| Action Date |
Action |
Description |
DEC Staff |
| 2/27/2009 |
Update or Other Action |
The USAED conducted a geotechnical investigation in February 2009 to identify
potential surface and subsurface concerns. As part of this geotechnical investigation 18 soil
borings were advanced across the site. One of these soil borings (AP-5426) had a fuel odor
and a photoionization detector (PID) reading of 31 parts per million (ppm). |
Louis Howard |
| 4/19/2010 |
Update or Other Action |
Technical Memorandum FTR255 Airborne Training Facility RI received.
On 6 November 2009 Jacobs and GeoTek Alaska, Inc. (GeoTek) mobilized to the site to
collect soil samples via direct-push soil boring. The details of this investigation are provided
below.
A total of nine soil borings were advanced by GeoTek during this field effort. Five of the soil
borings were located in the vicinity of the geotechnical soil boring (AP-5426) that first
identified the suspected fuel contamination. The other four soil borings were located at the
comers of the proposed FTR255 Training Facility building, which were completed to insure
contamination would not be encountered during the building construction. The drilling effort
was completed by Geotek Alaska using a Geoprobe® 6620 direct-push drill rig.
One soil sample was collected from each of the soil boring locations for a total of nine primary and one field duplicate sample. Soil boring locations are shown in Figure 2. All soil borings at the site were advanced to a depth of 5 feet below ground surface (bgs), which was determined based on the proposed construction activities at the site.
Nine primary samples and one field duplicate were collected from the nine soil borings. Soil
samples were submitted to the primary laboratory (SGS of Anchorage, Alaska) initially for
DRO analysis only, with the remaining analyses on hold pending the DRO results. However,
the laboratory analyzed all ofthe samples for DRO as well as RRO (in error) during the initial
analysis. All soil analytical results were compared to the ADEC Method Two migration-to groundwater cleanup levels (Under 40-inch Zone) and soil cleanup levels (ADEC 2009).
Sample 09ATF5426A-SO, collected adjacent to AP-5426, exceeded the ADEC cleanup level
for DRO (250 mgikg) at 5,890 mgikg, therefore requiring additional analyses. These analyses
included GRO by AKIOI, RRO by AKI03, VOCs by SW8260B, and SVOCs by SW8270D.
In the area of the geotechnical boring AP-5426, the estimated volume of contaminated soil
(soil with DRO concentrations exceeding 250 mg/kg) is 525 cubic yards. This estimate is
based on the contaminated area extending in a 3D-foot radius around the center of soil boring
AP-5426 to a depth of 5 feet bgs. Contamination at the site appears to be limited to diesel
fuel, as all other analyte results were less than the ADEC Method Two cleanup levels. No
evidence of contamination was identified in the proposed building footprint area.
This investigation was limited to the area surrounding the geotechnical boring AP-5426 and
the proposed building footprint area. It is possible additional contamination exists at the site
that was not encountered during this investigation or the earlier geotechnical investigation.
All results of these additional analyses were less than their respective ADEC migration-to groundwater cleanup levels. The remaining eight DRO results (and one field duplicate result)
collected from the boring locations surrounding AP-5426 and the proposed building footprint
ranged from nondetect to 81.5 mg/kg. |
Louis Howard |
| 4/20/2010 |
Update or Other Action |
Draft WORK PLAN, SAMPLING & ANALYSIS PLAN, & TRANSPORTATION & DISPOSAL PLAN FOR SOIL EXCAVATION, ASSESSMENT, & TREATMENT FTR255 SITE FORT RICHARDSON, ALASKA PURCHASE ORDER NO. W911KB-05-P-0112 BSI PROJECT NO. 2005044 & laboratory data received.
Bethel Services, Inc. (BSI) will excavate, transport & deliver for treatment to an ADEC-approved facility an estimated volume of impacted soil up to 525 cy (calculated assuming a impacted area extending in a 30-foot radius surrounding Soil Boring AP-5426 & extending a maximum of 5 feet in depth). BSI will also perform field screening & collect soil samples for laboratory analysis.
Prior to commencement of excavation activities, BSI will dig tests pits & perform field screening with a PID to roughly delineate the extent of contamination. Impacted in-situ soils will be excavated using an excavator & either placed directly into an end dump for delivery to Alaska Soil Recycling (ASR) or temporarily stockpiled. An ADEC qualified person will direct the excavation activities, & collect all confirmation samples. A PID will be used to field screen soils for excavation guidance & for determining sample locations.
