| Action Date |
Action |
Description |
DEC Staff |
| 11/27/1990 |
Update or Other Action |
THIS SITE and its actions will be Incorporated into CS DB 199721X104803 Fort Rich NIKE Site & 39225 SFRERA for management purposes.
Army sent site assessment for closure of UST 58. In 1987, the UST had passed a tank tightness test. 3 soil samples were taken from the UST excavation zone. Sample 1 was from a depth of six feet from the north side wall. Sample 3 from a depth of six feet from the east side wall. Sample 2 was from a depth of 16 feet at the bottom of the excavation directly under the old UST.
The sampes were found to contain less than 1 mg/kg BTEX. Site was formally transferred to SFRERA agreement and removed from USTMP on 8/8/1995. |
Louis Howard |
| 9/21/1993 |
Update or Other Action |
A.G. letter (Breck Tostevin) to Tamela J. Tobia, OS Judge Advocate for the Army. Letter states that a separate petroleum site compliance agreement should be separate from the CERCLA federal facility agreement. The petroleum site restoration agreement would function as a "two-party agreement" under the FFA. It would track the basic provisions of the UST Agreement but be tailored to the State's contaminated site regulations and would interface with the FFA. All petroleum sites addressed under the Two Party agreement would be reviewed in the final operable unit of the FFA and actions taken would be memorialized in a Record of Decision (ROD) under the FFA. |
Louis Howard |
| 3/9/1994 |
Update or Other Action |
Letter from Army sent on compliance advisory letter dated 2/9/1994. The Army notes the concern of failure to meet certain time deadlines specified in the UST compliance agreement could jeopardize our excellent working relationship which we both worked on to achieve. Due to limited staffing we are having difficulty meeting the agreed upon deadlines. We wish to set up a meeting with your Contaminated Sites Office to discuss future deadlines.
Tank 26 at Building 786 Driver's Training, Tank 57 at Bldg. 39600, Site Summit arescheduled for removal on or before August 31, 1994. Please find attached the Corrective Action Report prepared by the CORPS for soil piles 3B, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13 that were thermally treated by Little Susitna (Co.). The CAR for the soil piles treated by Oil Spill Consultants is also attached. |
John Halverson |
| 6/15/1994 |
Update or Other Action |
Underground storage tank (UST) 58, removed in June 15, 1994, was listed as either to be upgraded or removed. Soil samples taken during removal found to be below level "C" criteria. Soils with this residual contamination start at 10 ft. bgs, eliminating direct contact as an exposure route. There are no groundwater wells in the vicinity of Bldg. 39-600 and contaminants are not expected to migrate to groundwater. |
Louis Howard |
| 9/28/1994 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Staff reviewed and commented on the site Assessment report, Bldg 39600, Former UST 57 Facility
No. 0-00788 July 15, 1994
The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation-Defense Facilities Oversight group (ADEC) has received, on September 12, 1994 a copy of the above referenced report. Below are ADEC's
comments.
5.3 Conclusion and Recommendations page 11
The text states the maximum detected the mean annual precipitation factor appears to be incorrect. Based on information from other consultants' reports at Fort Richardson
the annual precipitation has been calculated to be approximately 13 to 20 inches per year (Univ. of AK, Anchorage, Environmental Atlas 1972). This correction would result in a reclassifying of the cleanup score to 20 or a level "D" cleanup. It appears this error was repeated in all of the reports submitted to ADEC and mayor may not change cleanup levels for each site.
The text states levels detected in the soil under the tank indicated tank 101 has leaked and the maximum detected level of DRO is in excess of level D cleanup criteria (8,700 ppm).
