| Action Date |
Action |
Description |
DEC Staff |
| 9/30/1983 |
Update or Other Action |
Engineering-Science reviewed records on file at the Bioenvironmental Engineering Office and interviewed shop personnel to determine the types of hazardous materials, waste quantities, and disposal methods. Following these interviews, drain outfalls were identified as potential sources of environmental contamination because of the nature of compounds thought to have been discharged down floor drains in the building.
The vehicle maintenance shop generates 4,500 gallons/year of used hydraulic fluid and engine oil, and 1,200 gallons of used *PD680 (Stoddard Solvent; Type III Hydrocarbon Drycleaning Solvent (meets ASTM D-484 Type 3 specifications); OMS; Odorless Solvent; High-flash Mineral Spirits; Slow-drying Mineral Spirits; Type IIIC Mineral Spirits (meets ASTM D-235 Type 3C specifications); Odorless White Spirits (meets Dry Cleaning Fluid Specification PD680 - Type III); Heavy Alkylate; C8-C12 Aliphatic Petroleum Hydrocarbons; C8-C12 Isoparaffins.-a.k.a. Solvent naphtha (petroleum) medium aliphatic) Types I, Ii, and III.
From mid-1940 until 1979, waste material was discharged to storm drains that led to a leach field, was removed by a contractor, or was used to control dust on the base roads. Since 1979, disposal has been through DPDO (now DRMO).
*NOTE: 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 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 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. |
Louis Howard |
| 8/2/1988 |
Update or Other Action |
Operable Units' source areas that correspond to RCRA SWMUs from the RCRA RFA. SD30 IS-7 Bldg. 21-900 Floor Drain. This site was to maintain most vehicles on the Base. A series of floor drains connected to two sumps that drain to seepage pit north of the building. Spent fuels and PD-680 were released into drains. |
Louis Howard |
| 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 |
| 11/15/1989 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
ADEC comment letter to Colonel Everett L. Mabry RE: Installation Restoration Program, Stage 3 Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study Elmendorf Air Force Base, Alaska. Paragraph 4.1.2.1 discusses the use of six wells to establish background levels for heavy metals. The data presented for the six background wells indicates silver in one well and mercury in three wells. Neither of these elements are common in uncontaminated groundwater; consequently, some of the wells may not represent actual background levels.
In addition, the average iron concentration of 23,000 mg/kg is very high. It is suspected carbon steel well casings are in use and the wells were not purged sufficiently prior to sampling. If the wells were not purged sufficiently all of the background data is suspect..
Paragraphs 4.2.3.3.2.3 and 4.2.4.3.2.3 state that contamination will not affect well 42 because of a steel well casing in the contaminated zone. This is a poor assumption. Many confined
aquifers have been contaminated by contamination migration down the outside of well casings into the saturated zone.
The artesian nature of the aquifer may slow down contaminant migration; however, concentration gradients act independently from the pressure gradients which may result in movement of contamination from a low pressure area to a higher pressure area.
Several references to use of an HNu for soil screening appear in the report. HNu readings of tenths of parts per million are frequently cited. The HNu is not accurate to one tenth of one part per million and there is no indication regarding what span setting was used.
If a 9.8, benzene, span setting was used the response of heavier hydrocarbons would be minimal. In addition, many natural substances can cause a one or two unit response in an HNu.
Specifically paragraph 4.2.8.1.3.1 cites a 0.1 ppm HNu reading at site IS-6. Of what significance or use is this information? Paragraph 4.2.8.3 cites that "organic vapors" were detected with the HNu. The HNu responds to more than just organic vapors and there is no way to verify that organic or inorganic vapors are present. |
Ron Klein |
| 12/29/1989 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
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 1S-7
Paragraph 5.2.2.12 states that there are two floordrain systems. One system discharges into storm drains and the other system discharges into a seepage pit on the south side of the building.
The Department requests that both of the floordrain systems be upgraded to meet Alaska water quality discharge regulations and permit requirements. The Department also requests that additional assessment work be done in the area of the seepage pit. |
Ron Klein |
| 12/30/1989 |
Site Added to Database |
Petroleum contaminant. |
Louis Howard |
| 9/30/1990 |
Update or Other Action |
Black and Veatch investigation conducted at SD30. A soil boring was placed, soil samples collected from 15 feet and 20 feet below ground surface (bgs), and finished the boring as a monitoring well (IS7-01). A groundwater sample collected from IS7-01 was contaminated with chloroform at 0.32 ug/l and trichloroethene at 76 ug/l (MCL is 5 ug/l). TPH was at 2,000 ug/l. Fuels and solvents are the most likely sources of the contaminants detected.
