| Action Date |
Action |
Description |
DEC Staff |
| 5/1/2007 |
Update or Other Action |
Continued Evaluation of the Deep Aquifer ADF&G EAFB Fish Hatchery. Conclusions
Based on the two week (335-hour) pumping test of ADF&G Well #7 and response data observed in ADF&G Well #6, Test Well" A", Elmendorf Well BW-2 and Anchorage Water and Wastewater Utilities (AWWU) Well #4, we conclude our previous conclusions from the testing of ADF&G Well #6 are still valid and that there should be adequate water available from the deep confined aquifer for pumping of both wells at a combined flow rate of 3,000 gallons per minute (gpm).
Although the pumping test data do not show direct recharge to the confined aquifer within the timeframe of the pumping test, we believe that aquifer recharge occurs on a seasonal basis.
The aquifer in which AWWU Well #3 is completed is not directly connected to the aquifer tested at the hatchery. There were no water level changes in Well #3 caused by the pumping of Well #7 as expected nor were tidal influences observed in Well #3 similar to the other monitored wells.
The current construction and condition of AWWU Well #4 is not compatible with longterm pumping at 3,000 gpm from the new hatchery wells. This situation should be resolvable, with cooperation by A WWU, by completing three actions:
Rehabilitate AWWU Well #4 to reduce the amount of pumping headloss.
Lower the pump intake 50 feet deeper into the well to create more available draw down.
After completion of the Well #4 modifications, scope and conduct an additional long-term pumping test program to satisfy concerns AWWU may have about the usabality of their well after the new hatchery is constructed and in operation
Conclude negotiations with AWWU regarding long-term pumping from the confined aquifer to support the proposed hatchery and needed improvements to Well #4.
Rehabilitate Well #4, lower the pump intake at least 50 feet, and then scope and conduct a long-term pumping test to demonstrate to both ADF&G and AWWU that the deep confined aquifer can sustain pumping from ADF&G Wells #6 and #7 and AWWU Well #4.
Finalize hatchery water rights with ADNR. |
Louis Howard |
| 5/1/2007 |
Update or Other Action |
Continued Evaluation of the Deep Aquifer ADF&G EAFB Fish Hatchery. Conclusions
Based on the two week (335-hour) pumping test of ADF&G Well #7 and response data observed in ADF&G Well #6, Test Well" A", Elmendorf Well BW-2 and Anchorage Water and Wastewater Utilities (AWWU) Well #4, we conclude our previous conclusions from the testing of ADF&G Well #6 are still valid and that there should be adequate water available from the deep confined aquifer for pumping of both wells at a combined flow rate of 3,000 gallons per minute (gpm).
Although the pumping test data do not show direct recharge to the confined aquifer within the timeframe of the pumping test, we believe that aquifer recharge occurs on a seasonal basis.
The aquifer in which AWWU Well #3 is completed is not directly connected to the aquifer tested at the hatchery. There were no water level changes in Well #3 caused by the pumping of Well #7 as expected nor were tidal influences observed in Well #3 similar to the other monitored wells.
The current construction and condition of AWWU Well #4 is not compatible with longterm pumping at 3,000 gpm from the new hatchery wells. This situation should be resolvable, with cooperation by A WWU, by completing three actions:
Rehabilitate AWWU Well #4 to reduce the amount of pumping headloss.
Lower the pump intake 50 feet deeper into the well to create more available draw down.
After completion of the Well #4 modifications, scope and conduct an additional long-term pumping test program to satisfy concerns AWWU may have about the usabality of their well after the new hatchery is constructed and in operation
Conclude negotiations with AWWU regarding long-term pumping from the confined aquifer to support the proposed hatchery and needed improvements to Well #4.
Rehabilitate Well #4, lower the pump intake at least 50 feet, and then scope and conduct a long-term pumping test to demonstrate to both ADF&G and AWWU that the deep confined aquifer can sustain pumping from ADF&G Wells #6 and #7 and AWWU Well #4.
Finalize hatchery water rights with ADNR. |
Louis Howard |
| 12/5/2007 |
Update or Other Action |
Spill Summary Report 07239933902: Unknown historic release to cooling pond for powerplant. Investigative report to follow for discovery of soil contamination exceeding ADEC soil cleanup levels during Geotech work. 12/18/2007: Geotech site characterization by S&W received by PERP and CSRP. |
Louis Howard |
| 12/18/2007 |
Update or Other Action |
2007 Site Characterization Report received. DRO concentrations greater than the applicable cleanup level were measured In soil samples from Boring B25 (8 to 9 feet bgs) and in the surface soil sample adjacent to Boring B26. One DRO exceedance (3,630 mg/kg)was found in soil boring B25 on the northeast corner at a depth of 8 to 9 feet bgs. The other DRO exceedance (914 mg/kg) was a surface sample collected on the west side of the hatchery building.
