| Action Date |
Action |
Description |
DEC Staff |
| 7/31/2008 |
Update or Other Action |
A pre-construction environmental survey performed in 2008 determined that there was no known contamination at the site (U.S. Army, 2009). |
Louis Howard |
| 1/29/2010 |
Update or Other Action |
Soil samples were collected by the U.S Army Engineer District (USAED) in January 2010 as part of the worker exposure monitoring survey (USAED, 2010). Soil boring AP-5536 (TB-11) had a DRO concentration of 4,000 mg/kg at 17.5 to 19.5 feet bgs. Several other soil borings had elevated PID readings, indicating that additional soil contamination may be present. |
Louis Howard |
| 6/30/2010 |
Update or Other Action |
In June 2010, a preliminary source evaluation was performed that included drilling 10 soil borings (COF01 through COF10) to a depth of 15 feet bgs and collecting subsurface soil samples. Soil borings were advanced using direct-push technology. Soil samples were collected from the depth of the highest PID readings and analyzed for GRO, DRO, RRO, VOCs, semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), pesticides, and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) metals (Jacobs, 2010).
Within the COF building area (Building 788), DRO and trichloroethene (TCE) were detected at
concentrations up to 1,570 mg/kg and 1.51 mg/kg, respectively. In the new COF parking area,
TCE and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) were in soil at concentrations up to 0.745 mg/kg and
23.3 mg/kg, respectively.
See site file for additional information. |
Louis Howard |
| 3/15/2011 |
Update or Other Action |
Approximately 3,800 cubic yards of DRO-contaminated soil was excavated in March and April 2011 from beneath the existing footprint of Building 788 in order for the construction of Building 788 to proceed without encountering contaminated soil. Soil was excavated to a maximum of 9 feet bgs. DRO contamination was detected in samples from the excavation floor up to concentrations 9,230 mg/kg, and remains at the site. In addition, TCE was detected in one floor sample location (EF107) at a concentration of 0.0326 mg/kg and remains in soil. The footprint of COF Building 788 prevents further excavation and investigation of contaminated soil. |
Louis Howard |
| 6/1/2011 |
Update or Other Action |
USACE Memorandum through CEPOA-EN-GES CEPOA-EN-GES-CIH For CEPOA-PM-M (Chouinard): Report of Chemical Findings & Employee Exposure Monitoring, FTR271B (PN72270) MEB-Phase II TEM Fac. JBER (11-023).
Summary of Field Activities: Soil samples were collected from twenty-one borings during the foundation study performed from the 28th of February 2011 to 17 March 2011 at the FTR271A project site. All borings were screened using a photoionization detector (PID). USACE chemist Teresa Lee (CEPOA-EN-GES-CIH) & geotechnical engineers Inocencio Roman & Pam Lovasz (CEPOA-EN-ES-GM) performed the field screening activities. All soil samples were collected from borings drilled by USACE drill equipment operators Lyle Cain & Christopher Bean using hollow stem augers & split spoon samplers.
Soil samples were collected from a decontaminated split-spoon sampler after the auger had been advanced to designated sample depth. Samples were screened with a photo-ionization detector (PID) as specified in the Sampling & Exposure Analysis Plan. Readings above background were not observed at any test boring locations evaluated by CEPOA-EN-GES-CIH. USACE chemist Teresa Lee performed all sampling activities. All samples were collected as described in the Sampling & Analysis Plan.
The results indicate that analyte concentrations were not detected at levels which are above 18 AAC 75 Method 2 Under 40 Inch criteria for soils in the borings that were sampled for project site FTR271C, with the exception of arsenic & chromium. Arsenic was present in TB-10 (AP-5669 at 7.2 mg/Kg), TB-11 (AP-5670 at 7.4 mg/Kg), & TB-16 (AP-5675 at 6.8 mg/Kg & a duplicate at 5.2 mg/Kg). Chromium was present in TB-10 (AP-5669 at 36 mg/Kg), TB-11 (AP-5670 at 41 mg/Kg), & TB-16 (AP-5675 at 29 mg/Kg & a duplicate at 25 mg/Kg). Arsenic & chromium are above ADEC criteria but are within background levels for the installation (ref. 1.d). In addition, the cleanup level for chromium is based on the presence of the more toxic hexavalent chromium. Site history does not indicate the presence of the more toxic hexavalent chromium species. A separate analysis was run for hexavalent chromium & no exceedances were noted.
This project was not intended to be a comprehensive environmental investigation of the site, & changes in the condition of the site may occur with time due to natural processes or human activities. The findings presented in this report are based on the soil boring data gathered at the time of the investigation.
Conclusions: The results indicate that analyte concentrations were not detected at levels which are above 18AAC75 Method 2 Under 40 Inch criteria for soils in the borings that were sampled for project site FTR271 C, with the exception of arsenic & chromium. Arsenic was present in TB-10 (AP-5669 at 7.2 mg/Kg), TB-11 (AP-5670 at 7.4 mg/Kg), & TB-16 (AP-5675 at 6.8 mg/Kg & a duplicate at 5.2 mg/Kg). Chromium was present in TB-10 (AP-5669 at 36 mg/Kg), TB-11 (AP-5670 at 41 mg/Kg), & TB-16 (AP-5675 at 29 mg/Kg & a duplicate at 25 mg/Kg). Arsenic & chromium are above ADEC criteria but are within background levels for the installation (ref. 1.d).
In addition, the clean up level for chromium is based on the presence of the more toxic hexavalent chromium. Site history does riot indicate the presence of the more toxic hexavalent chromium species & results for hexavalent chromium analysis were below state cleanup limits. However, due to the current & historic use of the land, hazards associated with possible petroleum, lubricants, & oils exist at this site location. Employees should continue to use proper work practices for dust control & consistently use PPE to limit the effects of chemical exposure.
Recommendations: Due to current & historic use of the site, further environmental site investigation is recommended. Based on the employee chemical exposure data, continue utilizing established work practices & established safety protocols. Should site conditions or processes change, additional evaluations should be performed.