An action level of 20 ppm will be used for determining if soil is considered "clean" or "impacted". The excavated soil will be field screened with the PID at a rate of at least one field-screening sample per each 10 cy of excavated soil. Clean overburden (as determined by PID readings <20 ppm), if present, will be stockpiled on poly liner & used as backfill upon project completion, if confined clean by sample analyses. Sampling is discussed in further detail in the following section. Personnel will not be allowed to enter the excavation if the depth exceeds 4 feet. Based on the boring data described above, BSI assumes that the excavation will not exceed about 5 feet in depth.
The BSI Project Manager will contact the USACE Project Manager if the volume of impacted soil removed from the excavation approaches 500 cy. BSI will, to the extent practicable, provide an estimate &/or assessment of the probable volume of impacted soil potentially remaining at the site.
Once the impacted soil is removed, soil samples will be collected from the excavation bottom & sidewalls. Sample locations & excavation limits will be delineated using swing ties to surrounding boring locations that have been surveyed with a GPS. Upon completion of surveying & sampling tasks, the excavation will be backfilled with approved fill material provided by Alaska Sand & Gravel. Backfill will be placed in 8- inch loose lifts & compacted to 90%. Compaction will be verified with compaction testing.
The in-situ soils will be excavated using an excavator & will be screened using a PID. Soils that show any detection in the PID above 20 ppm will be placed immediately into an end dump. The excavation will be directed & all confirmation samples collected by an ADEC qualified person. PID headspace field screening procedures will be performed in accordance with ADEC guidance documents. Soil samples will be collected from freshly uncovered soil (within one hour) or from at least 12-inches below the soil surface.
Confirmation soil samples will be collected from the footprint of the excavation at the rate of 2 for the first 250 sq. ft. & 1 from every subsequent 250 sq. ft. of excavation floor following the AD EC Guidance. A grid will be established over the floor of the excavation with PID samples collected from each cell (appropriate grid size will be determined by sampler in field). Analytical samples will be collected from the highest PID sample locations from the excavation floor. Additionally, one sidewall sample will be collected from each of the excavation walls (4 total) from locations having the highest PID readings.
If the excavation is deeper than 4 feet, all samples will be collected from the excavator bucket. Samples will be collected from the potentially clean soil stockpile to document the soil is suitable for backfill. In general, five field headspace screening samples will be collected from the first 50 cubic yards of stockpiled soil a minimum of 18 inches below the surface. Soil samples for analytical testing will be collected from the highest field screening locations at a frequency of two soil samples for the first 50 cubic yards & one sample for each subsequent 50 cubic yards.
Samples will be analyzed for DRO & RRO by Alaska Methods (AK) 102 & 103, GRO by Method AK 101 , & BTEX by SW8021. Samples will be analyzed by SGS Environmental Services (NELAP & ADEC certified) & will be considered clean if the results do not exceed the ADEC Method Two Cleanup Levels. |
Louis Howard |
| 4/23/2010 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Review comments on the Work Plan for FTR-255 site.
1) The Work Plan needs to incorporate, either directly or by reference, the QA/QC requirements listed Tables 3 (Example of Field Quality Control Summary) and 4 (Minimum Field QC Sample Requirements) of the UST Procedures Manual.
2) The contractor must analyze a minimum of one confirmation soil sample for PAHs. The analysis should be conducted on sample(s) that exhibits the highest PID level during the screening process to determine where to collect the confirmation samples.
3) Work Plan must reference that the ADEC Laboratory Data Review Checklist will be completed for submission of the analytical data.
|
Louis Howard |
| 4/23/2010 |
Update or Other Action |
Letter report: Diesel Fuel Contaminated Soil Excavation, Assessment, and Treatment, FTR 255 Site, Fort Richardson, Alaska. This letter report summarizes the diesel fuel contaminated soil excavation, assessment, treatment, and confirmation soil sampling performed for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) by Bethel Services, Inc. (BSI) in April - May 2010. The work was performed in accordance with the Statement of Work for Modification P00010 dated March 29, 2010, and the Work plan, Sampling & Analysis Plan, and Transportation & Disposal Plan for Soil Excavation, Assessment, and Treatment FTR 255 Site, Ft. Richardson, Alaska prepared by BSI for the Biathalon Range Base Contract No. W911KB-05-P-0112. The field screening, sampling, and preparation of this report were performed by a "qualified person" as per 18 AAC 18 AAC 75.335 (c)(1).