Concentrations of DRO greater than the applicable cleanup level were detected in the water samples collected from Temporary Well B25MW, which was installed in Boring B25. Only DRO
exceeded cleanup levels with a concentration of 69.7 milligrams per liter.
Arsenic and chromium concentrations exceeding the applicable cleanup criteria were reported in the soil and sediment samples. However, the reported levels are considered to be within the naturally occurring background levels identified in the Anchorage area soil.
PCBs were detected in one sediment sample near the northeast corner of the cooling pond. The concentration of 0.930 mg/kg in Sample Sed1 is less than the AOEC cleanup level of 1 mg/kg. PCBs were not detected in the other 18 primary sediment samples or the two field duplicates.
Based on these results, we recommend that a more comprehensive site assessment be conducted to further delineate the petroleum hydrocarbons identified in Boring B25 and in the vicinity of Boring B26. |
Louis Howard |
| 4/30/2008 |
Update or Other Action |
2008 Environmental Mgt. Plan. The purpose of this EMP is to assist the contractor(s) in understanding the impacted soil and water handling procedures that may be required to properly conduct the site development in compliance with applicable environmental regulations.
This EMP includes discussions of previous work performed at the site, the site's surface and
subsurface environmental conditions, and the treatment and disposal options for contaminated
soil and water. The interpretations and recommendations contained in this EMP are based on our
knowledge of the ADEC regulations and previous environmental and geotechnical investigations
conducted at the project site and vicinity. |
Rich Sundet |
| 5/6/2008 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Comments by Rich Sundet on the Draft Environmental Mgt. Plan Anchorage Fish Hatchery.
It is unclear whether confirmation soils will be collected from the areas that are screened, indicated are contaminated & excavated. For example, Sections 4.3 & 4.4 focus on sampling of the soil that is excavated & termed "hot" but nothing is presented how confirmation samples will be performed or at what frequency in areas remaining, e.g., bottom of the pit or sidewalls. Please provide clarification on this comment.
Under Section 4.4 on page 7 it states "If the owner's project manager determines that the excavated soil is geotechnically suitable, the soil may be used within the property boundaries." Also under Section 4.5 on page 8 it states "Soils designated as contaminated (hot) will either need to remain on site for re-use or be transported to an ADEC approved facility ..... " From these statements, it would appear that soils that could be in exceedance to 18 AAC 75.341 cleanup levels, & at any concentration, could be selected by the project manager for reuse on site. Please clarify.
The document states that the highest PCB concentration detected was 0.93 mg/kg. However, CSP had been under the belief that other or historical investigations in the area had detected PCBs of higher concentrations in the area. For example, under the screening process in Section 4.3, the driver on whether contamination may exist is VOCs & if PCBs are higher than the 0.93 mg/kg, excavated soil could be misrepresented. Please address this comment.
In Section 4.3 it states that soils designated as clean (cold) may be transported off site & placed in a non-environmentally sensitive area or reused on site without further screening &/or characterization. Please ensure that any soils in contact with contamination are also not placed in environmentally sensitive areas on site. For example, from the plan's terminology, that soils below cleanup levels, e.g., <250 mg/kg DRO, are termed "cold." However, if placed in a wetland could possibly create sheening & a violation to Water Quality Standards in 18 AAC 70.
If contaminated soils or wastewater are transported off site, please be aware that pnor approval must be obtained from DEC under 18 AAC 75.370(b).
The plan states in several areas that contaminated soil will be transported off site to an approved facility such as ASR. Please be aware that ASR is not likely to take soils that contain metals such as arsenic or chromium above the 18 AAC 75.341 most stringent cleanup levels (even if the metals are at considered background) or soils that have detections of PCBs & possibly solvents. We suggest that you contact Jim Rogers of ASR on this issue as it may assist you in the planning stage.
Under Section 3.2.3, it states that DRO was detected in GW up to 69.7 mg/L at monitor well B25MW which exceeds its cleanup level of 1.5 mg/L. However, because the temporary monitor wells were not developed prior to sampling probably resulted in a higher turbidity, which was observed in the sample, & therefore the sample was biased high because it reflects hydrocarbons adsorbed on the fine grained sediments. While it is certainly possible that hydrocarbons could have been adsorbed onto the fine grained sediment, this well was also the location where DRO was detected at 3,630 mg/kg at 7.98 ft. below ground surface (bgs) & a PID reading of 280 ppm with a hydrocarbon odor detected at 8-9 ft. bgs. Thus, it appears that whether turbidity contributed to the elevated levels detected in the GW sample, it would appear that the sample still was elevated in comparison to its DRO cleanup level of 1.5 mg/L. Please address how GW will be monitored in the future or this issue addressed.