Further action is required by the Army to delineate the vertical and horizontal level and extent of petroleum hydrocarbon contamination in soil and groundwater at each site. ADEC looks
forward to receiving the draft release investigation work plan with schedules of action for review and comment by January 1995 (estimated using Attachment C of the UST timeline for release
investigation/corrective action USTMP). |
Louis Howard |
| 1/9/1995 |
Update or Other Action |
On Thursday, January 5, 1995, you had a discussion with Mr. Samuel Swearingen of Public Works, Environmental Compliance Branch, concerning four underground stora e tanks(UST) that failed tank tightness testing. Tanks 754A, 789A, 81 Building 59000 and 30A Building 799 failed tank tightness testing, had release reports filed with Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC). Fort Richardson's Underground Storage Tank agreement with ADEC, under attachment C, requires initiation of a site assessment(SA) within 30 days and submittal of the SA to ADEC within 60 days.
The above referenced tanks have been emptied of all product, the fill lines sealed and padlocked to prevent refilling of the UST. All four tanks are scheduled to removed and possibly replaced in the spring/early summer of 1995. Fort Richardson requesting that the SA required by the USTMP be waived until the USTs are removed, at which time a SA and if necessary, a release investigation will be conducted on each of the above referenced sites, following the timeline specified in Attachment C of the USTMP.
Your concurrence, and/or comments arerequestedas'soon as possible to allow Public Works to make alternate arrangements if this course of action is not agreeable. |
Louis Howard |
| 8/8/1995 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Staff reviewed and commented ont he Site Summit Leaking Underground Storage Tank Request for Transfer
The Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) has received on August 1, 1995, a request
for transferring the Upper and Lower Site Summit sites from the Underground Storage Tank (UST)
agreement to the non-UST agreement for follow up and remediation. ADEC concurs with the
Army's view that there are many more concerns at these two sites that need to be addressed as well.
ADEC prefers to include the sites in the agreement that results in an expedited investigation and cleanup. Please provide information which will show the agreement that will provide the framework for a timely cleanup. Without such information ADEC cannot agree to transfer the sites out of the USTMP agreement to the SFRERA agreement. When the information is received and reviewed, then ADEC will make a final determination of this matter. |
Louis Howard |
| 8/9/1995 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
ADEC's comments and requests for further information regarding the most recent submittal on the USTMP quarterly report. Please send FY 97,98,99,2000 budget regarding LUST work anticipated at Fort Richardson so ADEC can budget man hours for review periods.
Page 4
Bldg. 39600 Ust 58 no site assessment received regarding this tank nor any records on file at
ADEC. Please resubmit for ADEC review and comment. Bldg. 47641 ust 94 correspondence indicates that 4112/95 (See accompanying letter) a site assessment waiver was granted pending confirmation sampling to verify level A cleanup criteria from in-situ bioventing remedial action already in place. No review comments on closure will be forthcoming since this site is undergoing corrective action. ADEC looks forward to reviewing the interim report on this site.
|
Louis Howard |
| 9/20/1995 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Staff reviewed and commneted on the Site Assessment Tank 112 Bldg. 39600, Fort Richardson, Alaska August 31, 1995.
The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation-Defense Facilities Oversight group
(ADEC) has received, on September 14, 1995, a copy of the above referenced report for building
39600. ADEC concurs that the level B cleanup criterion was exceeded at tank 112 and will
require further investigation to delineate the vertical and horizontal extent of the contamination at the site prior to implementing corrective action. ADEC looks forward to receiving a copy of the workplan for the release investigation with schedules of action for review and comment no later than January 1996. |
Louis Howard |
| 10/3/1995 |
Conditional Closure Approved |
Staff received a copy of the site assessement for Bldg. 39600 Tank 58 dated September 13, 1995 on September 27, 1995. Based on the data presented, ADEC concurs with the closure request since level "C" criteria was not exceeded.
If in the future, additional contamination is discovered at this site, further investigation and/or remedial actions may be requested of the Army by DEC. DEC reserves its rights, under 18 AAC 75, 18 AAC 78 and AS 46.03 to require the Army to conduct additional assessment and/or corrective actions in the future if information indicates the site conditions pose a risk to public health or the environment.