Following the receipt of a dig permit (a letter to transport was approved on 4/26/2010), pre-excavation activities at the FTR 255 site on Fort Richardson commenced on April 23, 2010 (Figure 1). Pre-excavation activities included deforestation of the remaining trees in the area planned for excavation, as well as, excavate test pits to determine the extent of previously discovered petroleum contamination. Trees were removed with the use of a chainsaw and a John Deere C80 excavator. All stumps were removed from the planned excavation area with the use of the excavator. Potentially contaminated soil in the root structure of the stumps was removed within the excavation area by dropping the stumps repeatedly with the excavator until visible soil was removed. The removed trees and stumps were placed in a location north of the excavation area.
Test pits were excavated in eight discrete locations at various distances to the north, south, east, and west from the Jacobs Engineering Group boring AP-5426 to provide a preliminary extent for the contaminated soil excavation. Field screening samples for headspace analysis with a MiniRAE 2000 photoionization detector (PID) were collected from one foot vertical intervals for each test pit to a depth of seven feet below ground surface (bgs). Field screening information and PID results indicated contamination was present in an approximate 10-foot radius along the ground surface to the west, south, and east of Jacobs boring AP-5426. Based on field screening samples, the extent of contamination in the north direction was approximately 30 to 35 feet linear feet measured on the ground surface from the Jacobs boring AP-5426 in that direction.
Excavation of the contaminated soil was performed from April 26, 2010 through April 30, 2010.
The excavation was started with a John Deere 80C excavator and then completed with a John Deere 200D Excavator due to extended excavation depths beyond the reach of the 80C excavator. Excavation began at the northern extent of the excavation boundary and continued in a southerly direction throughout the duration of the excavation. A letter of transport, signed on April 23, 2010, for the excavated material was not received until the afternoon of April 26, 2010; therefore, approximately 25-30 yds3 of excavated soil were placed in a temporary stockpile to the west of the excavation area.
The temporary stockpile liner was constructed of geotextile fabric overlain by a 20 mil polyethylene. Twelve-inch-diameter logs were incorporated into the sides of the liner to create a containment berm around the stockpiled soil. Three excavation samples were collected for headspace analysis with the PID. An odor of petroleum was detected and noted upon collection of the headspace analysis sample. The lowest headspace sample exhibited a PID reading of 28.1 ppm (excavation sample #3) and the highest recorded value was 88.0 ppm (excavation sample #2). These values were above the 20 ppm or higher criteria established for the site. The excavation soils were loaded into the first three truck loads on the following morning, 4/27/2010, and delivered to Alaska Soil Recycling (ASR) for thermal treatment and disposal.
A total of 14 analytical confirmation soil samples were collected from the freshly exposed soil at the excavation limits with two duplicate samples (10FTREX-SL-3 and 10FTREX-SL-13) being collected from the location of Samples 10FTREX-SL-2 and 10FTREX-SL-12, respectively. No matrix spike, or matrix spike duplicate samples were collected.
Soil sample 10FTREX-SL-5 had a result of 1,270 mg/kg for DRO and soil sample 10FTREX-SL-6 had a result of 3,790 mg for DRO. The ADEC Table B cleanup level for DRO is 250 mg/kg. There were detections for GRO, DRO, RRO, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, and Xylene in nine of the 14 soil samples collected for analysis. The detections were at quantities below the ADEC Table B cleanup levels, excluding the two soil samples with the DRO results previously mentioned. |
Louis Howard |
| 8/10/2010 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Staff reviewed the draft letter report for FTR255.
The text states: “The field screening, sampling, and preparation of this report were performed by a "qualified person" as per 18 AAC 18 AAC 75.335 (c)(1).”
ADEC requests the Army identify who the “qualified person ” that is being referred to in the text preparing the report. Please note that a “qualified person” shall prepare and sign the report submitted to ADEC. It is unclear whether or not Mr. John Spielman-Project Manager is the “qualified person” that performed or directly supervised the field screening, sampling, or prepared the report.
Work Performed
The text states: “Excavation continued until April 30, 2010, with headspace screening soil samples collected from approximately every 10 yds3 of contaminated soil removed from the sidewalls and the bottom of the excavation to ensure that non-impacted soil was not transported to ASR.”
ADEC requests the Army provide clarification on how “non-impacted” soil was definitively determined to be below cleanup levels since ADEC does not allow for headspace or any field screening results to substitute for laboratory analysis.