Because of the position of the monitoring well IS7-01 relative to the dry well , sumps and other potential sources, the contamination detected in the groundwater may not be representative of the potential contamination from source SD30. B&V estimated the direction of the groundwater flow was to the south, the well may therefore be located upgradient of SD30 sources. |
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.
SD30 (formerly IS-7) Bldg. 21-900 floor drains. This site is used to maintain most vehicles on the base. A series of floor drains are connected to two sumps that drain to a seepage pit north of the bldg. Spent fuels and PD-680 were released into drains.
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 |
| 7/20/1992 |
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.
SD30 (Building 21-900): 2 floor drains sampled go to storm sewer, which eventually goes to Cherry Hill Ditch; No organic or inorganic contamination detected in LFI beyond "background" concentration ranges; Consensus: No IRA. |
Jennifer Roberts |
| 7/31/1992 |
Update or Other Action |
RESULTS OF 1992 LFI AND RISK COMPARISON
Samples were collected from soil borings drilled at the three geophysical anomalies that had
observable pipe exits leading from Building 21-900. These samples were collected at
approximately 5 feet and 10 feet below ground surface, and were analyzed for volatile
organic compounds, semivolatiles, gasoline range organics (GRO), diesel range organics
(DRO), and metals. The volatile and semivolatile constituents detected (Table 1.1) were
quantified at concentrations below the analytical detection limit. No GRO were detected.
DRO were detected at two boring locations, SBSD30C and SBSD30B, but the concentrations
were at the same order of magnitude as the method detection limit, and do not indicate that
the boring locations were disposal sites for diesel fuel. The metals detected were not found
at elevated concentrations.
Concentrations of chemicals detected in soil samples collected from Source SD30 during
previous investigations and the LFI were compared to the risk-based concentrations and
applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs) found in Tables 2.3 and 2.4 of
the Final OU4 LFI Report (CH2M HILL 1992). No soil samples exceeded the criteria.
Groundwater contamination has been identified upgradient of SD30 (Bldg. 21-900); therefore, NFA is recommended for identifying or investigating other potential contaminant sources associated
with Building 21-900. The upgradient groundwater contamination in the vicinity of SD30
should be investigated during the completion of RIs for other upgradient OU sources during the OU3 Remedial investigation. |
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 |
| 4/1/1993 |
Update or Other Action |
DETERMINATION OF NO FURTHER ACTION SOURCE SD30, BLDG 21-900 APRIL 1993 received. Source SD30 (Building 21-900) is included in Operable Unit (OU) 4 for purposes of remedial investigation at Elmendorf AFB under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA). Ten maintenance facilities were grouped together in OU4 for a Limited Field Investigation (LFI) during 1992. These maintenance facilities were suspected of having floor drains that emptied into dry wells, leach fields, or storm drains.
Past practices at these buildings may have released hazardous substances to the environment
through the floor drains and outfall structures. Source SD30 was originally identified as a potential source of contamination in the 1983 Phase 1 record search. It is located on the northeast corner of the intersection between Second Street and Plum Avenue. It is approximately 3,500 feet south of the west end of the east/west runway.
Building 21-900 is an automotive maintenance facility that services most U.S. Air Force
(USAF) vehicles on the base. The vehicle maintenance shop generates 4,500 gallons per year
of used hydraulic fluid and engine oil, and 1,200 gallons of used PD680. As-built drawings indicate that the building's floor drains led to sumps and discharged somewhere north of the
building and to a dry well south of the building. The drains now discharge to the storm
sewer; latrines are connected to the sanitary sewer.
As a result of the geophysical survey and soil sampling conducted at SD30, the recommended
action for the outfall structure source areas investigated at SD30 is No Further Action (NFA).
The primary criterion used to place sources into the NFA category as a result of the LFI at
SD30 was whether the concentration of contaminants in any sample obtained during the LFI
exceeded the risk-based criteria specified by the regulatory agencies. None of the soil
samples collected during the LFI at SD30 contained analytes in excess of risk-based criteria.
The criteria for NFA were met at each of the source sampling locations; therefore, NFA is
justified for these locations.
Groundwater contamination has been identified upgradient* of SD30. This upgradient contamination near Source SD30 will be investigated during the OU 3 remedial investigations.
The United States Air Force (Elmendorf Air Force Base), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency Region 10, and the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation have completed a review of the information provided in the Final OU4 Limited Field Investigation Report for the source area located at Source SD30, Building 21-900, on Elmendorf Air Force Base. Based on this review, the above agencies have determined that No Further Action for purposes of investigation or study is justified for SD30.