NOTE: If the following criteria is met, ADEC approval and/or an institutional control(s) are not required: 1. The soil meets the most stringent Method Two, Migration to Groundwater, Table B2 cleanup level, and the most stringent standards for those chemicals under Table B1; 2. The soil may only be disposed of at any non-environmentally sensitive location in the Under 40" or Over 40" annual precipitation zone; 3. The soil is not placed within 100 feet of water wells, surface waters, and drainage ditches; and 4.The written approval from the landowner of the off-site location is required. The off site disposal of all other soil subject to the site cleanup rules that does not meet the criteria above shall be reviewed by the ADEC project manager in order to determine if the off-site disposal action poses a current or future risk to human health or the environment. The final approval to dispose of soil off site that does not meet the criteria shall be made by the ADEC Section Manager. Terms used in this document have the meaning given in 18 AAC 75.990 including: “environmentally sensitive area” means a geographic area that, in the department's determination, is especially sensitive to change or alteration. |
Louis Howard |
| 2/17/1997 |
Site Added to Database |
Site added |
Louis Howard |
| 4/21/1998 |
Site Ranked Using the AHRM |
Ranking action added now because it was not added when the site was originally ranked. |
Bill Petrik |
| 7/2/1998 |
Institutional Control Record Established |
Updated USARAK institutional control policies and procedures received. The draft USARAK Command Policy Memorandum, ICs standard operating procedure and revised excavation clearance request have been finalized. To ensure the effectiveness of institutional controls, all organizational units and tenant activities will be informed on an annual basis of the institutional controls on contaminated soils and groundwater in effect on USARAK property. Where institutional controls are applicable to any organization, tenant, or activity, land use restrictions shall be incorporated into either a lease or Memorandum of Agreement, as appropriate.
Costs for any and all remedial actions and fines and/or stipulated penalties levied as a result of a violation of an established institutional control shall be funded by the violating activity or organization. |
Louis Howard |
| 8/29/2007 |
GIS Position Updated |
61.2583 N latitude -149.5279 W longitude |
Louis Howard |
| 2/25/2010 |
Update or Other Action |
Dept. of Army Installation Management Command, HQ U.S. Army Garrison Fort Richardson, Office of the Garrison Commander sent letter to ADEC. This letter serves as formal notice under Paragraph XXXII, Transfer of Property, of the Fort Richardson, Alaska (FRA) Federal Facility Agreement (FFA), that the property under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army will be transferred to the Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson (JBER) effective October 1, 2010. This letter also serves as formal notice that effective October 1, 2010, responsibility for the FRA FFA, dated December 15, 1994, will be transferred to the senior official of the JBER Supporting Component, United States Air Force (USAF). This transfer of responsibility is in accordance with the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the USAF and United States Army (USA), and was signed by the Vice Chief of Staff for the USAF and the Vice Chief of Staff for the USA on October 9, 2009.
Based on the MOA and previous discussions with US EPA (reference March 2009 FRA FFA meeting in Seattle with representatives of the EPA Region 10, Elmendorf AFB and Fort Richardson), it is our understanding your agency agrees the management and oversight of the FRA FFA may properly transfer to the JBER Restoration Project Manager (RPM), and such transfer does not constitute a significant change, such as to require formal renegotiation of the Agreement or the preparation of an amendment to the Record of Decision. If you have any questions or concerns about this matter, please contact Therese Deardorff, Chief, Environmental Division, U.S. Army Garrison Fort Richardson, Alaska 907.384.3074. |
Louis Howard |
| 5/19/2011 |
Update or Other Action |
Wing Instruction 32-7003 dated May 19, 2011 Land Use Control Management. OPR: 673 CES/CEANR Certified by: 673 CEG/CC (Col Russell R. Hula). This instruction implements AFPD 32-70, Environmental Quality, & is used in conjunction with AFIs 32-7020, The ERP, 32-7066, Environmental Baseline Surveys in Real Estate Transactions, & 673ABWI 32-1007, Safeguarding Utilities From Damage. It prescribes the processes & responsibilities for the management of & compliance with land use controls on Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson (JBER) & applies to all military & civilian organizations that occupy facilities, or conduct business, on the installation. This publication does not apply to the USAF Reserve or Air NG units & members. The current land use control areas can be found on the Environmental Restoration map located on the GeoBase webpage.
