| Action Date |
Action |
Description |
DEC Staff |
| 9/1/1995 |
Site Added to Database |
Numerous diesel spills. |
Dennis Harwood |
| 9/1/1995 |
Site Characterization Workplan Approved |
(Old R:Base Action Code = SA2R - Phase II SA Review (CS)). Site Assessment plan approved. Soil borings will be drilled on gravel pad adjacent to discover hole. Samples to be analyzed for DRO and GRO without silica gel cleanup. |
Former Staff |
| 9/29/1995 |
Update or Other Action |
(Old R:Base Action Code = RI - Remedial Investigation). 12 soil borings installed. Only one sample exceeded cleanup matrix (427 GRO, 2403 DRO). Contamination is under new recycle facility module and is inaccessable. |
Former Staff |
| 10/12/1995 |
Long Term Monitoring Established |
(Old R:Base Action Code = MS - Monitoring/Sampling). Letter sent to ARCO allowing them to go to long-term monitoring of the water quality at the toe of the pad. Sampled annually for BTEX, GRO and DRO. Gravel remediation must occur upon removal of the module. Annual report required. |
Scott Rose |
| 12/31/2001 |
Update or Other Action |
September 2001 investigation indicated significant levels of petroluem hydrocarbons were present within the main CPF-1 pad. Source is related to various spills across the pad.
|
Bill O'Connell |
| 12/30/2002 |
Update or Other Action |
Five monitoirng wells installed in 2002 intended to function as sentinel wells. Five SW/SD sampling locations established. |
Bill O'Connell |
| 5/9/2006 |
Conditional Closure Approved |
Based on the information provided to date, ADEC has determined that the CPF-1 Oily Waste Injection Facility shall be conditionally closed since the hazardous substance contamination has been adequately addressed and does not pose an unacceptable risk to human health or the environment. |
Bill O'Connell |
| 5/9/2006 |
Institutional Control Record Established |
The contaminant concentrations remaining on the CPF-1 Oily Waste Injection Facility site were evaluated with regard to the potential exposure pathways and allowed ADEC to determine there is no unacceptable risk to human health or the environment.
Based on the information provided to date, ADEC has determined that no further remedial action is required at the site and a conditional closure of the CPF-1 Oily Waste Injection Facility is appropriate, subject to site specific conditions.
This decision will be noted as “Conditional Closure” on the ADEC database and is subject to the following conditions:
1. A Notice of Residual Contamination will be recorded on the ADEC database to document that there are areas on the pad where hazardous substance contamination may remain above the most stringent ADEC cleanup levels;
2. Porewater and surface water monitoring shall be conducted in 2007. Monitoring wells MW01, MW03, and MW05 and surface water sampling location SW07 shall be sampled for DRO, GRO, and BTEX. Further monitoring will be evaluated based on the results of 2007 sampling.
3. Visual monitoring of the surface water in wetlands surrounding the area shall be conducted during the summer season and the results conveyed to ADEC either verbally or in writing.
