| Action Date |
Action |
Description |
DEC Staff |
| 3/31/1983 |
Update or Other Action |
Engineering-Science (1983) reviewed records on file at the Bioenvironmental Engineering Office and performed shop interviews to determine the types of hazardous materials, quantities of waste produced, and disposal methods. The drain outfalls were consequently identified as potential sources of environmental contamination because of the nature of compounds thought to have been discharged to floor drains in the building.
Records indicate that less than 55 gallons each of MEK, a mixture of paint stripper and thinner, and *PD680 were discharged to floor drains every 6 months from 1970 until the early 1980s. After 1981, the waste products were disposed of through the Defense Property Disposal Office, now the Defense Reutilization and Marketing Office.
*NOTE: Each item the Government orders must have an N.S.N, a National Stock Number, unless the Agency gets special permission to local purchase the item. Each N.S.N. item goes out for bid and has an associated minimum specification. The specification for PD680, aka. Stoddard Solvent, back in the 1980's and before was for a petroleum based degreaser with a specified flashpoint. No requirement for non-halogenated existed.
Besides that, because Alaska was so far from venders that supplied the Govt., many federal agencies in Alaska purchased solvents locally. There were no qualifications on those solvents and most often halogenated solvents worked with less effort than pure petroleum distillates, so they were preferred.
NSNs ordered through the PD680 specs had some batches with Trichloroethylene (TCE), Methylene chloride, etc; it depended on who the supplier to the Govt.was at the time. So as a result between 1980 and 1983, some PD680 batches were in fact halogenated. For historical releases it pays to be aware that chlorinated solvents may be associated with releases from PD680 or Stoddard Solvent. |
Jennifer Roberts |
| 6/30/1988 |
Update or Other Action |
In 1988, Black & Veatch placed a soil boring, collected soil samples from 10 feet and 25 feet below ground surface, and finished the boring as a monitoring well (IS4-01). Total
petroleum hydrocarbon (TPH) concentrations in the soil samples were 529 mg/kg at 10 feet and 53 mg/kg at 25 feet below ground surface. A water sample from monitoring well IS4-01 was found to be contaminated with 1,1,1-trichloroethane (5.8 ug/l), and 1,1-dichloroethane (2.2 ug/l). Alpha-BHC (2.3 ug/l) and di-n-butylphthalate (13 ug/l) were also detected in the water sample. Fuels, solvents, and pesticides are the most likely sources of the detected contaminants.
With the use of geophysical techniques, Black & Veatch concluded that the dry wells were under the north and south ends of the building. Black & Veatch also estimated that the
direction of groundwater flow was from northeast to southwest. Because of the position of the monitoring well relative to the dry wells and the reported groundwater flow, the contamination detected in the groundwater may not represent potential contamination from the dry wells. The location of the boring indicates that the chemicals detected in the soil may not come directly from the dry wells. |
Jennifer Roberts |
| 8/2/1988 |
Update or Other Action |
Operable Units' source areas that correspond to RCRA SWMUs from the RCRA RFA. SD27 IS43 Bldg. 42-300 Floor Drain. This site was used for aircraft cleaning, with PD-680* solvent and paint to dry well.
*NOTE TO FILE: PD-680 Each item the Govt. orders must have an N.S.N, a National Stock Number, unless the Agency gets special permission to local purchase the item. Each N.S.N. item goes out for bid and has an associated minimum specification. The specification for PD-680, aka. Stoddard Solvent, back in the 1980's and before it was for a petroleum based degreaser with a specified flashpoint. No requirement for non-halogenated existed. Besides that, because Alaska was so far from vendors that supplied the Govt., many federal agencies in Alaska purchased solvents locally. There were no qualifications on those solvents and most often halogenated solvents worked with less effort than pure petroleum distillates, so they were preferred.
NSNs ordered through the PD-680 specs had some batches with TCE, Methylene chloride, etc; it depended on who the supplier to the Govt.was at the time. So as a result between 1980 and 1983, some PD-680 batches were in fact halogenated. For historical releases it pays to be suspicious of drums that say PD-680 or Stoddard Solvent. |
Jennifer Roberts |
| 3/18/1989 |
Update or Other Action |
Dept. of Air Force letter to Sue Curtin Black & Veatch.
Per your telephone request with Capt Godsave, we submit the following
information:
1. Storm sewer system maps for SP15, SP5/5A, SP7/10, IS-1: Attached.
2. Jet Fuel Supplier: Jet fuel is supplied per one year contracts. Presently, the majority of fuel is supplied by ARCO. Their contact person is Ms Candy Stallings, 213-486-2824. Other suppliers are Tesoro (Contact - Mr Raymond Measles at 907-561-5521), Chevron (415-944-6250), and Mapco (contact - Ms Bonnie Garner at 907-276-4100).
3. Buildings 42-400, 42-425, 43-550, 42-300, 43-410, 43-450, 32-060 floor drains: Originally, minor spillage and products operations in these facilities were washed into floor drains to dry wells. Present conditions are below. Since as-builts clear, this information may not be totally correct. 21-900, and from cleaning and from there are old and not
a. IS-1, Building 42-400: Floor drains run into two oil-water separators.
b. IS-2, Building 42-425: Sanitary sewer runs along side of building, unclear whether floor drains run into it or not.
c. IS-3, Building 43-550: Sanitary sewer runs along side of building, do not know whether floor drains run into it or not.
d. IS-4, Building 42-300: Floor drains run into an oil-water separator and then into the storm drain on the east and west side of the building.
e. IS-5, Building 43-410: Floor drains are connected to septic tank and leach fields at south side of building.
f. IS-6, Building 43-450: Floor drains probably go to the septic tank and leach pits east of the building and across the railroad track.
g. IS-7, Building 21-900: The floor drains run through sumps to remove sand and grit and dump right into the storm drain on the north side of the building. The floor drains for the mechanical room run out the south side of the building and into a seepage pit. There is also a catch basin on the south side of the building that runs into a seepage pit.
h. IS-8, Building 32-060: Although sanitary sewers run near the building, it appears that floor drains go directly to dry wells.
4. How close can wells be put to the runway? If top cover of wells are flush with the ground surface, there should not be a problem. If above ground surface and within 1000 feet of the runway, the well will require a waiver. If within 500 feet of the runway, well may also be required to be frangible.
5. If well is near the runway, can piping go underground beneath a taxiway to a treatment facility? That should not be a problem if taxiway is tunneled under.
6. What is the frost depth for Elmendorf AFB? The Building Code says 42 inches.
7. Does DRMO recycle fuel? DRMO does have a contract to recycle fuel.
8. At Site D-16, can soil at the site be used for grading? If soil is within acceptable levels for contaminants, yes. However, trees should be left as much as feasible.
