| Action Date |
Action |
Description |
DEC Staff |
| 9/28/1990 |
Leaking Underground Storage Tank Release Confirmed - Petroleum |
LUST Site created in CSP for source area ID 78089 Used oil, solvents, gasoline contaminants. |
Former Staff |
| 9/28/1990 |
Site Added to Database |
|
Former Staff |
| 9/29/1990 |
Leaking Underground Storage Tank Cleanup Initiated - Petroleum |
LCAU Date changed DB conversion |
Former Staff |
| 9/30/1990 |
Underground Storage Tank Site Characterization or Assessment |
DOWL sent in report for 5 underground storage tanks on site. 60 cubic yards were removed & stockpiled on site awaiting disposal. Additional site investigation is needed since excavation has stopped when the foundation of the building was reached. Heavy metal lead, halocarbons, aromatic hydrocarbons, & other hydrocarbons are the soil contaminants found at well MW-4. This is consistent with a used oil source. Groundwater contamination at MW-4 had the same type of contaminants except for lead. |
Former Staff |
| 11/1/1990 |
Update or Other Action |
Report for tank closure received from DOWL engineering. Tanks sent to AK Metal Recycling, sludge from waste oil tanks disposed of by NW Enviro Service. Excavation backfilled with no samples taken of backfill. |
Former Staff |
| 12/18/1990 |
Release Investigation |
DOWL engineers sends in site assessment workplan for approval covering soil sampling, monitoring well installation, groundwater sampling, material disposal. Field portion of workplan to begin on during the week of 1/20/90. |
Former Staff |
| 1/29/1991 |
Update or Other Action |
DOWL sends in receipts for sorbents & sludge material disposal from tank #5. Sorbents disposed of by Sure-Way Incineration Co., Northwest EniroService Inc. disposed of 20 drums containing hazardous liquid, non RCRA hazardous waste liquid, & waste water (non hazardous) at their Seattle WA facility EPA ID WAd058367152. |
Former Staff |
| 2/1/1991 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
February 1991 groundwater monitoring event. In monitoring well MW-4 up to 201 ug/l benzene (5 ug/l cleanup level), 0.0081 mg/l methylene chloride (0.005 mg/l cleanup level), 0.031 mg/l Tetrachloroethylene-PCE (0.005 mg/l cleanup level), <0.010 mg/l Trichloroethene-TCE (0.005 mg/l cleanup level), and 14.052 mg/l DRO (1.5 mg/l cleanup level) in the groundwater. GRO and RRO analysis was not conducted during this monitoring event. Monitoring wells MW-1 and MW-2 were non-detect. Monitoring well MW-3 had 0.0064 mg/l Chloroform (0.1 mg/l cleanup level). |
Robert Weimer |
| 2/12/1991 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
DOWL sent resampling effort for tank systems 1-4. Borings associated with MW-2 & MW-3 had no visible/olfactory evidence of hydrocarbon contamination or detectable HNu readings. Soil samples MW-2-1 & MW-3-1 had 52.1 & 54.9 ppm TPH. The report recommended that no further action be required for UST's 1-4. After review DEC sent 4/18/91 letter requesting that an assessment report for UST#5 be sent along with a soils disposal/treatment plan for any soils excavated that were contaminated. |
Former Staff |
| 4/18/1991 |
Update or Other Action |
DEC letter notes additional cleanup and assessment work required for the releases that occured at the UST 5 area. The letter also notes that based on the additional assessment work done at the UST 1-4 areas, no additional assessment or cleanup is being requested for the releases at the UST 1-4 areas, other than the proper treatment of contaminated soil excavated from those areas. |
Robert Weimer |
| 5/14/1991 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
In soil boring MW-4 (located at the location of a former used oil tank system that had leaked) the DOWL report documents soil contamination over cleanup levels from 15 feet to 40 feet below ground surface, with groundwater encountered at 34 feet below ground surface (bgs). Lead contamination up to 2,380 mg/kg at 20 feet bgs. Petroleum contamination (TPH) up to 27,800 mg/kg at 20 feet bgs. Tetrachloroethelene-PCE contamination up to 483 mg/kg, 1,1,1 Trichloroethane contamination up to 161 mg/kg, and benzene contamination up to 104 mg/kg at 15 feet bgs. The extent of the soil and groundwater contamination identified at MW-4 has not been defined. When the 1500 gallon used oil tank was removed in 1990 it was excavated to 15 feet bgs, but no confirmation soil samples were collected because "obvious soil contamination was observed throughout the excavation". |