The plan states that a Construction General Permit under the NPDES may be obtained from DEC. Please note that the point of contact for DEC regarding the NPDES stormwater Construction General Permit is William Ashton (269 7564). For any site dewatering, please be aware that you need a separate site dewatering permit from DEC, not EPA. The contact is Shawn Stokes (269 7504). The statewide CGP does not allow commingling site dewatering with stormwater. Shawn is also the contact on the hatchery permit itself (the operations NPDES & any plan review for wastewater systems).
|
Rich Sundet |
| 2/11/2009 |
Update or Other Action |
Decision Record & FNSI: BLM has determined that the fish hatchery construction activities fall within the scope of the Environmental Assessment, and the construction project requires no further examination. These activities are considered to be Phase II of a multi-phase operation. Phase II would include the construction of the fish hatchery, and any additional improvements needed to the surrounding lease area.
The proposed action is consistent with existing national environmental policies and objectives as set forth in Section 101 (a) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). Further and based on the analysis of potential environmental impacts contained in the attached environmental assessment, it is my determination that the proposed action does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment and that an environmental impact statement is not required. |
Louis Howard |
| 4/17/2009 |
Update or Other Action |
BLM Recreation & Public Purposes (R&PP) Act Lease Offered. The land has been classified as suitable for R&PP purposes. Namely, the area has been approved as a fish hatchery for rearing fry in support of the ADF &G - Sport Fisheries Program. A twenty-five (25) year lease with option for renewal is offered, subject to the terms and conditions specified in the enclosed lease forms.
This lease as offered will supersede all existing leases, right-of-ways (ROW), and temporary use
permits filed with the BLM - Anchorage Field Office (AFO). This lease will be the primary
authorization for all current and future activities associated with the ADF&G - Elmendorf Air
Force Base Fish Hatchery, Case File# AA-091143. Once signed, the lease will terminate the
following authorizations currently active with the AFO: Temporary Use Permit #AA-085927, Temporary Use Permit #AA-090826 and Recreation and Public Purposes Lease #AA-009596. |
Louis Howard |
| 5/25/2009 |
Update or Other Action |
BLM Special Stipulations: An Environmental Management Plan (EMP) has been developed & coordinated with ADEC regarding how to deal with contaminated soil & GW if it is encountered during construction. The EMP addresses disposal of impacted soil. PCBs would be contained & remain on site. Petroleum hydrocarbons would be removed & would be transported to a local soil remediation facility for treatment & disposal. Confirmation sampling for PCBs will be collected & analyzed. The EMP also addresses buried debris. Since some demolition (of spillways & concrete structures) is needed for installation of the sheet pile, an additional opportunity for exposure to impacted soils is presented. Disposal of buried debris will be determined by the contractor & will likely go to the landfill.
ADF&G shall adhere to a primary & secondary filtration standard for rearing system effluent prior to it being discharged into Ship Creek, as discussed within Section 4.5.1 – “Water Quality” of the Anchorage Sport Fish Hatchery Environmental Assessment. There will be no increase in the amount of waste discharged into the creek during proposed hatchery operations that would exceed existing conditions. Effluent being discharged into Ship Creek will not exceed 10 °C, nor will it exceed permit standards for temperature (13 °C) (18 AAC 70).
The Lessee shall comply with the applicable Federal & State laws & regulations concerning the use of pesticides (i.e., insecticides, herbicides, fungicides, rodenticides, & other similar substances) in all activities/operations under this lease. The Lessee shall obtain from the Authorized Officer approval of a written plan prior to the use of such substances. The plan must provide the type & quantity of material to be used; the pest, insect, fungus, etc., to be controlled; the method of application; the location for storage & disposal of containers; & other information that the Authorized Officer may require. The plan should be submitted no later than December of any calendar year that covers the proposed activities for next fiscal year (i.e., December 1, 2009, deadline for fiscal year 2011 action). Emergency use of pesticides may occur. The use of substances on or near the right-of-way shall be in accordance with the approved plan. A pesticide should not be used if the Secretary of the Interior has prohibited its use. A pesticide shall be used only in accordance with its registered uses & within other limitations if the Secretary has imposed limitations. Pesticides shall not be permanently stored on public lands authorized for use under this lease. |
Louis Howard |
| 5/25/2009 |
Update or Other Action |
USAF EAFB Stipulations to lease: The lease term is hereby leased to the State for twenty-five (25) years, beginning April 17th, 2009, & ending April 17th, 2034. The Secretary of the Air Force may terminate the lease if the President or Congress declares a national emergency that necessitates such termination in the national public interest. Upon request of the State of Alaska & approval by the Department of the Air Force, the term may be extended another 25 years for a maximum term of 50 years.