9. How much would a contractor be required to pay the government for electricity? The government normally supplies contractors reasonable amounts of electricity at no cost. The government also requests that contractors, in this case, practice conservation.
Signed
Thomas Ritz Major, USAF
Acting Chief, Engineering & Environmental Planning Branch. |
Jennifer Roberts |
| 12/29/1989 |
Update or Other Action |
ADEC letter to Everett L. Mabry Colonel, Base Civil Engineer, HQ 21st Combat Support Group (AAC) RE: RI/FS Stage 4 Second Draft Work Plan Elmendorf Air Force Base, October 1989.
SITE IS-4
Paragraph 5.2.2.10 states that the floordrains are to an oil/water
separator and the water discharge is disposed of into the storm
sewer. Effluent discharge into storm drains must meet Alaska Water Quality Regulations and an industrial waste water discharge permit is required. |
Ron Klein |
| 7/2/1990 |
Update or Other Action |
AFOEHL REPORT 90-124EQ00687GHH Hazardous Waste Technical Assistance Survey EAFB (July 1990). Bldg. 42300 (Hangar 8) 962 Airborne Warning and Alert Communication System (962 AWACS)
Shop: AMU and AGE: Shop personnel maintain two AWACS aircraft and the associated AGE. Waste 7808 oil (50 gallons/year), 30W engine oil (50 gallons/year), and 5606 hydraulic fluid (50 gallons/year) are drummed separately and turned in to DRMO every 90 days. Oil filters are drained and accumulated in a 30-gallon overpack container. They are disposed through DRMO as oil contaminated material. Small quantities of antifreeze are occasionally discharged to the
sanitary sewer. Aircraft soap (200 gallons/year) is used for cleaning floors and vehicles. The waste is discharged to the sanitary sewer through an oil/water separator. The shop has just received ED-10 which will be used rather than aircraft soap. The ED-10 will be diluted 50:1 before use. |
Louis Howard |
| 10/31/1991 |
Update or Other Action |
CH2MHILL found deficiencies and data gaps in a site summary of site from previous work.
Fate of PD-680 and potential for off source migration not been identified, direction for groundwater flow, and associated gradient was estimated from 1 on source monitor well and regional water level data from nearby source areas, contaminant plume in vertical and horizontal extent has not been fully delineated.
NOTE: SAFETY-KLEEN MILITARY PD680, SOLVENTS, SYNONYMS: Parts Washer Solvent; Petroleum Distillates; Petroleum Naphtha; Naphtha, Solvent; Stoddard Solvent; Mineral Spirits. PRODUCT PART NUMBER: 660455 PRODUCT USE: Cleaning and degreasing metal parts. Appearance/Odor: LIQUID, CLEAR AND COLORLESS, MILD HYDROCARBON ODOR, Boiling Point: 350 F, Melting Point:-45 F, Vapor Pressure: 0.2, Vapor Density: 5.4, Specific Gravity: 0.79,Evaporation Rate: 0.04,
Solubility in Water: INSOLUBLE, Flash Point: 142
These solvents are used as cleaners and degreasers for painted and unpainted metal parts and to remove corrosion preventive compounds. The solvents are available in several types. Although the degreasing effectiveness is approximately the same, the flash points differ as follows: Type I, both specifications, 100° F (38° C) minimum; Type II, both specifications, 140° F (60° C) minimum; Type III, both specifications, 200° F (93° C) minimum, Type IV (dlimonene additive), MIL-PRF-680 only, 140° F (60° C)
minimum. Though the flash points differ, all types will burn
intensely once ignited. Type I, both specifications, is not
authorized as a general cleaner due to its flammability, but
may be used in parts washers designed for such solvents.
Type II, both specifications, is the most common cleaning
solvent used on aircraft, missiles, and equipment because of
its higher flash point.
Type II. Type III, both specifications, is intended for use in confined spaces and in locations with environmental constraints where a solvent with a very low vapor pressure (evaporation rate) and a very high flash point is required. MIL-PRF-680, Type IV (d-limonene
additive) may be used where a higher flash point and strong solvency is desired.
Only 1 soil boring and 1 monitor well completed, no soil gas surveys were performed to assist in delineating extent of the contaminant plume, recoverable metals detected in groundwater samples which exceeded federal/state action levels were not discussed. |
Jennifer Roberts |
| 11/12/1991 |
Enforcement Agreement or Order |
Federal Facility Agreement under Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) signed for docket # 1089-07-19-120. The agreement ensures that the environmental impacts associated with past and present activities at the Base are thoroughly investigated and appropriate removal and/or remedial action(s) taken as necessary to protect human health and the environment. Elmendorf Federal Facility Agreement signed.
The general purposes of this Agreement are to: (a) Ensure that the environmental impact associated with past and present activities at the Site are thoroughly investigated and appropriate removal and/or remedial action(s) taken as necessary to protect the public health, welfare, and the environment.(b) Establish a procedural framework and schedule for developing, implementing, and monitoring appropriate response actions at the Site in accordance with CERCLA, the NCP, Superfund guidance and policy, RCRA, RCRA guidance and policy, and applicable state law.
The FFA divided the CERCLA study source areas at Elmendorf AFB into the following seven operable unites (OUs), on the basis of geographic proximity and similar source characteristics or contaminants:
- OU1 Landfills (LF05, LF07, LF13, LF59, OT56)
- OU2 Tank Spill Sites (ST20, ST41, including the ST41 Sludge Disposal Area)
- OU3 Central Containment Area (SD16, SD31, SD52, SS21)
- OU4 Northern Containment Area (SD24, SD25, SD28, SD29, FT23, SSl0)
- OU5 Southern Containment Area (ST37)
- OU6 Surface Disposal Sites (LF02, LF03, LF04, SD15, SD73, WP14)
- OU7 Limited Field Investigation (SS19)
Proposed listing on NPL was 07/14/1989 and Final listing on NPL was on 08/30/1990.
SD27 (formerly IS-4) Bldg. 42-300 floor drain. This site was used for aircraft cleaning with PD-680 solvent and paint to dry well.