Former Staff |
| 3/1/1993 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
March 1993 groundwater monitoring event. Only results for sampling monitoring well MW-4 provided. Up to 110 ug/l benzene in the groundwater. GRO, DRO, solvent, and RRO analysis was not conducted during this monitoring event. Benzene concentrations decreased from the previous monitoring event. |
Robert Weimer |
| 6/1/1994 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
June 1994 groundwater monitoring event. Only results for sampling monitoring well MW-4 provided. Up to 63 ug/l benzene in the groundwater. GRO, DRO, solvent, and RRO analysis was not conducted during this monitoring event. Benzene concentrations decreased from the previous monitoring event. |
Robert Weimer |
| 10/1/1995 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
October 1995 groundwater monitoring event. Only results for sampling monitoring well MW-4 provided. Up to 98 ug/l benzene (5 ug/l cleanup level), 0.030 mg/l Tetrachloroethylene-PCE (0.005 mg/l cleanup level), and non-detect (<0.010 mg/l) Trichloroethene-TCE (0.005 mg/l cleanup level) in the groundwater. GRO, DRO, and RRO analysis was not conducted during this monitoring event. Benzene concentrations increased from the previous monitoring event. |
Robert Weimer |
| 11/20/1997 |
Update or Other Action |
ADEC sends Notification of Intent to Cost Recover Letter to Current Owner: ALASKA SALES & SERVICE INC. |
Former Staff |
| 2/1/1999 |
Update or Other Action |
Meeting with RP consultant. They will provide receipts for UST 5 high lead soils and are going to sample monitoring wells MW1,2,3,4 and provide past groundwater sampling results. |
Robert Weimer |
| 2/10/1999 |
Leaking Underground Storage Tank Corrective Action Underway |
Dowl sent receipts of soil disposal for UST 5, still don't have the groundwater sample results. |
Former Staff |
| 3/1/1999 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
March 1999 groundwater monitoring event. Only results for sampling monitoring well MW-4 provided. Up to 7.16 mg/l GRO, 75.8 mg/l DRO, 129 mg/l RRO, 21.6 ug/l benzene 0.0142 mg/l Tetrachloroethylene-PCE (0.005 mg/l cleanup level), and 0.0232 mg/l Trichloroethene-TCE (0.005 mg/l cleanup level) in the groundwater. GRO, DRO, RRO, and TCE concentrations increased from the previous monitoring event. |
Robert Weimer |
| 7/1/2000 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
July 2000 groundwater monitoring event. Only results for sampling monitoring well MW-4 provided. Up to 8.94 mg/l GRO, 24.2 mg/l DRO, 42.6 mg/l RRO, and non-detect ug/l benzene in the groundwater. GRO and toluene concentrations increased from the previous monitoring event. |
Robert Weimer |
| 4/1/2001 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
April 2001 groundwater monitoring event. Only results for sampling monitoring well MW-4 provided. Up to 1.51 mg/l GRO, 12.4 mg/l DRO, 20.2 mg/l RRO, and 609 ug/l benzene in the groundwater. Benzene concentrations increased from the previous monitoring event. |
Robert Weimer |
| 10/26/2004 |
Update or Other Action |
Reviewed file and called RP's consultant to check on site status and monitoring well sampling results. |
Robert Weimer |
| 12/2/2005 |
Update or Other Action |
File review. Still have not received monitoring results. |
Robert Weimer |
| 6/25/2008 |
Exposure Tracking Model Ranking |
Site ranked on the new Exposure Tracking Model (ETM). The ETM is a new site ranking system that looks at, based on available data, the potential exposure pathways for the contamination remaining at the site. |
Robert Weimer |
| 12/1/2009 |
Update or Other Action |