The text states: “During collection of the confirmation soil samples for the excavation bottom and sidewalls, one foot of soil was removed from the excavation bottom to expose a fresh surface for collecting three PID screening samples.” ADEC requests clarification on the disposition and analysis of the one foot of soil removed from the excavation.
Analytical Results
The text states: “A total of 14 analytical confirmation soil samples were collected from the freshly exposed soil at the excavation limits with two duplicate samples (10FTREX-SL-3 and 10FTREX-SL-13) being collected from the location of Samples 10FTREX-SL-2 and 10FTREX-SL-12, respectively (Figure 3).”
ADEC requests the Army clarify the text to state that there were six primary soil samples and one field duplicate soil sample collected from the excavation bottom and for the excavation sidewalls (12 primary total and 2 field duplicates).
ADEC requires the Army to properly document all field readings, sample locations, and field observations in a field record or log book. See ADEC’s Site Characterization Work Plan and Reporting Guidance for Investigation of Contaminated Sites (September 23, 2009 version 1.1) at http://www.dec.state.ak.us/spar/csp/guidance/site-characterization-wp&r.pdf for a list of specific field documentation requirements. There were no field records, log books or photos of excavation activities included in the hard copy or electronic copy of the document provided for ADEC review.
In accordance with 18 AAC 75.380, Final reporting requirements and site closure (J) “other information requested by the department, as the department determines necessary to ensure protection of human health, safety, or welfare, or of the environment”, ADEC is requesting the Army provide one hard copy and one electronic copy of the field records and/or log books generated during this project. |
Louis Howard |
| 8/29/2012 |
Site Added to Database |
A new site has been added to the database |
Mitzi Read |
| 12/11/2012 |
Exposure Tracking Model Ranking |
Initial ranking with ETM completed for source area id: 79323 name: AT032 Airborne Training Facility FTR255 |
Louis Howard |
| 3/12/2013 |
Update or Other Action |
Draft PA/SI report received for review and comment.
This Preliminary Assessment/Site Investigation (PA/SI) describes the field investigation
activities performed in 2012 that were conducted to support site closeout in accordance with the
ADEC cleanup process for petroleum hydrocarbon-contaminated sites.
Only one soil sample (12Q4AT032-SB0304-SO-0) exceeded a SL for petroleum hydrocarbons (i.e., DRO, GRO, and RRO); DRO was detected at 432 mg/kg from 15 to 20 feet bgs in soil boring AT032-SB03. All other petroleum hydrocarbon concentrations were below SLs.
Nineteen primary soil samples were collected for laboratory analysis of VOCs (including lowrange
VOCs). Concentrations for all VOCs were below SLs. Benzene, toluene, and xylenes were
detected in some of the soil samples, but detected concentrations were generally just above
detection limits and well below screening levels. Similarly, 2-Butanone, acetone, bromoform,
and carbon disulfide were consistently detected within the soil samples, but generally at
concentrations just above detection limits and well below SLs.
One soil sample (12Q4AT032-SB0304-SO-0) was submitted for laboratory analyses of SVOCs,
EPH, and VPH. Although 11 SVOCs were detected, concentrations were at least an order of
magnitude less than project SLs.
Results of the EPH and VPH analyses signified a lack of C5 to C10 aromatic and aliphatic
compounds (GRO range) in conjunction with a lack of reported C21 to C34 aromatic and
aliphatic compounds (RRO range). This suggests only petroleum hydrocarbons within the DRO
range actually exist within the contaminated soil.
Based on historical data (see Table 2-1, Figure 2-2, and Figure 2-3) and the analytical results for soil samples collected during this PA/SI (Table 4-1 and Figure 4-1), the lateral extent of
petroleum-contaminated soil at AT032 has been adequately delineated to the project SLs (data
quality objective 2 [DQO2], Nature and Extent of Contamination in Soil). Soil contaminated
with DRO at concentrations above the SLs is present approximately 24 feet east of the eastern
extent of the 2010 excavation.
The vertical extent of the highest concentrations of DRO-contaminated soil (within the eastern
boundary of the 2010 excavation footprint) has also been delineated. |
Louis Howard |
| 5/6/2013 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
ADEC has received the final version of the AT032 Airborne Training Facility FTR255, ADEC CS DB Hazard ID 25902 on JBER-Richardson on April 17, 2013. ADEC has reviewed the document and has no further comments on it. The document is approved. |
Louis Howard |
| 11/20/2014 |
Update or Other Action |
Draft SC report received for review and comment.