See site file for additional information. |
Jennifer Roberts |
| 11/12/1991 |
Update or Other Action |
Jennifer Roberts Federal Facility Coordinator sent letter to Joe Williamson and Rich Howard pursuant to Section 9.1 of the Elmendorf Air Force Base Federal Facility Agreement (FFA). ADEC designates Jennifer Roberts as the Project Manager and Ron Klein as the Alternate Project Manager for all activities covered under the FFA. |
Jennifer Roberts |
| 12/30/1991 |
Update or Other Action |
EPA sent letter to AF Rich Howard and Joe Williamson. The notification will serve as an addendum to the previous letter of November 4, 1991 which designates the USEPA project managers pursuant to Section 9.1 of the Elmendorf Air Force Base (EAFB) Federal Facilities Agreement (FFA). Marcia Combes will serve a lead remedial project manager (RPM) for Base-wide activities, as well as Operable Units (OUs) 2, 3, 5, 6, 7. Michele Poirier-McNeill will serve as lead RPM for OUs 1 and 4. In addition both RPMs will serve as an alternative RPM on OUs for which they are not the lead. For communication and correspondence purposes, the lead RPM should be the point of contact, and the alternate should be copied. |
Jennifer Roberts |
| 1/1/1992 |
Site Added to Database |
Solvents, paint wastes, and petroleum hydrocarbons. |
Louis Howard |
| 7/17/1992 |
Preliminary Assessment Approved |
Memorandum for a meeting held at CH2MHILL/ANC on July 8, 1992 subject: OU4 IRA Planning. Purpose was to discuss the preliminary results of the OU4 Limited Field Investigation (LFI) field work and reach consensus among the project managers on which OU4 source areas would be appropriate for an Interim Remedial Action (IRA). General criteria for an Interim Remedial Action (IRA):
1) contamination verified above action levels (EPA and ADEC guidance levels);
2) point source contamination defined and accessible;
3) IRA implementable;
4) IRA won't interfere with final remedy; and
5) IRA should prevent further release of contaminants.
SD27 (Building 42-300): Data from sampling indicate no contamination above action levels. Consensus: no IRA. |
Jennifer Roberts |
| 9/16/1992 |
Update or Other Action |
USAF letter to Jennifer Roberts regarding "Revisions to Elmendorf AFB Federal Facility Agreement (FFA) Scope of Work for Operable Units (OU) 4 and 7." As a result of the 1992 field investigation, the USAF requests to move FT23 from OU7 to OU4. Based on the results of the Limited Field Investigation (LFI) it appears FT23 may be the source of contamination observed in past investigations at SD24, SD25, SD26, and SD27.
Delete the requirement of an interim remedial action (IRA) at OU4. Based on the LFI, the remedial project managers identified the dry wells at SD24, SD28, and SD31 as potential IRAs. However, further review of the results of the LFI, indicate only the sludge at the bottom of the dry well at these sources were sampled and no soil samples were obtained. At this time there is no evidence of soil contamination in the immediate vicinity of the dry wells. Without additional investigation of these wells, it does not appear an IRA is warranted. Instead of an IRA, we will pursue funding to remove the sludge in each dry well. ADEC project manager Jennifer Roberts signed document to show its concurrence. |
Jennifer Roberts |
| 11/30/1992 |
Update or Other Action |
OU4 LFI Report received.
In 1988, Black & Veatch (1990) placed a soil boring, collected soil samples from 10’ bgs & 25’ bgs, & finished the boring as a monitoring well (IS4-01). A water sample was then collected from the monitoring well. The soil & water samples were tested for the same constituents as enumerated for Source SD24. TPH in the soil samples were 529 mg/kg at 10’ & 53 mg/kg at 25’ bgs. A water sample from monitoring well IS4-01 was found to be contaminated with, 1,1,1-trichloroethane (5.8 pg/l), & 1,1-dichloroethane (2.2 pcg/). Alpha-BHC (2.3 lg/I) & di-n-butylphthalate (13 9g/l) were also detected in the water sample.
Because of the position of the monitoring well relative to the dry wells & other potential sources, the contamination detected in the GW may not be representative of potential contamination from the dry wells. Using geophysical techniques, Black & Veatch (1990) concluded that the dry wells were under the north & south ends of the building. Black & Veatch also estimated that the direction of GW flow was from northeast to southwest.
No further action is recommended for the drain outfalls sampled at SD27 because the criteria for selecting an IRA or RI/FS were not met. None of the soil samples collected during the LFI at SD27 contained any analyte in excess of the risk-based criteria. Other contamination was detected in soils & GW at SD27 during earlier investigations conducted at this source. Total petroleum hydrocarbon contamination was detected in soil samples collected during the installation of IS4-01, & the GW at this monitoring well is contaminated with TPH & 1,1,1-trichloroethane. Therefore, it appears as if the soil & GW contamination found in this monitoring well has resulted from a source other than the two floor drain outfalls sampled during the LFI.
During the LFI, a number of other potential contaminant sources were identified in the vicinity of SD27 as shown on Figure 3.2 & in Table 3.12. These other sources include POL lines, fuel pumphouses, USTs, the fire training pit (FT023), & other OU 4 sources. The Base Master Plan maps & a copy of a USAF-supplied UST inventory database indicate that a 20,000-gallon diesel fuel tank that was installed in 1957 is approximately 10 feet south of Building 42-300. This tank has the largest capacity of any of the USTs identified in the vicinity of SD27.
The fire training pit (FT023) is approximately 3/4 mile upgradient of Building 42-300, & is the only upgradient source where GW is known to be contaminated by chlorinated solvents. Other upgradient OU 4 sources, SD24 & SD25, had soil contamination discovered during the LFI, but the impact that this contamination may have had on GW quality cannot be evaluated with the limited type & amount of data collected during the LFI.
To further assess the source of GW contamination at SD27 will require additional investigation of the other contaminant sources described above, when additional RI activities are completed during the investigation of other OUs.
See site file for additional information. |
Louis Howard |
| 3/26/1993 |
Update or Other Action |
DOD and ADEC joint Technical Memorandum of understanding signed concerning the Base-wide Groundwater (GW) signed by: ADEC Jennifer Roberts RPM and USAF Joseph Williamson Chief Environmental Programs & Restoration. Due to the base-wide GW study and the FY92 field work that occurred at Operable Units (OUs) 1, 2, and 5 it appears a large portion of the GW flows into OU5 (attach. 1-contour map). Based on this fact, Elmendorf (EAFB) will move all upgradient GW into the OU5 Feasibility Study, Proposed Plan and Record of Decision (ROD). This means addressing all GW from upgradient sources (CERCLA (ST20, OUs 3 and 4) and OUs 1 and portions of OU2) and SERA) at OU5 instead of at each individual source area (see attach. 2-Area Map). Sites with free phased product would be looked at to see if there is an available technology to clean them up in a cost effective way. Soil contamination would be addressed at the source areas. NOTE: addressed at the source areas is interpreted by ADEC as removal through excavation or active treatment systems (e.g. high vacuum extraction, bioventing, etc...). |
Jennifer Roberts |
| 5/7/1993 |
Conditional Closure Approved |
No Further Action (NFA) document signed. Operable Unit 4 West building 42-300/Hangar 8 SD27: As a result of the geophysical survey & soil sampling conducted at SD27, & research of other potential sources of contamination near SD27, the recommended action at SD27 is No Further Action (NFA).