Subject to a specific appropriation by the legislature for this purpose, the State agrees to indemnify, defend & hold harmless the Air Force from any damages, costs, expenses, liabilities, fines, or penalties resulting from releases, discharges, emissions, spills, storage, treatment, disposal, or any other acts or omissions by the State, its officers, agents, employees, or contractors, or licensees, or the invitees of any of them, giving rise to government liability, civi1 or criminal, or responsibility under federal, state, or local environmental laws.
All parties to this agreement recognize & agree that the State has no appropriation currently available to it to indemnify the Air Force under this provision & that enactment of an appropriation in the future to fund a payment under this provision remains in the sole discretion of the legislature & the legislature's failure to make such an appropriation creates no further liability or obligation of the State. This condition shall survive the expiration or termination of the lease, & the State's obligations hereunder shall apply whenever the Government incurs costs or liabilities for the State's actions of the types described in this condition.
The State may elect to remove any toxic or hazardous wastes, substances or materials
found on any portion of the Property, including the old cooling pond, at its sole expense
in order to complete the hatchery project. Alternatively, the State may elect to cancel the
hatchery project, and terminate the lease after restoring the property to its condition as it
existed on the date of the signing of the lease, provided it has first stabilized any
disturbed contamination in accordance with applicable state and federal laws if the
contamination was not caused by the State. The State will be responsible for remediation
of any contamination resulting from its operations on the Property. Except as provided in
this paragraph, the State is not responsible for any preexisting condition on the Property
that it has not caused or negligently exacerbated |
Louis Howard |
| 6/11/2009 |
Cleanup Plan Approved |
Comments on the "Environmental Management Plan Anchorage Fish Hatchery Anchorage, Alaska" dated February 2009; Anchorage Fish Hatchery RecKey 2007210122601 Hazard ID# 4639. Contaminated Sites Program approves the plan provided:
1) EAFB or ADF&G must address the groundwater contamination that has been identified during past investigation activities. Under Section 3.2.3 of the plan, it states that DRO was detected in groundwater up to 69.7 mg/L at monitor well B25MW which exceeds its cleanup level of 1.5 mg/L. However, because the temporary monitor wells were not developed prior to sampling probably resulted in a higher turbidity, which was observed in the sample, and therefore the sample was biased high because it reflects hydrocarbons adsorbed on the fine grained sediments. While it is certainly possible that hydrocarbons could have been adsorbed onto the fine grained sediment, this well was also the location where DRO was detected at 3,630 mg/kg at 7.98 ft. below ground surface (bgs) and a PID reading of 280 ppm with a hydrocarbon odor detected at 8-9 ft. bgs. Thus, it appears that whether turbidity contributed to the elevated levels detected in the groundwater sample, it would appear that the sample still was elevated in comparison to its DRO cleanup level of 1.5 mg/L. We understand that EAFB will be performing this work but we have no documentation to that effect. Please provide written documentation how EAFB or ADF&G will address the groundwater contamination issue by July 1, 2009. If EAFB will be performing this work, please send documentation to Mr. Louis Howard of CSP at 555 Cordova St., Anchorage 99501. Mr. Howard is CSP’s project manager overseeing contamination issues at EAFB. If ADF&G will be performing this work please contact Mr. Rich Sundet of CSP.
2) If contaminated soils or wastewater are transported off site, please be aware that prior approval must be obtained from DEC under 18 AAC 75.370(b).
3) Please ensure that any soils in contact with contamination are also not placed in environmentally sensitive areas on site. For example, from the plan's terminology, that soils below cleanup levels, e.g., <250 mg/kg DRO, are termed "cold." However, if placed in a wetland could possibly create sheening and a violation to Water Quality Standards in 18 AAC 70. |
Rich Sundet |
| 7/23/2009 |
Update or Other Action |
2009 Memorandum from AF to ADEC: Response to ADEC Memorandum on Shannon & Wilson's EMP Anchorage Fish Hatchery, Anchorage AK dated June 11, 2009. 1. This memorandum documents the responsible party to address the groundwater
contamination at the site of the Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G) fish hatchery under construction on Elmendorf APB. Per the April 2009 lease agreement administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the State is not responsible for preexisting conditions of the property that it has not caused or negligently exacerbated. However, the State may elect to remediate contamination at its sole expense in order to complete the hatchery project.