4. Any proposal to transport soil or porewater off site requires ADEC approval in accordance with 18 AAC 75.325(i).
This determination is in accordance with 18 AAC 75.380(d)(2) and does not preclude ADEC from requiring additional assessment and/or cleanup action if future information indicates that this site may pose an unacceptable risk to human health or the environment
|
Bill O'Connell |
| 8/23/2007 |
Update or Other Action |
Recieved 2007 monitoring work plan. Surface water samples will be collected from SW07 and porewater samples will be collected from MW01, MW-3 and MW-5 in accordance withh 2006 Record of Decision for Conditional Closure |
Bill O'Connell |
| 12/20/2007 |
Update or Other Action |
Received 2007 Site Monitoring report. Porewater samples were collected from MW01, MW03, and MW05, and a surface water sample was collected from SW07. DRO and/or GRO and/or benzene were detected above Table C cleanup levels in each of the wells indicating an increase in contaminant concentrations since 2005. DRO and GRO were also detected in surface water. Lab QA indicates potential bias for several of the samples, however the data is acceptable for its intended purpose. Monitoring to continue, but samples will no longer need to be analyzed for BTEX. |
Bill O'Connell |
| 12/3/2008 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Received 2008 Monitoring Report for CPAI OWIF. Pore water samples were collected from MW01, MW03, and MW05, surface water samples were collected from SW03, SW05, and SW07 and visual observations were recorded.DRO was detected at 5.05 mg/l, 20.1 mg/l and 4.74 mg/l in wells MW01, MW03, and MW05,respectively. GRO was detected at 1.59 mg/l, 2.03 mg/l and 3.03 mg/l in wells MW01, MW03, and MW05,respectively. DRO was also detected at surface water locations SW03, SW05, and SW07 at 1.79 mg/l, 4.6 mg/l, and 1.37 mg/l, respectively. These concentrations are generally within the same order of magnitude as previous samples. Hydrocarbon sheen was not noted on surface water. |
Bill O'Connell |
| 3/8/2010 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Reviewed 2009 Site Monitoring Report for CPF-1 oily waste injection facility. Porewater samples were collected from wells MW01, MW04, and MW05. MW03 is suspected to have been destroyed so MW04 was sampled in its place. Surface water samples were collected from locations SW03, SW05, and SW07.. In porewater samples, GRO was detected above the Table C cleanup level in MW01 and MW04 at 2.76 mg/l and 3.23 mg/l respectively. DRO samples subjected to silica gel cleanup indicated DRO above the Table C cleanup level only in well MW04 at 2.31 mg/l. Results are generally consistent with previous results. In surface water samples, DRO and GRO were detected only at location SW03 at 0.63 mg/l and 0.066 mg/l respectively. |
Bill O'Connell |
| 8/17/2010 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Reviewed 2010 Contaminated Site Monitoring Work Plan. Porewater samples will be collected from three monitoring wells and surface water samples will be collected from three locations and analyzed for DRO and GRO. |
Bill O'Connell |
| 4/15/2011 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Reviewed 2010 Monitoring Report for CPF-1 OWIF. Porewater samples were collected from monitoring wells MW01, MW04, and MW05 and visual observations were recorded. MW03 has not been located in recent years and has likely been destroyed. DRO was detected in porewater at concentrations ranging from 2.36 mg/l to 8.03 mg/l and GRO was detected from 1.89 mg/l to 4.22 mg/l. Well MW04 had the highest concentrations of both DRO and GRO. Silica gel cleanup was not conducted on any samples. |
Bill O'Connell |
| 8/25/2011 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Reviewed 2011 Work Plan for CPF-1 Oily Waste Injection Facility. Porewater samples will be collected from monitoring wells MW01, MW03, and MW05 and analyzed for GRO, DRO, and RRO with silica gel cleanup. MW04 may be sampled as a substitute for MW03 if it cannot be located. |
Bill O'Connell |
| 6/12/2012 |
Update or Other Action |
Based on the results of previous sampling efforts, the Institutional Controls requiring pore water sampling is removed. This database action was corrected on 8/14/14 to accurately reflect the June 12, 2012 letter sent. |
Bill O'Connell |
| 9/13/2012 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Confirmation of monitoring well decommissioning received by ADEC. Monitoring wells MW01-MW05 were successfully decommissioned in accordance with ADEC guidance. |
Bill O'Connell |
| 11/28/2013 |
Update or Other Action |
Date of receipt by ADEC SWP of document entitled Kuparuk Central Processing Facility No. 1 2013 Surface Water Quality Monitoring Report. Sampling was reported at SW-03 and SW-05 with no exceedances of criteria. TAH and TAqH were calculated according to DEC guidance using LOD value for non-detects. |
Keather McLoone |
| 10/6/2014 |
Institutional Control Update |
Current project manager chooses to retain management of the site at this time. |
Kristin Thompson |
| 11/19/2014 |
Update or Other Action |
Date of receipt by ADEC SWP of document entitled Kuparuk Central Processing Facility No. 1 2014 Surface Water Quality Monitoring Report. This document reports on monitoring associated with both the Oily Waste Injection Facility and the Oily Waste Storage Facility. Sampling was reported at SW-03 with no exceedances of criteria. SW-05 exceeded TAH and TAqH. TAH and TAqH were calculated according to DEC guidance using LOD value for non-detects. |
Keather McLoone |
| 10/16/2015 |
Update or Other Action |
Date of receipt of 2015 Surface Water Quality Monitoring report. Two sampling events were conducted, one in late June and the other late August. Results were nondetect for all BTEX and PAH compounds (except methylnaphthalenes in June) and the calculated TAH and TAqH values were below criteria as well. Conoco proposed a return to annual sampling. Report response letter will concur. |
Keather McLoone |
| 8/10/2016 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Reviewed document entitled 2016 Surface Water Quality Monitoring at the Kuparuk Central Processing Facility No. 1 Oily Waste Injection Facility, dated August 1, 2016 for the ConocoPhillips CPF-1 Oily Waste Injection Facility site. Proposed activities mainly consist of annual surface water monitoring. |
Joshua Barsis |
| 9/28/2016 |
Update or Other Action |
At this time, the project manager chooses to retain management of this site which has institutional controls. |
IC Unit |
| 11/1/2016 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Reviewed the document entitled 2016 Surface Water Quality Monitoring Report, dated for October 2016. Annual surface water monitoring was performed at two locations; CPF1-16SWP-03 and CPF1-16SWP-05. Neither sample exceeded the Alaska Water Quality Standards (AWQS) for TAH and TAqH.