NOTE TO FILE: This upgradient source has been identified as the Fairchild Avenue Plume. The Fairchild Avenue TCE plume is one of the Site ST37 chlorinated solvent plumes. The Fairchild Avenue plume is located in the western portion of the OU 5 program area and south of 23rd Street. The plume is approximately 5,000 feet long and covers approximately 70 acres. It is currently defined by the following groundwater wells: 49WL-01, OU3MW-05, OU3MW-11, OU3MW-13, OU5MW-34, OU5MW-37, OU5MW-38, OU5MW-39, OU5MW-40, and OU5MW-43 (Figures 1.1 and 3.1). Trenches used for waste disposal are suspected to be the unconfirmed source of the TCE contamination. |
Louis Howard |
| 5/7/1993 |
Conditional Closure Approved |
In 1988, Black & Veatch (1990) placed a soil boring, collected soil samples at 15 feet and 20
feet below ground surface, and finished the boring as a monitoring well (IS7-01). A groundwater sample collected from IS7-01 was contaminated with chloroform at 0.32 ug/L and trichloroethene at 76 ug/l. The level of trichloroethene is above the drinking water maximum contaminant levels (MCLs). Total petroleum hydrocarbon (TPH) level was 2,000 ug/l. Fuels and solvents are the most likely sources of the contaminants detected. Because of the position of Monitoring Well IS7-01 relative to the dry well, sumps, and other potential sources, the contamination detected in the groundwater may not be representative of potential contamination from source SD30. Black & Veatch estimated that the direction of groundwater flow was to the south; the well may therefore be located upgradient of SD30 sources.
No Further Action document signed. As a result of the geophysical survey and soil sampling conducted at SD30, the recommended action for the outfall structure source areas investigated at SD30 is No Further Action (NFA). The primary criterion used to place sources into the NFA category as a result of the LFI at SD30 was whether the concentration of contaminants in any sample obtained during the LFI exceeded the risk-based criteria specified by the regulatory agencies. None of the soil samples collected during the LFI at SD30 contained analytes in excess of risk-based criteria. The criteria for NFA were met at each of the source sampling locations; therefore, NFA is justified for these locations.
Source of the groundwater contamination has been identified upgradient of SD30. This upgradient contamination near Source SD30 will be investigated during the OU3 remedial investigation.
The decision document was signed in May 7,1993 for SD30 by USAF Oscar V. Bryan Colonel Base Civil Engineer April 27, 1993 and EPA Marcia Combes and ADEC Jennifer Roberts on May 7, 1993.
However, groundwater is still contaminated and will be monitored while undergoing natural attenuation. |
Jennifer Roberts |
| 5/7/1993 |
Update or Other Action |
1992 limited field investigation (LFI) conducted and results from LFI shifted focus away from individual buildings and floor drains. Conclusions of LFI were that dry wells and leach fields were not primary sources of contamination at OU. As a result of LFI, 4 of the original facilities: SD26, SD27 SD30 and SS18 were recommended for No Further Action (NFA). NFA decision documents prepared and submitted in April of 1993 for these 4 sites. Two of the original 10 source areas SS63 and SD31 moved to other OUs based on their geographical location. Soils issues are closed, however, the groundwater is still contaminated and will be monitored while undergoing natural attenuation. |
Jennifer Roberts |
| 2/15/1994 |
Update or Other Action |
SERA Phases 1A & 1B Site Assessment report includes site ST64 JP-4 Leak (IRPIMS Site 52). Site ST64 is located on Burns Road, approximately 2,000 feet from Building 42-425 (Hangar 11). The site is bordered to the south by Taxiway 6, to the north by a 25,000-gallon deicer tank, and to the east by Hangar 11. Site ST64 is comprised of four USTs: Tank 425D, a 500-gallon diesel UST; Tank 425C, a 3,000-gallon diesel UST; Tank 425B, a 3,000-gallon JP-4 UST; and Tank 425A, a 2,500-gallon mogas UST.
The groundwater samples analyzed from wells 52WL01, 52WL02, and 52WL03 had lead concentrations of 82.9, 33.1, and 134 ug/L. Soil: 52BH02 28' bgs DRO 1,000 mg/kg, GRO 2,700 mg/kg, 3 mg/kg benzene, 50 mg/kg toluene (highest), 20 mg/kg ethylbenzene (highest), 110 mg/kg xylenes (highest). 52BH01 28' bgs had DRO 460 mg/kg, 1,900 mg/kg GRO, 14 mg/kg toluene (highest), 12 mg/kg ethylbenzene, 45 mg/kg xylenes.