2. This site has been validated under the Air Force's One Cleanup Program concept and site
characterization is anticipated to occur in FY10, pending availability of funds. The State's
construction project shall not alter our remediation priorities. Should the State wish to remediate the site sooner than our schedule anticipates, it may do so at its sole expense under the terms of the Lease.
3. Should you have any questions, please contact Mr. Gary Fink, Chief, Environmental Cleanup
at (907) 552-2875 or email at-gary.fink@elmendorf.af.mil.
Signed by Daniel A. Barnett, YF03 Deputy Base Civil Engineer. |
Rich Sundet |
| 5/28/2010 |
Update or Other Action |
During construction activities in 2010, soil was screened using a photoionization detector
(PID) and soils screening greater than 80 ppm were removed from site. Soils in the vicinity
of the 2007 surface soil sample were stockpiled and screened during construction of the
waterline trench on the west side of the hatchery building. A total of five screening samples
were collected from the material stockpiled along this area of waterline trench and the
highest result was 72 ppm (the remaining four screening sample results ranged from 35 to 45
ppm). This soil was returned to the waterline trench in the area. |
Louis Howard |
| 4/11/2011 |
Update or Other Action |
Air Force work plan addendum: Three soil borings will be advanced in the area surrounding the backfilled waterline trench on the western side of the hatchery building. Soil borings will not be advanced directly in the waterline trench due to the density of utilities in that area. Two soil borings will be advanced upgradient and three soil borings will be advanced downgradient of the 2007 soil boring B25 in the northeastern section of the site.
Soil borings will be advanced to a depth of approximately 20 feet, or until groundwater is
encountered, and will be screened every 5 feet using PetroFlag field kits. Two analytical soil
samples will be collected from each soil boring. These samples will be submitted to the laboratory for DRO analysis.
Soil borings will be advanced and groundwater grab samples will be collected via SP16 and analyzed for DRO. No other contaminants of concern have been found in soils at this site. However, the extent of surface water influence on groundwater is unknown. Therefore, grab groundwater samples will be analyzed for BTEX and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) to look for potential exceedences of surface water criteria (TAH and TAqH).
Three groundwater grab samples will be collected on the western side of the hatchery building to triangulate the possible downgradient groundwater flow from the contaminated soils returned to the waterline trench. Five samples will be collected from the northeastern section of the site. The proposed locations are in an assumed upgradient and downgradient location from the original contaminated boring, assuming that groundwater flows downgradient from that corner by flowing around the retaining wall to the south. One additional groundwater sample will be collected from the existing monitoring well on the north side of the site (OU5MW-12).
Groundwater samples will be analyzed for DRO, BTEX, and PAHs to look for potential exceedences of surface water criteria (TAH and TAqH). The SP16 sample points will not be developed, so the results will represent a grab sample to assist in evaluating whether contamination is reaching groundwater. The monitoring well (OU5MW-12) will be sampled following low-flow procedures. |
Louis Howard |
| 11/10/2011 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Staff provided comments on the draft investigative sampling report. Main comments were to request the Air Force install 3 permanent wells at the site. One well installed upgradient of location BH04. Additionally, staff requested the Air Force ensure the laboratories used are current in their ADEC lab approvals.
See site fie for additional information. |
Louis Howard |
| 11/13/2014 |
Update or Other Action |
CS506 is administratively closed. The results of the site characterization concluded that there was an unidentified upgradient source of DRO contamination that may be migrating to the site; therefore, the proposed remedial approach of excavating contaminated soil was determined to not be a viable option. A review of 2013 and 2014 results, historical and surrounding site information, and groundwater flow direction indicated that DRO contamination was not associated with other known JBER-E sites or CS506 activities. Based on the information presented, ADEC concurs with this conclusion. This new upgradient source is not associated with the CS506 site and is recommended for further investigation. Excavation, groundwater monitoring well installation, and groundwater sampling were not conducted at CS506 since the location of the source is unknown.
See site file for additional information. |
Louis Howard |
| 11/28/2014 |
Update or Other Action |
Site characterization report CS506 Hatchery site received. Conclusions-The objectives of the 2013 and 2014 activities were to characterize contamination at CS506 and to remediate contaminated soil through excavation. The results of the site characterization concluded that there was an unidentified upgradient source of DRO contamination that may be migrating to the site; therefore, the proposed remedial approach of excavating contaminated soil was determined to not be a viable option. A review of 2013 and 2014 results, historical and surrounding site information, and groundwater flow direction indicated that DRO contamination was not associated with other known JBER-E sites or CS506 activities. This new upgradient source is not associated with the CS506 site and is recommended for further investigation. The contamination associated with CS506 and past operations at this location has been remediated.