Signed
Teresa Lee
Chemist |
Louis Howard |
| 10/14/2011 |
Update or Other Action |
In October 2011, a 1,100-gallon UST located several feet outside the southeast corner of the new COF building (Building 788) (Figure 10-3) was excavated. That tank likely contained diesel fuel to supply an oil fired heater associated with a nearby former building. The total depth of the excavation reached 8 feet bgs. However, removal activities were limited by the proximity to the newly constructed COF building foundations. Confirmation sample results indicate that DRO remains in soil at concentrations up to 650 mg/kg along the west side of the excavation, where excavation was not possible without potential damages to the COF building foundation. |
Louis Howard |
| 11/15/2011 |
Update or Other Action |
In November 2011, a time-critical removal action resulted in the excavation and disposal of
approximately 700 cubic yards of PCB-contaminated soil from an area near former Building 789 which is adjacent to the new COF parking area. |
Louis Howard |
| 3/30/2012 |
Update or Other Action |
FTR269 MEB Complex Phase I
COF Building Site
DRO contamination greater than the ADEC cleanup level of 250 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) was only identified in three soil borings, located in the center portion of the site, & was generally not found near the surface. In the area of soil boring COF02, the DRO contamination is closer to the surface than other areas of the site with DRO concentrations of 1,570 mg/kg & 1,530 mg/kg at 6 & 8 feet bgs, respectively. In soil boring COF03, DRO was not encountered until a depth of 15 feet bgs at 711 mg/kg & in boring TB-11 (AP-5536) DRO was identified from 17.5 to 19.5 feet bgs at 4,000 mg/kg (USACE 2010b). Soil boring AP-5536 was completed by the USACE in March 2010 as part of worker exposure monitoring.
TCE contamination greater than the ADEC cleanup level of 0.02 mg/kg was identified in five soil borings located in the NW portion of the site, in the gravel parking area between the motor pool area & Building 792. This contamination was identified at various depths from 3 feet bgs in boring COF13 to 14 feet bgs in borings COF13, COF14, & COF16. The highest concentration (1.51 mg/kg) was identified in boring COF13 at a depth of 14 feet bgs.
COF Parking Lot Site
TCE contamination greater than the ADEC cleanup level of 0.02 mg/kg was identified in all six of the soil borings advanced at the site. The depth of the TCE contamination ranged from 2 feet bgs to 14 feet bgs with concentrations between 0.0487 mg/kg & 0.745 mg/kg. All six soil borings were located in or immediately adjacent to the gravel parking lot west of Building 789.
PCB aroclor 1260 contamination greater than the ADEC cleanup level of 1.0 mg/kg was identified in soil borings PARK04 & PARK06. The highest concentration (23.3 mg/kg) was located in boring PARK04 at a depth of 2 feet bgs. Contamination was also found (4.61 mg/kg) in boring PARK06 at a depth of 2 feet bgs. PCB aroclor 1260 was also identified in borings PARK02, PARK03, & PARK05 but at concentrations less than the ADEC cleanup level. The areas with PCB aroclor 1260 concentrations greater than the ADEC cleanup level are in close proximity to an overhead power line. Given the shallow depth that the PCBs were encountered, this contamination may be related to surface spills associated with overhead lines & the nearby building.
Existing Fuel Point Site
Of the five soil borings, only boring EFP01 contained contaminant concentrations exceeding the ADEC cleanup levels. This soil boring was located in the western portion of the site within the asphalt covered area. At a depth of 2 feet bgs, 1,2,3-trichloropropane was identified above the cleanup level of 0.00053 mg/kg at a concentration of 0.0521 mg/kg. At a depth of 11 feet bgs, benzene was identified slightly above the cleanup level of 0.025 mg/kg at a concentration of 0.042 mg/kg. Only arsenic & chromium exceeded the ADEC cleanup levels in the other four soil borings, consistent with typical background levels.
New Fuel Point Site
Arsenic, chromium, & methylene chloride were detected in concentrations exceeding the ADEC Method Two migration to groundwater cleanup levels (ADEC 2008). Arsenic & chromium concentrations reflect the native background concentrations typically found on JBER (USAF 1993). The methylene chloride concentrations identified are related to laboratory contamination; similar concentrations were identified in the associated trip blank sample. No other analytes were detected at the site above ADEC cleanup levels.
See site file for additional information.
|
Louis Howard |
| 3/30/2012 |
Update or Other Action |
PSE I received.
Preliminary Source Evaluation was conducted under the FTR269 Maneuver Enhancement Brigade (MEB) Complex Site Investigation Work Plan (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers [USACE], Alaska District 2010). The work consisted of soil borings & sample collection at four of the five project sites that make up Phase I of the MEB Complex. These sites include the Existing Fuel Point, proposed New Fuel Point, proposed Company Operations Facility (COF) Building site, & the proposed COF Parking site. The proposed Barracks site was determined to be free of environmental concerns based on the Pre-construction Environmental Survey (PES) (U.S. Army 2009) & was therefore not investigated.
COF Bldg. Site
DRO contamination was identified in three soil borings, located in the center portion of the site, & was generally not found near the surface. In the area of soil boring COF02, the DRO contamination is closer to the surface than other areas of the site with DRO concentrations of 1,570 mg/kg & 1,530 mg/kg at 6 & 8 feet bgs, respectively. In soil boring COF03, DRO contamination was not encountered until a depth of 15 feet bgs at 711 mg/kg & in boring TB-11 (AP-5536) DRO contamination was identified from 17.5 to 19.5 feet bgs at 4,000 mg/kg (USACE 2010b).
Soil boring AP-5536 was completed by the USACE in March 2010 as part of worker exposure monitoring. TCE contamination was identified in five soil borings located in the northwest portion of the site, in the gravel parking area between the motor pool area & Building 792. This contamination was identified at various depths from 3 feet bgs in boring COF13 to 14 feet bgs in borings COF13, COF14, & COF16. The highest concentration (1.51 mg/kg) was identified in boring COF13 at a depth of 14 feet bgs
COF Fac. Pkng lot site
TCE, PCB aroclor 1260, arsenic, & chromium were found in concentrations exceeding the ADEC Method Two migration to GW cleanup levels (ADEC 2008). Arsenic & chromium concentrations reflect the native background concentrations typically found on JBER (USAF 1993).
TCE contamination greater than the ADEC cleanup level of 0.02 mg/kg was identified in all six of the soil borings advanced at the site. The depth of the TCE contamination ranged from 2 feet bgs to 14 feet bgs with concentrations between 0.0487 mg/kg & 0.745 mg/kg. All six soil borings were located in or immediately adjacent to the gravel parking lot west of Building 789.
PCB aroclor 1260 contamination was identified in soil borings PARK04 & PARK06. The highest concentration (23.3 mg/kg) was located in boring PARK04 at a depth of 2 feet bgs. Contamination was also found (4.61 mg/kg) in boring PARK06 at a depth of 2 feet bgs. PCB aroclor 1260 was also identified in borings PARK02, PARK03, & PARK05 but at concentrations less than the ADEC cleanup level. The areas with PCB aroclor 1260 concentrations greater than the ADEC cleanup level are in close proximity to an overhead power line. Given the shallow depth that the PCBs were encountered, this contamination may be related to surface spills associated with overhead lines & the nearby building.