General:
1.1. Land use controls (LUC), such as limitations on access, water use, excavations, & property transfers, will supplement engineering controls as appropriate for short-term & long-term mgt to prevent or limit human & environmental exposure to hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants.
Examples include limitations on the depth & location of excavations, prohibition of or restrictions on well drilling & use of GW, mgt. of excavated soils, & prohibition of certain land uses. LUCs, often used interchangeably with (ICs), are administrative, procedural, engineering, & regulatory measures to control human access to & use of property.
1.2. LUCs were established at JBER to prevent exposure to contaminated soil & water, based on agreements between the military services & the EPA & the ADEC. LUCs are used to reduce the potential for exposure to hazardous substances or to enhance the protectiveness of a soil &/or water cleanup remedy. They include restrictions on the use of portions of the shallow aquifer south of the Elmendorf Moraine, limitations on the types of buildings allowed in certain areas – primarily occupancy limitations, & land use designations for certain areas as recreational use only.
The LUCs have been implemented at several sites & operable units (OU) as part of the ERP. LUCs were established for DP98 & OUs 1, 2, 4, 5, & 6 on former Elmendorf AFB property in their respective records of decision (ROD), as a component of the selected cleanup remedy. LUCs were also established for restoration & compliance sites formerly part of Fort Richardson in their respective RODs or Decision Documents. LUCs must be in place as long as a property is not available for UU or UE & may include temporary or permanent restrictions or requirements. When all cleanup goals have been achieved for a given site, temporary controls, such as GW use restrictions, may be removed.
2. Responsibilities:
2.1. JBER personnel, tenants, or contractors whose projects or activities require excavation in areas where site-specific LUCs are in effect will comply with all LUCs, 673ABWI 32-1007, & applicable AF instructions. Base contractors & tenant organizations will have LUC compliance requirements incorporated into their contracts & interagency agreements, as will be necessary. Failure to comply with LUCs will be grounds for penalty, in accordance with provisions specified in applicable contract documents. At project completion, the JBER organization or contractor will sign a certification of LUC compliance & return the compliance statement to 673 CES/CEANR.
2.2. The 673d Civil Engineer Squadron (673 CES):
2.2.1. Asset Management Flight (673 CES/CEA):
2.2.1.1. Natural Resources Management (673 CES/CEAN):
2.2.1.1.1. Environmental Restoration (673 CES/CEANR):
2.2.1.1.1.1. Will provide GW & site-specific LUC requirements throughout the installation & identify any known soil contaminated sites & monitoring wells for the area of the proposed project.
2.2.1.1.1.2. Will conduct annual site visits to ensure compliance with LUCs during project implementation.
2.2.1.1.1.3. Will conduct 5-year reviews, at 5-year intervals, or as required by any subsequent RODs.
2.2.1.1.1.4. Will prepare annual LUC compliance reports & submit reports to ADEC & USEPA by 1 February each year.
2.2.1.1.1.5. Will disseminate LUC information to personnel involved in LUC mgt, including real property & 673 CES/CEPT for inclusion into GeoBase.
2.2.1.1.1.6. Will operate an active educational program that includes disseminating updated fact sheets & LUC information, providing notices through the installation intranet & the Arctic Warrior newspaper, & by briefing LUC mgt at project kick-off meetings; Environmental, Safety & Occupational Health Council meetings, & CEB meetings.
2.2.1.1.1.7. Will coordinate any changes in the base general plan (BGP), or real estate transactions, with USEPA & ADEC.
2.2.1.1.1.8. Will maintain copies of signed certificates of compliance, indicating requestor’s adherence to LUCs during project execution.
See site file for additional information.
|
Louis Howard |