Recommendations- Based on compliance with environmental cleanup criteria, it is recommended that ADEC grant Site CS506 at JBER a “Cleanup Complete” determination. Institutional controls do not appear to be applicable for this site. Additionally, a complete site characterization should be completed upgradient to determine the source and extent of the DRO contamination. |
Louis Howard |
| 4/1/2016 |
Update or Other Action |
Draft UFP-QAPP SC WP received for several sites which also includes this one. Site SS113 – Hatchery North (SS113) is located immediately north of the Hatchery site (CS506) & consists of an unknown source area identified during the 2013 & 2014 investigations at CS506 (Site Characterization Report, CS506 [Hatchery], where fuel hydrocarbons are present in the vadose zone & smear zone. In 2007, to further delineate the extent of contamination, seven borings were drilled in 2011, & 28 borings were drilled in 2013 & 2014 around the previous exceedances. During 2013 & 2014, the investigation stepped out towards the north across Post Road & higher concentrations were observed up to 110,000 mg/kg. The extent of soil & GW contamination remains undefined.
Two suspected source area soil borings (SS113-SB03 & SB05) will be drilled in known contaminated areas near previous sample locations to collect soil samples for GRO, DRO, RRO, petroleum-related VOCs, PAHs, volatile petroleum hydrocarbon (VPH), extractable petroleum hydrocarbon (EPH), & lead analyses. The full suite of VOCs will also be analyzed from the soil & GW samples at SS113-SB05.
Seven soil borings (SS113-SB01, -SB02, -SB04, -SB06, -SB07, -SB08, & –SB09) will be drilled north, east, west, & southwest of the suspected source area to evaluate the lateral & vertical extent of contamination. Samples will be analyzed for GRO, DRO, RRO, petroleum-related VOCs, PAHs, & lead.
In each soil boring, one soil sample will be collected from the interval above the water table (the vadose zone, estimated to be 0 to 5 feet bgs) & one will be collected at the water table (estimated to be 5 to 10 feet bgs) to evaluate whether contamination has migrated through the vadose zone & reached the water table. In the proposed source area borings, an additional soil sample will be collected from below the water table (estimated to be from 10 to 15 feet bgs). The majority of the soil samples from the 2013/2014 investigation that contained DRO contamination were collected below the water table, so the release may have occurred when water levels in the area were lower. Additional sampling in the vadose & saturated zones will help assess if there is a significant smear zone at the site & if the water table has risen above the original extent of soil contamination.
GW samples will be collected from each of the borings just below the water table & analyzed for GRO, DRO, RRO, petroleum-related VOCs, PAHs, & lead. GW samples collected from within the expected source area will also be analyzed for EPH & VPH. A sample from SS113_SB02 (the boring closest to Ship Creek) will also be analyzed for total aromatic hydrocarbons (TAH) & total aqueous hydrocarbons (TAqH).
Based on the results of the soil & GW samples collected during Phase 1, additional GW samples may be collected at selected locations to evaluate the nature & extent of GW contamination. Monitoring wells may also be proposed, however this will be dependent on the depth to GW & proposed location in relation to the railroad tracks. Locations will be discussed with the USAF & ADEC before monitoring well installation (via meeting or conference call).
See site file for additional information. |
Louis Howard |
| 4/11/2016 |
Site Added to Database |
A new site has been added to the database |
Mitzi Read |
| 4/13/2016 |
Exposure Tracking Model Ranking |
Initial ranking with ETM completed for source area id: 79901 name: SS113 Hatchery North |
Louis Howard |
| 6/21/2018 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Staff provided comments on the Site Characterization Report (draft). Main comments were to request clarification on what will be done with the contamination not attributed with SS113 but Pump Station #3 groundwater collection pond (e.g. 1-methylnaphthalene, naphthalene) in groundwater. Other comments were regarding the determination by ADEC that the method for collecting volatile samples with a peristaltic pump will bias the sample results low.
See site file for additional information. |
Louis Howard |
| 7/27/2018 |
Update or Other Action |
Site Characterization Report received for SS113 - Hatchery North. Conclusions: The source of contamination at SS113 is a surface spill of unknown origin in the area south of the
ARRC tracks and north of Post Road. The highest concentrations of DRO in shallow soil (greater than 100 times the CUL) were detected in the 0- to 5-foot bgs interval at locations SS113-SB07 and CS506-SB18.
• Contamination extends to groundwater in the source area. The highest concentration of DRO in
groundwater (23,000 µg/L) is from the sample at SS113-SB08.
• The estimated soil source area is approximately 90 by 150 feet and extends from the surface to the water table (approximately 5 feet bgs) (an approximate volume of 67,500 cubic feet, or 2,500 cubic yards).