Groundwater: 52WL02-3.2 mg/L DRO, 1.9 mg/L GRO, 21 ug/L benzene, 330 ug/L toluene, 190 ug/L ethylbenzene, 760 ug/L xylenes. 52WL03: 0.5 mg/L DRO, 7.9 ug/L benzene, 2.6 ug/L toluene, 2.6 ug/L ethylbenzene and 1.6 ug/L xylenes.
The USTs are out of service and should be closed/removed, and remedial systems should be
considered if associated contamination cannot be removed at that time.
If soil contamination is encountered during removal of the USTs, it should be handled in
accordance with ADEC regulations and guidance.
The groundwater requires remediation. The results of the Operable Unit 4 investigation should be reviewed prior to consideration of groundwater remediation at site ST64. OU4 is located east of the site and may be contributing to the high concentrations of lead and benzene in the groundwater. |
Louis Howard |
| 12/7/1994 |
Update or Other Action |
Mgt. Action Plan Appendix G No Further Action Documents.
Source area SD30 (Building 21-900) is located on the northeast corner of the intersection between Second Street and Plum Avenue. It is approximately 3,500 feet south of the west end of the east/west runway. This source area 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.
Source area SD30 was originally identified as a potential source of contamination in the 1983 Phase I record search. Building 21-900, constructed in 1953, is an automotive maintenance facility that services most USAF vehicles on the Base. The vehicle maintenance shop generates 4,500 gallons per year of used hydraulic fluid and engine oil, and 1,200 gallons of used PD680.
The purpose of the 1992 LFI conducted at SD30 was to identify and evaluate the drain outfalls at Building 21-900 and to assess the possible environmental impacts that may have resulted from past operations and disposal practices. The field investigation focused on soil sampling at locations of dry well(s) or other outfall structures. The results of the LFI were used to assess the final disposition of the outfalls and to recommend either NFA or that an RI/FS be conducted.
As a result of the geophysical survey and soil sampling conducted at this source area, the recommended action for the outfall structure source areas investigated at source area SD30 was NFA.
The primary criterion that was used to place sources into 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 SD30 were found to contain analytes in excess of risk-based criteria. The criteria for NFA were met at each of the source sampling locations; therefore, the recommended action at SD30 was NFA.
The NFA document for SD30 was signed by the USAF on 27 April 1993 and by the state and EPA on 7 May 1993. Site SD30 was considered closed with the signing of the NFA document. |
Louis Howard |
| 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 |
Record of Decision |
ROD signed 10/10/95 memorializing closeout of SD30. LFI conducted 1992 showed that dry wells/leach fields were not primary sources of contamination at the OU. NFA decision documents signed in May 7,1993 for SD30, SD 26, SD27, and SS18, however, GW is still contaminated and will be monitored while undergoing natural attenuation. Institutional controls will remain in place for groundwater until cleanup levels are achieved.
NOTE TO FILE: § 300.430 Remedial investigation/feasibility study and selection of remedy.(a) General—(1) Introduction. The purpose of the remedy selection process is to implement remedies that eliminate, reduce, or control risks to human health and the environment. Remedial actions are to be implemented as soon as site data and information make it possible to do so. Accordingly, EPA has established the following program goal, expectations, and program management principles to assist in the identification and implementation of appropriate remedial actions.
(iii) Expectations. EPA generally shall consider the following expectations in developing appropriate remedial alternatives:
(D) EPA expects to use institutional controls such as water use and deed restrictions to supplement engineering controls as appropriate for short- and long-term management to prevent or limit exposure to hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants. Institutional controls may be used during the conduct of the remedial investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS) and implementation of the remedial action and, where necessary, as a component of the completed remedy. The use of institutional controls shall not substitute for active response measures (e.g., treatment and/or containment of source material, restoration of ground waters to their beneficial uses) as the sole remedy unless such active measures are determined not to be practicable, based on the balancing of trade-offs among alternatives that is conducted during the selection of remedy. |
Jennifer Roberts |
| 10/10/1995 |
Institutional Control Record Established |
The selected remedy in the 1995 ROD for OU4 included institutional controls on the land use and water use restrictions to prevent access to contaminated groundwater and soils throughout OU4 until cleanup levels are achieved. ICs are in place and are being enforced by the Base Planning and Environmental Management office. The contaminated areas and applicable groundwater and soil use restrictions are documented in the Base General Plan and the Environmental Restoration Program Management Action Plan. These documents are consulted prior to approval of any changes in land use, siting, work orders, and/or drilling permits. Water use restrictions in the form of a base-wide prohibition on use of the shallow aquifer due to contamination, were established on 03/29/1994 by order of the Base Commander. Existing flight line restrictions are being relied upon to protect against unacceptable human contact with residual contamination in shallow soils. Residential development of the area is prohibited by airfield criteria and the General Plan. |