Records indicate that less than 55 gallons each of MEK, a mixture of paint stripper & thinner, & PD680 were discharged to floor drains every 6 months from 1970 until the early 1980s. After 1981, the waste products were disposed of through the Defense Property Disposal Office, now the Defense Reutilization & Marketing Office
The primary criterion that was used to place sources in the NFA category as a result of the LFI as SD27 was whether the level of contaminants in any sample obtained during the LFI exceeded the risk based criteria specified by the regulatory agencies. No soil samples collected at SD27 were found to contain analytes in excess of risk based criteria. However, IS4-01 BV90 had total petroleum hydrocarbons (EPA Method 418.1 at 529 mg/kg in excess of 100 mg/kg). It appears that the soil & GW contamination found in monitoring well IS4-01 has resulted from a source other than the two floor drain outfalls sampled during the LFI. Potential sources near SD27: POL lines, underground storage tanks, & the fire training area (FT23).
Other contamination was detected in soils & GW at SD27 during earlier investigations conducted at this source area. TPH was detected in soil samples collected during the installation of IS4-01, & the GW at this monitoring well was contaminated with TPH & 1,1,1-trichloroethane. Therefore, it appears that the soil & GW contamination found in this monitoring well has resulted from a source other than the two floor drain outfalls sampled during the LFI. Potential sources near SD27 include petroleum, oil, & lubricants (POL) lines; underground storage tanks; & the fire training area(FT23).
FT23 is the only upgradient source 3/4 mile away from SD27 known to have GW contaminated with chlorinated solvents. It appears FT23 may be the primary source of GW contamination (at SD27) based on the preliminary GW directions estimated for EAFB. Other OU4 sources upgradient of SD27 were found to have soil contamination. Additional investigation at these locations & FT23 will be included in the RI at OU4 in 1993.
USAF Determination of No Further Action for purposes of investigation or study is justified for Source SD27 Building 42-300 signed by USAF Oscar V. Byran on April 27, 1993, USEPA Project manager Marcia Combes & ADEC Project manager Jennifer Roberts on May 7, 1993. NOTE TO FILE: SD26 & SD27, while recommended for NFA, are still located within the boundary of OU 4. The GW & soil contamination [present at SD26 & SD27] associated with these two facilities were considered as part of the overall OU 4 contamination. (OU4 2.2 Regulatory & Enforcement History Page 2-4 September 1995)
See site file for additional information. |
Jennifer Roberts |
| 9/15/1994 |
Risk Assessment Report Approved |
Risk assessment combined with RI/FS final version received and approved. 12 constituents were identified as major contributors to groundwater risk. 8 were identified as contributors to carcinogenic groundwater risk: benzene, chloromethane, dieldrin, 1,1-dichloroethene, 1,2-dichloroethane, chloroform, trichloroethene, and carbon tetrachloride. 4 constituents were principal contributors to non-carcinogenic groundwater risk, including toluene, ethylbenzene, cis-1,2-dichloroethene, and trichloroethene. Results of the risk evaluation for soils indicated six constituents as primary contributors to the carcinogenic risk in soil, including benzo(a) pyrene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, dibenzo(a,h)anthracene, benzo(a)anthracene, PCB-1260, and benzo(k)fluoranthene. Non-carcinogenic risk in soil did not exceed an HQ of 1.0.
The results of the risk assessment indicate that each of the six soil and five of the six groundwater areas of interest have a carcinogenic risk in excess of 1.0 x 10-6 using the most conservative residential estimates. At the Asphalt Drum Storage Area, no groundwater risks were identified.
Ecological risk assessment: Ecological quotients for moose did not exceed 1.0 for moose. EQs of 1.0 were exceeded for copper and lead for meadow voles at OU4. None of these exceedances appear to be highly significant for the following reasons: the overall nature of the methodology used was conservative. In several cases the calculated doses, reference criteria, or measurement endpoints were inappropriate for this site because even normal background concentrations caused exceedances. Finally, the relatively uniform distributions of concentrations of manganese, selenium and thallium across all the sites is not typical of highly contaminated areas. |
John Halverson |
| 9/15/1994 |
CERCLA RI Report Approved |
Final version of the remedial investigation/feasibility study received and approved.
OU4W-1: Installed as a downgradient well to the easternmost lobe of NHVOC plume identified through groundwater screening at Hangars 8 and 10. OU4W-2: Installed as a upgradient well to the NHVOC plume identified through groundwater screening at Hangars 8 and 10. OU4W-3, OU4W-4 & OU4W-10: Installed as an in-source well to the NHVOC plume identified through groundwater screening at Hangars 8 and 10. OU4W-10: OU4W-12*: Installed as a downgradient well to the westernmost lobe of NHVOC plume identified through groundwater screening at Hangars 8 and 10.
*The groundwater flow direction was calculated prior to the installation of this well to optimize the location selected with respect to potential contaminant transport. These source areas, while recommended for No Further Action, are still included within the boundary of OU 4, and the groundwater and soil contamination at these sites will be addressed.
Groundwater screening (hydropunch) samples highest results: WH-12: Benzene 4,900 ug/L (5 ug/L 2018 18 AAC 75 Table C GW cleanup level), WH-10: Toluene: 12,000 ug/L (1,100 ug/L), WH-12/WH-10 Ethylbenzene: 1,700 ug/L (15 ug/L), WH-10 Xylenes: 6,800 ug/L.
See site file for additional information. |
John Halverson |
| 12/7/1994 |
Update or Other Action |
Mgt. Action Plan Appendix G No Further Action Documents.
Source area SD27 (Building 42-300/Hangar 8), originally identified as a potential source of contamination in the 1983 Phase I record search, is situated 1,500 feet north of, and midway along, the east/west runway. This site is included in OU4 for purposes of remedial investigation at Elmendorf AFB under CERCLA. Ten maintenance facilities were grouped together in OU4 for an LFI during 1992 because they were suspected of having floor drains that emptied into dry wells, leach fields, or storm drains.
Building 42-300/Hangar 8 was constructed in 1957, and an addition was built in 1983. The building, an active facility for 35 years, has been used for cleaning and painting aircraft. Waste methyl ethyl ketone, paint thinner, paint stripper, and PD680 were produced in the building. The building's floor drains discharged to dry wells and may have received rinse water and minor spillage from these industrial operations.
The purpose of the 1992 LFI conducted at source area SD27 was to identify and evaluate the drain outfalls at Building 42-300 and assess the possible environmental impacts that may have resulted from past operations and disposal practices. The results of the LFI were used to (1) assess the final disposition of the outfalls and (2) recommend either NFA or that an RI/FS be conducted.
As a result of the geophysical survey and soil sampling conducted at source area SD27, and research of other potential sources of contamination near the site, the recommended action for the outfall structure source areas investigated at this source was NFA.