Talked with RP she will provide copies of past groundwater monitoring reports. They plan to hire a new consultant to conduct future groundwater monitoring at the site. |
Robert Weimer |
| 12/7/2009 |
Update or Other Action |
RP's representative provides copy of DOWL's March 25, 2003 groundwater sampling report. The report provides the results of the March 4, 2003 groundwater sampling of monitoring wells MW-1, MW-2, MW-3, and MW-4. The report also summarizes the results of 1991, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1999, 2000, and 2001 groundwater sampling of monitoring well MW-4. |
Robert Weimer |
| 1/5/2010 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
March 4, 2003 groundwater monitoring event. One monitoring well (MW-4) had 0.55 feet of product in it. Depth to groundwater was 38.4 to 36.2 feet below ground surface. Up to 5.17 mg/l GRO, 45.0 mg/l DRO, 84.8 mg/l RRO, and 22.4 ug/l benzene in monitoring well MW-4. GRO, DRO, and RRO concentrations increased from the previous monitoring event (April 2001). This monitoring well was not sampled for solvents. The last time this monitoring well was sampled for solvents (March 1999) it had 0.0142 mg/l Tetrachloroethylene-PCE (0.005 mg/l cleanup level), and 0.0232 mg/l Trichloroethene-TCE (0.005 mg/l cleanup level). Monitoring wells MW-1, MW-2, and MW-3 were sampled and non-detect for BTEX and solvents, but were not sampled for GRO, DRO, and RRO. None of the monitoring wells were sampled for lead in the groundwater. |
Robert Weimer |
| 1/6/2010 |
Update or Other Action |
Talked with RP regarding groundwater monitoring and future site work. Prepared letter. ADEC letter requests checking all 4 monitoring wells for groundwater elevations and product thickness (if any), and analyzing non-product monitoring wells. MW-2 & MW-3 for VOCs, BTEX, GRO, DRO, RRO, and lead. MW-4 for VOCs, BTEX, GRO, DRO, RRO, SVOCs, PCBs, and lead. ADEC letter requests that the results be submitted by May 1, 2010. After reviewing the results ADEC will dtermine what additional monitoring, release investigation, and corrective action will be required. |
Robert Weimer |
| 2/17/2010 |
Update or Other Action |
Talked with RP, I confirmed that a duplicate groundwater sample is needed. |
Robert Weimer |
| 2/18/2010 |
Update or Other Action |
Message from RP's consultant regarding filtering groundwater samples for lead. Replied that we are requesting that the samples not be filtered. |
Robert Weimer |
| 5/10/2010 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
February 23, 2010 groundwater monitoring event. One monitoring well (MW-4) had 0.5 feet of product in it (it had 0.55 feet of product in it in 2003) and was not sampled. The product appears to be used oil. Depth to groundwater was 45.8 to 48.12 feet below ground surface. Groundwater samples were non-detect (<0.05 mg/l) GRO, non-detect (<0.385 mg/l) DRO, non-detect (<0.385 mg/l) RRO, non-detect (<0.001 mg/l) lead, non-detect for solvents, and non-detect (<0.5 ug/l) benzene in monitoring wells MW-2 and MW-3. Groundwater flow direction was to the north by northeast. A bladder pump was used to collect the groundwater samples. RP's consultant recommends initially hand bailing the product out of monitoring well MW-4 for 4 to 6 weeks to recover product and to evaluate product recovery at that monitoring well. |
Robert Weimer |
| 5/14/2010 |
Update or Other Action |
Talked with RP, ADEC concurs with the recommendation to conduct recovery and monitoring of the product in monitoring well MW-4 for the next 4 to 6 weeks. We discussed that the collection, analysis, and report of the field data will need to be conducted by or surpervised by a qualified impartial 3rd party. She will have he consultant train her staff on the the measuring and recovery of the product and have her consultant supervise the collection, and analyze and report the data. ADEC requests that the product recovery start by June 1, 2010, and a report of the product recovery and recommendations (which could include conducting a bail down test, additional monitoring wells to define the extent of the product, and/or the installation of a larger product recovery well(s) at the site) be submitted by August 1, 2010. |