Based on historical data, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc. requested discontinuation of monitoring at this site. However, in 2014, the sample collected from CPF1-14SWP-03 exhibited concentrations of TAH and TAqH that exceeded AWQS. There have been three subsequent events at this location, all below AWQS. At this time, ADEC is requesting at least two additional July monitoring events. Monitoring requirements will be evaluated following the 2018 event.
|
Joshua Barsis |
| 1/23/2018 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Reviewed the document entitled 2017 Surface Water Quality Monitoring Report, dated November 2017. Annual surface water monitoring was performed at two locations, CPF1-17SWP-03 and CPF1-17SWP-05. Neither sample exceeded the Alaska Water Quality Standards (AWQS) for Total Aromatic Hydrocarbons (TAH) and Total Aqueous Hydrocarbons (TAqH). |
Joshua Barsis |
| 1/11/2019 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Reviewed the document entitled 2018 Surface Water Quality Monitoring Report, dated December 2018. Annual surface water monitoring was performed at two locations, CPF1-18SWP-03 and CPF1-18SWP-05. Neither sample exceeded the Alaska Water Quality Standards (AWQS) for Total Aromatic Hydrocarbons (TAH); however both samples exceeded the AQWS criterion of 15 ug/l for Total Aqueous Hydrocarbons (TAqH). The text states that the heightened TAqH levels are the result of laboratory dilutions and not because of actual PAH concentrations. The justification from the text is shown below:
“The analytical results did not detect any PAH compounds above detection limits. In summing the TAqH levels, Rescon assigns concentration values for non-detected analytes by multiplying by two times the laboratory method detection limit (MDL) for the compound. However, due to the dilution of the PAH samples by a factor of five by the laboratory, the resulting MDLs were elevated to the point that the sum of the calculated non-detect concentrations resulted in TAqH levels above the water quality standard of 15 µg/L. It is unclear why the laboratory needed to dilute the samples to that degree, which is usually due to the nature of the sample matrix or presumed presence of hydrocarbons.”
In a letter dated January 11, 2019, ADEC agreed that further monitoring is not providing additional information in terms of risk from this site. There does not appear to be a continuing release. ADEC will not require further surface water monitoring at this site.
|
Joshua Barsis |
| 3/2/2021 |
Institutional Control Compliance Review |
IC compliance review started. A letter to the RP will be issued early next year and land use conditions will be verified. |
Evonne Reese |
| 3/12/2024 |
Institutional Control Update |
DNR-SAIL added as affiliate. For DNR LAS information: ADL# 420780 |
Jennifer McGrath |
| 5/30/2024 |
Institutional Control Compliance Review |
IC compliance review completed on this date. An IC reminder letter was e-mailed to the landowner. The next review will be in five years’ time. |
Gaige Robinson |
| 12/2/2024 |
Institutional Control Compliance Review |
The landowner responded to the IC reminder letter and provided a written confirmation that land use has not changed |
Gaige Robinson |