The primary criterion used to place sources in the NFA category was whether the concentration of constituents in any sample obtained during the LFI exceeded the risk-based criteria specified by the regulatory agencies. No soil samples collected during the LFI at source area SD27 were found to contain analytes in excess of risk-based criteria.
The NFA document for SD27 was signed by the USAF on 27 April 1993 and by the state and EPA on 7 May 1993. Site SD27 was considered closed with the signing of the NFA document.
af\ |
Louis Howard |
| 4/11/1995 |
Proposed Plan |
Proposed Plan lists benzene as the only COC for groundwater (maximum detected 266 ug/L) and petroleum contaminants for shallow soils. Preferred alternative for shallow soils at hangar 8 is ICs with intrinsic remediation. Groundwater at all source areas will be addressed through ICs with natural attenuation (NA). Use of shallow GW aquifer as a water supply will be prohibited by access restrictions during the period of time it takes for NA to remediate the water (8 years for hangar 8, 13 for FTA/hangar 10/11, and 7 years for hangars 14/15).
The Hangar 8/10 area groundwater plume is composed of fuel related compounds and extends from hangar 10 to several hundred feet southeast of hangar 8. Plume size was estimated at 1,200 feet by 700 feet in size. |
Jennifer Roberts |
| 6/15/1995 |
Site Ranked Using the AHRM |
Initial ranking. Action code added because it wasn't when the site was originally ranked. |
Louis Howard |
| 10/10/1995 |
Cleanup Level(s) Approved |
Benzene was the sole contaminant of concern identified for groundwater with a maximum concentration of 266 ug/L and the cleanup level is 5 ug/L for benzene. |
Jennifer Roberts |
| 10/10/1995 |
Record of Decision |
SD27 (hangar 8/Building 42-300 or IS-4), listed in Record of Decision (ROD) as no further action (NFA) for soil only in a decision document 5/7/93. Remedial Investigation (RI) lists source of soils contamination at Hangar 8 to be: pumphouse 2, or the pipes in the vicinity of the pumphouse. Groundwater (GW) plume in hangar 8/10 area is composed of fuel-related compounds. Benzene is the only compound that exceeds MCLs. Selected remedy for shallow soils and deep soils at the site is institutional controls with intrinsic remediation (time estimated for cleanup of the soils is 11 years).
Contaminated groundwater will be dealt with institutional controls and intrinsic remediation (IR) combined with groundwater monitoring (estimated time for cleanup at 8 years). Land use and GW use restrictions will limit access to contaminated GW throughout OU4 until cleanup is achieved. GW will be monitored and evaluated semi-annually to assess contaminant migration and timely reduction of contaminant levels by IR. This will include 5 year reviews to assess the protectiveness of the remedial action, as long as contamination remains above cleanup levels. All GW will be cleaned up at OU4 within 13 years. Further response actions, coordinated with the regulatory agencies, may be considered if monitoring finds unacceptable contaminant migration occurring, or unacceptable reduction in contaminant levels through intrinsic remediation.
The probable source of the plume is Pumphouse 2 and/or the associated piping in the vicinity of the pumphouse. All lines associated with the fuel facilities in the vicinity of Pumphouse 2 have been tested and all leaks have been repaired. In addition, all base USTs are being upgraded to meet current standards.
NOTE TO FILE: SD26 and SD27, while recommended for NFA, are still located within the boundary of OU 4. The groundwater and soil contamination [present at SD26 and SD27] associated with these two facilities were considered as part of the overall OU 4 contamination. (OU4 2.2 Regulatory and Enforcement History Page 2-4 September 1995) |
Jennifer Roberts |
| 10/10/1995 |
Institutional Control Record Established |
ROD in 1995 designated long-term monitoring for benzene contaminated groundwater and institutional controls until GW achieves remedial action objectives.
No current receptors exist for the groundwater at the Base due to the institutional controls (ICs). As a requirement of previously signed RODs for the Base, ICs have been established to restrict the use of the shallow aquifer in the outwash plain on Base. These restrictions are enforced through the Base Comprehensive Plan (BCP).
Projects and other activities are reviewed during the planning stage to ensure compliance with the BCP. In addition, construction projects and other activities also undergo an environmental review. This review helps ensures compliance with groundwater use restrictions. |
Louis Howard |
| 10/10/1995 |
Update or Other Action |
5/7/1993 RIFS recommended No Further Remedial Action. 10/10/95 ROD memorialized the previous Limited Field Investigation (LFI) which included no further action recommendations and subsequent NFA decision document for SD27 (a.k.a. hanger 8/Building 42-300) for the soils.
However, the GW will be monitored for natural attenuation and institutional controls on the shallow aquifer will prevent use as drinking water source. |
Louis Howard |
| 11/30/1995 |
Long Term Monitoring Established |
Remedial action started which includes long-term monitoring of the groundwater at Operable Unit 4 source areas. |
Louis Howard |
| 10/17/1996 |
Update or Other Action |
Air Force memo: Restricted Use of the Shallow Aquifer on EAFB signed by William R. Hanson P.E. GM-14 Chief Environmental Flight dated October 17, 1996 Memorandum for 3 SPTG/CEC/CEO from 3 SPTG/CEV
1) Due to the contamination and commitments to EPA/DEC the use of the shallow aquifer for any purpose on is not allowed. Attached Facilities Board minutes-03/29/1994 0930 Item 9 has Mr. William Hanson, briefing the Board on the policy to not use the shallow aquifer due to contamination. The Board approved this policy. Minutes approved by Thomas R. Case Brigadier General USAF Commander. The IRP has RODs for OUs 3 and 6 which require, the aquifer remain unused.
2) Personnel in the review process within CES must be aware of these policies and review them on a recurring basis. It is imperative this restriction be recognized and observed during engineer reviews and operations. |
Louis Howard |
| 6/16/1997 |
Update or Other Action |
USAF Memorandum to ADEC regarding Clarifications to OU2 ROD. The letter is a follow-up to the discussions regarding institutional controls at OU2. The USAF hopes by this correspondence, to clarify appropriate land use controls at OU2 and setup a land use restriction method consistent with the most recent Elmendorf RODs. The OU2 ROD states that groundwater at ST41 needs remedial action and a part of the selected remedy was to restrict land use by implementing zoning controls. The Summary of the ROD on page 9-2 states that the selected remedy includes "Zoning the affected area for industrial use only, excluding the development of commercial aquaculture."