Robert Weimer |
| 5/18/2010 |
Update or Other Action |
The monitoring well purge water generated from the February 23, 2010 groundwater sampling of monitoring wells MW-2 and MW-3 is approved for on-site disposal. |
Robert Weimer |
| 1/7/2011 |
Exposure Tracking Model Ranking |
A new updated ranking with ETM has been completed for source area 78089 1990 UST contamination to reflect product on the groundwater. |
Robert Weimer |
| 10/28/2011 |
Update or Other Action |
Continued groundwater monitoring and product recovery is required. |
Robert Weimer |
| 11/26/2012 |
Update or Other Action |
Call from the mortgage holder on the property to check on the status of the site. DEC could not find a copy for the site work conducted by the RP in 2010. The mortgage holder said they would contact the RP about submitting another copy the results of any any other site work done since then. |
Robert Weimer |
| 9/11/2013 |
Update or Other Action |
Talked with RP, she indicated that BGES had done some product work in May of 2010 and submitted the results, but she will submit a another copy of the report soon. She also said that she had recently put a bailer down the monitoring well and it only had two spots of oil in the bailer water but the outside of the bailer was oily. |
Robert Weimer |
| 9/20/2013 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Reviewed Product Removal report dated October 11, 2010. On June 10, 2010 0.5 feet of product was measured in monitoring well MW-4 with an oil/water interface probe. Depth to groundwater was measured at 35.45 feet below ground surface.
Product recovery using a bailer was then attempted to recover the product in the monitoring well, but there was not enough product pressure to enter the bailer through its check valve. They then attempted to recover product using an oleophilic absorbent pad in the monitoring well for 1 hour each recovery day. Only 6.3 ounces of product was recovered between June 10, 2010 and August 19, 2010 using this method. The rate of recovery decreased after the first 15 days. On August 19, 2010 the oil/water interface probe did not measure product but the probe was coated with some product.
The consultant recommends that the monitoring well product thickness be checked again in 6 months time. |
Robert Weimer |
| 4/8/2014 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Review of March 4, 2014 work plan for groundwater monitoring and evaluation of vapor intrustion. the DEC is requesting a revised work plan with the following modifications by May 15, 2014:
1. Given the close proximity of the past product next to the building and the groundwater flow direction under the building DEC is requesting sub-slab sampling, with one inside the building close to where the tank was, with at least 2 more sub-slab sample locations based on the results of a building survey.
2. A vapor intrusion building survey needs to be conducted before the sub-slab locations are proposed.
3. An assessment of the pressure differential for the building is needed.
4. All of the sub-slab sample locations need to be long-term because more than one sample event will be required to assess for the vapor intrusion pathway.
5. With sub-slab samples outdoor soil gas sampling or a deep soil boring to assess for the sub-surface soil conditions is not required.
|
Robert Weimer |
| 8/26/2014 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
DEC conditionally approves work plan for collecting groundwater samples (both by purge and no purge methods in monitoring wells MW2 and MW4), indoor air (three), and outdoor air (one) samples to help characterize the nature and extent of the contamination identified at the site.
The groundwater samples are to be analyzed for VOCs (8260), GRO, DRO, RRO, and total lead. In addition the groundwater sample collected from monitoring well MW4 is to be analyzed for PAHs.
The air samples are to analyzed for VOCs by method TO-15.