• Using the ADEC Cumulative Risk Calculator for contaminated soil within the site exposure area, the rounded cumulative cancer risk estimate for the residential exposure scenario is 6E-05, which exceeds the regulatory risk standard of 1E-05, and the cumulative noncancer HI estimate for the residential exposure scenarios is 0.3, which is below the regulatory risk standard of 1.
• Using the ADEC Cumulative Risk Calculator for contaminated groundwater, the rounded cumulative
cancer risk estimate for the residential exposure scenario is 5E-04, which exceeds the regulatory risk standard of 1E-05, and the cumulative noncancer HI estimate for the residential exposure scenarios is 1, which does not exceed the regulatory risk standard of 1.
• Using the ADEC Petroleum Cleanup Levels Calculator for contaminated soil, DRO does not meet
Method Three criteria for ingestion and migration to groundwater. DRO also exceeds the ADEC
Table B2 maximum allowable concentration. Therefore DRO is a COC in soil.
• Using the ADEC Petroleum Cleanup Levels Calculator for contaminated soil, GRO does not meet
Method Three criteria for migration to groundwater. Therefore GRO is a COC in soil.
• Using the ADEC Cleanup Levels Calculator for contaminated soil, naphthalene,
1-methylnaphthalene, 2-methylnaphthalene, benzo(a)anthracene, and benzo(a)pyrene do not meet
the Method Three criteria for migration to groundwater and are therefore COCs in soil.
• Because concentrations exceed the minimum ADEC Method Two CULs, naphthalene,
1-methylnaphthalene, and 2-methylnaphthalene are also COCs in soil because of potential risk to
future receptors through the VI pathway
• No potential risks to the environment/ecological receptors were observed, and petroleum
hydrocarbon contamination in surface soil is considered insignificant (less than 0.5 acre). |
Louis Howard |
| 11/14/2019 |
Update or Other Action |
Draft Summary of Site Status SS113 Hatchery North Technical Memorandum received. The purpose of this technical memorandum is 1) to summarize the current status of SS113 – Hatchery North (State of Alaska Contaminated Sites Database Hazard Identification Number 26541) at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson (JBER) and 2) to demonstrate that the area of contamination has been delineated and the source has been determined to be outside of the JBER property boundary. The area of contamination was identified during a 2013-2014 site investigation for CS506, located northeast of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG) William Jack Hernandez Fish Hatchery Building (Hatchery) on JBER. During the investigation, an additional, unrelated area of contamination was identified extending north of Pease Avenue (which becomes North Post Road southwest of the Hatchery) (USAF, 2014); as a result, SS113 was created to investigate the separate area of contamination
The current status of SS113 with the ADEC contaminated sites program database is active. Data indicate that the source of contamination is a surface spill of unknown origin located north of Pease Avenue and south of the ARRC railroad tracks, outside the JBER property boundary. The area of contamination extends to groundwater, with the groundwater contamination reaching the southern side of Pease Avenue (see Figures 1, 2, and 3 for select soil results, select groundwater results, and a cross-section view of the DRO contamination, respectively).
Because the source of contamination is not located on Air Force property and there is no evidence the contamination is the result of any Air Force-related activities, the Air Force does not meet the definition of a “responsible person” under 18 AAC 75.990 (108) and is therefore closing out this petroleum site response action.
See site file for additional information. |
Louis Howard |
| 11/18/2019 |
Update or Other Action |
Environmental Assessment Case File#: AA-085927 and AA-09596 AK-040-06-EA-043. FLPMA ROW, 43 CFR 2800 & R&PP Lease Adjustment 2912 (BLM Anchorage Field Office). ADF&G is proposing to construct three additional wells within and near the boundary of EAFB Fish Hatchery Lease Area; this will include Wells 6, 7 and 8. Wells 6 & 7 are within the existing boundary of the hatchery lease area. Well 8 is located outside the boundary of the current lease area, located in the northeast corner of the decommissioned power plant cooling pond, and will require an amendment to the right-of-way grant AA-85927, for the wellhead and the connecting pipeline and electrical lines. Providing that there is sufficient water in this new location and development of the well system is determined to be practical, ADF&G will apply for permanent water rights and connect the wells to the existing water system supporting the hatchery. |
Louis Howard |
| 11/18/2019 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Staff reviewed the draft SS113 Site Characterization Report. Main comments were: ADEC requests what if any additional steps will be taken to address the contamination (e.g. 1-methylnaphthalene and naphthalene) in SS113-SB10 attributed to the groundwater collection pond at Pump Station #3 since it is not directly related to SS113. These contaminants (along with any other contaminants detected in SS113-SB10 need to be analyzed for in the wetland remediation system outlet). The results for volatile organic compounds will be considered biased low for SS113 due to use of a peristaltic pump.