See site file for additional information.
|
Louis Howard |
| 5/1/2012 |
Spill Transferred from Prevention Preparedness and Response Program |
Spill transferred by PERP staff Michele Sherwood. Spill no. 11239928603; spill date = 10/13/11; substance = unknown; quantity = unknown. |
Mitzi Read |
| 5/2/2012 |
Site Added to Database |
A new site has been added to the database |
Mitzi Read |
| 5/3/2012 |
Update or Other Action |
Site determined to be non-qualifying based on review of 4/12/12 Report of Chemical Findings, Brigade Complex Phase 1, Vehicle Fueling Facility (FTR269A). Soil samples were collected and analyzed for GRO, DRO, RRO, PAHs, VOCs, and PCBs. Analytical results, with the exception of arsenic and chromium (which were determined to be within background), were below DEC cleanup levels. |
Louis Howard |
| 6/1/2012 |
Update or Other Action |
Since the removal action was unsuccessful in completely removing the PCB-contaminated soil in excess of 1 mg/kg, the established removal action cleanup level, a follow-on investigation was conducted between December 2011 and June 2012 that included sampling soil at 2 feet bgs for PCBs and TCE from eight test pits (samples TP01 through TP08), advancing 13 soil borings and sampling soil from 0 to 2.5 feet bgs and 2.5 to 5 feet bgs (samples PARK07 through PARK19) for TCE and PCBs, collecting two concrete samples for analysis of PCBs, and collecting 15 surface soil samples (SW01 through SW15) for analysis of PCBs and TCE.
PCB-contaminated soil with concentrations in excess of 1 mg/kg was found to remain at several locations surrounding former Building 789. PCB concentrations in soil ranged as high as 158 mg/kg (TP04) within 30 feet of the former building and to a depth of 5 feet bgs. PCB-contaminated concrete was also identified. The extent of PCB-contaminated soil remains undefined.
TCE was also detected in soil at concentrations up to 1.28 mg/kg. The source of the TCE
contamination in soil could not be positively identified nor was the extent of contamination fully delineated. Based on the distribution of the TCE contamination (Figure 10-3), the source of the TCE contamination appears separate from the source of the PCB contamination, although
contamination is co-located at some of the sample locations. |
Louis Howard |
| 8/24/2012 |
Update or Other Action |
UFP-QAPP for PA/SIs at Sites SA034, SA033, AT035, & AT032 as well as Site Characterization/Cleanup at Sites TA008, TU948, TU110, TU111, TU112, TU949, & SS001 Dated August 23, 2012 received.
SA034 – TBD #2, Powerline Drum Site TU949 Building 770 UST Site (CC-FTRS-05)
SS001 - Building 796 (Battery Shop) (FTRS-01)
SA033 – TBD #3, Otter Lake Road Drum Site
TA008 –Biathlon Range Fuel Release (CC-FTRS-08)
TU948 –Building 57-428 UST Site (CC-FTRS-09)
TU110 –Building 47-431 Tanks E1 & E2 (CC-FTRS-10)
TU111 – CC-FTRS-11, Tank E5
TU112 – CC-FTRS-12, Tank E7
AT035 – TBD #4 MEB Complex, COF (FTR269)
AT032 – TBD #1, Airborne Training Facility (FTR255).
Soil sampling & analytical approach:
– Soil samples will be collected at 5-foot intervals from ground surface to 25 feet bgs, & at 10-foot intervals from 25 feet bgs to the water table (approximately 120 feet bgs) from two boreholes.
– If, based on photoionization detector (PID) field screening & visual/olfactory evidence, the boring reaches the maximum vertical extent of the soil contamination, then two samples will be collected beyond the last evidence of contamination, & the boring will be terminated.
– Continuous logging of soil type & stratigraphy, moisture or GW, visual observations of staining or liquid-phase petroleum, photoionization detector (PID) readings, & other observations.
– All soil samples in the DRO study area (approximately 13, excluding quality control [QC]) will be analyzed for gasoline-range organics (GRO); DRO; residual-range organics (RRO); & volatile organic carbons (VOCs), excluding the chlorinated compounds.
– A subset of soil samples in the DRO study area (as described in Worksheet #17 of this appendix) will be collected for additional analyses to facilitate HRC calculations. These analyses include polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), volatile petroleum hydrocarbon (VPH), extractable petroleum hydrocarbon (EPH), fraction of organic carbon (foc), bulk density, grain size distribution, specific gravity, & moisture content.
– All soil samples in the TCE study area (approximately 11, excluding QC) will be analyzed for volatile organic compounds (VOCs).
GW sampling & analytical approach:
– In the DRO study area, a HydroPunch GW sample will be collected from one boring (if the boring is advanced to the water table [see Worksheet #17]) & analyzed for GRO, DRO, RRO, VOCs (excluding the chlorinated compounds), PAHs, VPH, EPH, & total organic carbon (TOC).
– In the TCE study area, a monitoring well will be installed, & one GW sample will be collected & analyzed for VOCs & DRO.
See site file for additional information. |
Louis Howard |
| 8/27/2012 |
Exposure Tracking Model Ranking |
Initial ranking with ETM completed for source area id: 79321 name: Spills |
Louis Howard |
| 3/12/2013 |
Update or Other Action |
PA/SI report draft received for review and comment.
DRO, RRO, and GRO were detected in soil samples from boring SB01 at concentrations up to 44.1, 160, and 0.448 mg/kg, respectively, which are below ADEC Method Two migration-to-groundwater cleanup levels. Benzene, toluene, and xylenes were sporadically detected in soil samples at concentrations just above detection limits, but well below cleanup levels.
TCE was detected in soil samples from boring MW01 at concentrations above the cleanup level,
ranging from 0.859 mg/kg at 15 to 20 feet bgs to 0.42 mg/kg at 20 to 25 feet bgs. Below 25 feet
bgs, TCE was not detected at concentrations above the detection limit.
TCE and RRO were not detected in the groundwater sample. DRO was detected in the groundwater sample at a concentration of 0.046 milligram per liter, which is below the cleanup level.
The following conclusions can be made about AT035:
The lateral extent of DRO-contaminated soil at AT035’s 2010 excavation has been adequately
delineated to the project SLs.
Soil contaminated with DRO at concentrations above the SLs has NOT been defined within the
excavation footprint.