However, the Declaration of the ROD states "Zoning the affected area for undeveloped outdoor/recreational use only." In light of this contradiction and the use of "restricted use areas" under the RODs for OU3 and OU6 the USAF is providing clarification of the permissible land uses within the area affected by ST41 groundwater. The affected area should include those areas that exceed the groundwater cleanup levels established in the OU2 ROD. A map of the area currently and potentially impacted by the contaminated groundwater from ST41 is at attachment 1. This map may be revised based upon review of the contamination remaining in place, which will be conducted at least every 5 years. While the affected area remains above cleanup levels, it will be designated as a "restricted use area" in the base Planning Office. This designation provides for recreational use of the parcel (such as cross country skiing, bicycling, etc.) and the construction of unmanned facilities (such as parking lots, storage buildings, etc. ) but prohibits the construction of any manned facilities (such as office buildings or a residence). Construction activities within the affected area of OU2 will be restricted to construction of unmanned facilities. Furthermore no construction will be allowed which comes within five feet of the groundwater. Existing industrial uses within OU2 are allowed as they are unmanned. This description conforms to the current base land use planning terminology and is consistent with the recently signed RODs for OUs 3 and 6. Land use restrictions will be enforced by the following method. When there is a construction project on Base, the project is to be approved by the Base Planning Office. The planner will route all projects through the Environmental Management Office. The project will be disapproved if it conflicts with the above construction restrictions. The USAF believes this will be a reliable and effective means of enforcing the zoning land use restrictions imposed by the various RODs. Signed by Randy E. Honnet Colonel USAF Vice Commander. |
Louis Howard |
| 7/24/1998 |
Update or Other Action |
6/98 remedial action report for OU4 to document the five year review by U.S. EPA, AF and ADEC states that it will take 8 more years for the benzene contaminated groundwater to achieve cleanup levels of 5 ug/l. Latest results show 96 ug/l of benzene exists in GW. |
Louis Howard |
| 11/8/1999 |
Update or Other Action |
The location of a former 500-gallon UST (tank 31-338) that was primarily used to store JP-4 jet fuel waste from fuel truck maintenance activities. The UST was removed in August 92, and replaced with a 1,200-gallon UST (31-338A) in an adjacent location.
The depth to groundwater in well 49WL01 located approximately 150 feet south-southwest of the site, was measured at 13.59 feet below ground surface (bgs). The depth to groundwater in the bioventing vent well was measured at 11.53 feet bgs. Shallow groundwater is not currently used as a drinking water source and is unlikely to be used as one in the future. Contaminant of concerns (COCs) with initial contamination levels are as follows:
Initial Contamination Levels for Soil Water
Diesel Range Organics (DRO) 860 mg/kg 9,700 ug/l
Gasoline Range Organics (GRO) 3,600 mg/kg 9,700 ug/l 9 Benzene .033 mg/kg 740 ug/l
Toluene 1.3 mg/kg 35 ug/l
Ethylbenzene 4.9 mg/kg 95 ug/l
Total xylenes 80 mg/kg 1,300 ug/l
STATEMENT OF BASIS-This decision is based on the following attached references:
a. Site ST71 from SERA Phase I Corrective Action Plan (CAP), Final, Apr 95
b. Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation's (ADEC) 27 Feb 97 Ltr
c. Table 4-17, Basewide Annual Groundwater Report, Final, Mar 98 (49WL01)
d. Site Closure Report for Site ST71, Nov 96 (refer to your copy)
e. Table 5-8, Basewide Annual Groundwater Report, Final, Jun 99 (49WL01)
f. Table 2-4, Basewide Monitoring OU4-Round 1, Aug 99 (49WL01)
DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED REMEDY-No further remedial action remedy is based on the field sampling conducted on 28 May 96 pursuant to closure of site ST71 on base. All of the laboratory analytical results for vadose zone soil were below ADEC (1995) Category A soil cleanup levels for all analytical methods. These results indicate that petroleum hydrocarbons in the vadose zone soil at the site have been remediated to the applicable matrix cleanup levels during the operation of the bioventing system.
Monitoring well 49WL01 has been added to the OPERABLE UNIT (OU)4 monitoring program. With the exception of benzene concentrations in groundwater at down gradient well 49WL01 (14.9 ug/l), GRO (930 mg/kg at 49BH07-12 and 500 mg/kg at 49BH08-13), and DRO (1,600 mg/kg at 49BH07-12) concentrations in saturated soil samples, this site meets all applicable state cleanup goals. Contaminated soil below the watertable is not effectively remediated through bioventing.
The vadose zone soil was below ADEC (1995) Category A soil cleanup levels for all analytical methods. This has allowed the bioventing system at this site to be turned off in 1997 and will be removed in the future. The groundwater contamination is under the cleanup levels in Table C using the criteria outlined by 18 AAC 75.345 (b)(2)(A)&(B). In addition, the wetland remediation system constructed on the Ship Creek flood plain prevents ST71 contamination from leaving the base property boundary. Therefore, there is no further requirement for tracking conditions at ST71. Monitoring well 49WL01 has been added to the OPERABLE UNIT (OU)4 (Basewide) monitoring program.
If any information is presented in the future that indicates contamination from this project area is present (above established cleanup levels) and/or poses a risk to the public's health or the environment, then additional assessment and corrective action may be necessary. The location of this monitoring well is useful to track trends of trichloroethene (TCE), dichloroethene (DCE), and chloride concentrations in the outwash plain. The remedy of no further remedial action under the ERP is selected because the contaminant levels at the site present no significant threat to human health or the environment; thus, no treatment is necessary. |
Louis Howard |
| 11/9/1999 |
Update or Other Action |
OU4 round 2 1999 sampling results received. OU4 W-04 benzene decreased from 310 in round 1 to 110 ug/l in round 2. |
Louis Howard |
| 2/21/2002 |
Update or Other Action |
Staff reviewed and commented on the annual base-wide groundwater monitoring report.
Regulatory Levels
ADEC requests removing the word “Potential” from the heading “Potential Regulatory Level” in the tables throughout the document. Listing the word “Potential” gives the reader the impression that compliance with the levels listed is optional or not required (e.g. Tables 4-7, 4-11, 4-15, 4-20, 4-25, 4-29, 4-32, and 6-2).
Free Product
Please note 18 AAC 75.325(f) states: A responsible person shall to the maximum extent practicable,
(A) use permanent remedies;
(B) recover free product in a manner that minimizes the spread of contamination into an uncontaminated area by using containment, recovery, and disposal techniques appropriate to site conditions.
ADEC recognizes that in some cases it may not be technically practicable to implement an active or passive recovery system for free product. The Elmendorf Remedial Action Report for Operable Unit (OU) 2 (September 1998) set a precedent for defining what is meant by “technically practicable” for free product recovery. Section 2.4.1 Product Recovery Endpoints at the 1st bullet on page 10 states: “As designed and constructed, the ST41 ground water treatment system cannot recover floating product when there is less than a measurable thickness of 0.1 feet of product. Therefore, as an endpoint for product recovery, if less than 0.1 feet is sustained for one year, recovery at that source can be discontinued. Floating product will be measured monthly. When product thickness falls below 0.1 feet for one year, the recovery of product at that source will not be considered “technically practicable”.