The work plan is approved under the condition that the intake for the bladder pump is within the top foot of the water column in the monitoring well at the time of the groundwater sampling. |
Robert Weimer |
| 9/5/2014 |
Update or Other Action |
Update from RPs consultant that they measured with an oil/water interface probe 0.13 feet of product in monitoring well MW4. Ok not to do duplicate water sample in monitoring well MW2 this monitoring event. They will submit a work plan for assessing the best way to recover the product and to test the rate that product returns into the monitoring well. They plan to conduct the indoor air sampling on September 7 or 8, 2014. |
Robert Weimer |
| 10/1/2014 |
Update or Other Action |
ADEC requests that the RP has their consultant conduct a product recovery evaluation in the field to determine the most effective method to recover the product in that area. This would include evaluating different methods (such as an in-well pump and a rope/belt skimmer), and documenting how soon the product returns into the monitoring well. ADEC requests that this evaluation be conducted and results submitted by December 1, 2014. ADEC noted that use of a bailer and absorbent pads as was attempted in the past and were not successful in effectively recovering the product in that area. |
Robert Weimer |
| 12/3/2014 |
Update or Other Action |
ADEC approves requests for an extension until January 30, 2015 that the RP has their consultant conduct a product recovery evaluation in the field to determine the most effective method to recover the product in that area. This would include evaluating different methods (such as an in-well pump and a rope/belt skimmer), and documenting how soon the product returns into the monitoring well. |
Robert Weimer |
| 2/4/2015 |
Update or Other Action |
ADEC approves requests for an extension until March 15, 2015 that the RP has their consultant continue to conduct product recovery evaluation in the field to determine the most effective method to recover the product in that area. They have evaluated a few methods (passive skimmer and bailer) but they have not been successful. They will be evaluating different methods (such as an in-well pump and a rope/belt skimmer), and documenting how soon the product returns into the monitoring well. The results of the September 2014 groundwater and indoor air sampling are to be summited this month. |
Robert Weimer |
| 5/8/2015 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
September 4, 2014 groundwater sampling event. Groundwater samples were non-detect (<0.4 ug/l) benzene, non-detect (<1.0 ug/l) lead, non-detect (<0.1 mg/l) GRO, non-detect (<0.645 mg/l) DRO, non-detect (<0.538 mg/l) RRO, and non-detect for VOCs in the 1 monitoring well sampled (MW-2). Monitoring well MW-4 was not sampled because it contained 0.13 feet of used oil product. Depth to groundwater was 33.47 to 36.99 feet below ground surface. Groundwater flow direction was to the north by northeast this monitoring event. The groundwater samples were collected by both non-purge with Hydrasleeve and purge with a bladder pump. The sampling intervals were within the top foot of the water column. The consultant recommends using a product called Well Boom to recover the product in monitoring well MW-4 and to monitoring it on a daily, then weekly, then a monthly basis to evaluate the rate of recovery with Well Boom. |
Robert Weimer |
| 5/8/2015 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
On September 8, 2014 five indoor, plus one duplicate, and one outdoor air sample were collected under non-frozen ground conditions. All air samples were non-detect or below commercial screening levels. Need to conduct another air sampling event during frozen ground conditions to evaluate indoor air under those conditions. |
Robert Weimer |
| 5/8/2015 |
Update or Other Action |
ADEC concurs with the March 2015 report’s recommendations to try the Well Boom product and monitor it for product recovery, the on-site disposal of the MW-2 purge water, and sampling of MW-4 when it no longer contains product.
As discussed in the past we will need a frozen ground condition indoor air sampling event to demonstrate that there is not a seasonal change in the indoor air concentrations. ADEC is requesting that a frozen ground indoor air sampling event be conducted in the winter 2015.
ADEC is also requesting a purged (bladder pump) groundwater sampling event be conducted in 2015 of monitoring wells MW-2 and MW-4 (if it does not contain product) similar to what was conducted for the September 4, 2014 sampling event.