Groundwater does not appear be impacted by DRO contamination at this site. Analysis of the
groundwater sample confirms that DRO concentrations are well below the project SLs.
The lateral extent of low-level TCE-contaminated soil remains UNDEFINED to the NORTH only,
but the vertical extent of contamination appears to be limited to the upper 25 feet of soil.
TCE was detected above the SL at a depth of 25 feet bgs and was below the detection limit in
the soil samples collected below.
TCE does not appear to have impacted groundwater. Analytical results for VOCs in groundwater were below the detection limit.
While petroleum-contaminated soil at AT035 has been adequately characterized laterally, no
additional vertical sampling will be possible because of the construction of the COF building.
Therefore, no further investigation is required, or possible. Because remaining DRO
concentrations in the subsurface soil are above ADEC Method Two cleanup levels, a risk-based
assessment is recommended to be conducted to evaluate what future remedial actions for the
petroleum-contaminated soil may be necessary.
Low-level TCE-contaminated soil at AT035 extends approximately 120 feet north of the COF
building and is vertically limited to a depth of approximately 25 feet bgs. The extensive area of low-level contamination implies that a point source release is not the cause of this contamination.
Because TCE concentrations remaining in the subsurface soil are above ADEC Method Two
cleanup levels, a risk-based assessment is recommended to evaluate what future remedial actions
may be necessary for the TCE-contaminated soil. No additional data are deemed necessary to
complete this assessment; therefore, no further investigations are required. |
Louis Howard |
| 4/8/2013 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Staff provided review comments on the Draft AT035 MEB complex PA/SI report.
Executive Summary
The text states” TCE was detected in soil north of the COF building site. The highest TCE concentration (1.51 mg/kg) was detected at a depth of 14 feet bgs. The source of the TCE contamination is unknown. Given the widespread low concentrations in soil, a possible source is historical use of a dust control compound that was contaminated with TCE.”
ADEC disagrees that the source of the TCE was the historic use as dust control since it was detected at fourteen feet below the ground surface & JBER has not made the case that the TCE was not spilled or released historically at the site. The highest level of TCE at the site was not collocated with DRO contamination in the same boring to support the dust suppressant theory.
TCE would not likely be used as a dust suppressant by itself & generally be comingled with used oil at the time of application. Additionally, the migration to GW cleanup level for TCE is 0.020 mg/kg which is 75 times lower than the TCE detected at 1.51 mg/kg. Finally, 1.51 mg/kg concentration is 2.6 times higher than the Outdoor Inhalation cleanup level for Under 40-inch Zone.
4.3 & 4.4
General comment
The text refers the reader to Appendix D for the laboratory reports. The appendix does not contain the complete laboratory data reports. Please submit the missing information to be included in Appendix D. Summary tables will not be accepted in lieu of the laboratory data reports.
Per the ADEC Technical Memorandum (March 2009) Environmental Laboratory Data & Quality Assurance Requirements:
The complete analytical lab report(s) SHALL be included as part of ALL submittals to ADEC for which environmental samples have been collected, analyzed & reported.
5th Paragraph
The text states: “TCE was detected above the SL of 0.02 mg/kg in all five soil samples collected from MW01 between 2.5 & 25 feet bgs. Concentrations in these five soil samples ranged from 0.859 mg/kg at 15 to 20 feet bgs to 0.42 mg/kg at 20 to 25 feet bgs.”
See site file for additional information.
|
Louis Howard |
| 4/11/2013 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
EPA (Sandra Halstead) provided comments on the draft PA/SI for AT035 MEB Complex.
Sec. 2-2
p. 2-2 The last paragraph in this section discusses the process to be developed if non-petroleum hydrocarbons are found at levels exceeding screening levels. The narrative describes the development of site specific risk assessments and CSMs, and suggests the data from the PA/SI will be used as the input to the risk assessment. The risk assessment would be developed in conjunction with a Remedial Investigation and not based on the very limited sampling done under a PA/SI.
Additionally, groundwater screening levels are based on EPA MCLs, and in the absence of a MCL for a compound, EPA RSL tap water values should be used. Please clarify if EPA tap water RSLs will be used if a MCL value does not exist.
p. ES-1, p. 2-3, p. 5-3 The narrative proposes a possible source of TCE at depths to 14 fbgs is due to dust control. Given that two sample location borings (COF13 and AT035-MW01) are within 25 ft of each other on a northern transect both exhibit TCE exceedances in soils at depth (up to 25 fbgs), it is highly unlikely dust control is a source. It is agreed the northern extent has not been delineated, and futher investigation is warranted
Sec. 3.6
p. 3-4 One MS/MSD sample is used, however there are two different preservatives used for analysis SW8260 for MeOH and SW8260-low level with sodium bisulfate. Please clarify which preservative was included in the Matrix Spike/ Matrix Spike Duplicate.
Field Notes
11.9.12
p. 32-35
and 11.14.12 p. 45-48 Appears to be some difficulty in drilling/establishing AT035-MW01 well casing due to ‘sand heaves’ at ~75 ft depth and pump/purge difficulties. The presence of heaving sands suggests the aquifer was under pressure, and samples obtained shortly after well development in this hydrologic situation are likely to not be representative of stable aquifer conditions. As this is the only groundwater monitoring well, and only one groundwater sample was taken, it is premature to determine no TCE contamination exists in GW. Future investigations may involve additional well development.
Appendix D
p. 6
and Table 4-1 Overall Assessment, 1. It is suggested Method SW8260B are available for samples with rejected SW8260B-Low level results. EPA will not accept SW8260 samples preserved in MeOH due to analysis difficulties in meeting CERCLA screening levels and cleanup standards. Please clarify the source of the data provided in Table 4-1. This may be best provided with an additional column referencing the method used or a footnote to the sample result.
|
Louis Howard |
| 4/22/2013 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Staff provided comments on the Draft AT035 – Maneuver Enhancement Brigade Complex, Company Operations Facility UST and Soil Removal Action Report.
Introduction
The text states: “Fieldwork and sampling were performed in accordance with the Draft Field Sampling Guidance (Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation [ADEC] 2010), Fort Richardson Post Wide Work Plan (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers [USACE] 2010), and FTR269C COF Building Site Underground Storage Tank Removal Work Plan Addendum (USACE 2011).
Future work plans, scoping documents, technical memoranda for work on JBER-Richardson should reference (to the extent possible) the Final Base-wide Uniform Federal Policy - Quality Assurance Project Plan (UFP-QAPP) for the United States Air Force Joint Elmendorf-Richardson, Alaska, March 2013. Significant organizational or project goal changes must be documented in a QAPP Amendment or Addendum requiring the approval of US EPA and ADEC prior to implementation.