Therefore, where free product is greater than 0.10 feet, ADEC expects corrective action (active or passive) to be implemented for free product recovery. Currently, free product was found to exceed 0.10 feet or more in SERA Phase I well 43-WL-11. This well had the highest level of free product measured at 0.86 feet. The presence of measurable free product is generally not considered conducive for intrinsic (natural) attenuation. ADEC requests the identity of the free product be described in the text at each source area that it is found (e.g. gasoline, diesel, or chlorinated solvents).
3.3.4 Target Analytes Pages 3-10 and 3-11
Benzene and TCE are identified as target analytes to evaluate contaminant of concern (COC) trends in detail and be consistent with the Base-wide Groundwater model. ADEC concurs, however, focusing on these two analytes does not accurately reflect whether diesel range organics (DRO) and gasoline range organics (GRO) plumes are migrating, expanding, steady state, or receding (especially for wells noted to have either free product or fuel odor and/or sheen being observed during sampling). Benzene can be at low levels or even non-detectable while concentrations of DRO and GRO remain above cleanup levels (1.5 mg/L and 1.3 mg/L respectively). Please see the following examples below of where benzene was below the 5 ug/L cleanup level, but DRO and GRO are above cleanup levels.
OU 4
Round 1 sampling at well 49-WL-01 detected benzene at 0.11 ug/L and DRO at 2,400 ug/L and well OU4W-11 detected benzene at 4.3 ug/L while GRO was detected at 3,000 ug/L and DRO was detected at 6,100 ug/L.
OU6
Round 1 sampling at well OU6MW67 detected benzene at 2.8 ug/L, GRO at 2,500 ug/L and DRO at 1,700 ug/L during round 1 sampling. During round 2 sampling, well OU6MW-91 detected GRO at 25,000 ug/L and DRO at 9,500 ug/L while benzene was found to be non-detectable.
See site file for more information. |
Louis Howard |
| 4/5/2010 |
Exposure Tracking Model Ranking |
Initial ranking with ETM completed for source area id: 71612 name: auto-generated pm edit Elmendorf OU4 SD27 Bldg. 14410 |
Louis Howard |
| 4/1/2015 |
CERCLA PA |
Preliminary Assessment received for multiple U.S. Air Force (Air Force or USAF) and Air National Guard (ANG) Fire Training Areas (FTAs) to determine probable environmental release of perfluorinated compounds (PFCs). Specifically, HGL is completing PA activities consistent with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Guidance for Preparing Preliminary Assessments under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) (USEPA, 1991) to determine potential releases of PFCs at 82 Air Force and ANG installations from FTAs and other known and suspected PFCs or aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF) usage or storage areas.
Although much of the AFFF discharged during accidental activations was captured in the drain
that discharges to the wastewater system, AFFF is known to have been released through the main
door at the northwest corner of the hangar (Ellis, 2015, personal communication; Appendix C).
The area immediately outside the door is paved, but a grassy area to the west and northwest may
receive runoff. The volume of AFFF (out of the 100 to 200 gallons of AFFF concentrate from each
of the three accidental activations) that may have escaped out the hangar door is unknown (Ellis, 2015, personal communication; Appendix C).
Recommendation is to initiate a site inspection. A SI is defined as an investigation to collect and analyze waste and environmental samples to support an evaluation (USEPA, 1992). |
Louis Howard |
| 12/31/2015 |
Update or Other Action |
2014 Annual Field Activities Report for CERCLA Sites (SD024 which has MW OU4MW-04).
Site SD024 groundwater results for benzene indicated intrinsic remediation was occurring. Consistent with the 2002 Annual Report & OU4 Memorandum to Site File, the second five-year review report recommended decreasing the frequency of sampling at the in-plume monitoring well OU4MW-04 to once every five years. The third five-year review report recommended increasing the frequency of sampling at monitoring well OU4MW-04 at Site SD024 to document attainment of cleanup levels. The benzene concentrations reported in the [2009 benzene was at 6.21 ug/L] 2010(4.2 ug/L), 2011 (1.4 ug/L), & 2013 (3.3 ug/L) annual groundwater sampling events were less than the cleanup standard of 5 µg/L; therefore the fourth five-year review report recommended no further action for Site SD024.
The RA-Os at SD024 have been met & the site is scheduled to be closed. An I-RACR has been prepared to document that remedial action at Site SD024 has been completed & the RA-Os in the ROD have been met. It is recommended that annual LUC inspections continue until site closeout. Site SD024 is identified as a Green priority since groundwater monitoring was discontinued in 2013 & the site has met the RA-Os as described in the ROD.
See site file for additional information. |
Louis Howard |
| 4/11/2016 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Staff provided comments on the draft PFC Site Inspections work plan for JBER-E and JBER-R.
Main comments were regarding obtaining prior approval from ADEC and EPA project managers before making changes to the approved QAPP and that the EPA RSSLs are less stringent than the human health soil cleanup levels and migration to ground cleanup levels ADEC will be promulgating this winter (2016). It was noted that WS# 10 is especially vague: "Based on the above, the best available screening criteria for PFOA and PFOS releases are the EPA PHAs for groundwater and RSSLs for soil. Because ADEC has proposed lower concentration limits that are in the public
comment process, the ADEC levels should also be considered."
It states that ADEC levels should also be considered, however in WS # 11, it states the concentrations of PFOA and PFOS in soil and groundwater will be compared to project screening levels based on the most conservative risk based EPA or ADEC values.
For determining presence or absence of PFOS and PFOA using solely risk based screening levels is not acceptable to ADEC. If the migration to groundwater cleanup level is adopted by ADEC and it exceeds for PFOS or PFOA, a release is confirmed and it is deemed to be contaminated by ADEC. 18 AAC 75.990 Definitions.
(23} "contaminated soil" means soil containing a concentration of a hazardous substance that exceeds the applicable cleanup level determined under the site cleanup rules. If AFCEC chooses to proceed with risk based values (as it is apparent upon review of Table 10-2 Steps 2, 4, & 5), then ADEC reserves the right to require further investigation/cleanup under 18 AAC 75 for all areas of concern/source areas where AFC EC determined no addition action was necessary at an area of concern/ source area, but the PFC levels detected exceed migration to groundwater cleanup levels for PFCs.
See site file for additional information. |
Louis Howard |
| 6/1/2017 |
Update or Other Action |
Draft Site Inspection for aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) areas on JBER-E and JBER-R received for review and comment. Site inspection (SI) at aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) areas on JBER-E and JBER-R waa received for review and comment. The purpose of the SI was to determine the presence or absence of perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) in the environment. These compounds are a class of synthetic fluorinated chemicals used in industrial and consumer products, including defense-related applications. This class of compounds is also referred to as per- and polyfluorinated alkyl substances (PFAS).