Based on previous investigations, DRO is present in soil at concentrations above project
screening levels and appears to exist up to 24 feet eastward from the eastern edge of the former
excavation.
• The source area, defined as the three-dimensional soil volume with DRO concentrations greater than 250 mg/kg, covers an aerial extent of approximately 400 square feet and extends from 10.5 feet bgs to a total depth of approximately 20 feet bgs. The total volume of contaminated soil is approximately 140 cubic yards.
• No occupied buildings are present (storage buildings only), and all concentrations of volatile
compounds are currently below their respective 18 AAC 75.345 Method Two, Table B1 cleanup levels. Therefore, the vapor intrusion pathway is considered incomplete for current industrial and potential future residential exposure scenarios.
• The cumulative carcinogenic risk and noncarcinogenic HI estimates for AT032 (using the HRC) based on both industrial and hypothetical residential exposure scenarios were calculated to be below the regulatory risk standards.
• Using the HRC for contaminated soil, the site meets the ADEC risk criteria for bulk hydrocarbons.
• Estimated total GRO, DRO, and RRO concentrations in groundwater beneath AT032 are predicted to be below their respective 18 AAC 75.345 Table C cleanup levels.
• No potential risks to ecological receptors were observed for AT032, and potentially complete
ecological exposure pathways at AT032 are considered insignificant.
The following are recommended for AT032:
• No further investigation or cleanup of soil and groundwater.
• “Cleanup Complete” |
Louis Howard |
| 12/10/2014 |
Cleanup Complete Determination Issued |
Cleanup complete determination made by ADEC.
Site Description & Background
The site is used as a jump training facility for paratroopers, with eight large storage buildings & eight covered training structures.
Contaminants of Concern
Diesel Range Organics (DRO)
Cleanup Levels
The cleanup level for soils at AT032 containing DRO contamination is 10,250 mg/kg in the Under 40-inch Zone based on the ingestion pathway within the 0 to 15’ interval below ground surface (bgs).
Based on the analytical data for soil samples collected, groundwater samples collected, modeling using the Hydrocarbon Risk Calculator (HRC), residual DRO in soil at the site does not pose a migration to groundwater concern.
Cumulative Risk Evaluation
The HRC was used to evaluate risk from petroleum contamination at AT032. The HRC is designed for sites with petroleum contamination—specifically the petroleum fractions, BTEX, PAHs, & other compounds dissolved in petroleum—with the intention & purpose of assessing human health risk from this type of contamination.
The estimated rounded cumulative cancer risk at AT032 for the current industrial & hypothetical residential exposure scenarios, across all exposure pathways, (3 x 10-7 & 5 x 10-7 respectively) is below the regulatory risk standard of 1 x 10-5 for petroleum hydrocarbons.
The estimated cumulative noncancer HI at AT032 for the current industrial & hypothetical residential exposure scenarios, across all exposure pathways, (0.003 & 0.004 respectively) is below the regulatory risk standard of 1. AT032 meets the ADEC risk criteria [18 AAC 75.325(g)] for petroleum hydrocarbons. The risk posed by the DRO aromatic & aliphatic surrogate fractions meets the risk standard for each exposure pathway, assuming a residential land use scenario.
An ecoscoping form was completed for AT032 & no observed surface soil staining, no impacted vegetation, no surface water or sediment runoff from the site. The ecoscoping form indicates that a more in-depth risk evaluation is not needed & that the AT032 site conditions are protective of the environment.
ADEC Decision
Based on a review of the environmental records, ADEC has determined that AT032 has been adequately characterized & has achieved the applicable requirements under the site cleanup rules. ADEC is issuing this written determination that cleanup is complete, subject to a future department determination that the cleanup is not protective of human health, safety, welfare, or of the environment [18 AAC 75.380(d)]. A “cleanup complete” designation will be entered for AT032 in the Contaminated Sites Database, subject to the following standard conditions.
Standard Conditions
1. Any proposal to transport soil or groundwater off-site from AT032 requires ADEC approval in accordance with 18 AAC 75.325. A “site” [as defined by 18 AAC 75.990 (115)] means an area that is contaminated, including areas contaminated by the migration of hazardous substances from a source area, regardless of property ownership
2. Movement or use of contaminated material in a manner that results in a violation of 18 AAC 70 water quality standards is prohibited.
3. Notations of these requirements shall be made on the Environmental Restoration map/ Base General Plan which will show up during a dig permit review/work clearance request process. |
Louis Howard |