|
Robert Weimer |
| 8/19/2015 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
ADEC approves work plan to try the Well Boom product and monitor it for product recovery and sampling of MW-4 when it no longer contains product. |
Robert Weimer |
| 5/18/2016 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
December 14, 2015 groundwater sampling event. The groundwater sample collected from monitoring well MW-2 was non-detect for GRO, DRO, RRO, lead, PAHs, and VOCs. Monitoring well MW-4 was sampled since it no longer contained used oil product, it had 0.649 mg/l GRO, 1.24 mg/l DRO, 0.575 mg/l RRO, 2.49 ug/l lead, non-detect (<0.4 ug/l) benzene, and 6.52 ug/l TCE which exceeded the TCE groundwater cleanup level of 5.0 ug/l. Depth to groundwater was 33.79 to 37.45 feet below ground surface. Groundwater flow direction was to the north by northeast this monitoring event. The groundwater samples were collected with a bladder pump after purging. The sampling intervals were within the top foot of the water column as required. |
Robert Weimer |
| 5/18/2016 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
A product called Well Boom was deployed on August 21, 2015 to recover the product in monitoring well MW-4. Initially it became saturated with product within 24 hours of deployment. The free product thickness decreased from 0.05 feet to 0.01 feet after 10 days. During the next 9 weeks with thickness varied up to 0.02 feet, and had no measurable product thickness from November 9, 2015 through December 7, 2015 (the last day it was checked in this reporting period). |
Robert Weimer |
| 5/18/2016 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
On December 7, 2015 three indoor, plus one duplicate, and one outdoor air sample were collected under frozen ground conditions. All air samples were non-detect or below commercial screening levels. |
Robert Weimer |
| 5/18/2016 |
Update or Other Action |
ADEC letter requesting continued deployment of Well Boom in monitoring well MW-4, and semi-annual sampling for VOCs, GRO, DRO, and RRO in that monitoring well if it does not contain product that monitoring event. All three site monitoring wells are to have depth to water and product thickness measurements and reporting on a semi-annual basis. If product returns to any of the monitoring wells ADEC is to be notified within 24 hours, and ADEC may require more frequent product recovery and/or groundwater monitoring. The next monitoring event is to be conducted by June 18, 2016, with a report of the results submitted by August 18, 2016. |
Robert Weimer |
| 6/27/2016 |
Update or Other Action |
ADEC approves request for an extension for conducting the free product recovery and groundwater monitoring to July 29, 2016 and submittal of the report to September 30, 2016. |
Robert Weimer |
| 7/8/2016 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
ADEC approves plan to continue deployment of well boom in monitoring well MW4, measuring for thickness of product in all of the monitoring wells with an interface probe, if no product collect analytical samples from monitoring well MW-4 in July 2016 and February 2017, and notify ADEC within 24 hours if any product is encountered. If product is encounter additional or more frequent activities may be required by ADEC. |
Robert Weimer |
| 7/13/2016 |
Site Visit |
Site visit to observe groundwater monitoring and product thickness measurements. About 0.1 inch of product was observed in monitoring well MW-4 so a groundwater sampling was not collected from that monitoring well. The Well Boom sock in monitoring well MW-4 was replaced. |
Robert Weimer |
| 9/8/2016 |
Update or Other Action |
Update from consultant that on August 16, 2016 no measurable product with interface probe or observed on the well boom in monitoring well MW4. DEC approves request that if there still is no product in MW4 they plan to remove the well boom on September 9th and collect a groundwater sample the following week. |
Robert Weimer |
| 7/13/2017 |
Update or Other Action |
ADEC reviews request to reduce measuring depth to groundwater in the downgradient monitoring wells from semi-annual to annual. Due to the past and continued presence of product in monitoring well MW-4 ADEC is still requesting that on a semi-annual basis that the depth to groundwater and evaluation for product be conducted in the other downgradient monitoring wells as per the May 18, 2016 letter. |
Robert Weimer |
| 7/25/2017 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
September 22, 2016 groundwater sampling event. Monitoring well MW-1, MW-2, and MW-3 were all checked for used oil product and depth to groundwater. No used oil product was detected on any of the monitoring wells. Monitoring well MW-4 was sampled since it no longer contained used oil product, it had 171 ug/l GRO, 1,310 ug/l DRO, 771 ug/l RRO, non-detect (<0.4 ug/l) benzene, 2.97 ug/l TCE which exceeded the TCE groundwater cleanup level of 2.8 ug/l, and 27.8 ug/l 1,2,4- Trimethylbenzene which exceeded the groundwater cleanup level of 15 ug/l. Depth to groundwater was 34.7 to 38.4 feet below ground surface. Groundwater flow direction was to the north by northeast this monitoring event. The groundwater samples were collected with a bladder pump after purging. The sampling intervals were within the top foot of the water column as required. The Well Boom had been removed from the well 13 days prior to sampling on September 9, 2016. |