Jennifer Roberts |
| 11/30/1995 |
Long Term Monitoring Established |
A limited field investigation conducted 1992 showed that dry wells/leach fields were not primary sources of contamination at the OU. Remedial action includes monitored natural attenuation and long-term monitoring of the groundwater at Operable Unit 4 source areas. |
Jennifer Roberts |
| 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 states the tetrachloroethene and trichloroethene contaminated groundwater at Building 43-410 will take seven years to meet 5 ug/L cleanup level. |
Louis Howard |
| 10/26/1999 |
Meeting or Teleconference Held |
Restoration advisory board meeting held to discuss: Update on ST41 groundwater treatment system shutdown and LF04 beach sweeps, four terms extended; recruitment plan discussed, hazardous Materials Pharmacy procedures, review of plans to bring in additional aircraft for 54th Fighter Squadron, 3rd Wing mission brief. Poster displays: SD15 high vacuum extraction system, Railroad realignment, ENVVEST, North Anchorage Land Agreement maps (thesis project provided by RAB member William Dixson). |
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 |
November 1999 OU4 round 2 groundwater results received. Well 48-WL-01 TCE decreased from 73 in round 1 to 64 ug/l in round 2. 49-WL-01 decreased in TCE levels in round 1 from 52 to 41 ug/l in round 2. |
Louis Howard |
| 11/19/1999 |
Update or Other Action |
The Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) has received and reviewed the final site assessment report it received on June 10, 1999, documenting the closure of a 250-gallon underground storage tank (UST) that was thought to have stored used solvent. Based on information contained in the report, the ADEC is requesting the U.S. Air Force to provide additional information regarding the type of product stored in the tank, the location of the piping terminus inside building 21-900, and the primary used of building 21-900. The ADEC is requesting the information in order to make a determination whether the UST should be considered a regulated UST and closed in accordance to the UST regulations (18 AAC 78).
If the UST was used to store used solvent or another regulated product, the ADEC is requesting the U.S. Air Force register the UST by submitting a completed UST registration form. Upon receipt of all the information requested, the ADEC would again reconsider the U.S. Air Force recommendation to close the site. |
Tim Stevens |
| 4/5/2010 |
Exposure Tracking Model Ranking |
Initial ranking with ETM completed for source area id: 71614 name: auto-generated pm edit Elmendorf OU4 SD30 Bldg. 6211 |
Louis Howard |
| 1/10/2017 |
Update or Other Action |
Data Compilation & Remedial Action Evaluation Report for the Western & Eastern ST037 Plumes received. SD030 is associated with the Western (Fairchild) Plume Area as a primary source. SD030 was an automotive maintenance facility constructed in 1953 with solvent and fuel contamination reportedly discharged to a dry well south of the building. Only portions of Sites SD016, SS062, SD030, and ST037 within the current plume footprint will be targeted for potential remedial action based on observed TCE concentrations in groundwater, position of the site within the currently define plume, and groundwater flow direction. If data confirm treatment is needed, the data would be used to develop and design a remedial strategy using four identified remedial options. Option 1: Excavation of contaminated soil. Option 2: Soil Vapor Extraction. Option 3: In situ chemical oxidation (ISCO). Option 4: In situ chemical reduction (ISCR) can be used to emplace permeable reactive barriers (PRBs) in source areas or at the bluff area to “trap and treat” TCE contaminants in both groundwater and deep saturated and smear zone soils.
|
Louis Howard |
| 11/30/2017 |
Update or Other Action |
Draft VI report received for review and comment. The eastern half of Building 6211 is located within the boundary of a VOC groundwater contamination plume with the depth to groundwater approximately 20 feet bgs. The building is relatively airtight during normal operations. Floor penetrations include numerous floor drains, an in-floor vault, and concrete floor seams. No non-VI ambient air COI contaminant sources were identified.
Downward (i.e., positively pressured building interior) sub-slab air pressure gradients were
identified at soil gas sample location 6211-SG003 (sample start 0.004 in-Hg) and 6211-SG004
(sample start and end 0.002 in-Hg) at Building 6211 (see Table 7.1). Both of these locations are
in the same general airspace in the main shop area, and a third soil gas sample location (6211-
SG002) in the same airspace had no pressure gradients indicated.
The highest TCE detection in soil gas was at location 6211-SG004, which is the easternmost
location closest to the central portion of the groundwater contamination plume. The consistent
detections of TCE in soil gas and indoor air suggest the presence of a complete VI pathway.
Based on the above lines of evidence, the VI pathway is considered complete at Building 6211.
See site file for additional information. |
Louis Howard |