To the extent possible, the Basewide UFP-QAPP shall be used for JBER-Elmendorf work plan development as well for petroleum and CERCLA sites
9.0 Conclusions and Recommendations
ADEC reviewed and approved, subject to this and other institutional controls, the cleanup as protective of human health, safety, welfare, and the environment at AT035 UST site. No further cleanup is necessary at this site. ADEC has determined, in accordance with 18 AAC 75.325 – 390 site cleanup rules, that cleanup has been performed to the maximum extent practicable even though residual diesel range organics contaminated soil exists on-site. Further cleanup was determined to be impracticable because the remaining contaminated soil is beneath the COF Building foundation.
ADEC will, as part of its approval, modify proposed cleanup techniques or require additional cleanup techniques for the site (following regulations applicable at that time) as ADEC determines to be necessary to protect human health, safety, and welfare, and the environment.
Pursuant to 18 AAC 75.325(i)(1) and (2), notification and ADEC approval is required prior to moving soil that is, or has been, subject to the cleanup rules found at 18 AAC 75.325-.370. At this site, in the future, if soil is disturbed or removed from the site it must be characterized and managed following regulations applicable at that time.
|
Louis Howard |
| 5/28/2013 |
Update or Other Action |
Draft Contaminated Soil Removal Report dated May 2013 received for review & comment.
The work described in this Removal Report was conducted under the 2011 FTR269 MEB Complex Company Operations Facility Work Plan Addendum (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers [USACE], Alaska District 2011) & the 2010 Fort Richardson Post Wide Work Plan (USACE 2010) for the USACE under contract number W911-KB-06-D-0006, Task Order 19. The work consisted of removal & treatment or disposal of nearly 3,800 cubic yards (cy) (5,700 tons) of soil contaminated with diesel-range organics (DRO) at Site AT035 – Maneuver Enhancement Brigade (MEB) Company Operations Facility (COF) building. At the time of the removal action, construction of the COF building (FTR269) had not yet begun; this removal action was contracted in order for construction of the building to proceed without encountering contaminated soil.
The removal action sought to remove all DRO-contaminated soil with concentrations greater than the ADEC Method Two migration to GW cleanup level for the under 40-inch zone of 250 milligram per kilogram (mg/kg) (ADEC 2012) that would be encountered during the COF building construction activities. This consisted of the soil within the proposed building footprint to a depth of 9 feet below the existing grade. Soil with DRO concentrations exceeding 250 mg/kg at 9 feet below ground surface (bgs) & greater was left in place. Soil at that depth would not be encountered during building construction. In addition to the DRO contamination trichloroethylene (TCE) contaminated soil with concentrations greater than the ADEC Method Two migration to GW cleanup level of 0.02 mg/kg was identified in the gravel parking area to the north of the proposed excavation area.
Although TCE contamination was not expected to be encountered within the proposed excavation area, all samples were also submitted for TCE analysis. Soil with TCE concentrations greater than the ADEC cleanup level was only encountered in one floor sample (EF107) collected in the northern portion of the excavation nearest to the previously identified TCE contamination.
Floor samples characterized the extent of contamination remaining at the site. Of 43 primary analytical samples, 23 exceeded the DRO cleanup level of 250 mg/kg with concentrations ranging from 260 to 9,230 mg/kg. In addition, one sample location (EF107) contained trichloroethylene (TCE) at 0.0326 mg/kg, exceeding the ADEC migration to GW cleanup level of 0.02 mg/kg.
TCE contamination has been encountered as high as 1.51 mg/kg at a depth of 14 feet bgs in soil boring COF13, which exceeds the Method Two Outdoor Inhalation cleanup level of 0.57 mg/kg.
The COF building is located within 30 feet of petroleum contamination & within 100 feet of TCE contamination. Although utilities do run through this area (storm drain & water for fire hydrants), these are not connected to the building. Soil boring COF13 (TCE at 1.51 mg/kg) is approximately 90 feet north of the COF building.
See site file for additional information. |
Louis Howard |
| 6/13/2013 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
ADEC has received the final version of the AT035 MEB Complex Company Operations Facility on June 10, 2013. ADEC has reviewed the final document and has no further comments on it. The document is approved. |
Louis Howard |
| 2/5/2014 |
Update or Other Action |
Staff received the draft Focused SI Work Plan for review and comment.
This site-specific Work Plan follows the Uniform Federal Policy-Quality Assurance Project Plan
(UFP-QAPP) format, and the work will be performed under the Joint Base Elmendorf-
Richardson, Basewide Uniform Federal Policy-Quality Assurance Project Plan (Basewide
UFP-QAPP) (USAF, 2013a). The purpose of this Work Plan is to further characterize the nature
and extent of trichloroethene (TCE) contamination at AT035, evaluate potential risks to human
health and the environment within the proper regulatory framework, and determine whether
further action is necessary to advance the site toward site closure. The risk evaluation will be
performed within the framework of the ADEC site cleanup process (Title 18 Alaska
Administrative Code Chapter 75 [18 AAC 75] Sections 325 to 390, and 18 AAC 78 Section 600)
(ADEC, 2012a; ADEC, 2012b).
Part 1 – A field portable gas chromatograph (GC) with a photoionization detector (PID)
(FROG-4000™ by Defiant Technologies, Inc [User’s Manual provided in Appendix B]) will
be used to screen subsurface soil gas for TCE within the area north of the COF and the COF
parking lot in a grid-type pattern. Temporary vapor probes will be installed to a depth
between 5 and 7 feet bgs. Each vapor probe will be purged and a soil gas sample will be
collected and analyzed for a TCE concentration using the GC/PID.
Part 2 – Information obtained from the Part 1 investigation will be evaluated to determine
whether point sources of TCE can be identified in the subsurface soil within the area north of
the COF and the COF parking lot. A drill rig will be used to collect soil samples to assess
vertical TCE concentrations in soil at targeted locations indicated by soil gas results from
Part 1. The soil samples will be screened using the GC/PID. Based on soil screening results,
three samples with the highest TCE screening concentrations and one soil sample with a TCE
concentration below the GC/PID’s detection limit from each investigation area will be
submitted for laboratory analysis of TCE to verify the accuracy of the soil screening method. |
Louis Howard |
| 2/12/2014 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Staff provided comments on the draft PA/SI report.
Focused SI – Part I
Initial Grid Sampling for TCE
The text states: “Leak detection of the soil gas points will not be conducted as specified in SOP-05c, as these points are only being used to verify the presence/absence of TCE contaminated soil.”