Robert Weimer |
| 12/31/2018 |
Update or Other Action |
ADEC is requesting that on a semi-annual basis that the depth to groundwater and evaluation for product be conducted in the other downgradient monitoring wells as per the May 18, 2016 letter. |
Robert Weimer |
| 8/7/2019 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
August 25, 2017 groundwater sampling event. Monitoring well MW-1, MW-2, and MW-3 were all checked for used oil product and depth to groundwater. No used oil product was detected on any of the monitoring wells. Monitoring well MW-4 was sampled since it no longer contained used oil product, it had 121 ug/l GRO, 3,380 ug/l DRO, 1,110 ug/l RRO, 2.21 ug/l naphthalene, the other VOCs were below cleanup levels. Depth to groundwater was 9.11 to 9.44 feet below ground surface. Groundwater flow direction was to the north by northeast this monitoring event. The groundwater samples were collected with a bladder pump after purging. The sampling intervals were within the top foot of the water column as required. The Well Boom had been removed from the well 7 days prior to sampling. |
Robert Weimer |
| 8/7/2019 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
February 19, 2018 groundwater sampling event. Monitoring well MW-1, MW-2, and MW-3 were all checked for used oil product and depth to groundwater. No used oil product was detected on any of the monitoring wells. Monitoring well MW-4 was sampled since it no longer contained used oil product, it had non-detect GRO, 1,660 ug/l DRO, 1,115 ug/l RRO, 1.54 ug/l naphthalene, the other VOCs were below cleanup levels. Depth to groundwater was 9.35 to 10.03 feet below ground surface. Groundwater flow direction was to the north by northeast this monitoring event. The groundwater samples were collected with a bladder pump after purging. The sampling intervals were within the top foot of the water column as required. The Well Boom had been removed from the well 7 days prior to sampling. |
Robert Weimer |
| 8/23/2019 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
DEC approves work plan to continue to conduct groundwater monitoring and free product monitoring in accordance with previously approved work plans. The next monitoring event is scheduled for August 2019. |
Robert Weimer |
| 9/15/2020 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
2019 & 2020 Free Product Monitoring and Groundwater Monitoring Report submitted BGES. All wells (MW-1 through MW-4) were checked for free product with none observed. Groundwater samples were collected twice from MW-4, which is the only well where contaminants have exceeded cleanup levels. In August 2019, MW-4 contained DRO and RRO above cleanup levels (2.3 mg/L and 4.34 mg/L). In March 2020, the only contaminant in MW-4 that exceeded cleanup levels was naphthalene at 1.82 ug/L. Low levels of chlorinated solvents remain in MW-4, but no TCE was detected. Groundwater flow was to the north-northeast in both August and March. BGES recommended continued use of the well boom in MW-4 and biannual monitoring for VOCs, DRO, and RRO. |
Janice Wiegers |
| 7/13/2021 |
Update or Other Action |
DEC approved continued monitoring of MW-4 on a biennial basis and requested additional lead analysis in the next groundwater sampling event. DEC approval should be obtained before decommissioning wells MW-1 though MW-3. These wells may be used to evaluate groundwater flow direction and gradient. |
Janice Wiegers |
| 9/21/2021 |
Update or Other Action |
BGES requested approval to collect a sample from MW-4 using procedures from the 2014 work plan and a 2016 email. DEC approved sampling and reminded the consultant to analyze for lead. |
Janice Wiegers |
| 2/3/2022 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
BGES submitted a groundwater monitoring report dated November 2021. The groundwater samples were collected on September 23, 2021. Groundwater samples from MW-4 were tested for VOCs, GRO, DRO, RRO, and lead. DRO and RRO exceeded DEC cleanup levels. Lead was found in groundwater at 3.95 and 4.17 ug/L, below the cleanup level of 15 ug/L. Contaminant levels in MW-4 are generally decreasing, with the exception of RRO which has generally increased. BGES recommended continued use of the well boom to remediate dissolved phase hydrocarbons and continued monitoring of MW-4. |
Janice Wiegers |
| 2/4/2022 |
Update or Other Action |
Notified that the Alaska Sales and Service dealerships have been sold to the Swickard Auto Group, who will be taking lead on this cleanup. |
Janice Wiegers |
| 2/11/2022 |
Potentially Responsible Party/State Interest Letter |
PRP letter sent to Swickard Auto, the new owner of the facility. |
Janice Wiegers |
