include an updated Conceptual Site Model (CSM) with the workplan.
The letter also requests any past financial assistance and/or ownership documentation be submitted by July 15, 2011. |
Robert Weimer |
| 8/9/2011 |
Update or Other Action |
Reviewed reply to the ADEC 5/9/11 letter from the RP's consultant. The consultant was requesting that the site be closed without any further release investigation work. ADEC reviewed the information provided and does not agree with the consultants estimate of contamination distribution and their estimate of potential health risks for conducting the work. As discussed previously the site has not been adequately characterized to evaluate it for closure, and a release investigation is needed. |
Robert Weimer |
| 8/10/2011 |
Update or Other Action |
ADEC letter requests that a release investigation workplan be submitted by October 1, 2011. The work plan should include the drilling of at least two borings in the former tank excavation to such a depth to assess for any remaining soil contamination and whether groundwater is within 5 feet of the deepest remaining soil contamination. If groundwater is within 5 feet of the deepest soil contamination the borings would need to be completed as monitoring wells so periodic groundwater samples can be collected to assess whether the groundwater has been impacted at this site. A minimum of two laboratory analytical soil samples need to be collected from each boring based on field reading collected from the borings, with at least one sample per boring collected from native (non backfill) soil just below the depth of the base of the former excavation. The laboratory analytical soil samples and any necessary groundwater samples need to be analyzed for DRO, GRO, and BTEX, with one soil sample at the most likely contaminated depth also analyzed for PAH’s. CSP also requests that your consultant include an updated Conceptual Site Model (CSM) with the workplan. |
Robert Weimer |
| 8/24/2011 |
Update or Other Action |
DEC sent a letter to the RP denying their request for a formal review of the DEC request for futher site work. The letter requests that the RP submit a release investigation work plan by October 1, 2011 as requested in the DEC August 10, 2011 letter. |
Robert Weimer |
| 12/16/2013 |
Update or Other Action |
DEC still has not received the release investigation work plan requested in DEC's letter of August 10, 2011. Need release investigation to assess the nature and extent of the remaining contamination before this site can be evaluated for closure. |
Robert Weimer |
| 1/22/2016 |
Exposure Tracking Model Ranking |
A new updated ranking with ETM has been completed for source area 78058 5,000-Gallon Diesel UST. |
Lisa Griswold |
| 1/25/2016 |
Update or Other Action |
In a letter dated January 25, 2016, ADEC notified the RP that they had not received the release investigation requested in 2011 and requested that the RP send a release investigation work plan by March 1, 2016. Previous ADEC letters dated August 10, 2011, and August 24, 2011 were included as enclosures for reference. |
Lisa Griswold |
| 2/3/2016 |
Meeting or Teleconference Held |
Discussion with consultant. Items discussed included need for complete delineation in order to evaluate for closure. |
Lisa Griswold |
| 2/18/2016 |
Update or Other Action |
Review of site file and request for Cleanup Complete determination requested by consultant completed on this date. ADEC determined that based on regulatory requirements 18 AAC 78.210(c); 18 AAC 78.235(a); and 18 AAC 75.380(d)(1) a release investigation is required in order to inform future actions and/or for site closure. Letter addressed to Responsible Party was sent in order to relay that the January 25, 2016 request for release investigation work plan to be sent by March 1, 2016 still stands. |
Lisa Griswold |
| 3/7/2016 |
Meeting or Teleconference Held |
Spoke to current business owner, who updated information concerning business name and location. Owner also stated consultant is currently working on release investigation work plan to be submitted to ADEC. |
Lisa Griswold |
| 3/16/2016 |
Meeting or Teleconference Held |
Spoke to Business owner on phone concerning consultant's letter dated March 9, 2015 (sic). Answered any questions the owner had. Reiterated ADEC's need for a release investigation work plan in order to evaluate site. Sent email with links to ADEC guidance, and a request for the work plan to be received by April 15, 2016. |
Lisa Griswold |
| 4/13/2016 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
"Final Site Closure" work plan review completed on this date. ADEC responded with a request for clarification on a number of items in a revised work plan before approval can be given. |
Lisa Griswold |
| 4/15/2016 |
Meeting or Teleconference Held |
Email seeking to clarify consultant questions regarding closure and institutional controls sent on this date. |
Lisa Griswold |
| 5/12/2016 |
Update or Other Action |
Email requesting status of work plan sent on this date to RP and consultant. |
Lisa Griswold |
| 5/20/2016 |
Meeting or Teleconference Held |
Meeting with RP and consultant held in an attempt to clarify questions and issues regarding the release investigation work plan and types of site closure. |
Lisa Griswold |
| 6/10/2016 |
Update or Other Action |
Email sent requesting status update on release investigation work plan to RP and consultant. |
Lisa Griswold |
| 6/15/2016 |
Update or Other Action |
Compliance letter sent on this date. Release Investigation work plan is to be submitted by July 1, 2016. |
Lisa Griswold |
| 6/28/2016 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Release investigation work plan conditionally approved on this date. Conditions include: Under the Site Assessment Activities (number 6), it is not clear what criteria will be used to determine if additional step-out soil borings will be advanced and where, and what the maximum number of step out borings planned are. Please note that more than one step-out boring may be necessary to characterize this site. Under the Site Assessment Activities (number 7), the frequency of headspace screening samples is not described. Please collect at least one headspace sample per macro core. Please notify ADEC forty eight hours in advance of mobilization. Submit the release investigation report to ADEC by October 1, 2016. Submit a conceptual site model, field notes, laboratory report, and QA/QC documents with the release investigation report.
|
Lisa Griswold |
| 9/21/2016 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Jenski Automotive; LUST 2245.26.005, 2016 Assessment Report review completed on this date. Four soil borings were advanced beneath the dispenser island (B1); and to the north (B2); southwest (B3); and southeast (B4) of the former UST location. All were advanced to refusal at bedrock (17-19.2 bgs) and groundwater was not encountered. Sample 1-1 and 1-2 from B1 were the only samples to have detectable results with 0.0243 mg/Kg Toluene; 0.0876 mg/Kg total xylenes; 170 mg/Kg Diesel Range Organics (DRO) in 1-1, and 61.9 mg/Kg DRO in 1-2; all below ADEC cleanup levels. All other constituents were non-detect. ADEC noted several violations of the approved work plan occurred in the work done for the Release Investigation Report. They included: not notifying ADEC 48 hours in advance of mobilization; soil above bedrock was not sampled as indicated in the work plan; and PAH sampling and trip blank were not sampled or used as indicated in the work plan. ADEC believes that the data usability was unaffected by these violations and the site will be evaluated for closure. |
Lisa Griswold |
| 9/21/2016 |
Exposure Tracking Model Ranking |
A new updated ranking with ETM has been completed for source area 78058 5,000-Gallon Diesel UST. |
Lisa Griswold |
| 10/6/2016 |
Cleanup Complete Determination Issued |
|
Lisa Griswold |