Please state in the text whether or not the areas where the initial grid sampling for TCE will be conducted is paved with asphalt or bare ground.
NOTE: these specific comments for SOP 5-c are applicable on JBER-E & JBER-R when collecting soil gas samples in accordance with the SOP.
SOP-5c Collection of Soil Gas Samples from Temporary &
Permanent Probes Using Canisters
2.5.2 Soil Permeability
Probes should be installed at least five feet below ground surface (AT035 proposes five to seven feet-deeper is better) to inhibit ambient air intrusion. ADEC recommends probes will need to be installed right above the source area to evaluate “worst case scenario”. ADEC recommends probes also contain a cement or bentonite seal at surface & have a permeable layer (e.g. silica sand) placed in the base of the hole to encourage air movement. Well annulus should also be sealed with bentonite or other impermeable mixture.
3.0 Materials
3.4
The text states: “The enclosure may be provided by the driller or can be constructed from polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipe. The helium detector can be rented from an equipment rental company.”
Sample manifold tubing should be Teflon® & replaced after each sample to ensure no cross contamination occurs.
5.2 System Purge & Helium Leak Check
5.2.3
The text states: “It is not necessary to verify that the helium concentration is 100%, as this may damage the detector.”
The levels of helium in the leak check enclosure should be relatively stable & at least ten percent helium. Measurement of helium in container should occur right before leak test & the levels need to be determined by detector.
5.2.8
The text states: “5.2.8 Connect the helium detector to the enclosure exhaust to confirm that helium is present in the enclosure during purging. It is optional to measure the helium concentration within the enclosure (see Step 5.2.12).”
It will not be optional to measure the presence or absence of helium in the enclosure. Please clarify how it will be possible for JBER to confirm less than 10% in the sample without knowing this information.
5.2.12
The text states: “Either: 1) calculate what 1 percent of the helium concentration was in the enclosure from the measured concentration in Step 7.2.6; or 2) use a limit of 0.1 percent (1,000 ppmv) which allows for a 10-times safety margin.”
It is unclear where step 7.2.6 is within the SOP. It is possible that JBER meant step 5.2.3. Please clarify.
5.2.14
Add text: “If soil oxygen data is collected using a handheld meter, the meter will be calibrated on a daily basis & laboratory confirmation samples will be collected at about 10% of the soil gas sampling locations.”
Executive Summary
The text states: “…during Part 1, two soil borings will be advanced & sampled to a total depth of 45 feet bgs at lateral locations exhibiting the highest soil gas concentrations for TCE identified during Part 1. Based on soil screening results, three samples with the highest TCE screening concentrations & one soil sample with a TCE concentration below the GC/PID’s detection limit from each investigation area will be submitted for laboratory analysis of TCE to verify the accuracy of the soil screening method.”
See site file for additional information.
|
Louis Howard |
| 3/4/2014 |
Update or Other Action |
Department of the Air Force Memo for distribution, AFCEC/OLAF Subj: Incorporation of AT035 - MEB Complex COF into the JBER-Richardson FFA.
Site-specific information has identified trichloroethene (TCE) in soil at A T035 - Maneuver Enhancement Brigade (MEB) Complex, Company Operations Facility (COF) located on Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson (JBER)-Richardson (JBER-R), the former Fort Richardson Army Post, Alaska. A T035 includes the COF building site and COF parking area, which were recently constructed on Fifth Street north of D Street.
Based on the presence of a CERCLA-regulated contaminant in soil, A T035 - MEB Complex COF will be incorporated into the JBER-R Federal Facility Agreement (FF A) as a new site subject to the stipulations listed in the FF A. Attached for your review and acceptance is the proposed document schedule for A T035 - MEB Complex COF.
ATOJS - MEBCo mp1ex COFDo cumen t Sc bed u Ie :
Document Type, Document, Date Due for Agency Review
Primary Draft PSE 2 Report 31 Dec 2014
Draft Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS)Primary Management Plan 30 Sep 2015
Primary Draft RI/FS, including Baseline Risk Assessment 30 Jun 2017
Secondary Proposed Plan 30 Sep 2017
Primary Draft Record of Decision 31 Dec 2017
Upon approval, this document schedule will be attached to the current FFA (effective 5 Dec 1994). The document schedule may be updated or modified to include additional primary or secondary documents as necessary to meet FF A requirements. Changes will require approval of FF A Project Managers.
Signature below indicates concurrence with incorporation of A T035 - MEB Complex OF into the JBER-R FF A and the document schedule provided above:
Gary Fink FFA Project Mgr JBER-R, Alaska USAF
Sandra Halstead, FFA Project Mgr JBER-R Alaska USEPA
Louis Howard, FFA Project Mgr JBER-R Alaska ADEC |
Louis Howard |
| 5/2/2014 |
Update or Other Action |
MEB COF Parking Area PCB TCRA & Investigation Report received.
At the conclusion of the field activities, 38.7 tons of PCB-contaminated TSCA hazardous soil & 1,009.6 tons of PCB-contaminated TSCA nonhazardous soil were excavated & disposed of. PCB- & TCE-contaminated soil still exists greater than the ADEC Method Two cleanup levels of 1 mg/kg & 0.020 mg/kg, respectively. PCB-contaminated soil remains beneath the installed sidewalk & in the grassy areas surrounding the former Building 789; specifically the west, south, & east sides. The estimated extent of PCB contamination is based on the sample results from the excavation area, test pits, soil borings, & surface samples, as well as observations made during excavation activities.
PCB contamination appears to be limited to the top 3 to 4’ of soil. In addition, PCB-contaminated concrete was identified in the exterior footer of the building at one sample location. The extent of PCB contamination in concrete has not been determined at this time. TCE-contaminated soil remains in the former gravel parking area, & under & immediately adjacent to former Building 789 (Figure 5-2). The lateral & vertical extent of the TCE-contaminated soil has not been fully delineated. The footers & slab from former Building 789 remain onsite, although the aboveground portions of the building were demolished & removed from the site.
The majority of the remaining PCB-contaminated soil & building footers/slab are currently surrounded by a fence. Some soil contamination identified near the installed sidewalk is located outside of the fenced area. Although the removal of all PCB-contamination greater than 1 mg/kg was not completed, the risk to human health was mitigated by modifying the construction plans. This modification allowed the contaminated soil & concrete to remain in place during construction activities, thereby eliminating the potential for worker exposure.