Soil results had no detections of PFOS and PFOA above EPA RBSL or ADEC soil cleanup levels. Groundwater results for PFOS were detected above the EPA health advisory level but below the ADEC cleanup level. PFOA was below both EPA HA level and ADEC cleanup level.
See site file for additional information. |
Louis Howard |
| 6/13/2017 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Staff reviewed the Draft SI Report for AFFF Areas on JBER-E and JBER-R sites. PFOS and/or PFOA were detected in groundwater at concentrations above the EPA Health Advisory levels. It appears there are documented releases of PFOS and/or PFOA at these areas which require additional investigation through a remedial investigation/feasibility study under CERCLA or as required by 18 AAC 75.335 Site Characterization.
See site file for additional information. |
Louis Howard |
| 7/17/2017 |
Update or Other Action |
EPA received the Draft Site Inspection Report for Aqueous Film Forming Foam Areas, Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, Alaska, May 2017 for review the week of June 2, however Appendix B2 (App B2) laboratory data was not included. EPA received App B2 for review the week of June 20. EPA preliminary comments were sent to the Air Force on July 17, 2017.
EPA Office of Research and Development staff, as well as EPA Region 5 Laboratory chemists, reviewed App B2. EPA has asked the Air Force for clarification regarding what level of report and data review was done by the government prior to submittal of the report to EPA and have not received a clear response. EPA’s initial review has identified a number of data quality issues and that the government data review should be completed and submitted to EPA before we are asked to finalize our comments. The comments submitted reflect only those requiring clarification on the narrative or figures and are not inclusive of review of the laboratory data, and therefore cannot substantiate any conclusions drawn on the presence/absence of PFAS at the 26 AOCs.
EPA review of the laboratory data packages has raised a number of concerns with deviations from workplan approved standard operating procedures, laboratory methods, and data validation.
EPA requests the Air Force clarify the level of governmental data review conducted on the JBER Site Inspection laboratory packages, and provide a copy of the Air Force data review to EPA.
Additional EPA comments on the laboratory data are pending receipt of the Air Force data review.
See site file for additional information. |
Louis Howard |
| 11/21/2017 |
Update or Other Action |
Per AFCEC email: A memo from the USACE summarizing issues found in their review should be in hand on the 4th of December. |
Louis Howard |
| 2/8/2018 |
CERCLA SI |
SI responses to ADEC's comments are satisfactory and may be incorporated into the final report. with the exception of lack of clarity in the response on which program the PFAS contamination will be investigated under at JBER: RI/FS in accordance with CERCLA as new source areas under the Federal Facility Agreements OR as new sites under State Authority (i.e. 18 AAC 75).
ADEC is requesting specific responses as to which path the investigation will occur (RI/FS per the FFA or Site Characterization per 18 AAC 75..335). Please respond. Additionally, ADEC is reviewing the Data Quality Evaluation Report AND the Technical Memorandum for Data Quality Findings Perfluorinated Compound Site Inspection for Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson |
Louis Howard |
| 1/15/2019 |
CERCLA ROD Periodic Review |
Fifth draft five-year review received which does not directly address sites with AFFF contamination (PFOS/PFOA). Site Interviews: Generally, comments regarding the overall remediation process at JBER-E were positive, with the following comments applicable to JBER-E CERCLA sites as a whole: Reporting of groundwater (GW) monitoring results is often delayed by 1 or 2 years following a sampling event, which could result in missed opportunities to react or change procedures in subsequent monitoring events. Perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS)/ perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) contamination was recently detected in soil & GW above ADEC cleanup levels & GW contamination above EPA Health Advisory levels. *Note: PFOS/PFOA sampling was conducted at JBER in 2016. These activities are briefly noted in this FYR (Section 6.5.3); however, results were not available at the time of the report, & results will be addressed in the next FYR (March 2024).
In 2014, a Preliminary Assessment (PA) was performed at FT023 and, in 2016, a follow-up site
inspection was conducted into the presence of PFOS/PFOA at JBER locations where aqueous
firefighting foams (AFFFs) were historically used (ADEC, 2018a). Final results from the site
inspection were not available at the time of this FYR and will be addressed in the next FYR (March 2024).
See Site file for additional information. |
Louis Howard |
| 2/14/2019 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Draft five year review received for comment. Main comment: PFAS investigation is needed to delineate the nature and extent of contamination at this source area (CS DB Hazard ID 633) in Operable Unit 4. In 2016, PFOS was detected in groundwater at concentrations above the EPA HA, but below the ADEC cleanup level. [18 AAC 75 Table C November 6, 2016].
[*NOTE: adjacent PFAS source to SD027: AFFF#15 Fire Station 7 FS7-1 PFOA 5.1 ug/L PFOS 24 ug/L 18 AAC 75 Table C 0.40 ug/L for PFOS and PFOA AND PFOS 0.0037 mg/kg "J" MTGW 18 AAC 75 Table B1 Method Two 0.0030 mg/kg]
See site file for additional information. |
Louis Howard |
| 3/30/2020 |
Update or Other Action |
JBER sent list of sites that have been validated for future funding to investigate PFAS contamination at both JBER-E and JBER-R. They may be included in an end-of-year centrally-funded investigation. Right now, the scope is for a “PFAS General RI,” with an option of adding any installation-specific requirements later. Additionally, there may be end-of-year Expanded Site Investigations, and some of the other [JBER PFAS] sites that haven’t yet been validated may be included there.
JBER-E
SS135P C17 Debris Yard [AFFF Area #06]
SS136P Current AFFF Test Area [AFFF Area #07]
SS137P Corrosion Control [AFFF Area #08]
SS138P Current Fire Training Facility [AFFF Area #09]
SS139P Former AFFF Test Area [AFFF Area #12]
SS144P Hangar 5 Test Area [AFFF Area #18]
SS145P Hangar 6 [AFFF Area #19]
SS146P Hangar 10 [AFFF Area 21]
SS147P Hangar 16 [AFFF Area #22]
SS148P Hangar 17 [AFFF Area #23]
SS150P Cesna Crash Site [AFFF Area #26]
SS155P Hangar 18 [AFFF Area #24]
SS156P Hangar 8 [AFFF Area #20]
JBER-R
SS044P FTRS-044 [AFFF Area #05]
SS149P Ruff Road [AFFF Area #01] |
Louis Howard |
| 7/2/2021 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Reviewed and provided comments on the Draft Phase I Remedial Investigation Management Plan/UFP-QAPP, dated May 2021. The document provides the Work Plan, Field Sampling Plan, and the Quality Assurance Project Plan for the Phase I Remedial Investigation (RI) for PFAS at JBER. |
William Schmaltz |