See site file for additional information. |
Louis Howard |
| 11/18/2019 |
Update or Other Action |
Final Investigative Sampling Report received. Analytical results for the 2011 Post Road Fish Hatchery sample investigation confirm DRO contamination above ADEC cleanup criteria at soil boring BH04, which is located in the northeastern portion of the site. In addition, concentrations of DRO, PAH, and TAqH at this location exceeded the ADEC Table C criteria for groundwater in a turbid grab sample. The less turbid peristaltic sample did not exceed groundwater or surface water criteria. DRO levels in soil and groundwater above ADEC cleanup criteria had been previously documented at the area near BH04.
Based on these results and the history of contamination in the general vicinity, groundwater
impacts may be present; however, groundwater analytical results are confounded by turbidity
in the sample. As such, the recommended remedial action for the contaminated soil at the Fish
hatchery is monitored natural attenuation and annual groundwater sampling. Three permanent
monitoring wells should be installed at the following locations to further determine the degree
and extent of potential groundwater impacts: one at BH04, a second hydraulically upgradient
of BH04, and a third downgradient of BH04, adjacent to Ship Creek. Ongoing monitoring
activities should include analysis for DRO, BTEX, and PAHs for both groundwater and soil
samples. Additionally, groundwater monitoring well samples should be analyzed for TAH and
TAqH.
See site file for additional information. |
Louis Howard |
| 11/18/2019 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Staff provided comments on the CS506 Hatchery UFP-QAPP. It is ADEC’s position that ICs would be applied at JBER sites when:
· The groundwater under or downgradient of a site was contaminated with POL constituents at concentrations exceeding risk criteria or MCLs; or
· POL contaminants in the soil were above the maximum allowable concentrations [MAC] given in Table B2 of 18 AAC 75 or at concentrations exceeding risk criteria.
· ICs also needed if direct contact or inhalation risks exceed residential land use risk-based levels. Sites should be suitable for UU/UL for cleanup complete without ICs (June 14, 2012 meeting minutes “Use of Hydrocarbon Risk Calculator” with AFCEE, JBER, PBC and ADEC).
If soil that was above the MAC were excavated, the excavation confirmation sample concentrations could be used to replace the higher concentration in the removed soil and the statistics for the site could be rerun. The ProUCL checks for outliers and the Q-Q plot should be submitted with the 95% UCL calculations. This assumes that the groundwater contamination is below Table C for two consecutive years of sampling and no surface water quality (i.e. TAH/TAQH) exceedances are found due to the proximity of the site to Ship Creek.
Vadose zone soils shall not exceed MAC for petroleum contamination for soil from 0 – 15’ bgs (i.e. direct contact for BTEX, PAHs and ingestion for DRO, GRO, RRO) regardless of HRC calculated risk levels. Treatment or excavations deeper than 15’ bgs may be warranted on a site-specific basis to prevent the soil from acting as a continuing source of groundwater contamination.
Once groundwater is below Table C for a period of time (per the latest approved “Basewide Monitoring Program Well Sampling Frequency Decision Guide (Attachment 1 Memo to the Site File for OUs 4, 5, and 6 September 2003)” a minimum of two rounds annual groundwater monitoring), the maximum allowable levels may become the cleanup levels as determined by ADEC on a case by case basis.
See site file for additional information. |
Louis Howard |
| 11/21/2019 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Staff received a request for a site closure evaluation for JBER-Elmendorf SS113 (see file# 2101.38.154). ADEC has completed a review of the environmental records associated with the Hatchery North site located north of Pease Avenue and south of the Alaska Railroad Corporation (ARRC) railroad tracks outside the JBER property boundary. The source of the contamination is not on Air Force property and is a surface spill of unknown origin which extends to groundwater and the contamination reaches the southern side of Pease Avenue. There is no evidence the contamination is the result of any Air-Force related activities.
Based on a review of the information provided to date by ADEC, it has been determined the Air Force is not a responsible person under 18 AAC 75 for the contamination formerly associated with SS113 and it appears the ARRC is responsible for further investigation and/or remediation at the site. The former JBER-Elmendorf SS113 site is administratively closed and will be assigned to the ARRC in the Contaminated Sites database (see file# 2100.38.447). |
Louis Howard |
| 12/4/2019 |
Meeting or Teleconference Held |
ADEC attended meeting with ARRC,JBER and Jacobs Engineering to discuss site history. |
Grant Lidren |
| 12/12/2019 |
Potentially Responsible Party/State Interest Letter |
PRP letter sent electronically to ARRC on this date. |
Grant Lidren |