It is recommended that JBER conduct a remedial investigation of the PCB- & TCE-contaminated soil, as well as verify that no additional contamination (petroleum, oil, & lubricants; pesticides; etc.) are present at the site. This investigation should include the portion of the AT035 site located on the east side of Fifth Street in the vicinity of the COF building (Building 788) where petroleum, oil, & lubricant- & TCE-contaminated soil was also detected during the 2010 PSE.
Removal of additional contaminated soil & concrete may be necessary to meet human health risk goals & will be addressed by the investigation. Additionally, continued investigation of the TCE contamination is recommended to further refine the extent & to determine if GW contamination has occurred. Investigation & potential removal activities at this site will be coordinated with the appropriate regulatory authorities.
This site has been added to JBER’s geodatabase & the ADEC contaminated sites database, & institutional controls have been added to the site to prevent the inadvertent excavation of contaminated soil. Institutional controls currently include excavation clearance requests & should also include placing a Notice of Land Use Controls in JBER’s General Plan & Land Use Controls Management Plan |
Louis Howard |
| 6/9/2014 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Staff provided comments on the TCRA and investigation report.
). ADEC concurs with the recommendations to conduct a remedial investigation of the PCB, TCE contaminated soil as well as to verify that no additional contamination exists at the site. ADEC, EPA and the Air Force have signed (March 2014) a memorandum to add the AT035 – MEB Complex COF to the JBER-R Federal Facility Agreement (FFA) as a new site subject to the stipulations in the FFA. ADEC has no additional comments on the document, pending incorporation of any EPA comments, the document may be finalized. |
Louis Howard |
| 4/14/2015 |
Update or Other Action |
Draft PSE 2 site evaluation received for review & comment. Deviations from the Work Plan-Because of elevated PID readings in boring AT035-SB06, soil samples from the upper 25’ of that boring were also analyzed for DRO & RRO.
A sample of perched GW from a thin lens was collected from the drill casing using a bailer during installation of AT035-SB10/MW02. This sample was submitted for analysis of VOCs; however, the sample arrived at the lab at a temperature above holding criteria. The lab proceeded to analyze the sample, but the results were later either qualified (if an analyte was detected) or rejected.
Conclusions-Carbon tetrachloride, chloroform, hexachlorobutadiene, methylene chloride, TCE, PCBs, & DRO are present in soil above project screening levels. [NOTE: Most hexachlorobutadiene used commercially in the United States is imported from Germany. It is mainly used to make rubber compounds. It is also used as a solvent, and to make lubricants, in gyroscopes, as a heat transfer liquid, and as a hydraulic fluid.]
The extent of TCE-contaminated soil north of Building 788 is defined. The vertical extent of DRO-contaminated soil beneath Building 788 is undefined. The lateral extent of TCE-contaminated soil at the new parking lot is undefined; however, the vertical extent is defined.
Carbon tetrachloride, chloroform, methylene chloride & hexachlorobutadiene in soil north of Building 788 & within the new parking lot exhibit no discernible patterns or relationships either horizontally or vertically.
At the new parking lot, the lateral & vertical extent of PCB-contaminated soil is undefined.
Carbon tetrachloride was detected in GW above the project screening level. However, based on available historical data from monitoring wells at adjacent sites, the carbon tetrachloride appears to be originating from an unknown, upgradient source.
Potentially complete current exposure pathways include incidental ingestion, dermal contact, outdoor inhalation, & indoor air. GW ingestion is considered potentially complete for future exposure scenarios.
Recommendations-Conduct a remedial investigation to (1) delineate the nature & extent of VOCs in soil, GW, & soil gas/indoor air, & PCB contamination remaining in soil & concrete & (2) assess the associated risks from these contaminants & remaining DRO-contaminated soil.
See site file for additional information. |
Louis Howard |
| 4/15/2015 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) has received the Draft PSE 2 Site Evaluation for AT035, JBER-Richardson dated April 2015 for review and comment on February 5, 2015. The document may be finalized, pending any comments from EPA. ADEC concurs the recommendations to conduct a remedial investigation to (1) delineate the nature and extent of VOCs in soil, groundwater, and soil gas/indoor air, and PCB contamination remaining in soil and concrete and (2) assess the associated risks from these contaminants and remaining DRO-contaminated soil. The remedial investigation shall be developed and implemented in accordance with CERCLA and the 1994 Fort Richardson Federal Facility Agreement.
|
Louis Howard |
| 6/6/2016 |
Update or Other Action |
FFA agreement schedule of deliverables for primary/secondary documents shows the draft Management Plan is due to ADEC and EPA in Apr 2017. |
Louis Howard |
| 9/16/2016 |
Update or Other Action |
Supplemental work plan received for review to address the groundwater sampling, institutional controls (IC) inspection, and landfill cap inspection activities associated with the 2016 Long Term Monitoring (LTM) at the Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson (JBER), Sites PL081, CG551, ST408, CG530, SO510, SS522, SO507, SS418, TS003, CG543, CG529, TU107, ST048, CG509, SO508, SO549, AT035, AT029, SS019, and DP009.
As a requirement of the 2016 Environmental Long Term Monitoring contract, the following work shall be performed at JBER Site AT035:
? Perform IC inspection |
Louis Howard |
| 3/22/2017 |
Update or Other Action |
2016 Draft Report for Remedial Action Operation and Land Use/Institutional Control at JBER received for review and comment.
The USAF AT035 Preliminary Source Evaluation 2 Report (2015) indicates that additional data
need to be collected at AT035 to evaluate and characterize the vertical and horizontal extent of
TCE contamination (PCB-contaminated soil was not addressed as part of the source evaluation), to evaluate groundwater quality, and to determine if the site poses acceptable risk which may result in a recommendation of a no further action decision, or if the site poses an unacceptable risk which may result in a recommendation for a remedial investigation or an interim remedial action.
The inspection of Site AT035 revealed that a building has been constructed over the former
UST site and at the parking area there is a fenced off area where a fuel odor was observed. The
monitoring wells that were located at this site were observed to be in good condition. A large
pile of construction material and debris was observed on the site and no erosion was observed
along the access roads. Photographs 1 through 4 in Photograph Log A13 present the general
condition of Site AT035.
See site file for additional information. |
Louis Howard |
| 5/9/2017 |
Update or Other Action |
RI/FS Management Plan received for review and comment.
The overarching project objective is to complete a RI/FS at AT035 to provide the project team
with the information necessary to determine whether remedial action is necessary to protect
human health and the environment. The RI will be conducted to (1) delineate the nature and
extent of contaminants (primarily PCBs) in soil, (2) delineate the nature and extent of
contaminants (primarily carbon tetrachloride and chloroform) in groundwater, (3) assess whether
VOCs in soil and groundwater are or potentially can impact indoor air through the VI pathway,
and (4) evaluate whether soil/groundwater/indoor air contamination presents unacceptable risks
to human health and the environment.
See site file for additional information. |
Louis Howard |
| 6/19/2017 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Staff provided comments on the RI/FS Mgt. Plan.
Main comments were regarding discrete soil samples vs. composite soil samples - especially for volatile organics and GRO/DRO analysis unless using incremental sampling methodology and that the maximum detected concentration in groundwater shall be used as the exposure point concentration not the 95% UCL. Finally, soil data is not recommended for vapor intrusion pathway because of the uncertainty in estimating soil gas partitioning. Only the Fort Richardson Background Data Analysis Report may be used to determine background concentrations for metals and not the Elmendorf study.
See site file for additional information. |
Louis Howard |
| 8/9/2017 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Staff reviewed the responses to its comments on the AT035 RI/FS Mgt. Plan and approves the responses for incorporation into the final version pending resolution of EPA comments. |
Louis Howard |
| 8/24/2017 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
ADEC has reviewed the responses to ADEC's comments on the draft RI/FS Management Plan (a primary document as stated in paragraph 20.5 Part XX Consultation with U.S. EPA and ADEC- Fort Richardson FFA 1994). The responses to comments are approved and the redline version of the document is approved and may be finalized, pending resolution of any EPA comments or concerns on the document and RTCs. |
Louis Howard |
| 8/24/2017 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Staff commented on the Draft Supplemental Work Plan for JBER-E and JBER-R sites [PL081 N. Jet Pipeline, CG551 Bldg. 4314, ST408 Bldg. 9569, CG530 ST526, SO510 Bldg. 9480, SS522 Hardstand #39, SO507, Bldg. 9669, SS418, ST532, TS003 Skeet Range, CG543 Bldg. 18877, CG529 ST529, ST048 Bldg. 11-490, CG509 Bldg. 4347, SO508 ST508, SO549 Bldg. 4913, AT035 MEB Complex, AT029 Ruff Road FTA, SS019 Bldg. 755, DP009 Bldg. 986 POL Lab, LF002, LF002 OU6 Disposal Site, CG536 ST510, CG539 Bldg. 15380, CG702 Bldg. 31562, SO544 Bldg. 10334, SO547 Bldg. 4913, CG704 Southern Plume, CG527 ST538, SO501 ST427, TU064 Bldg. 740, SS013 MP Barracks, SS014, SS041 Roosevelt Road Transmitter Site, TU107, ST048] which include this one.
ADEC concurs with the scope of work for the current work outlined in this section. Note: this site has a RI/FS management plan (draft-final stage ) to investigate the nature and extent of contamination in soil, groundwater and vapor intrusion pathway,. |
Louis Howard |
| 11/7/2017 |
Update or Other Action |
Letter report received for CY2016 [January 1, 2016 - December 31, 2016] Annual Land Use Control (LUC) and Institutional Control (IC) Monitoring at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson (JBER). This letter serves as the annual monitoring report on the status of LUCs/ICs in place on JBER-Elmendorf (JBER-E) and JBER-Richardson (JBER-R). The Air Force ensures compliance with LU Cs by conducting periodic monitoring and site inspections. Formal LUC/IC inspections occur annually on JBER during late spring through early fall and are typically conducted by contract. A total of 55 sites were formally inspected. Random site inspections are also conducted throughout the year by JBER Restoration staff.
Discrepancies: AT35NWZ missing, parking lot in place smells of diesel at former site. AT035-
MWl missing. AP4592, not observed.
See site file for additional information. |
Louis Howard |
| 12/3/2019 |
Update or Other Action |
December 3, 2019 FFA Schedule revision signed by USAF, EPA and ADEC includes source area TU117.
Draft FS Report Draft to agencies: April 28, 2021
Draft Proposed Plan* Draft to agencies: June 15, 2022
Draft Record of Decision* Draft to agencies: March 15, 2023.
* AT035, SS013, and TUI 17 will be on one PP and ROD as the 3 sites are physically contiguous.
This document will be attached to the current FFA (effective 5 Dec 1994). The document schedule may be updated or modified to include additional primary or secondary documents as necessary to meet FF A requirements. Changes will require approval of [all three] FFA Project Managers. |
Louis Howard |
| 4/12/2021 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
DEC submitted comments on Draft JBER Basewide UFP-QAPP dated February 2021. |
William Schmaltz |
| 5/19/2021 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
DEC Reviewed and approved of Basewide Uniform Federal Policy - Quality Assurance Project Plan. QAPP summarizes general activities for a 5 year period on JBER. |
William Schmaltz |
| 5/28/2021 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
DEC Approved of Final LTM and LUC Inspection Work Plan for select CERCLA sites dated May 2021. |
William Schmaltz |
| 7/2/2021 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
DEC provided comments on Remedial Investigation Report AT035 Maneuver Enhancement Brigade (MEB) Complex dated April 2021. Report summarized soil, groundwater, and air sampling at the site. Major concerns/data gaps included PCB delineation in soil, VOC detections in groundwater, and a complete VI pathway for Building 641. |
William Schmaltz |
| 8/9/2021 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
DEC staff reviewed and provided comments on Draft 2020 Land Use Control report for Select CERCLA sites dated June 2021. Report summarized LUC inspections performed in December 2020. Most sites were covered in snow and a full inspection could not be performed until spring 2021. DEC requested that the spring 2021 inspections are included in the 2020 report or as a separate cover because they are a continuation of the 2020 inspections and separate of the 2021 inspections. |
William Schmaltz |
| 1/26/2022 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
DEC Provided comments on Draft RI Report summarizing site characterization activities at AT035. |
William Schmaltz |
| 7/14/2022 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
DEC provided second round of comments on Draft RI Report. |
William Schmaltz |
| 9/27/2022 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
DEC had a meeting with USAF to discuss RI Report RTCs. Data gaps for the RI report include VI and PCB soil delineation. DEC provided comments to 3rd round of USAF RTC review. |
William Schmaltz |
| 4/20/2023 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
DEC reviewed and provided comments for the 2021 Annual Remedial Action-Operations and Long-Term Management Report for Select CERCLA Sites, Draft, dated December 2023. The report describes the site inspections, maintenance activities, and groundwater monitoring, at multiple sites located on Joint Base Elmendorf- Richardson (JBER), Anchorage, Alaska. Site inspections and sampling were recommended to continue for all applicable sites to ensure that conditions remain protective of human health and the environment. |
Ginna Quesada |
